Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5815184" data-attributes="member: 8835">How would you feel about an abstract simulation?I suspect simulationist folks don't want rules that are so ridiculous they don't even account for any kind of reality.I suspect anti-simulationist folks don't want rules that micro-manage ship speed, direction, sail positioning relative to wind and a ton of math to calculate adjusted speed.technically, wind matters.  In my own rules, I factored it as a movement bonus/penalty based on the wind direction relative to the ship direction.  Part of the game of ship battles being, figuring out how to move the ship based on the wind conditions.  Kind of like how Roborally is about moving your bot based on the movement cards handed to you.That could be as simple as randomly choosing the direction and windspeed ) maybe on a big spinner, and based on your ship's heading relative to the main wind direction, your ship can move 4,3,2,1 squares a turn.  Maybe oars gives it a boost.  Maybe the wind speed makes for faster/slower general movement.I could see that during the course of a short battle, wind doesn't change much, so rolling for wind would be like rolling init, setting the initial parameters of the fight.As such, ship combat forms a mini-game of maneuvering both ships around the map to line up a shot from the fore or aft gun(s) or a full broadsides or ramming action.  Kind of like how some of the airplane dogfight games work, but hopefully simple.It might be, that this book could have room for 3 styles of ship combat, super abstract, mini-game mode (kind of like my example) and simulation mode.  If each style fit within the rest of the rules, feats, and skills that would be pretty handy.</blockquote>

Verification