So having lurked here awhile and observing gameplay, I was wondering how many of y'all are interested in looser styles of rules.
I have observed pretty much every game here to be defined by class limits, nations, year limits, and the errata and clarifications, and while these are enjoyable (clearly so since they enjoy such popularity), there is a side of gaming I enjoy which becomes limited by the focus on historicity. (This is of course a historical miniatures war game, so I understand at least partially that what I am about to propose would go against the grain.)
What if the errata were ignored, and ship abilities were taken as they read, allowing 4+ moves in a turn, and huge stacking combos (imagine 7 Giorgis Averof's all using inspire to victory in the same turn, establishing a screen with an establish screen unit to win turn one, an IJN fleet of a few carriers and many many Tones and Chikumas, with the Judy's harassing fire).
Is this sort of "stretching" of the rules a thing other people are interested in?
University Student— Lover of Plato, Aristotle, War At Sea, Palestrina, and Mozart
I’m sure there is a place for it. I’ve thought about how fun it would be to have both players trying to cheat as much as possible - extra moves, attacking more than once with the same unit, rolling too many dice, counting successes wrong - so long as if you get caught you have to fix it and move on. I’m sure few people like to fight over games that are supposed to be fun. But, if both players are cheating then it’s a level playing field.
I’m sure there is a place for it. I’ve thought about how fun it would be to have both players trying to cheat as much as possible - extra moves, attacking more than once with the same unit, rolling too many dice, counting successes wrong - so long as if you get caught you have to fix it and move on. I’m sure few people like to fight over games that are supposed to be fun. But, if both players are cheating then it’s a level playing field.
No thanks. What a pain in the @$$ that would be!
I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way. - Captain John Paul Jones
I’m sure there is a place for it. I’ve thought about how fun it would be to have both players trying to cheat as much as possible - extra moves, attacking more than once with the same unit, rolling too many dice, counting successes wrong - so long as if you get caught you have to fix it and move on. I’m sure few people like to fight over games that are supposed to be fun. But, if both players are cheating then it’s a level playing field.
:-)
I didn't mean to throw out the entire rule book, only that the SAs can easily be read as stacking infinitely with shadowing and establish screen, or inspire to victory; so that it is within the scope of the game to have a single Sparviero roll 10 dice torpedo dice in a 100 point game. That does not strike as necessarily being exceedingly 'realistic' but it is certainly not cheating per se.
I merely find it amusing that some things make it by as rules, such as this dice addition, but establishing screens (which I think get a cruiser or destroyer a maximum of 3 hexes movement, regardless of 3 or 2 ships per sector) is prohibited.
I was just hoping for a little more spice in the game, that's all, W@S might be a war game but it is still a game, and I personally enjoy getting as much out of the rules as I can. I also think any liberalisation would not hurt the gameplay; air and submarine power, and even surface power are usually present in such combination as to thwart any attempts to simultaneously seize all three objectives in the first turn, or get a massive stack with Giorgis Averof's inspire to victory.
But anyway, I see that that is generally not the view taken of the game of the rules, and I certainly won't press it with ye who are set against out of warranted concerns for realism and the realistic intent of the rules.
University Student— Lover of Plato, Aristotle, War At Sea, Palestrina, and Mozart
One way to "adjust" the game, is to do things like "Campaigns" as done in an old game called "Iron Men in Wooden Ships". (Loved it!)
Again, this is just a suggestion which probably needs more thought: 1. Agree on year, countries, and that you will do more than one battle. If you don't want just one year, change the year for each succeeding battle, as in 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, and 1943 if doing 5 battles. 2. Decide on base points for each battle, say 100 each time. 3. Now for the real excitement that changes the game a lot! A. Ships that "survive" a battle, DO NOT COUNT toward the points in the following round! (In other words, the 'points' after the first battle are always for reinforcements!) B. There may need to be some kind of "balance rule" added, like ... the loser gets 50 extra points of reinforcements.
I have never tried this, it just came to me as I read the thread!
Großadmiral Swizzle
Browncoat by fandom; Cossack by blood; American by birth; Virginian/Husband/Father by wife; Libertarian by choice; Human by race; Christian by grace.
Campaigns are also really difficult considering the low survivability of cruisers and destroyers... I have (on a much smaller scale) played Axis and Allies style games with W@S naval combat, with points being the actual point cost of the ship, but only using destroyers and auxiliaries. There was not as much balance, per se, but it certainly did make gameplay interesting.
I also tried another thing which might be wort looking at: I pre-made 8 50-point fleets for the Axis and Allies from my collection (y'all probably can and should upscale this) and would randomly generate battles. Winning a battle (depending on the size of the battle) gave a certain number of victory points.
50-point battles were 1 VP, 100 pointers 2 VP, and so on. A 100 point battle would have two random fleets from each side. Each fleet also could replenish 1 hull point of damage for every 25 points scored in each battle, but other wise they were slowly worn away by attrition, but it also meant the Allies were able to lose a few battles early on to inflict more damage on the Axis fleets, though they ended up losing pretty badly anyway (I don't really have a lot of flexibility with my Allied collection for this scale, so the ended up only having 7 fleets, and two of those were running Intrepid, so they were nowhere near as competitive)
University Student— Lover of Plato, Aristotle, War At Sea, Palestrina, and Mozart