"Musings on Sails of Glory" Topic

My latest blog entry has me reflecting on a few weeks of playing Sails of Glory…..

link

Thanks for the review – informative. Based on what you write and the comments I'm hearing form others I feel certain in my choice to steer clear.

The game is a winner for me. Just enough "crunch" to give a good feel while still being fun AND its ready to go out of the box!

None of that pesky painting needed.

I've certainly enjoyed our games

The muskets do cause quite a bit of damage but you do have to be very close in order to use them and once you start losing crew points then it is one of the first crew actions that gets dropped as damage control, loading and firing take priority

I think it would be hard to control more than three ships in the advanced game so unless you have a large number of players then Trafalgar is out

An app to replace the ship cards would be very useful

:)

Yes, the suggestion of an App has arisen a few times. I wonder if anyone has the time and the skills to attempt such a feat :)

For me the plus points are the "out of the box" nature. Plus I think it is a simple enough system to HR those aspects that might offend.

Will be doing it this afternoon. We played a couple of weeks ago and got 4 good games in an evening.

Probably fine rules for single ship actions. I have heard that more two ships per player would be problematic. I like their other games and I am sure they are keeping some mechanics similar?

They are bringing new players to historical gaming and this genre which is a very good thing.

David brings up very solid points and these shouldn't be discounted. I am loving games I can play right away. Sure, I want to paint my own too. But it is a great way to get into the hobby till something gets painted.

Good Review. It appears to me to be just what I expected. Wings of War/Glory with ships.

The little group of us that play every week love the flying games and treat them as what they are. WW1 with a bit of feel but not uber detail, a good game for an evening, not one for those who could tell you the length of bracing wire needed for an SE5.

We have clubbed together for a starter set of SoG for much the same reasons (no way would any of us pay the indvidual asking price) and are expecting the same level of game.

Sounds like we won't be disappointed.

Very informative review, thanks.

Thank you for your take on the game, sir!

Thank you for the review! I've been off line for a while and was taken aback by the release of this game.
I bought a bunch of WotC's War at Sea miniatures when that came out, but never used their rules. Anyone planning on just buying the SoG ship figures and using a different set of rules?

Ted

Yes, 100%. Frankly, I assumed all along that most people would simply be buying the ships for use with other more established rule systems. They are perfect for those of us (me!) who are only somewhat interested in Age of Sail, and don't feel like assembling, painting, and rigging the gorgeous Langton ships. So I've picked up a bunch of the SoG ships, and with a quick ink wash on the sails they look great. I'm mounting them on 3" octagons for Fire as She Bears and/or Heart of Oak.

Thanks for the review. I have to agree that Trafalgar is the benchmark for Napoleonic Naval rules. In that if it is worse than Trafalgar then it is truly bad!

Sounds like I will stick to Langton's Quick Play set. Langton's Quick Play is probably too abstract for the serious aficionado, but at least has all the details that you complain that Sails of Glory doesn't have.

Cheers,
JohnG

Its worth noting for those who are buying the models to use with other systems, if its only the models you want then think about selling the other components on Ebay or elsewhere. There are a number of players who are after extra manoeuvre decks, bases and ship mats to use with 1/1200 models so you will probably find a ready and eager market.

Its got at least 10 of our club playing ships which I thought would never happen…

Works well for us dabblers, we play 3 ships each easily and have a few players a side.

Don't find it fiddly, havent come across actions which are determined by chit pulling so no idea what that refers to. Collisions with friends hurt but collisions with enemy ships end in boarding not impunity. It is a wings of glory level game but has enough detail for non nap ship game ubber fans and to be honest we wouldn't know how realistic it is but its good fun!

My wife and I played our first game a couple of weeks ago and had a ball. My brother looked on and seemed to actually enjoy watching the game – I suspect I can wrangle him into a game, which is something I never would have accomplished with a more granular set of Napoleonic naval rules – he don't know a post ship from the post office, but that don't signify in SoG! ;)

It's a fun game that does what it was designed to do: Provide a fun Age of Sail game that doesn't require players to know larboard from starboard to enjoy.

Shawn.

I got my set in the mail on Friday and I have to agree with the comments that it is wholly unsatisfactory simulation of Napoleonic naval warfare. For example: in our first real game yesterday evening a very annoying and I have to say a very unrealistic event took place near the end of the game which completely destroyed any illusion that this was no more than a game being played with toy ships. Our one year old somehow ended up with the HMS Defence on the floor and within seconds had inflicted massive damage to the sails. I thought this highly unrealistic and the rule book offered no satisfactory explanation why this should happen. I confess I don't have any serious knowledge of the era apart from reading the Pat O'Brien Master and Commander series but I would not have expected this to happen. Perhaps the scudding's spanker succumbed to a sudden squall?

I have to say it looks great…I did splash some wash on the minis but the game itself reads as realistic as I would want. Ignorance perhaps is bliss after all :)

Just played my first game of SoG with my gaming group. I'll admit; it was fun and it was easy to grasp. Game moved along nicely. But that didn't stop my friend (who bought the game) from listing it for sale.

Why? Because, as good as it is (and it is a good game with some innovative ideas), it fails as a decent or acceptable AoS game.

Just 2 points to consider:

1) Ships sail WAY too close to the wind. Square riggers can only come up to certain (and well known) degrees to the wind. SoG has them sailing better than a modern fore-and-aft rigged sailboat.

2) All tacks are automatic. After 30+ years of crewing sail powered boats (and a stint as a volunteer on a real life square rigger), I can tell you with absolute confidence that NO tack is EVER automatic. In real life, it just doesn't happen.

Now you may say 'Well that doesn't matter!'. Except it DOES matter. The game's mechanics do NOT replicate how the real ships actually moved. Would you accept a Fokker D.VII in WoG doing 500mph and armed with 4 20mm cannon? Of course you wouldn't! And the same applies here. If the rules, however simple or fun, fails the to get this right, then all you're doing is playing a game (with pretty and overpriced ship models) that has no relationship to the reality of sailing ship combat.

So why don't we add some house rules to solve the problems? We could, but at the price Ares is asking, we shouldn't have to. An ACCURATE and FUN game is not mutually exclusive. We should be able trust the authors to 'get it right', especially for those gamers unfamiliar with the period.

Call it fun (and it is) but don't call it an Age of Sail game….

Fair enough but it doesn't take into account the sea state either (how many rules do?) there again its not aimed at folks who know what that means, or have any idea how much a period vessel would pitch and roll.

WoG defies the laws of flight in a number of ways not to mention structural integrity of WW1 biplanes but given the fact its only working in two dimensions, its not that bad.

Neither game is pitched at those with first hand knowledge or detailed understanding of the periods.

If we are going to examine this level of technical detail there are no land based rules that even come close to what Napoleonic battles were like. You would grind to a halt trying reproduce everything.

It is an Age of Sail game, doubtless not as accurate as it should be but its not alone in that area.

Captains a crew of the real things had years of experience in which to master the problems of wind, tide, ship handling and navigation, never mind combat.

I venture to suggest that most gamers couldn't really cope with all the variables they had to take in at a glance never mind assimilate all the rules details needed to reproduce them.

There are no doubt more accurate rules out there but none are accurate enough.

So, Trajanus . . . there is no way to reproduce all the variables, agreed. I don't buy that as an excuse for not bothering to get the basics correct. I have never been impressed with the "we can never simulate everything perfectly so let's not even try to get any of it right" argument.

Each wargame designer chooses which variables he wishes to include and the degree of congruence to the historical record to which it is held, according to his understanding of what is most important. Too often important aspects of the subject are left out or glossed over because of a designer's imperfect grasp of the subject matter (yes, literally everyone's grasp of every subject is imperfect, but there are degrees), or because modelling that particular aspect is too thorny a problem to tackle.

If the purpose of a game is to engage the players in a fun and accessible system with a historical flavor (which Ares has done admirably well) then clearly expectations of historical fidelity are somewhat more relaxed. If, however, the designers tout the product as "a game system designed to accurately represent battles at sea" (quote from the Sails of Glory website) then they impose upon themselves an obligation to get the fundamentals right. To do otherwise is a disservice to those players who come to the game with little or no background knowledge of the subject matter.

I have never been impressed with the "we can never simulate everything perfectly so let's not even try to get any of it right" argument.

Apologies if I have given that impression, as neither am I. What may be in debate however is how basic the basics are and that these may vary in terms of perception and/or understanding.

If the purpose of a game is to engage the players in a fun and accessible system with a historical flavor (which Ares has done admirably well) then clearly expectations of historical fidelity are somewhat more relaxed.

Which is my point. If you punch Sails of Glory into You Tube you will find an Ares spokesman at Gen Con saying that was their exact purpose as it was with WoW/WoG. So somewhere along the line they have a disconnect.

Which takes me back to land warfare rules where "accurately represent" or "accurately portray" has become the vernacular for things that clearly don't.

To do otherwise is a disservice to those players who come to the game with little or no background knowledge of the subject matter.

Indeed and so it is with countless other rule sets of all genres that do like wise. My point here being that I too have made the same comment for years and still think it valid.

The difference is that I now accept that most of those on the receiving end of said "disservice" neither know, nor care!

most of those on the receiving end of said "disservice" neither know, nor care!

Sad, but true. It would be a mistake to underestimate the capacity of people to be willfully misinformed in the name of entertainment (although wargames are pretty mild offenders in this regard when you consider television, and some of the tripe that passes for journalism these days). It is also entirely possible that some of those on the delivering end of the transaction neither know nor care.

I can over look some of the historical oops in all rules. Some work for some or not. We always are fighting the wargamer's fight, for play-able and historical accurate games. Some like one, some another. That is our choice.
My thing about SOG is the scale and you must buy into the whole system. For a new player to Napoleonic naval games it would seem a good buy. If you only play the odd game it is a good buy. But if you wish to get into this type of game in a big way and start with SOG you will hit the scale wall.
I must say I started with G.W. Trafalgar and have moved on. I'm looking for the rules for me. One day they will be written or I will find them. But I have the right scale for most rules, so will not have to start again as some who have spent lots of money on SOG system will have to do. I may have to add different bases for some rules, but not new ships. I will also not buy new ships for SOG game, just to play it. We are all looking for short cuts. This game is not as a short cut as it may seem at frist. I wish all enjoyment of there game. I still enjoy the odd game of G.W. Trafalgar.
Be safe
Rory

Well I just received my KS package (and not all of it I might add), so I am hoping to play soon. I don't feel qualified to comment on the rules specifically.

Like coastal2 I am a sailor and also at one time sailed on a square rigged ship. I also have a box full of painted Langton's. What intrigued me the most about SoG was the card based movement and to some extent the ships because I don't have time anymore to paint them. I also game with a group that dabbles in periods and wants a fast played fun game, but one that feels right of course. I think similarly situated people will devise house rules to cover some of the gaps mentioned. Rory at some point someone will find a way to get those Langton's of yours on the table.

As David mentioned I like the pull it out of the box and play aspect as well. War Artisan I have downloaded your rules but the need to make a special grid to play on has stopped me from trying. That's what I like about the card based movement system, no hexes or grids! If they got the points of sail wrong that may be another matter….

"What may be in debate however is how basic the basics are and that these may vary in terms of perception and/or understanding."

The two points raised are beyond the basics. It goes to how ships MOVE under sail. And its not hard to get it right (especially with the movement system in play). And there were more problems we found (to a lesser degree). Its just a matter of Ares not paying attention (or not caring to pay attention). And yes, that is a disservice to the purchasers of the game.

Interesting you mention the move system. I'm only going by observation at the moment while waiting on delivery but I was wondering if at a detail level this is where Ares bailed out.

The movement was the first thing that attracted me to the game as it appeared to have all the elements with no hassle like hexes.

It also appeared that you sailed faster off the wind and could luff up as a tactic and/or by accident so obviously some one somewhere was paying some attention.

Could it be that the combination of the action of the wind being shown on the ship base in the manner chosen and the use of the wind attitude indicator prevented those sailing items mentioned being covered properly in the name of simplicity and the relationship to the movement cards?

Could it also be that these items had some thought but it would have needed a different type of movement card? As it is there are three different sail settings and arcs on a fairly small card. If the radius of these arcs needed to be tighter or wider then the size and shape of the cards would have been different and you are in to production and design considerations.

That's even before you think about if it would have fitted with the game design.

Disservice or no those on other threads who are now beavering away repainting and rigging the out of the box ships don't appear that worried. I would suggest to you that they are the prime customer base not those with first hand experience of how many degrees to the wind you can get a square rigger to run.