This. I think a lot of games remove units from play at merely what's called the "Mission Kill" phase... for example, the only outright "True Kill" of all the Pearl Harbor battleships was the Arizona--the others were only "Mission Kills" (read: "rendered incapable of combat operations for a while") and the only reason Oklahoma didn't rejoin the fleet like the others was her foundering under tow back to drydock in San Francisco.
Just ordered my copy a couple days ago. Thank you for sharing the tip Daniel and David. Looking forward to reading this book.Originally Posted by Berthier
The collision rules clearly state that ships with the larger burden move first. Page 12 in the rules.
True. It doesn't have to be literally wipped out, and it's fine. In that system particular numbers are not important, but unit's cohesion and fighting ability (downside, ofcourse, is alocating damage if you play campaign.
But, some rules do state that caualties are killed and wounded members. And such rules usualy alocate some big number of casualties to the unit, i.e unit suffers 20-30, even 40-50% at the time (or at the very short period) and continues to fight as nothing happened. It goes for both historical and fantasy rules.
FWIW, and to be technically accurate the battleship losses at Pearl Harbor were most definitely "kills" rather than "mission kills" in accordance with the US Navy doctrines and definitions of the time. The fact that they were recoverable was a fortunate happenstance :)
Absolutely. Most land games over and above remove units when they are no longer combat effective. In the naval sphere its a bit more "life and death", but the loss of a line of hull or crew boxes in SGN merely defines the point at which the vessel has suffered sufficient damage, or the morale of the crew and the Command has been so adversely affected that they strike their colours
Interesting discussion regarding the two card versus one card. I have only played three games so far, Basic, Standard and Advanced with just the ships in the main box - the other ships are waiting to join the fray. I've not yet formed an opinion yet one way or the other. Certainly what the two card system does do is create some sort of representation of forward thinking - where do you want your ship to be to close with the enemy or escape from them? The beauty of the two card system is that you are trying to second guess what your opponent will do and often you get it wrong! That feels like it has some element of reality to it, and perhaps that is why some of the posts here feel frustrated by it? The main thing lacking so far in the game is a sense of crew ability. I haven't added in the poor gunnery option yet but I will, as this was a key element to many of the victories in the era. But so was poor sailing for the same reason. An ill trained or undermanned crew was often the key difference and this element is missing so far. All the ships move and manoeuvre the same, fire to the same effect. I'm toying with the idea of rating the ships. One of the options then might be to allow the better rate ship to redraw the second planned card in the light of the poorer ships move - reflecting a more efficient, better trained crew that can react quicker to events.
The damage can be brutal, but then I think it possibly needs to be. The last game using the advanced rules was over two hours long, mostly with little firing going on - admittedly partly because the British ships were loaded with double shot and were doggedly determined to get close enough to make use of them. When they did, the results were devastating. But if you lessen the damage you may find yourself playing games that have no end - especially with larger numbers of ships. I have also toyed with the idea of striking colours, or attempting to escape when a ship gets to the point where it is perhaps one or two damage boxes from total destruction - possibly more realistic?
I think both card options should be open to use. First, it's obviously a player taste issue. Second, I think mixing it in the same game could be used to represent either crew quality or how nimble a ship is. Better crews go single card, crummier crews plot two cards. More nimble ships plot one card, clunkier ships plot two cards.
That would be an elegant solution. Will give that a go next time.
For info, Greg's campaign system is available here:
http://www.wargamevault.com/product/...rs=0_0_40003_0
I'm working on mine at the moment. I'm thinking of adapting it so that it is rule system agnostic, so OK for SGN, FLoB and other sets.
Makes sence. Also, extremely bad ships and crew could plan and move before everybode else, so, basically you could have various levels of ship & crew quality.
That would be great! I really appreciated the pointer earlier.
I find I've been struggling with the area movement approach a bit. On the one hand, it is very pragmatic. On the other hand somehow the idea of HMS Sophie and the Spanish Xebec being "in the same box" and "rolling to see if they spotted each other" seems contrary to the sailing aesthetic.
I've been working on bashing together some of the ideas behind the Glory we Steer and the very simple campaign rules in Heart of Oak to see what comes out. In particular I am trying to put together a computer assistant, to do the plotting and figure out if there are sightings and such, thus allowing you to do away with area movement.
But I don't know if it will all come out or not; and even if I manage to execute it well, I'm not entirely sure it's the right approach to end up with a fun campaign...
EDIT: I must say, before looking at the Glory we Steer rules I didn't really realize how jumbled together France and Britain's Caribbean holdings were. It does seem like it would be hard NOT to be running into each other all the time in those congested waters...
Last edited by fredmiracle; 02-09-2014 at 11:22.
Ha, I like that--the "Admiral's nephew" captain who lacks sea-sense and a decisive personality will have to use 2-card plotting
LOl, yes indeed. I'm engaged in an 1803 post Amiens campaign set in the Caribbean. The opening moves were carnage!
Thanks for the link. A nice supplement to your reply to my question in another thread.
The complete loss of a ship that sails off the playing surface seems a bit excessive. How about something like marking where the ship goes off, setting the ship out of play for 2 or 3 moves ( to represent the ship coming about ), then bringing the ship back at the point where it exited the board. This still carries a penalty for bad seamanship in that it is out of action and gives the opponents time to set an 'ambush' for when the ship re-enters play, without totally writing the ship off.
It's always tricky. Someone could abuse leaving the table to gain some benefit (to avoid being shot at, to avoid being caught by bad wind etc.). On the other hand, it would be unfair to limit re-entering point to the old one. And third, how would attitude to wind be determined during absence? That's why I (although dislike "world's edge") incline to leave this rule as it is. And delivering some artificial damage counters to discourage ship to leave the field also wouldn't be right. This with damage we've done in WoG, explanation being unexpected AA fire. And I don't believe we could fit anything similar here (except, just maybe, some terrain damage).
I have a sense that we will probably allow the entire playfield to shift if someone's about to go off the board. Even playing two mats will be a bit tough to find space, when you factor in the ship-charts as well.
Yes indeed, that's why I propose having a penalty of some kind, although not quite so draconian as complete removal from the game. Perhaps if a ship is being chased and fired upon the opponent could have a free shot as the ship leaves the board. A limit could be placed upon how damaged the ship would be before it is removed from the game, to eliminate a badly damaged ship 'hiding' off board.Someone could abuse leaving the table to gain some benefit (to avoid being shot at, to avoid being caught by bad wind etc.).
Fair enough, a solution might be to have the player nominate where they would re-enter the board to the opponent with a set number of turns missed (a possible penalty in itself) according to how far it is from the exit.On the other hand, it would be unfair to limit re-entering point to the old one.
A simple way would be to have a set attitude on re-entry, say perpendicular to the edge of the board. Alternatively, the player nominates their attitude upon re-entry again with a penalty according to how far it is off the exit attitude.And third, how would attitude to wind be determined during absence?
Seems a good way of discouraging abuse of the rule, perhaps the damage could be inflicted by a coastal battery on and island outside the play area, or a ship standing off the main battle for some reason.And delivering some artificial damage counters to discourage ship to leave the field also wouldn't be right. This with damage we've done in WoG, explanation being unexpected AA fire. And I don't believe we could fit anything similar here (except, just maybe, some terrain damage).
How would you accomplish the shift? Would there be problems if for example there were ships at the other side of the play area, which themselves go off board if the play area shifted? Just curious.I have a sense that we will probably allow the entire playfield to shift if someone's about to go off the board. Even playing two mats will be a bit tough to find space, when you factor in the ship-charts as well.
I'm just putting out a few ideas here, and of course anything could be house ruled. I just wondered if there was a possibility of say having an 'official' optional rule to mitigate the cost of sailing off the 'edge of the world'.
my assumption and hope is that we don't end up with our ships at opposite corners of the map, but of course it's possible. Assuming that there's space to shift, we'll just move all the ships the same distance in the same direction and let the battle continue!How would you accomplish the shift? Would there be problems if for example there were ships at the other side of the play area, which themselves go off board if the play area shifted? Just curious.
I've read at least a few comments similar to above. but this game is not equal to flying an aeroplane. Think in terms of scale, time as it relates to distance and reation time. The individual cards determine how fast the ships react. In WoG, turns equal seconds. In SoG turns equal a minute, possibly a little less or a little more?
Ship captains had lots of reaction time, because these ships moved so slowly, the battle developed slowly! I use the phrase "feels right" or "doesn't feel right" because I dislike the word realism in discussing wargaming. I have never crewed a 3rd Rat SoL or a frigate. And even if I were a crewman aboard Constitution, she is no longer sailed in the asame manner as in say 1812. So what is realistic? By feel, I mean the game somewhat matches battle reports or books of the period (I include both fiction and non-fiction in books, most authors research for accuracy and flavor). Many players are RAW (rules as written) gamers. And thats fine, but the 2 card planning system never made sense to me for AoS.
Ultimately, I agree with Eric, we play these games to have fun! And agreed there is no need for a formal rule change, just play it the way you like. When I run the game, I will probably use a mix of rules that allows the game to flow, and keeps it fun, without taking the AoS feel out of the game.
Bob
Thanks for the link. Will look forward to your system.
Have you ever tried GMT's "1805 Sea of Glory"? Could be the basis for an 1805 campaign, where two people in a club are the Admirals and make the strategic decisions (play the board game) and others can get together for the battles using your chosen tactical rules.
Eric
Conversely if you guessed wrong or were foiled by your opponents false tack, then it may take some time maneuvering to correct this (or you get raked and your ship is match sticks!).
Just recently realized rule that I absolutely hate:
Your hull damage lowers your crew actions.
Change it!!!!!
Only crew damage should lower your crew actions.
This is how much I hate that rule.
http://youtu.be/Czmb6tEwFE8
Andy, not necessary. Eric had interesting interpretation, which I second. Leftmost empty box counts, never mind is it hull or crew.
My interpretation is hull and crew are separate. the hand in the middle just shows how many action moves are left as hull or crew boxes are eliminated, and have nothing to do with the ship surrendering or sinking.
I agree, hull and crew take "separate" damage -- the hand (actions) decreases with the amount of overall damage you have taken. Not sure what you mean Andy?
Check the other thread. When it comes to crew actions, you can possibly ignore crew damage and only count hull damage. One interpretation of the rules sees it another way in that you have to take both into account simultaneously and excessive crew damage means nothing unless the hull damage matches it on the track. Ultimately it means keeping track of crew damage is a waste of time for crew actions.
As movement is planned ahead, it really does not matter who moves first. Although, when ships are near to colliding, rules do stipulate ships of heavier burden move first. Crew quality was an essential part of the battle, although not ALWAYS a deciding factor. In addition, crew quality for the French in most AOS games is always poor, leaving the British to dominate the period (which is historical). Spanish crew quality is dismal. Another option for crew quality would be to limit the choice of orders from four to three, or two for really green crews. HMS JAVA, when she was taken by USS CONSTITUTION in 1812 was carrying passengers and had all but ignored gunnery training; despite that she nearly beat the CONSTITUTION if not for a tactical error on the part of her Captain.
DAMAGE: Damage accrues all together too quickly. Wooden ships of the period took an astounding pounding and still remained afloat, despite being dismasted, with large chunks shot away and scads of the crew dead. It does make for a quick game, which has its benefits, but is not anywhere near the historical truth. Additionally, it was a given truth throughout the period that a SOL would destroy a frigate in short order, and that the guns of a frigate would not have sufficient penetration to affect an SOL, short of destroying the SOL's rudder. This vast difference does not seem to be represented.
For the level of game SOG is, it is fun, quick and beautiful to behold.
As I stated on the other thread, as as shown by the diagram (that shows different amounts of damage on each track, and which action symbol to use), excessive hull damage, or excessive crew damage both impact-- separately--the number of actions available.Check the other thread. When it comes to crew actions, you can possibly ignore crew damage and only count hull damage. One interpretation of the rules sees it another way in that you have to take both into account simultaneously and excessive crew damage means nothing unless the hull damage matches it on the track. Ultimately it means keeping track of crew damage is a waste of time for crew actions.
In my mind, you cannot logically ignore crew damage and only count hull damage.
This may be an interpretation, but it would be incorrect. Remember, the action symbol is between both hull and crew for a reason -- both affect it. Don't over think this -- either type of damage would affect your number of actions, both in game and in "real life." Trust me, we've played many games and killing by crew damage and by hull damage has happened -- and in all cases the number of available actions was determined by the longest damage track, just as the gun or musket number is determined (determined by the next uncovered symbol).One interpretation of the rules sees it another way in that you have to take both into account simultaneously and excessive crew damage means nothing unless the hull damage matches it on the track.
Cheers!
AAAAAHHHHHHHRRRRRGGGGGGGG!
Why do I have a MAC????
(oh, yeah… it's that graphics thing I do for work!)
Eventually, I'll buy some pc emulator and then some version of windows just to run these "free goodie programs" populating the web.
(sigh!)
This RUS sw looks great! Thank you for sharing…
There are multiple people misinterpreting the rule and they're not even necessarily interpreting it the same way. That means it needs to be changed. I think I understand the way the rule is supposed to be played and it's the same as you. That doesn't mean the rule is clear. It also doesn't mean the rule makes sense. It's pretty easy to find a "real world" example as to why using hull damage to lessen crew actions really doesn't make sense.
Ok, I agree with you that the sentence needs to be rewritten (I still think the rule itself makes sense), and then pointed towards that specific graphic. That should lessen the confusion.
From this:
To something like this:When a ship is damaged, use the leftmost symbol still uncovered by damage counters in both the Ship Damage and Crew Damage track.
When a ship takes damage, whether to crew, hull or both, the damage marker is assumed to cover that square's crew-action symbol. The number of actions left to the caption is determined by the first uncovered crew-action symbol, as illustrated in figure XX.
Cheers!
I think the rule in general makes sense. Imagine a situation where a ship has no crew damage, but is down to its last box of hull damage. In game terms, such a ship should be a burning, flooded wreck that's barely capable of doing anything. But if we're assigning actions based on crew damage, then the ship can still fire its (damaged) broadside, pump water, raise sails, and prepare for boarding--in short, this ship doesn't behave like a wreck.
From a crew damage viewpoint, lots of damage on the crew track symbolizes having too few people to do anything. From a hull damage viewpoint, lots of damage on the hull track symbolizes having lots of people but too little ship for them to do anything with (it doesn't matter if you have 10,000 men aboard if all the pumps are broken, all the spars have been shot away, etc). What is of course a little odd is that you can have lots of hull damage but change what parts of the ship are still functional...maybe you've got 1 crew action left and one turn you use it to pump water, but the next turn you use it to lower sail. So the rule is a little strange, but I think it makes more sense than allowing an absolute wreck of a ship to behave in the same way as a fully intact ship.
Ok, I agree with you that the sentence needs to be rewritten (I still think the rule itself makes sense
From this:
To something like this:
When a ship takes damage, whether to crew, hull or both, the damage marker is assumed to cover that square's crew-action symbol. The number of actions left to the caption is determined by the first uncovered crew-action symbol, as illustrated in figure XX.
Cheers!
I do not have rules with me right now, but as I recall the damage track specifies a loss of ability for the crew to perform actions as casualties mount up. This loss of actions means a ship cannot perform as many actions in a turn. This clearly represents a loss in functionality on a wrecked ship; in addition a wrecked ship needs more crew actions to keep it in the fight: I think this represents the condition you are arguing for. A distinction without a difference. I think the rule is very clear as written.
Makes sence. Also, extremely bad ships and crew could plan and move before everybody else, so, basically you could have various levels of ship & crew quality.That's why I wrote "plan and move". Player A plans and moves. Only then B,C, D players plan and move.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks