I often pop into second hand and antiquarian bookshops with a naval theme. I'll keep an eye out for any cheap copies.
I often pop into second hand and antiquarian bookshops with a naval theme. I'll keep an eye out for any cheap copies.
Similar to what Ares does for WOG; a brief write up of the history of each ship model or at least the ship class. Some ships would lend themselves to this, the obvious examples being Victory and Constitution.Originally Posted by David Manley
Yeah, that $80 price holds me back on most of the better references... and, it sounds like, most major libraries too. When I asked about getting one of Winfield's British Warships in the Age of Sail volumes on interlibrary loan, I was told the two nearest copies were Calgary and Hell A, and neither of them loan it out.
Winfield's "British Warships" are one of those references worth the money if you can swing it. If you can snag a cheap copy of any volume, it's well worth it. The tough one to find reasonably is the 1793-1817 one which is probably the one most people here want. The 1714-1792 probably has a lot of ships that took part in the Napoleonic Wars as well, but its still in the $50-75 range. It's probably the next book I'll add to my library as I have the 1603-1714 and 1793-1817 books.
Ryan, in that case would you mind taking a look at an Excel spreadsheet and trying to fill in some blanks from design commentary in 1793-1815? I know some ship designs were evolutions or variations of older designs, and I'm trying to sort those out from the "clean sheet of paper" designs, and from there what evolved from what. For example, I know Rule up-scaled and enlarged an older design to create HMS Acasta, but I don't know what the "parent design" was, while I know that Sir Thomas Slade's Ardent 64's were basically a "Honey, I Shrunk HMS Bellona".
Idea being, the more ships I can find that can be tolerably grouped into one sculpt, the faster we can rack up complete scenarios ready-to-play from history, and possibly the faster Andrea can get new units into play.
Sure, happy to help! If you want to email me the spreadsheet, just PM me and we can sort it out. Let me know any specific questions you're looking to answer, I'll check and see what I can find.
Last edited by The Mad Hatter; 01-19-2014 at 20:57.
I just read David's latest blog entry concerning SoG. It was linked off The Miniatures Page. It's most definitely worth checking out (and I thought this was a good place to link it, rather than starting a new thread):
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=334588
http://dtbsam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01...y-musings.html
Cheers!
p.s. Apologies David if I jumped the gun on your story?
An interesting and informative review. I think he summarized many of the discussions happening here.
For what it is worth, David, I hope people can see past the critique and realize you enjoy/support the game. Too often, readers read with an all-or-nothing mentality; the moment a criticism is raised, the nuanced position of the writer goes right out of the window.
I really like SoG a lot. I don't expect from it simulation-level mechanics. I don't want simulation-level mechanics. I want a game to play with Sue and friends, non-wargame folks. That said, I will incorporate many house rules, but will probably stick to the RaW when running con events, well, maybe I will.
I have yet to try the crew management rules, but they seem like the best job yet of the handful of rules I've looked at. Heart of Oak has a special rule for a 'Heave To' maneuver. I've pulled it off twice using the cards in SoG.
The only thing I've missed so far is the lack of left and right side hull damage. I'm kind of wondering if having separate L/R damage is realistic, but it really did add fun nuance to the game.
I realize the A&A naval minis were a pretty different beast, but one of the great things about that game, and I think something that helped it to be more popular than many people expected, was that the designer listened to feedback in an engaged and interactive way in the first year or so (but without allowing himself to be buffeted by every loud opinion). He then issued a set of rules fixes which were elegant in their simplicity, and didn't invalidate any of the game components, but changed and improved the game play significantly. Maybe that model would be applicable here. Sure we can all "roll our own" but I think there's a lot of value to a common, officially sanctioned baseline.
There is, but you know wargamers, they LOVE to change things :)
It will be interesting to see what organisers of tournaments decide to do if and when SGN tournament play catches on. Basic? Standard? Advanced? Options or not? There is a very wide range of approaches here.
Since multiple ships will likely be involved, my guess is some modified form of Standard.
Indeed, and its one of those things that really puts me off some game systems. I don't know what it is, but there are a few that seem to attract the "criticize and die" fraternity; any comment expressed that isn't "this system is BRILLIANT/PERFECT/AWESOME/etc." is interpreted as "I hate it, and that gives you permission to burn me alive". I prefer to steer clear of those and find more rational gaming communities with which to enjoy my free time.
Indeed, there are more than a few folks slamming Sails of Glory both prior to and after your comments on The Miniatures Page. Unfortunate.
I'm not surprised, its something new and its ruffled feathers. Happens quite a bit in my experience. But I think the reaction from the wargaming public has been generally very good. And interesting to see that the usual doom and gloom experts on some of the specialist naval wargaming fora (who don't generally frequent places like this or TMP) haven't lit off. Quite a contrast to the reception that Warhammer Trafalgar received!
I agree that the response has been surprisingly positive, especially here in the States, where AoS games have never been at the top of wargamers wants list. The supportive voices on TMP are quite firmly drowning out the nay-sayer's.
If the starter set really has sold out of the warehouse and Ares announced a Spring reprint that speaks volumes as well. It's very encouraging!
Of course that will always happen, and why not?
I think there's a big difference between
A) "the official rules are fun and I'm happy to play them, but when I/my group play we tweak X, Y, Z"
and
B) "the official rules have serious enough problems that I really prefer not to play them without tweaking X, Y and Z"
I think most of your concerns fall more toward the (A) position, but if there are any that consistently seem to be moving people more toward the (B) position then that would be when an official intervention might add value. I'm not clear yet whether there are any glaring (B) issues, but some things like the rate of damage accrual, the question marks about two-card-ahead movement and the "fiddliness" of the counters and "draw an E chit and see what's on it" seem like they are pretty basic and have been popping up a lot in the early going.
Again, all of these are trivial to house-rule, but if there's a "semi-official/official" consensus on how to handle them it's easier to maintain the cohesion of the community, from my limited experience. There's also potentially a lot less value-add from community-created rules-helper cards and solitaire rules and other game extensions if the situation is such that everyone has felt compelled to hand-roll their own version of the game...
If official rules have that big problem (as per "B") then I prefere not to use them. Serious system error sometimes means complete redesigning, wich is not the case if only math/stats are the problem, or you can add/distract some minor rule.
In both cases forums as this one are good idea, as you exchange experiances faster, and with lot more people that you usualy would do. Playing in closed group could block "line of sight".
Yes but TMP has plenty of people who fancy themselves experts at everything, especially slagging someone else's positive comments! No lack of flame wars on certain topics there. Having said that I find it full of valuable news and information - like your review! Thanks!
Eric
Frankly, I get the impression that some at TMP, if they didn't have anything to kvetch about, would complain about not HAVING anything to grouse about...
And that's why long-service gamers are called "grognards" (French: "Grumblers"). :)
Thus implying they are Old Guard
Exactly. >:)Thus implying they are Old Guard
Dont you start having a go at Grognards.....the term comes from the French Old Guard, known for their grumbling (despite being the best fed, best equipped, best housed of any unit in La Grande Armee). They are "off limits" to criticism thank you, know your place sirs!!
There is this book
http://www.amazon.com/The-Frigates-W...s%2C+1793-1815
which is quite inexpensive but hardly definitive.
If it wasn't for Waterloo, I would have believed that.They are "off limits" to criticism thank you, know your place sirs!!
Ah Ed, the Old Guard didnt attack the ridges at Waterloo that was the Middle Guard (Chasseurs) and sundry others. The two battalions of the Old Guard, the true grognards, fought a rear guard retreating action in square for most of the night and were not broken despite taking huge casualties (around 40%). They maintained cohesion throughout, pursuing cavalry turning away from them to find easier pickings.
For a very interesting read see
http://www.amazon.com/Waterloo-Frenc...ch+perspective
taken from first hand accounts on the French side of the battle and the first account In English (I think) to do this. THe vast majority of previous writings on Waterloo have been based on purely English accounts, excluding the records of the Prussian, Dutch and Belgian as well as the French troops. Thus nearly all descriptions of the battle are written from a perspective of maybe 15-20% of the soldiers who were on the field! There have been some wonderful releases recently on contributions from the other contigents that help to redress the imbalance this has produced as to what actually happened, where it happened and who was involved on that day.
I thought this was a well written account of Frigates of the Napoleonic era despite being somewhat biased towards the British and a few errors.
I stand corrected, but I did see somewhere that it was five battalions of the Middle Guard.
Grenadier Division Comte Louis Friant. Deputy: General Roguet. 4055 (138 officers, 3917 men) 1396 (61 officers, 1335 men), thus 34% 1er and 2e Bataillons, 1er Régiment de Grenadiers (Old Guard) Général de Brigade Baron Petit 1280 (41 officers, 1239 men) 157 (12 officers, 145 men) 1er and 2e Bataillons, 2e Régiment de Grenadiers (Old Guard) Général de Brigade Baron Christiani 1091 (36 officers, 1055 men) 330 (16 officers, 330 men) 1er and 2e Bataillons, 3e Régiment de Grenadiers (Middle Guard) Général de Brigade Baron Poret de Morvan 1164 (34 officers, 1130 men) 673 (16 officers, 657 men) 1er Bataillonm, 4e Régiment de Grenadiers (Middle Guard) Général de Brigade Harlet 520 (27 officers, 493 men) Chasseur Division Général de Division Morand. Deputy: General Michel. 4603 (132 officers, 4471 men) 1775 (58 officers, 1717 men), thus 39% 1er and 2e Bataillons, 1er Régiment de Chasseurs (Old Guard) Général de Brigade Comte Cambronne 1307 (36 officers, 1271 men) 330 (7 officers, 323 men) 1er and 2e Bataillons, 2e Régiment de Chasseurs (Old Guard) Général de Brigade Baron Pelet-Clozeau 1163 (32 officers, 1131 men) 282 (11 officers, 271 men) 1er and 2e Bataillons, 3e Régiment de Chasseurs (Middle Guard) Colonel Mallet 1062 (34 officers, 1028 men) 25 officers, 1123 men (3rd and 4th combined) 1er and 2e Bataillons, 4e Régiment de Chasseurs (Middle Guard) Général de Brigade Henrion 1071 (30 officers, 1041 men) 15 officers, 1123 men (3rd and 4th combined)
Correction Ed, I referred to the 2 Bn of the Old Grenadier Guard, these were regiments (duh) and there were also Chasseurs of the Old Guard but the true old guard were considered the Grenadiers 1st and 2nd regs. One battelion had fought at Plancenoit thowing out the Prussians the other three remaining battalions formed the rear guard, there is some confusion on the exact number see below:
Marshal M. Ney Stated that: “… I saw four regiments of the middle guard, conducted by the Emperor, arriving. With these troops, he wished to renew the attack, and penetrate the centre of the enemy. He ordered me to lead them on; generals, officers and soldiers all displayed the greatest intrepidity; but this body of troops was too weak to resist, for a long time, the forces opposed to it by the enemy, and it was soon necessary to renounce the hope which this attack had, for a few moments, inspired.”
Three Old Guard battalions did move forward and formed the second line attack, though they remained in reserve and did not directly attack the Anglo-allied line. Marching through an acclaimed of flask(?) and skirmisher fire, the 3,000 or so Middle Guardsmen advanced towards the west of La Haye Sainte, and in so doing, separated into three distinct attack forces. First, consisting of two battalions of Grenadiers, defeated Wellington’s first line of British, Brunswick and Nassau troops and marched on. Second is the Chasse’s relatively fresh Dutch division was sent against them and its artillery fired into the victorious Grenadiers’ border. This still could not stop the Guard’s advance, so Chassé ordered his first brigade as the third distinct attack forces to charge the outnumbered French army, who faltered and broke.
The surviving Imperial Guard rallied for the last stand on their three reserve battalions, however some sources say the battlions were four, just south of La Haye Sainte. (ie the 1st Grenadier bns)
So true!
I think I'm done with TMP outside of looking at paints and historical links. Too much discord in too many threads.
"Merde"
(Sorry couldn't resist - I know the debate around the quote!)
Nice quote and well placed icons"Merde"
(Sorry couldn't resist - I know the debate around the quote!)
Despite the debate it's probably what I would have said in the same situation!"Merde"
(Sorry couldn't resist - I know the debate around the quote!)
Jim,
does this not happen here too? This site is based on one game. I thought we all could say as we see. I have learnt a lot from both sites. I will not buy into this game, but still have I hope friends here. I too do not like all I hear on TMP and on this site to. I like to keep an open mind, and learn a lot. I have learnt what to do and not do, but I learn.
Be safe
Rory
Hi Rory,
There will always be strong opinions and discussion on the Internet. Even so I think there may be more of an inclination to be open minded here than over on TMP, but that's just my take on some of the responses I've seen to SoG threads that have popped up since mid January.
I miss your posts and photos here knowing that the Anchorage isn't just for Sails of Glory. Your thread on rigging a ship would be really helpful to a lot of the new members who are looking to upgrade their SoG vessels, but the photos are still ruined from the hacker.
I've learned a great deal from you and others since I signed on in March 2013 and I want to learn more about the Age of Sail and Sails of Glory. I'll still view TMP as well, but with a little less vigor.
Take care, friend!
Jim
I shoulda probably been clearer... it's a rare community indeed that doesn't have one or two like that. :)
I would agree that some of the posts on TMP are heavy handed to say the least, in contrast to David's blog commentary which is very constructive. Some of the posters are turning up their noses at SoG after a brief review, and one was very miffed because the game was marketed as "realistic" ship combat in the age of sail and it isn't. Looking at the starter set box I don't think the language is overreaching in that regard.
Jim,
We have not met, but I think of you as a friend. It is sad about the photos. I read you info on re-posting the photos and got lost after the 2nd line. My I.T. skills are so poor. I learnt a lot on this site. About I.T. stuff, painting, rigging ships and people. This was the frist time I joined and got into a site like this. The only two sites I look at and use are this and TMP.
I have always said SOG was not for me as a game system. This site is really for SOG system only. I know you and lots of shipmates here have worked hard on making the ships look better. But to me they are just the wrong scale and toy like. I'm sorry, but I'm tied of being shot down over my thoughts on is site. I have tried to be opened minded.
TMP is not based on one system, so they will go for all different systems (good and bad). I keep an open mind to all rules and systems. The big plus to SOG is the open the box and play. The big plus to other systems is you can inter-change from one rule system to another rule system with what you have. Until Ares change its ideas on rules and ships only. Which I do not think it will. the only way alas it will happen is piracy. Not for me
Be safe
Rory
Rory, I know your presence will be more limited than at first. I, for one, will always be on the lookout, and when I see you avatar on the horizon, the day will be a bit brighter.
Thank you Eric,Rory, I know your presence will be more limited than at first. I, for one, will always be on the lookout, and when I see you avatar on the horizon, the day will be a bit brighter.
Sorry if I sounded down. I'm not. I just think Davids blog about SOG was fair. Over half the feed-back about the blog and SOG on TMP was positive. So why a number of ship-mates here had to start name calling and putting down the TMP thread is beyond me! Apart from me all the ship-mates on this site are into SOG, that is O.K. with me. But it is not the one and only way to go in SOL wargaming. I will say no more about this, as I have said it many times before on many threads on Anchorage. I will not go away as I have to many friends on this site. I wish the "How to" was not bu##ered up. But I can not fix it. It was the only input I could make to this site that would help members with there ships, SOG or other makes.
By the way what has happen to yours and Sue's ships?
Be safe
Rory
Indeed, bo***ks to that, TMP is a fun place to be. And this place has its share of "characters" too, make no mistake about it
(me included, I'm sure!)
Rory's sentiments are mine as well. I have noticed more closed minds on this site than the TMP Napoleonic Naval Discussion board I frequent. I thought David's SOG review on the TPM thread fair and balanced. Of the 25 responses to the thread (not including David's) only 8 were negative and 3 of those were only half negative with positive things to say as well. So lets call it 6.5 negative, that's about 25%. That's not very much. Of course even one negative comment can be too much to a closed mind. You folks need to lighten up. AOS gaming is a broad hobby and SOG is just one of the many ways it can be enjoyed. Lots of folks don't like Trafalgar rules either, or KMH (my favorite), or David's Form Line of Battle rules. So what? The whole point of a hobby is to do what you love. Who cares if someone doesn't like the rules you like. It doesn't stop you from enjoying them does it? Is your like for your favorite rules so fragile that you can't bear any criticism of them? Hmmm...why not take the criticism and turn it into something constructive like David's house rules suggestions. Make the rules work for you, or find another rule set, simple. But to ostracize an entire site like TMP just because a few people don't like the rules you have invested in, well I won't say it.
Who likes it, will play it, Who dosn't, will not.
Find me any set of wargame rules that more than 90% of people think are fantastic and I'd be amazed and probably buy them instantly!
Everyone has their own perspective on conflict resolution, differences in design for effect and design for realism, (playability vs realism), how detailed the rules need to be, the scale of the approach (eg single ship vs squadron vs fleet), where the emphasis should lie (eg was British gunnery or sailing experience the more important factor in their dominance?), the relative benefit of this ship over that design, of this weapon system over that one, etc ad infinitum. None of these approaches are intrinisically wrong they just represent people's preferences, biases and sometimes prejudices. I've seen scathing assessments of games I really like and religious zeal in praise of games I just don't get (eg ASL), the diversity is what makes the world interesting and sometimes a contrary opinion can sound a note of insight that you haven't seen yourself.
I'm looking for perfect set of Napoleonic rules for the last 25 years...
Well they'd have to be ones where the French always win to start with
Even that happened from time to time
But, leading Austrians is real challenge!
Unless fighting the British, of courseWell they'd have to be ones where the French always win to start with
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks