If Ares were to make rule changes, what would you recommend?
RULE CHANGES
If Ares were to make rule changes, what would you recommend?
There should not be a difference between the rules levels on whether or not you can pre-measure wind. It needs to be consistent in one chosen direction. I vote for allowing pre-measuring.
Friendly ship collisions. Either they cause entanglement instead of damage, or they cause chain shot damage.
Fire damage is brutal. I don't see why there are even explosion rules when your ship would get gutted so damn fast by the fire from three fire counters you're unlikely to have a chance for an explosion. I would say the solution is that the first crew action turn gets the fire temporarily "under control" (it stops causing damage that turn, but it's still going) and the second turn extinguishes it. This means you can take a minimum one box instead of two.
I'm with Andy on pre-measuring--a real ship's officers would be able to tell wind direction at all times by both sight (pennants, streamers etc) and FEEL, and while it could change dramatically it wouldn't be like an eyeblink.
For a longer, more drawn-out game I would propose using alternate stats of one Burden per 50 tons actual BM as opposed to the 100 of standard, adjusting all Burden-based rules accordingly, and upping the Gunnery stats, either to a flat doubling or maybe to 1 chit per 75# of broadside. Keep fire and flood damage to the same rate of spread as standard, but they have twice as many boxes to eat through--and maybe flooding should have a chance to reduce or extinguish fire.
Maybe just technicality...
Drawn damage counters should be returned to the box immediately. Damage boxes should be covered with appropriate markers. This would make chances of taking different damage equal and uncertain.
Yeah I also have to agree with the wind measuring as stated above.
I think it should be acceptable to pre-measure wind. As mentioned, we are dealing with players, looking at a playing surface in which wind might not be as clearly observable as thought, especially if non-Ares mats or laying surfaces are used.
I think damage counter replacement is a good idea. Currently, the only way I am getting around it is to use multiple sets of damage counters, but I am not especially happy with that. This issue becomes more problematic, I believe, with larger engagements. I am contemplating rolling dice for damage, using the damage chits for markers on the logs. We'll see.
I agree with David on getting rid of the second planned movement card (actually don't want to put words in anyones mouth, I don't think he has said "get rid of", more doesn't feel right). These ships were moving at speeds 12knots or less, and these turns based on reload times are at least long enough. Most sailing ships had massive rudders. Once again as stated above, the captain and crew would be expert enough to anticipate from what the enemy is doing currently. The current turn movement card is restrictive enough to limit reaction.
I haven't played with the advanced rules yet, but it does seem as though fires are extremely damaging.
I feel silly posting since I haven't played yet, but hearing what people are saying and thinking about the percentages behind their feedback, the "damage velocity" does seems like a bit of an issue. I think if that bears out, I'd like to see a "less damage" variant that doesn't involve me having to create custom ship logs or anything like that. Likely to involve a recommended bashing of two chit sets together to dilute the high and critical damage a bit, plus perhaps tweaking of the fire/flood rules (?)
I and my gaming group completely agree with this -- and it is the way we handle damage in WoG.Originally Posted by Пилот
I also agree with premeasuring the wind.
Cheers!
With WoG, I use 4 A-decks, and our games have had 8 or fewer planes. I dislike the thought that an early Boom card draw relieves everyone from concern for the rest of the game. At least with four decks, the possibility of the higher damage-type cards remains. That said, I seem to have less problem pulling cards in WoG than counters in SoG. With WoG, the tradeoff between the mechanism and probabilities does not seem as pronounced to me, at least in feel. Maybe with more SoG experience, I might find the current draw mechanism perfectly fine, but I don't think it likely.
I'm on the wrong computer ATM, but I have plugged the chit-draws (all of them -- wind as well as guns) into HeavyMetalPro's random-number generator; if anyone's interested, I can copy the data over (the beauty of the program is: It uses files from Notepad, so even an idiot like me can program the beast).
Chris, I am interested in seeing what you have. Thanks.
We have been experimenting with slower ways to accumulate damage. For example, only filling a box when double the number is reached, so twice the burden of points or two crew hits. (We've also tried triple). Also, when a box is full, we mark it with a brown marker (either crew or any marker upside down).
We've also experimented with a "critical hit" rule where you check for special damage only if the box is completely full on that salvo. You check whether each special damage occurs then with a chit pull from the E counters. (0, nothing or a crew then the special damage happens).
I think, also, that the damage accumulation must be because of the scale of the game. An "A" range doesn't translate to being "far" away in a game like Close Action, let's say. I suspect that anything within any ruler distance in SoG is probably equivalent to just one or two hexes on Close Action or Flying Colors, where damage would mount quite quickly too.
And, geek that I am, I may dig out CA and just look at some comparable ships and ranges and see what sorts of damage would be inflicted. I have a hunch it would actually be pretty close. The scale of SoG just makes it play much quicker.
Mind you, we've played only with Advanced rules and most optionals. I think the game might go a tad longer when just using the Standard rules (because of no initial broadsides and no special damage). I'm going to try Standard rules at my game group today.
I too would like to see this data.
Cheers!
What is this HeavyMetalPro random number generator of which you speak?
I thought I was alone on this. Do tell, Chris.
Not alone...
Beating Chris to the punch...
http://www.heavymetalpro.com/
I had to Google.
Specifically: http://www.heavymetalpro.com/RUS_Features.htm .
I think it's been updated; I'll have to check my copy. And let's face it: The price can't be beat. ;)
I would agree with others who've suggested eliminating the second planned maneuver card. It doesn't feel right, and in my experience it turns SOG into a massive guessing game. It's mildly annoying to try to guess what a human player is going to do 2 turns in advance, but at least you have some idea of where your opponent might logically be going. However, the two turn planning can make the solitaire scenarios downright impossible...due to the combination of random cards from the solitaire maneuver deck and planning two turns out, I've had games where I had trouble even staying in range of the enemy.
Planning two turns in advance just makes it too difficult to recover from bad guesses about your opponent's movements.
When a damage box is full those chits and any "0" chits on it are returned to the pool and the damage is marked with an appropriate "X" chit.
Pre measure wind.
Smaller vessels can too easily damage larger vessels in my opinion. I was thinking that when ships of different classes (burden difference of 3 say) fire at each other the smaller one reduces either the value of the damage by the difference between original broadside strength and burden (chit system hange...) or reduce the number of chits drawn by 1/2 the difference between burden down to a minimum of 1 chit.
I like planning movement two turns in advance and think it really reinforces the need to think ahead. Poor planning can be brutally punished and I like that.
Perhaps assigning crew to the sails can also be used to allow avoiding planning of the second turn.
I you want to be able to react quickly you need crew ready to respond.
Ken, I agree somewhat, but the current movement card is planned in secret and already locks you into a course of action. The reason it feels wrong, is because these ships simply didn't move that quickly and a turn in this game is not representED IN seconds, but longer periods of time (at lest 3/4 to half a minute).
I think Ares did a great job modifying a rule system to another medium and period. I would caution that the rules should not have to mirror WoG. WoG and SoG are two separate games, great they have similarities but they also need to have differences that work within the period and scales they represent. The poor planning and consequences you refer to, already occur playing the basic game (which only uses 1 card). I have two major complaints with the 2 cards system: 1. It is not intuitive in response to your opponent, and due to slow speed of the vessels, and longer turn representation, it siimply does't feel right; 2. with the 2 card system there are too many accidental collisions. Historically, I have thus far not found a single example of ships of the period accidently hitting a freindly ship in battle, not saying it didn't occur.
I have seen people comment that this teaches you not to move so closely together. Sailing vessels moving in line ahead, or in line abreast moved much closer to each other than modern warships. Napoleonic sail, should be all about getting in close.
I play Wings of Glory, and the two card system works well for that game, the planes are moving fast, the turns equal seconds, the need to plan well ahead agrument works well here. I don't want to do something, just because it's done in another game by the same author and based on another game!
Bob
Last edited by HMS Lydia; 02-06-2014 at 08:19.
So far we are enjoying the 2-card planning because it makes the game play very different than anything else we play locally. And we haven't had too much issue with bad guesses. We had a little dancing last weekend but for the most part we don't have too much trouble getting in close and personal. Thankfully the use of the two-card planning is so "independent" in the game system that you can use it or not without having much impact on any other part of the game.
Also, since there is a pretty good variety of chits (no rare "critical damage" chits for example) I don't think returning them to the bag is that big of a deal. At least not with only 4 ships total in the game. Maybe in larger games but then you could also just use two sets. It seems to me the odds have worked out well for damage draws from start to end of our games and as a ship is taken down its chits go back in the bag anyway so you often get a late game replenishment to help reset the odds.
We allow wind measurement. It doesn't seem like a valid piece of information to hold back from the players once we have used it a bit. The lines on the mat already provide a good guess, and even with measuring the cards are just 'vague' enough regarding angles and distances where you may find yourself making a bad choice. It's a penalty that doesn't have a lot of return in my opinion and those are usually best cut.
We have not yet started playing with the extra damage (fire/leak/rudder/mast) because we're just getting close to a comfort zone to add Actions. But we're not rushing for it either because we have heard how brutal it can be...especially fires. If fire/leak damage was mitigated somewhat we may be more inclined. I like the idea of only counting it if it was on a turn where a box was filled...but then most shots seem to fill at least one box. So I'm not sure that will actually slow things down much.
Collisions are another area that feel too brutal in the current versions. Some nice suggestions have come out regarding just entanglement or such. Keep a 'penalty' but don't make a bad turn so destructive...especially if holding to the 2-card maneuvering.
It does feel like an errata of a few items could nail some of the weak points and not needing a full blow v2 of the rules. I know some play testing was done but the volume of that compared to what is coming out now that it's in the wild cannot be compared.
Just my two doubloons worth
Mostly I don't need a rule to be historically accurate, so much as to create the proper historical feel.
But the thing that has surprised me about the discussion of the "two card rule" here on the boards, is that it seems to be focused more heavily on gameplay than on either historical feel or historical reality. There appears to be a weak consensus that the rule makes ships ahistorically unmaneuverable. But really it's still not clear to me--were the designers trying to model a "thing" here? Did they get it wrong? Is the game so abstract that these questions simply defy answers?
Actually, more generally, I'm having a difficult time mapping the real-life engagements I have read about (in which, to be honest, the particular maneuvers that were chosen by each side at each point in time, and why they worked out as they did, are fairly opaque to me) to the kinds of maneuvers I imagine I will do in SoG once I have a chance to play. If I had a good idea of how a real captain would have maneuvered, and how closely that maps to SoG, then I might be able to say "ah, the 2 card effect is like in battle X when captain Y miscalculated about Z" (for example)
I'd be fascinated to see someone who knows about such things try to map a few famous engagements to the maneuvers and shots that you would have in SoG, both to see how well it works, and to get a better idea of the tactics and maneuvering paradigms used back then...
I've not tried such a "mapping" exercise, but my comments and thoughts regarding the 1 card vs 2 card approach stem from the "feel" to which you refer. I strive to achieve a good feel in the rules that I've written, and I also greatly appreciate and enjoy those rules by others that achieve the same. To me the 2 card system doesn't feel like a ship fight. the actions we've fought using it are fun, but it "ain't a frigate action" if you know what I mean. Quite the opposite with the one card system, which to me "feels" right and seems (in my experience at least) to result in frigate duels that look like frigate duels rather than slow motion aerial combat.
I can certainly see this as a possible alternative if you don't like the two card system. I like the two card system. Large sailing ships do not maneuvers suddenly. Especially in the era of changing all your sail setting by brute force. Although it may be a way of showing the quicker maneuverability of the smaller ships... Maybe the card use should be determined by the size of the ship...
Wow, sounds like a discussion group of star fleet battles. Remember that this is a game first. And it doesn't say simulation anywhere on the box. So serious. So tedious.
I think the discussion of 1 vs 2 card is very strongly in the camp of "how should it feel". It seems a bit split right now on what players think "feels right" for AOS. As I said, it's a simple rule that can be used or pulled without snowball effect on other rules (nothing else depends on or utilizes the second card beyond bording plans) so it really is easy for play groups to go the way they want with this one without needing a rule change.
Fire damage, in contrast, can't be 'fixed' without an actual house rule or errata.
One card equals instant change something these 18th century ships couldn't come close to doing.
Here's a question -- WoG WW1 uses three cards to denote the slow speed of the planes, and WoG WW2 uses the two-card system to denote the faster reaction/speed of the planes. Then what about three or four cards in SoG to denote the responsiveness/speed of the ships? Might increasing the number of cards (possibly based on ship size) promote a "sailing" feel?
Just an idea -- really enjoying the game as it is (advanced).
Cheers!
I'm affraid such approach would increase chances for collision...
Ships could be on the opposite ends of the board before they could correct it. Don't forget Ships had a whole ocean to maneuver, not just a few mats.
Not to mention that I get a headache just using two cards.
I like the two-card system. It makes me think of turns in the future rather than the next immediate turn. I believe there is more tactics involved in a 2-card systems than a 1-card system. The last game I played is a fine example of this. In the middle of the game I took a hit that gave me two special damage leaks. The next turn I was starting to flood rapidly which I controlled with pumping. But I needed two turns of repair just to fix the leaking before I could even get to the flooding. Because of the 2-card system I was able to get away from my opponent and repair long enough to come back and finish him off. With a 1-card system he would have sunk me for sure because I never would have been able to maneuver away from him and get away to repair damage. That being said, it is a game and you should play it the way that is most fun for you and your players
BGG posted about an upcoming iOS game, Naval Tactics: Captains of the Spanish Main. Spotted something somewhat relevant in the promo video, "Plan three moves ahead."
So far, everyone seems to be about inserting "realism" into the game. How about adding features instead. Cutting out parties, shore assaults pirates and navy, hey even things like the plague or rations depleted and the fixes those would need. Go for fun stuff, not trying to simulate and slow down a system somewhat tedious already.
This kind of sums up why we don't even need this part of the discussion. The subject is what rules we would like changed/added. You're not going to force everyone else to play 1 card or 2 by enforcing a rules change. Both options are there and will be used as chosen to taste.
Boy your tolerance level is lowFrom the little I've seen, this doesn't begin to approach the "seriousness" and "tediousness" of the average wargame discussion on the internet
I agree we have no need for the card police. It's good to have both options.
But my personality is such that it does bother me in a wargame to have no historical basis for making a rules decision other than "A is more fun that B."
That's not to say that fun goes out the window. Suppose 1-card were more "fun" but less "historical" than 2-card--then I might play 1-card knowing I'm compromising on realism to get a better game, and deciding that bit of reality isn't worth it. But right now I just feel I have little sense of how those game mechanics relate to reality, and that bugs me
Reading through this thread has been informative. I am preparing seven games for Origins: 3 two-hour basic games, 2 three-hour standard games, and 2 three-hour advanced games.
I am not sure what form of official/house rules I will employ. I will make whatever changes to the official rules clear to all players before the game begins. If they want to play, fine - if not, fine. If anyone starts rule-lawyering or arguing about house rules to the extent that it starts bringing down the mood at the table, I will hand them their token back and allow them to sail other waters. In the end, this is a game, and people should gather to have fun.
The reason I started this thread was just to get a consensus of what most people would like that differs from the current rules, in the hope that Ares might incorporate some in an errata sheet. (providing Ares reads these threads). And for me to see if I'd like to incorporate some of your thoughts into my own house rules. And have found some that I will use. Thanks and keep them coming.
Or another way: Phased movement - highest burden moves first, then next highest and so on, representing the smaller ships' edge in maneuvering around the bigger ones. (We'll set aside that some SOLs, including surprisingly the Ocean 118's, were said to handle like frigates...)
When it comes historical wargame, reality is an important issue. Any game can be fun, but every can't be wargrame.
Ares have had some suggestions submitted covering some of these things - more "fun" added, but in a (hopefully) realistic way :)
_Renegade Legion: Leviathan_ did that -- not only was there phased movement between the sides; the bigger, more-cumbersome units had to move before smaller ones. So even if Side A won initiative that turn, if all it had was Battleships, and Side B had smaller units, Side A was still moving first.
Why bring up phased movement in game where the move is pre-plotted? It's pretty much irrelevant other than cases of collision.
It would be nice to know in advance what the rule is covering that situation. Being able to say "OK, he's bigger than me; he moves before I do" would be helpful.
Reminds me of how right of way is determined while driving in some lesser developed parts of the world...the biggest vehicle has the right of way.
As a lady I know who's married to a former tank officer used to have as her signature on the gun forum we were on:
"Remember... Main Battle Tanks ALWAYS have Right of Way."
LOL
Just been reading a book David Manley mentioned (maybe a year ago!) Storm and Conquest
http://www.amazon.com/Storm-Conquest...9+indian+ocean
and one of the surprising things you realise when seeing first hand accounts is just how difficult it is to sink a wooden sailing ship. They can be completely dismasted, leaking and battered but still kept afloat and "sailed". There are some sections dealing with two fleets of merchants under escort that went through category 5 hurricanes, the ships that were lost were almost always those that were undermanned with experienced sailors not the better built ships. There are accounts of ships being on their beams for several hours with water flowing over the quarter decks (!) and they still managed to right the ships, pump them out and make headway. I think most games design for effect here with a ship hors d'combat considered sunk by the rules when in fact it's just disabled.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks