Solo Play rule development thread

[Ducky]

True,

Just played with a frigate and ship of the line vs an AI frigate and sol...

I got my sol with its first broadsite in half ruler range of the AI frigate that still was near its sol,
The outcome was that the frigate only needed one more damage point to the hull ... My sol got return fire from first broadsite of the AI frigate and AI sol and lost half its hull and crew....

The next couple of turns the AI frigate had to sierende rand my Sol surrendered to the AI sol due to crew loss after being in musket range of each other...

My frigate undamaged took on the AI sol that by now had a half damaged hull and some crew losses....

Few turns later my frigate came victorieus out of the fight after the enemy sol lost more than 90% of its hull but surrendered due to crew loss.

My frigate lost more than half of its hull by the time and had some crew losses...

I very tense battle of which the outcome could have gone either way!

[Ducky]

We need to make separate movement charts for the different classes though,
Because on the chart we now have there are movements a sol cant make!!!

So I think each class sloop,frigate,sol needs an own movement chart to get the most out of its abilities!!

We have to work that out, the chart we have now is good for frigates but not for the sol's

[7eat51]

Yes - each maneuver deck has its own chart. I think play testing and the campaign will help us decide how wind attitude should be handled.

Nice summary of your battle. We need some type of simple rule to determine when to engage and when to break off based on damage and ship class. With the WoG, once a plane takes a certain amount of damage, you roll to see if it stays in the fray. Again, these types of rules can be overwritten in a given scenario in which a ship might sacrifice itself for a strategic goal in the background.

[Ducky]

I agree, but in the situation above my sol was sandwiched between the AI frigate an AI sol.

All three ships undamaged and all three still had to fire their first broadsides...

So my sol was in a huge disadvantage.. I waited a turn with firing my broadside so I could do max damage and figured it would be best to get rid of the enemy frigate first.

The outcome surprised me but when my frigate arrived at the fray it was too late for my sol surrendered the turn before...

My opinion so far on the basics of the solo rules is that they are quite good,
Just needs some tweaking! And different charts for the ship classes.

But how the AI ships engage so far does not dissapoint me because I would make those movements myself in most situations

[Ducky]

So first thing I will do now is to figure out different movement charts for the different classes.
How the ships react on wind attitude is fine I think taking in account how I handle the taking aback movement (red)

Next thing will be to incoperate all the optional rules

[7eat51]

One thing a player should always feel free to do is to override the AI mechanism and make a decision based on the board and the goals of the scenario. This is where we have to remember we're creating a non-cumbersome set of rules in which we have rules of thumb more than a detailed simulation able to handle complexity. SoG is more complex than WoG given the various decisions one can make in a given turn. I think we'll find that rules of thumb that create some measure of surprise or randomness for us will go a long way to enabling us to play very enjoyable solo games.

Next week, I will have some time to work on maneuver charts and other rules. We can post our ideas here for feedback. Once we have settled on some, I will format them and post them in the reserved posts and as files for download.

If some of you are willing, I would like to send you the scenarios I have for Origins, and solicit your feedback. If you see any areas of concern, I have time to address them before running them. If you are open to offering such help, please PM me with an email address to which I can send attachments. I can have these off to you early next week.

[Ducky]

This is my view on the movement chart...
Like to hear your opinions and suggestions.

Maybe there should be some very random directions added?



I will play test it tomorrow

[fredmiracle]

I've been trying out an alternate approach. I've only played a couple of games so far, so it's not ready for primetime, although it seems to be working ok. But since things seems to be moving quickly on this thread, I thought I'd upload it to spur some debate and discussion. I don't think I can say yet whether it is worth the added complexity--it definitely needs some tweaking.

The idea is to have less zones (4 instead of 12), but to factor in the AI ship facing, the enemy ship facing, and the wind.

Each of these three facings is given a code: A is to the front, B is to port, C is aft and D is to starboard.

Thus for a given situation you get a three letter code. The first is the direction of the player ship from the AI ship. The second is the reverse--the direction of the AI ship from the player ship. The third is the direction of the wind relative to the AI ship.

So for instance, if you have two ships heading more or less directly toward each other, with the wind over the starboard of the AI ship (and therefore port of the player ship) the code would be: A A D -- this means player ship ahead of AI ship, AI ship ahead of player ship, wind over starboard of AI ship.

Then just find the three letter code in the chart, roll the die, and find the AI maneuver.

Here's the chart:
sgn_solitaire_rules_v1.pdf

This probably sounds more complicated than it really is. After a few run throughs it is quick to come up with the 3 letter code. I just have to figure out how to describe it better (probably with a couple of diagrams).

Again, hopefully some food for thought.

[Ducky]

Will give it a go tomorrow Fred, I understand what you mean and it sounds good
But im not sure the wind direction is that relevant?

I will try your table and let you know how it worked out!

[Ducky]

I studied your chart and I am wondering why there isnt a 0 or 10 movement in it?

Will also give it a go without the wind direction to see If that also works.... That would make the list a lot shorter?

But lookes like a solid idea you got!

[Ducky]

Wouldn't be easier to determine all the directions from the AI ship?
So in your example mentioned before AAD it would be ACD?
A direction of enemy, C enemy facing, D wind direction....

So you dont have to look for directions in both ships???

[Ducky]

What influence does the wind direction have on the choices of movement in your chart?

Id like to know "your thinking" when designing the chart,
Then its easier to judge the choices in the chart...

[Ducky]

Played twice with your chart Fred:

The system with the letters is quite easy and works,
But the movement is off and isnt quite right yet, it needs altering I think.

I wondering If we can come up with the same system but without the wind direction.
The moves in a code need to be sharper as dice number increases, in that way you can Add for example +1 or +2 to your diceroll so the moves will be sharper when the enemy ship is in closer proximity.

Could you email me the word or exel file of your chart so I can tweak a bit with the movement?

Cheers,

Thijs

[fredmiracle]

I studied your chart and I am wondering why there isnt a 0 or 10 movement in it?

been playing with SOLs too much lately and forgot frigates went as far as 0 and 10

What influence does the wind direction have on the choices of movement in your chart?

well, I just kind of mapped out each situation on the board and tried to come up with what seemed like good moves. In general, if facing into the wind, I would usually want some turn, rather than playing a 5 and potentially just drifting backwards. More often then not I would try to avoid tacking, and would generally prefer to move the wind to the aft side to be in the green zone. If the opponent was moving with the wind I would assume they would move faster than if they were coming up into it. But I also included exceptions so it wasn't too predictable.

Wouldn't be easier to determine all the directions from the AI ship?
So in your example mentioned before AAD it would be ACD?
A direction of enemy, C enemy facing, D wind direction....

So you dont have to look for directions in both ships???

yeah, but you have to consider the perspective of the player ship, because it will (presumably) do different things if it is facing toward you than away from you, etc.

Played twice with your chart Fred:

The system with the letters is quite easy and works,

thanks for giving it a try!

But the movement is off and isnt quite right yet, it needs altering I think.

Yes, I think you are right, it seems a little off. It may be my charts just aren't right yet. Of it may be that it's a plausible idea that just doesn't work out well in practice. Perhaps 4 directions is not granular enough.

Your "move sharper when closer" idea seems like it will improve things significantly.

But another thing I've been playing around with is changing the 4 quadrants, so instead of ahead/port/aft/starboard, it becomes ahead-port/ahead-starboard/aft-port/aft-starboard. That also might give better results

I wondering If we can come up with the same system but without the wind direction.

It seems like wind direction should matter, although maybe my charts aren't handling it properly. I think about wind when plotting my moves. But maybe I'm overestimating its importance. Certainly nothing is stopping a ship from just tacking through the wind and going on...

The moves in a code need to be sharper as dice number increases, in that way you can Add for example +1 or +2 to your diceroll so the moves will be sharper when the enemy ship is in closer proximity.

that makes a lot of sense and is easy to change

Could you email me the word or exel file of your chart so I can tweak a bit with the movement?

I'll post the XL file later today

[Ducky]

That where a lot of questions

But I think its better indeed to turn the sectors 45 degrees!

About the wind I dont look to much at the wind as im planning cause I want to go to a ship and generally it doesnt matter that is in green or orange movement. And when taken aback I want to turn to keep facing the enemy

About enemy facing in the code I didnt mean to leave it out but to see all things from the AI ship.
So If the AI ship is near an enemy that is facing the AI from starboard it would be the letter D instead of an A
Hope i describe it good enough...

Thanx for the excel so I can tinker with the movements

Still think your chart is an good idea!

[fredmiracle]

Here's the current XL. I'm still working on the 45 degree rotation variant

sgn_solitaire_chart.xlsx

[Ducky]

Thanx,

Im working on a 45 degree rotated variant aswell,
Exluding wind to keep it simple.... Next thing would be to see If it is needed to put wind factor in also...

Keep in mind to put the rugby turn with each code under the highest dicerolls,
In that way you can Add a +1 within a ruler and a+2 within half a ruler to the diceroll to make turns in a tight space.

Lets see if we come both with the same movements in given situations

[Nightmoss]

Thanks for all the work you're putting into the solo rules discussion. I'm enjoying the dialog and feedback, wondering how it will all turn out?

[Ducky]

Would you like to make some test runs aswell?
All the feedback and opinions are welcome

But I think we are on the right path now....

Whats your opinion about wind direction and movement Jim?

[Ducky]

What ive figured out so far but still needs tested and some tweaking maybe....

[Nightmoss]

Would you like to make some test runs aswell?
All the feedback and opinions are welcome

But I think we are on the right path now....

Whats your opinion about wind direction and movement Jim?

I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough in the game mechanics yet to be offering input, but I should start testing if I'm up for a scenario. You are using a basic set of solo rules, correct?

[7eat51]

Fred and Thijs, I will work through these additions over the next day or two. It is exciting seeing this materialize. Thanks for your efforts.

[fredmiracle]

ok, here's another stab at the three letter system. I haven't cross-referenced with yours yet Thijs, I figured maybe it would be good to have a second perspective on it for the initial draft.

It has the 45 degree rotation and the turns listed from straightest to most curved.

After a whopping one playthrough I was pleased with it we'll see how well it wears after a few more go-arounds...

sgn_solitaire_chart_2.pdf
sgn_solitaire_chart_2.xlsx

[fredmiracle]

I've only played with frigates yet. I am curious how it will go with SOLs. I can agree that a different chart may be needed, since you can't count on a nice sharp
90 degree turn to nip in front or behind the enemy. This is especially true of the first-rates--their most aggressive turns are 7s and 3s, which are pretty anemic as turns go.

SOLs fastest turn may actually be when tacking, but the first-rates, in particular, pretty much cannot help getting the second hourglass (granted, that's officially a standard rule...)

So far it isn't clear to me how possible it is to create a "French persona" chart that tries to maintain a longer distance and concede the weather gauge...

[Ducky]

Hi Fred,
Im figuring out the persona charts aswell;
Great that you figured out a new chart aswell.
My experience with the turning of the sector by 45 degrees is good so far.
With these "new" sectors its easier to let the AI react in a natural way to its suroundings.

But I havent played enough with my chart to get a good opinion on the movements it suggests.

Dont get me wrong, I dont say the wind factor should be left out but im working towards an easy chart that gives the AI ship logical and natural movement.

When accounting windfactor there are more options in a chart so maybe a better change to come such a logical and natural movement.

Do you take in account the distance with a +1 or so to Add to the diceroll aswell?

I was thinking for some scenario's the same table could be used for a more evading the enemy movement by subtracting a -1 or so from the diceroll to let the ship keep some distance.

About the persona;
I think that the solution to such charts isnt in movements but the use of optional rules and the crew and captain ability decks.

For example the British had better trained crew, tended to shoot at sails and masts instead of the hull.

So I think we have to find the answer in how the ship reacts in given situations.
So in the basic rules there wont be much to work with, but in the advanced Rules it will be possible to give the ship more persona.

But first thing is to get a decent movement chart for basic rules, so we have to playtest what we have for now to get a decent opinion. I will keep testing my chart and you chart aswell

Let me know how you think on things...

Cheers,

Thijs

[Ducky]

WE NEED SOME VOLUNTEERS FOR PLAYTESTING!

And as this is my one hundreth post have a rum from me in the officers mess

[7eat51]

Will be play testing some games for Origins this weekend with friends. I am going to run at least one of the beginner/basic games with the solo rules, and will post reflections afterwards.

[7eat51]

Going through this this evening, I have a couple of comments/questions:

1. I think there should be a chart for each maneuver deck along the lines of what is posted here. The range of turns, the length of arrows, all makes a difference. With more play testing, it is possible that each type of ship might react similarly, but given the differences on the cards, I rather not assume that.

2. I think wind needs to be considered. One thing I have noticed is the difference in facing that often occurs on a given arrow path between orange and green. Using a three-letter code is actually quite elegant for incorporating wind.

3. I agree with the three-letter code being from the perspective of the AI ship with one letter for player's ship sector, one letter for player's facing, and one letter for wind. This would have a similar feel to WGF as well in that the solo charts there look at everything from the perspective of the AI plane, and considers whether the player's plane is approaching or moving away. Facing does make a difference.

4. Do the charts assume one sail setting? I can see in a solo game, especially for the basic game, to keep everything at battle sails.

5. I think the +1 mechanism for the distance between ships is simple to execute and intuitive.

6. I will play around with some charts as well along the lines of my previous comments. Regardless of what form the final chart(s) take(s), I think the exercise would be informative.

I can see how easy it will be for such a rule system to become complex the moment we start incorporating other elements, e.g. crew actions, reloading, etc. With WoG, planes fire each maneuver if within range and if the guns are not jammed. Maneuvering here requires thinking about positioning given a possible one-maneuver delay before firing for reloading. Oh the joys. I suggest for the basic rules, we settle on a few principles as well as charts to reign in potential scope creep.

Possible Basic Rule Principles:

1. Ammo: Ball
2. Sail Settings: Battle
3. Raking: Yes
4. Choice between Short and Long Distance Shots: Always choose short unless raking - for example, if AI ship can shoot short-range via front arc, but long-range via full broadside, choose short range via front - B-damage is more deadly than A-damage - better to have less chits with greater chance of inflicting damage per chit
5. Veer: Yes - if a die roll would cause a ship to violate veer, choose sharpest turn within veer rating

For more advanced rules, maybe we could develop some simpler mechanisms to allow for special damage and repairs without worrying about planning crew actions and their effects on the charts. Similarly, we could look at other desired rule incorporations and possible simplifications for solo play.

[Ducky]

Hi Fred,

1. I fully agree on this, we will start with the frigate chart I think... Work our way up to the oceanclass Sol's, after that the sloops?
Do you think the new hebe class frigates from wave 2 can use the same chart as the frigates from wave1?

2. After some testing I agree on this aswell, your charts with the letter codes are easy to use.
What do you think of my rule for the taken aback (red) movement? Maybe we need to look again at that rule for standard and advanced games since you play with the 2 hourglasses on the cards?

3. Fully agree on this, so we need to change the codes on the charts to match this new perspective...
When determining the "letter" for the player ship's facing we take the sector of the AI ship that it is sailing towards?
For example two ships sailing towards each other from the front starboard it would be "B" for the AI ship and "D" for the player ship, so an "AD...." Code. Trace a line between the AI and player's ship mainmast to determine sectors?

4. For basic games only the battle sails setting.
For standard and advanced games the setting of the AI ship depends from the distance between two ships:
-more than a ruler length: full sails
-within a ruler length: battle sails
- within half a ruler: backing sails

5. We take the +1 within a ruler distance, and maybe add a +2 within half a ruler distance when needed after some playtesting.
So for now a +1 within a ruler it is?

6. I will play with the above mentioned rules settings; but first we need to re-code the chart to the different view in player sector and facing.

For the principles add:

The continuos shot: when the AI ship can hit the players ship after firing previous turn.
Then reload when able to and no shots can be made due to distance or firingarc.

The first broadside rule: the AI ship waits to fire its first broadside until it has the players ship in full broadside.
Maybe with the addition of being in short distance (B damage) also; so it has the full advantage of first broadside, unless able to rake on long distance.

Do we need to make a basic rule on to grapple:
AI ship always tries to grapple If it has less damage than player's ship and isnt outclassed

Add the entangle rule when bases touch each other.

I think for the actions part the charts from the rulebook for soloplay are fine.
They have a priority within the choice of actions. And are simple enough.
You still have to keep track on actions on the ship mat, regardless of what Rules we make.

The optional rules should be kept optional so players can choose to which Rules they apply.

This is my point of view on things....
Let me know if you have a different point of view.

Cheers,

Thijs

[7eat51]

Hi Thijs,

Here are some responses/thoughts to your comments:

1. We should think about maneuver chart development based on the maneuver card decks, as opposed to classes of ships. The maneuver decks dictate the actual movement possibilities on the game surface. If two decks are very similar, we could make one chart to be used with both decks. We can consider classes of ships in principle terms, such as frigates choose to engage other frigates as opposed to SoLs, or some such things.

2. I think as far as taken aback, it might be easiest to make some sort of die roll mechanism, such as on the first taken aback, a 1-2 = 4- red card, 3-4 = 5 red card, 5-6 = 6+ red card. For the 2nd and following taken aback, a 1-4 = turn in the direction that creates a broadside to the closest enemy ship, 5-6 = turn the other way. At least something along these lines for the basic game. This would still provide some measure of randomness and potential surprise for the player.

3. The facing of the player's ship should correspond to the quadrant of the AI ship. For example, it doesn't matter which sector the player's ship is in, if the player's ship is facing in the direction of the port-bow of the AI ship, it has a facing letter of A. This means is could be in the starboard rear sector approaching the AI ship, the port rear sector of the AI ship sailing somewhat away from the AI ship, the port-bow sector sailing somewhat away from the AI ship, or the starboard-bow sector somewhat on a collision course with the ship. I hope this makes sense. Otherwise, we could have a two letter designation for facing - A = facing toward the ship, B = facing away from the ship. This could be easiest.

4. I think play testing will answer this regarding sail settings, but the logic of what your propose is intuitively pleasing. One thing to consider is whether the AI ship is trying to engage or break off.

5. Again, play testing. I think the +2 within 1/2 ruler again has intuitive appeal, assuming the AI is not trying to set up a rake or break off. It might be in situations like this that the player has to make a judgment call if the maneuvers given don't make sense given what is occurring on the table.

What do you think of having continuous fire and first broadside be scenario rules, and not standard for all games?

For the basic rule set, I would avoid grappling, entanglement, special damage, and crew actions.

[fredmiracle]

*** Regarding being taken aback:

I've just been treating AI ships the same as normal ones. If they would play a turn of 8, and are taken aback, then they use the 6+ red card. It seems to work ok so far.


*** Regarding standard/advanced/optional rules:

So far I've just been playing basic rules. So no continuous fire, optional ammo, boarding, sail setting, etc.

The one exception (I think) is raking, which does seem so fundamental to naval tactics of the period as to be necessary.

My feeling on sail setting, from normal play, is that it's very situation specific. If I'm navigating a narrow spot I want backing sails. If I need to close quickly (say to help out an isolated ship under attack) I want full sails. I'm often thinking about whether I will have actions to spare to get back to battle sails when necessary, or what happens if I lose crew and can't perform the sail action. But I think it's hard to specify AI rules to capture these details. Ducky's rule seems good, but maybe just always using battle sails would be fine too.

My feeling on continuous fire and first broadside is colored by the fact that I haven't found them very fun in normal play. First broadside tends to cripple ships too quickly out of the gate. I think it's sufficient to allow them to start double-shotted (if desired). Continuous fire is historically accurate, but I find it doesn't work too well at the game's level of granularity, and it kills the considerable fun of broadside management


*** regarding larger ships:

I guess my first question is how well it will work if ships just play the sharpest angle they have. If the chart calls for an 9 and you only have a 7, that's what you play. Is that good enough? Or does the AI need to handle an SOL in fundamentally different ways, given it can't turn as sharply?

[7eat51]

I think for basic games, only using Battle Sails is sufficient. While playing the initial campaign, we can discuss a mechanism for utilizing other settings, though simplicity in a set of AI rules is key, IMHO.

I think many rule options could be based on scenario requirements. In the end, though, every player should feel the freedom to alter things as desired. We are not playing a tournament, so whatever maximizes one's enjoyment of playing, ...

One thing to consider regarding the difference between smaller and larger ships is not just the sharpness of turning angles, but the length of the arrows in terms of distance traveled. For these combined reasons, I suggest separate charts. Again, more play testing by multiple people will highlight the need, or lack thereof. This is why we're structuring the first campaign to be three months; we will have timely feedback to enhance the basic and more advanced rule sets going forward. We can then play a second three-month campaign before year's end with updated rules. By the new year, we should have some sets ready to go for a year-long campaign.

[JAC]

I tried the rules with variable wind and works fine!! the AI tends to leave the map frequently but it is easy to arrange making it to turn when the ships are at half ruler distance from the edge. To make it a little bit more challenging I made the AI to use C or D damage when my ships were in range. Will post the whole battle as soon as I have some time...

[fredmiracle]

Glad to have another tester Jaime!

the AI tends to leave the map frequently but it is easy to arrange making it to turn when the ships are at half ruler distance from the edge.

Yeah it's not hard to handle informally. I was trying to make some formal rules for the map edge (and maybe for islands/coasts/reefs) but I wasn't sure I was quite there yet.

I didn't necessarily want to prevent the AI ship from sailing parallel to and close to the map edge, so what I was trying was this: the AI ship must end it's move on-map AND with a clear half ruler of map ahead of it. If it can't do that with the selected movement card, then choose increasingly sharp turns until it will result in the AI ship having a half ruler of water ahead of it.

[7eat51]

I am moving some of the posts from the solo campaign thread to this one. The posts concern rule development as opposed to discussions about the campaign.

[Nightmoss]

So, are the "Solo Rules for Dummies" ready for prime time? I keep saying I'm going to do some work here, but the ships themselves keep beckoning. I fear at this point I'm way behind the class?! Apologies.

[Ducky]

Hi Jim,

I think we are on the good path concerning the rules but they are far from done yet!
I think the first real test will be the first solo campaign storting in july.

No apolagies needed since you are out master craftsman at the modelling bit of SoG, but some more testers would speed up things I think

[7eat51]

Jim, you should have plenty of time to develop your scenario. Thijs has first dibs on which month to run a scenario; you have second dibs, and Fred has the remaining month. The rules will be basic enough that one or two plays and folks will have the hang of things regarding mechanics.

I agree with Thijs, as one of our master craftsman who continually inspires and teaches us, no apology is needed - you have your hands full, literally.

[Nightmoss]

Hi Jim,

I think we are on the good path concerning the rules but they are far from done yet!
I think the first real test will be the first solo campaign storting in july.

No apolagies needed since you are out master craftsman at the modelling bit of SoG, but some more testers would speed up things I think

Jim, you should have plenty of time to develop your scenario. Thijs has first dibs on which month to run a scenario; you have second dibs, and Fred has the remaining month. The rules will be basic enough that one or two plays and folks will have the hang of things regarding mechanics.

I agree with Thijs, as one of our master craftsman who continually inspires and teaches us, no apology is needed - you have your hands full, literally.

Thanks much, but I will make more of an effort here to contribute.

[fredmiracle]

OK, here's my draft of a consolidated quick-reference document for solitaire play. It includes my current chart, along with an example of the 3-letter code, and an attempt to encode a few of the other basic solitaire rules

Are you still playing without the wind Ducky? Do we have any thoughts on which is better?

I still haven't cross-referenced your most recent chart (quadrants but no wind) with mine to see how different they are.

sgn_solitaire_chart_3.pdf

Thoughts/improvements/edits welcome. Ideally it will be clear and accessible for people that are new to it, as well as reasonably complete and quick to use.

Right now the first page is coming from an XL file and the second from a word document; they can be uploaded if necessary.

[Ducky]

Ive played a few games with your chart, but ill have to play a few more with my "without wind" chart to get a decent opinion.
I hope a can play a few more games this weekend.

But I think we have a good enough set to make a start with the solo campaign.
Time will learn what adjustments have to be made.

I like the simple ruling of taking the nearest Sharp turn available for other ships.

I think the ships do not run of the board too much and a simple rule of start turning when within half a ruler should prevent ships runninh of the board...

[soul taker]

Fred

Thanks for puting the diagrams in your latest chart. The example really helped clear up how it all worked. I'm going to try this out this weekend and see if I've got it down.

[Nightmoss]

I made my first attempt at a solo game late this afternoon. I really didn't complete the battle so even though I took a number of photos I figure I shouldn't post anything in the Mission AAR section. What I did come up with is a couple of questions, which most likely have obvious answers, but here goes just the same.

Basic Rules Only (no Standard or Advanced). Ships were Black Pearl (HMS Terpsichore) and Royal Fortune (Courageuse).

1. If the two ships are ever exactly on the line dividing a quadrant how do you decide which quadrant is correct? (I set them up exactly opposite one another on the mat)
2. If the wind direction ever matches exactly with the line dividing a quadrant how do you decide which quadrant is correct? (Initially the wind was directly out of the east at a 90 degree angle to both ships)
3. The instructions say the AI ship(s) handle taken aback as normal, but the Basic rules have you use the two hour glass direction as default, what determines which of the three cards is chosen for the maneuver?

I did have fun and outside of the taken aback question movement was pretty clear using the grid, die roll, etc. Almost had one collision, but the ships passed safely. It was a great way to familiarize oneself with all of the rules so I do plan to have another go at it soon (and another read of the rule book).

If you want some visual examples of the fight let me know. When I quit the two ships were just about equal in damage although the Pearl had gotten in a nasty last shot.

[fredmiracle]

1. If the two ships are ever exactly on the line dividing a quadrant how do you decide which quadrant is correct? (I set them up exactly opposite one another on the mat)

If the majority of the ship base is in one quadrant or the other, I use that. Usually that resolves it. If there's a tie, I'd probably choose the one containing the front of the ship--i.e. the quadrant it's headed toward, not the one it is leaving. In the case you're talking about, that still wouldn't resolve it, so in that case I'd flip a coin (or E chit draw).

2. If the wind direction ever matches exactly with the line dividing a quadrant how do you decide which quadrant is correct? (Initially the wind was directly out of the east at a 90 degree angle to both ships)

If it's coming from ahead or astern, I'd flip a coin. If it's on the beam, I might choose the aft quadrant, or just flip a coin there too

3. The instructions say the AI ship(s) handle taken aback as normal, but the Basic rules have you use the two hour glass direction as default, what determines which of the three cards is chosen for the maneuver?

I forgot that in Basic you always use the double hourglass--I was thinking it was always the single hourglass.

Nevertheless I don't think it matters. Basically you just use the red card that corresponds to the maneuver card that was generated for the AI ship. So if the AI's maneuver is a 3 (say), you'd use the 4- red card. If the maneuver is a 10, you'd use the 6+ red card. If the maneuver is a 5/sideslip, you'd use the 5 red card.

[Ducky]

I agree with Fred on al those issues.
Its the way I played them aswell.

And yes the taken aback rule should be used in the way Fred says also.
Thats the way I designed it.

Im planning on some solo runs tomorrow ;)

[Nightmoss]

If the majority of the ship base is in one quadrant or the other, I use that. Usually that resolves it. If there's a tie, I'd probably choose the one containing the front of the ship--i.e. the quadrant it's headed toward, not the one it is leaving. In the case you're talking about, that still wouldn't resolve it, so in that case I'd flip a coin (or E chit draw).



If it's coming from ahead or astern, I'd flip a coin. If it's on the beam, I might choose the aft quadrant, or just flip a coin there too



I forgot that in Basic you always use the double hourglass--I was thinking it was always the single hourglass.

Nevertheless I don't think it matters. Basically you just use the red card that corresponds to the maneuver card that was generated for the AI ship. So if the AI's maneuver is a 3 (say), you'd use the 4- red card. If the maneuver is a 10, you'd use the 6+ red card. If the maneuver is a 5/sideslip, you'd use the 5 red card.

I agree with Fred on al those issues.
Its the way I played them aswell.

And yes the taken aback rule should be used in the way Fred says also.
Thats the way I designed it.

Im planning on some solo runs tomorrow ;)

Thanks both for your feedback. I think I 'chose' correctly when the issue of quadrants (ship and wind) came up.

I might have messed up on the taken aback maneuver in one or two cases though, but now I know specifically that the AI ship first generates a card using the normal procedure and that card determines which of the 3 taken aback cards is used. Excellent! I know it's been discussed on the forums before, but taken aback ships can suddenly become quite deadly!!

Here's another question concerning combat. I'll post a photo so you can comment if I got it right or wrong. The Royal Fortune (on the right) has a rear arc broadside shot on the Black Pearl (on the left). The Black Pearl does not have any corresponding broadside shot, but is in range for a musketry shot. That's how I played it and was that correct? Thanks!

[Ducky]

Yes the Black pearl can use musketry, but the Royal fortune can use musketry aswell!

[Nightmoss]

Yes the Black pearl can use musketry, but the Royal fortune can use musketry aswell!

Thanks. Royal Fortune, IIRC, took the rear arc broadside shot instead, which was more effective.

[Nightmoss]

I set up another solo game last night. HMS Bellona (me) vs. the Austerlitz (AI). The grid and quadrant system worked very well and whenever there wasn't a corresponding card for the 1st rate ship I used the closest movement card that I could match.

I don't think I need to post the AAR unless there's a request for it. The confrontation went much longer than I thought it would and while it was touch and go to a point the size of the Austerlitz won the day (1st rates can soak up a huge amount of damage).

[Ducky]

Thanks. Royal Fortune, IIRC, took the rear arc broadside shot instead, which was more effective.

I thought the fortune could take the broadsite shot and the musketry aswell.
There is no rule you should choose one of both.

So a missed chance by the fortune... Not so fortuned!