Ship Base Inserts
Greetings all
I have been experimenting with a variety of alternative inserts for the ship bases.
As most of the data on the issue inserts is also on the ship card I decided to do away with it and just leave the name of the ship.
Then came the issue of gunnery arcs. I figured that this could be simply accounted for without the arcs shown on the inserts.
I'd be interested in what you think.
Interesting work is an ingenious solution to remove the firing arcs.
Looks goodo although I'd probably tone down the wake a lot. She's not doing 30 knots
The card looks great, but I agree with David that the wake needs to be toned down.
My other thought when looking at your ship profiles is you wouldn't need the minis at all. That's not a direction Ares will go, but if folks wanted to create custom ships they can skip the ships and just make up the cards on the bases?
Thanks for the feedback guys!
Good point about the wakes. I have tried to fit them to a variety of ships, large, medium and small. However, back to Photoshop for a bit of modification.
I have attached another image of a ship where I repaired the Mizzen Mast. (You'll also notice that the top of the Main Mast needs fixing too! It never ends!)
Despite the photo, the paint job looks much better in real life! This ship is glued to the clear plastic insert and allowed me to put some thick dabs of white paint around the waterline. It did get me to thinking that I will try and make the paper insert just a plain water finish and paint the wake on the plastic. I'll post a pic when I have done one.
Cheers
Brad,
Let me congratulate you on this interesting and novel idea, very well done.
In terms of your question about the gunnery arcs not being on the Ship Base Insert the only drawback that I could imagine is that it leaves open the possibility about whether or not a target is within the arc if challenged. With arcs actually drawn on the insert it is easier to see if a ruler measurement is inside the arc. In a more open system like this there is more subjectivity since you don't have a template to measure against. It is a minor issue among Gentlemen Sailors but some people are not Gentlemen Sailors
Be that as it may I do like this insert style. It makes the miniature more "realistic" looking.
Hi Colby
You could use a small 45 degree set square as a template, or even scribe the blue plastic base with marks that align with the various masts.
I have always used the gentleman's rule, "if in doubt then award the lesser attack." Alternatively one could simply toss a coin for it.
Anyway, I would avoid those people who do not like to simply enjoy the game and who enjoy losing as much as they do winning.
Brad, I like what you are doing. It is much cleaner and eye-catching. I never understood the info on the ship inserts; once the game has started, us mortals can't read the stuff on the inserts anyway.
The one concern I have is the absence of firing arcs, especially when their are a lot of ships on the table with many in close proximity. The arcs make for quick determinations, so any removal would have to be accompanied by something as quick and easy regarding determination. Is it possible to place thin arc lines, close to the color of the water, but different enough to spot when looking down?
I agree about playing with folks who need to win, argue, etc. If you refuse to behave like a gentleman or lady, then I prefer you find another place.
“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato
I wouldn't worry about the absence of firing arcs on the base. AoS gamers have generally managed very well without them for decades
This also gives you the opportunity to use some more realistic arcs (IMHO the arcs in SGN are too wide, even when taking movement into account) and also to delete the forward and aft arc aspect which doesn't make much sense (fine for centreline armament, not so much for side mounted).
Good point David.
What do you think would be a more accurate arc of fire?
One thing that has bothered me with the game is the lack of stern and bow guns or chasers. I know they are very few in number compared to a broadside, but if you are chasing another ship, the odd shot or two into her stern might contribute to her being caught more quickly.
+/-30 would work, +/-15 probably closer to actual fighting conditions
I agree that the firing arcs are terrible. For most ships, if you extended an imaginary line from one corner of the base to the other like a big X, you pretty much are within the arc of fire for the fore and aft guns. For a broadside, you could draw a line from the center of the bow through the two front corners of the base, and do the same with the stern through the rear corners of the base. Smaller ships would only use the X system, that is, if the broadside arc is greater than the base X arc, then you use the smaller of the two. You don't need any marks at all on the card, and you would be using the models themselves to judge the firing arcs, which is appealing to guys like me. I guess that you could make the case that smaller ships are more able to quickly shift their bearings and thus have a greater potential arc of fire, if you need a rationale for doing it that way.
So I would make a template with given degree lines off of center, and place that at the main mast of the firing ship, where the center line of that arc is 90 degrees to the firing ship. If the enemy ship falls within that arc and range, it would receive a full broadside. Is this the basic gist? Would you do the same with the fore and mizzen masts to use the other two broadside ratings?Originally Posted by David Manley
“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato
Simple arc of fire determination using hull of model.
Another way to do it is use the beam of the ship to determine the arcs. Here are two extreme examples using a first rater and a sloop. Notice the arc of fire marks on the cards. Notice how the rear and forward batteries overlap the main batteries. Why would you use just the fore or aft batteries when you could fire an entire broadside?
This method clearly favors the smaller ships, which I think is appropriate. You get a slightly wider arc of fire for broadsides in a smaller ship.
I'd just have a rectangle of card 40mm on the base with each end angled out at 30 degrees and place thata long side the hull of the ship. In most cases its not needed as players can judge angles fairly well anyway, so you'd only need to use it when unsure. And I wouldn't use the other two brodside ratings, I'd just use full value as long as any part of the target hull was in arc.
Using the ship beam makes more sense to me because it takes just the ship size into account. The bases in SoG are standardized, but not all ship bases are the same size depending on which game system you're using (regardless of scale). Rod Langton offers at least 3 base sizes IIRC.
Nice graphics to illustrate the differences.
David, you would have to convince me that a "one size fits all" answer was actually the case in the age of sail. I have a hard time believing that the arc of fire on a sloop is the same as the arc of fire on a first rater.
Interesting ideas, Kenneth. Have you used such a system in gameplay? My concern is when running games at events like Origins when we have limited time slots and many ships on the table. Determining firing arcs needs to be quick and relatively easy, especially when ships bunch together in an area. When playing with friends or with Sue or even solo, I have the advantage of playing around with various ideas.
David, using only one type of broadside would definitely change the game. I saw people withholding shots to better position themselves. Your system would streamline things and, I believe, increase firing combat.
“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato
I think it would lead to a more realistic representation of the gunnery tactics of the period too. Reading action reports one doesn't find reference to partial broadsides being fired, it was very much an "all or nothing" approach, unsurprising given the relative simplicity of the fire control systems of the time
This system wouldn't work with the Langton bases. But since you said it, There could be an optimal size of base dimensions that would closely match the actual arc of fire these ships had. Of course, that means that the cards wouldn't fit in the bases, either. I was just trying to avoid having to have more game pieces like compasses or protractors or cards cut to various degrees. We don't need more stuff to use during the game, we need less (I'm looking at YOU, counters!).
I haven't used it yet. I'm just throwing out an idea, but all you would need is a straight edge (or in a crowd, a laser level) from the bow, stern, or sides of the hull of the firing ship through a corner of the base to determine the arc of fire...that is if you can't eyeball it.
So you wouldn't have overlapping arcs to port or starboard, refrain from including the main broadside in the fore and aft arc area. That way they become purely for the fore or aft battery to fire in.
Absolutely right, Neil. I will try to fit in some games using this idea to see if it fundamentally changes anything. If it doesn't, then I'll keep using the rule. If it does, then it will have to be abandoned. My problem right now is trying to finish the scale movement rules I was working on. Those rules fundamentally change the game to the point that it doesn't really work. As much as I like the idea of sailing the models at their true scale speeds, it only works if you can move and fire simultaneously, which is a different, impossibly complex game entirely. But I digress. Being able to eyeball a line from the prow of a ship through one of the corners should give you a pretty good idea of where that line goes.
I would think eliminating forward and aft broadsides and relying on just one type of broadside would certainly speed up combat.
In place of using David or Ken's arcs at game conventions couldn't you just draw an imaginary line from the forward and aft base red dots to the corner of the bases and say everything in between the two lines is a broadside? The main reason I'd suggest this is nothing on the cards or bases needs to be altered. And you'd be measuring from fixed points on the base cards and not have to fiddle with mast or other measurements, which might result in ship bumping?
Out of curiosity did Ares include forward and aft broadsides to prolong game play or was there another rational behind the various arcs?
Actually, that works better than my idea for broadsides, but using the dots to determine for and aft battery arcs would make those arcs of fire too narrow and too forward facing. It also makes the broadside arc gigantic.
I just noticed one disadvantage to my idea. In a game where ships frequently collide, the arc of fire starts at the corners of the bases, so if you are very close, your arc of fire forward and aft is microscopic! Oh well, back to the drawing board.
Last edited by Kentop; 01-03-2015 at 11:38.
Jim, if the original inserts remain on the bases, I would stick to the rules as written; otherwise, I fear folks could get confused and possibly disgruntled.
If the inserts are like the ones in the OP, then some form of dot could need to be added alongside the ship.
It seems there are two reasons for originally desiring a new insert - aesthetics and a different arc mechanism. If only a full broadside is used, maybe a pair of light arc lines would be acceptable. If multiple arcs are used, then a series of lines would probably detract from the aesthetic.
“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato
Firing arcs were determined by the securing arrangements of the weapons and the size of the gun ports. Neither tended to vary significantly between ships of different sizes, hence a "one size fits all" approach is a fair approximation of the real life situation. Of course there were variations, but not many. Of course the main variation was the introduction by the RN, quickly adopted by others, of revised securing arrangements that in theory allowed wider arcs to be used, although in practice the extra latitude wasn't used due to the effort involved in realigning the guns. In fact one of my more "simulationist" AoS gaming friends suggested that the "arc" should be a straight line of fire perpendicular to the side of the base as that represented by far the most common employment of the ship's guns. Of course that doesn't allow relative ship movement to be taken into account (ship firing in game terms only taking place at discrete points in time, whereas IRL the broadside would be fired when the target presented itself), Anyway, I think that is rather too draconian myself and doesn't square with the level of detail and scale of the game.
I am guessing that most long guns were on fixed gun carriages that could somehow be shifted left or right. You would think shifting something that heavy would really screw up the deck. How do you swivel a gun on a fixed carriage? Yank on one side of the tackle? I think it was during the war of 1812 that pivot carriages were developed. But I'm guessing that you pointed the cannon perpendicular to the hull and left it that way. The gun could be in "broadside" alignment or shifted fore or aft, but they would remain that way for the entire battle simply because shifting a beast like a cannon on a fixed gun carriage could not have been easy. I'm also guessing that a forward battery would not fire broadside and vice-versa. The rear facing battery would have been very limited because the rear of most ships was taken up by officer quarters. You could have small guns on the poop deck, or on a frigate go all the way back to the stern, but the gun deck below that would be very limited as to how far the guns could be pointed aft.
The vast majority of naval long guns were mounted on carriages. They could be traversed, but it required the crew to lever the gun to the required angle using handspikes, so it was a slow process. Some ships mounted pivots (some privateers, and several classes of Swedish frigates designed for the archipelago fleets. They did suffer a significant disadvantage in that they tended to be exposed (a necessity in order to exploit their ability to train), whereas conventional "broadside" guns gave the crew the protection of the ships sides.
If by "forward battery" you mean guns mounted as bow chasers then yes they would not fire broadside (neither would the stern chasers). Some ships were equipped with permanent chase armament, others would take a handful of guns from the broadside and rig them trained forward or aft as circumstance required.
Officers quarters on the gun decks were lightly constructed using removeable partitions. When the ship cleared for action these were removed and struck down, along with the cabins' contents, forming a clear gun deck. It is well worth watching "Master and Commander" for a highly accurate rendition of this (and other maritime evolutions in the age of sail)
The stern of a most ships is wide. The bow comes to a point. The USS Constitution's hull tapers towards the back but still, how far aft could you point the farthest aft gun?
No guns here.
Here's the USS Constitution stern arrangement.
How did the glass not shatter when you fired the aft most gun on the gun deck? Would you really shoot a carronade through the shrouds and deadeyes from the the top deck?
Last edited by Kentop; 01-03-2015 at 15:21.
Ships that were rigged for stern chasers euther had removable windows or dedicated gun ports. Light guns could sometines be mounted on the quarterdeck but this was extremely rare and generally an unofficial fit.
So, firing aft pretty much never happened and never had an effect on a chasing ship. The aft firing arcs on the base cards in SOG are unrealistic. Pick any base card and the aft guns have a huge arc of fire equal to, or greater than, the forward firing arcs.
Chase guns both fore and aft were used quite frequently and they could have a significant effect if a lucky hit was scored. Chases often lasted many hours, even days so there was a slim but realustic chance that either the pursuer or the pursued would get lucky.
The firing arcs in SGN do not represent chase guns at all.Their arcs would be directly forward or aft
If people wanted to do arcs other than those from the Ares inserts, one could easily, and carefully, scribe lines on the clear plastic parts of the bases. I am in the process of gluing the ships to their clear plastic bases so that I can have white water (paint) along the waterline, thus the bases would be dedicated to each ship.
Maybe lines at 15 degrees, as David suggested, fore and aft of lines directly abeam the Fore and Mizzen Masts, or Bow and Stern, could more correctly represent the reality. For competition games the Ares inserts would still be easily seen.
Any suggestions as to how we can represent Bow and Stern Chasers?
http://www.sailsofglory.org/showthre...91-Bow-Chasers
Some thoughts on chase guns here
Thanks for the link, David. Here's a pic of a model of the Oliver Cromwell (1777) American privateer. I cannot imagine those cannons recoiling backwards with full crews.
Greetings again folks!
I have been giving serious thought to the comments here on arcs of fire and the base inserts. Not sure which would be the best way to go but I think I would tend to the notion of using the length of the hull of a ship to determine the base of the arc and work at some angle out from each end. After all, the guns could not traverse that much. Arcs could also be scribed onto the clear plastic bases.
However, I have also been working on the bases as well.
My grandsons are into Wings of Glory and it inspired me try try something. The 2 photos will show the results, (I do hope they are there!).
I have dispensed with the major part of the base and am only using the clear plastic part. Ships are glued to the clear plastic base and the name in a scroll stuck on the base at the stern. I printed off a bunch of blank scrolls and have written the names on prior to sticking them on the bases. One slight problem with this is that the 1st Rate ships have their sterns right at the edge of the plastic so I will place name scrolls on either side of the base. The ship's wake is then painted on the base.
You will also notice that the edges of the bases have the red and green sailing arcs coloured in. I simply marked off where the arcs should be from the issued inserts and gently roughed up the edges where the red and green needed to go. The ships can still be used in their full bases if required with a little quality adhesive tape to keep them in place as the locating pins do not extend beyond the clear plastic base.
Another advantage is that ships can come much closer alongside as the overlapping bases are not an issue.
Lastly, you will notice the new Ensign Staffs. I cut the old ones out, drilled out a hole to the base and inserted a larger than normal pin, cut to length, with a new Ensign I printed off wrapped around it. The staffs are not glued in place and may be changed for Squadron changes or, if captured, replaced with an enemy one!
I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Take care and keep well all!
They look great and i suspect the clear plastic bases will appeal to the more serious naval war gamer (less toy like without the thick blue base?). Ensigns that can be easily swapped is another nice innovation!
Last edited by Nightmoss; 02-06-2015 at 09:18.
The base looks beautiful.
I want to do the same, but I'm planning to run some demo games on a convention here in Sweden and then I will want to tell the participants to use the base to handle the ships. If I were to use them only myself I would definitely do it this way.
I'm a little undecided on the ensigns. I hate having to decide to go red, white or blue, but I love the look of having it on the spanker.
That is am amazing plastic base, too bad the game didn't come with them.
I saw a similar approach with transparent plastic bases (and I think you can get them in different colour plastics) being used in the Axis & Allies War At Sea game. A fan created a side business to sell such bases to the gaming community.
Last edited by colby_bimore; 02-06-2015 at 07:40.
Another thread dealing with Bow and Stern chasers is at http://www.sailsofglory.org/showthre...-Stern-Chasers
Here is a shot of stern gun ports on the Constitutions spar deck. Of course the ship's boat wouldn't be there during a battle! Also a photo of the forechannel to answer Ken's question about rigging. In the third photo you can just see a gun port on the gun deck presumably for a chase gun, and lastly a photo of a chase gun on the forward spar deck.
I think as David mentioned it is important to remember the arcs of fire were designed to take movement of the ships into account.
Brad, I really like the look of the clear bases, especially on top of the blue. The scrolls look great as well - nice period feel to them.
“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato
Brad - your revised bases look great!
P.S. Might want to turn your ensigns the other way though next photos you take... In the pics the ships above would be getting taken aback I suspect given the direction the ensigns are flying...
Interesting point John! As the Spanker is indicating a Port Tack, methinks the wind would be spilling out of the sail aft towards the stern. Fickle stuff this wind thing!!!
However, with this method, you can have the Ensigns in any direction you want. They are rectangular and not a distorted parallelogram as the originals are.
Ohhh - now that's sneaky!!!
Well folks, I have a slight problem with my modified bases.
Some of the 1st Rates are too long to have the name scroll on the stern end of the base, however, when I tried them on each side, they obscure the firing arcs should I want to use them with their original bases in a game. My house rule is to ignore the original firing arcs, instead using the system I outlined in the original post here. That arrangement works with the scrolls on each side.
At the moment I only have one French 1st Rate, so far, that is causing this problem, however, I have a feeling that one or two Spanish ships may also be too long, whenever they get here that is. So maybe I will have to choose another design that takes up less room.
On another tack, as I do not have a steady hand painting, (I use the 3 foot rule for painting small models), so I have resorted to using s syringe to apply the "wakes" to the ships. It is going to work fine but is taking a bit of practice.
I'll keep you posted!
Cheers
Perhaps you should just put an abbreviation on the base for the name (e.g. on the larboard stern corner of the base) - e.g. Ag for Agamemnon, or Vi for Victory, Qc for Queen Charlotte, etc... Somewhat akin to modern fleet numbers on ship's bows, or if you are a Babylon 5 fan how the Earthforce Destroyers always had the first letter of their names on their main bow sections below the level of their hangar decks...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks