Kurt Weihs
United States
Spanaway
Washington
-
I've played Wooden Ships and Iron Men, Flying Colors, and Fighting Sail (years ago). I really enjoyed WSaIM, but would like to find something with more modern design philosophy and a little more detail. Does anyone have any suggestions?
-
Cpl. Fields
South Africa
Hopelessly Surrounded
Isandlwana, Zululand
-
Look no further:
-
M Stumptner
Australia
Unspecified
-
Seconded.
-
Kevin Conway
United States
Boonville
Indiana
-
I love Close Action, so I will third that.
Flying Colors is great for large engagements with fewer players, as it's a bit less complex than CA.
1805: Sea of Glory is an amazing strategic-level game, which I wish I could play more often.
-
Eric Walters
United States
Norfolk
Virginia
"...the art of manoeuvering armies...an art which none may master by the light of nature. but to which, if he is to attain success, a man must serve a long apprenticeship." -- G.F.R. Henderson
-
Okay, I'm a Close Action fanatic and play at the designer's TRAFALGAR DAY events in Maryland. This game is also a favorite at one of my local clubs, the TIDEWATER AREA NAVAL GAMERS. If you are playing 2-player, you are pretty much limited to actions involving four ships per side, maximum. It's just too hard to play with a larger force giving the plotting requirements. Flying Colors and Serpents of the Seas are what you want to play if you have only two players and want to simulate larger actions.
That said, Close Action is an amazing multi-player/team/club game. We did a 30-player Russo-Swedish action and got it done in eight hours at the last TRAFALGAR DAY. Definitely tons 'o fun with the limited communications rules. This game is to sailing ship tactical simulations as Advanced Squad Leader is to WWII tactical ground games, or Fighting Wings is to WWII tactical air combat maneuvering.
I can't recommend it enough!
-
Atomic wedgie
United States
Vancouver
Washington
-
Another close action vote, particularly for multi-player
-
Rick Vinyard
United States
Las Cruces
New Mexico
-
It's not released yet, but Andrea Angiolino (designer of the Wings of War series) mentioned that he was working on Sails of Glory when I opened nominations for the 20 Most Anticipated Games of 2012.
Worth keeping an eye on...
-
Kurt Weihs
United States
Spanaway
Washington
-
Close Action it is! I will give this one a heated shot
Thanks!
-
Justus Pendleton
Australia
Sydney
NSW
-
As Eric Walters says, Close Action is not really a two-player game, however. It is hard for the casual searcher to tell that since the box doesn't say and the rules aren't online. From my copy of the rules and scenario book:
- "Close Action is a [...] game requiring at least two players; but, unlike many other war games, with CA it's 'the more players the better.'"
- "Close Action really shows its advantages in multi-player games. Most classical board wargames are intended to be played by one player per side. This has two disadvantages."
- "As noted elsewhere, more than one player per side is highly recommended."
- "In the ideal CA game, each player would command only one ship, but in the real world players will likely command two or three ships."
- The scenario book contains five single ships actions which are "useful for learning the game, but obviously cannot illuminate squadron tactics in the age of sail."
- "Each player should command no more than two ships (one is better)." (Yes, I know this is different than the "two or three ships" from above.) If you only have two players your plays will all involve no more than 4 ships.
- "Close Action recreates the age of sail best at [the fleet battle (16 or more ships)] level." It promised a future module called "Battle Fleets" which never appeared.
- 13 of the 25 scenarios can be played with 2 players. But only 6 of 25 scenarios are listed as "best with 2 players" (that's including the 5 single-ship actions, so if you have two players your only "squadron action" choice is scenario 12, "A Formidable Ship", featuring 3 British ships trying to sink the French "Formidable").
- 11 of the 25 scenarios are "best with" more than five players.
Flying Colors was designed in large part to (try to) provide different answers to these design choices:
Quote: Close Action can best be described as an anti-inspiration. [...] It’s simply not possible for two players to complete Trafalgar in an evening (my ultimate goal) using Close Action.
Personal note: I own Close Action. I was annoyed that the lack of PDFs from the publisher meant I ended up getting a game that will see very little play. I've played it exactly once: a two-player single-ship action. It showed promise in that setting but the game is clearly, clearly intended as a multiplayer design. A multiplayer naval wargame that will take a few hours? It is unfortunately simply not the kind of game that I will be able to play more than once every few years.
I think Close Action does what it sets out to do very well. If that's what you are looking for, you won't find a better game.
P.S. Quote: with more modern design philosophy I don't know what you mean by this but Close Action is 15 years old and very much an "old-school" style wargame; I wouldn't say it has a modern design philosophy.
-
Cpl. Fields
South Africa
Hopelessly Surrounded
Isandlwana, Zululand
-
hoostus wrote: As Eric Walters says, Close Action is not really a two-player game, however. It is hard for the casual searcher to tell that since the box doesn't say and the rules aren't online. From my copy of the rules and scenario book:
- "Close Action is a [...] game requiring at least two players; but, unlike many other war games, with CA it's 'the more players the better.'"
This is true, but the same could be said of many games that are either big (Europa, Devil's Cauldron, any OCS game) or highly complex (ASL, Harpoon, Whistling Death).
Close Action is ideal for team play, and larger battles really require several players to be manageable, but I've played smaller actions solo and had a great time. Overall I'd say it's a two-player game with some optional signaling rules and some large scenarios that are best suited for team play.
If your primary interest is a game that models the physical aspects of ship versus ship combat in the Age of Sail, at a greater level of detail than WS%IM, then Close Action is not only the best game available but quite possibly the only one.
-
United States
Defiance
Ohio
-
We took Don't Give Up The Ship, and adapted it to a Hexagon board, using Fighting Wings/Warbirds system of hex/hexside play (didn't have miniatures, but could make counters) and found it worked wonderfully. It's amazing how few tweaks were needed, and no changes or tweaks were required of the nuts and bolts of the system.
Excellent game.
Mogadeet
-
Kurt Weihs
United States
Spanaway
Washington
-
Yeah, I picked up that it's primary value was as a multi-player game. Seems like it would work well as a convention game. Ideally, I am looking for something that would do well as both, but the signalling rules really intrigue me. I really love big games where the GM monitors communications and limits them. I will probably pick up CA for this alone while continuing to look for something that works as a 2 player game.
I used to play the Heart of Oak rules and was hoping they had been been modernized but they seem to be MIA these days.
-
Adam Siler
United States
McKinney
Texas
-
zuludawn wrote: hoostus wrote: As Eric Walters says, Close Action is not really a two-player game, however. It is hard for the casual searcher to tell that since the box doesn't say and the rules aren't online. From my copy of the rules and scenario book:
- "Close Action is a [...] game requiring at least two players; but, unlike many other war games, with CA it's 'the more players the better.'" This is true, but the same could be said of many games that are either big (Europa, Devil's Cauldron, any OCS game) or highly complex (ASL, Harpoon, Whistling Death).
Kind of off topic, but how would you rate these other games (Harpoon and Close Action) to Whistling Death?
I was able to teach myself Whistling Death's rules for the tactical air to air combat alone. Once I figured out the basics for speed and turning rate it went smoothly. I guess that it will just be a matter of learning the rest of the game and doing record keeping to do more, but I didn't make time to. I easily could add this stuff on in the future now that the most difficult part is out of the way.
Is Close Action the same way? That is, can I get the basic Ship vs Ship rules down first and then learn the rest?
-
Justus Pendleton
Australia
Sydney
NSW
-
LgRangeContactPatrol wrote: Is Close Action the same way? That is, can I get the basic Ship vs Ship rules down first and then learn the rest?
The basic ship-vs-ship stuff in Close Action is really straight-forward especially if you ignore all the rules for dealing with collisions or near collisions.
It has a lot of what are essentially scenario-specific rules.
In my one play, I also found that unlike many other games, only one person really needs to know the rules in any depth.
-
Lucas Emery
United States
Charlottesville
Virginia
-
hoostus wrote: LgRangeContactPatrol wrote: Is Close Action the same way? That is, can I get the basic Ship vs Ship rules down first and then learn the rest? The basic ship-vs-ship stuff in Close Action is really straight-forward especially if you ignore all the rules for dealing with collisions or near collisions. It has a lot of what are essentially scenario-specific rules. In my one play, I also found that unlike many other games, only one person really needs to know the rules in any depth.
I don't think Close Action is a hard game, but I found the rulebook to be a bit... bewildering. It's not that any single system or procedure is terribly difficult or complex, it's just that it's hard to get a sense how everything fits together in actual play from the rules as written. It's a game that'd really benefit from someone writing up a tutorial, I think.
All that said, it's a great game and exactly what the OP is looking for.
-
Cpl. Fields
South Africa
Hopelessly Surrounded
Isandlwana, Zululand
-
LgRangeContactPatrol wrote: zuludawn wrote: hoostus wrote: As Eric Walters says, Close Action is not really a two-player game, however. It is hard for the casual searcher to tell that since the box doesn't say and the rules aren't online. From my copy of the rules and scenario book:
- "Close Action is a [...] game requiring at least two players; but, unlike many other war games, with CA it's 'the more players the better.'" This is true, but the same could be said of many games that are either big (Europa, Devil's Cauldron, any OCS game) or highly complex (ASL, Harpoon, Whistling Death). Kind of off topic, but how would you rate these other games (Harpoon and Close Action) to Whistling Death? I was able to teach myself Whistling Death's rules for the tactical air to air combat alone. Once I figured out the basics for speed and turning rate it went smoothly. I guess that it will just be a matter of learning the rest of the game and doing record keeping to do more, but I didn't make time to. I easily could add this stuff on in the future now that the most difficult part is out of the way. Is Close Action the same way? That is, can I get the basic Ship vs Ship rules down first and then learn the rest?
You're a better man than I - I gave up on Whistling Death (or rather its older brother Achtung Spitfire); just too much for my brain to absorb. And Harpoon is just insane. I'd say that Close Action is far easier and far more playable than either, not to mention a lot more fun to play.
-
Mike Szarka
Canada
Oshawa
Ontario
-
Forgive me for asking, but what are the perceived flaws of Wooden Ships? I still like the game.
-
Alan Richbourg
United States
Arlington
Texas
I seez u be makin ur beeg move
-
mcszarka wrote: Forgive me for asking, but what are the perceived flaws of Wooden Ships? I still like the game.
For one thing, the boarding rules are over powered. They can be effectively tamed with just a few tweaks though.
-
Mike Szarka
Canada
Oshawa
Ontario
-
Well I remain interested in answers to this topic because I'm not interested in anything primarily designed for multiplayer. I recently tried Serpents of the Seas and didn't really take to the card mechanism. I think move plotting makes more sense. However I can see where the simplification within the Flying Colors system compared to the micromanagement in Wooden Ships would make fleet actions much more doable. But is there anything significantly better for small scale actions, two-player only?
-
Hugo Olsson
Sweden
Karlstad
-
Sails of Glory looks promising, although of course it hasn't been published yet.
-
Robert Wiersma
United States
Iowa
-
Capitan Miniatures out of Spain has a rules set called Master and Commander, along with everything you need to play (including print and play counters) available for free on their website. I stumbled upon them while looking for a set of sailing ship deckplans (which they also have for free download). I don't know about the quality of the game, but since it is a free download it might be worth a look. http://www.capitan-games.com/master-commander/cap-mg-downola...
-
-
rwiersma wrote: Capitan Miniatures out of Spain has a rules set called Master and Commander, along with everything you need to play (including print and play counters) available for free on their website. I stumbled upon them while looking for a set of sailing ship deckplans (which they also have for free download). I don't know about the quality of the game, but since it is a free download it might be worth a look. http://www.capitan-games.com/master-commander/cap-mg-downola...
There are several sets of rules for M&C, including those for large Ship-of-the-Line fleet actions, as well a set for smaller frigate engagements, and finally, a set called "Close Quarters", which detail boarding actions. I have DL'd all of these rules and the game components, but have yet to find the motivation to print and assemble a working copy of the game.
-
Kurt Weihs
United States
Spanaway
Washington
-
mcszarka wrote: Forgive me for asking, but what are the perceived flaws of Wooden Ships? I still like the game.
I still enjoy the game, however boarding happens far more frequently that it did historically. It's just too effective a tactic to disregard. It's also hard to find an opponent because so many people run from games that require written orders (at least around here anyway).
-
Mike Szarka
Canada
Oshawa
Ontario
-
Sturmkraehe wrote: mcszarka wrote: Forgive me for asking, but what are the perceived flaws of Wooden Ships? I still like the game. I still enjoy the game, however boarding happens far more frequently that it did historically. It's just too effective a tactic to disregard. It's also hard to find an opponent because so many people run from games that require written orders (at least around here anyway).
Written orders just makes so much more sense...you alter your rigging or your helm, and you commit to a course - without knowing what the other guy is doing, at least for a short period of time.
-
Michael Edwards
United States
Everett
Washington
YA RL'YAH
Phnglui mglw nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah nagl fhtagn! With cheeze!
-
It's not tactical, but another vote for 1805: Sea of Glory. If you like the subject matter, it's a great game.
-
|
|
