I Miss Games that Include Designer's Notes

[HMS Lydia]

I started wargaming in the 70's. The old Avalon Hill, SPI and GDW games almost all included designer's notes, so that you could visualize how the writer developed the concept. Current games, never seem to have designer's notes. This makes it difficult for me to see why certain things were done the way they were written, although it might make perfect sense with a logical explanation.

For instance, I wonder why the Amazon class frigates have a burden of 2, and yet the lighter or equal Concorde and Charmante have a burden of 3. The broadside figures make sense in comparison, it's the burden figures that make me go, hmmmm.

Maybe Dback can shed some light on this. But without putting words in anyones mouth, I believe some have troubled over the cookie cutter fire power stats on the 3rd rates as well.

Any thoughts on this?

[John Paul]

I pulled many a book off my shelf while trying to compare numbers, especially with the frigates, and at first I thought they had used a particular year as a bell weather so ships before that date used one formula while ships built after that year used another formula. However, that idea kind of went out the window with the Concorde, if I recall. So I tried to work out some other numbers with a calculator, and still couldn't devise a formula that would work across the board! Since I've put it all aside waiting for the next wave of ships to see where the numbers may lead then! For now I'm content to just play, but the numbers still have me wondering!

[TexaS]

The total damage a ship can take depends on two things, number of boxes and burden. My instinctive feel for what they ought to be based on would be boxes from total size and "burden" from thickness of the hull sides. That would be from a simulation point of view. But my guess is that its made from the view of making a good game.

This guessing could have been avoided with that "Designer's notes".

[HMS Lydia]

I pulled many a book off my shelf while trying to compare numbers, especially with the frigates, and at first I thought they had used a particular year as a bell weather so ships before that date used one formula while ships built after that year used another formula. However, that idea kind of went out the window with the Concorde, if I recall. So I tried to work out some other numbers with a calculator, and still couldn't devise a formula that would work across the board! Since I've put it all aside waiting for the next wave of ships to see where the numbers may lead then! For now I'm content to just play, but the numbers still have me wondering!

I have tried multiple formula, and nothing works. I've used Wikipedia and this site for a lot of research:

http://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=home

Concorde BM 500-550tn Length of Gun Deck 136' Breadth 34.5'
Charmante BM 535tn Length of Gun Deck 136' Breadth 34.5'

Amazon BM 679-689tn Length of Gun Deck 126' Breadth 35'

I can't believe length was factored, and 1 whole extra burden for 10' in length? The Amazons out weighed the Concordes and Charmantes by over 100tn. I only hope they didn't fudge numbers for play balance.

[HMS Lydia]

The total damage a ship can take depends on two things, number of boxes and burden. My instinctive feel for what they ought to be based on would be boxes from total size and "burden" from thickness of the hull sides. That would be from a simulation point of view. But my guess is that its made from the view of making a good game.

This guessing could have been avoided with that "Designer's notes".

Yes the number of damage boxes (not the sub burden damage) seem to be standard by rating. I suspect Constitution will show damage more in line with a 4th rate.

[7eat51]

If memory serves me correctly, early on, I abandoned any idea of figuring out Ares' formula for ship stats, and accepted them as is. I think, in part, that is due to Age-of-Sail being only one genre I am interested in, and, so, my knowledge base is not nearly as deep as many members here. Additionally, I doubt I will do many reenactments compared to historically-inspired scenarios, so the stats as they are are sufficient for my purpose.

As for designer's notes, I would definitely like those. Recently, I read some articles from various General magazines on an AH game I am learning. Not only the design notes, but the added historical information and game plays were highly instructional and enjoyable.

[fredmiracle]

In my faraway youth I used to love S&T- the combination of historical article, game and design notes was very compelling

[Broadsword56]

Just bought a used copy of S&T's Fighting Sail game, and made sure to get one with the magazine because i so much enjoy all the articles and background they give.

[fredmiracle]

Just bought a used copy of S&T's Fighting Sail game, and made sure to get one with the magazine because i so much enjoy all the articles and background they give.

that was my first S&T issue. I found SPIs Patton's 3rd Army in a toy store and it had an ad for the magazine. What a cool idea, thought I, and scraped my birthday money together for a subscription and Fighting Sail soon arrived...

[Broadsword56]

Fighting Sail continues to have several strong features that appeal to me: Square grid instead of hexes (allowing 8 points of sail), minimal need for separate bookkeeping because most of the info needed is on the counters/markers, and just the right level of detail for smooth play.
[The Maneuver Level for A Glorious Chance will borrow from FS in a number of ways. But mine will be scaled up and a bit more abstracted, so you're maneuvering stacks instead of individual ships. Also, the time scale increases proportionately to make it playable -- at the FS scale it would take forever just to get the opposing sides into contact. And, at this level in my game there's no combat yet.]

[John Paul]

I quickly gave up trying to discern what the formula is only because I bought the game to play not attempt a fact filled dissertation about it, so while there may be the occasional number that raises an eyebrow I know enough that the numbers are not arbitrary. I'm sure some numbers may have been simplified to cut down the number of maneuver decks they would need to print. While it's nice at times to pull a book off the shelf by the likes of Lavery to crunch the numbers for a bit after a while I remind myself it's time to play!!

[HMS Lydia]

Eric & Paul,

Not trying to tear the game down. It's a fun quick age of sail game that I'll be playing many years from now. However, a couple of issues spring to mind where understanding the formula would be helpful. I will continue to live a happy and fulfilled life without it, but it would be nice to understand why certain stats were generated as they are.

1. Ares is not going to give us every ship that was active in the Napoleonic period. Which means we the player base may need to attempt to stat some ships out. At this point comparison is the only method we have. Since the game is very cookie cutter, perhaps this isn't as big an issue as it appears.

2. When adding units you want them to fit in as accurately as possible. Understanding the authors intent and/or logic allows this.

Many modern game designers throw away historical accuracy for speed and ease of play. While I understand the desire for speed and ease, I feel it's possible to keep these playability factors without sacrificing historical accuracy.

Bob

[John Paul]

Eric & Paul,

Not trying to tear the game down. It's a fun quick age of sail game that I'll be playing many years from now. However, a couple of issues spring to mind where understanding the formula would be helpful. I will continue to live a happy and fulfilled life without it, but it would be nice to understand why certain stats were generated as they are.

1. Ares is not going to give us every ship that was active in the Napoleonic period. Which means we the player base may need to attempt to stat some ships out. At this point comparison is the only method we have. Since the game is very cookie cutter, perhaps this isn't as big an issue as it appears.

2. When adding units you want them to fit in as accurately as possible. Understanding the authors intent and/or logic allows this.

Many modern game designers throw away historical accuracy for speed and ease of play. While I understand the desire for speed and ease, I feel it's possible to keep these playability factors without sacrificing historical accuracy.

Bob

Bob,

If you understood my last comments as being addressed to you it was far from that, so I apologize if you thought they were directed in your direction. I was strictly speaking on myself! Never would I think that you are in any way tearing down the game by trying to figure out why it's designed the way it is as a game. I've just reached the point in life where trying to figure out formulas, or reasons behind a game design generally have me spending too much time reading, number crunching, and scratching my head when I'd rather just be playing for the fun of it all.

I've made the comment before somewhere else on this forum, that from the beginning ARES advertised SoG as a Fast-Play Game. Nothing wrong with that, and they did a pretty good job overall. Of course, that doesn't mean those of us who want a little more accuracy and realistic feel in the game can't work it in where it fits. I've already adopted a few ideas from around here, and certainly look forward to more hopefully tossing in a few of my own for the benefit of everyone here! So stay on course and don't think I'm trying to throw a broadside in your direction!!

[HMS Lydia]

Paul,

I took no offense. Just wanted to be clear in regards to motives. I enjoy the conversation!

Bob

[7eat51]

Hi Bob,

I conversed, yesterday, with someone from the St. Louis area. We spoke about gaming and I mentioned we're hoping to have a St. Louis - central Illinois game day sometime. We should look into that this year.

As for the formula, I found understanding the designers' process in WoG to be informative in learning about the planes, specifically the point system. The same would be true here. I doubt that I, personally, would ever stat a ship because I doubt I will ever use anything other than Ares ships, basing my scenarios around them. I have some of Clipper's beauties in WoG, but he has done the work of creating the necessary stats, bases, etc. The primary reason I am not too concerned if I ever know the formula is because I am not a modeler and doubtfully will run detailed reenactments. I would enjoy knowing the formula to help think about the ships and their capabilities. When I have a few minutes, I have been reading a few pages of an Osprey title on the Sherman vs. the Panther. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the technical info, and it has already changed my thinking about tactics when playing WWII armor games with these two tanks on the table. Cool stuff.

[HMS Lydia]

Fly-X-Wire (Dave) on this forum schedules our game days. Yes we definitely need to get some SoG action going this year! We were playing fairly steady down here, but haven't played recently (September). Blue Max has kind of become the new SoG. I think the release of Constitution and Victory might re-invigorate the local gaming populace.

I've been busier than normal over the past year between work and another hobby, which is why I have been less active on the forum. For the last few months I've had to work every weekend we normally game. But if we schedule something I'll make sure I'm off as long as I have sufficient notice to clear my schedule (4 weeks minimum). The first weekend of the month is usually a bust for me. Let's talk and try to generate some dates.

Bob

[7eat51]

Sounds good. We can set a date to accommodate your work schedule.

I, too, have been hammered with work and family life. The school is facing a lot of challenges given the economy, so we're instituting significant changes; that has increased the admin work significantly for me. More sobering, though, are health issues with our parents. We'll be traveling home a lot more to help. My Dad has a couple of upcoming surgeries in the next few weeks. Though he still works full time and is very active, he is 85, so he'll need much more TLC post-surgery. We were home the past few days due to my last remaining Uncle's funeral. It's weird realizing we're now becoming the older generation of the family.

[John Paul]

Paul,

I took no offense. Just wanted to be clear in regards to motives. I enjoy the conversation!

Bob

Bob,

Good! I'd hate to think you felt I was trying to rain on your parade! I'd rather be a help then a pain in the "Stern"!!!

[John Paul]

I recall when Flames of War was in it's Beta Infancy the designer published his formulae so guys playing the game could point out Units/Vehicles not yet covered. The formula at that time made a lot of sense, and worked very well across various periods and fronts of WW II making it easy to make up one's force if it wasn't already covered. However, as time went on, the company grew, and more books came into being the formula began to "evolve"! Then discussion on the formula changes/adaptations ended, so when new vehicles, units, and books were released those having the original formula in hand began asking questions on why this or that was rated as it was when it didn't seem to work with the originally known formula. Those questions were generally met with the answer of, "We won't discuss changes to the numbers just accept we have worked them out to fit with the info we have on hand!" That attitude ended up putting many folks off the rules and the game in the end.

I've always thought that if the numbers make sense across the board, and the logic in the framework of the game design are reasonable when those are presented to gamers even with little to no knowledge in the period or concept the game covers they tend to readily accept the game as an idea that works well. The other side of that coin is when the logic and numbers exceed the realm of sensibility without clear explanation to the contrary people will turn away from accepting the game seeing it as a flight of fantasy!

[TexaS]

That also encourages people to use other manufacturers and make their own stats to old models. It helps a game to gain market shares early on, but when you become established it takes from your sales.

This translates into Sails of Glory in some interesting ways. If they had used the 1:1200 scale they would have had to have something that makes everyone buy their product and not just using their rules and the old miniatures already owned. Now they have their own scale and not being able to use other ships is a hindrance until they've made enough unique ship models. I'd say at least doubled or tripled the number.

[HMS Lydia]

Bob,

Good! I'd hate to think you felt I was trying to rain on your parade! I'd rather be a help then a pain in the "Stern"!!!

A pain in the stern could give you a bowe (bend) in your bow (or should we say bowel).

[7eat51]

I've always thought that if the numbers make sense across the board, and the logic in the framework of the game design are reasonable when those are presented to gamers even with little to no knowledge in the period or concept the game covers they tend to readily accept the game as an idea that works well.

Like Peter Jackson's LotR films.

The other side of that coin is when the logic and numbers exceed the realm of sensibility without clear explanation to the contrary people will turn away from accepting the game seeing it as a flight of fantasy!

Like Peter Jackson's Hobbit films.

Internal consistency and plausibility are very important. These would be key guidelines for the stats committee.

[John Paul]

A pain in the stern could give you a bowe (bend) in your bow (or should we say bowel).

That's funny!! And so nautical!!!

[John Paul]

Like Peter Jackson's LotR films.



Like Peter Jackson's Hobbit films.

Internal consistency and plausibility are very important. These would be key guidelines for the stats committee.

You could say it's the ability to maintain course and speed to reach your assigned port-o-call!!

[TexaS]

That's funny!! And so nautical!!!

Naughtycal?

[Diamondback]

Then discussion on the formula changes/adaptations ended, so when new vehicles, units, and books were released those having the original formula in hand began asking questions on why this or that was rated as it was when it didn't seem to work with the originally known formula. Those questions were generally met with the answer of, "We won't discuss changes to the numbers just accept we have worked them out to fit with the info we have on hand!" That attitude ended up putting many folks off the rules and the game in the end.

English translation, as colorfully and sarcastically articulated by Larry Correia: "Shut up and eat your Poop Cake."

[HMS Lydia]

Hey, who peed on my poop sandwich?

Seriously though, back on topic. We will have to move the stats discussion to here because we can't discuss stats in the stats committee thread.

Eric indicated that the French won the Battle of Lissa scenario. Unfortunately, the french out number the British 2 to 1 in this scenario (well almost 2 to 1). The lower burden of the Brit 32's make it next to impossible for the them to stand up to the French. When I ran this Scenario at Diecon last year, I gave the French the poor gunners rule. I also didn't allow the two French squadrons to coordinate with each other. I'll have to go look at my AAR, I can't remember who won.

[csadn]

I thought a "poop cake" was one of those pink bricks public toilets put in the bowls of the thrones. I didn't know they were edible -- in fact, I've been places with signs over the urinals which say "DO NOT EAT THE BIG WHITE MINT".

>;)

[Mycenius]

The total damage a ship can take depends on two things, number of boxes and burden. My instinctive feel for what they ought to be based on would be boxes from total size and "burden" from thickness of the hull sides. That would be from a simulation point of view. But my guess is that its made from the view of making a good game.

This guessing could have been avoided with that "Designer's notes".

Indeed.

I had assumed FWIW the Hull values were likely a simple formula based on a total value for a vessel divided into the number of boxes... e.g. such and such Frigate is value 24, it has 8 hull boxes, so 24/8 = 3 - it's Burden is 3. The Total Value (24 in the example) you would assume is some calculation of tonnage, size (length), and defensive strength (which may not be specifically hull thickness - e.g. were the Amazon's known for having weaknesses in their design)?

But looking at it I wonder if we are looking at it back to front and going from Jonas's comment elsewhere it's veer based - A vessel's burden is arbitrarily 10-Veer (or 9-Veer for extremely small or large vessels). Were the Amazons considered more manoeuvrable than the Concorde's and Chansons.... Sufficient to justify Veer 8 over 7 for the French designs - if so that is likely the answer... The Burden is lower because the Veer is higher. Apart from a very small firepower difference there is nothing else significantly different between the vessels.... ...and there needs to be something different about them in the game to make them unique...

(The Crew ratings are obviously an arbitrary number of boxes divided into the total crew onboard using some simple scale).

[Diamondback]

Well, I did some math and dividing Crew Hit Points (Boxes * Burden) by Total Crew, each hit point represents somewhere in the range of 5-10 men (varying by ship). That's assuming that loss of last crew box means NOBODY left alive and in resistive condition, you've Hamburger Helpered them to-the-last.

[Mycenius]

[John Paul]

Indeed.

I had assumed FWIW the Hull values were likely a simple formula based on a total value for a vessel divided into the number of boxes... e.g. such and such Frigate is value 24, it has 8 hull boxes, so 24/8 = 3 - it's Burden is 3. The Total Value (24 in the example) you would assume is some calculation of tonnage, size (length), and defensive strength (which may not be specifically hull thickness - e.g. were the Amazon's known for having weaknesses in their design)?

But looking at it I wonder if we are looking at it back to front and going from Jonas's comment elsewhere it's veer based - A vessel's burden is arbitrarily 10-Veer (or 9-Veer for extremely small or large vessels). Were the Amazons considered more manoeuvrable than the Concorde's and Chansons.... Sufficient to justify Veer 8 over 7 for the French designs - if so that is likely the answer... The Burden is lower because the Veer is higher. Apart from a very small firepower difference there is nothing else significantly different between the vessels.... ...and there needs to be something different about them in the game to make them unique...

(The Crew ratings are obviously an arbitrary number of boxes divided into the total crew onboard using some simple scale).

When I was playing around with the stats I followed a line very much like yours above. However, the numbers didn't all seem to fall in place as I expected across the spectrum, which is when I began to think they somehow worked an "age" value in there somewhere. So I tried to figure out a point of average age to use as a modifier, but eventually gave in to the thought that something else was missing. Considering at times when vessels went through overhaul, and a severe hogging problem had been identified very often some or all the ships guns were sometimes changed to lighter weight guns. The more I looked at some aspects the more variables I came across that tended to throw any set formulas I came up with just to far off to work across the board with reasoned results! I came to the conclusion it all has to be far simpler then it looks!

I do think as you that the design strengths/weaknesses may be a modifier somewhere in the line! How that is applied though is up in the air for now!

[Mycenius]

When I was playing around with the stats I followed a line very much like yours above. However, the numbers didn't all seem to fall in place as I expected across the spectrum, which is when I began to think they somehow worked an "age" value in there somewhere. So I tried to figure out a point of average age to use as a modifier, but eventually gave in to the thought that something else was missing. Considering at times when vessels went through overhaul, and a severe hogging problem had been identified very often some or all the ships guns were sometimes changed to lighter weight guns. The more I looked at some aspects the more variables I came across that tended to throw any set formulas I came up with just to far off to work across the board with reasoned results! I came to the conclusion it all has to be far simpler then it looks!

I do think as you that the design strengths/weaknesses may be a modifier somewhere in the line! How that is applied though is up in the air for now!

Yeah I don't think it'll be anything too complex, not to the level you've obviously gone to (or tried to go to) Paul - it's far more likely to just be some simple calculation using an arbitrary value (e.g. X number of hull boxes for any 3rd rate) with very simple ship stats that are easily obtained - and then MAYBE just a single final arbitrary modifier or something to get the final numbers that's simply picked by instinct/gut-feel by the designers...

[TexaS]

Thinking of Ares as a beer-and-pretzels-games company I think that they would limit themselves to things like total crew, rate, weight (burden), weight of broad side, famous quirks and maybe length or top speed.

[HMS Lydia]

All of the reasons above, is why I think the burden assigned to the Amazon's were a publishing/design error. The Amazon's were heavier, they had heavier guns, they were shorter, but made up with being wider. When looking at other game systems, the Amazons do take slightly less damage than Concordes/Charmantes, but not by 1/3. Seems in the spirit of simplicity giving all normal 5th rates 8 damage boxes, that catagorically, the burden of these should have been the same. The error may be in that they should all be two. I don't know, when you compare frigate data, frigates started getting heavier (burthen tonnes).

[Mycenius]

All of the reasons above, is why I think the burden assigned to the Amazon's were a publishing/design error. The Amazon's were heavier, they had heavier guns, they were shorter, but made up with being wider. When looking at other game systems, the Amazons do take slightly less damage than Concordes/Charmantes, but not by 1/3. Seems in the spirit of simplicity giving all normal 5th rates 8 damage boxes, that catagorically, the burden of these should have been the same. The error may be in that they should all be two. I don't know, when you compare frigate data, frigates started getting heavier (burthen tonnes).

Yep.

[HMS Lydia]

Yep.

My hope is that this was an error or oversight, and not a play balancing attempt. This type of play balancing is ineffective, in light of the intent to add more variety of units at a later date. This will make the weaker unit even weaker as more frigates are added to the game. I would assume a burden of 3 is more accurate since we don't have 6th rates yet and Hebe's are 4, and Constitution is reportedly going to be 5.

[TexaS]

I think they did it just to make differences. Artificially create a different taste to the frigates a little more pronounced than there is between the 74s but along the same lines.

One of the strengths is also a weakness of the game. Its arcade-like beer-and-pretzels gamey feel. I think that makes them leave history a little behind to get more taste.

It's a pity as there are plenty of historical taste to put into it...

[HMS Lydia]

I'm almost tempted to make my Amazon's burden 3.

[Mycenius]

I'm almost tempted to make my Amazon's burden 3.

Well given that the Hébé's are 4 too (with the Concordes/Charmantes at 3) the Amazons at 2 are EXTREMELY hard done by given their actual RL stats and historical performance...

[HMS Lydia]

Well given that the Hébé's are 4 too (with the Concordes/Charmantes at 3) the Amazons at 2 are EXTREMELY hard done by given their actual RL stats and historical performance...

Agreed, and if you look at the scenario section of WSIM, HMS Amphion for Battle of Lissa is actually rated as hull 7. There was another scenario example that was 7 also. I believe the standard French 32 rates as hull 6. This makes more sense!

The generic charts for the Pre-1793 period rate a British 32 as hull 5 and a French 32 as hull 6. Unfortunately, this is the only other AOS game I own.

Interestingly, all the 3rd rates produced in SGN so far have fairly equal or close BM. Which logically explains why they are all Burden 5.

[DeRuyter]

Agreed, and if you look at the scenario section of WSIM, HMS Amphion for Battle of Lissa is actually rated as hull 7. There was another scenario example that was 7 also. I believe the standard French 32 rates as hull 6. This makes more sense!

The generic charts for the Pre-1793 period rate a British 32 as hull 5 and a French 32 as hull 6. Unfortunately, this is the only other AOS game I own.

Interestingly, all the 3rd rates produced in SGN so far have fairly equal or close BM. Which logically explains why they are all Burden 5.

I noticed that you gave the HMS Amphion a burden of 3 on your logs for the Lissa scenario. More broadside factors as well? For the 18 lb battery.

I went and bought the Wave I reprint Orpheus/Amphion without looking at the dates, thinking it was the one at Lissa! Now I realize that was an older ship with the standard 12 lb battery which blew up at dock in 1796!

[HMS Lydia]

Eric,

You are right, I had forgotten that. When I researched the ships, Amphion was not the Amazon class ship by the same name. As a matter of fact, Amphion is also the class of this ship that fought at Lissa. BM 914 with heavier guns, 324lb broadside over 200 tons heavier than the Amazons.

[HMS Lydia]

Cerberus was a mod-Pallas class but was armed similar to Amphion, but was about 100tons lighter. Active came out close enough to a Hebe, I left it alone.

[fredmiracle]

I went and bought the Wave I reprint Orpheus/Amphion without looking at the dates, thinking it was the one at Lissa! Now I realize that was an older ship with the standard 12 lb battery which blew up at dock in 1796!

If only the RN had labeled the ships like the Federation treated the Enterprise--"it's Amphion-D, not Amphion-C!"

[HMS Lydia]

If only the RN had labeled the ships like the Federation treated the Enterprise--"it's Amphion-D, not Amphion-C!"

Quite right!

[csadn]

"USS _Enterprise_. N -- C -- C -- One -- Seven -- Oh -- One. No bloody A, B, C or D."

[Mycenius]

"USS _Enterprise_. N -- C -- C -- One -- Seven -- Oh -- One. No bloody A, B, C or D."

Why do you think they had to call it the NX-1701 in the series "Enterprise" - because some plonker forgot the "A" in 1966!

[Comte de Brueys]

...

For instance, I wonder why the Amazon class frigates have a burden of 2, and yet the lighter or equal Concorde and Charmante have a burden of 3. The broadside figures make sense in comparison, it's the burden figures that make me go, hmmmm. ..

As far as I know had Revolutionary/Napoleonic French frigates the better design, construction and stability.

The RN was very happy each time they were able to incorporate a French frigate in service.

So I wasn't surprised about the difference in the burden value and was content, that Ares cared about this historical aspect.

[HMS Lydia]

Sven,

Perhaps not looking at this correctly. But seems to me in this game they widely lumped ships together. Which for simplicity sake makes really good sense. Okay having said that, unrated sloops seem to be in BM 300-350 range. 6th Rate Frigates and Post Ships seem to be in the BM 400-500 range. I would be willing to bet when we finally get 6th rates, they will have 7 damage boxes and be burden 2. Unrated like the HMS Fairy are 6 damage boxes and Burden 1.

I honestly didn't question the Burden on the Amazon's until I started researching the various ships and classes. Then the light bulb went off over my head, and I thought, gee that doesn't make any sense.