Commander (v1.2) - This unit is attached to a (unit classification**) friendly in the deployment phase. Place a marker beside the unit on the map to represent your commander. If that ship is crippled or destroyed, remove this unit from play.
For the non attatched "general" commander alternative.
Fleet Commander - You may include one commander in ypur fleet. This unit is not deployed on the map. At the beginning of a phase you can declare you are using a special ability of this unit. You can only use the ability of the commander per turn.
Admirals tend to not exert much influence on the battle after they transfer from their flagship to another vessel. I'd say if their unit goes down they are removed from the game too. It doesn't mean they died but they aren't going to contribute to the battle anymore.
Historically, do admirals really transfer ships during a battle and continue to be decisive factors? That doesn’t seem likely to me, but can’t think of any historical examples off the top of my head.
So one of the thing i think is missed in the admirals conversation is the distinction between a direct bonus plus one die to main gunnery attack and what i'd call abstract bonuses reroll 1s when making a main gunnery attack
I err to the preference to abstract bonuses. I think a simple additional dice has more value in a peak power setting than comparable alternative. What do you think?
So one of the thing i think is missed in the admirals conversation is the distinction between a direct bonus plus one die to main gunnery attack and what i'd call abstract bonuses reroll 1s when making a main gunnery attack
I err to the preference to abstract bonuses. I think a simple additional dice has more value in a peak power setting than comparable alternative. What do you think?
I like this idea a lot, same mechanics as bad luck or fatal flaw.
Commander (v1.2) - This unit is attached to a (unit classification**) friendly in the deployment phase. Place a marker beside the unit on the map to represent your commander. If that ship is crippled or destroyed, remove this unit from play.
For the non attatched "general" commander alternative.
Fleet Commander - You may include one commander in ypur fleet. This unit is not deployed on the map. At the beginning of a phase you can declare you are using a special ability of this unit. You can only use the ability of the commander per turn.
If you don't represent the commander on the table then isn't this just a rules reference card? I thought you were deadset against this?
If you represent this on the table by a token, marker etc. which is attached to a classification then this is exactly what I suggested for the Walrus to be attached to UK BB's or CA's and I got shot down for suggesting such an idea.
Why are we trying to put restrictions on this?
Some commanders like Nimitz or Yamamoto might not be represented and apply an abstract bonus/effect. Some commanders could be attached to a specific unit/classification such as Nagumo or Spruance and may apply a direct bonus. Some commanders could be attached to a specific squadron such as Dolittle or Pappy Boyington. Some commanders maybe able to transfer and some could "go down with the ship" true to history.
The more flexibility we give this the more variety we can add to the game. The specifics can be printed on the card. By placing restrictions on this before it's started you're just ensuring a failed/limited exercise.
However it would be good to explore the absolute limits and work within them such as how much bonus is too much bonus etc.
Historically, do admirals really transfer ships during a battle and continue to be decisive factors? That doesn’t seem likely to me, but can’t think of any historical examples off the top of my head.
Yes they did do this on occasion. Nagumo transferred at Midway and tried to maintain command but Yamamato and another admiral deliberately sidelined him.
Striker; Well, this is just a conversation about how they might work.
I look forward to producting a W@S expansion set, not a forumini admirals game. Even adding admirals is huge step in any semi-official capacity.
With regards to rules references card. No there will not be a card which isnt playable but sets out how admirals are use. The format will resemble the installation card which sets out deployment and interactions. Any flavour will need to fit in after that.
Im really not interested in commanders that were back at HQ. I want to see commamders who are in the the thick of it, and acting with daring. Not just the senior most dude of a big formation.
If anyone wants to propose an admiral or a few. Then heres the place.
Looking for commanders in specific actions of about 100 points (no more than 4 capital ships) and a little blurb about why you think is engagment worth representing
I do remember seeing posts on the old forum about an admiral and another separate, events deck. If I remember rightly they were all image posted although never card printed. Just available for whoever wanted them or might have been available as quick print paper decks. They seemed to cover the intended subjects well with maybe just a little tweaking required. They might have made for a good reference point for anything similar.
In terms of this deck G, is it intended be the same as what's gone before or with other elements(like those mentioned), added?
"That's right son, join the navy. Get behind a bloody big gun and knock the hell out of somebody"
"We went out, got our arses kicked, then came back again"
The link is several posts above. I dont support direct duplication of others work and many of those cards change costs or deployment conditions. Again not something i support. That said, nothing is agreed within the team yet.
......Well, this is just a conversation about how they might work....... Yes this is a conversation about how they could work but you sound like you've already decided on how they will.
.....I look forward to producting a W@S expansion set, not a forumini admirals game......... I'm not commenting on an Admirals Game but how commanders could work within the game. If this is to be expansion it will be the first expansion you've ever done. Expansions add new mechanics, components and rules to a game. It will be, like everything else' a self contained set that players can decide if they want in the game or not.
......With regards to rules references card. No there will not be a card which isnt playable but sets out how admirals are use. The format will resemble the installation card which sets out deployment and interactions. Any flavour will need to fit in after that...... It is you who raised the idea of having commanders attached to classification or not represented on the table (I only brought it to your attention). The card would have to have the rules on how the commander would operate. How is this different to a rules reference card?
Unless you're not aware cards in based games are rules reference cards, every SA in W@S is a rules reference.
........Im really not interested in commanders that were back at HQ. I want to see commamders who are in the the thick of it, and acting with daring. Not just the senior most dude of a big formation..... Why restrict yourself and them game from true expansion? Like I said it seams that you've already decided what and how commanders will work. No wonder so many members have left over the years.
The link is several posts above. I dont support direct duplication of others work and many of those cards change costs or deployment conditions. Again not something i support. That said, nothing is agreed within the team yet.
I think it would be poor form to copy someone else's work but we could use them as a locum point/inspiration for what each commander's strengths and weaknesses were and how we could implement them into the game. Many if not all the cards don't fit very well as is.