Dave: > --- mac-marius@att.net wrote: > > I'm particularly interested in completeness of rules. I spent 17 years > > (that's not a misprint) working on CLOSE ACTION to make it as complete > > and unambiguous a set of rules as possible, and I'm VERY proud to say > > that it has generated only 1 page of real errata after 7 years of > > publication! > > I used to be a big fan of WS&IM. Can you briefly describe how Close Action > compares to it? How much more complex? Is there still plotted movement? > Etc. Thanks for asking! Obviously I'm delighted to tell you all about my favorite game! CLOSE ACTION came about when a chess-master friend of mine undertook a chess-like analysis of WSIM tournament positions, and discovered that the only viable tactic was completely ahistorical: it involved DELIBERATELy giving up the wind gage to get some initial long-range broadsides in before the enemy did. If you did this with Crack French 80s against any normal enemy SOLs, you had a 1/3 chance of bringing down his first rigging section with the first broadside (given critical hits). Once you did this, you had the tournament game won; even if you didn't, you would then take TWO shots the 2nd turn, and have an even better chance of doing it then. You get the picture. The friend's name was Mark Hancock, and he and I won the Origins WSIM tournament for 5 consecutive years, 1978-1982. The problem was that this success was very unsatisfying, because my growing knowledge of the history of the period (I am a trained naval historian) proved that the game was NOTHING like history!). In fact, it was literally IMPOSSIBLE to replicate historical tactics in numerous battles! What this proved was this: WSIM was an EXCELLENT idea, but had been insufficiently developed to make a good simulation, or, (with players with sufficient experience) a good game. I set about to design my own game in 1980, and it was published in 1997. Inevitably there are some gross similarities to WSIM -- two-hex ship counters, plotted movement, etc. -- but in general it is a much more SUBTLE and accurate simulation, and, I believe, a much better GAME to boot. At least that's what the legion of CA players keep telling me. The key differences are these: 1) The movement system in WSIM was too coarse or digital. The scale of movement was such that losing a mast (rigging section) would result in your ship being entirely unable to make way close-hauled. This introduced vast and fatal problems into the conduct of battles. 2) The combat system in WSIM was entirely broken. The gun ranges differed too much, so that frigates could often only fire to range 3, while SOLs could fire to range 10. The delta was way too extreme. In addition, boarding was WAY too effective. I remember that I ran a WSIM campaign at Carnegie-Mellon University in 1977-1978 in which the game ground to a halt for lack of crew, because every battle except one devolved into a boarding action. At one point, there were so many ships grappled together than one player SERIOUSLY asked me if he could bring cavalry aboard ship for the next battle, so he could "charge through the center of the enemy line"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WSIM was fatally flawed. Of course, this may not have been apparent to many gamers who were either not analytically inclined or didn't get into it as much as I did. But my STRONG GUESS is that the flaws did drive at least some gamers away from the game, EVEN if they couldn't explicate exactly what they were dissatisfied with. I've seen this phenomenon with other games, so I'm betting that it was at work here, too. BTW, if you're anywhere on the East Coast, I cordially invite you (or anyone reading these words) to play with me at conventions in the DC area (where I live), or in the Harrisburg PA area (Historicon, Cold Wars, Fall In) or at Origins in Columbus Ohio. I run fleet battles at all these venues, and usually attract 15-25 players per battle. This number permits the ratio of ships:players to approach 1:1, which is the ideal for this period. I can nearly guarantee you that if you try CA, you will like it, DESPITE your stated objections to plotted movement. Hope you give it a try! == Cordially, Mark.