LOGIN
User Name
Password
Remember me


> Not a member yet?
> Forgot your password?
Main menu
Preferred site
Take a play
Forum Message
City:Fort Wayne US
Personal Data:Male,
Membership19years 182days ago.
Last Login17years 353days ago.
Last Move17years 104days ago.
HeadMMoid is currently Offline!Send a mail to HeadMMoid

Message header
Area/Game:Wooden Ships & Iron Men
1Topic:How to play
Subject:Re: [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
Posted by: HeadMMoid - 18years 257days ago.
Message text
Tornade wrote:
HeadMMoid wrote:

Your hex size estimation seems reasonable. A maximum effective range of 2,000 yards is pushing the limits of most of the guns, but it does make the numbers work well. The only other option would be to assume that the hexes are scaled to the ships (which would support the fouling rules). Unfortunately, that would make a hex only 35 to 50 yards across, and give a maximum gun range of less than 500 yards; clearly ludicrous.

Given your assumption that a hex is 200 yards, the game would force ships in line to have an interval of just under 2 cables, not 1. This would be typical of later period French or Spanish formations. Otherwise the analysis is excellent.

Also, there “dont seem to be a lot discussion on game scales and such” because AH avoided that with WSIM. In all probability, the design effort was for a “look and feel” result, rather than any historic accuracy.


you are quite correct about the interval between ships...i had noticed that myself after having posted...just didnt think to edit the post...given a scale of one hex to two hundred yards then the interval between ships would be two cables which is pretty much on the money

i think i stated somewhere else that ship's rigging seems to act more like a spider's web to catch other ships and i still stand by the statement that fouling happens FAR TOO OFTEN in WSIM...experienced crews didnt have that much trouble with line ahead maneuvers except in the most adverse conditions of visibility and even in combat situations where a lead ship suddenly lost a mast the following ships were USUALLY able to avoid a collision...but this is perhaps a subject for yet another thread

my husband mentioned to me that Avalon Hill tends to load its game systems so that one side is generally the favoured side...despite the historical realities and it is often more fun to beat the game system than to actually win the game

The interval between ships, or rather the lack of it in the game, is one of the frustrating aspects. With a two cable interval it was possible for a ship to break through a line. Given the size of the counters, this simply isn’t possible in WSIM, eliminating one of the most decisive maneuvers of the late age of sail.

You are quite correct about the fouling issue. It certainly did happen, and often at the most unfortunately of moments, but on the whole these ships were able to move even in fairly close quarters without fouling each other. We may also note that there is a bug in the movement system which allows ships which are in adjacent hexes to interfere with each other’s movement when no fouling has occurred. That bug has been reported by myself and others, but continues to cause problems.

I would definitely agree with your husband about AH’s game design issues. Their “feel” of how a game should play was often quite at odds with the reality behind the game. Our gaming group (NIGA) did the play testing for Air Baron (the author was a member). As originally designed, the game was great fun. You could play for three or four hours, and not have a clue as to who was going to win until someone made a good series of moves and gained the upper hand. AH required lots of changes, almost all of which the play test group rejected, but which were in the published version; and no play test group suggestions were included in the final version, despite the author’s objections. As published, the game can still take three to four hours to play, but by the end of the first hour you usually know who will win.
Messages thread
Posting elapsed timePosted bySubject

18years 263days ChiggyVonR [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
18years 263days ChiggyVonR Re: [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
18years 263days HeadMMoid Re: [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
18years 263days michzeidler Re: [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
 18years 262days sfatula Re: [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
  18years 262days HeadMMoid Re: [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
  18years 261days Tornade Re: [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
  18years 261days pbass111 Re: [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
   18years 261days HeadMMoid Re: [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
   18years 260days HHornblower Re: [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
    18years 260days pbass111 Re: [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
18years 261days southernskies Re: [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
 18years 260days Tornade Re: [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
  18years 259days southernskies Re: [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
  18years 259days Silver Sunchild Re: [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
   18years 259days Tornade Re: [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
    18years 255days Silver Sunchild Re: [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
  18years 258days HeadMMoid Re: [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
   18years 257days Tornade Re: [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
    18years 257days HeadMMoid Re: [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
     18years 27days jesmith29 Re: [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
      18years 27days HeadMMoid Re: [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
       18years 27days sfatula Re: [WS&IM][RULES] Rakes, is it modeled right?
Page generated in: 23.82813 milliseconds.