sfatula wrote:
michzeidler wrote:
That was very interesting to read. Thanks for that post.
And thanks for Chiggy to bring that up.
Yes, in the end, it is not accurate of course. But, it IS a game, and, the game itself is modeled after the board game. I would like it to stay that way. But, clearly, not accurate. As many others have pointed out, nor is most any game. Chess, etc.
Certainly, a valid point. But, I like it that way as the only reason I started here was I noticed the name, and, I had played the game before. The game is fun as is, yes, the tactics are not the same as historical tactics. But they never are. Do not underestimate the complexity of designing a more historically accurate ruleset. Since that ruleset already exists (but is not accurate), it's much easier to use as is.
Yep, Steve... the term is KISS. Do I need to provide what this stands for, some of you?
I have the rules for
Heart of Oak. I fail to see how such more "realistic" games could ever see thw light of day for online gaming. Or for board or miniatures gaming either Who has the time to go over all of this junk? And this is supposed to be a miniatures ruleset, as well.
What, fanatical realists? Read the Qur'an to bring peace to your infidel heart!
WS&IM provides a simplistic rules system, and has been adapted brilliantly for online gaming. Real, hell no! It's fun, though, and challenging. You guys who want to worry about "realism" start from scratch with a new game. You don't seem to get it.
BTW, there have been some interesing posts on this thread. I understand Chiggy's question, but still suggest that this be considered a game, and not a replication of warfare under sail.
Serously, I was just looking for a way to fix the lastest scenario to keep it from degenerating into a sailless battle. By limiting the rigging hits at long range and doing away with rakes till you closed to hull range it would allow people to close the distance.
