Speed bump, writer’s block, call it what you will but whatever it is it has slowed me down quite a bit as well as giving me pause for thought. Taking stock is the order of the day at present, that and looking at other things in the hope that I will be sufficiently guilt-tripped back into the right direction!
The rules as written cope very nicely with around half a dozen or so ships a side. For the ACW this works well enough but I am fast coming to the conclusion that for larger actions the rules will seem a little ponderous - especially when looking at the thorny topic of firing arcs.
At the time of writing there are six main arcs and then some fourteen others making twenty in all. Bear in mind though, that the additional fourteen are in fact seven arcs mirrored so, for example, a forward turret with an arc of FWPS (forward wide, port or starboard) is reflected as AWPS (aft wide, port or starboard). I am quite happy with using all the arcs and play testing with them has thrown up only a singe issue that was quickly addressed. My feeling is though, that for larger actions this may be a little clumsy.
Now this point may seem like a modest one but for me it has been seismic in its implications. I wanted to write a set of rules that would appeal to both the naval novice and the seasoned tabletop admiral and indeed, I believe I have but with the focus slightly off target. I am leaning towards using the six arc default for most battles of a dozen or so models a side at least with the additional fourteen as an option for smaller engagements. That in itself is simple enough but it has generated a lot of extra work as the emphasis of the book has been very much towards using the full suite of firing arcs.
It is extra work as changing the emphasis means redrafting a table, changing the text in a few chapters - none of this is hugely challenging to be honest - and then revisiting the ship specifications. That in itself is a big undertaking and to be honest, I think that is why I have been allowing myself to be distracted by other projects! It is not difficult to do but it will be time consuming. Still, it is the job that isn’t started that takes the longest to do - as a wise hobbit once said.
David -
ReplyDeleteI can relate! The question is, how do the '14 arcs' play? If they are easy to remember and fall easily into the play, then maybe the problem is in the codifying intelligibly them in your rule set. I've known that problem.
By the looks you have thought already along the lines of 'collectivising' some of the arcs as reflections and rotations of a particular kind of battery. For example, centreline main turrets might be collected into one, with just a reminder which direction they are shooting. Ditto with corner casemate guns. But if doing that still leaves you with 14 categories - yes, I see a problem.
I use a modification of Bob Cordery's rule sets, but standardising the basic gun stats upon 4 guns. That has meant building up charts for each, which is OK, as they can be referenced quickly enough. But then I run across the problem of forward (or aft) facing main guns that quite clearly would never be able to fire across the centre line, and only to a limited extent even when they could. What then? Suggestions:
(a) Ignore it;
(b) Limit the forward shooting to one gun or gun turret (broadside probably not a problem);
(c) permit both shooting along only the line of the ship's facing.
That last seems to me a 'realistic' solution, but is an added complication to the rule set.
My suggestion is to keep going with the MS until the end (leave the itch unscratched for the nonce); then run play tests with the thing 'as is' and then try them with the adjustments that have suggested themselves.
At least at the end you will have 'Beta' rule set that is usable until you can come to a final decision.
Cheers (and I beg pardon if you have thought of all this already),
Ion
Hi Ion,
DeleteThe really spooky thing is that what you have highlighted as suggestions is exactly what I have been grappling with! For the record the 4 gun stat is the norm for the rules but with the appropriate reductions when there is less than the magic number.
I am planning to discussing with my play testing think tank the implications of the concentrated arcs so will hold fore on any wholesale changes until then.
Thank you for your inout though, it is always good to have an independent observer!
All the best,
DC
Happens to all of us at some point, me included. Best thing is to go and do something completely different for a while then come back to it when you feel refreshed
ReplyDeleteHi Jim,
DeleteI am sure that I will bounce back - in fact I have up to a point - and as you rightly say tackling something different is a great way to refresh a jaded palette!
All the best and thanks,
DC