Useful Data: http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1371/mustangs . Getting _The General_ issue 30/5 is almost a must -- it lists pretty-much-every fighter to appear in WW2 and related conflicts.Originally Posted by Jager
Useful Data: http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1371/mustangs . Getting _The General_ issue 30/5 is almost a must -- it lists pretty-much-every fighter to appear in WW2 and related conflicts.
I will buy starter set , because I think I have found some one to play with
Have any of you that said no, changed their mind??
I'm a maybe. I find the era interesting and the game looks well done. All my funds are focused on the aircraft though. A friend of mine said he'd pick it up at some point so I'll give it a shot then and see how it goes. Previously I thought I'd answer as a no.
I haven't.
I'm far too heavily involved with WGF, and simply don't have the time or money to start a new game project.
Shame really - the models look cool.
I was going to but like Tim do not have the money and no one to play the game with, and at my age there come a time when you start thinking about how many different games do I need.
Oh my goodness, I saw Zvezda's ships for their Armada Invincible at Origins, and they are awesome. Not sure if I'm going to go with either game at the moment, but if I were going to choose a game based on the models vs the cost of the models, I'd have to give Zvezda a serious look.
They are lovely (and in the UK are the same or cheaper than SGN models, and several times the size) but of course that has to be set against the need to build them. I have a couple, haven't had time to assemble them yet. Assembly looks pretty simple, but time will tell. And of course any need to construct models is a closed gate to some.
I was on the fence but didn't go for it in the end, rather buy 'planes !
I was on the fence but didn't go for it in the end, rather buy 'planes !
Same here, the game is inoffensive enough but seems to lack a hook (no pun intended!)
I did thinkof starting to collect some ships but I already had a collection of Navwar models from 20 odd yrs ago and action under sail rules which are good fun so like Dave I will be spending my centimes on planes:
I'm learning to fly, but I ain't got wings
Coming down is the hardest thing
After playing with them in November at BGGCON 2013, I ended up buying the starter kit, two additional frigates, a mat, the coastal shores & batteries.
The two additional frigates were added since the game was a bit lopsided with just two frigates and two ships-of-line (man-of-wars) in the starter kit. The frigates against frigates play nicely, and even two frigates against one ships-of-line plays nice. But two frigates and two ships-of-line not necessarily.
If I turned up at the club and could get game, I'd be up for it, the models look beautiful. But fleshing out my collection with at least 1 model of every WWI plane, has to take priority.
I actually have more ships for SoG than I do planes for WoG (either). I picked it up to play with my dad and there are a couple of others in the area who also play as well.
Played twice and then its collecting dust. To be honest I've probably only played WoG two or three times in the same period, other games have taken a slice of my gaming time, but while I would be happy to play another game of WoG, Sog wouldn't be my first choice on a free night.
Quite strange, as I think that actually the game system is quite good - on reflection I think it does 1 ship per player really well.
With hindsight they should have done Ironclads, started at ACW Riverine and worked out, but that's hindsight for you
I bought it, played with a friend's copies, found the wind mechanics to be a pain, though very accurate...., consequently never bothered to open any of my stuff, found out my wife and I are expecting twins, and subsequently sold it, since I won't play it again anytime soon and can use those founds to buy WWII Heavies in a couple months..
Last edited by P-51D; 09-06-2014 at 11:20.
I have to admit that I played it once with Christophe, then got my own set. I had one game and it is now languishing on the shelf. However, this is partly to do with my starting WWII and Doncaster being in the offing.
I think that once they are settled in and the long winter nights are upon us once more, I will give it another outing or two, even though it does not have the same pull as Wings.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
I predict _SoG_ will be deader than Elvis in five years; it's far too complicated and clumsy. Ares would be better off focusing on the minis end, and letting people use a system which is simpler and more elegant.
"No, Elvis is NOT dead... he just went home."
I think "dead" is the wrong way to think about it - they'll live as long as they get played, but the limited availability of the models may mean the scope stays restricted. If they bit the bullet and followed up with an American Civil War version I suspect it would sell by the truckload in the US, which is enough I suppose. ACW is a good target, not too many essential ships, smallish "fleets", several ships of similar classes on both sides, no complications with wind and appealing to the US market.
As long as thy produced a Warrior or Gloire to show just how far ahead of the US Europe was at the time I wouldnt mind :P
Oh, the minis might see gaming tables for some time; but the rules will wind up a little-remembered footnote in AoS-gaming history, cited mainly in "How To Not Do It" articles.
Same problem -- the rules, particularly the combat rules, are too clumsy to be viable. A line of minis might bring in needed profit, but there are *far* superior ACW and similar period games out there (_Ironclads and Ether Flyers_, if one is looking for simplicity).
Sure -- can't wait to see it get fuzzy-wuzzied by half-a-dozen US steam frigates the same way any other solitary ironclad of the period was. ;)
I wonder which bits they got wrong? the chits?
Bloody Hell Chris - something we agree on!
Thank God, back to normality - you do realise the Royal Navy was not only a generation ahead with Ironclad designs but also had a fairly well developed steam Frigate \ Cruiser strength? Mersey etc may have been a bit too big but still pretty much trumps anything in the US, and getting six US Steam Frigates in one place would be something of a challenge. I'm not even sure those Steam Frigates could penetrate Warrior at combat ranges either, whereas the six would be five would be four after each broadside....Sure -- can't wait to see it get fuzzy-wuzzied by half-a-dozen US steam frigates the same way any other solitary ironclad of the period was.
So lets look at them - Merrimacs - 8-9 kts under steam tops = dogmeat to a 14 kt Warrior
Niagras - much better for speed at 11 kts (still not as fast as the Black Snakes) but so top heavy they couldnt use their guns at sea! Had to dismount their upper deck guns just to be seaworthy. Not sure how to manage that with a set of wargames rules - maybe every time you fire a broadside roll a D6 and on a 1 it sinks?
Give it up Chris. I'm prepared to accept US supremacy at sea from 1930, but in the second half of the 19th C you sailed around on Her Majesty's pond, and the British Empire knew the value of naval supremacy to a trading nation AND had the technological and capacity to build better and more than anyone else, pretty much exactly the case of the US in the 1940s tbh.
Last edited by PilGrim; 09-08-2014 at 00:37.
I must agree that it is not a rule set I will buy. Signal Close Action by Rod Langton can be as complicated or as simple as you wish and all the ships move/fire/react off 1 dice roll per fleet not per ship. What they can do depends on class of ship (not size or guns) and class of crew. Plus I already have lots of Hallmark ships for them too.
I think the ACW would have been a better choice or early ironclads.
See you on the Dark Side......
I still have not played another game. It is just not for me.
Agreed . There is plenty of scope for great actions in the ACw just look at Yaquintos Ironclads board game of the 1970s , An absolute classic in gameplay. Or is ACW ironclads just to much of a niche market,
I'm learning to fly, but I ain't got wings
Coming down is the hardest thing
I was very reluctant to enter the SoG, but once I did, the game is growing strongly on my WoG group. I own two Starter Sets and my neighbor owns one and plays the game extensively with his sons. The pro is that there are 3 levels of rules sets - we play (casually) the basic one, having a great deal of fun.
"We do not stop playing when we get old, but we get old when we stop playing."
The chits are a large part of it -- for WW1, with *one* gun type, it works; for WW2, with various permutations of a few gun types, it works less well; for the near-infinite variety of _SoG_ it works not-at-all.
And you realize the RN had to be that big because it also had to cover 40% of the Earth's surface? It isn't a question of how many ships Britain had -- it was a question of how man it could bring to bear on the US without getting backstabbed by the rest of the world. (Remember what the French were up to at the time -- hint: "Cinco de Mayo". Then there's Russia, which actually sent ships to the US during the ACW. This is why Britain didn't get more involved in the ACW; there was every chance it would have brought on another European war, which after the MCF in the Crimea, Britain was in no condition to fight.)
Top speed is wholly irrelevant -- any battle is going to be in or near a fixed point, not on open water. Look at the historical battles; from Cherbourg to Galveston, every one fought in or near a port. The question them becomes: How well does _Warrior_ turn? (And don't give me any of this rubbish about "it can sit at range and pick off its foes" -- long-range hit percentages were as near zero as makes no difference; fights in the period were about as close as their predecessors in AoS.)
When I've had occasion to play out such battles (other folks' scenarios, mind -- not just mine), the post-battle drawing of _Warrior_ (and _Black Prince_, if he brought it) looks a lot like the US Navy's drawing of the Battle of Mobile Bay (which I cannot find an online example of) -- one showing where _Tennessee_ was rammed multiple times by 3-4 different ships, after having its unarmored parts shot off or wrecked (particularly the steering gear, as referenced here: http://books.google.com/books?id=RO7...20belt&f=false ). Ironclads are like the giant character in _The Rocketeer_: "You may be tough, but you ain't bulletproof".
The Age Of Sail is a great historical period but deep in my heart I wish that Ares would expand the system (or create a new game) to cover WW1 and WW2.
Imagine how great it would be if the WW1/WW2 naval games had a tie-in with WGF/WGS. I bet that might interest some dedicated fliers to branch into the navy side too.
I can't see Ares extending their naval presence out of AoS for a very long time, if ever. The primary attraction of SGN (as it is with WGF) is prepaints. For many people assembling and building the models is a pain. I tried three times in the past to get into WW1 air wargaming and the nause of building the aircraft was the prime reason those attempts failed. Prepaints broke the barrier. Exactly the same for, I believe, many SGN players. Modelling and painting the ships is abig blocker for them so the prepaints allow a quick and simple route in.
The same "need for speed" diminishes when you move away from sails. With the exception of fully rigged ships (which aren't the primary interest anyway to the vast majority of players) ACW ships are simple to assemble (if they need it at all) and simple to paint. Same for WW1, WW2. The "dread" factor on the modelling side just isn't there like it is for "ships with sticks". And there are hordes of existing ranges and very effective rules of all levels of complexity available. It would, I think, be a very difficult market for Ares to make an impact on, hence I don't think we'll be seeing it.
Most AoS rules out there boil down a particular ship's firepower to a single factor, number or rating. So a chit system can work OK. from my own personal perspective the issue is with the variability in the chit values (I've tried it removing every chit above 3, works OK in purging outlier effects that seem rather unrealistic), and the range of ship stat values which is unfortunately quite compressed
The Russian question was actually pretty irrelevant, they were simply mischief making. The Russians had no teeth in the 1960s having had them nicely extracted in the Baltic ten years before (the so called "Crimean" war was won through the application of French and British naval power in the Baltic, and the threat of (particularly the British) naval power after that stalled many Russian ambitions - as Prof Lambert noted, if it looked like the Russians were getting uppity all it took was an announcement that the "Particular Service Squadron" was forming up for exercises in the North Sea for that uppitiness to diminish)
British involvement in the civil war was pretty unlikely anyway, nothing to gain, trade would be interrupted, very little point unless the US concocted an issue. And not too much worry of the French getting involved as opponents (more likely as allies, by design or convenience)
re Chris' experiences with the Black Snakes of the channel and his US steam frigates - your scenarios must have been particularly "interesting" to allow ships with superior speed, armament, armour and at least comparable manoeuvrability to get swarmed, or perhaps players more used to dogfighting games than naval encounters. Speed and manoeuverability actually was VERY important because unless an opponent was seeking to force an entry to a specific location battles were fought in open water. So I could see Warrior and Black Prince being constrained if they were in a scenario trying to force some harbour entrance (but then again so would any opposing deep draught ships, and of course in that scenario the British ships would most likely not be alone), but then again I don't think such a scenario would be particularly realistic for various reasons.
Bingo. I have issues with hand-eye coordination and motor skills that mean if I were to assemble and paint my own minis they'd look like they were made by a 4 year-old; the reason I gave WGF a shot is because the models are ready to go out of the box and the startup costs are very reasonable compared to a certain sci-fi minis game of a similar type.
I'd love to give SGN a try, personally, but it's a game that is going to need a local community to really work. With WGF I can set up a table for a dogfight between me and someone completely new to the game, make the distance between the two combatants extra-long, and by the time the two planes are in shooting range of each other they'll have grasped the basic rules enough to have an enjoyable game. That's really important to me as someone who doesn't have a local club and gets games by convincing friends or my brother to have a go, and I think SGN might be a little too much to take on in that way.
As I said: The French had their own designs -- specifically: Trying to set up an imperial state in Mexico (and succeeding only in annoying everyone to where they would actually work together for a change).
And again: The British involvement depends entirely on who's PM -- Palmerston in charge, no way are the British getting involved; Gladstone....
You nailed it -- look at the record of sea battles in the ACW; how many were fought in open ocean, away from ports and shores?
Zero. Not one. Every battle was fought in or near a coastline or port, because that was the important part of the ACW naval war: Can the US maintain the blockade, or can the Rebels break it? To which end, if the British get involved, their strategy must necessarily follow one of two paths:
1) Break the blockade of the South by opening Southern ports, or;
2) Inflict a counterblockade on the North by closing down Northern ports.
In either case, any naval battle will be occurring in or near a coastline or port -- and in reality, pretty-much every battle was held *in* a bay or other restricted-access waterway (New Orleans; Mobile; Charleston; Hampton Roads; Wilmington; Outer Banks). Try doing 14 kts. in there, and say hello to Mr. Sandbank. (That's assuming the ironclad's 26' draft allows it to get anywhere near the battlefield....)
As to the ships: I cannot understand why people always assume "monitor spam" (and Harrison's trilogy was *EMBARRASSING* on that front alone). Monitors had their charms, this is true; but they were slow, and took some time to produce. No, the "spam" takes on a wholly-different form -- specifically, the "90-day gunboat", a unit capable of 12 kts. under steam (I don't know if they could have done better), carrying enough firepower to penetrate even ironclads (main gun typically an 11" SB), and capable of being churned out in huge numbers over short spans of time (in the case of USS _Unadilla_, laid down 8/3/'61, launched 8/17/'61, and commissioned 9/30/'61 -- 58 days); and more generally the s***load of various steam-powered units being created, many of which were designed for the sort of war being fought.
There will be losses amongst the Federal forces (in most of its naval battles, the Feds lost at least one ship; but they were replacing them faster); that's to be expected, and accounted for in the sheer volume of units being produced. Coupled to the knowledge "the British ironclad is faster", the Feds can set up a battle where that advantage is neutralized, and take the beast down with sheer volume. (In one case, high speed proved a *disadvantage*; the ironclad would go flying past, and get 2-3 gunboats stuffing AP up its aft, until finally its steering gear was destroyed, and it lawn-darted onto a beach.)
Good to see you boys playing nicer together...
I recall we played out an intervention ACW naval campaign at the NWS some years ago. We didn’t use much in the way of large seagoing ironclads as the primary organiser wanted to play using his 1/600 collection so we mainly used smaller types along the lines of Scorpion and Wyvern, which were quite capable of going inshore and giving the wooden stuff a good kicking. On the few occasions where we ran games with larger ships in 1/1200 again they gave avery good account of themselves, generally because the players were experienced in the rules and in the strengths and weaknesses of their ships – so no flying around at high speed, use the ship as intended, and use the ship within the “system” that is the squadron or the fleet. I guess many wargamers who don’t want to get too deeply into a period miss out on this aspect and (as an aside) they often see poor design where actually what they are observing is an element of a system in isolation. But that’s another story.
Of course there’s a difference between “being fought close to land” and “being fought in sea areas where the proximity of land constrains the action”. Many actions were of the former type, not all were of the latter. Blockading Northern ports wouldn’t automatically require operations in confined waters (you’d see squadrons offshore, inshore work done by gunboats), and as in 1812 the strength of the USN would have to be spread thinly (so no concentration of firepower, an aspect rather easier for the blockader to manage), or concentrated to keep a select number of ports open (in which case it becomes a rather easier overall target to manage). Keeping Confederate ports open may well lead to actions inshore but if so it’s a case of “sauce for the goose”. Its worth looking at the effectiveness of a single ironclad against US steam frigates in confined waters in 1862. as I recall history tells us the wooden ships didn’t come out of that too well. Now consider a similar situation with an opponent that is more heavily armoured, more manoevrable and more heavily armed.
The point about the 90 day gunboats is a good one – because it is exactly the lesson learnt by the RN in the 1850s in the Baltic (“Crimean War” my botty!) 1854 – the relative ineffectiveness of large warships for inshore operations learned and understood, 1855 - a new fleet of gunboats optimised for inshore work in service (very similar to the 90 day boats), 1856 – plans for an improved inshore squadron (shelved as the war ended). That experience was still fresh in the 1860s and so in some alt-ACW history where there is an RN/USN confrontation the RN is likely to be fielding large numbers of gunboats, mortar and rocket craft - and turret ships of its own (don’t forget that the first turret warship wasn’t American, and the British turret design – due mainly, as was pointed out to me by John Beeler on a visit to Devonport some years ago, to taking note of the design of Brunel’s railway turntables which required smooth, efficient operation, was rather more effective and watertight than Ericcson’s initial designs).
In terms of the viability of an ironclad variant of SGN I’d think it’s a non-starter. One of the attractions for Ares is that they can sell lots of the same ship to punters. With a few exceptions there are very few sizeable classes of ship – 90 day gunboats (loads), Cairos (7) and the various monitors for example. There will, I expect, be the odd person or few that would have every Canonicus or Passaic ever built (I know a guy who has every single WW2 Fletcher class DD built in his collection, sometimes he even gets them out of the box for a review, has probably played with about 5% of them). But the really interesting ships are all one-offs or classes of two or maybe 3. Here's a photo of my 1/600 collection (1/1200 is similar with added European types, 1/2400 collection is mainly Italian, Austrian and Danish). There's not too many duplicates in there
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Mc4WZ7e-tf...600/Image1.jpg
So the saleable scope of each model is drastically reduced. It would be nice to think that they could do it at some point, I’m sure they’d look great, but I really do think its unlikely (plus I don’t think the style of the rules suits itself to the subject and there are already some cracking sets out there that range from fast play and fun through to detailed and complex).
But
Galleys, ancient and Renaissance would work though. Large fleets of nominally identical or very similar ship types, scope for customisation through paint schemes and, in some cases, adding catapults, castles and other odds and sods. The card movement system would work well in removing the close quarter paralysis that afflicts many sets of galley rules (the answer to that in most, but not all cases is written orders, which the card system effectively is) Would probably work best as a very simple set of rules along the lines of WGF. I did have some thoughts along these lines a year or two ago, must see if I can find the notes……
I recall we played out an intervention ACW naval campaign at the NWS some years ago. We didnt use much in the way of large seagoing ironclads as the primary organiser wanted to play using his 1/600 collection so we mainly used smaller types along the lines of Scorpion and Wyvern, which were quite capable of going inshore and giving the wooden stuff a good kicking. On the few occasions where we ran games with larger ships in 1/1200 again they gave avery good account of themselves, generally because the players were experienced in the rules and in the strengths and weaknesses of their ships so no flying around at high speed, use the ship as intended, and use the ship within the system that is the squadron or the fleet. I guess many wargamers who dont want to get too deeply into a period miss out on this aspect and (as an aside) they often see poor design where actually what they are observing is an element of a system in isolation. But thats another story.
Of course theres a difference between being fought close to land and being fought in sea areas where the proximity of land constrains the action. Many actions were of the former type, not all were of the latter. Blockading Northern ports wouldnt automatically require operations in confined waters (youd see squadrons offshore, inshore work done by gunboats), and as in 1812 the strength of the USN would have to be spread thinly (so no concentration of firepower, an aspect rather easier for the blockader to manage), or concentrated to keep a select number of ports open (in which case it becomes a rather easier overall target to manage). Keeping Confederate ports open may well lead to actions inshore but if so its a case of sauce for the goose. Its worth looking at the effectiveness of a single ironclad against US steam frigates in confined waters in 1862. as I recall history tells us the wooden ships didnt come out of that too well. Now consider a similar situation with an opponent that is more heavily armoured, more manoevrable and more heavily armed.
The point about the 90 day gunboats is a good one because it is exactly the lesson learnt by the RN in the 1850s in the Baltic (Crimean War my botty!) 1854 the relative ineffectiveness of large warships for inshore operations learned and understood, 1855 - a new fleet of gunboats optimised for inshore work in service (very similar to the 90 day boats), 1856 plans for an improved inshore squadron (shelved as the war ended). That experience was still fresh in the 1860s and so in some alt-ACW history where there is an RN/USN confrontation the RN is likely to be fielding large numbers of gunboats, mortar and rocket craft - and turret ships of its own (dont forget that the first turret warship wasnt American, and the British turret design due mainly, as was pointed out to me by John Beeler on a visit to Devonport some years ago, to taking note of the design of Brunels railway turntables which required smooth, efficient operation, was rather more effective and watertight than Ericcsons initial designs).
In terms of the viability of an ironclad variant of SGN Id think its a non-starter. One of the attractions for Ares is that they can sell lots of the same ship to punters. With a few exceptions there are very few sizeable classes of ship 90 day gunboats (loads), Cairos (7) and the various monitors for example. There will, I expect, be the odd person or few that would have every Canonicus or Passaic ever built (I know a guy who has every single WW2 Fletcher class DD built in his collection, sometimes he even gets them out of the box for a review, has probably played with about 5% of them). But the really interesting ships are all one-offs or classes of two or maybe 3. Here's a photo of my 1/600 collection (1/1200 is similar with added European types, 1/2400 collection is mainly Italian, Austrian and Danish). There's not too many duplicates in there
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Mc4WZ7e-tf...600/Image1.jpg
So the saleable scope of each model is drastically reduced. It would be nice to think that they could do it at some point, Im sure theyd look great, but I really do think its unlikely (plus I dont think the style of the rules suits itself to the subject and there are already some cracking sets out there that range from fast play and fun through to detailed and complex).
But
Galleys, ancient and Renaissance would work though. Large fleets of nominally identical or very similar ship types, scope for customisation through paint schemes and, in some cases, adding catapults, castles and other odds and sods. The card movement system would work well in removing the close quarter paralysis that afflicts many sets of galley rules (the answer to that in most, but not all cases is written orders, which the card system effectively is) Would probably work best as a very simple set of rules along the lines of WGF. I did have some thoughts along these lines a year or two ago, must see if I can find the notes
Don't know what you mean, we always doGood to see you boys playing nicer together...
That assumes the Feds try to "defend everything"; if British ships are parked off Boston and NYC, it would be... questionable... to keep deep-water ships further south. I could see some sort of "grand crumblage" occurring off one of the major ports, North or South; however, playing it out took most of two *days* -- yes, we did try a full-scale fleet action off Boston; it took a *long* time. (Notice I specify "deep-water"; instead of trying to stuff _Hartford_ and the other screw and side-wheel sloops up the Mississippi, they get brought back North, and the riverine war is left to those units which were best-designed to deal with it -- the Eads ironclads, the "timberclads", Ellet's ram fleet, and I could even see the Feds building "cottonclads" as the Rebs did. The riverine assault on the western Confederacy might be slowed, but it would not be stopped. Similar ships could be built, if needed, for Great Lakes ops.)
And if the inshore work is being done by gunboats, that neutralizes any advantage to be gained from Britain having ironclads -- they didn't have any more armored gunboats than the US did, and the US was churning out ships like hotcakes (and the monitors were designed for inshore ops). At this point, we're down to crews -- which side has the, to use the WWE phrase, "testicular fortitude" to get in there and win the fight; and since this is an existential fight for the US, but not for the British.... ("Existential" in the literal sense -- a fight to continue existing; read Tom Kratman's works for details.)
I have looked at the effectiveness of that one Rebel ironclad in confined waters in 1862 -- it scored some hits, but failed to sink (or even disable) a single enemy unit. Its "success" at the Battle of the Head of Passes was solely the result of the cowardice and incompetence of "peacetime officers". More damage was done to the Union forces (including one ship sunk) by wooden rams than the ironclad ever managed.
The "More heavily-armored, more maneuverable, and more heavily-armed" ship will also be drawing much more water, if it can even get into the river or harbor, it will be a sitting duck for smaller units (and god help it if it runs across spar-torpedo ships -- a battle set up inside Charleston saw _Black Prince_ eat *four* spar-torps in close succession; it ended up as a reef in Charleston Harbor).
Because all anyone remembers is: It took the combined forces of Britain, France, and Turkey most of a year to knock over one city (including one *extremely* embarrassing cavalry charge...) -- and the war ended because the dumbass on the Russian throne died, and some sanity was injected into the macho jock-posturing which passed for European politics at the time (realize the "cause" of the war had been rectified before the first shots were fired -- Russia had pulled out of the Danubian region).
Like I said: I've never quite understood why so many assume "monitor spam"; I guess it's the (mistaken) notion "ironclads are invulnerable". Uh-huh -- tell that to Franklin Buchanan, who had *two* ironclads shot out from under him, and for the same reasons (shooting off stuff like the smokestacks, which were needed to keep the engines running properly, or the steering chains, or...). The question is: Did Britain have the means to match the Federal production -- and I don't mean just sheer volume of materials; again, this is not an existential conflict for Britain, so are they really going to try that hard? Keep in mind: Like any nation, Britain had factions -- some who favored involvement, others who didn't. Like with the Crimean War: When the body-count starts stacking up, pointed questions will be asked in the Houses -- as the song lyric says, "What the hell we fighting for?/ Just surrender and it won't hurt at all...." That was part of the "scoring" we used back when we were trying this -- it wasn't just "who held the field after", it was "how much did it cost". Look up "New York Draft Riots 1863", and realize that followed a Union *Victory*.
I've been having this argument elsewhere -- the fact is: At 1/1000, or 1/1200 scale, no one is going to notice a ship being 0.09" longer than another; they're more likely to notice stuff like "the aft-most gunports on the 1st and 3rd decks should overlap the stern-gallery windows".
Plus: Most of these ships don't have pictures extant -- so who's going to know the difference if they're all based on the same mold? >:)
Congress and Cumberland weren't destroyed then?
The capacity was certainly there, look at the RN's extant building programme anyway. As its an alt-scenario anyway the question as to whether there is a will to expand production to provide an enhanced inshore fleet is one that can be answered "yes", "no" or any point in between, according to personal taste and exactly what kind of scenario you are seeking to put together.
Its not as if thats ever happened beforerealize the "cause" of the war had been rectified before the first shots were fired
When did anyone suggest that? As I recall this all kicked off because someone brought up "fuzzy wuzzy" wooden steam frigates in some hypothetical scenario where there was only one British ironcladAnd if the inshore work is being done by gunboats, that neutralizes any advantage to be gained from Britain having ironclads
I have to ask: Do you not have access to the full post-editor?
Not the one I was thinking of -- and _Congress_ was destroyed after surrendering, anyway. (Plus, _Cumberland_ very nearly took _Virginia_ with it.)
Oh, and _Virginia_ had not escaped unscathed -- the smokestack was shot full of holes, reducing its speed even further (it was barely able to move counter-current, if at all); two of its guns had been disabled by enemy fire; and some of the armor was starting to shingle off.
All of which is beside the point: The max depth of Hampton Roads is 24 feet -- the _Warrior_ class drew 26 feet....
Britain did have a large shipbuilding capacity; I just wonder if they could have managed to churn out gunboats in 90 days, because I cannot think of anything besides the Sten sub-machinegun which Britain has ever been able to design and produce quickly (hence the recurring need to fall back on other producers).
This is why people are disturbed my preference for "the politics of the stiletto" -- why kill 500,000 more-or-less-innocent schlubs when killing the one idiot who's stirring the pot can end the problem much faster and less expensively? >:)
(Yes, I *am* a murderous sociopath -- why do you ask?)
Not massed wooden steam frigates -- massed wooden gunboats. Frigates, and even sloops-of-war, are too big for inshore work (as was repeatedly demonstrated). Trying to stuff a deep-water ironclad in there is just going to get it wedged on a sandbar, and slowly pecked to death; so the ironclad has to stay out to sea, which means it's effectively irrelevant to the outcome. I recall one campaign where that happened to the British -- the player couldn't use his ironclads (it was Hampton Roads), and his "conventional" forces got hacked to pieces; he was then confronted with a single unsupported ironclad against a bucketload of smaller units.
The _Warrior_s were designed for fighting the "big war" -- fleet-level surface actions. If the US player is foolish enough to try fighting the British on those terms: Yes, he's going to get his a** handed to him. But then, one of the basic rules of warfare is "never let your foe fight the way he wants to fight"; and for this, that means forcing the British into situations where they cannot use their strengths (and conversely, the British need to ID the sort of war the US wants to fight, and *not do it*).
No
Actually the point is a rather poorly constructed ironclad wiped out three large wooden frigates in a constrained water scenario.
As an aside the maximum depth in Hampton Roads at the time was 61 feet, at least on the US Coast Survey Office chart I have from the 1850s
Last edited by David Manley; 09-23-2014 at 20:22.
The very relevant example is there in the previous decade when the RN did exactly that. For other examples of things designed and produced quickly there's always aircraft carriers, frigates and destroyers in WW2 (the light fleet carriers for example went from an idea in Whitehall to afloat in less than a year)
Ah, so the nub of the argument is that if you concoct a scenario where a player is using their kit in a manner for which it is not intended and it loses then it proves... what exactly?
You are 100% right - in the situation you described a US player would be stupid to fight on the enemy's terms. But so would the British player. Which is why IRL you wouldn't have seen the black snakes involved in that kind of action. And why the "fuzzy wuzzy" analogy is rather off-beam
Sort of like Tom Clancy's "Ryan Doctrine": "If a soldier carrying a rifle is a legitimate target, so too are the political leadership that sent him out there." Mentioned in Executive Orders, IIRC.This is why people are disturbed my preference for "the politics of the stiletto" -- why kill 500,000 more-or-less-innocent schlubs when killing the one idiot who's stirring the pot can end the problem much faster and less expensively? >
A suppose the issue is, can you make your opponent fight on terms disadvantageous to him? The essence of maneuver warfare.
One of the problems of what-ifs (for me at least) is making the change point in history plausible. Not a lot of reason for the British Empire to have a war with the USA to support the CSA. Despite Turrtledove's best efforts. (though I did like the books).
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks