What tactics/strategies do you employ for victory when you play? I have heard of some rather interesting ones like arming sloops with grapeshot ammo and having them terrorize larger vessels in point games.
Printable View
What tactics/strategies do you employ for victory when you play? I have heard of some rather interesting ones like arming sloops with grapeshot ammo and having them terrorize larger vessels in point games.
I think it's a hard game to play well. Once the game starts my grand strategies usually devolve into the minutiae of trying to make the right move each turn and take my shots at the right time.
I usually just use ball ammo and take nearly every shot I can, because I'm not really good enough to rely on setting up the perfect situation. Crew or hull kills can both work. It's very dependent on what chits are drawn, so it usually becomes an issue only in the endgame. At that point, if my crew is getting decimated I will try to avoid musketry, and if the enemy is low on crew I will try to close and finish them off.
I think the usual war/wargame strategy of trying to defeat the enemy in detail is super important once you get 2+ ships per side. If you can gang up on part of the enemy's line, thus getting off more shots, that's often the road to success.
Playing 2 ships against 1 larger one, I normally try to avoid letting the enemy use both broadsides, while angling so one of mine gets in a raking shot. This is hard. If it works a couple of puny Davids can bring down a Goliath with surprising ease. When it doesn't work it can get bad in a hurry.
Sometimes you can also use superior maneuverability to good effect--dancing around at extreme range or forcing the enemy to try to beat upwind in an unfavorable situation. This is also hard to do, and several turns of fancy footwork can be negated by one false step...
^ +1 Excellent reply, Fred.Quote:
Originally Posted by fredmiracle
My luck with chits, maneuvering, etc., can be incredibly fickle, but you know pretty well when it's time to change tactics, strike colors or run for the edge. It all adds to the excitement and fun of course!
I have generally just used ball shots as well but situations where the other ammo may be more tenable is if your using islands and have them in the middle blocking long range shots you could select something for up close and close the gap since your free of long range shots, the other would be in large number of ship games where you are more likely to have options at close range to shoot at as the forces close on each other.
I try to be a little more realistic with the choice of shot. If I am leeward and close by, I will load chain shot to hit the masts, otherwise, I use ball. SOG scenarios tend to involve a death spiral as two ships keep trying to broadside one another, getting closer and closer. Double shot is pretty useless because you can fire two broadsides in four turns with plain ball, but only one double shot in four turns. It's not worth it. I will try to get as close as possible to my target ship without drawing a full broadside from them first. I will turn my bow towards another ship if that ship can only use it's fore or aft guns. Then when I'm less than half the ruler distance, veer right or left to bring my guns to bear. I don't recommend Nelson's technique of breaking the line. The Victory took a huge amount of damage before she could even get her first shot off at Trafalgar. I tried it in SOG and the lead attacking ship was almost completely destroyed before it could fire because it is vulnerable to two broadsides.
Nelson wouldn't have recommended his "tactic" either - he only used it because he was very well aware of the capabilities of his opponents in that particular battle
David, you give Nelson too much credit. Victory was under a constant barrage for at least 40 minutes before he could return a single broadside. His first broadside was a devastating triple shotted blast into the Bucentaure's stern simply because he could do nothing else but take the damage and it gave the crew something to do below decks. The Victory was pretty much a wreck after the battle. It had to be towed back to England. It couldn't sail or steer. Do that in SOG, and you will not succeed. The conditions betrayed Nelson. The wind was gusting to 10 knots and then completely dying, yet the ocean was surging from the impending storm coming their way, which is why Nelson ordered his fleet to seek shelter and anchor after the battle. The French "capabilities" never even crossed his mind. The problem with reading history is that the authors tend to generalize about whole armies or navies. The entire French navy was this or that, the entire English navy was this or that. Nelson would have never estimated his enemy as "being less capable".
You might want to do a bit more research into Trafalgar and Nelson's planning. You'll find that his plan was in actual, fact based very heavily on what he knew about the capabilities of his opponents. And there are plenty or primary sources that will confirm this.Quote:
The French "capabilities" never even crossed his mind.
Exactly. SOG does a fairly poor job in replicating the differences in crew training and doctrine unless one applies the "poor training" mods (and even then it's not necessarily as effective as it could be. I've seen many Trafalgar "refights" founder because the organisers had just treated all the crews as being the same.Oh, what a surprise, the columns heading towards the Allied line get shot up badly on the approach. Had Nelson been facing crews that he knew were on a par or close to the training of his own crew Trafalgar would have been a far more conventional battle.Quote:
"Do that in SOG and you will not succeed"
Depends what you read and who wrote it. "Popular" history can tend to be rather generalistic in its approach, which is why I prefer using that kind of material as a basic intro to a subject and then move on to more well-researched material (of which, for the age of sail, there is quite a bit)Quote:
The problem with reading history is that the authors tend to generalize about whole armies or navies.
I guess Nelson did all his research on the latest French naval capabilities while he was put out to pasture by the Admiralty for his affair with Lady Hamilton. He was appointed to HMS Victory in 1803. He was at sea for the entire time until Trafalgar. How much extra info did he get to gauge the current French fleet? Yes, there have been books written on that very subject. But it boils down to very little information and Nelson's excessive hatred for the French.
He probably did it in the same way that most flag officers did, through reading intelligence, action and general reports from the Admiralty and, whilst at sea, from his own commanders. The capabilities and limitations of the French and Spanish fleet were frequently observed and commonly reported. Intelligence gathering and distribution was every bit as effective in the 1800s as now (in many ways moreso). If you ever have the chance to look in the UK's National Archives or the Naval Historical Branch HQ at Portsmouth you'll be amazed at the comprehensiveness of it all.
It's only comprehensive after the fact. Intelligence, action and general reports would reach him months after he needed them to make decisions. How many mail deliveries did the Victory get? How many officers, with reports of French capabilities, realistically, visited Nelson in the blockade of Cadiz? The answer is one or two and their communications would be months or weeks old, if they timed it right. The fastest thing on the water for Nelson were his few frigates, who were busy watching the bay for the French fleet to set sail. They had no communication either.
If you look at the reports, especially those from ships in theatre, you'll see the data latency is pretty short, often just a few days. And of course a consistent picture would have been built up over months, if not years. Remember, of course, that Nelson's general plan of action in battle was drafted whilst he was still in Britain in September 1805 (he wasn't at sea continually from 1803), not concocted the day before the battle as many people assume.
Data latency from whom to whom? What's the data latency to Nelson himself at sea during this period? He's on the Victory outside Cadiz. The data you are talking about is literally months or years old.
From subordinates, scouts, etc. its pretty short. Longer obviously from the Admiralty but even there its days or a few weeks. More than enough to confirm a picture of the enemy's capabilities that, as a navy, you've been putting together for many years.
To get back onto the thread,
I'm a bad Admiral :sad: I always start with a good plan, all the ships in the right place (if wind, enemy and seas let me). Or try to do the best I can if I have the poorer ships, crew or position. But as the battle fleets starts to get close, the plans go out of the window. I get the "Lets get stuck in" mode. I like to think I'm doing the right thing. Thinking what Nelson said. A Captain can do no wrong if he puts his ship along side the enemy. But I know I'm wrong to think this. I'm just a poor, sad man with no control. You would not want me on your side if playing a big game. I would understand the orders and the plan, start moving in as ordered for a turn or two. Then it all goes wrong and in I go with my ship, squadron or fleet to kick "Bottoms". It works sometimes. If one day one of you find yourself playing with me on the same side, let me now say "Sorry!" :surrender:
Be safe
Rory
P.S. Kenneth, Nelson won a lot of battles! It was not all luck.
"A captain can do no wrong if he closes with the enemy", unless there's no wind and you are stuck taking broadside after broadside and cannot bring your guns to bear. I would never be sorry if you died a glorious death beside me. That's the point of SOG. Emphasis on the G.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devsdoc
Gotta disagree with your assessment of double shot. Unless you're facing enemy on both sides of your ship, one broadside is less taxed for immediate results than the other. You can either go in with it double loaded or take the time to re-load it double. Swinging the ship around hard to use the other broadside comes up a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kentop
Personaly, I think Nelson also played this card due to the very fact that who in the hell would have the audacity to charge a formed line of battle head on. Considering the odds of this working and the coming storm this was the most decisive, quick outcome he could plan for.
He placed himself in the fore to drive on his crews, for a very good reason, lets just get it over and done with, forming two parallel battle lines only ends in a draw, and that would just drag out the issue and cost more ships and lives needlessly. I think that trying to plan a major battle when dealing with old intelligence, unpredictable seas and weather, plus individual Squadron commanders would be a nightmare...........that along with a signal system that depends on LOS I think the plan was the best one he could come up with
The books I've read have suggested that by the end of the American Revolutionary War, the British were becoming increasingly confident that they had better seamen and gunners than the French, and would benefit by attacking directly rather than standing off in parallel lines of battle. This was indeed seen as a way of assuring a decisive outcome, which the British were confident they would win. Nelson was perhaps among the most committed, aggressive and effective in this approach, but my impression is that he was representative of general tactical thinking of his generation of officers.Quote:
Originally Posted by stuh42asl
In SGN terms, if you impose poorly trained gunners and sailors on the French, then it all feels very correct historically, and the British tactics make a lot of sense; but it may be hard to find French players...
Reading up on the Battle of the Nile Nelson was bemoaning his lack of frigates available to him for scouting purposes in the lead up to the battle. What role did scouting play in this time period (other then location of enemy fleet) is there a way to represent that in the game?
Once battle was engaged (which would be the case in any standard SGN game), I don't think scouting was much of an issue. But frigates could still help out in various other ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warspite
I've read of some situations where the frigates were arranged in a line parallel-to but sheltered-behind the main line of battle. The idea was that they could fill in any gaps in the battle line if an enemy tried to break through, or there was a maneuvering mistake, or a ship was disabled.
Other important tasks for frigates were relaying signals, aiding and towing disabled SOLs and prizes, rescuing survivors, etc. These are not impossible to represent in the game, but not terribly easy either.
I've represented this in various campaign settings where the availability of scouting forces allows a commander various benefits in terms of determining enemy positions, strengths etc. (and denying the same information to the enemy). You could represent this in a single scenario by giving players the choice of exchanging SOLs for frigates, weakening their battleline but giving them advantages in scenario setup.
Nelson actually sailed to Alexandria and got there before Nappy. Seeing no ships, he left to continue his search. It was actually a 3rd rate ship of the line that spotted the French in Aboukir bay instead of a frigate. But frigates are also used as signal ships in a line of battle. In a line of battle, the trailing ships can't see the lead ship which is signaling the fleet. The frigates would space themselves down the line within sight of each other and the line of battle. The flagship would signal something like "All ships turn in sequence", the frigates would show the same flags so that the other ships in the line so that they could see the signals. I think they called them "repeating frigates" because they would signal the other ships the flagships orders. You could have a fog of war rule in a large engagement that if no repeating frigate is present, you have a 50/50 chance of "getting the message". If the lead ship signals "all ships turn to port simultaneously", and no frigate is within sight of it, the rear ships ignore the order.
I read "Nelson and the Nile" by Brian Lavery a few months ago. The book gives a great account of the campaign and movements of both fleets. I would recommend it. It highlights that a lot of "game" campaign event cards were drawn, such as the storm that scattered the fleet and the frigates missing the French and subsequently Nelson's fleet. Lavery also details Nelson's orders and the larger concerns of his superiors and the Admiralty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kentop
http://www.amazon.com/Nelson-Nile-Br...n+and+the+nile
Ships of the line are the punch, but frigates are the eyes. You cannot punch air!
be safe
Rory
One possible game mechanic is that if a side swaps an SoL for a frigate, the captains of the ships can discuss with each other every fourth turn, or some such thing. Depending upon the length of the game, it could be possible for a frigate to transfer crew chits between ships. If the games are not tight recreations of specific engagements, I think there could be many creative ways to use frigates in SoL slugfests. I would err on the side of what would make for an interesting game session dynamic - caveat, I am one who looks at game rules as starting points and not as strict boundaries, and I, typically, don't play recreations, not that I am opposed to them.
Interesting read and exchange of arguments.
I confirm the importance of informations by a frigate screen to get all informations you need.
has anyone played with the coastal batteries how do you find they stack up against the ships?
The February solo scenario has an island that is using a 7:2 coastal battery. I cannot tell you how they played because I avoided them like the plague. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warspite
I will leave aside the burden-3 battery, which is pretty wimpy. In the Nile game the French had some variant of this and it was a non-entity, getting off one half-decent shot and then being blown sky-highQuote:
Originally Posted by Warspite
Speaking generally of the burden 7/9 batteries, their firepower is not overwhelming, but their survivability is tremendous. In practice how they play is heavily dependent on how the scenario is constructed.
I've used the coastal batteries two times in a meaningful way, both with advanced rules.
The first time I wrote a Hornblower-inspired scenario of a harbor raid. This required a SOL to run past the batteries twice, but with no need to linger. This was doable, because of the batteries' relatively modest gunnery, and time needed to reload. The SOL cannot avoid taking some significant damage along the way, but if handled well should be able to get in and out and still fight
The second time I was doing first Algeciras. In this case it quickly became clear that ships cannot "shelter under the guns" of a friendly battery as things are currently designed. So I extended the A range for the battery to 1.5 rulers (quite reasonable given the fixed gun position and height advantage). In the scenario the winds are light and unreliable, and in that context and with the rule change mentioned, the batteries can be a real killer. If you get becalmed under a battery's guns that is a nasty bind to be in...
In the Algeciras scenario, the British have a lot of ground to cover and a lot of targets, so they can't really give the Spanish batteries their full attention. But if you can concentrate several SOLs against one battery, while it can only fire at one target at a time, then you probably will not have much problem taking it out, it just may take a while. I've never played that kind of situation.
My friend and I made a video trying to determine the equivalency of forts to ships, we used the burden 9 fort to compare to an ocean class SOL, you can see the video and our thoughts here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db6IsKJA_qg
Nicely done. Coincidentally I've just been writing something very similar for a set of WW1 riverine rules that I'm working on at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by fredmiracle
Great minds..... :happy:
Thank you for posting the video, Timothy. It was interesting even though you did not achieve your aim.
We did determine the Ocean class SOL was equivalent to the 9 burden fort, though our games using them were taking longer than we cared for them to so we expedited. Not to mention the SOL can just move away from the fort and do whatever actions it needs to and then return for double shot, take out other ships, etc.
Thanks for the video link. It's always great to see SoG ships on the gaming table. :thumbsup: