Windage Dice

[Pseudotheist]

So, reading over the rues for change in wind speed and strength, I get the feeling that maintaining two seperate pools of chips for the entire game is entirely too much overhead for the mechanic. It seems to me the mechanic would be much more easy to manage if I could just roll a couple dice each turn. Now, the part where you pull out a chip from the pool to track a pending wind change skews the numbers so that you don't get the same percentages as if you were rolling 10 sided dice, but I looked at the stats, and using an 8-sider wuldn't be too far off:

Percentage chance of at least one wind change vs. number of turns:

---

# of turns | Erroneous_| 8-sided die | 6 sided die

1___|__0.00%___|___0.00%__|___0.00%
2___|__4.44%___|___3.13%__|___5.56%
3___|__10.07%__|___7.81%__|___12.96%
4___|__15.82%__|___13.18%_|___20.68%
5___|__21.35%__|___18.75%_|___28.09%
6___|__26.57%__|___24.25%_|___34.96%
7___|__31.45%__|___29.53%_|___41.25%
8___|__36.02%__|___34.54%_|___46.96%
9___|__40.28%__|___39.25%_|___52.13%
10__|__44.27%__|___43.65%_|___56.79%
11__|__47.98%__|___47.75%_|___61.01%
12__|__51.45%__|___51.56%_|___64.82%
13__|__54.69%__|___55.10%_|___68.25%
14__|__57.71%__|___58.38%_|___71.35%
15__|__60.53%__|___61.42%_|___74.15%
16__|__63.16%__|___64.25%_|___76.67%
17__|__65.61%__|___66.86%_|___78.95%
18__|__67.91%__|___69.29%_|___81.00%
19__|__70.05%__|___71.54%_|___82.86%
20__|__72.04%__|___73.62%_|___84.53%

Correct conuter pecentages in post 18

As you can see, the the odds of having at least one wind change (tracking either speed or direction, not both) are slightly lower for the 8-sider during the arly rounds of the game, but become slightly higher by round 12, which is coincidentally the round both mechanisms reach 50% odds of a wind change. More importantly, the odds differntial is never more than a couple percentage points off. I include the stats for a 6 sided die for comparison both because it is probably easier to find/make custom 6-sided dice, and in case some people were interested in a slightly more mercurial windage system.

So now I have 4 basic questions:

1. Am I the only one who thinks the token draw system is more cumbersome than it should be for the game element supported? I know it's not that hard to draw tokens, but if you play a 12 round game you have even odds that this element will come into play once.

2. Is anyone willing to independantly verify my math?

3. Is the 8-sdied die alternative close enough to be a reasonable substitute?

4. For Keith, really: If there were interest, would custom windage dice be something you'd consider creating and selling through Anchorage Accessories?

[David Manley]

Lots of things in SGN (and WoG) would be simpler with dice

[Devsdoc]

Don't knock over the ships logs after turn 3
Be safe
Rory

[csadn]

Lots of things in SGN (and WoG) would be simpler with dice

Do. Not. Get. Me. Started. :)

If I want a Simple Wind-Direction-Change mechanic, here's what I do: Take a chit, and flip it; whichever way it's pointing is the direction the wind is blowing. >:)

(I realize this will be considered Sacrilege, but: FFG's _X-Wing_ really scores over _WoG_ with its use of dice, and a single set of maneuvers rather than bespoke movement decks for every flippin' unit.)

[Andy Blozinski]

Ares has decided to differentiate themselves in sailing games by using a diceless system. I think it mechanically functions well with the ship operations. There are interacting demands that are all integrated well.
Wind direction and force change are completely independent of everything and the use of counters adds nothing. That being said, Ares is being consistent with the theme in how the system works.

[Gaz67]

For me I'm happy to not use die/dice for anything in either SGN or WoW , if I was to start using Die/dice for one or two uses whats to stop me using them for everything...
With die/dice it's not the game that Ares made.

That's just me though

[OmegaLazarus]

(I realize this will be considered Sacrilege, but: FFG's _X-Wing_ really scores over _WoG_ with its use of dice, and a single set of maneuvers rather than bespoke movement decks for every flippin' unit.)

I'm not so sure about this. I am just getting into x-wing and like it (as a subsitute for 40k as being more personalized taht WoG, but less cumbersome than 40k), but that is one problem I think it has. The templates are great for ease of use, but I find they do make the movements generic. I don't get much of a thrill opening a new ship as I know that whether it is an agile TIE Interceptor or a more methodical TIE Bomber, there isn't much variation.

Every ship will have the core moves (that block of 9-12 or so moves in the center). The only difference is the length of the K turn and where the green block is (starting at speed 1 or starting at speed 2). The color does add some variation, but as that doesn't actually affect movement (just the strategic use of it), it isn't a real variation.

Basically, there are only 12 basic moves and an opposite 6 for turning the other way. Every ship will have access to most of those. The main thing I miss is the ability to Side slip. Since the game is reactive (single move per turn) Side slips aren't much of a surprise when carried over turns.

To be clear, I am not dogging the game. I like it and am actually waiting for a shipment of more pieces today. Yay! However, I am not ready to call the templates better. They are easier, but they lack a lot of the subtlety and variation that drawing a line on a card can do. If ease of use was more important to me than variation and subtlety, I would be playing "snakes and ladders" instead.


As to dice, that conversation has been done plenty (as you know). In this case, I agree (though I normally favor the controlled odds of chits). The dice work very well with how their powers play out. IT is a great way to "buy into better odds."

[Pseudotheist]

if I was to start using Die/dice for one or two uses whats to stop me using them for everything...

Hopefully the efficacy of the token system. Not havng played this one, maybe they overkilled on the tokens, but the card damage system in Wings of Glory is IMHO an order of magnitude more efficient than the old dice and tables from Richthofen's War. They're also very good for action planning. I just don't think they bring a similar elegance to the windage rules.

[csadn]

the card damage system in Wings of Glory is IMHO an order of magnitude more efficient than the old dice and tables from Richthofen's War.

Cannot disagree strongly enough. Having played _RW_ for a while, all relevant data for one's unit is provided on one 6" x 8" piece of paper; and there's only two charts in the game, both of which can as-needed be copied onto that same piece of paper. Meanwhile, trying to keep track of damage (esp. criticals) in _WoG_ involves a welter of chits, cards, and who-knows-what-else. _SoG_ is going to be even worse in this regard -- the first time some oaf bumps a ship status card, and scatters chits across half the table....

[Pseudotheist]

Cannot disagree strongly enough.

I think to give your response a deserving counter-argument would completely derail this topic. For now, I will just say that it seems we've had completely different experiences playing the same games.

[Gunner]

While not taking sides, I'm sure that someone will devise a play sheet to keep track of sails, damage, etc. for each ship before long.

I do own a large box of assorted dice and would probably try a dice variation. But I do like the SGN chit system.

[David Manley]

I must admit, I'm with Chris on this. As an RW player since the early 80s I found the control and damage system to be simplicity itself and, having had a couple of "mat knocking" incidents in the last few SGN games I'm well aware of the fiddly nature of the chit drawing system. Which is not to say that I don't like and enjoy the systems in SOG and SGN, I do, but I also accept that they have "features" which the style of development of the game system brings

[7eat51]

If I understand RAW, once a wind change counter is drawn, it is not immediately put back into the mix. Not doing so, reduces the probability that the same directional change will be drawn next turn. In some ways, this seems counter intuitive to me. The first wind change counter seems to indicate that the associated change in wind direction seems more probable than before, but the actual probability of it occurring decreases due to not replacing the first counter. I think I would make a notification of a possible wind change, and replace the counter.

As for using dice in place of drawing chits, I think it depends on one's philosophy as to how probability should influence game play, as we discussed in another thread, as well as ease of mechanics. I would not replace counter draws with dice simply to avoid table bumps, etc., because I think there are good solutions to such things, e.g. laminated cards and dry markers. I would replace counters with dice only if the dice are more efficient, or if I wanted to keep probability spreads consistent from turn to turn.

Todd, how did you set up the logic of your table?

[Pseudotheist]

I would not replace counter draws with dice simply to avoid table bumps, etc., because I think there are good solutions to such things, e.g. laminated cards and dry markers. I would replace counters with dice only if the dice are more efficient, or if I wanted to keep probability spreads consistent from turn to turn.

Todd, how did you set up the logic of your table?

Table bumping shouldn't really be an issue with windage, but the counters require you to maintain another pair of cups, bags, or free space for counter mixing for the one draw each turn; dice are much easier to relocate as they require no prep or clean-up, so effectively take up no space and never get in the way.

I was hoping someone else would engineer their own to check me, but the odds for the counters basically assume a 4-in-10 chance of drawing a wind-change counter from a neutral status, and a 1-in-10 chance of change or 2-in-10 chance of reversion from a pending change status. The dice system assumes one face on the die for each change, so 1-in4 chance of rollong a change counter from neutral, and a 1-in-8 chance of change or 1-in-8 chance of reversion from a pending change status.

[7eat51]

Hi Todd,

According to the Summary of Markers, Tokens, and Counters in the rules, there are 3 each of the wind change counters and 4 neutral. So at turn 2, the probability should be significantly higher:

Turn 1: probability of drawing a wind change counter = 6/10 = 0.6
Turn 2: probability of drawing the same wind change counter as drawn in turn 1 = 2/9 = 0.22222
So the probability of having a wind change by turn 2 = 12/90 = 0.13333

Alternatively, this can be set up as the following looking at both turns based on a given direction:
The probability of a drawing a counterclockwise direction on both turns = CCW AND CCW = 0.3 x 0.22222 = 0.66667 rounded up
or
The probability of a drawing a clockwise direction on both turns = CW AND CW = 0.3 x 0.22222 = 0.66667 rounded up
Totaling 0.13333

Assuming one neutral counter was drawn during one of the first two turns, and a second appropriate wind change counter was drawn by turn 3, the logic of the odds would be:
Turn 1 drawing a wind change counter (6/10) AND Turn 2 drawing a second same wind change counter (2/9)
OR
Turn 1 drawing a wind change (6/10) AND Turn 2 drawing an unchanged counter (4/9) AND Turn 3 drawing a second same wind change counter (2/9)
OR
Turn 1 drawing an unchanged marker (4/10) AND Turn 2 drawing a wind change counter (6/10) AND Turn 3 drawing a second same wind change counter (2/9)

By the time you get to turn 4, things get very interesting because your table title is "at least one":
Turn 1 drawing a wind change counter (6/10) AND Turn 2 drawing a second same wind change counter (2/9)
OR
Turn 1 drawing a wind change counter (6/10) AND Turn 2 drawing an unchanged counter (4/9) AND Turn 3 drawing a second same wind change counter (2/9)
OR
Turn 1 drawing an unchanged counter (4/10) AND Turn 2 drawing a wind change counter (6/10) AND Turn 3 drawing a second same wind change counter (2/9)
OR
Turn 1 drawing a wind change counter (6/10) AND Turn 2 drawing an unchanged counter (4/9) AND Turn 3 drawing an unchanged counter (4/9) AND Turn 4 drawing a second same wind change counter (2/9)
OR
Turn 1 drawing an unchanged counter (4/10) AND Turn 2 drawing an unchanged counter (4/10) AND Turn 3 drawing a wind change counter (6/10) AND Turn 4 drawing a second same wind change counter (2/9)
OR
Turn 1 drawing a wind change marker (6/10) AND Turn 2 drawing the opposite wind change marker (3/9) AND Turn 3 drawing a wind change marker (6/10) AND Turn 4 drawing a second same wind change counter (2/9)
OR
Turn 1 drawing a wind change counter (6/10) AND Turn 2 drawing a second same wind change counter (2/9) AND Turn 3 drawing a wind change counter (6/10) AND Turn 4 drawing a second same wind change counter (2/9) [for 2 wind changes - "at least one"]

By turn 5 ...

[Pseudotheist]

According to the Summary of Markers, Tokens, and Counters in the rules, there are 3 each of the wind change counters and 4 neutral. So at turn 2, the probability should be significantly higher:

I somehow managed to completely misread that; I'll have to re-run the numbers for a new comparison. Also, does everyone else's rulebook say that the wind strength counters come with only one counter of each type, so using the two-token system for wind change means the wind strength will never change?

[7eat51]

I somehow managed to completely misread that; I'll have to re-run the numbers for a new comparison. Also, does everyone else's rulebook say that the wind strength counters come with only one counter of each type, so using the two-token system for wind change means the wind strength will never change?

Todd, this is why I asked about the logic of your table. Without knowing how it was setup, all we could do is state that our numbers are different, without, necessarily, knowing why.

[Pseudotheist]

O.k. Here's the numbers with the right number of counters, which is now pretty darn close to using a 4-sided die (or an 8-sided die with 2 faces for each cange indicator).

Turn    Counters   d4
1	0.00%	0.00%
2	13.33%	12.50%
3	24.59%	25.00%
4	34.40%	35.94%
5	42.93%	45.31%
6	50.35%	53.32%
7	56.80%	60.16%
8	62.42%	65.99%
9	67.30%	70.97%
10	71.56%	75.22%
11	75.25%	78.85%
12	78.47%	81.95%
13	81.27%	84.59%
14	83.70%	86.85%
15	85.82%	88.77%
16	87.67%	90.42%
17	89.27%	91.82%
18	90.67%	93.02%
19	91.88%	94.04%
20	92.93%	94.91%
21	93.85%	95.66%

[7eat51]

Hi Todd,

Are you proposing, therefore, to roll a single die each turn, and determine what happens to the wind based on a single die roll? For example, a 1 = CCW, a 2 = CW, a 3 or 4 = no change?

[Pseudotheist]

Hi Todd,

Are you proposing, therefore, to roll a single die each turn, and determine what happens to the wind based on a single die roll? For example, a 1 = CCW, a 2 = CW, a 3 or 4 = no change?

Yes, with a 1 or 2 being equivalent to drawing a token, so it would take two successive 1s or 2s to affect an actual wind change. That maintains the element of warning that the wind might change clockwise next turn, but defintitely not counter-clockwise...

[Andy Blozinski]

How did you get 12.5% with a 4 sided die?

[7eat51]

How did you get 12.5% with a 4 sided die?

By developing a probability based on two turns - Turn 1 probability of rolling a wind change = 2/4 or 50%; Turn 2 probability of rolling same wind change = 1/4 or 25%; the probability, therefore, of rolling the same wind change on turns 1 and 2 = 2/16 or 12.5%. When you do an AND calculation, you multiply the probabilities - same die roll on turns 1 AND 2. This assumes something like 1 = CCW change, 2 = CW change, 3 or 4 = no change.

[RichardPF]

So before I make any comments on wind direction changes I have a question or three:

On page 58 of the rules under the Wind Counters section the 2nd drawing from the left has the caption:
Wind Direction Counters (8)

The 4th, 5th and 6th images from the left have the captions:
Clockwise Wind Direction Change Counters (3)
Counter–Clockwise Wind Direction Change Counters (3)
Unchanged Wind Direction Counters (4)

Is there something I am missing here or is there an error somewhere here?

I'm thinking there might be something I am missing because the 1st and 3rd image captions are:
Wind Direction (Back)
Wind Direction Change (Back)

If these are the backs of the Unchanged and Change counters, where is the 2nd image used?
Is there a front to this counter? possibly indicating one of the 8 directions to which the wind may be set?

[RichardPF]

...does everyone else's rulebook say that the wind strength counters come with only one counter of each type, so using the two-token system for wind change means the wind strength will never change?

It does appear that way.
The rules say that while the unchanged counters are replaced the change counter is not replaced unless it is cancelled by one of another direction OR A SECOND ONE OF THE SAME DIRECTION IS DRAWN.
Page 58 does seem to show 1 each increase and decrease counter and 3 unchanged counters.

Does the demo game kit include these counters?
Has anyone counted what is actually in the kit?

[David Manley]

The material I have (admittedly early versions) includes multiple wind change counters. Where does it say there is only one of each type? I'm being blind.

EDIT - ah, just seen it, and what you said above. Double blind :) (must be the jet lag)

[RichardPF]

So I have gone ahead and done a bit of analysis assuming that there are 10 wind direction change (or not) counters: 3 in each direction and 4 unchanged counters.

Because of the degree of conditionality involved, it was easier for me to write a program to run a simulation over a few tens of millions of turns.
The simulation resulted in a wind shift on about 11.55% of the turns (about 1 turn in 9).

While the game mechanics are such that the probability of a wind shift on the first turn is 0% and on the second turn is 13.333...%, those are just artifacts of the game and one might consider that in the actual situation the wind had, say, a few billion years of preroll so the odds of a shift on any turn of reality would be the same.

This value can be used in a probability distribution/binomial expansion type function to calculate the probable number of wind shifts in a given number of turns using this mechanic in an infinite preroll world (or use 0 and 13.333% for the first two turns and this for those beyond for a better expected value from the actual game).

[RichardPF]

While computer modeling the wind shift frequency I had another thought:

Many natural phenomenon, including wind direction, follow something of a power law.
That is, small changes are frequent larger changes less frequent at an exponential rate of decreasing frequency.

A 45 degree change in wind direction is a very big thing.
The likelihood of a wind change this large on the open ocean during the time interval covered by the game is fairly remote.
Probably far more remote than once every 9 turns.

I wonder if Ares thought about making the wind changes less drastic but still of strategic significance (like maybe 22 1/2 degrees, aka 1 point) before settling on "45 degrees or nothing" shifts as a game element?

[7eat51]

If we went with a one point change in the wind, what suggestions would you have as to determining if the wind changes? Would you recommend the same probability as the rules, but with the half change in direction?

Once the wind changes, would a subsequent change in the same direction have a higher probability of occurring, or would you keep the probabilities static? This is assuming each individual change is one point.

What would you recommend for storms?

If it looks like the wind could change, for example when one pulls the first change chit (using the RaW mechanism), is it suggested to announce that a wind change might occur on a subsequent turn? Are wind changes, in realty, a big surprise, or are there small signs of an impending change?

[RichardPF]

If we went with a one point change in the wind, what suggestions would you have as to determining if the wind changes? Would you recommend the same probability as the rules, but with the half change in direction?

Once the wind changes, would a subsequent change in the same direction have a higher probability of occurring, or would you keep the probabilities static? This is assuming each individual change is one point.

What would you recommend for storms?

If it looks like the wind could change, for example when one pulls the first change chit (using the RaW mechanism), is it suggested to announce that a wind change might occur on a subsequent turn? Are wind changes, in realty, a big surprise, or are there small signs of an impending change?

With first a disclaimer that I am not a meteorologist or even play one on TV, I have spent a good deal of time sailing and looking for potential wind changes.

1) Once the wind changes, would a subsequent change in the same direction have a higher probability of occurring, or would you keep the probabilities static? This is assuming each individual change is one point.

Most data has an element of signal and an element of noise.
Very small wind changes will be closer to random because they are mostly noise (these changes would be well less than one point).
Larger changes will be increasingly signal based. These will be governed by prevailing winds (like the west to east wind tracks you see on weather maps in the US).
It is more likely that the wind direction will stay close to the prevailing direction, so if it has deviated significantly, it is more likely that it will change back in the direction of the prevailing wind.

Storm fronts and coastal land mass thermal effects are situations that will overpower prevailing winds at distances VERY CLOSE TO SHORE.
Wind direction by time of day in coastal areas is very predictable due to re relatively greater heating and cooling of the land mass through the day as compared to the water (land is warmer during the day and colder at night).
The relative difference in thermal air movement (rising and falling) between the land and the water will cause a pressure differential and resulting near shore wind pattern (towards shore in the afternoon/ away from shore pre down).

Storm fronts will also cause wind direction changes.
Storms are caused by low pressure areas. Wind circulates around the low pressure area due to the attraction of the wind towards the low pressure area and the coriolis effect.
In the northern hemisphere, the direction of rotation is usually counter clockwise.
The larger the storm, the more likely it is to be counter clockwise.

2) What would you recommend for storms?

I think that storms would represent a very interesting challenge that would require a good bit of discussion.

3) Are wind changes, in realty, a big surprise, or are there small signs of an impending change?

One of the first things you are taught when learning to sail is approaching wind shifts (the shift may be approaching you or you the shift).
On the open sea this is usually most easily seen by the change in the surface of the water (size, shape, frequency, and color of the waves and water).
Depending upon the speed of the vessel and the wind pressure area, this can often be seen many minutes in advance of reaching the shift.
As an aside, it is often as easy or easier to tell change in pressure (the force of the wind) from the effect on the surface of the water than changes in direction.
In any case, these changes will appear as patches or lines of change in color and texture of the surface of the water.

[7eat51]

Bruce, for a non-meteorologist, you definitely gave a thoughtful and informative answer.

Based on the component list in the rules, the probability of a change in wind direction seems higher than a change in wind strength. is this reasonable?

I think a discussion of wind effects when within a ruler of land masses would be interesting. It could affect gameplay, and require greater thought on the part of captains.

One possible captain ability could be recognizing changes in wind - I am thinking about something similar to ace abilities. When the first wind change marker is drawn, those players having said ability would be forewarned.

All of these questions and thoughts would fall under optional/house rules.

[Berthier]

Apart from the effects of wind changing with proximity to shore there is also the shallowing of water which is not really modelled in this game. In older board games they had colour coded sea maps with "topographic" lines, for want of a better word, which allowed for shallowing, shoals land etc. It's one of the features I think some custom maps for the game may really benefit from.

Storms present several issues for combat. Large ships would be unable to open their lower gun deck to fire due to their proximity to the water line (theoretically the side of the ship the wind was coming from would be higher int he water than the down wind side so they could possibly open that side but not without significant risk). Secondly in high seas visibility is reduced by the height of the waves with ships disappearing in between waves and reappearing when cresting, the sea spray would be increased and the rain would also reduce visibility. The need for hands to handle the ship in dangerous conditions might make the crewing of the gun decks light on as the bigger threat would be the weather not the enemy. Closing on an enemy would present further problems as putting up more canvas to increase speed might compromise the integrity of the masts, sails and rigging, could even lead to the ship being capsized in extreme cases.

There are storms and storms, so it might be possible to fight a battle in a light storm but impossible in a heavy one. In heavier weather ships couldnt even keep station with each other and were often scattered over miles. A good expample of this was the French attempted invasion of Ireland (I think 1798) in which the fleet and transports were so heavily dispersed, with many damaged, the whole campaign was abandoned after only a few ships reached the Irish shores.

[RichardPF]

Bruce, for a non-meteorologist, you definitely gave a thoughtful and informative answer.

Based on the component list in the rules, the probability of a change in wind direction seems higher than a change in wind strength. is this reasonable?

I think a discussion of wind effects when within a ruler of land masses would be interesting. It could affect gameplay, and require greater thought on the part of captains.

One possible captain ability could be recognizing changes in wind - I am thinking about something similar to ace abilities. When the first wind change marker is drawn, those players having said ability would be forewarned.

All of these questions and thoughts would fall under optional/house rules.

Based on the component list in the rules, the probability of a change in wind direction seems higher than a change in wind strength. is this reasonable?

The two often go together.

Which is more frequent would likely depend on the significance threshold you set for each.
Also wind changes are much more frequent as localized gusts that would return to the underlying (previous) pressure after a short period of time.

One possible captain ability could be recognizing changes in wind - I am thinking about something similar to ace abilities.

This is definitely an accurate potential skill differentiator!

[7eat51]

Daniel, you provided a lot of fodder for house/optional rules. For example, in storms, ships dole out half the normal amount of damage chits, and if the weather is severe enough, can only fire at half distance to mimic the lessened visibility.

[RichardPF]

Actually, I think all that would be necessary to change the game so that the wind would move in 1 point increments rather than 2 would be a wind indicator base with 16 sides rather than 8.
Nipping each existing base corner about a third of the way into the existing sides would create such a base.
There would still always be 2 sides at 90 degree angles to each other to line up with the mat lines.

I wonder how hard/expensive it would be for someone, ahem, already in the business of making such things to add this to an existing product line?

[jophan]

I am using a deck of common playing cards. I draw one card every turn:

Jack: Wind decreases
Queen: Wind increases
Black king: Wind shifts one step clockwise
Red king: Wind shifts one step counter-clockwise
Joker: Shuffle the entire deck (shuffling in used cards)

This gives odds that are really close to the rules as written, but it's much faster. There's one small drawback with the wind direction this way, and that is that you cannot feel the wind starting to shift, when it shifts direction it comes immediately. But using the RAW, there's only a 20% chance that the wind will actually shift when it starts to, so I don't think that really matters. And of course, the wind cannot both shift and change its strength, but that rarely happens and isn't of any particular significance when it does.

In brief: This simplifies the game a lot when using these optional rules, and changes probabilities very little.

[Bligh]

I have a die that I picked up from a show some years ago with all the compass points upon it. Whatever comes up, I simply move the counter two points in the direction indicated. When and if it reaches a sub cardinal point on the indicator the wind veers to that point.

http://sailsofglory.org/attachment.p...7&d=1479033445

Rob.

[Hjl]

That's a good idea, where did you get it?

[Gunner]

That's a good idea, where did you get it?

You can use a 4 sided die. 1=N etc.

[Bligh]

This one also has ne sw etc so is a bit more variable. If you just want the Cardinal points Games Workshop used to sell them.
Rob.

[Dobbs]

I have found the wind direction chits to work well. I load them in a small Tupperware container that a player shakes every turn and draws one. The wind speed, as per SoG, does not work. I have developed a chit based version that allows fluctuations, but trends back to the starting wind. Unfortunately, if you are interested, it will have to wait until I'm home for me to reveal the mechanics, as I am still sailing till Saturday.

[Bligh]

I would love to see your mechanism for this when you return Dobbs.
The main reason for my use of the dice is really to save space as my playing area has no real extra room for all the ancillary bits and bobs, so I cut down as much as I can on extra boxes etc. However, anybody with a different system is always of interest.
Rob.

[Dobbs]

I will upload my ideas as soon as I am back. I have designed it so probability trends toward the wind speed at the start of the engagement.

[Dobbs]

I use the same Tupperware containers for dice rolling, to minimize the chance of die careening across the table. They are about 2.5 inches (7 cm?) on a side. I also use them for the damage chits because you can stack them off to one side. I can't take credit for them though. They were Suzanne's idea.

[Bligh]

Sounds a good answer to the problem Dobbs.
I have a plastic box with compartments for all the damage chits too.
Rob.

[Capn Duff]

I like the dice Rob, will have a look for one this weekend at Reading.
I know that KR has a dice case for rolling the dice which I will have a look at, but to stop careening dice a tower may be in order

[Bligh]

That is a good idea Chris.
I could use one of those for the random dice we use with the solo rules too.
Rob.

[Dobbs]

What you need is the dome from a Trouble board. I'll bet there is some way to reproduce that popping action.

[Capn Duff]

Ill pick you one up Rob if I see any at Warfare, any other takers if I can find , thats for the wind dice ?

[Bligh]

Thanks Chris.
I will settle with you later.
Rob.

[Bligh]

What you need is the dome from a Trouble board. I'll bet there is some way to reproduce that popping action.

Please excuse my ignorance Dobbs but what exactly is a trouble board?
Rob.