"New ruleset discussion; your thoughts?" Topic

I have been sketching up a simple set of rules for ancient naval warfare. My goal is to create a simple (yet not simplistic) set of rules that give the general feeling of ancient naval warfare without getting bogged down in minutiae. This would make them good for hosting games at conventions and appeal as an introductory game for new gamers, kids, or just those who want to play with galleys but don't have explicit knowledge of the ancient world. Once I've put some polish on them I would distribute them freely.

I'm using a D10 based system, as I prefer the range spread this gives over D6s. Generally speaking, the rules mechanics are based off of making opposed rolls with simple modifiers. There would be no need for record keeping sheets as anything that would need to be kept track of could be marked with tokens. I plan on using the Roman Seas 1:300th scale paper ships for their cost, replace-ability and visual impact on the table. The larger scale does create a slight issue as I want "standard" games to be playable on a 4'x6' table and larger battles could be hosted on a 6'x8' table.

So with those things in mind I'd like to ask the community:

What sorts of problems have you encountered playing ancient naval games at conventions or club events? What do you see that bogs down play or situations where rules tend to fail?

One of the biggest issues I've come across is the paralysis that often sets in as ships get close to each other. With many rule sets using an I GO U GO approach there comes a point where (for example) side A could advance but doing so would put them at risk of being rammed by side B, so they slow, or back water. Side B is then faced with the same issue. In Salamis ad Actium I used a card activation system similar to Form Line of Battle to get over this. Written orders is a other way to combat this, and a card movement system as in Wings of Glory (written orders by another name) works as well

Interesting. What I am taking from what you said, is that when the system lets you anticipate your opponent's move too much (I go, you go) players tend to hesitate.

I was already working on an "interrupted" turn order system. I do not want to go with the record keeping of a written turn order system. I have Wings of War/Glory, so I am familiar with the card activation system. I'll take that under consideration, as I see how I could just easily make cards with maneuvers on them that players choose each turn, face down, then reveal.

I've been using David's Salamis ad Actium with a number of tweaks here and there. The card based turn sequence does help keep player paralysis down, which is augmented by the one-time use initiative cards that each admiral has to play. These can give players an extra move at a decisive time to allow them to close or more importantly, to potentially back out of a perilous situation before they can be counterattacked.

Another point I've seen in some rules that leads to games bogging down is if the ship-to-ship combats span multiple movement pulses. If this is the case, then the engaged ships tend to draw in more ships until you have a big scrum with very few ships moving around. While this might be historically accurate, it does not make for the best game, especially in a convention setting. This is part of why I returned to David's rules – combats may sway back and forth, but they are resolved before moving on to the next movement opportunity. This doesn't mean the winning ship is free to zip off straight away – they still have to disengage from the captured ship maneuver away from it, etc. – but it still gives the players control of the ships, which is what they signed on for.

I understand the issue of the "big scrum". It's a double edged sword, though. You want combats to be decisive so they are quickly resolved and the game does not bog down. However in a simple rule system using just modifiers, if you make them too decisive you run the risk of big ships being so overpowering that they just crush everything, which ends up with something that plays more like O.G.R.E. than galley warfare. I feel that using D10s rather than D6s and the scale of the game helps mitigate this.

Also the card based movement system I am testing out seams to be working great, however it was quickly determined that there still needs to be a player initiative sequence rather than simultaneous movement or else turns become chaotic.

It may be important to look at the period you want to game.
Peleponnesian Wars battles differ from Punic Wars.The snowballing scrum is realistic ..triremes and Rhodians were adept at keeping clear of this kind of melee.Romans actively sought it.
Also numbers. Few ships means players value each one more highly and are more cautious.
In terms of movement..a skipper must commit himself to complete an attack at some point and then it is a question of whether the target can evade in time. A trireme could be cruising then stop and go astern at good speed within 90 seconds and 1 1/2 ship lengths..this means that your game turn must be very short and therefore not allow much fighting if you want to model ship movement vety closely..maybe too closely. My suggestion is to go for the effect you want. Model that. Aircraft game type of preplayed manouvre cards are fun , create tension and have realistic aspects

link

Some of my own brain ache on the topic here

I've been busy with work and school so progress has been slowed. I do appreciate your insights. It is interesting how I look over material so differently from when I was just reading about trireme warfare for fun, vs now trying to model it.

So far the card movement system seams to work fine and makes things much easier. However, since this game is meant for a large number of players, it was quickly determined that doing everything simultaneously gets a bit chaotic.

To resolve that I decided to re-implement initiative order. Players choose their movement card then everyone rolls for initiative. Movement, including ramming attacks, are then resolved in initiative order. This takes a bit longer but keeps play a lot more organized. It has also clarified the occasional issue of "who rammed who first" that cropped up during simultaneous movements.

The downside is that having multiple players go through each phase in initiative order (movement, shooting, boarding attacks) became too ponderous and slow. So I am working on that. Each player now does all of their actions during their initiative pass, but this has forced a re-write of how I was handling boarding combats.

Depending on the level of complexity some of the movement issues may be resolved using an impulse movement system. The basic idea is proportional movement. If the fastest ship can move 20 units in a turn then you have 20 impulses that movement may occur in. A shipping moving 20 would move one unit of movement at each impulse while a ship moving 10 would move every other impulse and a shipping moving 1 unit would move only in the last impulse.

This probably wouldn't be good for more than 10 to 15 ships per side if my experience with Star Fleet Battles which uses this system translates to galleys.

It does also provide some additional effects to be quantified in terms of impulses, such as lower/raise sail, or other actions that might take more than a single turn to complete. Such as one impulse to grapple/ drop corvus and then troops don't get to melee until the following impulse even though movement isn't involved.

Dameon,

I think David's other recommendation involving cards was for a card-based initiative system as well. The reason being that when the dice are rolled and everyone knows who acts in which order, the paralysis he was referring to sets in. The card system would be numbered say 1-# of players in game. Every turn every player is dealt a card for their ship and then you call through the sequence. 1 moves. 2 moves. 3 moves. Players don't reveal which initiative card is theirs until their move comes up. This way there's a little unknown in the initiative order.

At least that was my understanding. I could be totally wrong (but it might be another idea for you!)

Personally (and this is just a quirk of mine) nothing makes me turn up my nose like "roll for initiative". It just seems like such a waste. Surely there are some sort of tactical advantages gained on the battlefield that warrant your move. For as much as people hate "Trafalgar" by Games Workshop, the "leeward ships move first" rule is really refreshing. Avalon Hill's old Flight Leader jet combat game was Speed + Altitude = Initiative. I really love that kind of stuff.

Nothing worse than losing a game because you had all the tactical advantages in the world but couldn't win an initiative roll. :)

Just my 2c. Good luck!

In the current movement system I've got, all players select their movement cards THEN everyone rolls the initiative dice.

Players use the cards as a way to pre-plot their move and the initiative is just to keep the turn organized. There could be 12+ players around a table, so simplicity and organization are key factors in keeping the game moving along swiftly.

So far the movement and turn initiative system is working well. The currently problem I am trying to solve is that players find their vessels sink too fast, making for a short game for some people.