Naval Battles

[ironduke1955]

Ok I'll shut up now, and let you guys get on with it. [8D]

[pixelpusher]

ORIGINAL: ironduke1955

Lets not forget the guys at WCS and Matrix, who would have to put this together. We grognards have all had our dreams of the perfect napoleonic simulator. Putting them into a working simulation.

<snip>

Ok I'll shut up now, and let you guys get on with it. [8D]

Well, actually it is useful for us to hear what people are looking for in a naval combat game. Again, a significant part of doing these things is the time involved with all the research leading into the general design. It's important to make sure all the important facets of the subject matter are there, and we have to spend time figuring out what those are. If we had a thing we could just pull off the forums, that would concievably reduce the amount of time for that activity. At the very least we'd read it and get a feel for the kinds of things people are looking for / consider fun.

So, seriously: if you know a lot about napoleonic period naval combat and are familiar w/ CoG, come up with something and we'll take a look at it. If you don't feel OK about putting it on the forum, email me w/ the private message thing.

Basic outline so far:
-1 unit = 1 ship. (Would need to correspond to the CoG naval units, though.)
-CoG Unit formations (line/column/square,etc)= ship configuration and orientation (sail orientation)
-Orientation to wind determines # of movement turn points.
-firing cones for units would be out the sides, of course

ORIGINAL: ironduke1955
I wonder what the ball park figure is for creating such a game.

Depends on the complexity / amount of custom stuff involved. On my end (graphics) 3d units are a pain in the butt and particularly time consuming. However, I already have a lot of that stuff made from CoG. Playtesting / beta testing also very time-consumptive.

Part of the 'design' is making sure the process is reasonably do-able. But that seems to be getting easier with experience...

[ironduke1955]

The use of the hex to determine # of movement points. is well covered in the old Avalon Hill board game, subsequently made into a PC game. Its more a case of, not how many movement points you have to expend, but more the case of how many movement points you must expend. From what I remember if hexside one is the stern of the ship and four is the bow, then the optimum wind direction for movement would be two and six assuming 1 is also the direction of the wind. one would be the next followed by three and five. On a three mast square rigger 45 degrees to the wind is the optimum for movement. Facing straight into the wind needless to say gets you no movement what so ever. Movement points could be determined at the start of the turn based on the current position to the wind and sail configuration. Plus damage to the sails if this was allowed as a factor.

Sail runs from Full sail to Battle sail to no sail ie:at anchor

Ammo
Ball=hull damage and some crew
Chain=Sail damage some to crew
Grape=crew

[freeboy]

If memory serves did not IMWS restrict the Brits to not using chain?

[ironduke1955]

You may be right, its decades since I last played Wooden Ships and Iron Men. I don't have my copy of the game anymore.

[anarchyintheuk]

I don't remember any restrictions.

[Russian Guard]

I believe I do remember this restriction; the rules notes stated that while the French used Chain Shot in an effort to slow the Brits so they could sail away from them, the Brits were more interested in sinking ships...


Boy this is dredging up some very old memories...

[ironduke1955]

That sounds like more of a tactical or doctrine descision. Seems a bit unfair to limit the English on that basis.

Again regards movement Turning would cost one movement point, per turn and a ship that had no movement points at the beginning of the turn would be allowed one turn to catch the wind. For the next turn. Pretty much like the current Matrix/ACW land battles the end was result was a enjoyable scrap. Even one ship versus one ship was a tense and enjoyable experience. I think they had a example USS Constitution V HMS Guerriere.

[freeboy]

IN IMWS the reason was that the Brits did not use it, sounds like an area for optional rules.. ie allow / disallow chain for Brits.. I always liked taking hold of the other guys ships in a malee after grappling.. We seem to think these ships sunk easily but unless you set on on fire a ship of the line or friget sunk rarely.. thus the prise courts..

My take is that a simple detailed combat would add greatly to this game, but it might need to be in Crown of Glory Two! and know I do not know that this is a real project so don't ask.. at least not me[:D]

[Demosthenes]

I just bought CoG (so far - LOVE IT), and I want to add my voice to thiers below...(more detailed naval battles)


clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor

ORIGINAL: viking92001

yeah what they said

ORIGINAL: denisonh

Ditto [:D]

ORIGINAL: Budgie

Quote . . .

"I suppose that if there was a great deal of clamor from the fan base about the desirability of such things, that might tip the equation.

-px "




clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor   [:'(]

[zimmer]

!S All,
I am new to the game and find it very interesting, despite some probs w/it. A detailed naval battle would be great, even if u have 1/1 ship battles. Personally, I would like having all battles detailed, or at least the opportunity to turn down a small battle. I can do better than the puter on my behalf.

clamor clamor clamor

zimm out