"Opions on Seekrieg 5" Topic

Ive been doing naval gaming on and off for many years. I'm now interested in getting into it again.

I'm more interested in historical accuracy than anything else at the moment and so considered Seekrieg 5.

My main interest is the period 1885-1905.

What is the general consensus on these rules.

I never liked the range guestimation or rolling for each individual gun tube. Otherwise the Seekreig rules are ok. If that is what you are looking for it is a good set of rules. I prefer Fear God and Dread Naught. There is a title in the series for the Russo-Japanese War called Dawn of the Rising Sun. Historically accurate, a wealth of info and data, but very playable. Published by Clash of Arms.

clashofarms.com/rjw.html

Seekrieg 5 is a fine set of rules, very accurate. They are very daunting at first look, but you will be surprised at how well they play after the first two or three games. They do not use range "guestimation" and you do not roll for each gun tube.

Tom

If you want detail and accuracy, Seekreig V is probably the ultimate rivet counter naval simulation.

It does not feature range estimation or one die per shell.

"It does not feature range estimation or one die per shell"

Did version 5 do away with these? I must have an earlier version.

Matt, I believe you are thinking of 'Seapower' not 'Seekrieg'…

SeeKrieg IV definitely had range estimation as an option. The determination of hits was not 'one dice per shell'; you did count up the number of barrels multiplied by the ROF as modified by the range to the target, then rolled a series of percentile sets to determine the amount of hits… I seem to remember 3 or 4 rolls being typical.

Saw a Seekrieg game while I was running some games at GenCon last year.

They were re-fighting the Battle of Coronel. One of the guys from that game played in one of my later games and told me that after 5 hours they hadn't accomplished much.

I guess I am of the opinion that a rule for every little thing, or a highly intensive process doesn't necessarily produce a more historically accurate result than a more moderate system.

Just because they take more and more stuff into account, doesn't mean they've correctly modeled how it ACTUALLY would affect the battle. Even if its heavily researched, so many sources have differing information, getting down to the micro-level of detail is just not realistically possible.

In the end its just the designers opinion of how things worked based on what he chose to model, how much research he did, and how accurate the sources he used were.

Personally, I think there are plenty of faster systems out there that will result in equally if not more historically accurate results than the rivet counter games.

Keeping things at a slightly higher level and modeling outcomes at that level is a better approach than the false accuracy provided my minutia.

One man's opinion.

I have played Seekrieg 5 and Fleet action Iminent. I have found with Seekrieg once you know the rules the came will play fast. But you can only really command 3-4 four ships per person. Fleet Action plays fast and you can command larger groups of ships. A friend and I commanding 20 ships a side finished a action in a afternoon. I have the Fear God and Dreadnought rules, but have not played them yet. My reading of them puts them close in scale to Seekrieg

I think that Seekrieg 5 and Harpoon 4 are designed for a particular audience, that being gamers who don't mind complexity, don't have time limits, and are more interested in the simulation than the gaming aspect. I have played a scenario of Seekrieg V set in The Slot and even with only a few ships per player the game took awhile and it was easily apparent that it was not suitable for most gamers. I have no issues with complex, rivet counting games, but 90% of gamers nowadays do. Both of the above mentioned systems are well done, have excellent components, and give realistic results. You must, however, be prepared to do some prep work for the scenarios, have a good understanding of the rules, and know that you're not going to be done in 3-4 hours! In the end the gamer must decide what path to take and there's no right or wrong answer.

There is no doubt that 100s of hours of research have gone into Seekreig and later 100s more in playtesting the rules and even the scenarios.

I agree with previous posters in that they are more of a simulation than a game and it is best played with each player running only a few ships.

At Recon they ran an interesting Russian Civil War scenario in which the Captain of a ship could have his crew turn on him each turn.

I should qualify that I played General Quarters 1&2 for 20 years and shifted over to General Quarters 3 and Battle Stations, Battle Stations when they came out since I'm in what I would term the middle complexity band for naval games. Seekreig V and the whole Command at Sea series are by far at the high end of the complexity scale. That given, the detail work and systems in Seekreig V make it an excellent game for players desiring the high end of the accuracy/complexity scale.

ELGrego wrote:

"SeeKrieg IV definitely had range estimation as an option. The determination of hits was not 'one dice per shell'; you did count up the number of barrels multiplied by the ROF as modified by the range to the target, then rolled a series of percentile sets to determine the amount of hits… I seem to remember 3 or 4 rolls being typical."

That's right. Thanks for refreshing my memory. It's been a while since I played SeeKrieg, it must have been IV.

-Matt

Just a few comments…

As has already been pointed out, SEEKRIEG 5 does not use range estimation (although it was an optional method in SK4 and the only method in the earlier versions).

Also, SK5 is in many, many, many ways a completely different animal than its predecessors and should not be judged without having actually played a game or two or read the rules at the very least. This is true of any rules but I too often see folks making unwarranted comments about SK5 based on what they know or have heard about the earlier editions.

Conventions are not always a good place to observe a particular set of rules being played, especially the more detailed rules. Session time limits, inexperienced players and/or judges can lead to false impressions and we have sometimes seen SK5 games get bogged down due to any one or a combination of these. However, with experienced judges we have run Coronel (and several variants as well) to conclusion (many times) in under four hours even with some newbies in the game.

I do have to disagree with some of the terminology used thus far. SK5 is certainly detailed but it is not complex. This is not just my opinion…

TMP link

TMP link

I also have to strongly disagree with those who believe that some of the more simplistic systems actually do provide an accurate historical simulation but that is a whole 'nother topic.

SK5 is the only set of rules that cover the entire 1880-1945 period in a single volume and the only set of rules to offer pre-printed INDIVIDUAL ship logs in PDF format that cover all the major navies of the period.

Thanks for listening…

"I'm more interested in historical accuracy than anything else at the moment and so considered Seekrieg 5. My main interest is the period 1885-1905."

IMO, if that's really your criteria you can't go far wrong with Seekrieg 5 for a number of reasons. First, SK5 models both weapons and protection systems seamlessly between your period of interest and WW2, across nations. As the ships are refitted and technology changes you will find your tactics alter accordingly because it is a "bottom up" rule set. That is an important benefit if you are trying to LEARN.

To me, there are two basic approaches building models -- top down or bottom up. In the abstract it's a "horses for courses" decision, but I think for your period of interest the "bottom up" (i.e. rivet counting) approach is best because there was so much technological change afoot. Even before HMS Dreadnought was launched the navies of the world were struggling with the implications of weapons that allowed relatively unprecedented tactics and engagement ranges, with much improved ballistics, optics and new fangled torpedoes and plotting systems.

During the age of fighting sail, when the basic systems didn't change much from decade to decade, a top down design that prioritizes leadership and morale factors may be more appropriate and you can hear that in the rule set names like, "Wooden Ships and Iron MEN" etc…

But with the Victorian navies it starts to become important to understand the evolutionary changes in propulsion (coal vs. oil,) fire control (especially wrt the implications of hitting with plunging fire,) ballistics (not just range and weight of broadside but rof, shell types,) protection schemes, (armor quality and coverage, compartmentalization, torpedo belts) and communications just to be able to follow the thought processes of the men on the bridge.

And finally I would add that SK5 is an elegant design that has obviously been honed over generations of development. Once you learn how to read a ship log (which are succinct marvels in and of themselves) and navigate the most important charts (mostly for determining damage) you'll find yourself thinking almost entirely about how to exploit the strengths of your weapons and minimize the advantages of your opponents'.

After groping for the advantage a few games and eventually succeeding, you will then see that that you are using bonafide historical tactics! And to me that's the proof…a good simulation sort of sneaks up on you because you get lost in the POV of the actual commanders. Overly simplistic rule sets don't enable that. You'll find things like ships hanging around at the borders of predefined "range bands" and other behavior unnatural to the period because players GAME THE SEAMS IN THE RULES, rather than just naturally falling into fighting the ships in historical fashion.

I am awaiting my copy of Seekreig V in the mail, and it seems to be talking an inordinate amount of time to arrive, although it is coming from Canada. As one of the Design Team at ODGW, the publishers of General Quarters III, I am interested in seeing how it compares. I have a great deal of experience with the Admiralty Trilogy, aka Command at Sea, and eventually found its design assumptions and playability not to my liking. I always feel games are better judged by playing them, so I feel anyone who comments on a game should really take the time to find out about it first hand.

Complex? Well, I had a bunch of eight guys, most of which were still at school, most of which didn't know one end of a ship from another playing with only guidance from me in about three moves. Yes, I ran the charts for this because I knew where to look. It wasn't for some. But half of them came back for more. Then I was able to have a ship, because they we're learning to undertsand getting through the rules. Yes, it was often only one or two ships each. But we had enough guys that it didn't matter. And the games always drew spectators.

At first, it was charge in and see what happens. Coming from GW and FOW backgrounds, that wasn't surprising. Then they started to realise some of the subtleties and began to apply tactics as they figured some out. Remember that none of these guys had read a lot (if anything) so were making them up as they went.

Sadly, I emigrated before we could get too in depth.

I play GQ1/2 for a multi-ship bash, and enjoy that. Have 3 but never played it properly. I have much of the COA stuff (but not FGDN) as that was where I started. But I much prefer the SKV model. I will add however, that I am unashamedly a rivet counter.

This is a period I'm interested in because of the rapid change in gunnery systems. Overall, I like faster playing top-down rules designs more, but if you want to see the historical period in detail – and draw some of your own conclusions on how well those top-down rules are designed – then SKV is the way to go.

I would like to post my two cents worth on the Seekrieg 5 discussion. First off I was the one that but on the Battle of Coronel last year at Gen-Con. The first time I played the battle on Thursday it was a draw for the most part, neither fleet would close range like they should have and fought then. The second day was a very decisive British win since the british closed the range and actually torped the Scharnhorst and sunk her. Plus it was a daunting task to try and teach all new people the rules in a 6 hr period. Plus i shouuld have had a smaller battle with less ships for the Battle of Coronel you need at least 6 people in my opinion. I do agree that most people should not command more then 3 to 4 ships in Seekrieg 5. The other battle i did at Gen-Con and Pentacon last year that i believe people really enjoy is a what if scenario. world war two Yamato and Bismarck vs Hood and Missouri. Have played it 4 times and each side with 2 wins.

As for the rules of Seekrieg 5 themself i truly love them I think Rick and Jack have done a wonderful job for a set of rules that honestly you cant really find any faults or errors in. I belong to a group in Northern Indiana of around 20 memebrs and we game only with Seekrieg 5 when it comes to naval battles. Like some one stated above it covers both wars and a large period that most dont. It is a game that when first looked at looks overwhelming, but after a few times playing it comes very fast and easy the charts flow nicely. I push these rules on everyone that askes which naval set is worth the investment.

The one biggest problem with most if not all war game rules and periods of war gaming is the God Syndrome, or the ability to see where everything is on the battlefield or sea. When we game i really try to play with hidden movement. It can really make a huge difference with the outcomes of games.

The main problem with most gamers now a days is that they dont want to work at tactics or think, they just want to have instant gradification. We have a few memebers like that in our group and they usually dont show up when we play Seekrieg. Thats fine everyone has their own opinion. Me personally i love tactics and thinking out a plan. I hate games that well just because i have 10 more d6 than you i win. Well that is my two cents worth and I will get down off my soap box now.

If anyone on the forum wishes to learn how to play Seekrieg 5 and lives in or around the Northern Indiana region send me a email we game almost every saturday of the month, and play many different periods and titles. Thanks for your time all.

These two statements from supporters of the game. . .

"However, with experienced judges we have run Coronel (and several variants as well) to conclusion (many times) in under four hours even with some newbies in the game."

"Plus it was a daunting task to try and teach all new people the rules in a 6 hr period. Plus i shouuld have had a smaller battle with less ships for the Battle of Coronel you need at least 6 people in my opinion."

. . . provide a bold double underline to my point!

Four hours to play Coronel to conclusion? You can't teach new players the rules to the point where they are fully comfortable in SIX HOURS? Six people to play Coronel effectively?

What you guys are describing is a game that is effectively unplayable for any significant historical engagement involving more than a couple ships per side.

Meanwhile all the most significant engagements of WWI/WWII involved a number of ships far beyond the scope of what is playable in a realistic timeframe using SK5.

What good is a historical naval system that isn't useful for recreating famous historical naval battles?

Furthermore one that apparently doesn't produce historically accurate results if the results of Yamato + Bismarck vs. Iowa + Hood, have been an even split over four games.

The assertion that other faster systems create unrealistic tactics and don't model historical outcomes is patently false. Certainly there are some games out there that do that. . . but there are also games that create much more historically accurate results and drive the players to historically effective tactics.

I dont have any naval rules but I am interested in naval gaming. So I do read most of the posts here. From a non biased point of view it seems most of the bad postings on this thread and others about SKV are from people who have never played or even seen a game. Those that have played all seem to enjoy the rules. I wonder if there might be a hidden agenda?

My above statement about having more people to run the 8 ships for the battle of coronel, was to imply that for new people playing Seekrieg 5 for the first time. I would suggest only running one ship, to learn the the system in a more relaxed way. When running two or more ships you can get overwhelmed in the begining until you understand the rules better and feel more comfortable playing. Plus in my opinion running only one ship per person makes a player more acute of his moves and plans for his ship he is commanding.

Your Yamato and Bismarck vs Hood and Missouri statement being split over four games I'm not clear on? I mean all of us on this forum and message boards realize that all the games we play are a game of chance and luck or non luck of the dice. In all four games when i have ran the what if scenario. Its usually the Missouri and Yamato fighting it out and the Hood and Bismarck doing the same, and like most war games or even in real life war who ever lands the first blows usually comes out the winner, which then comes back to the die rolls. Honeslty its a almost even up fight the Hood is a little under classed but to even it up I give her a +3 crew rating. FULLB35 it is true what you say that most negative posts are people that have not even given or tried SK V yet. I would strongly suggest you trying the rules out for yourself sometime soon!

I think also what most are missing is that most of your historical naval battles where fought to a draw or close to that outcome. Most countries didnt want to lose their Battleships etc.. due to the huge resources and materials needed to replace them if lost.

Soulmage,

Do you own or have you read SK5? Have you ever actually *played* it? If so, then you are entitled to your comments. Otherwise, you really should keep them to yourself.

fullmetal,
After sitting on the fence for awhile and reading everything I could on here and elsewhere SK V sounds like just the game I have been looking for. So I will try them out sometime soon. And when ever I post a comment about SK V it will be from experence and not from talking to a guy who knew a guy that played a game at a con. other wise I will keep my inexperence to myself.

Don't be afraid to ask questions, or maybe you could join the Seekrieg Yahoogroup?

Rich -

Not sure what country you live in, but mine supports the right of the individual to express his or her opinion, regardless of whether others happen to agree with it or not. Even if that weren't the case. . . welcome to the internet!

In the future I would suggest you offer logical arguments and evidence to back them up. You'll find its more persuasive than simply telling others you don't agree with to shut up.

As far as my experience with Seekrieg, I've studied Seekrieg IV in detail, and spent a fair amount of time watching Seekrieg V being played. Looked like it might have differed from IV in some details, but not in concept enough to make the games wholly unrelated. In any case, my observation of a Seekrieg V game actually being played was very instructive as to the nature and pace of gameplay.

Fullb35 – Just sharing my observations of the game in action. No agenda beyond that other than to give to OP a little perspective that doesn't come from a Seekreg sycophant.

Fullmetal Jacket – In the scenario you propose, Yamato/Bismarck should win pretty much every time barring a freak hit. An even split in victories tells me that the rules are not producing a historically accurate result.

If you want to consider freak hits . . . the historical record of Bismarck firing on Hood results in Hood's total destruction in 11 minutes. Leaving Iowa to face down Yamato and Bismarck by itself.

I agree but when you look at the what if scenario of the Bismarck and Yamato vs Hood and Missouri i gave each crew different ratings Hood +3 the best. Then you take in effect the Missouri's Radar and it starts equally out. Yes the Hood is underclassed in the match, but i was going for names people would recongize at a CON, plus its a smash up fight pretty much from the begining. Like i have stated above its more the luck of the die rolls more than anything. Plus tactics if people try and maneuver and such, which a lot of people for the most part in games dont want to try or do. I would be more than welcome to run this event for anyone out there if they wish to show how evenly matched it is. Historically speaking what the heck did the Yamato really do during the war? IF she is suppose to be the biggest badest ship during the war?

"I've studied Seekrieg IV in detail,"

Well, the original query was about SK5: "I'm more interested in historical accuracy than anything else at the moment and so considered Seekrieg 5."

And then you say you, "spent a fair amount of time watching Seekrieg V being played" <snip>…which "Looked like it might have differed from IV in some details."

Is the entire method of handling combat changing "a small detail?" I think not, and that's only the first of MANY significant changes that the designers put quite a lot of time and effort into developing/play testing, to the considerable benefit of the game in the opinion of those WHO ACTUALLY PLAY IT. But I guess you're not interested in learning about them because you don't ask any questions.

"I would suggest you offer logical arguments and evidence to back them up."
The fact is that SK5 does NOT use range estimation in combat resolution…and never has…which anybody who plays it would know. Why does it concern you that when the designer reads a misleading (even if unintentionally,) response to a query about his product that he seeks to correct it?

"Not sure what country you live in…"
And, of course, the obligatory wrapping yourself in the flag and reciting your rights as if you were being beaten with a truncheon instead of politely asked to display a little courtesy and bow out of a discussion you have not the experience to meaningfully participate in by your own admission.

Well, it's my OPINION that you should display more common sense…but as you say, you are free to keep offering opinions about a rule set you neither seem to own or play. Why don't you advocate for a rule set you have played (and presumably prefer) instead of running down SK? Wouldn't that make more sense and perhaps add something useful to the discussion?

>>"The fact is that SK5 does NOT use range estimation in combat resolution…and never has…which anybody who plays it would know. Why does it concern you that when the designer reads a misleading (even if unintentionally,) response to a query about his product that he seeks to correct it?"<<

Nowhere have I ever said that SK5 uses range estimation – or even responded to assertions that it did. If you review the thread you will find that was another poster. This whole point is completely irrelevant to our discussion.

>>"the opinion of those WHO ACTUALLY PLAY IT."<<

Listening to the opinion of those who "actually play it" versus also those who have studied the game, but are not fans is going to present only a one-sided view of the game.

If you weren't so insecure about your position you would realize that the OP is going to read both sides, assign the credibility he feels is due to each, and then make his decision based on that. Instead of trying to silence a dissenting opinion which you feel I "am not entitled" according to your words, maybe you should just focus on presenting as compelling a case as possible for your own side.

>>"Why don't you advocate for a rule set you have played (and presumably prefer) instead of running down SK? Wouldn't that make more sense and perhaps add something useful to the discussion?"<<

Because the topic of the thread is people's opinions on SK5. To start pitching another game would be threadjacking, and there would be howls of protest if I just came in here and said "Stay away from SK5, you should play X instead and here's why!" That's not the question that was asked or what is being discussed.

If this or another poster asks, "What's the best set of naval rules considering these factors. . ." that would be a whole different discussion.

Apparently you feel that whenever somebody asks for opinions of a rule set, only the people who like and are proponents of the game in question are allowed to respond. That makes asking people's opinion pretty much useless, don't you think?

Soulmage,

You never answered my question. Again, do you own or have you read SK5? Have you ever actually *played* it?

No, Seapower doesn't have range-estimation either (or we never played it with range estimation!), at least not when you've got radar-equipped ships.

Actually I have answered your question previously. But I will add this. . .

If your assertion is that you can't understand a game by watching it being played while looking at the materials used to play it – even after being familiar with an earlier generation of the rules – I'd say that succinctly reinforces my point regarding the game's complexity.

There's certainly no way I would shell out the frankly outrageous price being asked for these rules on the basis of my observation.

On the website they BRAG about. . .

-- 90 PAGES of data tables
-- 40 PAGES of charts
-- 30 PAGES of damage effects.

Really? That has to be the definition of un-fun, and as I've outlined before, doesn't necessarily guarantee any greater historical accuracy than other, more straight forward games. . . just more details to wade through.

Regardless. . . I've said what I have to say. The original poster certainly has enough to consider at this point. Of course there is no way I am ever going to convince you that there. . . just might. . . be a better way, so I will leave it to you to share whatever you feel important from here on out.

Soulmage,

No, you did not. A simple yes or no was all that was required but you danced around the question.

You have made it quite clear that yours is a distinctly uninformed opinion. I would never, ever think that my opinion of a set of rules mattered in the slightest to anyone had I not either thoroughly read and understood the rules or at least played the game several times, regardless of the whole "welcome to the internet" /free speech flags you're waving. That is why I have the good sense and courtesy to refrain from posting to threads asking opinions about a particular game even though I may have send it played one or more times at a con.

Add me to the list of those who wish the original question had been answered more fully.

Many fine games require more than 6 hours at a Con to learn… Consider "Star Fleet Battles" for example. I know I have a very had time learning a new game at a Con, too much extraneous noise etc.

As for "watching" a game being played at a Con giving in depth understanding of the game…Please! It may give an understanding of how well the person running the game explained the rules or how well the players managed, but I don't think it really says much about the game itself.

Coronel with 8 players is historical accuracy. One ship, one captain.

4-6 hours to play the engagement to a conclusion? This is some people's idea of the ideal game. Lots of detail.

90 PAGES of data tables
-- 40 PAGES of charts
-- 30 PAGES of damage effects.

Again for a self-described "rivet counter" who enjoys this sort of detail, sounds perfect.

"Grand Fleets" one of the fastest playing naval games I have had the pleasure to play includes over 15 pages of weapons data, 200 aeroplans and 20 airships. But in play each ship requires only a 1/3 page data card.

The fact that a game includes so many charts and tables means nothing in and of itself. Given the long timespan and significant technological evolution SKV covers I would expect nothing less than reams of data. I doubt that most of those charts and tables are used in every game, rather a select few are used as appropriate for the ships involved.

As for the rapid demise of the Hood against the Bismarck, that is the perfect justification for including a "critical hit" mechanism in naval gaming.

As for Soulmage, he seems not to realize that different people may have a different idea of what is "fun" than he does. His "better way" may well be better for him, but that does not mean it is better for all players of naval wargames.

SKV seems to be best for players who want lots of detail, have a large group of players or enjopy smaller engagements, and have the time available to play lengthy games.

"Battleship" is good for players who want a quick, simple game that can be played anywhere with just paper and pencil.

Is one a "better" game than the other?