Intermediate Solo Rule Development Discussions for October - December Campaign

[fredmiracle]

Personally I really like the special damage and the crew actions system (which aren't really separable from each other). I feel like they add a lot of depth, historical feel and tough decision making, in exchange for a surprisingly modest addition of complexity and time.

It is true that the special damages make the game more deadly, but to me this feels like just an extension of the basic dynamic, which is that damage is tremendously variable, arguably to a problematic extent. Even in basic rules, any ship can take a 5-6 chit broadside and be almost undamaged, or nearly wiped out, with neither one being a particularly surprising outcome. The real wildcard introduced by special damages is fires, with the dreaded 2 fire draw being the kiss of death.

So, I would agree with some thoughts that have been posted before, that fires, and maybe leaks, are too common; while masts and sails are perhaps a bit too rare. And maybe damage as a whole accumulates too fast. Those could all be tweaked. But the thing that seems most inherent, and perhaps most questionable, in the SoG system is that damage is REALLY random.

One other side-effect of special damages, for good or ill, is that they skew the game back away from crew kills and toward more hull kills.

Returning to the thread topic, I don't think I'm quite at the point of having a deterministic way of handling actions for the AI, although I feel like I'm 95% there in an ad-hoc way. Basically I've been giving the AI the benefit of the doubt, trying to allocate the available actions as optimally as possible. This usually means that I allocate the "life-saving" (extinguish, pump, repair leak) actions up front, then combat actions as the turn progresses, and if there are actions left at the end I retroactively allocate them for repairs and such.

Also, I think the AI gets a meaningful advantage in standard/advanced play when the player has to plot cards two ahead, whereas the AI doesn't...

[7eat51]

Returning to the thread topic, I don't think I'm quite at the point of having a deterministic way of handling actions for the AI, although I feel like I'm 95% there in an ad-hoc way. Basically I've been giving the AI the benefit of the doubt, trying to allocate the available actions as optimally as possible. This usually means that I allocate the "life-saving" (extinguish, pump, repair leak) actions up front, then combat actions as the turn progresses, and if there are actions left at the end I retroactively allocate them for repairs and such.

Returning to the thread topic? We never veer from that on this site.

I finished rereading a book today about Trafalgar, and the author pointed out how gun crews were formed, often with two men here, or two men there, being pulled off to handle other actions, such as damage control or boarding, for example. I wonder when thinking about the AI mechanism for crew actions, if there should always be one regarding gunnery, either reloading or firing, regardless of whatever else is happening onboard, to reflect that some folks were pulled off guns, but not always all of them. Part of this can be handled by adjusting the probabilities of certain types of special damage, such as fire and leaks.

One thing to think about regarding solo rules, we can do whatever we desire. If we devise a more suitable way to incorporate special damage and crew actions for the types of games we hope to play in the campaign, great.

Jim, to your point, I do not want to set up games that end too quickly, especially for the campaign. Besides, I enjoy writing AARs and reading them. I think if too many games end quickly, it could be somewhat tiresome to engage in AAR development.

Bobby, I agree with your assessment of WoG. I saw the same with a basic plus set of rules for SoG. That's one reason I am highly desirous we have a solid basic set of solo rules in-hand.