I've been frustrated with the continuing glitches and holes in Naval Command, which I like as a set of fast play modern naval rules but which still has lots of issues that make it a headache to actually use. As a result, I've decided to go back and try out my original option for a simple set of modern rules and have a go with Shipwreck from Vandering Publications, which is a tried and tested system that offers a similar level of complexity. It also has a wide selection of ship data sets that covers most if not all of the vessels that I have for both the Indonesian Confrontation and the 'What If?' South American campaign that I'd like to play out next year. I'll aim to get a game underway as soon as I can find the time. If that doesn't float my boat it's back to Naval Command, as there really isn't much alternative.
Played that a couple of times, and was always fun, especially cascading missile deflections
ReplyDeleteSounds hairy!
ReplyDeleteThe rules are good for surface actions and air-to-surface actions. But, unless something has changed, the submarine rules needed a number of changes to make them less abstract and more realistic.
ReplyDeleteI seem to recall there suggestions for that, but I can't seem to find them right now.
I’ve often thought about having a go with that myself. My naval miniatures haven’t seen the light of day since the early ‘80’s when I got into the Avalon Hill Fleet series (except a Kashin as a target in an air game) Very interested in this as 70’’s-80’s naval/air really are the top interest for me.
ReplyDeleteSent you an email about play-testing a new set if you're up for it
ReplyDeleteCheers Nick :O)
DeleteI haven't forgotten btw Jim - I just realised how much work it needs!
DeleteHi Jim (again), ... so, while I'm here, having just commented on the Indochina project post, can I chip in on this one?
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, I'm getting a lot of mileage out of using an old naval wargame from the seventies, "Seastrike", to fight the naval actions in the post-colonial imagi-nation camapaign that I mentioned in my other comment. The game itself is out of print now but a variant of the rules is available to download for free if you'd like to try it out.
Follow this link for a description of the game https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/7590/seastrike .
And this one for a review of the game https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/262699/naval-gazing-review-seastrike
I can't find a link to the rules variant that I mentioned just at the moment but if you're interested, let me know and I'll track it down for you. Or if you want to know more, let me know and I'll add some detail for you.
Regards,
Chris
Thanks Chris,
DeleteOne thing I have looked at is a set of rules based on Seastrike but written by Geoff Curran, who occasionally attends my local club.
Was the Geoff Curran game "Naval Warfare Age of Missiles"? https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/300006/naval-warfare-age-missiles What did you think of it? The sample download from Wargame Vault gives the impression of a fairly detailed game but one which does look a little like Seastrike, superficially at least.
DeleteSeastrike, on the other hand, is quite basic but it delivers quite plausible results nevertheless and without demanding too much time or intellectual effort.
Hi Chris. That sounds interesting. Could you maybe post it on Board Game Geek?
ReplyDeleteHi commanderroj, of course but there's no need to in fact as a discussion thread about the variant already exists here https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1769639/symbols (ignore the fact that it's titled symbols. If you read through that think find yourself directed here www.navalwargamessociety.org/rulesonline.html where you'll need to find and download the rules "Go In and Sink". Or you can just follow this link to the rules download page at the freewargamesrules site on Fandom https://freewargamesrules.fandom.com/wiki/Go_In_and_Sink
DeleteI hope that helps.
Jim, my apologies for using your blog space without consent. I hope you don't mind but in any case I'll stop now.
Regards, Chris
No problem Chris
DeleteThanks. And apologies from me too Jim.
ReplyDelete