/nwg/ - Naval Wargames General

>that cannon arrangement
What the fuck.

Chapman was a rather innovative chap.

...

I assume the cannons are on turntables?

The carriage apparently could rotate 360 degrees.

>What the fuck.

When you remember what role the ship was designed for, that arrangement makes sense.

I was thinking Catamaran 74's basically. Or maybe trimaran frigates or corvettes or something. Just sptiballing on very few hours of sleep here lol

I feel like I'm missing something here.

Yeah I meant with wooden ships.

Ships designed for ramming mite b cool. Now I'm just picturing Battlefleet Gothic ships with oars though.

That's part of my problem, I have no clue how cannon-armed galleys were used.

Preying on bigger ships in shallow water or no wind situations, and getting into weird angles to bombard forts and ships at anchor.

>>That's part of my problem, I have no clue how cannon-armed galleys were used.

The details on how they were use depended on the galley and the era. Broadly speaking, galleys were used in littoral regions along with no/low wind situations. Oars allowed them to move more safely in restricted waters.

The Osprey Campaign book for Lepanto is in the OP links. If you're actually interested in how galleys were used, you could read that book and learn about how gun-armed galleys were used.

The pics that were shared are of later Swedish galley designs which can best be thought of as half-galley/half-ship. They were meant for use in the Gulf of Finland with it's restricted waters consisting islands, inlets, etc. Sweden and Russia fought a series of wars across the Baltic with Finland often being the site of combined land & naval campaigns. The galley or turuma in the pictures was an attempt to make "all gun" galley rather than one which both had guns and a ram.

...

I guesed that, but I'll go and read teh Osprey as
suggested.

I read about the Great Northern War and the Swedish-Russian sea battles, and it makes sense to use oars in such relatively calm and restricted waters such as the Baltic (or Aegean, or Adriatic)

The cannons must've been pretty devastating against those light, open craft. One bad hit could take out half your oarsmen, leaving you dead in the water.

They pretty much never went into fights in line. They sometimes picked off crippled ships during battles between lines, and I can think of one occasion when they filled a hole in the Swedish line in an emergency, but that's it.

>I read about the Great Northern War and the Swedish-Russian sea battles

Then I'm surprised you asked the question you did. Both the Swedes and the Russians had extensive galley fleets which were used in their several wars over Finland. Anything you supposedly read about the Great Northern War should have mentioned them.

Organizationally, the Swedish galley force wasn't part of their navy. Because of it's close work with land forces, the galley force was part of the Swedish army instead, specifically the coastal artillery branch. It was referred to as the "archipelago fleet" as opposed to the "real" or blue water water.

...

...

...

>Both the Swedes and the Russians had extensive galley fleets which were used in their several wars over Finland. Anything you supposedly read about the Great Northern War should have mentioned them.
Sure, they were mentioned.
But theree was very little beyond 'sea battle between X galleys and Y sailing vessels' or 'sea battle involving galleys there, Swedish king narrowly escapes Russians' etc.
It wasn't exactly a detailed history, and it contained nothing about how those galleys actually fought.

Like I said, their advantages in calm weather and tight quarters were pretty obvious.
But I thought they only hd on gun pointing ahead, plus maybe a few small swivel guns, plus lots of crew for boarding actions.
Those Swedish designs are obviously far more heavily focused on ranged combat, and what Iread about Lepanto also sounds like the gun armament was FA heavier than I thought.

I’ve been looking at getting into acw/equivalent riverine/littoral stuff, because those boats were pretty as all hell. Can anyone suggest me a good rule set?
I played a few games of Hammerin’ Iron in college, but nothing since

...

Coastal Command. It covers WW2 small craft, primarily RN vs. KM fighting in the Narrows & North Sea but also with stuff for USN vs. IJN tangles.

>Like I said, their advantages in calm weather and tight quarters were pretty obvious.

If you already knew that why did you ask the "question" you did?

>If you already knew that why did you ask the "question" you did?
Because I wasn't sure about what their formations and tactics were like.
I thought they fought with their forward guns, firnig one or two salvoes before ramming/boarding. I didn't really know that, though.

What I just read about Lepanto more or less confirms that (though it was more complex even there), but the Swedish examples above are more developed later models, and that is why the setup left me a littel baffled.

...

Lepanto is totally different from the much later battles between Swedes and Russians. For Lepanto, there were a few ships with big guns, and the rest were doing most of their work the old-fashioned way - boarding, ramming, and crossbows and handguns.

Ironclads by Yaquinto is the seminal game in the genre

Man, they're even uglier beat up.

...

Gotta love French and French-designed pre-dreds.

I once had a link to a Port Arthur album but I'll be damned if I can find it now.

Those tumblehomes bring me immense joy. Did they have them in the age of colourful liveries, or just in the naval grey era?

I'm trying to put together some abstract but still mechanically engaging rules for ship actions for my RPG campaign. File related.
Anyone have any comments?

...

Anybody here played Fleet Commander: Nimitz? Would you recommend it?

>Anyone have any comments?

I got nothing. You seemingly believe those rules somehow model Age of Sail ship combat, so there's nothing else that needs to be said let alone explained.

...

>Did they have them in the age of colourful liveries,

Considering that tumblehome first emerged during the era of wooden ships you can be sure that there were a fair share of colorful tumblehome boats.

That bad, huh?

But the exaggerated, very French style of them, as per the pre dreadnoughts?
Come to think of it I don’t really know what the French livery was before plain grey, if anything. I’m off to look it up

It may or may not be, we've had problems with one or more anons dropping in to shit on ideas.

Fair enough. It's a skeleton of an idea at the moment anyways.

...

>Might be able to get the same effect with a layer of leather, or a few layers of some kind of treated canvas, etc.

youtube.com/watch?v=EpNS0JpnUNY

Given that basically all the wood directly in front of the ball, which is a lot, will be punched through your spall liner and sent about its merry splinterous ways by that ball if it penetrates it would appear that you're going to need quite a lot behind the hull to make much of a difference here. And that means a lot of weight, which could otherwise have been cannons, ammo, cargo... The splinters may not be brilliant at penetrating though, they're rather light after all, so wrapping your crew up in buff leather clothes and masks could perhaps help.

Things like this seems to have happened.

...

>That bad, huh?

Very much so. You've absolutely no idea of how sailing ships move let alone fight. "Multiple gross conceptual errors" is perhaps the best way to describe the "thinking" behind those "rules". You can do better. You should do better.

You talk about ramming a few times, without ever realizing that sailing ships only ram each other by mistake and then at great risk of damaging their own rigging. The table listing better crow's nests and their effects on the game is cringe worthy gibberish. The few references to armor and construction resources are other examples of your basic incomprehension.

I realize your effort is for some sort of RPG, which mean the rules must contain aspects which emphasize player-character actions and decisions. In RPGs such rules are a necessity and rightfully so. The trouble here is that you've no real comprehension of the situation you're trying to model. It's as if you're trying to write rules for dueling but don't know how rapiers work or that people only have two arms.

There's an Age of Sail hex&chit game in the OP links called "Wooden Ships and Iron Men". It plays very much like a miniature game and each ship in it has a specific record sheet. Download that game, read the rules, pick out a single ship action, and play a few turns solitaire. Learn sailing ships actually move. Learn how vitally important wind direction is. Learn how sailing ships fight and what's important in those fights. Get some idea of just what you're trying to model before you model it. Then write up some RPG rules for it.

Finally, you can also go to the PDF Share thread and look for a GURPS trove. IIRC, the "Age of Napoleon" splat has RPG ship combat rules you can look at. The "Swashbucklers" splat might have them too.

I specifically DON'T want to model scale movement of ships. The idea of modelling wind direction, let alone having to get a hex battlemat, is more simulation than I really want. I'd rather have a method akin to the Spycraft car chase system. Eventually, I'd like to ennumerate several options for positioning and several options for attacks, where choosing "blind" and correctly guessing your opponent's intentions and picking the counter will give positive roll modifiers (much like rock paper scissors). If you can think of a better way to abstract the process of moving for advantage and then firing without using a battlemap, I'm all ears.
The point on ramming is taken, though it's a pity.
What's your problem with abstract construction? You'd rather ships take a year to make from a half-forest's worth of timber and are essentially unchanging?

>If you can think of a better way to abstract the process of moving for advantage and then firing without using a battlemap, I'm all ears.

The combat rules in the GURPS splats I mentioned are abstract. That being said, you still need to know how SAILING SHIPS MOVE before you can write abstract rules for that movement. As it stand now, you don't know enough about the topic to even attempt to abstract it.

>The point on ramming is taken, though it's a pity.

Another good example of your incomprehension. You wanted ramming because it's cool and you thought ramming could work because you know NOTHING about how sailing ships work. Again, you need to know how something works before you can successfully produce an abstract version of it.

>What's your problem with abstract construction?

Nothing. There's a problem with your abstract construction because, as with movement and combat, you have no comprehension of the topic you're attempting to abstract.

>>You'd rather ships take a year to make from a half-forest's worth of timber and are essentially unchanging?

Seeing as that the reality of the situation, it a good place to start. Sailing warships were routinely "upgraded" and "modified" in various ways during their long careers. You could have researched that and then produced an abstract system to model it. Instead and as with movement and ramming, you just made some stuff up that sounded cool.

>The GURPS rules are abstract.
They certainly are!
>If there is a battle, whether one-on-one or fleet against fleet, the following system resolves the action with one set of die-rolls, based on a Quick Contest of Tactics (Naval) between the opposing captains.
Then PCs roll for Glory to assist and also roll to survive uninjured if the outcome dictates.
>However, as wind-driven naval tactics are a specialized branch of tactical studies that most players and GMs haven’t studied, it may be hard to accurately originate or assess a good plan. Players need not be required to develop genuine expertise!
Basically, I could define ships by historical class, define wind direction relative to both combatants and assess their ability to scud and tack, then work out the modifiers referred to above (there's tons, and I don't care about the exact number and poundage of cannon on board) OR I could not.

I did want ramming because it's cool. Also, because it's featured in the media I've seen about sailing ships, and because I just know my players will want to ram something at some point. I also want them to be able to pick up abstract amounts of the key resources to upgrade their ship in a reasonable timeframe, instead of commissioning a shipwright to create a warship for their kids.

Actually, second thoughts: I'm sorry. You took the time to read, you gave your thoughts, exactly what I asked for. This was obviously a bad idea. Thanks for your time.

>They certainly are!

Some are, some aren't. GURPS is meant to be "universal" after all. Rules from the various Vehicles books can provide more detail. Did you check out "Swashbucklers"? ISTR it had somewhat more detailed rules than "one die throw".

>>Basically, I could define ships by historical class, define wind direction relative to both combatants and assess their ability to scud and tack, then work out the modifiers referred to above (there's tons, and I don't care about the exact number and poundage of cannon on board) OR I could not.

OR you could find a sweet spot between those two extremes. Life isn't binary. You have more than two choices. After all, you want your players to be able to upgrade their ships to gain some advantage in combat. That means you'll have to take into account in some manner stuff like class, tonnage, agility, weapons, and the like.

>>I did want ramming because it's cool. Also, because it's featured in the media I've seen about sailing ships

I don't now what media that was but it was shit. Forget you ever saw it.

>>I also want them to be able to pick up abstract amounts of the key resources to upgrade their ship in a reasonable timeframe, instead of commissioning a shipwright to create a warship for their kids.

Again, because you know nothing about ship construction or upgrades, you're assuming both require years of work. The truth of the matter is that wooden warships had remarkably long lives and were quite often modified/upgraded during them. The type and number of guns changed, sail plans changed, sail types changed, mast & spar arrangements changed, hull sheathing was added, rearranged, or removed, the list is endless. (continued)

Have some second thoughts: You've got a better base than you think, but you should indeed look over existing rule sets and study on the subject more before you commit super hard. Don't get discouraged because of one cunt on the internet.

(continued)

One practice you may find interesting model in abstract was the "razee". Older and/or smaller ships of the line which couldn't carry the 80-100+ guns felt necessary for line-of-battle service were "cut down" to produce "big" frigates. An entire deck or decks would be removed to produce a ship was was faster but which could also carry more/bigger guns.

There are plenty of ways your players can gather "resources" to improve their ships without roping in "silly" ideas like armor or "improved" crow's nests. Improvements in items like sails, spars, and masts can be achieved in relatively short amounts of time. If changes in weaponry require manufacturing weapons, that naturally would take longer. If those changes only require mounting existing weapons, the time needed would again be short.

>I'm sorry

Please don't apologize. I took the time because I knew you could do better than what you shared with us. While you're lacking the knowledge your project requires, you are not lacking the ability. That lack of knowledge can be easily remedied if you wish to do so.

You cannot abstract something without first understanding what you're trying to abstract. Gain some understanding first, then write your rules.

...

...

Eh, spall liners help on tanks where you've got metal being hit much more energetically, I don't see why they wouldn't help.

>Wooden Ships and Iron Men

Play Close Action instead, much better game.

>Eh, spall liners help on tanks where you've got metal being hit much more energetically, I don't see why they wouldn't help.

He's talking about a fantasy game, user. The materials used for the liners you're bleating about don't exist.

Advanced Salvo pdf anyone?

google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjg5NDl0dvYAhWLk5QKHTdHDUQQFghCMAk&url=https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/30080/advanced-salvo-1939-1941&usg=AOvVaw3p-uQ-FHBbVou2ef2WjIw1

See that cloud of small splinters after the ball penetrates?
A layer of heavy cloth (hung rather loosely) plus a layer of leather would actually stop those.

Splinters are not all that hard to stop. It's more a question of wether you want to invest the mass, complexity and cost.

>Splinters are not all that hard to stop.

They are when your spall liner is penetrated too.

...

...

...

The good old Kalamity-class.

Such a sexy boat.

Pretty neat little resource someone in a FB naval group had posted.

Be nice to compile a pastebin of reference links sometime like this.

archive.hnsa.org/doc/id/fm30-50-naval/index.htm#toc

It depends.
In this case, the cannonball would obviously punch a hole through the spall liner, too.
But most of the splinters do not gollow the ball's trajectory, they spread out to the sides, and those would be stopped.
They key is that the fabric has to be strung up with some give, so the wood gets slowed enugh to then be stopped by the leather layer.

Please note that none of this would help one tiny bit against heavy hits from big guns or carronaeds, because those throw balls that smash the timber they hit into yard-long spears. There is pretty much nothing you can do to stop those short of having metal armor.

Were those the subs with steam turbines and oil-fired boilers that took like five minutes to dive becasue they had to shut down the steam plant and fold the funnels first?

Yes, among other charming features.

Would have made for good AIP testbeds, once they worked out the kinks (although given their track record, I wouldn't let H2O2 within a nautical mile of those deathtraps): hydrogen peroxide producing steam for the turbines would also make oxygen for breathing and very clean water, allowing for better submerged endurance assuming they figure out better CO2 scrubbers...

>Killing crews repeatedly
Honestly! It's a design feature, not a bug!

...

Nice link. Thanks for it.

It's a WW2 USN recognition guide for those who haven't checked it out. It was published on 15 Sep 43 so it's interesting to see what they knew about the IJN then as opposed to what we know now. Forex, the list of IJN BB profiles doesn't include the Hotels.

Slick as fuck.

...

...

...

...

for tjose who have been in the navy, real question here.

are sailors as gay as people say they are?

Slippers

Any good in print solo naval wargames?

There's a PnP Malta Convoy game floating around. You can google it up pretty easily.

...

...

...

...

I will concede that the British were pretty damn good at coming up with badass names for things.

New book day is almost as good a day as new botes day.

Cross posting. Hopefully it will be added to the MF trove at which point I'll stop hosting it, but in the meantime, it's there.

...

...

Every time I see British ships, I mourn the lost potential-every bote after Warspite but before Vanguard should have had a square transom!
It would have been a perfect aesthetic match with the blocky forward superstructures and plumb bows...