Sails of Glory Point Value Discussion on BBG

[Nightmoss]

There's an interesting discussion of point values on BoardGameGeek. Some of it goes beyond ship values into special captain abilities in the new sets (if we ever see those?). Values for the new ships has been posted by Roberto.

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1321...clude-new-stuf

[fredmiracle]

It was nice that they were ready to go on that. Of course assigning to points to the new wave-1 ships was pretty much a no-brainer since the parameters were already defined. I'm looking forward to seeing the points for the V&C and the associated new abilities, that will give something to think about...

[7eat51]

How will folks, here, use the point system? I found with WoG, I used them mainly to learn about the planes, not to set up games. The points game me an idea of how the designers rate each plane relative to each other, and the criteria game me a better understanding of the planes' capabilities.

When designing scenarios, I don't pay a lot of attention to balance, but to victory conditions. The other night when teaching WGS for the first time, I used balanced planes because everyone was learning about maneuvering, using damage chits, etc. Next time, the story will drive the plane composition.

[Nightmoss]

It was nice that they were ready to go on that. Of course assigning to points to the new wave-1 ships was pretty much a no-brainer since the parameters were already defined. I'm looking forward to seeing the points for the V&C and the associated new abilities, that will give something to think about...

Agreed. Will be very interesting to see how the Victory and Constitution look. Applying point values to captain abilities was a complete surprise, but I could see where this might be fun down the line. Especially if they expand on the captain card abilities and associated point values.

How will folks, here, use the point system? I found with WoG, I used them mainly to learn about the planes, not to set up games. The points game me an idea of how the designers rate each plane relative to each other, and the criteria game me a better understanding of the planes' capabilities.

When designing scenarios, I don't pay a lot of attention to balance, but to victory conditions. The other night when teaching WGS for the first time, I used balanced planes because everyone was learning about maneuvering, using damage chits, etc. Next time, the story will drive the plane composition.

I think most often point values come into play for tournaments, but I like your approach of using it for beginner play composition. Even so, I would think the point values should help with play balance and/or scenario building too?

[fredmiracle]

I think most often point values come into play for tournaments, but I like your approach of using it for beginner play composition. Even so, I would think the point values should help with play balance and/or scenario building too?

I agree with these thoughts.

- I'm not sure there really is a tournament model for the game, but if there were I guess it would help
- I absolutely think it can help a beginning player engage with the ships--by quantifying which ones are better than others and by how much, in a quick-and-dirty way
- I do find it a useful tool for scenario building to help gauge the relative strengths of the two sides, especially when you lack the time for many playtests
- Similarly, if you want to use an optional rule (in particular treating the French as "less experienced" for more historical accuracy), it can help you handicap things to create a fairly equal fight
- I found the points have encouraged me to rethink the game a bit, particularly in that it caused me to take a lot more seriously the idea that 2 small ships could match up well with one large ship

[Warspite]

I started that thread on BGG, while for events/conventions I use scenarios I find if your playing in a group who regularely plays points and "equal" fleets (in value, not composition) is the way to go and the way people generally prefer to play cmg's like X-wing, war at sea etc. With 1.5 hours to play with the advanced rules we play 300 points which allows for a variety of fleet composition so I would disagree with point values being beginner if anything I would think if your not playing with point values (outside scenarios and events) your probably playing solo and not against other players (unless your handicapping for a less experienced player which would reverse the argument).

My thought was that the captain rules make it easier for your captain to die therefore you lose the abilities. If the abilities are able to be bought without the captain (which was kind of unclear in andreas points at the start but I think he refuted that at the end) wouldn't it be better to just buy the abilities seperately without having the risk of your captain dying for the same points?

Also a random mix of abilities is less valuable then a synergized mix of abilities so shouldn't the random mix of abilities cost less?

[fredmiracle]

if your playing in a group who regularely plays points and "equal" fleets (in value, not composition) is the way to go and the way people generally prefer to play cmg's like X-wing, war at sea etc. With 1.5 hours to play with the advanced rules we play 300 points which allows for a variety of fleet composition

I find this interesting.

I liked the fleet-building in War at Sea quite a bit, and it sounds fun in x-wing as well. I've been hoping this aspect of the game would be more viable for SGN as we get more variety of ships. But the issue I perceive is that ships are all arranged along a fairly linear, one-dimensional continuum from big/well-armed/slow/expensive to small/poorly-armed/fast/cheap. The variety of options necessary to allow one to concoct different winning combinations, synergies, new types of "builds", etc. has not appeared to me to exist in SGN.

However it sounds like you are finding this approach to be more viable. I'd like to know more of your experiences and thoughts. What kinds of 300 point builds are people in your group using? Are the optional rules and captain and crew abilities adding some depth? Have you learned anything about the game from the different fleets people use?

[Warspite]

I find this interesting.

I liked the fleet-building in War at Sea quite a bit, and it sounds fun in x-wing as well. I've been hoping this aspect of the game would be more viable for SGN as we get more variety of ships. But the issue I perceive is that ships are all arranged along a fairly linear, one-dimensional continuum from big/well-armed/slow/expensive to small/poorly-armed/fast/cheap. The variety of options necessary to allow one to concoct different winning combinations, synergies, new types of "builds", etc. has not appeared to me to exist in SGN.

However it sounds like you are finding this approach to be more viable. I'd like to know more of your experiences and thoughts. What kinds of 300 point builds are people in your group using? Are the optional rules and captain and crew abilities adding some depth? Have you learned anything about the game from the different fleets people use?

The biggest shock I have had (from preconceived notions I had read) is that frigates appear to do quite well with points, what seems to happen is that "B" shots spring alot of fire and leaks which are bad news and the bigger ships are especially vunerable in sort of having all your eggs in one basket type aspect. At first glance it would appear to be "luck" but its happened enough that it has made me rethink things.

Types of builds I see

1st rate + a heavy frigate
two 3rd rates
3rd rate and 2 frigates
4 frigates

nobody has played a sloop yet but we are all curious and want to try them as well as the coastal battery fortresses.

As for the captain cards Well trained gunners and good aim are very popular , well trained gunners are especially good on frigates while good aim is preferred on first rates and both are included with 3rd rates. Elite marines generally gets selected alot as well. Tactic wise I like to have all my ships gang up on my opponents strongest vessel and try to put it out of the game as quickly as possible, sort of trying to seperate it from the pack and pick away at it while avoiding my opponents other ships. My main opponent loves the frigates especially the heavy ones viewing them as the best ships in the game and likes to cut across your fleet from all angles using strength of numbers to set up broadsides and raking shots.

Build wise when it comes to the bigger ships I like to choose the cheaper 3rd and 1st rates and then load them up with upgrades. We play with all the advanced rules but none of the optional ones (except for boarding).

While the ships themselves don't differ too much and are linear I find the formations and maneuvers you do with them depending on type seem to add a bit to the game and gives you a sort of approach how to use each ship without any of them being necessarily better then each other. Each of the 4 types of builds I listed seem to have a certain sort of way to play them and verse them and when you add things like terrain (mostly official SOG stuff) it can change up strategy for certain units as well .

[fredmiracle]

Thank you--that is very interesting. Obviously I need to ditch some assumptions and give it a try!

[Warspite]

Having different victory conditions other then sink all enemy ships helps keep things interesting as well.

[7eat51]

Even so, I would think the point values should help with play balance and/or scenario building too?

I think they can help, it is just that I am not too concerned with play balance as, say, victory condition balance. I have played too many games in which the story (strategic goals) was lost once contact with the enemy was made; when that occurs, the game simply becomes a slug fest with last man standing as the goal. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy a good game of Risk.

[fredmiracle]

I have played too many games in which the story (strategic goals) was lost once contact with the enemy was made; when that occurs, the game simply becomes a slug fest with last man standing as the goal.

Someday when I get a lightweight campaign framework perfect then the scenario conditions to prevent mindless slugfests will generate themselves and be self-enforcing. It took me about 5 years to get something we thought was just right for the War at Sea game, but eventually it all came together...

[Warspite]

While I never used it for WAS something like the random scenario generator that was developed for it could be interested for SGN, you could have objective games like:

Prize taking
Harbour raids
Landings
Convoys
Flagship destruction
Surface destruction
Blockade

matches that could even be linked to a campaign like victory system.

[Ozariig]

I'm a number junkie, so I always try to keep points values in mind. To me, it's evidence of the analysis and tuning (or lack thereof) that the designer put into their system. I wish that more designers would post their costing formulas, because they reveal a really interesting part of the design process.

I was actually a bit annoyed at first that points values weren't printed on the ship logs/cards, but after reading Roberto's post I can agree with his logic. Thanks for posting the link, Jim!

[7eat51]

Kevin, have you ever worked through the WoG point system?

[Ozariig]

Nah. If I owned any planes I probably would have, though.

But now that you mention it, I see that there was a lengthy thread on the Aerodrome started by Andrea. That's awesome; I really should throw some more money at those guys.

[7eat51]

When I first started playing WoG, the points, and especially the schema, helped me get a feel for the planes and their comparative capabilities. As I played more games, especially the solo games, I experienced the difference firsthand, e.g. the speed of a SPAD vs. a Fokker Dr.I. Personally, that has been the points' greatest value.