Following on from my recent rediscovery of my first ever wargames publication, I looked at some of the ships that the rules were designed to be used with and calculated their ...
- Flotation Factors (FF)
- Manoeuvrability Factors (MF)
- Ram Effects (RE)
... using the formulas that were incorporated into my rules. The results are as follows:
- HMS Dreadnought (1875): FF = 56; MF = 5; RE = 10.
- HMS Superb (1875): FF = 46; MF = 6; RE = 9.
- HMS Victoria (1890): FF = 64; MF = 5; RE = 12.
- HMS Trafalgar (1890): FF = 71; MF = 5; RE = 14.
These make for interesting comparisons, and when time permits, I may well do these calculations for other ships from the period.
HMS Dreadnought (1875).
HMS Trafalgar (1890).
It would be interesting to see the stats you might come up with for ironclads such as Huascar!
ReplyDeleteRob Young,
DeleteIf time permits, I hope to create a spreadsheet that will allow me to rate as many ironclads as I can.
All the best,
Bob
Bob -
ReplyDeleteWith the sort of numbers that your formula has thrown up I can certainly see the need for some kind of electric assistance! I have to admit that CAW has never really crossed my mind much and, considering I spent several years as a professional in the field of computing, I've tended the sheer away from the notion. Mind you, I'm fairly decent at mental arithmetic, and a branch of it what I call 'approximate arithmetic'. You know the sort of thing: 'seven times seventeen is one hundred and nineteen, a tenth of that is eleven point nine - nearly twelve, and a quarter of that is three, near as dammit...'
Having said that, I would quite like to see how those factors you mention featured in your naval game.
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteYou have to remember that the program and the rules it worked with date from the. ‘Complexity = Realism’ age of the early 1980s. If rules didn’t involve complex calculations with lots of inputs, they obviously weren’t any good.
I’ve never heard it called ‘approximate mathematics’ before, but I know exactly what you mean and frequenlptly use something similar myself.
All the best,
Bob
Bob -
DeleteI never really cottoned to the 'complexity = realism and vice versa' thing. Probably because I figured a lot of the 'realism' really lay in the mind of the gamer. One of the reasons for my liking quick play, was not so much that I'm a fairly quick player, but that I liked the notion of having to make quick(ish) decisions under the pressure of circumstances.
Complexity slowed down the play, drew players' attention to the rule book and not the battlefield, and most of the decision making seemed to take place pre-game anyhow.
That is one of the reasons I cottoned so quickly to your portable war game systems - quick and easy, a fair bit of player interaction in a 2-player game (very important, that), and the focus is upon the action.
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteYou were lucky to miss it! It’s one of the reasons why Wargame Developments was founded. One of the things that we wanted to do was to create games that had reasonably realistic outcomes but that were not complex to use … and over the years, I think that its members have managed to do that with several designs, including DBA, HOTT, and PW.
All the best,
Bob
This could be a popular new niche comparison website - RateMyIronclad.com
ReplyDeleteMark, Man of TIN,
DeleteNow there’s a good idea …
All the best,
Bob