Tacking action?

[John Paul]

Thats a fair point, that said some of the simplest naval wargaming rules for the age of sail do manage to cater for this very easily and adding somehting to cater for this would have made agood advanced rule. Failure to tack was a significant issue in the manoeuvre of ships of the period (still is in some cases) and is one of those features that is, IMHO, worth recreating. The "problem" is, I guess, that in a more regular set of rules it would be a simple die throw with a modifier for crew quality and damage. Of course the ethos of SGN is to avoid the use of dice. There are so many cases where having a pot of six chits numbered 1 to 6 (or ten numbered 1 to ten) would have been so helpful

I would like to think that at the early stages of SGN there were a few extra cards in the ship deck that provided for such maneuvers as a proper port and starboard tack. However, during development it was determined within the confines of the 4' x 6' playing area would the emphasis be the ability of players to sail circles around each other just out of gun range, or should it be on using some basic maneuvers, get along side the opponent, and let broadsides be the determining factor in the outcome of the game. It would seem the later won out in the name of playability.

Would making some changes to ship maneuvering as mentioned make that much difference in the game? Probably not, though to my mind it might add somewhat significantly to the time it takes to play a single game/scenario. This could be more significant when novice "sailors" who have almost zero knowledge in what it takes to maneuver ships at sea in this period are involved in a game. Thus, even though they have an interest in playing the game the time needed to try and figure out just "how" to play might dissuade them from actually committing to buy it let alone play.

Your point as to how other age of sail rules cater to the learning curve of sailing a 3 masted war ship at sea is well taken, but I think even in those cases the rules are written in a manner for those who have some basic knowledge of the period. In fact I have a set the author of which, and yourself share the same name. Though I'm sure that's just a coincidence!

To my mind this is just one of those trade offs between an accurate portrayal for a game in this period, and a fast play enjoyable type of game of the period. Nothing wrong with either one, and both can be just as fun! It's just a matter of flavor to taste you could say! Both are right, and none are wrong!

[Kentop]

To my mind this is just one of those trade offs between an accurate portrayal for a game in this period, and a fast play enjoyable type of game of the period. Nothing wrong with either one, and both can be just as fun! It's just a matter of flavor to taste you could say! Both are right, and none are wrong!

Fast play being the opposite of accurate portrayal? I have noticed a trend among the old salts on this site to engage in apologetics when anyone points out something wonky or missing in the rules (and that happens with alarming frequency here). This game won't last long if ARES doesn't sit up and take notice. In a historical game such as SOG, it is better to err on the side of accuracy or you risk losing the people who bought the game in the first place. If you want fast play, may I suggest rocks, paper, scissors?

[David Manley]

Fast play being the opposite of accurate portrayal?

Personally, and as a wargamer and rules author both amateur and professional for nearly 40 years I don't believe that "fast play" is the opposite of "accurate portrayal". Some of the most accurate games I've encountered in terms of effect have been very simple, streamlined systems. Some of the most inaccurate have been horribly complex systems which by the very nature if their burgeoning rulebooks gave themselves the air of accuracy but which were anything but.

When I'm looking at an existing set of rules and tinkering for "accuracy" I try to make it a rule not to introduce anything that increases the level of complexity or goes against the design intent of the existing rules. hence whilst I personally would overhaul SGN and introduce a host of events and outcomes that could be resolved very quickly and simply with a die throw I would be loathe to suggest them here as it runs counter to the diceless ethos of the system.

[7eat51]

This game won't last long if ARES doesn't sit up and take notice.

I would disagree. This game might not last long among a certain group of players who might not be too drawn to SoG for other reasons, as previous discussions about 1:1000 scale, etc. have shown. I believe SoG, like WoG before her, are designed for the causal player who wants a fair level of feel, rather than for war-gamers per se. What I find rather amazing is the breadth of appeal; I have had war-gamers and non-war-gamers play at the same table with equal enjoyment.

whilst I personally would overhaul SGN and introduce a host of events and outcomes that could be resolved very quickly and simply with a die throw I would be loathe to suggest them here as it runs counter to the diceless ethos of the system.

Please, suggest away.

Personally, I like the development of house rules. I can employ them as I see fit based on the goal of any given gaming session. I have benefited from being a member of both sites by learning from the depth of knowledge and experience of others, and seeing how that knowledge and depth get translated into house rules.

Up to this point, I have found the basic and standard rules sufficient for many enjoyable gaming sessions. We, sometimes, play with a couple of the advanced or optional rules, but most of the folks I play with are content without too much added beyond standard.

[Dobbs]

IMHO the red cards represent a tack that did not go so well. During the first hourglass, the captain uses his ship's dwindling momentum to keep pushing through the eye of the wind. If that is not enough, for the second hourglass, he has the crew boxhaul the rig and push the bow the rest of the way through the wind as the ship is blown backwards by the backing sails. It is similar to backing the jib and putting the helm over the other way on a modern sailboat, only a tad more complicated. As far as introducing a probability factor, it would have to be a fairly remote chance of failure. These captains were professionals responsible for an important part of their country's strategic well-being (Victory alone had a greater weight of shot than Napoleon's entire army at Waterloo). Would you risk that on something with a 1 in 6 failure rate?

I like the idea of not being able to fire while using red cards, but all in all, I think the rules are a good compromise between playability and reality.

[David Manley]

Would you risk that on something with a 1 in 6 failure rate?

Depends on what you call "failure", it could, for instance, be a delayed execution rather than the ship going into irons. I agree that for an average crew in benign conditions the chances should be very low, but throw in green crews, adverse weather and sea conditions and (especially) rigging damage and it becomes MUCH harder t accomplish (which explains why wearing was often the preferred option)

[Dobbs]

To liven things up, one could always add a level of randomness, and if things do not turn out favorably, the player could randomly draw one of the other two red cards and use the 2nd hourglass maneuver for what his ship ends up doing.

[John Paul]

Fast play being the opposite of accurate portrayal? I have noticed a trend among the old salts on this site to engage in apologetics when anyone points out something wonky or missing in the rules (and that happens with alarming frequency here). This game won't last long if ARES doesn't sit up and take notice. In a historical game such as SOG, it is better to err on the side of accuracy or you risk losing the people who bought the game in the first place. If you want fast play, may I suggest rocks, paper, scissors?

Fast-Play and Accurate Portrayal are not mutually exclusive. Though in recent years Fast-Play has come to mean more often then not that accuracy is compromised, abstracted, or ignored to varying degrees.

As has been pointed out by several posts Captains/Sailing Masters tended to Wear ship rather then tack particularly when their ship was engaged in action with an enemy vessel. Woe befall on the Captain that was forced into a tack while engaged, as it meant crew would be pulled from their guns to handle the ship. Any Captain that decided to make a tack while engaged with an enemy more then likely would end up surrendering his ship no matter if he made the tack or not!

I believe the folks at ARES are the only ones who can rightly state why an accurate means of tacking doesn't exist in SoG.

I think the suggested change of not being able to Fire when playing a Red maneuver card would fix the Tacking problem rather easily, as it simulates the need to pull crew from their guns to handle the ship.

[Jason]

As has been pointed out by several posts Captains/Sailing Masters tended to Wear ship rather then tack particularly when their ship was engaged in action with an enemy vessel. Woe befall on the Captain that was forced into a tack while engaged, as it meant crew would be pulled from their guns to handle the ship. Any Captain that decided to make a tack while engaged with an enemy more then likely would end up surrendering his ship no matter if he made the tack or not!
.

That was pretty well said. Thank you.

I've thought that if a ship is forced to leave the playing area it should be allowed to reenter two or three turns later, and say two to three base lengths from it's original point of departure. I don't care much either for the automatic surrender deal.

I cant even consider this surrender rule. It just contradicts the very foundation of man's desire to sail: freedom of the high seas.
So whenever need arises, I dont hesitate to shift the playing area (although I usually play on a blue bed sheet on the floor 1x2 meters)
On the other hand, I do rarely play just "meeting engagements", it happened maybe once or twice to test the rules. Most of the time we set up a scenario - a raid, running a blockade, damaged ship running for cover of shore batteries... so there is rarely a need to shift the playing surface, as the point of scenario is to get form point A to point B for one side to win.
Perhaps that is why I seek more challenge in sailing itself, like harder tacking - to make those chases more interesting. It's hardly useful in a typical slugfest.

[David Manley]

....In fact I have a set the author of which, and yourself share the same name. Though I'm sure that's just a coincidence!

it might not be, I have been publishing for 25 years now :) But I know there is another David Manley in the US (on the West Coast I believe) who has also published a set of AoS rules in the not too distant past.