Comments on: Like Eagles on the Sea

By: joshua

joshua — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 18:39:06 +0000

Yeah. I have to see how much actual targeting took place historically. I can’t imagine that a rocking ship is going to be too conducive to precise aiming. Still, there should be interesting decisions when shooting. Shooting at crew, masts, or hull could make a big difference.

Certainly, on a strategic level, the wind gage will determine the amount of damage that can be done; I think that the leeward side in a tack gets fewer guns because it’s facing down into the ocean, so cannonballs won’t ever get to their targets. Plus, of course, the broadside of guns can only come to bear when you can swing the ship into position.

Since my goal is to make the game play in a half hour to an hour, there will be sacrifices in which of these elements matter.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 17:35:22 +0000

Not to mention supplement creep. I always like to take GW games and just play them out of the box, without it getting bogged down with griffins and balloons and all the other stuff that inevitably gets added on as the game line develops.

It’s been a long time, but iirc wind was very basic. The game could get quite fiddly with you having to have a ship sheet for each ship but the ability to target the masts or the hull, or to set fire to ships was cool.

By: joshua

joshua — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:25:34 +0000

(Just edited the post to add Man O’War. Thanks for reminding me, Andrew.)

By: joshua

joshua — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:23:16 +0000

Well, Julia, the point is the challenge of the pursuit. A whaling vessel certainly wouldn’t have Marines, though I bet with the value of their cargo they’d have to deal with pirates and privateers fair oft, so they’d certainly be ready to fight. I can also see one whaler trying to chase away another with a deck gun or two.

That brings up a good point: the close combat can’t be a boring dice game. It has to be either fast enough that the option of disengagement can be chosen right away or rife with choices. I suspect maybe something like, you choose between Crew on the offense (on the other ship), whom you automatically lose if you disengage, but who can take down enemy cannon and defense (on your ship) whom you keep if you disengage to prevent the enemy ship from boarding you.
I’m also thinking about a Rochambeau-style card game to determine who’s the winner of a round. Like, Defend beats Attack, Attack beats Raid, Raid beat Defend. You get one card for each Marine unit you’ve got, drawn randomly. The player with the most Marines places those cards face down and the player with the least decides which to react to. Attack vs. Attack yields blood in the sea, Defend vs. Defend yields nothing, Attack vs. Defend yields Attacker losses. Attack vs. Raid yields Raider losses and raided goods, Defend vs. Raider yields Raider losses. I’m thinking that Marines may adjust those results in favor of the Marines.

Andrew, Yeah, I did play Man O’War. It fell into the trap that most GW games do: its’ 90% good rules, 10% bad rules, and then it gets ditched before the bad rules are fixed. Mighty Empires went the same way (Every turn, you have a 1/12 chance of losing! Oops!)

Man O’War did very simple things with wind. In reality, the relationship of the wind to the ship is quite complex and I want that to be the core of this game.

Let’s call it Osprey for the time being.

By: Julia

Julia — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:19:16 +0000

That sounds like fun!
What about fishing vessels and whaling ships? There’s a great book about the whaling ship Essex called In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex. I’d lend it to you but my boss’ partner borrowed it and never returned it.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 12:43:36 +0000

I love tall-ships too and would love to see more games based on them (rp and non-rp). Did you ever play GW’s Man O’ War? It was excellent, but very underrated. And using lego ships is a cool idea.