Naval Gaming

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Awesome Collection!

Thanks. Partly it's out of interest, and partly because I have a half-baked thought of trying to produce some sort of study on the principles of riverine warfare at some point, which naturally ought to be grounded in the larger principles... of course, at the rate I actually finish projects, that should be ready by about the year 2127...

 

[rebelatsea]

I have a copy of Devil at the Helm on the shelf somewhere. It's not bad for small actions, Huascar vs HMS Shaw works pretty well, but anything bigger would be a problem.

Now I use Iron & Fire version 2 by David Manley and 1/2500 minis from Tumbling Dice.

Thanks a lot, now I know someone who has a copy !. Mine is only a proof much annotated. I never did aquire a production one.

 

[rebelatsea]

Being something of an old grognard... I don't have as many games as I used to, and I have even less time to fiddle with them, alas, but I have a certain fascination for the rules systems if nothing else. In terms of ACW naval games:

• Ironclads and Ironclads Expansion Set (both Excalibre and Yaquinto editions)
• Shot and Shell (3W), a sort of Ironclads-related game-- not quite an expansion, but fairly compatible
• Ironclads and Aether Flyers (from the Space: 1889 roleplaying game)
• Blockade Runner
• Iron & Oak
• Rebel Raiders on the High Seas
• Smoke on the Water rules
• Iron & Steam rules
• "Victory on the Rivers," a Victory at Sea rules variant for ACW
• and from a slightly older era, the good old classic Wooden Ships & Iron Men

and I *think* I have Hammerin' Iron around here somewhere, though I can't put a finger on it at the moment.

On the computer, I have Ironclads: American Civil War, which I really don't care much for, and Ironclads: High Seas, which is a little better but still not all that engrossing to me.

One of these days when I have loads of time again...

Mark , here is my collection of rules covering our period:

Late Nineteenth Century -Naval Wargame Rules for the 1875 period, both original and modified by me
Steam & Black Powder
Jackson Gamers Ironclad Gunboat Rules
Naval Wargame Rules for The Ironclad Era - NWS(UK)
Iron & Fire
Draft copy of The Devil at the Helm - much scribbled on
A Hotter Fire
Smoke on the Water
Ironclad and American Civil War Naval Wargame Rules -NWS (UK)
Ironclads - the board game
Two quick play downloads off the internet:
ACW Naval Rules
Portable Naval Wargame 1860 -1870.

Plus a very large collection of models in 1/3000, `/1200 and 1/600 scales. My son says I ought to buy the house next door to display them all !

 

[Yankeedave]

Thanks. Partly it's out of interest, and partly because I have a half-baked thought of trying to produce some sort of study on the principles of riverine warfare at some point, which naturally ought to be grounded in the larger principles... of course, at the rate I actually finish projects, that should be ready by about the year 2127...

Would it be published under your cwt screen name?

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Jackson Gamers Ironclad Gunboat Rules

Hm. Is that Steve Jackson Games? (Car Wars, GURPS, etc.?)

A Hotter Fire

Oh-- I think I have that one around somewhere, too!

 

[rebelatsea]

Hm. Is that Steve Jackson Games? (Car Wars, GURPS, etc.?)

No idea Mark , It was sent me by a friend and former naval wargaming colleague who lives in Minneapolis.

Oh-- I think I have that one around somewhere, too!

 

[Yankeedave]

Would it be published under your cwt screen name?

Because i'll remember your name longer than cwt and wanted to read the thing ya know run a yearly search till it is. Bwe

 

[HarrisLightCoF]

@Mark F. Jenkins and @rebelatsea Any scenario recommendations for Smoke On the Water? I played a few times years ago, loved it, although playing once every other year always made the learning curve slow (both in calculating all the shots, and trying to steer clear of sandbanks!)

 

[AndyHall]

A great site that provides rules for Naval Wargames, the various rules are in pdf and they cover most periods of naval history. http://www.navalwargamessociety.org/rulesonline.html

Thanks very much for this -- I see that Smoke on the Water, a popular ruleset for the subject, is available for free download:

http://www.rapiermedia.net/acwnaval/sotw2/Default.html

This is designed for 1:600 or 1:1200 miniatures, but can be readily adapted to other scales.

 

[rebelatsea]

@Mark F. Jenkins and @rebelatsea Any scenario recommendations for Smoke On the Water? I played a few times years ago, loved it, although playing once every other year always made the learning curve slow (both in calculating all the shots, and trying to steer clear of sandbanks!)

The obvious one is probably Memphis, or if that's a bit too big, how about Arkansas and the US gunboats in the Yazoo?
For a bit of variety you could put alter the time frame to allow Brown to have one or more of the ships converting /building at Yazoo City, and let the Union have more gunboats

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

The obvious one is probably Memphis, or if that's a bit too big, how about Arkansas and the US gunboats in the Yazoo?
For a bit of variety you could put alter the time frame to allow Brown to have one or more of the ships converting /building at Yazoo City, and let the Union have more gunboats

I remember playing that out in Ironclads to see if Walke could get behind Arkansas and follow her down instead of preceding her. The Carondelet ended up at the bottom of the river. While that's obviously not proof that Walke's decision to turn downstream was the correct one, it points out that his concern could certainly have been valid.

 

[AndyHall]

While that's obviously not proof that Walke's decision to turn downstream was the correct one, it points out that his concern could certainly have been valid.

This is a good example of how I think gaming is useful to those studying historical subjects -- while it ultimately doesn't prove a point, it does help illustrate and explain why people did (or didn't) do X, and helps tease out factors that were well understood at the time, but have faded from the historical record.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Yup. As another personal example (one I'm sure I've mentioned elsewhere), one of my favorite gaming memories was of helping playtest a set of minatures rules by replaying Trent's Reach, where we obtained an ahistorical result when I got Richmond and Fredericksburg past the Onondaga and (ahistorical) Atlanta and theoretically made a mess at City Point VA. Basically, Virginia II sacrificed herself to neutralize Onondaga and Atlanta's player didn't react quickly enough, expecting that I'd stop to engage rather than streak by with a token exchange of broadsides. I had spotted a gap in the obstructions that I knew had water enough to float the R. and F., though not the V-II. (The victory conditions were written so that an exit of Confederate forces off the downstream edge resulted in a Confederate win, and I concentrated on that.)

In real life, there's no way the commanders could have known for sure that there was water enough at that spot. But I think it does illustrate the danger the Southern ironclads could have posed if they were commanded a bit more recklessly (though I'm pretty certain it would have been a one-way trip for them).

(ETA: I also had the advantage of being able to precisely coordinate two ships-- the play was two on two, so Onondaga was commanded by Union Player 1, Atlanta by Union Player 2, Virginia II by Confederate Player 1, and Richmond and Fredericksburg by Confederate Player 2. I think a more representative result could have occurred if we'd had an additional Confederate player and coordination/communication between players on a side were limited to short written messages... but of course that's what playtesting is for.)

 

[Yankeedave]

Wargaming is a great teaching tool whether from a hexgrid or sand box. It's why so much time is spent at the range or in the field.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

The good wargames do force you to look at the historical situation as it was presented to the commander at the time and illustrate how conditions constrained and channeled the decision process. That's also why I really like Warren Grabau's Ninety-Eight Days about the Vicksburg campaign, which successively presents the situations as the commanders on the spot would have known them. While it's impossible to completely remove hindsight (unless for some reason one actually hasn't learned how an action turned out), it at least helps explain why things went the way they did.

 

[rebelatsea]

Yup. As another personal example (one I'm sure I've mentioned elsewhere), one of my favorite gaming memories was of helping playtest a set of minatures rules by replaying Trent's Reach, where we obtained an ahistorical result when I got Richmond and Fredericksburg past the Onondaga and (ahistorical) Atlanta and theoretically made a mess at City Point VA. Basically, Virginia II sacrificed herself to neutralize Onondaga and Atlanta's player didn't react quickly enough, expecting that I'd stop to engage rather than streak by with a token exchange of broadsides. I had spotted a gap in the obstructions that I knew had water enough to float the R. and F., though not the V-II. (The victory conditions were written so that an exit of Confederate forces off the downstream edge resulted in a Confederate win, and I concentrated on that.)

In real life, there's no way the commanders could have known for sure that there was water enough at that spot. But I think it does illustrate the danger the Southern ironclads could have posed if they were commanded a bit more recklessly (though I'm pretty certain it would have been a one-way trip for them).

(ETA: I also had the advantage of being able to precisely coordinate two ships-- the play was two on two, so Onondaga was commanded by Union Player 1, Atlanta by Union Player 2, Virginia II by Confederate Player 1, and Richmond and Fredericksburg by Confederate Player 2. I think a more representative result could have occurred if we'd had an additional Confederate player and coordination/communication between players on a side were limited to short written messages... but of course that's what playtesting is for.)

That was an often played scenario when I was playing. If you are Raphael Semmes, the CSN squadron, which should include spar boats, will get through. On one occasion I remember the Onondaga was pushed aground and captured after having been hit by a spar TB. Atlanta usually being no match for her CSN counterparts.

 

[AndyHall]

I remember the Onondaga was pushed aground and captured after having been hit by a spar TB.

I'd love to see that. Probably Ironclads has an advanced rule where the boarding party is pounding on the locked deck hatch, shouting "open up down there! Open up!" (roll 2D6 and consult Table 47.3).

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

That was an often played scenario when I was playing. If you are Raphael Semmes, the CSN squadron, which should include spar boats, will get through. On one occasion I remember the Onondaga was pushed aground and captured after having been hit by a spar TB. Atlanta usually being no match for her CSN counterparts.

That was pretty much what happened in ours, also; V-II disabled Onondaga with a spar torpedo but was herself disabled by Onondaga. I did not deploy/lower my spar torpedo booms on Richmond or Fredericksburg, as (IIRC) there was a speed penalty with them down, and my intent was to go pell-mell past Atlanta (which was pointing upstream and I figured would take too long to come about to catch me, which indeed turned out to be the case). Basically, I was doing a quarterback blitz past the cornerback/Atlanta.

 

[rebelatsea]

That was pretty much what happened in ours, also; V-II disabled Onondaga with a spar torpedo but was herself disabled by Onondaga. I did not deploy/lower my spar torpedo booms on Richmond or Fredericksburg, as (IIRC) there was a speed penalty with them down, and my intent was to go pell-mell past Atlanta (which was pointing upstream and I figured would take too long to come about to catch me, which indeed turned out to be the case). Basically, I was doing a quarterback blitz past the cornerback/Atlanta.

We had a guy called Barry Chalkley who was an ACW re -enactor as well as naval wargamer. Barry invented an add set of rules based on the proposed method of taking Monitor, but in this case chucking grenades down the funnel etc was unnecessary, the umpire ruled that Onondaga's crew would have opened up to get away from the incoming water.

 

[rebelatsea]

I have to say that I think Atlanta was a pretty useless vessel, much as I admire the ship she was loosely based on.