From: "James B. Byrne" Subject: COA - Close Action Review Revised On 21 Sep 97 at 3:02, manowar@halisp.net wrote: Jay Martino and myself had a short game of Close Action, the edition published by Clash of Arms Games, last Wednesday night / Thursday morning (Sep 17/18, 1997). We played the Shannon vs. the Chesapeake. This is a single ship action involving two 38 gun frigates c. 1812 so it is about as simple as it gets. Neither Jay nor I had played the game before. It took a little less than an hour for two competent (presumptuous I know) and generally experienced wargamers to figure out the various bits and pieces and to completely fill out the log sheet for each ship. This was caused in part by the intricacy of the gunnery calculations, partially because a complete and detailed guide to filling out the log is not provided, and partially because much of the required data is spread out over two parts of the scenario booklet, several part of the rules booklet, and three separate play aid's. The game comes complete with an example of play and a reference log sheet to be used with the example of play. It also has two completed but unused log sheets, one for a RN 74 and one for a French 80. If we had used these ships then the setup time would have been much abbreviated. However, using these will not teach you where to get the information necessary to complete log sheets for any other ships. So while their inclusion is of great value getting your very first game under way they do not help you to create your own logs for other scenarios. Once the ship's log is filled out then the play of the game is simplicity itself, and is much along the lines of WS&IM. The only problem that I had was a distressing tendency to give the opposite helm order from what I intended. This allowed the USN to flee with distinction from the playing surface (in the direction of England however, so while a stern chase is a long chase it is not without hope). I have several reservations about the game as presented to the buyer. They are all minor in nature but I found each of these things annoying to one degree or another. 1. Gun factor calculations. To play the game you must compute the gunfire factor for each ship for each of 15 hexes of range. The gunfire factor is based upon the number and type of weapons carried. While and interesting exercise in tabulation in itself, it is totally avoidable and a needless time consuming burden to place upon the ordinary player. It is possible to have these factors pre-computed for every ship in the scenario booklet and this should have been done. It would have been useful to have included a single sheet with this information already determined and laid out ready for use for all of the ships used in the game. 2. The layout of the scenario tabulated data regarding crew class and morale level is confusing. On the log sheet these two items are in separate boxes, in the scenario booklet they are found under a single heading 'CQ' and comprise a letter and number combination. Once this is explained to you it is clear and unambiguous. Having to puzzle it out for yourself while flipping through the rule book and play guides is not so transparent. It would have been better to have had the morale level set out under its own column in the data tables. 3. Wind speed and point of sailing diagram. The speed of a sailing vessel depends upon three things; the amount of sail set (plain, normal [called medium sail], and fighting), the speed of the wind, and the ship's point of sailing (the angle of the bow with respect to the prevailing winds). The sailing diagram must be completed on each ship's log from data contained on a single preprinted play aid. The specific layout used is dependent upon the ship class and speed rating of a particular vessel (fast, slow or very slow) along with the current wind speed. Again another exercise in tabulation is required to locate and then to transcribe accurately the nine numbers which comprise the sailing diagram. In my opinion, this particular aspect of play would have been better served by small summary card for each of the diagrams. Particularly since if the wind speed changes during the course of a scenario, and it can, then the sailing diagrams for all of ships in play have to be retabulated. Then the old entries must be erased from, and the new data recopied onto, each of the log sheets before play can proceed. A nuisance for a single ship action, a real PITA for a small squadron action and a show stopper for a major fleet action, even with multiple players per side. Even if the wind does not change over the course of a scenario, individual ships need to have this done whenever a rigging section is destroyed, and again whenever a rigging section is repaired. A data card the size of a business card with an index number and the sailing diagrams for wind speeds 1 and 2 on one side and 3 and 4 on the reverse for each Speed Class would have been a lot more convenient. The ship's log could then be annotated simply to show which index is required. This would not change. The player would then need only note the current wind speed and number of rigging sections left on his vessel and use the appropriate card. Two copies of each card would be required for a total of 24 business cards,twelve in red and twelve in blue. 4. Si-move and the Age of Sail. I made reference above to the fact that on one occasion, due to an error on my part, the helm order plotted was the reverse of that intended. This was annoying in itself, and probably not very realistic (helmsman, steer NEbE for four minute glasses, then port your helm to North and steer that course for two minute glasses, then starboard your helm to NEbE and steer that course, and don't bother me again until three bells and don't pay any attention to that silly bugger over there. Colonials can't sail worth... you get my point). However, at certain speeds, ie. 10 hexes per turn, it is quite possible to have ships that start within pistol shot of each other on one turn to end up over a half mile apart simply because one or both of the players have guessed wrong. With si-move pre-plotted turns there is no discernible advantage to having the windgage. A player cannot react to the perceived moves of his enemy except at the turn interval and this interval is simply too coarse when there is any sort of speed involved. An IMPULSE movement variant is provided in the rules but this, as far as I could see, does not address the problem of having to write a plot in advance of seeing what the other ship is doing despite being in a position to react to every movement of your foe. At this point the reviewer usually puts forth his "pet' correction to the obvious deficiency but I have to admit that I don't have one. To tinker with such a basic rule as movement is to undermine the entire game system, but I have to say that I don't like it. Either the turn interval should be shortened or some form of interrupt procedure introduced to allow the player with the wind advantage to follow, or trail, or otherwise react to the actions of ships to leeward. Perhaps as an example, instead of plotting P(ort turn) or S(tarboard turn) any ship to windward of another could plot W instead and that ship's player could decide which direction to take based upon the movements of his opponent. In this case the most leeward ships would have to move first and then each ship in turn from most leeward to most windward until the most windward one moved last. 5. The missing play aid. The complete turn sequence is printed on the back of the rules booklet which is really helpful. A separate card would have been better but at least a single sheet summary was prominently and conveniently supplied. However, the actual play of the game is far more simple and far less involved than the preparation of the log sheets. It would have been of immense value to have a one page summary of how to fill out a log sheet using as an example one of the single ship action scenarios. Such an example should have included all of the calculations, tabulations and transcriptions and showing all of the data sources as they are meant to be used. 6. Nuisance data. Various odds and ends are included in the ship's data sheets that have absolutely no bearing on play. As an example let us consider the Chesapeake in scenario 24, the one that I played with Jay. The ship's data entry read like this: (I have placed it on two lines for convenience, in the scenario booklet the entry is all on a single line.) A3740:1 38s Chesapeake (Am.) B4 3c F-f 18 -2 5-5-6-6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 : 3 6 4 (5: -7) 49 Let's take each of these items in turn: A3740:1 Set up on Map A (guess which one is A?) hex 3740 steering in direction 1 (direction diagram is printed on the map). 38s Rate (38 guns) the s means smaller ship than average for the class. However this has no effect on play. If the entry had been F38s it would have meant that Chesapeake was a gift of the people of France to the Americans (either that, or the XYZ affair was a lot nastier than we were lead to believe). Chesape... Name (ship's Name and nationality). B4 CQ (Crew Quality) - the letter is the quality, the number is the morale level. 3c C (Class) - the number is the ship class, the letter is the manoeuvre type. 3 means frigate or razee. c means use the C column on the speed change and turning tables to determine the correct entries for the log. F-f ST (Speed Type) the letter F means use the Frigate section of the Movement table, the -f means that this is a fast frigate. In other words use the F-f line of the Movement table. 18 D (Draught) depth of the keel in feet. Used only in scenarios involving land. -2 CH (Critical Hit) modifier to critical hit rolls. Dependent on mass and sturdiness of construction. Bigger ships have larger number (0, +1). Remember that +1 is bigger than -2. 5-5-6-6 Rigging - number of boxes available initially in rigging sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. 5 5 5 5 Hull - ditto for hull. Why one is separated by dashes and the other with spaces I cannot fathom. 4 4 4 4: 3 Crew - ditto for crew. The number after the colon is the number of marines / topmen aboard. 6 LG (Long Guns) used to determine the portion of the Total Gunnery Factor (TGF) made up by the main guns at each range. 4 CR (Carronade) used to determine the portion of the TGF made up by the carronades at each range. (5: F: (Freeboard) a factor somehow relating to the height of the main deck above the water line. -7) LD (Lower Deck) a factor to be subtracted from the Basic Gunnery Factor (BGN) in the event that weather or other consideration prevent the use of the lower deck guns. 49 VP (Victory Points) the relative value of the ship to its owners Now, as you can see the amount and representation of the data is somewhat involved with some letters modifying tables and other not. The knowledge that Chesapeake was somewhat small for a 38 may be of some interest to someone somewhere, but after spending five minutes trying to find out what that 's' after the 38 meant I really could care less. As far as I can tell, the ship's class number is entered in the top left hand box of the ship's log and only used to select the proper class of the specific counter used for that ship and then ignored for the rest of the game. In a similar fashion the F-f code for speed type is needlessly baroque. There is only one line on the movement table for F-f and the -f is used nowhere else that I could find. A simple list of letters from A to I would have been simpler and clearer and served just as well. it doesn't help that the scenario instructions uses a lower case -f but the table is done solely in upper case letters, F-f vs. F-F. I suspect that either the class code F or the class number 3 are effectively interchangeable and that one or the other could be eliminated from the game without adverse effect. Why draught rates its own column and header on the data form while the morale class doesn't beats the heck out of me. I wasted another six to ten minutes trying to find the latter to prepare the log sheet for a deep sea encounter. The use of the numbers for the Rigging, Hull and Crew sections is clear. I would have preferred that either a space OR a dash have been used consistently as a separator for all of these items. The gun factors are a number indicating how many 48 English pound equivalent throw weight guns are aboard. So 6 x 48 = 288. Divide by 18 = 16? (16 x 2 = 32) Ooops! I guess that Chesapeake had been equipped by the ancestors of the same contractors that I had to deal with. Ditto for the carronades. Now you need to go to the Gunnery Factor Calculation Table with these two numbers to determine how they work out to a Basic Gunfire Number for various ranges. The procedure is in my opinion needlessly complex and time consuming, and fraught with error. The BGN for all ranges for the ship should simply have been given and the method of calculation tucked away in the optional rules or designer's notes section. The Freeboard factor is used in exactly one place. See rule 7.F.2. The adjustment to the BGN when the weather is too rough to open the lower ports is a nice touch however. The victory points are there for those of us who not only like to beat our opponents but then have to deliver to them an actuarial table showing the exact degree of their ineptitude. Bottom line. Bought it. Played it. Liked it. This game is a PLAYER once you get past all the up front bumpf necessary to get going. If you intend to play this with a friend then TAKE the time to duplicate the blank play aid sheets (you only get two of these) and to fill them out completely for the ships and scenarios that you are going to play with BEFORE sitting down to play. Double check your transcriptions and gunnery calculations and verify everything twice against the scenario instructions. Otherwise you will spend nearly as much time setting up as you do playing. Fleet actions will probably NOT be playable with only one person per side. Given the amount of record keeping required I estimate that a single person could control at most three (3) ships before the work load would begin to break down the play of the game. Even if a person could handle more, it would not be fun, and if it isn't fun why exactly are you playing? The designer's notes belabour this point. Believe him. Unexplored territory: The rules contain detailed instructions relating to things like collisions, towing, groundings, fire, explosions, striking, capture, recapture, signalling in a multi-player game etc. If you have cause to need any of these save signalling during the course of a game then you should be courts martialed for incompetence. The signalling rules look interesting but are unlikely to have much practical application outside of conventions and tournaments. It is hard enough to get one other breathing human being to play a wargame as it is. The rules limit players to the number of words that a signal may consist of. A more interesting approach in my opinion would have been to provide a standard signal table and then allow players to send signals consisting of up to x hoists per game turn with the probability of misinterpretation or delay increasing with each hoist after the first. There is another interesting optional rule regarding the elevation of fire from ships with either inexperienced crews or firing from leeward. One of the data cards contains the standard information necessary to reconstruct virtually any naval action in the period 1740 to 1848 or so. The data card itself limits most ships to construction after 1793 for some reason, which is passing strange given that HMS Victory was laid down in 1767 or so and that most of the British fleet in 1793 had been commissioned prior to 1790. Components. Box Standard two inch bookcase box without sleeve. Rule book 1 x 44 pg (including covers). inc. glossary but no index. 1 x 48 pg scenario booklet c/w 25 scenarios. Map of actions. Player Aids 4 x 8.5" x 11" card stock double sided. 1.a Ship Data Chart guide (not as useful as its title implies) 1.b Ship Data Chart (roll your own scenario - Ship data) 2.a Gunfire Results Table 2.b Gunfire Factor Calculation and BGN determination Tables 3.a Hull Critical Hit Table 3.b Rigging Critical Hit Table 4.a Movement (sailing diagram) Table 4.b Miscellaneous Combat, Movement and Event Tables 2 x 8.5" x 11" ship's log and example of play 1 x 8.5" x 11" ship's log completed for RN 74 gun SOL 1 x 8.5" x 11" ship's log completed for French 80 gun SOL 1 x 8.5" x 11" ship's log sheet blank. Maps 2 x 22" x 34". 19mm numbered hex grid superimposed Counters 1 x 70 x 0.5" x 1" ship counters - plan view -back printed 1 x 140 x 0.5" x 0.5" status and information markers - back printed Dice 2 x D6 included with game 1 x D10 included with game People familiar with CoA's printing of Larry Bond's Command at Sea series games are familiar with the quality of the counters. The deck plan views are ascetically pleasing and functional. The unit id's which are critical to play are clear, distinctive and unambiguous even from a distance and in reflected light. As the game is fought from the ship's log, no data relating to play is contained on the counters. Consequently the rules are amenable for use with miniatures. Errata: The game comes complete with the initial errata. Somehow the game maps (charts to me, mateys) were both labelled B (or A, I can't remember which so you can tell how important this is) and one of the depth contours was left off one of the charts (this is only important when playing a scenario which involves land or shallow water). Instructions are given on how to deface your charts with the necessary amendments (NOTM's have followed me even into my library... Argggg!) The game requires two D6 (frequent use) and one D10 (infrequent use) to play. My copy, in the grand tradition of things military and naval everywhere, came with two D10 and one D6. Regards, Jim --- James B. Byrne Harte & Lyne Limited vox +1 905 561 1241 9 Brockley Drive fax +1 905 561 0757 Hamilton, Ontario ByrneJB@Harte-Lyne.ca Canada L8E 3C3 From: Mark Campbell Subject: Re: review To all those interested in Close Action: I am the designer of Close Action, and recently received a detailed review of my game which was apparently written by James B. Byrne and posted to several mailing lists. He raises several excellent points, which I would like to address. > Jay Martino and myself had a short game of Close Action, > the edition published by Clash of Arms Games, last Wednesday night / > Thursday morning (Sep 17/18, 1997). We played the Shannon vs. the > Chesapeake. This is a single ship action involving two 38 gun > frigates c. 1812 so it is about as simple as it gets. [snip...] > I have several reservations about the game as presented to the > buyer. They are all minor in nature but I found each of these things > annoying to one degree or another. > > 1. Gun factor calculations. > To play the game you must compute the gunfire factor for each ship > for each of 15 hexes of range. The gunfire factor is based upon the > number and type of weapons carried. While and interesting exercise > in tabulation in itself, it is totally avoidable and a needless time > consuming burden to place upon the ordinary player. It is possible > to have these factors pre-computed for every ship in the scenario > booklet and this should have been done. It would have been useful > to have included a single sheet with this information already > determined and laid out ready for use for all of the ships used in > the game. James has a point. I was certainly very concerned about the amount of work required to fill out the gunnery log sheets. However, extensive playtesting by a group of over 45 people revealed only two who felt that simply specifying the basic gunnery number at each range was worthwhile. The reasons the other approximately 40-50 people came to this conclusion (which I adopted) are several, as follows: 1. They were used to Close Action (CA), and so were used to filling out the ship logs, so had no problems. Obviously this doesn't address the complete novice, and I considered this factor as carefully as I could, because my overall philosophy in wargaming is to make my games as approachable as possible. I truly detest games which seem to add complexity apparently merely for the sake of complexity, rather than to obtain greater reality, OR which add MUCH more complexity for only a minor return on investment in realism. So naturally I'm disturbed by Mr. Byrne's comments. However, several factors offset the novice effect in my mind: a. They would not be novices for very long; after filling out a log sheet once or twice, using the three completely-filled out log sheets provided as guidelines, the process *seems* to become second nature, even to relatively inexperienced players. b. The additional work required to provide complete gunnery lines for each ship in each scenario (and the green sheet) would have required considerably more space than Mr. Byrne appears to understand. It would, in fact, have forced me to reduce the scenario count from 25 to about 15 or 16, OR reduce the amount of historical description by 40-45% per scenario. I was unwilling to do either, because I made a judgement call that providing more scenarios and more historical description provided greater value for the average gamer than including lines of gunnery numbers instead, when, to the best of my (undoubtedly limited) abilities to discern, it really is no sweat to fill out after the first game or two. And no, I could not have obtained extra space, since Charlie Spiegel (my contact at Clash of Arms) was already screaming at me for having (by his understanding) exceeded my contractually permitted # of pages for the scenario book and rules book combined. I don't think I did exceed the count, but, as you'll notice from the fact that the last few pages of the rules and scenario books are in a smaller font size, I came perilously close, and had absolutely no more space at all. c. To the extent that it *is* a burden on the player, it only happens once per game, before starting play, and, as I said, I strongly suspect that once Mr. Byrne plays CA one or two more times, he will radically revise his estimate of the work required to prepare to play downwards. That, at least, has been the consistent experience of other playtesters. > 2. The layout of the scenario tabulated data regarding crew class and > morale level is confusing. > > On the log sheet these two items are in separate boxes, in the > scenario booklet they are found under a single heading 'CQ' and > comprise a letter and number combination. Once this is explained to > you it is clear and unambiguous. Having to puzzle it out for > yourself while flipping through the rule book and play guides is not > so transparent. It would have been better to have had the morale > level set out under its own column in the data tables. A very good point. However, as those of you will notice, the amount of space on a single line of text (I was cutting the margins slim as it was!) really didn't permit any more space to separate the two factors. If I had it to do over again, though, I would have spent some space in the rules book to make clearer the association between the CQ and MR values, so that there would be no confusion. Sorry! > 3. Wind speed and point of sailing diagram. > The speed of a sailing vessel depends upon three things; the amount > of sail set (plain, normal [called medium sail], and fighting), the > speed of the wind, and the ship's point of sailing (the angle of the > bow with respect to the prevailing winds). The sailing diagram must > be completed on each ship's log from data contained on a single > preprinted play aid. The specific layout used is dependent upon the > ship class and speed rating of a particular vessel (fast, slow or > very slow) along with the current wind speed. > > Again another exercise in tabulation is required to locate and then > to transcribe accurately the nine numbers which comprise the sailing > diagram. In my opinion, this particular aspect of play would have > been better served by small summary card for each of the diagrams. > Particularly since if the wind speed changes during the course of a > scenario, and it can, then the sailing diagrams for all of ships in > play have to be retabulated. Then the old entries must be erased > from, and the new data recopied onto, each of the log sheets before > play can proceed. A nuisance for a single ship action, a real PITA > for a small squadron action and a show stopper for a major fleet > action, even with multiple players per side. Even if the > wind does not change over the course of a scenario, individual ships > need to have this done whenever a rigging section is destroyed, and > again whenever a rigging section is repaired. > > A data card the size of a business card with an index number and the > sailing diagrams for wind speeds 1 and 2 on one side and 3 and 4 on > the reverse for each Speed Class would have been a lot more > convenient. The ship's log could then be annotated simply to show > which index is required. This would not change. The player would > then need only note the current wind speed and number of rigging > sections left on his vessel and use the appropriate card. Two > copies of each card would be required for a total of 72 business > cards, one in red and the other in blue. I have to confess that, while ingenious, this appears to be a solution without a problem. No one else in the last two years of playtesting (since I changed the format of the red sheet Movement Table from the way it had been for the previous 10 years) has complained about any lack of clarity or difficulty in understanding. Of course, this may also be an artifact of the "highly experienced playtester" syndrome, but I or disciples have probably taught the game to ca. 100+ novices during those years, and the overwhelming majority picked up on how to use the red sheet more quickly than I myself expected!!! So, with the greatest of respect, I will simply reject this criticism as being invalid. The difficulties of managing to find the correct one of 72 small cards, not to mention avoiding losing them, and especially considering the impossibility in getting CoA to have provided them in any case, makes me certain that I provided a reasonably elegant solution for the movement determination. > 4. Si-move and the Age of Sail. > I made reference above to the fact that on one occasion, due to an > error on my part, the helm order plotted was the reverse of that > intended. This was annoying in itself, and probably not very > realistic (helmsman, steer NEbE for four minute glasses, then port > your helm to North and steer that course for two minute glasses, > then starboard your helm to NEbE and steer that course, and don't bother > me again until three bells and don't pay any attention to that > silly bugger over there. Colonials can't sail worth... you get my Actually, I have found a small number of occasions when trained pilots confused port and starboard while taking ships into port. The most notorious incident is one involving a very well-respected pilot at Bermuda in 1813 (entering Bermuda's ports safely required excellent navigation; they were dangerous). He was taking a Royal Navy ship in, and giving conning orders from the Port fore-shrouds, because the rocks in that part of the channel were on the left. He shouted back, "starboard" -- meaning that the helmsmen should throw the helm (tiller) to the right, so taking the ship to the left. The ship commenced to swing to port, and the pilot, concerned by this, shouted back, "damn your eyes, STARBOARD", whereupon the helmsmen naturally took another turn or two of the wheel. The ship swinging ever closer to the rocks, the pilot, now frantic, shouted at the top of his lungs, "STARBOARD..." then, struck by a thought, turned around, looked aft down the length of the ship (thus presumably to orient himself afresh), and continued, "no, I mean LARBOARD, hard-a-LARBOARD!!!" Twenty seconds later the ship struck full upon the rocks. If a trained pilot could do this in a smooth sea and with no enemy cannonballs flying about to distract one (and remembering that it happened at least several times, and probably many more times than has been recorded in the annals), I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM in stating categorically that it certainly did happen in battle, and therefore it is perfectly appropriate that lack of care in tracking one's heading and orders will occasionally lead to sailing in the wrong direction! (BTW, the reason "larboard" was eventually replaced by "port" was specifically because "larboard" was obviously very easily confused with "starboard"; and it is significant to note that the replacement did not occur until well AFTER the end of the period covered by CA, and so such confusion in CA is historically appropriate. (CA currently accurately represents sailing combat from 1750 to 1815, and can be extended with almost no modification up to 1830-1840.) Now, Mr. Byrne would probably counter that the captain of a ship, standing on his own quarterdeck, would be far less likely to make such a mistake than a player looking down at a little cardboard ship marker. This argument is obviously correct. However, a real ship captain would also have a myriad of other factors to concern him -- micro-tactical matters of shiphandling, etc., that it is neither possible NOR DESIRABLE for CA to represent. When one factors in these concerns, it seems to me that requiring players to pay very close attention to their movement plots is a quite appropriate mechanism to represent the tensions real-life captains experienced while trying to maneuver their ships in battle. > point). However, at certain speeds, ie. 10 hexes per turn, it is > quite possible to have ships that start within pistol shot of each > other on one turn to end up over a half mile apart simply because one > or both of the players have guessed wrong. This is a correct criticism by Mr. Byrne. However, as I believe I very carefully state at numerous points throughout the game, I neither pretend that CA is optimized to recreate single-ship duels, nor am I particularly interested in them. Instead, CA was very carefully optimized to accurately simulate squadron-level and fleet-level actions. Squadron-level can mean quite small squadrons; CA does a good job simulating battles involving as few as 2 ships vs. 2 ships. In such actions (i.e., larger than two or three ships), the problem Mr. Byrne describes usually disappears, because the combined broadsides of each SQUADRON now covers a much greater area of sea than that of a single ship, so that a ship can't dodge to avoid gunfire. However, just so that no-one buys CA under false pretenses, let me repeat what I have said elsewhere: *** CA recreates most aspects of naval tactical warfare in the age of sail far better than most other simulations, either board, miniatures, or computer. HOWEVER, CA fails to simulate single-ship frigate actions well, and is particularly bad in representing corvettes (the smallest warships of the age of sail, often referred to as sloops, brigs, cutters, etc.). At that level of detail, the "granularity" of my box-based damage system (which is entirely appropriate for ships of the line and frigates) breaks down. So if you want to PRINCIPALLY play 12-gun brigs or 8-gun privateer schooners, you should NOT buy CA. If, however, you want to replay the far more important, and to me far more interesting, squadron and fleet-level actions, where coordination and tactics were important, then you will find no other game that even APPROACHES CA in overall gaming satisfaction (in my not so humble opinion). But perhaps you'll forgive me for being emphatic; after 18 years of continuous work on the damn game, I BETTER be enthusiastic about it, no? > With si-move pre-plotted turns there is no discernible advantage to > having the windgage. A player cannot react to the perceived moves of > his enemy except at the turn interval and this interval is > simply too coarse when there is any sort of speed involved. An > IMPULSE movement variant is provided in the rules but this, as far as > I could see, does not address the problem of having to write a plot > in advance of seeing what the other ship is doing despite being in a > position to react to every movement of your foe. Actually, Mr. Byrne unfortunately has a slightly incorrect understanding of naval tactical warfare in the age of sail. In fact, the wind gauge was actually not that important in single-ship actions, precisely BECAUSE it was so easy for the downwind ship to react to the upwind ship. The upwind ship was in fact faster, but speed was actually not usually a big advantage, as the term "fighting sail" shows (it was called "fighting sail" because it was the typical sail state used while engaged in battle. Mr. Byrne is incorrect when he refers to what I call "Medium Sail" as the "Normal" sail state). Where the advantage of the wind gauge WAS very important was in larger actions; the advantage actually peaked at about 10 ships vs. 10 ships, then slowly began declining again. I don't have time to go into all the reasons here, and the analysis actually forms the core of one chapter of the book on naval tactics in the age of sail which I am currently completing, so perhaps you'll forgive me if I ask you to wait for a few months for the full proof! However, the central point should be repeated: the wind gauge was a variable advantage, depending on the size of the action, and CA shows this very very well. That's why Mr. Byrne saw no advantage. One other point should be made here. The action-reaction cycle of wooden sailing ships was typically far slower than Mr. Byrne appears to understand. It was simply impossible for a 3000-ton displacement ship of the line with a very limited rudder authority to turn on a dime -- or, more precisely to Mr. Byrne's point, to *begin* turning on a dime. Rather, I specifically chose the 200-second length of CA's game-turn because, as nearly as 18 years of extensive primary and secondary research (including considerable research among French, Spanish, Italian, and Dutch sources) could show me, this was *about* the length of time that it took a large warship (note that corvettes are deliberately excluded here; I acknowledge that they were more maneuverable by far) to reach a decision and to act upon it. > At this point the reviewer usually puts forth his "pet' correction to > the obvious deficiency but I have to admit that I don't have one. To > tinker with such a basic rule as movement is to undermine the entire > game system, but I have to say that I don't like it. Either the turn > interval should be shortened or some form of interrupt procedure > introduced to allow the player with the wind advantage to follow, or > trail, or otherwise react to the actions of ships to leeward. > Perhaps as an example, instead of plotting P(ort turn) or S(tarboard > turn) any ship to windward of another could plot W instead and that > ship's player could decide which direction to take based upon the > movements of his opponent. In this case the most leeward ships would > have to move first and then each ship in turn from most leeward to > most windward until the most windward one moved last. An ingenious solution. However, IMHO, it would be (a) unrealistic, and (b) unnecessary. I should say that the only reason I put in the four single-ship scenarios was to allow new players to get into the flow of the game. I *hope*, and believe, that I did mention at the beginning of the scenario book that CA works best at the squadron level, and I urge all of you to try it at least once with (a) at least four ships total in the scenario, and (b) with at least two players per side. I confidently predict that if you do this, you'll never want to play another naval age of sail game! > 5. The missing play aid. > The complete turn sequence is printed on the back of the rules > booklet which is really helpful. A separate card would have been > better but at least a single sheet summary was prominently and > conveniently supplied. However, the actual play of the game is far > more simple and far less involved than the preparation of the log > sheets. It would have been of immense value to have a one page > summary of how to fill out a log sheet using as an example one > of the single ship action scenarios. Such an example should have > included all of the calculations, tabulations and transcriptions and > showing all of the data sources as they are meant to be used. This is a very good point. As Charlie Spiegel will confirm, I used MORE space than he wanted, so I don't feel too guilty; but Mr. Byrne is correct. Next game I'll be sure to do this! Oops, and sorry! :-) > 6. Nuisance data. > Various odds and ends are included in the ship's data sheets that > have absolutely no bearing on play. As an example let us consider the > Chesapeake in scenario 24, the one that I played with Jay. > > The ship's data entry read like this: (I have placed it on two lines > for convenience, in the scenario booklet the entry is all on a single > line.) > > A3740:1 38s Chesapeake (Am.) B4 3c F-f 18 -2 5-5-6-6 > 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 : 3 6 4 (5: -7) 49 > > Let's take this in turn: > > A3740:1 Set up on Map A (guess which one is A?) Charlie won't like this, but in fairness to me I must say that I was not given a chance to review the map for correctness, and the blame for the map errata can properly be laid at the feet of the map graphics person and CoA, since I sent the map to CoA eight months before publication. I assure you that having such an elementary error in my life's work is extremely distasteful to me, and would never have slipped by my expert playtest crew, even if I missed it (which I would not). However, as Mr. Byrne indicates below, it is fortunately NOT a serious error, because the maps are identified by shape in the scenario book, thus allowing you to correct your maps. > 38s Rate (38 guns) the s means smaller ship than > average for the class. However this has no effect on play. > If the entry had been F38s it would have meant that Chesapeake > was a gift of the people of France to the Americans (either that, > or the XYZ affair was a lot nastier than we were lead to believe). Mr. Byrne is entitled to his opinion. Mine is that lots of gamers would like to know why one 38 is not the same as another, and would like to know where their ships came from. Six of one, half-a-dozen of another, I think. > 5 5 5 5 Hull - ditto for hull. Why one is separated by dashes and > the other with spaces I cannot fathom. Because I needed every bit of space I could find, and since some hull sections have two digits (but most do not), separating with spaces was OK, while I *had* to do this with the rigging sections for clarity (no ship has more than 9 rigging boxes per section). I tried using spaces, but the general conclusion was that it looked confusing. However, Mr. Byrne is right in one respect; it does LOOK inconsistent. Oh well, at least it's not confusing, like so many wargames! [lots of snippage here] > Now, as you can see the amount and representation of the data is > somewhat involved with some letters modifying tables and > other not. The knowledge that Chesapeake was somewhat small for a 38 > may be of some interest to someone somewhere, but after spending five > minutes trying to find out what that 's' after the 38 meant I really > could care less. > > As far as I can tell, the ship's class number is entered in the top > left hand box of the ship's log and only used to id the specific > counter used for that ship and then ignored for the rest of the game. > > In a similar fashion the F-f code for speed type is needlessly > baroque. There is only one line on the movement table for F-f and > the -f is used nowhere else that I could find. A simple list of > letters from A to I would have been simpler and clearer and served > just as well. it doesn't help that the scenario instructions uses a > lower case -f but the table is done solely in upper case letters, F-f > vs. F-F. Bingo! A VERY GOOD point! Too late (about May), I realized (after 18 years, stupid me) that I could combine the class # and the initial speed letter. Oh well, Mr. Byrne's got me on this one. Wish I could do it again! But it's really not a hindrance to play, once you know it (i.e., after the first game or two). > Why draught rates its own column and header on the data form while > the morale class doesn't beats the heck out of me. I wasted another > six to ten minutes trying to find the latter to prepare the log sheet > for a deep sea encounter. Because CQ and MR are intimately related, while draft is not related to either of the other two. Obvious, I would have thought. > The use of the numbers for the Rigging, Hull and Crew sections is > clear. I would have preferred that either a space OR a dash have > been used consistently for all of these items. > > The gun factors are a number indicating how many 48 English pound > equivalent throw weight guns are aboard. So 6 x 48 = 288. Divide > by 18 = 36?. Ooops! I guess that Chesapeake had been equipped by > the ancestors of the same contractors that I had to deal with. Actually, the value is "45" english pounds, not 48, and is cl. And the value of each gun is modified by the relative efficiency of that size of gun (30 to 36-pdrs. were most efficient, while light guns (4-9 pdrs) were very, very, inefficient. That is factored into the gunnery calculations. I don't have the data with me, but a simple example will suffice to show how it works. A typical 38-gun British or American frigate carried about 46 to 48 guns, including carronades, as follows: 28 x 18-pdr long guns. 4 x 9-pdr long guns. 14 x 32-pdr carronades. To compute the gunnery factors, multiply each broadside's guns by the relevant efficiency multipliers (EM): 14 x 18 = 252 pds. (* 1.0 EM) = 252. 2 x 9 = 18 pds. (* .9 EM) = 16 (rounded down). 252+16= 268. 268/45 = 5.9555(repeating). 5.95 rounded to the nearest whole number is 6, which, oddly enough, is the precise number of guns assigned to the standard 38-gun frigate. I don't mind criticism at all -- in fact, I welcome it, as my numerous acknowledgments of the correctness of some of Mr. Byrne's points above indicates -- but I like it better when criticism is based on a careful reading of the rules and correct math. > Ditto for the carronades. Now you have to go to the Gunnery factor > Calculation Table with these two numbers to determine how they work > out to a Basic Gunfire Number for various ranges. Needlessly complex > and time consuming, and fraught with error. The BGN for all ranges > for the ship should simply have been given and the method of > calculation tucked away in the optional rules or designer's notes > section. I've addressed this above. Mr. Byrne, please send me your opinion after you've played a few more games. I'd be interested to hear if your opinion has changed. If not, my apologies in advance! Send email to: "mc323@pgstumail.pg.cc.md.us" > The Freeboard factor is used in exactly one place. See rule 7.F.2. > The adjustment to the BGN when the weather is too rough to open the > lower ports is a nice touch however. > > Bottom line. > > Bought it. Played it. Liked it. This game is a PLAYER once you get > past all the up front bumpf necessary to get going. If you intend > to play this with a friend then TAKE the time to duplicate the blank > play aid sheets (you only get two of these) and to fill them out > completely for the ships and scenarios that you are going to play > with BEFORE sitting down to play. Double check your transcriptions > and gunnery calculations and verify everything twice against the > scenario instructions. Otherwise you will spend nearly as much time > setting up as you do playing. Filling out ship logs ahead of time is a very good idea, obviously. His conclusion as to the length of time required is incorrect IMO, but, as I've tried to indicate above, I understand how he came to his conclusions. > Fleet actions will probably NOT be playable with only one person per > side. Given the amount of record keeping required I estimate that a > single person could control at most three (3) ships before the work > load would begin to break down the play of the game. Even if a > person could handle more, it would not be fun, and if it isn't fun > why exactly are you playing? The designer's notes belabour this > point. Believe him. Correct. > Signalling looks interesting but unlikely to have much practical > application outside of conventions and tournaments. It is hard > enough to get one other breathing human being to play a wargame as it is. I acknowledge that this is a serious problem with our poor hobby. However, I urge you to try to recruit even just a third player. I think all of you will like it a LOT, and your appreciation of the hazards and opportunities of real naval warfare in the age of sail will increase dramatically (it did for me!). > Dice 2 x D6 included with game > 1 x D10 included with game There are supposed to be *TWO* d10 with each game. If you receive only one, CoA owes you one d10! > People familiar with CoA's printing of Larry Bond's Command at Sea > series games are familiar with the quality of the counters. The deck > plan views are ascetically pleasing and functional. The unit id's > which are critical to play are clear, distinctive and unambiguous > even from a distance and in reflected light. Thanks. > As the game is fought from the ship's log, no data relating to play > is contained on the counters. Consequently the rules are amenable > for use with miniatures. Correct, as those of you who have seen the spectacle of my game at conventions can attest. > Errata: > Instructions are given on how to deface your charts with the > necessary amendments (NOTM's have followed me even into my library... > Argggg!) Sorry, I caught a few errors after the chart sheets were printed. I figured that correcting them in the body of the rules at the appropriate location was CLEARLY the best place to fix the error BEFORE it became errata. Did I do wrong? Well, my apologies for this overly long reply to Mr. Byrne's review. I obviously consider this game my pride and joy, and have absolutely spent two DECADES learning about sailing warfare to make the game better. Pretty pathetic! But I hope that the result is a game which each and every one of you will love, and which will become your favorite game. Please don't hesitate to continue critiquing; the advice and constructive criticism of my friends is how my game got so good in the first place. -- Your friend, Mark +------------------------------------------------------------+ | Smoke drifts lazily | | Grapeshot perforates buttocks; | | Ensign flutters down. | |------------------------------------------------------------| | A CLOSE ACTION Haiku by Doug Faust and Mark Campbell | +------------------------------------------------------------+