Some battles are just not Simple

[MengJiao]

   After three boardgaming fiascos in a row (Flying colors -- my mod, Bouvines -WTF and Guadalajara WTF) I've concluded that
some battles are just not so simple.  The biggest thing is some kind of highly variable command control, which is very
hard to simulate in 18th century naval war, and something of a problem in Bouvines and Guadalajara.  I think i have been
spoiled by the Grand tactical system, which works very well even for such odd battles as Bir Hakeim and the 101st Airborne's various
battles during MarketGarden (Where Eagles Dare).  Forcing a player to deal EXPLICITLY with command control while at first glance
it adds complexity actually makes the problem of getting the game to flow (especially solitaire) a lot easier.

  Just my thought: sometimes a little extra complexity can simplify or clarify the game flow.  Does that seem plausible?

[Jack Nastyface]

A few questions and points in no particular order:

What exactly was the problem with Flying Colors?  IIRC, it is one of the few naval games that includes "leaders" in the C-n-C structure?

FWIW...I still run hot-and-cold with explicit command and control concepts.  On the one hand, it does force the players to consider things like unit / formation cohesion, distance, etc and the well written rules will REWARD players who manage that aspect of their forces...on the other hand, there are countless examples of how small (and oftern isoloated) groups of determined men have made an incredible difference in battle, so rigorous c-n-c procedures undermine this very "every man a general" concept that so often plays out on the battlefield.

On the other hand...I've done lots of reading on age of sail warfare, I get the feeling that there is often the opportunity for only three or four "command" signals before battle, and then everything goes to hell.  So a command by the Victory to "pursue and engage enemy van" probably wouldn't have been witnessed by any except the three or four nearest ships...and a signal for "help!" to the French van from the Bucentaure would have either gone unnoticed...or been ignored (just as Nelson is alleged to have ignored Adm Parker's signal at Copenhagen)

With that now written, I am wondering if there might be a way to "home brew" some "activation phase" rules (like in LnL's Flintlock game) and merge that into an age-of-sail setting.

[MengJiao]

A few questions and points in no particular order:

What exactly was the problem with Flying Colors?  IIRC, it is one of the few naval games that includes "leaders" in the C-n-C structure?

FWIW...I still run hot-and-cold with explicit command and control concepts.  On the one hand, it does force the players to consider things like unit / formation cohesion, distance, etc and the well written rules will REWARD players who manage that aspect of their forces...on the other hand, there are countless examples of how small (and oftern isoloated) groups of determined men have made an incredible difference in battle, so rigorous c-n-c procedures undermine this very "every man a general" concept that so often plays out on the battlefield.

On the other hand...I've done lots of reading on age of sail warfare, I get the feeling that there is often the opportunity for only three or four "command" signals before battle, and then everything goes to hell.  So a command by the Victory to "pursue and engage enemy van" probably wouldn't have been witnessed by any except the three or four nearest ships...and a signal for "help!" to the French van from the Bucentaure would have either gone unnoticed...or been ignored (just as Nelson is alleged to have ignored Adm Parker's signal at Copenhagen)

With that now written, I am wondering if there might be a way to "home brew" some "activation phase" rules (like in LnL's Flintlock game) and merge that into an age-of-sail setting.

  The Flying Colors command rules are simple and work very well.  They do have something like alternating activation phases.  But, if you read about what really happened in a sailing battle (as you point out) everything goes to hell.  so i was working on a mod for Flying Colors -- you get to try to move ships any way you want BUT (either due to signaling or other problems) what you want often doesn't happen.  But this wasn't working so well for solitaire games so I'm going to write more explicit signal (or no signal) command rules, ie ships may not even make the attempt to do what you want or they might be doing something else.  I think a limited set of explicit commands (even if not executed very often) might make the mod go to hell in a more satisfying way.

[Jack Nastyface]

Ah...I see.  Well for the British circa Nelson, (No captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of the enemy) your decision tree would be: "engage enemy closer" or perhaps "sail away and face court-martial for lack of courage" like poor old Admiral Byng a generation earlier.

[MengJiao]

Ah...I see.  Well for the British circa Nelson, (No captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of the enemy) your decision tree would be: "engage enemy closer" or perhaps "sail away and face court-martial for lack of courage" like poor old Admiral Byng a generation earlier.

  Very true.  After 1794 things are very different.  The RN had a flexible signal system and a simple tactical doctrine that relied on outfighting the enemy at all levels  -- But in 1794 and earlier things were not so simple.  The RN signal system was not like you would imagine a signal system at all nor was the way it was used or administered.  For example, different Admirals used slightly different signals and very different instructions under even seemingly identical signals.  And the earlier you go the stranger it all gets.  For example, the standard 74-gun ship did not begin to predominate in fleets until after the 1750s.  The standard gear for training guns in use in Nelson's day, did not exist at all until 1779.  The Line of Bearing as a squadron formation is also a late development as are most things that were standard in Nelson's day.  Flying colors has scenarios reaching back to the 1750s, but -- like all sailing games -- all the basic assumptions are derived from modelling fleets around 1800.  So what if you wanted to model actions from the 1740s (about as early as you can go in the Flying Colors framework)?  Or even 1794 (which is more transitional than you would think, I think).  For example, French seamanship, gunnery, signals and tactics in the period of the American Revolution were reasonably effective compared to the period after 1794 and I wonder if the Flying colors system doesn't miss significant elements of what was going on in battles of that period.