Plain blue water
Different shades of blue water
Islands
Coastlines
Ports/Towns
Other
What do you want to see on game mats?
It might be helpful for Ares to gather intel from players concerning game mat design. With that in mind, what do you want to see on game mats? Multiple choices can be made.
For a thread discussing game mats:
http://sailsofglory.org/showthread.p...Glory-Game-mat
Models of ships.
The blue sea.
I'd be hesitant about different shades if they have explicit game mechanics. Just a plain blue for open water would be a great start IMO, and another with some shaded sections to signify potentially shallow water or some visual variety. I would prefer if no "terrain" was printed on the mats since it limits variety of game play. The terrain packs will handle that stuff.
I admit I'm a little disappointed that there will be a light grid pattern printed but as it would probably aid in properly aligning the weather gauge it's likely for the best.
So you won't be using it for the Atlantic then?Originally Posted by Comte de Brueys
I said OTHER because there are conditions on my want of islands, coast, towna and terrain.
I'd like it to be real-world locations (like waters of historic battles) not just "draw some artistic T-LAR* in graphics software", and I'd like specific Latitude and Longitude coordinates and a compass-rose on any real-world location so featured. Towns/ports, I'd like to at least be "plausible"--say, if we get a map for Toulon Harbor during the British occupation in support of the Bourbons, I'd like it to actually LOOK reasonably close to what the city of Toulon did then as much as possible.
*T-LAR = That... Looks About Right
I would like blue only and add models to the mat myself land, islands and harbour etc.
Be safe
Rory
I wonder if there would be a problem because of the size of actual landmarks.
WoW/WoG maps are, I believe 27" x 39". At 1:1000 scale that would be 2250' x 3250'.
With that amount of coverage, it might take a few maps to accurately recreate features like a harbor and all would probably need to be released at the same time.
I'm not sure I understand the reasoning for multiple shades of blue.
Would the idea be to more accurately reflect the color of a particular ocean vs just using a generic blue that could represent anywhere?
Everything except plain blue water, especially ports and towns. :)
When desired, the different shades would represent different depths. One could ignore the shades easily when depth is not an issue.
I like plain blue so I can decide where anything that affects gameplay can go. I am very glad they included a light grid as that is the main reason I will buy a mat. Without a game aid and since I don't want inborn terrain, a blank mat would be a costly version of a roll of felt that I could use otherwise.
Luckily for me, the did exactly what I would have asked for.
That would be my thought. I dislike non-scaled terrain in cases where model and ranges are supposed to be scaled. If our ships are 1:1000 scale then any terrain I have in play I would roughly want the same. No "mini-islands". As such, terrain would represent shallows and shoals for me and I would want to place these, if even desired, based on the scenario and not have them permanent features on the map. So I'd prefer to get 2-4 generic blue maps myself and fill in the rest with terrain packs or home made terrain for ports / forts.
The introduction of terrain that represents anything at a significantly different scale would at the same time ruin the immersion, for me at least, of a game with this much historic detail. It does make for some larger playing areas of course, but then many of our WWII and LotR games are played on 4x6 or 4x8 tables anyway.
I admit, a few 'fun' versions of the maps with more of the cliche "pirate map" style colors and markings could be a great way to get players interested and excited. Especially if some ships come out down the road for playing out the glory days of piracy in the Caribbean.
:angry:
Having just watched the basic combat video, it looks like there could be some coastal terrain, if the video utilized an actual game mat.
I am with you folks on the scale issue. With WoG, I can always think of being at a given altitude. With SoG, I don't know how I would take to an island or town being smaller that a ship.
I just watched the basic movement video. Is that the coastal map from WoG? If so, that gives me a little peace of mind.
Last edited by 7eat51; 03-21-2013 at 12:55. Reason: Movement Video Comment and Question
That is what I think. IT seems they have been using that one for the videos, which makes sense on a few levels (production timetable, visual interest etc.).
On a related note: I wonder if they will have carronades? With the way the ruler is divided, it seems you could just have them at the same range as the chainshot. Unless the 'b' section of ball is higher damage to take care of that.
Last edited by OmegaLazarus; 03-21-2013 at 15:24. Reason: added question.
I think that because the actual speed of the airplanes is so much beyond what could be represented on a map or a movement card, I have also tended to give that game more slack.
At scaled speed, the planes would fly across the long axis of a map in a handfull of seconds and take about the full map distance or more to turn.
With the ships, we are much closer to a situation where a reasonable scenario at scale speeds and distances could be developed in the space of a map or two.
At scale speeds it would take a ship a number of minutes to traverse the same size map.
The ship could also perform any maneuver you like to scale well within the bounds of a map.
I believe that this has left me with more of an interest in maintaining realism with SoG than I have with WoG.
OK, got it. Basically preprinted random shoal areas. For some reason I was thinking people were talking about different maps in varying single shades of blue.
I think I'm exactly with you on this.
Actually, according to some old salts different oceans are different shades of blue... primarily Pacific vs Atlantic, though IIRC.
Basically I want a blank map that I can adapt with features. I voted for different shades of blue. I'm thinking something that artistically looks like the varying shades of blue one would see looking at the ocean from a view from up high. Not just some flat boring single blue color. Light grid is great. Keep that. It will be VERY helpful for the attitude indicator.
Mermaids.....
Mermaids.....
That's actually not a bad idea. When I was looking for a map to run Napoleonics at conventions, I thought it would be cool to run it on an antique map background. The tan and brown background with artistic creatures and symbols. Ultimately I ended up not doing because none worked out for the look I wanted or the price. Making one like this for the game would be unique amongst many other suppliers that can already give us a blue map with a grid.
Why? I'm sure my gal would be game to play dress-up as one... though there'd probably be too much distraction to finish the game. :P LOLMermaids.....
Based on the following reply on KS, it seems that terrain items are to scale, and I would assume the same for the mats, though I know it is dangerous to assume:
@Michael, the artwork we commissioned for the terrain packs has been specifically asked to be in scale with the ships (1:1000). This is of course very important when buildings and similar items appear. The photos featured until now use the Wings of Glory mats, which are painted to represent an aerial view.
This was given in response to the following:
How does the terrain scale in relation to the ship models? In the mock-up you have shown in the latest update, the Forts look tiny, like seen from a larger distance. This would mean that the ships would be way too large in comparison to the terrain (the same seems to be true for the islands which can be build with the first terrain pack). I guess the difference in size will not be as huge as when using WoW mats, but it might still be enough to break the immersion and give a game a abstracted feel.
Can you show us a photo with a ship and some of the terrain (it does not ned to be a full production copy value, a simple printout of a preliminary artwork would be sufficient) so that we can judge the scale of the terrain better?
or a big kraken, something like to find on the old seamaps, that would be fine. Islands , sandbanks and something else are in the terrain-packs included...
Here be Dragons ...
All would be good , after all a ship should have some where to go.
Dragons....I think that is differend boardgame......Here be Dragons ...
Pirates need a port or town to raid.
I'm curious how the scale of movement relates to the map size of 27"x39". With the system I have now, I run (6) people with individual ships at conventions. I'm thinking I could go to (8) with this system being a little easier. I'm not sure if I'd need (1) or (2) maps for enough space. I thoink the map I was runnign was somewhere around 4'x6', but then the movement system was different and the frigates could make some pretty good distance when the wind was with them.
Not having seen the rules in person yet, but comparing to one other template-based-movement game I am familiar with, I would hazard that a single mat would probably be enough to play small scenarios with the Starter Set and perhaps a couple additional ships on each side. It seems it would be crowded with more than four ships per side but that's just a gut feeling.
This also assumes an open-water table. If you use terrain you will loose space obviously.
Does anyone know how well the KS mat will match up with the coastal mat from WoG?
Ports/Town. Would be nice you can stop to refuel or get more ammo OR repair your ship.
Yeah would be great...
Nick
And later when Pirate ships are available, a place to raid and plunder.Ports/Town. Would be nice you can stop to refuel or get more ammo OR repair your ship.
Yeah would be great...
Nick
A river mouth leading inland would lend itself to many options in terms of ports/forts/towns.
I could see some real fun with "Constricted Area Fights" like on navigable rivers...
That's what I'm talking about.
Such as the Battle of Rappahannock River (April 3rd event). I think rivers/inlets are a very good idea.
I can see ports as locations for raids or an objective of taking out certain shore defenses or a place for either trying to break out of a blockade or slip into port without being destroyed/captured. But considering the time involved with repairs, resupply, etc. having a "healing" point in the game takes out a lot of realism in my opinion.Ports/Town. Would be nice you can stop to refuel or get more ammo OR repair your ship.
Yeah would be great...
So you just want to duke it out on the high seas until someone sinks?
Not a complaint, just a question.
I would only be interested in blue ones, plain or with shades. The terrain packs should provide all you'll need for 2D coastlines.
But could be good in terms of a campaign. Then it could also turn into a scenario. Remeber the Hornblower book where the ship sails into the harbour to destroy the four Frrench ships that are laid up awaiting repairs or supplies. A nice scenario based on that has the potential to be very challenging and interesting if done right.
At the tactical level, I don't believe the time scale of a game would include repair/refit.
For a scenario, absolutely. That sounds like a good one. Like I said, having ports as places for activity is great. One player can be trying to get as much of his fleet into port as possible before a certain turn, or a French player can be trying to break out of an English blockade, etc. Or some ships can be in port for repairs and able to make sail at the end of certain turns and the opposing player needs to come in, damage as much of the ships as possible and escape with his raiders. All that I think are great tactical missions that can be played out around ports.
And if you are playing out a campaign then any ships you get into port can be repaired, etc. over the course of whatever campaign time scale exists.
But the though of playing a tactical game where if a player can dock their ship and leave it docked to repair one damage box per turn, for example, just seems too 'video game' and not very realistic. Some repairs are tried to be made at sea in the heat of battle but that's a different scope than what you would do at a dock and fit within the time frame of a couple hours of in-game time for a battle.
Just my preferences. Others would find port 'repair stations' to be a fun addition to the game.
I agree Lawrenece. Repairs during a game would be aa simple case of cutting away a fallen mast and maybe lashing together some sort of temporary replacement. I guess that's something that could be handled withhouse rules if not already included in the main rules.
Since we're talking about a relatively small number of ships in the intial release I don't see many people jumping into the large fleet scale actions, unless they use their existing 1/1200th scale stuff. Yet even then I always find a campaign supporting the battles offers the best experience. Turn and run away may lose the battle, but could also win the war. Once I'm comfortable with the rules I imagine most of the battles I have will be part of a campaign.
Some of my favorite Flames of War games have been with the Firestorm: Market Garden campaign. I've seen some nice mentions here on another thread about a strategic level view of the Napoleonic naval theater that used block markers to show 'something is there' and using off-board tracking of actual ships. That's near-perfect IMO. When two 'blocks' are close enough to attempt to engage you move to the tactical level, break out your ships, spread your mat and play the game. If any of your ships survive and you want to get them repaired you start moving them toward a friendly port at the strategic level. If they are intercepted before they get there then your next game with them should start those ships in mostly the same state (accounting for whatever at-sea repairs are possible).
I guess I've always been bugged by what seems to me to be the inappropriate application of the term 'strategic'. In my view strategic is the 'big picture' and is reflected better in games that deal with a very abstract view of units (squadrons, companies, task forces, etc.). Battles between forces at this level is likewise abstracted. Tactical deals with the actual battles. This can be at small formation scale (FoW for example is individual vehicles but platoon scale infantry) down to individual models. Strategic games represent weeks, months or even years of time. Tactical games simulate usually just a few hours. Although I enjoy playing them, I always balk when I hear "Real Time Strategy" game...Real Time Tactical is more like it.
/soapbox off
Preach it, brother! One of my big beefs that has come about with the widespread acceptance of 28mm (and heroic) as the main minis scale is that you lose the ability to play a full strategic area (even the smallest strategic scale such as a large battle as in 'battle of cambrai' or 'battle of the bulge.' Many games rightfully acknowledge the systems as 'skirmish' level, but they still do this one thing that irks me... range. Why bother going to the trouble of producing men to scale with scale weapons, scale terrain, scale vehicles etc. then having them shoot 50 scale ft with a machine gun. You pretty much have to go to 2mm scale to get to use realistic ranges if you are including any vehicle mounted guns. Even at Napoleonic land war ranges, you need 10mm or less if you want to show more than a couple of units or if you want full use of artillery.
The point is, if you are not using scale range, then the men are no longer actual men (as they are billed), they are elaborate abstract markers that take up waaaaayy to much space for their actual size.
Man your post really set me off. I think I need to relax.
I should point out that Ares does a pretty good job of this with WoW, which is one of the things I like, but that the problem really only shows up in these games where you are supposedly representing each individual soldier (and they have individual weapons) and represent their particular health, damage, whatever in a separate way (usually with dice).
Join us in the Wardroom for a grog.
One way I have explained it to friends is the rank of the decision makers. Strategic = higher ranks. If we're discussing what a general would think about, we're probably talking strategic; if we're discussing what a sergeant would think about, we're probably talking tactical. If we're discussing what a politician would think about, we're probably talking fantasy.
Oh my. Fun and games. Tactical is individuals, fire teams, squads up to company; up to rank captain O-3. First person shooters are not really tactical, they are individuals who have to train to operate in a tactical environment. Logistics are simple, what you have is what you have. Maintenance is usually direct exchange with command or dumped as a combat loss. Medical aid usually consists of being taught to yell "Medic!".
Operations - a field of battle; battalions up to corps. This covers most historical battles. Rank will vary based on the size of the forces involved. Logistics get difficult, you have to deliver the material needed to fight, survive and continue to the troops and supports. Maintenance will be provided or gear will be dumped. Medical aid is variable based on the size of the force, but medical aid would be provided or expect 40% losses to disease much less enemy action.
Strategic is continental or larger scale control. Nato, warsaw pact would be examples. Logistics on this scale involve not only delivery of the goods needed for war, but the production of the same. Maintenance is now at depot level and not only takes in repairs but complete rebuilds. Medical aid now consists of providing for the medical support at all levels, training of replacements, and treatment centers away from the field for rest recovery and burial.
What most computer games refer to as strategic is no such thing.
Tactical: What is within line-of-sight.
Strategic: Everything else.
:)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks