"Fighting Sail" Topic

We finally got a chance to try these rules out last night.
I used my 1:600 ships. Each side had 1 x 1st rate , 2 x 3rd rate and 1 x 5th rate (worked out at about 240 points a side).
It's a fun set of rules and quickly picked up. The lack of plotting and book-keeping is a huge boon.

Things we liked:
The variable movement; this works really well and gives lots of interesting tactical decisions.
The simple damage/repair system. Easy to understand and encourages you to pull damaged ships out of line while they repaur themselves

Things we didn't like:
The gunnery system seems really random. I mean *too* random. The French 3rd rate was pounded by 3 English ships, one at close range, and took *no* damage at all because it kept making all it's saves. Then the following turn an undamaged English 74 was hit by a medium range broadside from a French 74 and was sunk.

We'll play it again but I'm going to rework the gunnery system a bit; the concept is fine, but the end result seems a bit wild.

Looking through one of the other threads, I see the author has a suggestion for an alternative system for gunnery damage. Instead of making a hull roll, have the hull stat as two numbers (e.g. 3/6). If you take as many hits as the first number, you get an anchor, if the second, you get a damage token, plus an extra damage for every extra hit over that number.
That's both simpler and less random than the current system, so we might try it out.

Saves?

Saves?

My eyebrows went up too.

an undamaged English 74 was hit by a medium range broadside from a French 74 and was sunk

This is what keeps me from finding a good set of rules – the ease at which ships are sunk or blown up.

Yes – saves.
When it takes hits, a ship rolls a number of dice equal to its hull rating (3 for frigates, 7 for SOL, 10 for 3 decker).
Every 4,5,6 saves one gunnery hit. So that makes big ships tougher, which is fine, but we found so much variance in the rolls it all went a bit crazy.
Having a fixed hull rating roughly half of the current numbers which just gets deducted from the number of hits would probably work better.

Our group added a "Sailing Formation" rule. If a ship was in line ahead formation and was within 4" of the ship in front of it, the ship could then copy the leader's move – no need to roll its own movement dice. The rule was void once the leader or the follower were within medium gun range.

The editors/developers at Osprey really dropped the ball on this one. Ryan Miller came up with a clean, playable system (though the action it creates on the tabletop is more appropriate for an Errol Flynn movie than a historical battle . . . that's another issue entirely) and immediately after publication it needs major tweaks to its basic mechanics!? Either the playtesters let them down, big time, or the suggestions they made were ignored; there's no other explanation for missing issues with the mechanics that more than a couple purchasers picked up on after only one or two plays.

I expected better from a company with a publishing history like Osprey's.

I agree with the Artisan: it's a disgrace a company like Osprey has to gall to market such incomplete rules as this. Mind you, we might have seen it coming with a previous offering -On the Seven Seas.

Agreed.That's why after one game where the damage was completely out of proportion we dropped them and went back to our old rules. I don't see why we should have to make house rules and alter some of the basic fundamental structure of a ruleset in order to get a playable and authentic game.I don't have time or patience for tweeking and altering rulesets, I just want to be able to get on and game.

The rules don't need tweaks to be played, you guys might recommend them because you disagree with outcomes or design decisions, but they are certainly playable without any tweaks or needs from any extra input.

To say it is a disgrace for a company to publish rules that one doesn't like seems a bit unreasonable to me, you can always choose not to buy them or not to play them.

Out of the rules that Osprey gets out I like some and dislike others but it is certainly a great thing that they are getting many new authors published in this inexpensive format.

Francisco

Franciso,

Have you played On the Seven Seas? Can it be played?

As for Fighting Sail… even the author modified his own rules only a few weeks after publication.

And if it's only a case of one "disliking' rules; then the logic of that is that it would justify any publisher publishing any set of rules in any state of (in)completeness, and getting away with it.

…But, then again perhaps, many of them do.

I have not played seven seas, that was your example and not the subject at hand, I am talking about the OP, fighting sails.

The author did not change the rules, he offered an alternative mechanic for people that expect a different outcome from the interactions. You don't need that alternetive mechanic, I have not used it myself.

I agree that incomplete rules should not be published, I can think of many examples, this is not it.

The rules are not incomplete, they can be played, you can house rule them to adjust outcomes to your preference, you can disregard them for any other reason but they can be played.

A simple one or two page FAQ, like with all rules helps clarify a couple of points that people might interpret in different ways but they are not incomplete and are certainly playable as soon as you get the book.

choose not to buy them

If you do this Francisco how do you know what they play like in the first place?

The rules don't need tweaks to be played.

Agreed, but we, as numerous others found, that tweaks were required for even a semi satisfactory game

I like some and dislike others

So do I. I just happen to dislike these.It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it, no matter what yours may be.

I don't buy every set of rules out there, sometimes I read reviews and I say, mm, not for me, sometimes I try them when someone sets up a game, I don't like the rules and then I don't buy them. I've played many rules to try that I ended up not buying. But this is besides the main point.

I am not engaging over the goodness of the rules, many people don't like them and many people do.. that is not the point with which I take issue.

I'm just correcting one point.. The statement made that I disagree with, and with which apparently you disagree with as well, is:

"These rules are not playable without fixes and it is wrong for Osprey to publish such rules that are clearly an unfinished product"

This is not a straw man, this is the statement that was made in previous posts and I want to correct that statement so that other potential players when considering if they should give the rules a try, know that this is not the case.

They will learn from the many discussions that the rules have a some randomness that can result in quicker outcomes than what many players would prefer, they can know that many players dislike other aspect of the rules, but they should not be led to believe that if they were to purchase this set of rules they will not be able to play it unless they include a new correction that changes some key elements…

I wrote:
"To say it is a disgrace for a company to publish rules that one doesn't like seems a bit unreasonable to me, you can always choose not to buy them or not to play them."

So as you can see, I do not say that people are required to like these rules at all. All I say is that there was nothing unreasonable from Osprey in publishing a set of rules, that of course many people like but many people dislike.. that is all.

The rules don't need tweaks to be played, period. We both agree on this hence the earlier statements seem inaccurate.

You feel that for you to enjoy the game tweaks are needed, I enjoy the game as is without tweaks, that is were personal opinions come in and we don't need to agree since I'm certainly respectful of other people preferences and so are you.

Simple as that..

cheers
Francisco

Here is the way I see it -

If a large enough sector of the AoS wargamer market is willing to accept a set of rules in which Collingwood's 1st Rate HMS Britannia can be sunk by a single broadside from a Spanish 64 because the rules feature " simple fast play" rules mechanics, then "Fighting Sail" ought to be a huge commercial success.

I do not count myself among such folks.

B

Thoroughly agree with Blutarski.

Having played a couple of Fight Sail games, my group's conclusion was that the damage model was so broken as to be unfixable, no matter what 'house rules' are adopted. The very idea that a SoL can be sunk in a single turn by gunfire is beyond laughable.

Funny… I thought my point was clear… maybe because english is not my native language, or maybe because people are just eager to discuss something else, commercial success, historical accuracy, the next solar eclipse … never mind…

No, Francisco, you may not slag off the contrary opinions of others as a misunderstanding, either deliberate or language-based. Your English is impeccable; your logic somewhat less so. Your point was clear; it was just incorrect.

Not everything about a wargame is purely subjective; there is more to it than liking or not liking the game. There are reasonable, objective standards to which a publication of this type can be held. Ryan Miller's game concept has great potential but, like all game designs at their inception (including my own), is full of omissions, inaccuracies and inconsistencies that can only be discovered and corrected by diligent playtesting, vigorous development and careful editing. These latter phases in the creation of the game are the responsiblity of the publisher and, in this case, were not very well done. It is too easy to pass off this rather sloppy approach to game publishing as "good enough", since "it's only a game", but in the case of a historical wargame, part of whose aim is (in the author's own words) for the purchasers to "gain a further understanding – and reverence – for this truly intriguing and evocative period" it is not unfair to expect the publisher to take their portion of the task more seriously.

It has always been incumbent upon consumers to assure that they are getting what they expect, and what they are paying for. If wargamers expect less, they will get less.

Then I shall stand by my point, this is not an incomplete game, it is a fully functional game perfectly capable of taking players through an enjoyable afternoon of naval gaming without the need for any modification, if they like the mechanics and outcomes that result from the rules.

The fact that some people might not consider it a good game does not make it incomple, personal opinion regarding the game is irrelevant, the fact is that if you buy the book you can play the game and nothing is missing…

That is a fact and that is what I have said all along and is undeniable, the OP started by presenting his experiences after playing the game and simply indicated house rules that in his opinion would improve the game, not needed to, play the game.

This is the ONLY argument I've made and the logic is not at fault, the game can be played as is, hence it is not incomplete, hence Osprey cannot be at fault of deliverying a product that lacks value.

I have systematically refused to engage on the "quality" of the game precisely because personal opinions are subjective, unlike the one fact that I have stated; so those contrary opinions I see no point to refute, nor could I since personal taste is… personal.. but the game is not incomplete

cheers

After a quick glance through the Fighting Sail rules, I concluded I had zero interest in playing it. I just found too many unnecessary departures from the reality of sailing fleet combat, and I hadn't even noticed the potential travesty of sinking ships.

On a bright note, I will say that Osprey got the price point of Fighting Sail down low enough to get me to buy it "just for a peek", which seems to be a vanishingly rare occurrence in today's miniatures rules market. I'm also quite impressed with the brilliant simplicity of the movement template, which I am so totally going to use in other games. Of course, I'll have to make a homemade version with no movement upwind…

- Ix

I would not (and did not) call it "incomplete" or "unplayable", Francisco. In fact, it might make a fine vehicle for fantasy naval actions just as it stands. However, the dozens of items in the text that are unclear, contradictory, or counter-factual (which is just unacceptable in a game system presented by both the author and publisher as a historical wargame), all of which could and should have been addressed before it was published, render it unsatisfying to those who bought it expecting its game play to bear some significant resemblance to history. I choose not to characterize this as the result of either incompetence or deception, preferring instead to consider it, more charitably, as carelessness.

Representing a game as a historical wargame when the history it contains is false is a disservice to purchasers who do not know enough about the history to perceive the inconsistencies, and an insult to those who do know.

Billyfish did, he said,

"I agree with the Artisan: it's a disgrace a company like Osprey has to gall to market such incomplete rules as this. "

To which I answered that the game was not incomplete.

It appears that you agree that the rules are not incomplete and are not unplayable right out of the book, hence Billyfish incorrectly interpreted your post. I did not, I answered strictly his comment.

Are they fun ? , this is based on opinions
Do they provide an accurate depiction of historical outcomes ? Also a matter of opinion.

Now, your opinion might be very valuable given that you yourself are knowledgeable in the subject and have written nice sets of rules on the subject ( which I also happen to have enjoyed ), BUT this does nullify the statement that I've made.

If you get Fighting Sails, you can read it in an afternoon and will be able to play a game the next day without any problems, hence neither Osprey nor the author are at fault for "making an incomplete set of rules such as this" which what I have objected over and over again.. and once again just now !

By 'incomplete' I meant that many erstwhile players of the rules have felt the need to come up with any number of house rules for the game to play to their satisfaction. Since these 'house rules' are ADDITIONS to the rules as published, seems to imply that the rules, as published, feel incomplete to many users.

Just as a side note: one of our group thought Fighting Sail had the feel of a set of Starship Battle rules. Given the potential deadliness of broadsides, I tend to agree. …Just an opinion.

Now you are arguing mere semantics, Francisco. You are correct that Fighting Sail is not "incomplete" in the sense of "the table is missing a leg". Billyfish is also correct that they are "incomplete" in the "unfinished" sense of "the table needs another coat of paint".

Yes, "fun" is completely subjective.

But no, history is not subjective. While there are many gray areas about which different opinions can be held, there are also many things which we know are facts and are not open to interpretation. When a set of supposedly historical rules includes no mechanism for doing things that we know were actually done, or permits things that were physically impossible, they are wrong, and that is not a matter of opinion.

Francisco,
"Fighting Sail" may be a fun to play game loosely based upon an Age of Sail theme that features miniature sailing ships as movement tokens, but it cannot be deemed to be even a remotely accurate Age of Sail naval wargame by any reasonably objective student of the period. If you enjoy that sort of thing, that's great; we are all in this hobby for different reasons. As for me, however, these rules definitely do not float my boat.

B

I'm not going to argue with you guys about if the game is fun or historically accurate, none of my points were aimed at that, why does this issue keep coming up over an over? History is not subjective but the interpretation of how historically accurate is a set of rules is subjective. I have said nothing to counter this point and attempts to bring up that subject with me will prove fruitless.

I'm not arguing semantics, it was not I who redefined "incomplete " to suit a particular interpretation… I tend to mean what I write.

Maybe you guys should read other people's opinions with more attention rather than spend countless lines explaineng over and over that you don't lieke the rules when nobody attempted to debate you on that.

Now that we all appear to agree that the rules are not unplayable or incomplete, except under a particular interpretation of the concept, then we can all agree that you guys don't like the rules or deem them historically accurate. Apparently for some of you that means that Osprey should not have published them ! .. An issue that really doesn't concern me enough even to debate, although of course I would never agree…

That's terrific, seldonH. Thanks for clarifying your position.

B

If all rules could be marked like films! That would help us. The rules "Fighting Sail" do work as a game. No one can say they do not. Ryan has opened up new ideas for paperless gaming, which is good. That the firing is not as we know now Historical right is also not to be argued with. It is like shooting a tank with a bolt action rifle and seeing the tank blow-up????
People I know who have bad eyes can play this game and not have too put bits paper up to there nose to read ship stats. Who can say that is a bad thing??? It may not all be right, but it is a toe in the water for this type of paperless gaming. Before anyone says "a bad toe", think back 30-40 years ago. We all have our old rules we think of as old friends, but also rules we would not touch (more of the 2nd type I think). The frist rules fired shot/matchsticks at tin soldiers. We have come a long way from that! Ryan did come from the G.W. end of gaming, not a bad thing just a bit bang your dead, Very dead or no I'm saved by my save throw. This game has had more posts and threads than any other Rule set for a long time. That says something. Its a new idea so will not be 100% right at frist. But! what is 100% right? I would say "U" to "PG" myself for this game. For "Post Captain" a "X", but both work.
Be safe
Rory

Post Captain is a different beast altogether; very well constructed, and very realistic, but I'd be reluctant to assign more than one ship per player in those rules.
Fighting Sail doesn't pretend to be historically accurate, but it certainly does give a good game, and allows inexperienced players to run multiple ships and enjoy themselves.
That's a good thing in my book.
If people don't enjoy the rules, they should play something else; there are plenty of Age of Sail rules out there.

There are several things about this game that work well. But there are many more that infuriate players. This game does not reward good play. You can maneuver brilliantly, get off the great shot, and then because of all the dicing and counter dicing, nothing significant happens.

Frigates must be placed in squadrons to be effective. SoLs go out and melee. Hmmm, this seems contrary to what I know about the period. Because of the dicing, counter dicing (saving) mechanics, Frigates simply don't have the fire power to damage another ship unless the fire as a group.

I you look at the Frigate duel scenario, it actually has you modify the base rules so you can battle to a conclusion.

I bought the rules for reference material, but gave them a play anyway. They are worthless for reference, there is no real historical depth in any of the writing, nor much ship data (ships are handled extremely generically). These rules are quirky to say the least. If I put this game on our club game calendar, it would just be me and crickets, and I'll bet I'd be missing something good on TV.

Apparently for some of you that means that Osprey should not have published them ! .

Yes it does in my opinion. All historical rule sets are designed to suit specific historical periods, even slightly generic rules systems such as Black Powder are drawn up in such a way that they give a good game without historical inaccuracies getting in the way, and for purists there are supplements for certain specific periods within the general timescale the main rules seek to cover if they wish to make minor tweaks. These FS rules IMO don't manage to do that, whilst the basic idea may be good there are too many idiosyncracies that need either extra rules or existing rules modifying, therefore they may be playable, just, but they are also IMO either incomplete or unfinished.

I have been hanging back from buying Fighting Sail to see how ti's been reviewed .

I was hope they found a way to square the circle a good set of rules that are good for fleet actions and single ship actions too.

Thinking on this, can you possible have a good set of rules that have 20+ ships on the table and it's being historical,fun and over in 2-3 hours ?

Is this because the sailing and maneuvering your ships about to there best advantage is as much part of the game as firing and fighting in a age of sail game this can not be done in 2-3 hours.

"Yes it does in my opinion"

So I should not have been able to buy them because you don't like them …

how reasonable !

I was hope they found a way to square the circle a good set of rules that are good for fleet actions and single ship actions too.

No. To do that, at least one computer would have to be involved.

Thinking on this, can you possible have a good set of rules that have 20+ ships on the table and it's being historical,fun and over in 2-3 hours ?

Yes. I just did it two weeks ago with War Artisan's game Admirals, I'm pretty sure that with some experience it could be done with FLOB or FASB, and I once wrote my own set of rules to do exactly that.

- Ix

"I was hoping they found a way to square the circle a good set of rules that are good for fleet actions and single ship actions too."

It's an impossible aim. The amount of detail you need to make a single ship action more interesting than "I sail into range – compare gunnery factors, roll dice, bang, bang you're dead/I'm dead" makes it impractical to use the same rules when you have 20+ ship fleets on the table. It is a simple question of the contact time to resolve each ship's movement and firing, at a minute per ship that is realistically 1 turn per hour !

… and a computer does not necessarily help – the Clear for Action computer-based rules we use are great at single ship and squadrons, but even they bog down with large fleets and we usually allow two days over a show when we do that.

If you are not averse to Board Games a word for GMT's Flying Colors series. The base game (Vol 1) is designed for fleet actions and you can play a fleet battle to a conclusion in a single session. The real biggies do take a bit longer, but are achievable in a long game session (afternoon + evening) if you are willing and don't take too long to eat the pizza …

Vol II uses the base rules but is designed for single ship actions using a card deck activation and events cards to give variety to the game play.

I've helped with historical research and scenario design by the way but I don't get a royalty !

Best regards,

Mark Barker
The Inshore Squadron

Ironically, SPI's board game from the late 70s -it was called 'Fighting Sail'- handled ship-to-ship up to small fleet actions very well.

Kiss Me Hardy is probably the rule set closest to what you are looking for, but that's not ideal for single ship actions. Very good when you have a dozen or so ships sailing around.
It strikes a good balance, though.

We have been using our own rule for over 20 years now based on the board game Wooden Ships and Iron Men.
We altered just about every think, impulses in a turn, crew timing based on there quality in gunnery, sailing, boarding and morale.
Ships broadsides based on the poundage adjusted for each nations difference in poundage.
We find them realistic and fun, the only down side is how much time you have to set aside to play and the number of players need to play the game, most players can cope with 3 to 5 ships, games of 20+ ships last an afternoon and evening about 6 hours, single ship engagements last about an hour.

It would take a lot for use to move on to another set of rules, with our rules system being old school I have been looking for a big shake down as has happened in land warfare gaming over the last 20+ years.

"Yes it does in my opinion"

So I should not have been able to buy them because you don't like them …

how reasonable !

Taken out of context that may sound unreasonable, but as I stated I don't consider them to be complete nor the finished
article, and especially so since the author in other posts on here almost immediately after publishing said he realised that they needed altering and he would have to look at working on V2.

full circle to the initial argument again.

they are finished, you can play them, and the only argument you present for osprey not prublishing them is your dislike…

so with context I still find it unreasonable that I should not have been able to acquire these rules because you don't like them..

Face, bovvered??

nice!

Hey all,

Always good to see a hearty discussion like this one. I thought I'd pop in and clarify my goals with this design.

It was never intended to be a history lesson on the precise effects of naval artillery against the various ship rates. My goal from the start was accessibility and excitement. I would love for people who would not normally approach a more detailed game to try FS and through that gain an interest in the period. And having done so, explore the many other fine games in the genre as well.

While some derision on your part at that notion is expected, I would submit that without new players, a genre dies. My goal hear was to convey the feeling of commanding a fleet, using an exciting and accessible game system. It is not for everyone, and certainly not a scientific re-creation of naval combat of the period. I never meant it to be.

I would also submit that to say the rules are "incomplete" or "unplayable" out of the book is a bit hyperbolic. The reason I suggested some rules changes shortly after the book came out was that some player had expressed (as some of you have in this thread) that the gunnery system made for some unsatisfying results. I was not trying to make the game "playable", merely more to the taste of some players who had expressed interest in the game.

Also, Osprey has been amazing throughout the process. I applaud their efforts to get more games out the the market, and they did nothing to the rules except ask some questions and provide some feedback. All decisions on game design were mine alone.

Anyways, you are certainly free to like or dislike the system, but if there's any blame to be bandied about, direct it at me :)

'…and they did nothing to the rules…"

Agreed. The lack of proof-reading is pretty obvious -hence the mix-up between the movement diagrams and relevant text in the rules.

Ryan,

Surely you're not suggesting that the only way to make a game more historical is to make it more detailed? Or that a game in which the vessels move and interact in ways that are consistent with what was historically and physically possible can't be exciting and accessible? A reasonable person who gave the matter any thought would quickly realize that both these ideas are patently ridiculous.

Osprey's "efforts to get more games out on the market" are doing no one any favors if the products they release are so woefully underdeveloped. You came up with a core concept for a game that had great potential, but Osprey went to print without giving it the editorial and developmental guidance it deserved (and, having had my hard design work repeatedly sliced and diced in development meetings, I know the value of that kind of guidance). Throwing yourself under the bus in no way relieves them of the responsibility for that failure.

Jeff

I'm surely not suggesting that. I'm merely suggesting that was the route I took to make this game more accessible. Was it the perfect way? Of course not – as someone who has put out games, you must understand that if perfection is sought, then the game will never release.

Anyways, it doesn't really matter – the game is out. If it's not for you, as I suspect it is not – then you have plenty of other games to go to. If you enjoy it, great!!

It's doing me some favors, I like at least 50% of the rules released by Osprey and do not consider them underdeveloped… Glad there is no wargaming police at my door taking them away :)

Ryan wrote – "It was never intended to be a history lesson on the precise effects of naval artillery against the various ship rates. My goal from the start was accessibility and excitement."

Just curious:

> I'm interested in your post-publication modification of the gunnery rules in response to the inputs/complaints of certain players to the effect that the existing gunnery system delivered "some unsatisfying results". Did they articulate exactly what issues they found "unsatisfying"?

> To what degree did historicity play a role in the game design process? Did the ability of a Napoleonic period Spanish 64 to sink a British 1st Rate three-decker with a single broadside come up in the process of play testing? If so, did it represent a matter of concern to you as the designer?

B

I love tabletop games of all kinds. They are a great social and intellectual experience. I'm a little disheartened by the discussion on this thread. It seems so elitist. I've played a few fighting sail games, most based on Donald Featherstone's Naval War Games or from Sea Battles in Miniature. I have also played Starfleet Battles, a game that has lots of record keeping. I don't want to ramble or get off track. I have a 15 year old daughter and a 12 year old son. We play tabletop games as often as we can. I bought Federation Commander, the newer simpler version of Starfleet Battles for the same reason I bought Fighting Sail, if I want to introduce tabletop wargaming to my children, the games need to be easy to understand, exciting, and not be of an overly long duration. Which is what Fighting Sail is. Think back to being a kid and playing the first tabletop game that introduced you to a lifetime enjoyment of gaming and that has allowed you to enjoy more complicated and realistic games. Stop acting like you have to be a naval historian and that the games have to be rigidly bound to realism. I know one thing for sure, Fighting Sail is a great game to use as an introduction to Naval war gaming. Its great to share experiences in a way that helps a game grow and evolve into a better game. It is elitist and small to beat the drum for your pet game. I personally am thankful to Osprey and Ryan Miller for make an easily accessible and fun game that I can use to introduce another generation to tabletop gaming.

Dad,

If Fighting Sail as currently constituted works for you to introduce the kids to wargaming, that's great; I want to see more kids introduced to the hobby. And if the cover of the rules booklet were to state "For ages 6-12" on its cover, I would have zero complaints. But it doesn't. It is simply being marketed as a "fast play" rule set. Rules aimed at the "miniature historical wargaming" market must assume certain expectations within the hobby at large as to historicity. Fighting Sail, on an ease of play scale of 1-10 is about an 8; on a historicity scale of 1-10 it is about a 2. A standardized industry rating code for such factors would be useful.

My opinion – FWIW.

B