|
Post by davethelost on Dec 10, 2010 13:59:53 GMT -5
Hexes are fine with me. I have a sea blue Hotz mat with 1.5" hexes on one side and plain blue on the other. It covers my 5x3 foot dining table perfectly. I think it is actually 4x6 feet.
Litko offer spray templates for making your own hex cloths, but the template runs almost as much as a mat, so I haven't bought one yet.
If I start doing more than naval games on large hex mats I might consider a template.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Dec 10, 2010 15:14:01 GMT -5
Hexes worked well for Wooden Ships and Iron Men, so I don't see why not. The only problem I can see is that it limits your movement into the wind (only 6 directions!) Ken Well you solve that by having the wind line up with the hexes.
|
|
|
Post by afilter on Dec 10, 2010 15:29:22 GMT -5
Hey, what are you doing posting about AoS stuff anyway? I just checked wasrgame vault and did not see RoTB II...Is this some kind of union break or something.
|
|
theoz
Lieutenant
Armored and Ready!
Posts: 54
|
Post by theoz on Dec 10, 2010 17:01:37 GMT -5
I think hexes would be best: the closest a sailing warship could come to the wind was just about 60 degrees, which fits nicely on a hex grid.
|
|
|
Post by fastgit on Dec 11, 2010 14:27:24 GMT -5
Hexes worked well for Wooden Ships and Iron Men, so I don't see why not. The only problem I can see is that it limits your movement into the wind (only 6 directions!) Ken Well you solve that by having the wind line up with the hexes. Agreed. WS&IM worked just fine with hexes.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Dec 14, 2010 10:58:02 GMT -5
Thinking I will merge the stratofleets idea with this idea.
Imagining now a series of three games:
Sailing Fleet Admiral Stratoflee Admiral Galactic Fleet Admiral
Different ship mechanics, but the some C&C system in each. A smidgen less detail at the ship level than a Naval Thunder or Colonial Battlefleet.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by fastgit on Dec 14, 2010 13:12:59 GMT -5
Not sure... or, perhaps, "mixed" is a more appropriate description. I like the idea for Age of Sail... but I'd like a little more detail in the airship/stratofleets one. Here's a question: would the system support single ship (frigate v. frigate) encounters? Also: what exactly is the galactic fleet one...? Is that the campaign version of CB?
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Dec 14, 2010 13:16:07 GMT -5
I have always like the idea of the admiral level over the captain, generals over majors and captains, ect. I use to play Tactica, an ancients game, were the first two turns you could maneuver your battleline, but then it just moved ahead. This was a bit extreme, but you had only so much control. Many games in this time period have uncontrollable troops who change without orders, wouldn't stop chasing the enemy after they break, ect. It would be nice to see a set of ship games where you develop a plan and can only change so much after the game starts. I'm just not sure there is enough to do in ship games to hold player interest if you can't break the line or do odd things?
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Dec 14, 2010 15:49:57 GMT -5
Not sure... or, perhaps, "mixed" is a more appropriate description. I like the idea for Age of Sail... but I'd like a little more detail in the airship/stratofleets one. Here's a question: would the system support single ship (frigate v. frigate) encounters? Also: what exactly is the galactic fleet one...? Is that the campaign version of CB? No, this would not support single-ship engagements. Definitely more of a fleet level, than task force level game. Its not related to CB or NT. The mechanics would be different for ship engagements, or at least simpler. I have always like the idea of the admiral level over the captain, generals over majors and captains, ect. I use to play Tactica, an ancients game, were the first two turns you could maneuver your battleline, but then it just moved ahead. This was a bit extreme, but you had only so much control. Many games in this time period have uncontrollable troops who change without orders, wouldn't stop chasing the enemy after they break, ect. It would be nice to see a set of ship games where you develop a plan and can only change so much after the game starts. I'm just not sure there is enough to do in ship games to hold player interest if you can't break the line or do odd things? It's not so much about being unable to change or influence the action on the tabletop. Its more about being unable to be sure your orders will be executed exactly as you give them. For instance some kind of command roll with a reaction table for failed checks or something like that. Also, maintaining a coherent command and control structure with squadron flagships and such, the loss of which wreaks havoc until new ones can be designated.
|
|
|
Post by fastgit on Dec 14, 2010 16:58:30 GMT -5
No, this would not support single-ship engagements. Definitely more of a fleet level, than task force level game. Ok, thanks. I still like the idea of this stratofleets idea playing more like CoD... but I am intrigued by this. For instance some kind of command roll with a reaction table for failed checks or something like that. I like this, too. It's certainly appropriate for AoS actions (due to an admiral's limited ability to influence the action once engaged) and pre-dread era warships. Keep the ideas coming!
|
|
theoz
Lieutenant
Armored and Ready!
Posts: 54
|
Post by theoz on Dec 14, 2010 17:35:56 GMT -5
Brainstorming here....
Ships/captains should be rating somehow for things like shiphandling, aggressiveness and obedience to orders.
Admirals (the player, in this game) usually didn't get to decide which captain commands which ship, but admirals do decide which ship goes where in the fleet formation,.
So one major part of the player's job in such a game will be to decide which ship/captain goes where: do I put my aggressive captains up front, or do I keep them back to form a reserve? What do I do with a cowardly, disobedient captain?
In an AoS game this decision-making process isn't as hard as it will become since all sh ips have basically the same function (fight in theline) just different sizes. But in a more modern/SF setting placing captains would become even more complicated since ships have begun to specialize and it's critical to put the right captain in the right ship. What kind of captain do you want in an escort cruiser? In a fighter carrier? What about a scoutship/EW vessel? A missile cruiser?
All of these decisions would take place before the game starts, yet they might well decide who wins. Helping players make them correctly while still giving room for error might be a critical part of the game system.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Dec 14, 2010 19:52:59 GMT -5
No, this would not support single-ship engagements. Definitely more of a fleet level, than task force level game. Ok, thanks. I still like the idea of this stratofleets idea playing more like CoD... but I am intrigued by this. For instance some kind of command roll with a reaction table for failed checks or something like that. I like this, too. It's certainly appropriate for AoS actions (due to an admiral's limited ability to influence the action once engaged) and pre-dread era warships. Keep the ideas coming! Well, I could write "Clash of the SKYDreadnoughts" which was my original intent. But just got more to thinking about this C&C focused game, and reading some threads on SCN where people were discussing "Admiral vs. Captain" and realizing that Stratofleets seemed to be a good fit. Don't worry, with the notes I have written up for it, there will still be plenty of CoD like shooty goodness to the system. I was thinking about making it basically a pre-dread style game. Been more enthused about that era since reading all these battle reports, and two big turrets plus a bunch of secondary and tertiaries sounds fun.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Dec 14, 2010 19:55:36 GMT -5
Brainstorming here.... Ships/captains should be rating somehow for things like shiphandling, aggressiveness and obedience to orders. Admirals (the player, in this game) usually didn't get to decide which captain commands which ship, but admirals do decide which ship goes where in the fleet formation,. So one major part of the player's job in such a game will be to decide which ship/captain goes where: do I put my aggressive captains up front, or do I keep them back to form a reserve? What do I do with a cowardly, disobedient captain? In an AoS game this decision-making process isn't as hard as it will become since all sh ips have basically the same function (fight in theline) just different sizes. But in a more modern/SF setting placing captains would become even more complicated since ships have begun to specialize and it's critical to put the right captain in the right ship. What kind of captain do you want in an escort cruiser? In a fighter carrier? What about a scoutship/EW vessel? A missile cruiser? All of these decisions would take place before the game starts, yet they might well decide who wins. Helping players make them correctly while still giving room for error might be a critical part of the game system. Liking your ratings idea. Something to think about. Was trying to get a handle on AoS, since the hardware is so similar and I am really a hardware guy. . . but your ratings I think could add some meat to the game which would be needed.
|
|
|
Post by fastgit on Dec 14, 2010 20:46:30 GMT -5
Liking your ratings idea. Something to think about. Was trying to get a handle on AoS, since the hardware is so similar and I am really a hardware guy. . . but your ratings I think could add some meat to the game which would be needed. Agreed. The ratings do sound cool... but I'm wondering how much mileage one would get in an AoS-style game. I know I'm oversimplifying, but aggressive (read: successful & noteworthy) captains were often given frigates (or was it that successful, noteworthy frigates were often captained by aggressive men? - chicken or the egg...?). Initiative was not necessarily a requirement for captaining a SoL... especially once the fleets were engaged. How often was it that captains would defy the orders of their admiral and break formation? Elements... perhaps. But single ships?
|
|
|
Post by fastgit on Dec 14, 2010 20:47:14 GMT -5
Understand that I'm not criticizing... just kicking ideas around.
|
|
theoz
Lieutenant
Armored and Ready!
Posts: 54
|
Post by theoz on Dec 14, 2010 21:22:53 GMT -5
Liking your ratings idea. Something to think about. Was trying to get a handle on AoS, since the hardware is so similar and I am really a hardware guy. . . but your ratings I think could add some meat to the game which would be needed. Agreed. The ratings do sound cool... but I'm wondering how much mileage one would get in an AoS-style game. I know I'm oversimplifying, but aggressive (read: successful & noteworthy) captains were often given frigates (or was it that successful, noteworthy frigates were often captained by aggressive men? - chicken or the egg...?). Initiative was not necessarily a requirement for captaining a SoL... especially once the fleets were engaged. How often was it that captains would defy the orders of their admiral and break formation? Elements... perhaps. But single ships? Single ships breaking the line was more common than you think, but it was more often a case of a ship hanging back out of the line than charging forward to attack. But even there I can think of a couple of examples right off the top, besides Nelson's famous move at Cape St. Vincent. Cornwallis did it at St. Kitts in 1782, and Hawke did it at Toulon in 1744, although Cornwallis' move was more a defensive action to prevent a gap in the line. Another failure of commanders was of junior admirals failing to support their commander-in-chief. Matthews at Minroca, Hood at the Chesapeake, most of Rodney's juniors (at least in Rodney's opinion). This is something that would have to be in an AoS game for certain; unreliable subordinate admirals. And Dreadnought, if you need a "hardware guy" for AoS, just ask. I've studied the AoS era for years and years, and I'd be more than willing to help.
|
|
|
Post by fastgit on Dec 14, 2010 21:45:33 GMT -5
Single ships breaking the line was more common than you think, but it was more often a case of a ship hanging back out of the line than charging forward to attack. I stand corrected. Thanks for the specific examples. Another failure of commanders was of junior admirals failing to support their commander-in-chief. Matthews at Minroca, Hood at the Chesapeake, most of Rodney's juniors (at least in Rodney's opinion). This is something that would have to be in an AoS game for certain; unreliable subordinate admirals. This is what I was referring to when I mentioned "elements" in my earlier post... apologies for inappropriate nomenclature. Would "squadron" have been more appropriate?
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Dec 14, 2010 23:22:53 GMT -5
Hexes work for me also. the game I mentioned above had the ships mounted on a hex and you moved and shot that way. We made a few spares to help with turning and angles so the mat didn't have hexes. It worked fine.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Dec 15, 2010 9:30:40 GMT -5
This is what I was referring to when I mentioned "elements" in my earlier post... apologies for inappropriate nomenclature. Would "squadron" have been more appropriate? Well I imagine things happening at two levels. The challenge of ordering your squadrons/divisions (what was the correct term at this time?) and having them do what you want. As well as squadrons that are "broken" and figuring out how they react. I'm thinking that you won't even be able to issue orders to broken squadrons/individual ships, until a new flagship has been established or something, and until then they work on the reaction table, or a standard, "reform the line" action.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Dec 15, 2010 9:31:53 GMT -5
And Dreadnought, if you need a "hardware guy" for AoS, just ask. I've studied the AoS era for years and years, and I'd be more than willing to help. Thanks, will probably take you up on that. I was really into AoS as a kid, but had switched to steel navy before I got to doing really serious research.
|
|