[historical ruleset] Streamlined speed & facing

EvilKobra · [historical ruleset] Streamlined speed & facing

As per ND's request, here's my new suggestion for a streamlined and WAS-compatible speed/facing system:

·Assign speeds 1-3 to ships as in WAS.
·Movement takes place in two distinct steps, to represent physical and tactical inertia. Both players do Step 1, then both players do Step 2.

STEP 1:
Ships move one sector. Ships also get a number of free facing changes based on their Size (Large 1, Medium 2, Small 3 hexsides) which can be made at any point during the movement.

STEP 2:
Ships move their remaining sectors. They again get free turns, as above, but in addition they can spend one movement point to change to any desired facing.

...and that's it!

Possible refinements:

·If you wish to use alternating movement rules (e.g. per ship class, or per squadron), you only need to do so in Step 2. For Step 1, it's OK if the player who lost initiative moves all his ships first.

·If you want to differentiate a little bit more between ships, the following two SAs (or, if we end up using the system I proposed earlier, Traits) might help:

Flank Speed: This ship's speed is increased by one for this turn, but it may make no facing changes. Declare at the beginning of your Step 1.
(ships at the top of their speed bracket should get this)

Agile: This ship may make an extra facing change in Step 2.
(ships at the bottom of their size bracket should get this)

If I got my way, both of these would be Traits and thus subject to combat damage. So a ship could lose either of these (or Defensive Armament, or Flag, or any other such characteristic) when hit, which makes perfect sense.

lotharlutjens

Ok, I like it. Simple and elegant at it's core. Takes a lot of the elements we have all discussed these past few days and puts them together in a very simple form. The alternating movement system is a must, it improves the feel of the game greatly, losing initiative is still bad but not nearly as much. I'm sure it's not perfect but it is definitely up the rung of evolution. Now let's see what some other people think.

NeuralDream

As much as I liked it a lot at the beginning, I see that again Pre-DNs and DNs have the same speed and turning ability, and they can be differentiated only with pretty abrupt S.A.s / traits, while our goal is to reduce the S.A.s to only two per card (3 are already too small to read).
I'm afraid I'll again fall back to the ".5 values and costs per turn" direction, just for this problem Sad

. EK, do you think there is any other way to differentiate speeds without traits? I can see only .5 values for this.

lotharlutjens

I think .5 speeds could be inserted into what EK has written quite easily ND, If the player wishes to use it for maneuvering he can, but I would like to add that if the player doesn't maneuver his ship in any way (Goes straight ahead ) he could "cash in that .5 speed for + 1 speed. Meaning a ship like HMS Indefatigable Speed 2.5 could use that .5 for extra maneuvering, or if the ship "built up it's sea legs" and simply steamed in a straight line could then move at a speed 3. This also would do away with flank speed SA because now it would be expressed in the ".5".

Now the only thing we would have to do is produce some sort of system for determining how much it costs to turn each additional turn beyond the first.

NeuralDream

lotharlutjens

If we give the Pre-Dreadnoughts speed 1.5, then in my system they would only be able to keep up with the Dreadnoughts ( speed 2 ) when going straight ahead (ships that move straight ahead only may "cash"in that extra .5 speed to gain + 1 speed.)
Battlecruisers like Indefatigable and Von Der Tann would rate at 2.5 and would be able to keep up with the speed 3 ones, if, they travelled straight ahead. Ships going faster have a larger turning radius and this cashing in of the .5 speed makes sense to me.
Now we need to figure what it costs for each size ship to turn each extra 60 degree turn.

NeuralDream

lotharlutjens

Ok then speeds would be.....
KNOTS
00-05= Speed .5 ( Cripples )
06-10= Speed 1 ( Monitors, Armed Trawlers )
11-15= Speed 1.5 ( Coastal Defence Battleahips )
16-20= Speed 2 ( Pre-Dreadnoughts, Old Cruisers )
21-25= Speed 2.5 ( Dreadnoughts , Armored Cruisers )
26-30= Speed 3 ( Battlecruisers, Scout Cruisers )

So if then perhaps large ships get no free facing, would Mdm ships get one free facing and perhaps Small ships get two ?
And then each 60 degree facing change beyond the free ones cost .5 movement ?

Hmmm what do you think ?

swarbs

EK, in your movement rules a ship is always facing a direction, is this correct? This would be in contrast with the facing rules of RB (first move always in direction of facing) and lothar (ship faces away from sector it left), where in both of those ideas there is a point that a ship can change facing completely, and for free (lothar's on the first move, RB's on the last move).

I think the answer to the above is yes, so here's a suggestion. If .5 speed is not really speed, but is only used to account for extra turning ability, which I think is your suggestion ND (note I've had some computer trouble and haven't been following as closely as possible) then why call it speed? Additionally, if the problem is differentiating little increments without using SA's, then there seems to be no need to make a standard rule about how much each size ship can turn(lumping together all types of similar sized ships), we could just put it on the card. The ship's movement value would be in two parts (ala 2:1) with a speed of two and the ship can turn one hex space per movement (using EK's two-part move phase). A ship at the very low end of its speed category could get (2:0) meaning it can essentially move 2 spaces only in a straight line.

drittal

can't it just be that to turn more than 45 degrees costs a movement point?

or something simple? A long sweeping turn is not going to slow down a ship or cost a movement like a crash turn about face.

Also a circle circumference is 3.14 times as long as its diameter, so a full circle in a sector theoretically could cost 3 movement points.

the first 45 degrees is free. 90 degrees costs one movement. next 45 is free, next 90 cost one, etc so it would cost three to make a full 360 degree turn.

I dunno

lotharlutjens

Ok, this is way out side the box, but if you really want to get realistic with this speed thing then here goes.

All ships are rated by there maximum real speed, ex. 25 kts

For every 10 kts speed a ship has it equates to 1 DR speed, ex. 2.5 speed.

Now is where the fun begins, fractional leftovers will give the ships + 1 speed depending on how many tenths the ship has.

Ships with .1 speed will move extra on turn 10
Ships with .2 speed will move extra on turns 5 & 10
Ships with .3 speed will move extra on turns 3, 6 and 9
Ships with .4 speed will move extra on turns 2, 5, 7 and 10
Ships with .5 speed will move extra on turns 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10
Ships with .6 speed will move extra on turns 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 10
Ships with .7 speed will move extra on turns 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10
Ships with .8 speed will move extra on turns 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10
Ships with .9 speed will move extra on turns 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10

That would be the most realistic but probably be too complex.

We could also go with ND's 0.5 system and very simply just allow ships with the extra .5 to gain 1 speed on every second turn. (Same basic affect)

Just wanted to throw some speed ideas out there. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

drittal

You lost me on that one lothar

lotharlutjens

Like I said, that one was way out of the box, but I threw it out there in case other Ideas might be derived from it. It would require a bit of book work ( keeping track of turns).

Probably thought of Oregon when I was coming up with it. Wink

drittal

i like my idea. simple and easy on hex map

NeuralDream

NeuralDream

Looking at the length of my latest post, I think I'm involved more than I should in this speed matter, so I'll let you guys decide. I'm sure you'll find a nice elegant system that differentiates all 7-8 speed categories nicely without SAs.

lotharlutjens

I really like where this is going except for one thing, in your above example ND you have Pre-Dreadnoughts going at 1.5 speed, that's fine, no problem. You have Dreadnoughts going at 2.0. In actuality these represent max speeds of 18 (pre-dreadnought) and 21 (dreadnought). The way it is working now then a Pre-Dreadnought could move 1 sector (and use that .5 speed for a little extra turning) and the Dreadnoughts can move 2 sectors. My problem with that is if they both travel straight ahead (without turning then the Dreadnought out paces the Pre-Dreadnought on a scale of 2 to 1) not very realistic considering the difference in speeds is only about 25 % nowhwere close to 50 %. I think, and I hate to keep bringing this up, that everything that you have suggested up to now is fine, but that the addition of a rule which would allow a ship with a hanging .5 speed to be able to "cash" that in for + 1 speed, this would only occur if that particular ship moves straight and does not deviate in ANY way.

Alternatively, the other way we could aproach the extra .5 speed is to give ships with that little extra .5 speed, + 1 speed on every other turn (on every even number turn ship gains + 1 speed) This would mean a 1.5 speed ship would move one on the first turn and two on the second and so on.

I am not trying to be difficult and I wish I could give a " yeah baby, I like it like that", but I cannot if it means a 2 speed ship out races a 1.5 speed ship 2 to 1 when the real ratio is actually 4 to 3.

NeuralDream

lotharlutjens

Yes, that is better.

To make things clear ( This is an attempt )

The suggestion, in brief, is to divide the movement phase into two segments, side A moves, side B moves, side A moves and then side B moves again. The purpose of this division is to slightly weaken the import of winning initiative, both sides get a little "reaction time" to react to the opponent's first "half" move.

For example the speed of HMS Indefatigable ( Is that a wild name or what ? ) qualifies her as a "slow" Battlecruiser.

Her new speed factor would be/ Speed = 2/1 (0)
Which would mean she could go 2 speed in her first movement step and 1 speed in her second movement step and she would get 0 turns for free.

This is easier to understand than the .5 thing and I think pretty reasonable. Now what does everyone else think ?

NeuralDream

I've added this example in my previous post

I haven't done the template. That's just a quick photoshop with fake stats to explain how the card may look like.

swarbs

In my head my system was that the number after the colon was one 'hex-face' per move. Sacrificing one whole movement point (like if a ship was 2:0) would allow a turn to face any direction. So a ship that is 2:0 is only very marginally better than a speed 1:anything because more than likely it will use one point to move a space and one point to turn, or the other way round, it only gains an advantage when it needs to turn completely around or it can go two straight sectors.

Lobukia

I may be restating something already said

but instead of extra movement on given turns or special .5 speeds, just use the SA system that WaS alread has... just flip the "Slow" ability around.

SA: Fast 6: roll a dice at the beginning of the movement phase, on a 6 add +1 to ship's speed for this turn

SA: Fast 4: roll a dice at the beginning of the movement phase, on a 4 or higher add +1 to ship's speed for this turn

etc

NeuralDream

The problem is that we don't have space for S.A.s. The card serves so many purposes (in fact, it can even double as the miniature!) that there is space for only two readable S.A.s.
Another problem is that S.A.s that involve dice rolling take too long to play online and are generally disliked.

EvilKobra

I'm... not convinced. In general, I think the "2+2/2" system adds little or no historical accuracy over the initial proposal, and actually adds complexity instead of removing it. My views on the specific issues follows:

FRAMEWORK
Generally speaking, if we're trying to rework the game to add realism, it's not enough to simply take the WAS framework and replace specific rules with better ones (i.e. "vertical" design). It'll give you a better product, to be sure, but sometimes there are key principles that can be altered to give potential benefit to multiple aspects of the game (i.e. "horizontal" design). As the clearest example, I'd cite introducing the concept of ship Size, which can be used to great advantage in the rules for Gunnery, Movement, and Command, for instance. The idea of Traits (i.e. "fixed" SAs that have nothing "special" about them and don't need to be written out on each card) also springs to mind. Also, for instance, Squadron rules would probably also be a Framework change. And there may be others. Now, the thing about Framework changes is, they need to be decided on first. Otherwise, you'll end up re-doing things as new concepts are introduced later just because you need them for something else. So the first thing we should probably do, before we get too carried away with the specifics of movement, or gunnery, or anything else, is figure out which new concepts we want to use, and which ones we don't. Otherwise we just won't be on the same page regarding our basic assumptions.

PRESENTATION
I think we just don't need so many numbers, when everything can be adequately represented by means of one digit - two, tops (moves and turns, but the latter really could simply be directly linked to ship Size). Having too many numbers to look up wastes space, and takes a bit more time/attention than necessary.

MOVE/TURN CONVERSION
Ships with zero free turns cause a serious problem, in that they must trade moves to change facing. If ships moved 6 or 8 sectors, that'd be fine. But with a very limited movement range of 1-3, having to trade a whole speed step for a couple of hexsides is really too granular. Even the biggest of ships can make a wide arc without losing much of its speed, let alone 33% or even 50%! Trading speed for turns should probably only be done if complex maneuvers or tight turns are attempted, e.g. coming about 180º. And to avoid unnecessary complexity, it's enough to say that a spent movement point lets you turn to any desired facing. For big ships this will mean that the 'craziest' stunt they could possibly pull is to turn around, move one sector, then turn one hexside (hardly unrealistic) - and small ships are rarely ever going to need to do it anyway. So there's just no need to worry about how many hexsides you should get for each movement point depending on size etc.

'FLANK SPEED' TRAIT/SA
Call it 'Fast', 'Flank', or whatever. And consider it an SA or a Trait. Either way, after carefully considering all your points, I really do think this is necessary for the (few) cases that fall between speed brackets, most notably slow BCs, though you could argue that it should also apply to pre-dreadnoughts. The ideal, revised wording would be: "This ship may move an extra sector in Step 1. If it does, it may make no facing changes this turn." Note that this wording gets rid of the 'declaration' issue, since it's already taken care of by the early move.

INERTIA & INITIATIVE
I feel the 1+2 nomenclature is not needed and can be avoided:
··Ships that move one space should definitely move in the first step (slow, thus predictable - you're not going to surprise anyone).
··Ships that move two spaces will move one in each step.
··Ships that move three spaces should probably move one space in step one, the rest in step two: with the exception of Fast BCs (for which, admittedly, the 2+1 option might be nice), these ships are either travelling at flank speed, or are fast enough that they should have a definite tactical advantage.
··Ships that move four sectors will be travelling in a straight line and thus it makes no difference how many spaces it moves in each phase. The same applies to slow BCs moving four sectors.

So basically in almost every single case, ships move a single sector in step 1 - then, why bother separating the numbers? The only somewhat 'weak' link in this logic are the fast BCs, *if* you want to have them move a little more predictably than Destroyers beyond the obvious difference in the number of turns. I think the change from 1 to 3 hexsides per phase makes such a huge difference already that this is not necessary.

There may have been more, but it's taken so long to write this that I've probably forgotten Razz

EvilKobra

Lobukia

Hadn't thought of online... great point

I would encourage you to have as few SAs as possible... somehow set II went SA crazy... its always nice to see ships with no SAs or just one... let the cards be the ships not the SAs

EvilKobra

NeuralDream

Exciting times. It would have been better if we were all in the same office, working on this on the same paper, but not easy over the net.

If you analyse mine too, choose the last one that I posted

EvilKobra

hgraves

for the advanced rules i think the proposal of a two segment turn will help us a lot in diffrenciating the various speed vessels. Very Happy

i like this level of "resolution" with out changing the scale as i thought may be needed before.

the problem is with this change implemented the advanced and basic rules will not have compatable cards. at least i can not see how they could. Confused

just sayin...

NeuralDream

hgraves

ok fair

in additon i have to admit i had not had a chance to read all of EKs post on this topic before i shot off my mouth...

see thats what i get for rushing.
Embarassed

let me think maybe i can offer something usefull. Rolling Eyes

lotharlutjens

There are several WWI airgames out there and one of my favorites is "Blue Max". In this game each type of aircraft has a set number of maneuvers it can make and no more. So here's yet again another alternate way we could handle movement. A player would have the following choices during a ships movement.

ALL AHEAD FULL : this ship moves straight forward without deviation, no turns are allowed. this ship gains + 1 speed.

TURN TO PORT OR STARBOARD : this ship can turn 60 degrees left (port ) or right ( starboard ) at any point in it's move, the rest of it's movement either before or after this turn must be straight ahead

HARD-A-PORT OR STARBOARD : this ship's speed is reduced by one but it is allowed two 60 degree turns ( 120 degrees ) the rest of it's move, either before, during or after these two 60 degree turns, must be straight ahead.

REVERSE COURSE : this ship's speed is reduced by two but it is allowed three 60 degree turns ( 180 degrees ), in the case of speed three vessels this will allow them to move one sector either before or after the three 60 degree turns.

These suggestions are for Battleship classified ships.
Cruisers follow the same guidelines only they suffer no loss in speed for all maneuvers except reverse course. Reverse course costs them one loss in speed.
Destroyers follow the same guidelines only they never suffer loss in speed.

I know this is yet one more "monkey" turning that wrench, but I thought this Idea deserved mentioning as well. It definitely has more "sea" flavor than anything else so far mentioned. Ok now, get out the chainsaws, it's time for TERMINATE THAT THEORY !

NeuralDream

These aren't bad either.

hgraves

the blue max mechanism is nice however i would note that it is created with the intention of plotted manuvers and simlutanius resolution of movement

manuver plotting would not bother me if we where plotting per squadron
it would if we plotted per ship.

now it does work with out the plotting aspect and could answer some of our troubles,
but i am not sure it address's the initial problem of resolution of speed with the sector scale.

as a aside....
for gritty invovled WW1 air i prefer canvas eagles.
but i can get people to play Wings of War. Razz

oddly the primary diffrences in these two games is in detail of damage tracking the manuver mechanics have very simular results.

lotharlutjens

I was trying to imply what Blue Max does but without the plotting, currently a sequenced movement system is being considered, this idea could be merged with that. I was just trying to show other options while I was thinking about them. Physics apply to vessels just like they apply to aircraft, the faster you are going, the wider your turning arc. You have to be going slow to turn real tight, If we are going to get kinda fancy with this advanced movement system I wanted this Idea to be heard. I have a lot of Ideas that would go with this but really didn't want to overdo the first draft of this suggestion. Anyhow, this is just one of many.(suggestions)

drittal

is my suggestion even getting any attention? Question

It is simple. and now that I looked at a hex map, I can defin it better.

Hexagon has six sides at 60 degree angles to one another.

First sixty degrees is a free turn, or turning one face.

The second sixty degrees, or 120 total takes a movement.

180 degrees would cost one movement. 120 + free 60.

240 degrees is two movements. 120+120

300 degrees is two movements. 120 + 120 + free 60

360 degrees is three movements. 120 + 120 + 120.

Considering the circumference of a circle is 3 times its diameter, it should take 3 times as much time to steam in a circle in a sector as it does just to steam across. Simple and easy. No SA. No crazy numbers to remember. Or maybe it is just easy for me.

NeuralDream

Drittal, I think you're describing my suggestion. 1 or 2 free 60 deg. turns plus two more turns for each speed you sacrifice.

swarbs

lotharlutjens

I have already been using the cards as mini's. Texas Grognard printed those first 18 on light cardstock, they work great, even thought about visibility rules, when a ship is out of visual sight (5 sectors) just flip the card upside down, instant fog of war. Pretty Groovy !

swarbs

NeuralDream

lotharlutjens

No, I don't think in a system based on 2-3 speed that turns over 180 degrees make sense. You are right Drittal. I am suggesting that :

Large Vessels (BB's) one 60 degree turn = 0 speed reduction
120 degree turn = 1 speed reduction
180 degree turn = 2 speed reduction

Mdm Vessels (CA's) up to 120 degree turn = 0 speed reduction
180 degree turn = 1 speed reduction

Lgt Vessels (DD's) up to 180 degree turn = 0 speed reduction

I am also suggesting that vessels who do not turn at all be given a + 1 speed for "All ahead full" option.

But these are just my thoughts, and everyone else seems to have good ideas as well.

NeuralDream

EvilKobra

Argh. I wish I had time to write out a proper analysis (and plot out a full movement space grid)... I'm afraid you guys are missing the forest for the trees, and forgetting about a few key things (e.g. multiple small turns vs few tight ones).

Until the time that I can do all this, all I can say is - please don't make ships with 0 free turns, it really will end up feeling weird and wrong.

lotharlutjens

Yes you are correct, but then we have to have to change it so that 60 degree turns cost this vessel one speed instead of 0 speed, so now, up all vessels one on the speed scale and now it changes this table to

Large Vessels (BB's) one 60 degree turn = 1 speed reduction
120 degree turn = 2 speed reduction
180 degree turn = 3 speed reduction

Mdm Vessels (CA's) up to 60 degree turn = 0 speed reduction
120 degree turn = 1 speed reduction
180 degree turn = 2 speed reduction

Lgt Vessels (DD's) up to 120 degree turn = 0 speed reduction
180 degree turn = 1 speed reduction

Correct ?

NeuralDream

Wait, I'll make a nice demo to explain myself better.

NeuralDream

lotharlutjens

wait, Wait, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT......... Very Happy

, but of course. Laughing

PS If anyone is use to waiting it's me, I am on dial up with a 10 year old system.

hgraves

in note to my earlyer post I did not mean to naysay or otherwise shoot down the logic thread, Lothar if it had that effect I apologize.
the physics is sound behind that concept. i was mearly pointing out some of the implications and such. in fact i am open to the concept of plotted orders. in the advaced game.... but for squadrons. Smile

I would agree with swarbs that any turn beyond 180 degrees (a reciprical course) can be handeled with a turn in the other direction of up to or less than 180 degrees.
And to expand his point....
In real life there are reasons for a combat vessel to come about 240 degrees but in our game the reasons would be lost in the "resolution" of the game.
and so nobody would do it and any mechanic to allow it is lost and not in keeping with a streamlined game.

my opinion.

also whatever lothar has brainstormed is prolly gonna be good. Razz

swarbs