Ship yards of York (6)—Filler, rant and planning for Tuesday's test game

Filler

I have not done much with the ships lately. A visit to Adelaide for me old Ma's 90th late last week, seeing sis', bro' and other family, then developing a bit of a lurgy for the first few days of this week has kept me out of my wargame shed. I got back to it yesterday and in doing so had an epiphany.

I think that I am at 'peak figures'.

Of course, even I am not this silly. I cannot recall whose blog I originally got this from. The link with the download file just has a generic blogspot address. Please let me know if you know. Most of the others have a similar 'provenance'.

Yes, that's right, it is my turn to say to myself that I have enough figures. Cue laughing, rolling of eyes and broad smirks. Still, not only is it true, but I think that I may even have realised it is.

I have not been like you other, sensible wargamers/bloggers out there who only buy a few figures at a time and try to paint them all, or at least most of them, before the next lot are added to the collection. Having been a bit restrained—but only a bit—for the first 50 years of my life, I have gone absolutely ballistic in the last 8–9, especially 2020*–2023 (I double-checked my records and I began going 'mad' in 2019). I don't have thousands of figures, I have tens of thousands. About 10% are painted to completion, probably another 5% in some stage towards that ultimate aim.

Of course, even I am not so naïve as to think that I am gonna stop purchasing figures.

I have the ships that Keith made me buy (you are all witnesses). These are on the way to me now—and I am really looking forward to them arriving. Then there will be around 400 or so Austrian Hungarian infantry that will be coming my way once Hat have shipped them to my 'supplier'. There a few early 18thC infantry in firing poses that Strelets are planning to release soon—despite the serious, existential challenges that they face in Ukraine. After that though, I reckon I may actually exhibit restraint and consider deeply before making any further purchases. Only something new and really special. And then only in small numbers.

I'll revisit this in a year or so, shall I?!!

Rant

One of the great things about getting older is the imprimatur to have a rant. Not strictly imprimatur, just a rolling of eyes and 'here goes the old man...'. In fact, this may not be new to me since I was given a 'soap box' as a funny, work, Chrissy-pressie one year. I was in my thirties. Not that I ranted then. I had important ideas to convey to others. All based on substantiated information. Plus the odd opinion.

Anyway, this rant is not even mine! It is Julian's. I just happen to agree and to have found myself agreeing more since he made it.

When did people begin to refer to wargame's rules as 'the game'?

So, rather than play a game of <<insert period>> with <<rules>> it seems to be increasingly referred to the game of <<rules>>.

What?! The rules are merely part of the game. In wargaming, especially historical stuff, the aim, is to have some semblance of an historical representation. The eternal quest is to find a set of rules that does this in a manner that is representative, enjoyable and playable. The 'game' involves the figures, terrain, opponents (or solo), cards/dice/no-dice, scale, scenario... oh yeah, and some set of rules that you have both/all decided to use for the purpose.

Of course, it is purely language and terminology and a tongue-in-cheek rant, but there is a bit of annoyance there...! 😁 

Preparation for test game of 'Action Under Sail'

I have made a bit of progress with the boating escapade.

Julian is available, so we are gonna have a test game on Tuesday using the rules 'Action Under Sail'. Or should I say, play a game of 'Action Under Sail', grrrrr!!!!

I have the second edition of the rules, circa 1977. Written by S. Birnie, they first came out in 1976. There was a third edition in 1984 and a fourth in 1993. I have seen extracts and reviews of the first and later editions and think that, for me, the second edition is the 'sweet spot'.

Julian gave them to me with a load of sets of rules for Napoleonic naval that he had decided he would not use. I just happened to flick through them after our test-game and rejection of 'It's Warm Work' and became more and more interested the more that I read. I then worked through some of the mechanics and really liked them.

They are detailed and involve calculations that are not 'de rigeur' for current wargames rules.

I think I got this beauty from Gary's Sgt Steiner blog.

Movement is simultaneous. Ships operate under broad 'fleet orders' and also have individual orders for each ship. The latter are noted simply using arrows, code letters (direction, tacking, loading broadsides) and numbers (for speed and distance of turning/wearing). The main classes of ships have a maximum speed for three strengths of wind (light, fresh and gale) according to one of three positions to the wind (aft, quartering and bow). Ships may speed up or slow down a given amount in a single turn, but not above the maximum (this is not stated directly, an example that Mr Birnie expects players to have common-sense and a spirit of playing). There are three classes of crew èlite, average and raw. Ships with èlite crews can sail closer to the wind (up to 45º), while the others can only get within 60º. Turning through the wind is a three-step process. There are rules for storms, gales, rowing and other such events that I have only skimmed so far.

Broadsides need to be loaded (and noted), with different load times required for single, double and triple shot, better crews doing the job faster. Each ships has a gunnery factor and, if present, a carronade factor. Examples are given for classes of ship, but the calculation is provided and straightforward—a third of the sum product of number and weight of guns divided by number of guns. The 'fudge factor' of 1/3 is included as the guns are divided into batteries of 3 guns (halves rounded up). Firing is then 'simply' gunnery factor + tactical factors + random factor multiplied by number of batteries in the broadside to give 'total damage points inflicted' (TDPI). The TDPI is compared with the defence value for the targeted area, hull or rigging, and damage is inflicted. Or not. Crew casualties also result.

Casualties to crew and levels of damage may result in a morale test for the crew. Damage to rigging leads to fallen sections or masts. Firing at the hull has a chance for further damage: rudder, wheel, lower mast, explosion.

I have not read the boarding rules in detail, but a proportion of the crew have muskets (usually solely the marines) and can be involved in such 'business'. There is also running aground, mooring, involvement with shore batteries, landing parties, but I have not bothered to read it all yet.

I was gonna simply begin with the first action of my 'going through all the naval actions of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars', but Julian had the good suggestion of using the same scenario that he devised for testing 'It's Warm Work'. Perfect. We'll have several ships, different sizes and armament, command and all that good stuff.

I knocked up this sheet to record orders, speed, loaded broadsides and damage. It is based on the example in the rules, plus a few more aspects added to make it, hopefully, an all in one.

Hopefully they will go as well as I envisage and the reason for Julian dismissing them—too detailed for a large, multi-player game—will not be a problem.

The English ships in the foreground are good enough to go. I'll add rigging if I get time, but need to focus on the Spanish ones at left rear, which have a bit more colour added since I took this photo yesterday arvo'.