""Simple Naval Rules" - What exactly does that mean???" Topic

I keep seeing references to a desire for simple naval rules, but rarely is any explanation given as to how a set of rules might qualify.

What makes naval rules "simple"?

Some obvious points do come to mind. I don't think anyone particularly fancies keeping track of crew assignments or accounting for fatigue factors and such from turn to turn to turn for each ship.

Or is it a dislike for dealing with the unique nature of movement of sailing ships?

I'm interested to get opinions. What are gamers really looking for in "simple" AoS rules?

B

What makes naval rules "simple"?

Being no longer than (say) 5 pages of A4.

Two sides of A4 max.

You need to decide what is important and abstract out the rest, which partly depends on the level of engagement you are aiming at.

Gunnery and boarding are the most easily abstracted, as are some aspects of C3. Sailing is a bit harder so that should probably feature somewhat more detail (even if it is just different movement rates for different bearings to the wind).

Being no longer than (say) 5 pages of A4.

I should have said no more than 5 pages of A4 with text in a minimum of 14pt!!

Agree with Martin simple rules should be no longer than 2 sides of A4 (1 double sided page). Any more than that just aint simple.

I don't think length and font size are a good guide, I know *plenty* of folks at my office who could create a confusing, complicated mess of any system given 5 pages (or even 2) with which to work. :)

If I were looking for/writing a set of simple naval rules (though I prefer my naval rules medium-crunchy) I'd probably do something like this:
1. Keep the emphasis on the sailing, as that's what makes age of sail so interesting; gunnery, boarding, damage, C&C etc, would all be more abstract.
2. Ships are classified by rate (Unrated, then 6th-1st), which determines how many gunnery dice they throw, how much punishment they can take and how fast they can sail
3. Even for sailing I'd probably eliminate the issue of different sail settings, etc. You'd have three points of sail (Close Hauled, Reach or Running), each of which gives you a minimum and a maximum movement based on your rate. You can't move directly into the wind. If you don't want to move you have to drop anchor.
4. Shooting is done by throwing a number of dice equal to the gunnery factor, each '6' is a hit. Ships get their full dice in the broadside arc, and only 1 or 2 dice in the forward/rear arc, regardless of rate.
5. Each hit goes against sails or guns. Sail hits reduce speed, gun hits reduce how many dice you throw. If you rake the target you do a bonus damage (or maybe more than one).

And that's pretty much it!

-Will

Roll a die.

1-5: Brits Win.
6: Roll Again.

There you go.
-Kle.

The length of the rules is a bit misleading, since a writer can express a rule very briefly for experienced players, but needs whole paragraphs for a newcomer to understand.

If I say '5-6th Rate: Close Haul 3", Reach 6", Run 9" ' you might follow it, but someone else could well need a lot more explanation.

For me, the issue with naval games has always been whether, as admiral, I dealt with admiral issues, or simply acted as a dozen separate captains --- or, indeed, accountants.

If I say '5-6th Rate: Close Haul 3", Reach 6", Run 9" ' you might follow it, but someone else could well need a lot more explanation.

I was kind of assuming that things like this would be explained in the text within my 5 page limit.

For me, the issue with naval games has always been whether, as admiral, I dealt with admiral issues, or simply acted as a dozen separate captains --- or, indeed, accountants.

Agreed. I have seen few – if any – rules that really give an admiral's view.

This is simple. link

To me, the rules should be short. 4 pages will usually get you a set of rules that can do what a 100 page rules set can do but in a much simpler way.

Things that lead to madness:
* Order writing
* Excessively detailed ship roster
* Excessively detailed movement rules
* Excessive granularity in combat/morale mechanics. You really don't need more than 3 levels. Example Green Regular and Veteran for experience.

The core rules of Song of Blades and Heroes (sorry, I can't think of a naval equivalent off the top of my head) could easily be compressed to one page, a la FUBAR.

So, yeah, if you can compress pages of layman-friendly, example- and picture-laden rules into what's basically a detailed one or two page QRS that you could work solely off of after one full read-through, I think that qualifies.

"The core rules of Song of Blades and Heroes (sorry, I can't think of a naval equivalent off the top of my head)…"

The naval equivalent will be "Galleys and Galleons", which a few of us here are playtesting and enjoying immensely :)

Roll a die.

1-5: Brits Win.
6: Roll Again.

There you go.
-Kle.

I've played several games that basically boiled down to this. :)

I agree though there's a lot to be said for longer rules that one can boil down into a 1-2 page QRS that covers everything you'll need to remember during a typical game.

-Will

The length of the rules is a bit misleading, since a writer can express a rule very briefly for experienced players, but needs whole paragraphs for a newcomer to understand.

If I say '5-6th Rate: Close Haul 3", Reach 6", Run 9" ' you might follow it, but someone else could well need a lot more explanation.

Oh, really good point. I'm sure I could write a 5 page rule set for players who are familiar with the age of sail, but for someone coming in with no background you need to be much more explicit.

-Will

What does "simple" mean? For me it means I likely won't look at them seriously. In practice it seems to end up:

Crews are either good, average or poor, but only for shooting and possibly melee.

All ships sail the same and the crew quality makes no difference.

Gunnery is so abstracted that one broadside where you roll a "six" might cause the ship to strike or sink.

Ships sink. But are never navigational hazards.

Etc. etc.

Surely someone who was sufficiently interested in the Age of Sail to want to play naval wargames portraying the period would have discovered the meanings of terms such as 'close-hauled' already – if only by reading Hornblower et al?

Why should wargame rules have to explain basic information about their subject? Is it unreasonable to assume that players interested in a particular period have read up on it?

Why should wargame rules have to explain basic information about their subject?

I think you hit the nail on the head. I remember back when I started gaming all those years ago. We played "Tractics" to death. Nobody had to explain to me the difference between a Tiger and a Sherman. I even knew that the later PZIV and the Sherman were roughly on par…a point that is often lost by more modern rules writers. I knew because, as a young budding WW2 gamer, I devoured all things WW2.

But back on topic, anyone getting into Naval gaming combat will likely know all the finer points just from the "studies" they've likely gone through already.

But how well do gamers (present company excepted, of course) really know their periods?

Backing Sail?
Heaving to?
Wearing versus wearing short round?
Yawing?
The necessity for a balanced sail plan?
The maneuver consequences of losing masts and spars?
The actual time required to tack a line-of-battle ship?

The drive toward simplification IMO sometimes just gets too extreme. Rates are a highly imperfect means of representing relative ship strengths. I can point out at least a dozen examples of ships of the same nominal rate possessing dramatically different weights of broadside, not to mention cases of ships of a lesser official rate carrying broadsides heavier than ships of greater rates. For example, what's the strength of a 3rd rate 74? Is it a Spanish 74 carrying 24s, 18s, and 8s; or a British 74 carrying 32s, 18s and 9s; or a French 74 carrying 36s, 18, and 8s, or a big British 74 carrying 32s 24s and 9s? And then you have to take into account the fact that the burthen tonnage of a 74 ranged from 1600 up to 2000 tons! It's a really big spread. How important is it to gamers?

B

"Why should wargame rules have to explain basic information about their subject? Is it unreasonable to assume that players interested in a particular period have read up on it?"

Not necessarily true, and especially with regards to AoS. If your gamer's experience is rooted in popular fiction (very common, BTW), he's very likely to have a very skewed (and unrealistic) view of the period. And when it comes to how a ship really moves and acts, that's an entirely new and different thing from any modern experience.

I think you have to explain terminology so that an interested newcomer can play it. It's arcane stuff, especially when more than one strange term is used for the same thing ("Am I beating? Is that close hauling as well? Is that something else? Why do you want to know about luffing or kedging?")

And you have to define it so that the players can decide whether "Wind behind me, but off to one side" constitutes running, reaching or, indeed --- what do they call that?:)

That's why the best rules can be played from a QRS, but actually have a much fuller explanatory text behind that two page sheet.

GW do this well, even if you don't like their games. Good rules should attract the newbie. Have a basic set of rules, with advanced rules later to break people in. Also, add flavour with stories, photos and descriptions of terms. Big glossy rulebooks, I love 'em.
One of the best naval games I played was with toothpaste boxes and matchsticks representing triremes. Troops were marines and archers, with the odd bolt thrower. Some nations were fast, some were slow but heavily armed. Got me playing and interested in ancient naval, enough to read more about it later.

To my mind, there is a lot of nuance to the AoS period that needs to be represented in order for a rule set to deliver the necessary flavor of the period – especially with respect to shiphandling under sail. In that context, would it be fair to say that "simple rules" might be a synonym for "simple game mechanics"?

B

These are the simplest rules I've come across – fast, simple and action packed. I see no reason why they can't be adapted for Napoleonic warfare.

YouTube link

Blutarski,it depends on what your trying to represent. If you are a ship's captain, then all you said is correct. If you are Nelson, then you are looking at things from a much higher level. He would know the direction of wind, where the land is, where the enemy fleet is, and roughly how his fleet would handle and fight. He would see his ships heading towards the enemy but not care (or be able to control) about what each crew is doing. This to me is represented by simple game mechanics. Micro managing is for skirmish/ role play games.

I personally like the level of detail in Langton's Signal Close Action Fast Play set. It does crew quality well, as everything requires an ability roll check, and crew quality and damage affect this. We played a nice simple game the other day which I put on my blog link

JezEger – You raise an important point: What role is the gamer himself assumed to play within the mechanics of the rules? If the goal of the rules is for the gamer to carry out the role of Admiral Nelson or Admiral Villeneuve at Trafalgar – i.e. making a single player responsible for two or three dozen ships – then the rules have no choice but to be absolutely stone simple. My personal opinion is that, as miniature wargame rules climb the command level scale, they become more and more abstract. The better ones reach the level of chess and the bad ones the level of checkers being played with expensive, nicely painted pieces. But, IMO, too much period nuance and flavor get rinsed out when the command scale reaches this high.

As mentioned, that is strictly a personal opinion.

B

Khusrau – I discovered and played Langton's Signal Close Action Fast Play rules for the first time a few years ago and found it interestingly akin to my own rules (which I have been researching, developing, playing and evolving – don't laugh – for the past 30+ years). My rules tend to focus a bit more attention upon sailing and shiphandling, but we share a similar fundamental approach: simple mechanics, chart-free play, no book-keeping.

B

What makes simple rules for me?

Mechanics that allow players to pick up play after a few turns with a QRS of one or two pages normal type

Detail apprpriate for the level of command desired. Elimination or abstraction at those levels not of interest.

Completion in two hours. My limit is four if the game grabs me.

A game of six players at most.

The naval equivalent will be "Galleys and Galleons", which a few of us here are playtesting and enjoying immensely :)

Poor form there, Mr. Manley, lording that over the rest of us poor souls! Don't be dragging you feet on the feedback then, I'm waiting on my copy!

One of the wargames magazines (WI IIRC) did a simple set of Napoleon Naval rules quite a few years back. 2 sides of A4/Legal for the rules and a separate sheet for ship stats. I have used them a few times introducing newbies to the period and they play well.

TunnelRat,
Always looking for simple rules. would you share?
Be safe
Rory

I discovered and played Langton's Signal Close Action Fast Play rules for the first time a few years ago and found it interestingly akin to my own rules (which I have been researching, developing, playing and evolving – don't laugh – for the past 30+ years).

This thread finally got me to break down and buy Langton's SCA Fast Play recently, and I have the same opinion of it as I do of Tiller & Whipstaff: nice basic concepts, somewhat undercooked. After playing other people's T&W games in the early 2000's I decided the rules needed more guidance about how to do bookkeeping. I also wanted just a little bit of variation per vessel from the Ability Chart, and a somewhat less deterministic damage model. I think all these things are easy enough to fix (without adding unnecessary complication), but I haven't playtested any of my ideas. Maybe later this year…

My rules tend to focus a bit more attention upon sailing and shiphandling, but we share a similar fundamental approach: simple mechanics, chart-free play, no book-keeping.

I'd be very interested to hear how you play either of these sets without bookkeeping. I don't see any way to avoid a roster per vessel – the simplest possible roster, to be sure (just a few basic stats with room to scribble DC hash marks and note fires), but still paper and pen[cil].

I would actually be happier to go completely rosterless, and mark everything on the table with markers, but I admit I've failed to find any good ways to accomplish this – with published rules or with my own.

- Ix