Ship Stats

[OmegaLazarus]

According to the Ares site, it seems there are 4 sets of ship stats thus far. In order of Maneuverability, Burden, and Maneuver Deck, we have Frigates at 7/3/A and 8/2/C and SoL's at 5/5/B and 5/5/D.

To recap - Maneuverability is the range allowed between each maneuver card you select (bigger number = better)
Burden is the amount of damage you can take before a box closes out (bigger number = better)
Maneuver Deck is the deck of cards you get to use for movement (unknown, but assume A and C are more agile)

There are an equal number of each (2) in the Wave 1 release ship packs. In the KS exclusives there are one of each. I can't tell on the starter pack ships, but for equality I would guess there are one of each (swapping Nations). That would make a total of 4 of each stat set.

Of course, there maybe other things on the ship log that differentiate them, or not. I don't know. I just found this out when I was looking at what to expect (as CPT) and if I might want to sell off a few of the ship pack ships as superfluous since it seems a person would want to run a single ship (two at upper most) and I doubt I will have more than 5 or 6 playing the game ever. Of course, the variety allows me to run a table of SoLs or Frigates or unequal mixes so I likely won't be parting with any of them

[HMS Lydia]

The rough HMS Victory card on Facebook shows 4/7/A

[Beowulf03809]

Great post. This was one of the thoughts I was putting into another thread but didn't get around to trying to pull the numbers from pics and vids yet.

Do you know which of the existing classes of each ship match up with the stats you posted?
Can you tell if a the same ship in different fleets (French Concorde vs it's British version for example) are same stats?
Any guess how significant are the maneuverability differences between the decks? I'm just surprised to see a SOL with what looks like a "better" maneuver deck (B) than a Frigate (C). But that's just assuming lower letter is more maneuverable which may be wrong.

[OmegaLazarus]

Do you know which of the existing classes of each ship match up with the stats you posted?
Can you tell if a the same ship in different fleets (French Concorde vs it's British version for example) are same stats?
Any guess how significant are the maneuverability differences between the decks? I'm just surprised to see a SOL with what looks like a "better" maneuver deck (B) than a Frigate (C). But that's just assuming lower letter is more maneuverable which may be wrong.

Sure, I guess I should have posted that with it, but I wasn't sure if this was a retread that I missed. Here

Frigates
7/3/A = La Conchorde, Conchorde, Hermione,

8/2/C = Juno, Embuscade, Cleopatra,

SoL
5/5/B = Forgeaux, Commerce de Bordeaux, Impeteaux

5/5/D = Bellona, Le Berwick, Bellerophon

THe bold are the captured ships. I couldn't get numbers for the starter game ships because I only wanted to use pics from the site product page as I felt these are most likely to be 'finished'. Like I said, I am assuming the starter has one of each stat type and balances the nations best. Right now French have 2* 7/3/A and 1* 8/2/C and 2*5/5/B and 1* 5/5/D The Brits are swapped.

I guess (JUST A GUESS) that the starter will have a french 8/2/C and 5/5/D and a British 7/3/A and 5/5/B, but that is based on numbers. People who know ships better might be able to use the current ship to stat match to determine the starter ships' likely stats.


Yeah, the maneuver decks lettering threw me for a loop as well once I saw that the Frigates or SoL's weren't sequential.

[HMS Lydia]

I wouldn't bet everything you see online is accurate. I saw a ship card for HMS Hermione that showed a Burden of 6. Obviously that can't be right. I think some of the samples posed were early development materials, or just examples to show development on the product.

[BSG_Fan]

I'm just surprised to see a SOL with what looks like a "better" maneuver deck (B) than a Frigate (C). But that's just assuming lower letter is more maneuverable which may be wrong.

When I noticed this, I assumed that it just meant that maneuver decks were not planned out beyond the first set and so they don't have any kind of logic to their order (and future ones will just be made up as needed). So for the first wave, they just assigned A & B to the French frigate class and French SOL class, and they assigned C & D to the British frigate and British SOL. For wave two they'll reuse a maneuver deck if it's applicable to the new classes, or else make a new deck and keep going with E, F, G, etc.

That would mean a deck's letter only indicates its order of release and doesn't have anything to do with maneuverability. That just a guess of course, so I could be completely wrong.

[Diamondback]

I wouldn't bet everything you see online is accurate. I saw a ship card for HMS Hermione that showed a Burden of 6. Obviously that can't be right. I think some of the samples posed were early development materials, or just examples to show development on the product.

Or maybe pre-work on a future release. FNS La Hermione 1777 and HMS Hermione were two completely different ships of completely different design, similar only in both being frigates of roughly similar size (IIRC, the HMS Hermione I saw was a 36 or 38 to the French ship's 32)--I know a few other users and myself have been contributing research and input on Wave Two, and it sounds like there's already a third and possibly a fourth in the various stages of pre-planning, not even considering the War of 1812 expansion.

My bet is each ship in the Starter will have the same basic stats as her singles-pack sisters, with balancing being probably from Britis ships being more robust and point-blank brawlers vs French being more agile, maybe a little faster and better long-range snipers. (Historically, French tactics were "evade, stay outside gun range and dismast" while British tatics were more "close in until you can smell what the opposing captain ate for lunch, then start smashing crew and timbers."

[Andy Blozinski]

Unless there is more than one range ruler, nobody's guns will be more or less accurate than anyone else.

[pward]

Unless there is more than one range ruler, nobody's guns will be more or less accurate than anyone else.

Your comment made me think about the possibility of house ruling this idea that some guns were more accurate than others, using a different ruler to represent this difference. I wonder if this could be figured out in so far as which navy or ships had the better guns?

[Devsdoc]

Unless there is more than one range ruler, nobody's guns will be more or less accurate than anyone else.

Maybe its the number of firing tokens for each ship that is changed? More for the Brits. But at this scale the detail of each ship, but not rate of ship is lost. If you had detail down to the shoe size of the cabin boy the game would bog down. O.K. some rules give different stats for lets say 3rd raters eg 64 to 80 gun, or one state for 64gun and one for 74-80gun. I think you must think class (rate) not each ship.
Be safe
Rory

[Berthier]

I'm pretty sure gunnery differences are worked into the chit draws. There's a fair bit of abstraction there, as it doesn't allow a long gun armed ship to keep its distance and blast away impervious to the fire of a ship armed with carronades or shorter ranged guns

[HMS Lydia]

Or maybe pre-work on a future release. FNS La Hermione 1777 and HMS Hermione were two completely different ships of completely different design, similar only in both being frigates of roughly similar size (IIRC, the HMS Hermione I saw was a 36 or 38 to the French ship's 32."

You could be correct, however, since the burder is equal to the amount of damage a ship can receive as I understand it, and 74's are a burden of about 5, I wouldn't think any frigate would be a 6. It'll be interesting to see the final product. In various videos you can see some of the ship's cards and most frigates are around a burden of 2. I would expect the lighter frigates to be two, and the heavier frigates to be 3.

[OmegaLazarus]

I wouldn't bet everything you see online is accurate. I saw a ship card for HMS Hermione that showed a Burden of 6. Obviously that can't be right. I think some of the samples posed were early development materials, or just examples to show development on the product.

You make a good point and I tried to minimize the risk by only taking from Ares's Website product page for the ships (which is why I don't have stats on the starter set since they aren't listed the same). I assume that is final or very close to final as they have many other sources (KS, FB, gameplay videos etc.) to post prototyping pics. Companies don't usually change their actual product pages until they are set since they don't want that part of their site constantly redacted (at least in my business, which, admittedly, is not games).

[HMS Lydia]

You make a good point and I tried to minimize the risk by only taking from Ares's Website product page for the ships (which is why I don't have stats on the starter set since they aren't listed the same). I assume that is final or very close to final as they have many other sources (KS, FB, gameplay videos etc.) to post prototyping pics. Companies don't usually change their actual product pages until they are set since they don't want that part of their site constantly redacted (at least in my business, which, admittedly, is not games).

I'm sure there will be many stat comparisions once the completed product is in gamers hands. It almost appears that "A" might be the least manueverable, and "D" the most. One of the big manueverability factors will not be just the cards, but how far up or down the deck the next planned move may be. With the Victory being 4, thats one less that Commerce de Bordeaux so that seems about right.

[DeRuyter]

I'm pretty sure gunnery differences are worked into the chit draws. There's a fair bit of abstraction there, as it doesn't allow a long gun armed ship to keep its distance and blast away impervious to the fire of a ship armed with carronades or shorter ranged guns

This would be easy to work in with the existing rules, just use the short range damage and ignore the long range shot for ships armed exclusively with carronades. You would need this for the War of 1812 ships (sloops and brigs or the USS Essex for example).

Eric

[HMS Lydia]

This would be easy to work in with the existing rules, just use the short range damage and ignore the long range shot for ships armed exclusively with carronades. You would need this for the War of 1812 ships (sloops and brigs or the USS Essex for example).

Eric

This very well could, already be an optional rule.

[pward]

Maybe its the number of firing tokens for each ship that is changed? More for the Brits. But at this scale the detail of each ship, but not rate of ship is lost. If you had detail down to the shoe size of the cabin boy the game would bog down. O.K. some rules give different stats for lets say 3rd raters eg 64 to 80 gun, or one state for 64gun and one for 74-80gun. I think you must think class (rate) not each ship.
Be safe
Rory

I hope you are right... they need to factor accuracy differences in the game somehow.

[Diamondback]

Simple way:

Noticeably superior gunnery--draw an extra chit and apply the higher of the two.
Average--no change.
Noticeably inferior--draw two, apply the lower.

[OmegaLazarus]

Simple way:

Noticeably superior gunnery--draw an extra chit and apply the higher of the two.
Average--no change.
Noticeably inferior--draw two, apply the lower.

Elegant. I like it.

[Diamondback]

Carronades: do no damage at long range, but two chits (or double damage, I really need stats on how they compare to long guns within their envelope) at short. [EDIT: N/M, disproven.]

Really, there are any number of ways to represent things simply by modifying the number of chits drawn and which is applied.

Superior Damage Control: Treat as if attacked with Inferior Gunnery. If used opposing Superior Gunnery, just draw as normal.
Inferior Damage Control: Treat as if attacked with Superior Gunnery. If used opposing Inferior Gunnery, just draw as normal.

Not really that hard to do, just have abilities modify the chit draws and/or cancel out other abilities when they're on opposed ships. "So simple a caveman could do it"? LOL

[Gunner]

Diamondback, Check out http://ageofsail.wordpress.com/2009/...he-range-myth/

[Diamondback]

OK, noted. I still need to see a shootout about strengths and weaknesses of each to really try to figure out effects...

[Berthier]

Have to be careful with the range figures because range is irrelevant to some point. It's hitting power that matters. Carronades were known as "smashers" for a good reason, they demolished whatever was in their way at short range but not at long. I'm not an expert on gunnery but it's about muzzle velocity, mass and structure of the projectile and propellant charge.

For British gunnery discussion at Trafalgar see http://www.worldnavalships.com/forum...ead.php?t=8018 one particularly interesting comment: To intensify the damage caused by these close quarter salvoes into the enemy hulls, the British would reduce the velocity of the shot by either reducing the charge, or more commonly doubling, or even tripling the shot. This would have the effect of preventing the shot from passing straight through the ship, but instead, after penetration, ricocheting around the decks causing carnage and terror.

Then from wiki
However, it is probably better to see the carronade as the culmination of an evolutionary process of naval guns reducing the barrel length and gunpowder charge. The Carron company was already selling a "new-light constructed" gun weighing two-thirds of the weight of the standard naval gun and charged with one sixth of the weight of ball in powder before it introduced the carronade, which further halved the gunpowder charge.^[1] The reduced charge allowed carronades to have a shorter length and much lighter weight than long guns. Inside the gun barrel, increasing the size of the bore, and ball, reduces the required length of barrel. The force acting on the ball is proportional to the square of the diameter while the mass of the ball rises by the cube, acceleration is slower; the barrel can be shorter and therefore lighter. Long guns were also excessively heavy in comparison to a carronade because they were over-specified being capable of being double shotted whereas to do this in a carronade was dangerous. A ship could carry more carronades, or carronades of a larger caliber, than long guns, and carronades could be mounted on the upper decks, where heavy long guns could cause the ship to be top-heavy and unstable. Carronades also required a smaller gun crew, which was very important for merchant ships, and they were faster to reload.

The carronade was initially very successful and widely adopted, and a few experimental ships (for example, HMS Glatton and HMS Rainbow^[4]) were fitted with a carronade-only armament. Glatton, a fourth-rate ship with 56 guns, had a more destructive broadside than HMS Victory, a first-rate ship with 100 guns. Although Glatton and Rainbow were both successful in battle, the carronade's lack of range against an opponent who could keep well clear and still use his long guns was an arguable tactical disadvantage of this arrangement.

As a result of irregularities in the size of cannon balls and the difficulty of boring out gun barrels, there was usually a considerable gap (known as the windage) between the ball and the inside of the gun barrel. The windage of a cannon was often as much as a quarter of an inch and caused a considerable loss of projectile power. The manufacturing practices introduced by the Carron Company reduced the windage considerably. Despite the reduced windage, carronades had a much shorter range, typically a third to a half, than the equivalent long gun because they used a much smaller propellant charge (the chamber for the powder was smaller than the bore for the ball). Typical naval tactics in the late 18th century, however, emphasised short-range broadsides, so the range was not thought to be a problem.

[Billy Ruffian]

The British also developed a process of coating their cannon balls with Plumbago(Graphite) during the casting process by coating the moulds with powdered Graphite. This gave them a smooth surface which increased the distance and accuracy of the shot. Giving them a distinct advantage over their adversaries, at the time Cumbria in the English Lake District was the only known source of this mineral and was heavily protected.

[pward]

Elegant. I like it.

I like it too, simple and not over the top. Once the game actually releases, it will be interesting to see some of the "house rules" ideas that "come about."

[Avi]

What are the ranges implied by the A/B ruler?
From what I read the relevant range was 100-200 yards in which the Carronades had an advantage.
Regular guns had do be under charged at this range so as not to shoot through-and-through.

(This actually happens in modern warfare as well some "heavy missiles" might go through light ships and
explode on the other side. I even saw once a Mortar shell that was slowed but did not explode by the deck of
a patrol boat - the crew was not very happy sailing with an unexploded shel back home to get it removed by specialists

[OmegaLazarus]

(This actually happens in modern warfare as well some "heavy missiles" might go through light ships and
explode on the other side. I even saw once a Mortar shell that was slowed but did not explode by the deck of
a patrol boat - the crew was not very happy sailing with an unexploded shel back home to get it removed by specialists

There are reports by U.S. Tankers in Iraq about the problem with that as well. When they would use APFSDS (sabot) rounds against the BMPs, they had reports of hits and later, the crew (or another crew) would re-enter the vehicle and operate it when it was previously thought disabled. Apparently that the high energy rounds, designed to penetrate heavier T-72's, were punching a small entry and exit hole and going about their day. The lack of sophisticated systems in the BMP and the lack of explosive damage in the round meant that a crew need only enter the vehicle and could then fire the guns. In fact, this is believed to be what happened, to the detriment of Sgt. Moller (who was killed in his Bradley IFV and the only American casualty), in part of the Battle of 73 Easting.

[HMS Lydia]

There are reports by U.S. Tankers in Iraq about the problem with that as well. When they would use APFSDS (sabot) rounds against the BMPs, they had reports of hits and later, the crew (or another crew) would re-enter the vehicle and operate it when it was previously thought disabled. Apparently that the high energy rounds, designed to penetrate heavier T-72's, were punching a small entry and exit hole and going about their day. The lack of sophisticated systems in the BMP and the lack of explosive damage in the round meant that a crew need only enter the vehicle and could then fire the guns. In fact, this is believed to be what happened, to the detriment of Sgt. Moller (who was killed in his Bradley IFV and the only American casualty), in part of the Battle of 73 Easting.

Over penetration was quite common in WWII, when destroyers were hit by armor piercing large caliber rounds (8" and larger). The hit still inflicted a huge amount of damage, but usually not mortal.

[Beowulf03809]

I'm curious to see where the 'line in the sand' is drawn in relation to realism vs. elegant play. I know a lot of house rules will evolve to address some things but a final review of the Advanced / Optional rules is going to be very enlightening to me at least as to what to expect from SOG. I'm not nearly as well-read on the subjects as many of you, but just a few key items in addition to those above have jumped out at me during my last reading of the Trafalgar engagement.

1. The continued French & Spanish use of the slow fuse made timing of shots very difficult. As part of the "inferior gunnery" component, this technological issue is considered a big factor in why the initial shots at the approaching British columns were not very effective. In the side-rolling of the waves shots either fell short or went high just because the actual 'boom' could not reasonably timed precisely. If you play the Trafalgar charge multiple times with even matched SOG fleets I would be amazed if Victory and Royal Sovereign would make it to close engagement 20% of the time. The ships were approaching slow and would have been exposed to several turns of what SOG classifies as full raking broadsides from multiple First and Third rate ships. This could imply a rule of gunnery quality as mentioned above such as discarding highest chit or similar.

2. Although 'bumping' ships are discussed a few times not much damage is referenced from it. However, there are several situations of masts becoming tangled, effectively bonding the ships together. In many cases the ships could not disengage through the rest of the battle. This could imply a rule where a chance of tangling if ships bump, automatically reducing both to "No Sail" or such.

3. Also as mentioned above, in close quarters the British ships seemed to have a policy of reducing charge and/or aiming their guns lower to prevent shooting through the enemy and hitting a friend on the other side. This could imply a rule of 'shoot through' if cannons used at Musket Range for example.

I'm sure these and others are already factors of other AOS game systems. I'm just not sure if they will be present in SOG and if not would they even add to the game. Often a "feeling" of the game being right is all that's needed and you can filter out a lot of detail that may bog down a game without really adding to the final "feel". But if a factor is not present that actually does impact the feel of the game then I'm sure it will either be added later or various house rule options will come up. It's very hard to suggest expanded or house rules when we don't even have the full ones in hand yet, but these discussions are still healthy, engaging and keep us excited for the game.