"computer moderated naval rules?" Topic

I have recently been purchasing and painting naval minitures for WWI and WWII using figurehead ships. My goal like many others is to do the battle of Jutland, so I have been shopping around for a set of rules that are easy to use in order to teach others with minimum effort (I am not very good a teaching rules to others let alone myself). I have read many recomandations from others on here for traditional paper and dice style rules but was wondering if anyone has any leads on computer moderated rules.

Google Shipbase (I think Shipbase III). I'm not familiar with it but I think that's the computer moderated set that has the widest use.

I believe that McKinstry is correct in saying that Shipbase3 is the most commonly used computer-moderated naval set. It appears that Critical Hit still sells it:

link

There is also Battlefleet:The Dreadnoughts by Shaka Software – out of production I believe.

Turbo Dog -

What is your interest in computer moderated rules? Is it because you think it would be nifty to involve a computer, or is it just because you feel a computer would be helpful in doing all the "heavy lifting."

If its the latter, then I'd suggest you don't need a computer, you just need the right rule set – one that is easy to learn and doesn't involve any "heavy lifting".

Check out Naval Thunder. The game was designed with new players in mind and to be teachable and played in a convention environment – where there is lots of distraction and little time.

The basic game is very straight forward and easy to learn. The rules are very clearly written and easy reading. You will have absolutely no problems picking them up right away. When I run it at conventions, I basically never have to say or do anything after turn 3 – brand new players can handle everything on their own by then.

Just last month I ran the 72 ship version of Jutland to completion in 5 hours at GenCon with a group of players that were almost all brand new to the game.

You can pick up Naval Thunder: Clash of Dreadnoughts for only $12.95 USD here:

link

You will also see our WW2 and pre-dreadnought versions there as well. If you want to know what others have thought of the games, there are some customer testimonials on our website here:

navalthunder.com

Turbo Dog,

I believe McKinstry and ElGrego are correct, Shipbase III is probably the widest-used set of naval miniatures rules. I'm biased of course, since I wrote it, but I still get e-mails from time to time from people still playing it 16 years after it was released.

I've been writing, running, and playing computer-assist wargames since 1982 (including naval games, since 1989) and found they're the way to go for large battles. Jutland plays in 4 to 6 hours, with as few as two players or even playing solo.

Computer-assist naval rules are also ideal for solo games, which is most of my gaming these days.

I've tinkered with upgrading SB3 over the year but have been buried in other projects, so have still not gotten around to doing a full-blown upgrade. I used a slightly modified version of the commercial edition of SB3 in my own games.

Note that you can download earlier versions of my computer-assist naval rules, Shipbase I and Shipbase II, as well as the partially-completed Windows upgrade of Shipbase III called D-CATR Naval, from the freebie download section of my web site:

link

FWIW, I agree with McKinstry, ElGrego and Dave so far as the various incarnations of Shipbase are concerned. If you want a computer-based system, that is probably the way to go.

But, I also have to agree with TheDreadnought on this particular topic. With so many "paper-based" alternatives that offer everything from fast-play to detailed simulation without a silicon-based assistant, why do you feel the need for something that requires a computer and the various time-consuming data entry tasks associated with this kind of system?

Believe me, even many of the more "complex" paper-based systems (when run by an experienced game director familiar with game system) will probably go as fast (or faster) than a computer-based system. Sure, it depends on the system, but even a mathematically-challenged person like me can resolve the simple addition/subtraction/multiplication required by most rules more quickly than someone can type in the variables on a keyboard.

As is so often the case, it depends on who is running the game or at the keyboard. I've played several successful games of SBIII in the Twin Cities. Destroyers seem to have zero life expectancy but you get a quick and clean result where there actually is some fog of war. You don't totally know how your ships are doing till they start to lose combat effectiveness, sink or blow up. That seems to be desirable in a world full of 200 foot generals and admirals.

That said, I prefer to roll dice and feel more "involved" with my toy boats.

I played several WW1 games using "battlefleet: The Dreadnoughts" in the 1990s. To be honest, they ran about the same speed (or possibly even slower) than the similar sized games we played using GQ2 – which included Jutland a few times.

Hello Turbo Dog:

My old club played a game called "Dreadnought" for World War I naval battles. It is a fast-play game that had the right amount of detail for our club. Like you we wanted to re-fight Jutland-sized actions. So we computerized it. You can now teach the rules to complete newbies in about 5 minutes. Essentially you show them how to move and use a turning circle, then you tell them gun ranges, and a rough outline of how shooting works. But the computer rolls all the dice, tracks all the damage, etc. The player need a file card with his ships on it so eh knows what's what and to track loss of speed (the only effect of damage the player really needs to track).

The computer program is useless without the rules but I can e-mail you a copy.

The rules I sell here:

link

Mark "Extra Crispy" Severin
Owner, Scale Creep Miniatures
ScaleCreep.com
DeepFriedHappyMice.com

I do not have these titles but have purchased other software from NWS, from other developers and native projects, and have never been disappointed.

Naval Warfare Simulations Dreadnought Rising & Battleships Zenith

link

link

Rich Sartore, author of the Seekrieg rules, asks:

With so many "paper-based" alternatives that offer everything from fast-play to detailed simulation without a silicon-based assistant, why do you feel the need for something that requires a computer and the various time-consuming data entry tasks associated with this kind of system?

Several reasons. For me, one of the main reasons is that it allows me to play a scenario, large or small, with absolutely no paperwork on the gaming table. No charts, no ship data sheets, nothing. It does, obviously, require a computer next to the gaming table, but I have several computers around the house anyway so that's not an unreasonable requirement for me.

One of the other major reasons I like computer-assist wargame rules is that I can get non-hardcore naval wargamers to play. I ran Jutland and Tsushima a number of times in my old college game group, consisting primarily of role-playing gamers with little or no wargaming experience. I can even get my wife to play, something that would not happen with Seekrieg for instance.

The "time-consuming data entry" part is all done up front. If I want to play Jutland right now, I just pick the Jutland scenario from the menu, pick out the ship miniatures, and start playing. I keyed in all the ship data for all the ships 17 years ago, and already set up all the scenario files.

If I want to create a new scenario, yeah, that takes a few minutes to pick ships off the menus. If I want to add new ships to the database or change ships already in the database, yeah, that takes a few more minutes. In both cases those are pre-game activities, and probably take less time than filling out a traditional paper ship record sheet.

Believe me, even many of the more "complex" paper-based systems (when run by an experienced game director familiar with game system) will probably go as fast (or faster) than a computer-based system.

Not in my experience. Even with an experienced referee, can any of the complex paper-based system do a 50-some ship scenario like Tsushima to comletion in four or five hours with only two players?

Sure, it depends on the system, but even a mathematically-challenged person like me can resolve the simple addition/subtraction/multiplication required by most rules more quickly than someone can type in the variables on a keyboard.

In Shipbase at least, most of the time the only variables you type in are to select the firing and target ships and the range between the two. Even someone with no keyboard experience can do that in a few seconds.

At any rate, the cost of entry for computer-assist naval wargaming is pretty low, compared to any of the "big" traditional rulesets. It's a free download. If the gamer tries it out and likes it, great, if not they can move on to something else without having spent a bundle.

I like using ACTION STATIONS for miniatures moderation but it only covers from the interwar period to WW2. I find the fog of war elements invaluable both in the sense of spotting (smoke, starshells, seachlights and radar) and also to keep torpedo launches hidden. There are several other very nice features as well including the use of ship launched spotting aircraft. Alas, even with modification the game is not useful for Jutland because the ship damage modelling is based on post-WW1 era hulls.

BTW, I have used Shipbase III and it yielded far too many hits at extreme range IMO…but maybe that was a bug that was patched.

Monstrous Jake -

I can respect and understand where you are coming from, however I think your perspective may be a little different from the OPs in some ways, and a little out of date in others.

You mentioned that you keyed in the ship data sheets 17 years ago. Well and good – but our OP is coming to it fresh.

You say filing out data cards takes longer than selecting them from a computer system -- sure if for some reason you are copying them via pencil from a book.

Many "pen and paper" games today, like Naval Thunder, are really "computer assisted setup" games. Where all the pencil work is done for you, and you just cut straight to the action.

For instance, with the ship data card printing tool for Naval Thunder, I can select and print out whole squadrons of ships in seconds – with no more sophisticated program or understanding necessary than typing two digit numbers into MS Excel. No additional software to download or understand.

I've already discussed the speed of modern pen and paper systems The "science" of game design has evolved considerably in the last few years – making games like Naval Thunder possible.

--- But ultimately, here is the real kicker ---

When I was at GenCon this year, they had a computer assist fantasy combat system they were showing off. It was gorgeous. You'd move the miniatures on the tabletop and then direct them on the computer – or maybe it even automatically detected it I didn't see that part of the demo.

After the movement was done, you ordered attacks and whatnot via computer. The software displayed GORGEOUS animations, of attacks, and spells, explosions, and blood (if you wanted it) meanwhile it calculated attacks, applied damage, and so forth, indicating (via corpses lol) which models needed to be removed and so forth -- it was a brilliant system.

But I walked away feeling like here was a computer program, that while very pretty -- took away and played all the most fun parts of the game for me. Its *FUN* to roll attacks, getting the visceral thrill when you hit, or letting out an agonized groan when you completely wiff. Same with calculating and applying damage – its a blast always eying that Magazine Hit result and hoping against hope that a "golden BB" will salvage the game for you. . . and you know. . . every great once in a while when you least expect it, it does! All that is taken away from you when the computer does all the rolling and attacking.

I agree, the computer is preferable to highly complex, math intensive systems that don't really provide the thrills I describe. . . but a properly designed game provides all that excitement and more -- and the computer can't replicate that.

If you want the computer to do all that for you, you're better off playing Jutland by Storm Eagle Studios or something similar, where you can concentrate on the pure maneuver and tactical aspects of the game – while enjoying beautiful graphical depictions of the combat from any camera angle. The dice and the thrills are where the computer has and probably always will fall short.

Anyway. . . the role of physical miniature games in a society with so much cheap computing power available to it could fill a huge thread all by itself. But the gaming environment has evolved considerably and it seems naval gaming is only just starting to catch up.

Don't get me wrong, there are people out there (sound like you included) that have been doing this for decades and have systems and play styles that work for them. That's great.

. . . but that doesn't necessarily mean that for somebody new getting into naval gaming who doesn't have all that history with the legacy systems and who is trying to attract others to the hobby -- that the "traditional" options are the best way of going about things or will give them what they want.

Heck. . . if the navy always stuck to tradition instead of evolving we'd still be using sails and rams! (Took the ram quite a long time to finally die actually! Late 1800's!!)

"the computer is preferable to highly complex, math intensive systems that don't really provide the thrills I describe. . . but a properly designed game provides all that excitement and more -- and the computer can't replicate that."

I think this is circular reasoning. To me the rules are the game. Whether they are committed to paper or silicon doesn't determine whether it's fun or accurate. Computer moderation software for miniatures is often simply a play aide for the GM. Assuming players prefer, there is nothing preventing a program from requesting players to roll dice and enter the results. (Personally, I always get excited when enemy ships blow up regardless of whether I rolled the dice or the computer randomized a value for the shot.) Most packaged games don't ask for dice results, but some folks here have automated paper games themselves so they handle fire resolution in whatever way strikes them as best for whatever they wish to accomplish.

Reporting the results with animations is a topic unto itself it seems to me…but I don't see the sense of competing with the models on the board if that's what bothers you. Text based play aides don't, of course.

Well. . . we're kinda getting into what I was talking about concerning physical miniatures vis a vis computer simulation. . . but its an interesting question these days.

So I guess my question to you would be, assuming a play aid that did NOT request die rolls from the players (which its my understanding is the way most or all of them are designed). . . that leaves the role of the player as simply pushing miniatures around the table and maybe designating targets, while the computer does all the rest of the gaming.

In that case, what is the value of having the miniatures at all? Why not simply do everything on the computer – such as in Jutland?

"Back in the day" games like Jutland weren't possible due to the limitations of the computer technology available at the time. Nowadays its dirt cheap and easy to come by. So if you're just going to move the ships around – why not instead use gorgeously rendered realistic depictions of ships that you actually get to see sail around, and shoot, and blow up. . . instead of static miniatures on the table top? [actual question, not rhetorical]

So I guess where I am going with this is, I personally just don't see text based computer-processed gaming as being super relevant to new players entering the hobby today.

Game design has advanced to the point where computers aren't necessary for resolving complex math – because there is no complex math to resolve (from the player's perspective -- the game designer's is something else). But if you chose to use a computer – why not just go whole hog?

Anyway, I don't think there is really a "right" or "wrong" answer. . . but its an interesting topic.

"Anyway, I don't think there is really a "right" or "wrong" answer…but its an interesting topic."

I completely agree and if my tone strays to suggest otherwise call me on it because I think, if anything, your POV is more in keeping with current realities. But (of course) I would like to respond to your points anyway…

"…that leaves the role of the player as simply pushing miniatures around the table and maybe designating targets, while the computer does all the rest of the gaming."

Well, I'd add to that recording & repairing damage, laying smoke, launching spotting aircraft, starshells, torpedoes etc…or often coordinating with teamates. But aren't those the sorts of decisions a Captain would be focusing on? And if his intelligence of the enemy is limited (what their exact dispostions, force pool and damage status looks like) isn't there already plenty to think about?

"So if you're just going to move the ships around – why not instead use gorgeously rendered realistic depictions of ships that you actually get to see sail around, and shoot, and blow up. . . instead of static miniatures on the table top?"

This past year at Historicon I participated in 1/1200 rendition of Jutland. My expectations were very low going in due to the "classic" rule set, but I assure you that having the three dimensional models out and arrayed for battle FAR, FAR outstripped the most spectacular computer graphics (despite the obvious scale distortion.) I had just finished reading Gordon's RULES OF THE GAME and it was like watching his analysis leap of the page and grab me by the lapels.

"So I guess where I am going with this is, I personally just don't see text based computer-processed gaming as being super relevant to new players entering the hobby today."

I'm not claiming they're relevant to players, but they're still potentially relevant (IMO) to guys who want to GM large scale or complex engagements (such as night actions in the Slot with swarms of torpedoes or maybe carrier actions) using minitures…ESPECIALLY if they like detailed models because the players are shielded from not only the intricacies of the calculations (which many appreciate) but also they get to focus on the PLAYING table, (which increasingly look like spectacular dioramas) not the tables and charts in the rulebook.

For the record, my favorite rule set is SK5 which has no computer component…I just wish that it did. What I have found is that board wargame players (who are usually both comfortable and adept with abstraction) often make the transition to computer games with great enthusiasm…but miniatures gamers like having a diorama to sit around and chew the fat over as they make their decisions. A guy who cut his teeth playing Squad Leader or Star Fleet battles looks at the SK5 rule set and says, hmmm, that looks like a light snack whereas the vast majority of miniature players shield their eyes in horror…UNLESS there is somebody referencing all the charts for them. Well, that's where a computer moderated miniatures system can really help because it makes it possible to become an instant GAME MASTER for those guys who are shy of big rulebooks. They can just focus making decisions according to the depiction before them…and not worry about how the mathematics work UNTIL they are comfortable enough to start asking those questions.

"I completely agree and if my tone strays to suggest otherwise call me on it because I think, if anything, your POV is more in keeping with current realities. But (of course) I would like to respond to your points anyway…"

Hey no problem. If we didn't love this stuff we wouldn't be here. And of course when people talk about stuff they are passionate about. . . well they get passionate. :)

"This past year at Historicon I participated in 1/1200 rendition of Jutland. My expectations were very low going in due to the "classic" rule set, but I assure you that having the three dimensional models out and arrayed for battle FAR, FAR outstripped the most spectacular computer graphics (despite the obvious scale distortion.)"

Believe me. . . you don't have to convince me how awesome the 3D models are. There was a reason my Jutland game at GenCon drew a bunch of onlookers. Seeing it in 1/1200 must have been something!

You mentioned how SK5 is your favorite rule set. I'ts a good system. . . been around a long time in various incarnations. . . but as you say it is rule/chart intensive.

The point you make about not having to focus on the rules, and instead focus on the playing table, is EXACTLY what Naval Thunder was written to do. WITHOUT giving up the flavor of play a naval game, or historical accuracy in outcomes.

That's why I'm trying to get some of the old guard to try out Naval Thunder. I didn't write Naval Thunder to make money. . . at all. I wrote it because I love naval wargaming and I wanted other people to get into it and experience the excitement and fun it had to offer. Both from a game perspective – as well as a learning about history perspective.

Tell you what Brandon. . . if you don't already have it. . . IM me your email address and I will send you a complementary copy of Naval Thunder: Battleship Row. (Or Clash of Dreadnoughts if you prefer WWI).

I don't expect you to suddenly become a convert to the 'Naval Thunder way'. . . but maybe if you read through the rules and try a couple quick games (since its hard to really get a feel for the game just from the read through) you'll have a good time doing some naval wargaming.

In which case -- I will have achieved my goal of enabling others to have fun playing naval wargames!

If you've already got it, give it a try on the tabletop! Let me know what you think. I'd love to hear your thoughts on what you liked or didn't like about it.

Anyway, interesting discussion. Nice to be able to talk about this stuff w/o anybody freaking out. That's why us naval gamers are better than the nappies! (LOL – Don't flame me anyone, I'm just kidding!!)

aw, hey, even you naval gamers are better than a diaper full of pea-green baby poo.

There's an interesting sub-text here about what gaming is, and why we enjoy it. It's the involvement in the processes. Here's what I mean.

Imagine a typical combat situation. You fire at the Lion at 18". You have 9 guns. So you roll to see if you straddle. Huzzah! So now you roll to see if you hit. 6 possibles. Now you compare your fire power to the Lion's armor rating. You need a 1 or 2 to penetrate. Success! One penetrating hit. You roll for damage location and severity, chance of a critical, and possibly a fire. All along you've been referencing charts, calculating percentages or checking DRMs.

Some gamers see the above as an integral part of the gaming experience they enjoy. they like rolling dice and reading charts. To other it's just a chore that interferes with the game (I'm in that camp).

It's funny how, if you run the numbers and calculate that you have a 5% chance of a hit and a 1% chance of a penetrating hit, that the "process" will often feel "more realistic."

There's one more reason I like a computer – it makes it much easier to keep the table looking good. To be honest, if the table is covered in soda cans, rosters, dice, templates, etc. etc. I often feel like why have miniatures at all?

YMMV

Yeah, I'm definitely in the. . .

Roll against a target number to hit
Roll against a target number to penetrate
Roll for critical damage result if you penetrate.

That's it. No cross checking involved and the only place a table is used is for the critical hit locations. Even that. . . after you've played two or three times you know it by heart.

I'm a big believer that to create the most excitement there should be an instant feedback loop when you roll the dice. You know right away if you hit/penetrated – just by looking at the die roll. There's no charts to check or tables to cross reference. IMO, its that checking and calculating that's the fun killer.

You should just be able to roll the dice, and scream "yes!!!" at your crestfallen opponent when you score several hits on his cruiser with your 16"/50s. . . because you both know what's gonna happen next!

. . . and for me personally. Typing in a bunch of info into a computer, then hitting enter or whatever, and seeing the results come back, doesn't have the same visceral thrill as throwing the dice down on the tabletop and screaming in victory at your roll. You're just kinda disconnected from it. But as you say, YMMV.

For those of you who've just joined us, we've been having these discussions about computer-assist wargame rules since I started writing them in 1982. One of these days I should collect my points, pro and con, and post 'em on my web site. Some of my views are summarized on my project page for the Panzer IV Ausf A program:

link

Extra Crispy pretty much sums it all up for me:

Some gamers see the above as an integral part of the gaming experience they enjoy. they like rolling dice and reading charts. To other it's just a chore that interferes with the game (I'm in that camp).

That's it, in a nutshell. I don't like doing paperwork during gametime. I rather enjoy programming and even data entry if it's something I'm interested in, so I don't mind spending a month or two's worth of free time writing a computer-assist version of a miniature ruleset and keying in all the data. When I'm at the gaming table though, even light recordkeeping and chartwork loses its charm for me after the first couple of turns.

TheDreadnought writes:

I can respect and understand where you are coming from, however I think your perspective may be a little different from the OPs in some ways, and a little out of date in others.

I'm sure my prespective is different from Turbo Dog's. I've long been convinced that no two gamers share the same exact preferences.

As far as being out of date, while the software is pretty old in the tooth (I think Shipbase I and II date to 1989 or so) the concept still works fine. My point was, and is, that it's a cheap (well, free, assuming the person already has a computer handy) and easy option for anyone to try out
computer-assist naval rules to see if they like it or not. If they don't like it, no harm done, they haven't lost a pile of money investigating the possibility.

Many "pen and paper" games today, like Naval Thunder, are really "computer assisted setup" games. Where all the pencil work is done for you, and you just cut straight to the action.

That concept has been around a long time too. I wrote a program in 1985 that printed already-filled out data sheets for the old MAATAC sci fi miniatures game. Worked great. One of my current non-computer-assist projects, Shove Off Gridley, uses pre-filled-out ship forms in PDF format.

So I guess my question to you would be, assuming a play aid that did NOT request die rolls from the players (which its my understanding is the way most or all of them are designed). . .

I did some of my early computer-assist projects with the option to have the players roll all the dice, then key in all the results. It really, really, really slowed the entire process down, so I dropped it.

In that case, what is the value of having the miniatures at all?

Because I like the miniatures. I play miniature wargames because I'm primarily a modeller. To summarize my preferences: miniatures good, paperwork bad.

Why not simply do everything on the computer – such as in Jutland?

I've been slowing tinkering with such projects, along with the 30 or 40 other projects currently on tap. On my desk right now I've got two computer-assist spaceship combat rulesets I'm building in parallel. Aside from the graphics, it's just a few short steps from what I've got now to having a full-fledged computer game, so I may get around to doing that some day. That's a whole different sort of project though.

So I guess where I am going with this is, I personally just don't see text based computer-processed gaming as being super relevant to new players entering the hobby today.

I don't see the point of vampire role-playing games, but that doesn't stop other people from playing them.

Hey, the OP asked for leads on computer-assist naval rules, I pointed out several examples of them in the freebie download section of my web site. What's not relevant about that?

"Hey, the OP asked for leads on computer-assist naval rules, I pointed out several examples of them in the freebie download section of my web site. What's not relevant about that?"

There's absolutely nothing wrong with bringing up the Shipbase programs. It does answer the OP's *question* but myself and a couple others have pointed out. . . computer assisted gaming may not be the answer to the OP's *problem*.

Put another way. . . its normal when somebody is getting into something new that they might make some assumptions about the options available to them, and thus limit themselves to those options. You've done a great job providing information relating to the OP's question about the options he had already been considering.

What I've been trying to do is point out other options the OP might not be aware of.

"IM me your email address and I will send you a complementary copy of Naval Thunder: Battleship Row. (Or Clash of Dreadnoughts if you prefer WWI)."

I just went back and read through this thread again. Had no idea that you wrote rules until I did so. It's funny but I was actually contemplating buying your rules at Wargamers Vault earlier when I was looking up an old GDW game they are selling on the Russo-Japanese war. (My idea being to use it as a campaign manager/scenario generator.) So, unless you don't think it's a good idea I'll pickup this one up link
to try with your RISE OF BATTLESHIP and CLASH OF THUNDER. Then, if I ever finish my historical novel, you can buy that one to read. Even stevens!

Sure. Sounds good. Let me know what you think! :)

Another alternative is to write a simple excell program to roll the dice for you for all the necessary categories. Keep the charts by the PC and look up the results from there. I did this for the Fire on the Waters rules. With one click all 12 possible dice rolls are made and put into the proper location. Then just read off the die roll against the hit charts.

I used to use Shipbase3. but without a laptop it restricted my gaming to being near the table with the PC. One thing i dislike about some naval games (shipbase3, seapower) is that results are percentage based….i.e. at 20% damage you lose X speed and Y firepower. I'd rather play a rule set that gives you location of hits and actual damage…that way you can have situations like bismark or san francisco where all the armament is shot away but the engines are still going pretty good.

One thing i dislike about some naval games (shipbase3, seapower) is that results are percentage based….i.e. at 20% damage you lose X speed and Y firepower.

I still like the damage percentage concept for fleet games when each player might be handling dozens of ships.

Having said that, on my more recent projects I've moved to a newer damage model. Sinking is based on buoyancy (or lack thereof) rather than hull boxes or raw tonnage, and armament and speed damage is based on hit location. It works well enough that I'll probably use it in the next version of Shipbase (if and when it ever gets finished).

Well Monstrous Jake you said it…if and when….I have noticed a lot of that on the various projects that were started over the years. Great ideas and potential but because of other committments, life in general etc, never quite finished. (I bought shipbase from you when it first came out and have kept up with your webpage for many a decade. Always thought tank base would be very useful, but alas….) I truely hope you do get the next version finished if it reflects sinking by lack of bouyancy/flotation instead of per-centages.

BTW-Nothing wrong with per-centage based games…they do allow a fast game. I usually don't game fleets (i.e. jutland) but usually limit a game to 5-6 ships a side. So like a bit more detail in my game and don't mind the paperwork/charts involved.

The Computer Strategies set of computer moderated games have naval as well as land. For the post-WW1 period they also have air integarted. I use them for WW1 Dreadnought battles.

link

I have noticed a lot of that on the various projects that were started over the years. Great ideas and potential but because of other committments, life in general etc, never quite finished.

That's me, far too many good ideas and far too few hours available to implement them.

I do actually finish some of my projects, but most of them aren't the sort of project I cover on my web site.

The two spaceship games I'm developing in parallel are fairly well along and might even be playable in a week or two. Tankbase (well, one of the planned versions anyway) is about half done. There are several iterations of naval miniatures rules, effectively the latest versions of Shipbase, in various stages of completion, but nothing that's going to be ready for prime time this year or next.

Hi
One thing that Ship Base does is it allows you to "drop" in on the game after long absences without having to read and digest all the rules every time. We all know that even a moderately complex game if it is not played regularly has to be played once or twice, when coming back to it after some time, to get back into the swing of things. This I find is not necessary with Ship base, it is a great game for that.

Having said that of course we are now playing a lot of Fleet Action Imminent. The main reason is now that I play in a club with 4 to 8 people playing the bottle neck becomes the computer. So what I have done is make every one learn at least how to use the charts etc for Fleet Action Imminent and do the die rolling, what happens is all the gamers are doing things all the time. The computer is great when you have only one or two players.

So each has its place, I also think that the computer has great potential for WWII and aircraft, searching etc.

I like both for different reasons.
William

I guess i fall into the category of player that believes that if you love a genre and a game ,rules mastery is important.I was a and will remain a paper counter and hex map ,rules and dice junkie.Miniatures add colour to my games,i prefer them moderately complex simulations that reflect many intricacies ,think AH Bismarck.If an opponent wants to play they should be reasonably well versed in both era and rules systems.The human factor is the greatest computer we can use.In sci fi ,Star Fleet Battles as opposed to new star fleet commander,know the rules ,win the game ..thats pure and dogmatic.

I'll probably do a computer based naval game someday. It will have to involve a lot more research than I have put in my current rule system. Instead of generic compartments and flotation factors it will have the actual ship design and actual compartments. This will have to be far in the future as I am currently working on a WWII ground combat game for computer game company.

While there's plenty of 'Roll a "6" and sink the Bismarck' type rules out there, paper rules that involve any kind of realism are just too much work to play for most of the crowd.

Mobius ,that game would be War at Sea by AH,not Bismarck.

The Naval Thunder rules look very interesting. I am not part of a naval wargaming group, but am looking into purchasing some 1/6000 ships (limited space here) and getting a good set of rules that aren't too overwhelming, but have some depth to them. I was looking at the link provided above, and it appears it just may fit the bill of what I am looking for.

Can they be played solitaire?

It's been a long, long time but the Battlefleet: The Dreadnoughts computer rules system is now back in development. You can get progress updates on the Yahoo group we have set up at: link

One important difference between computerized rules and paper rules. Paper rules, by their nature, lay everything out for examination by the player: all the data, odds, mechanics, etc are accessible. Computerized rules are essentially "black boxes" whose design elements and data are totally opaque to all except those precious few individuals skilled enough to attack and dismantle the code.

I'm not a fan of "black box" rule sets: case in point = SES Jutland.

B

I have fond memories of playing Battlefleet: the Dreadnoughts, it was a good system, has any progress been made on the new version?

Turbo Dog, computer assisted naval rules are what is needed. My rules, Seas of War, start out in a computer program to calculate armor and ballistics. That information is transfered to charts and those made into 'paper' rules. I have thought about cutting out the middle man and just making the entire system a computer program. Since every ship type can be worked up and saved in a data set it would be easy to make a scenario once the initial work is done.
I also am looking at software to make phone apps so maybe the rules could be an app.