The Question of Turning in Age of Sail wargaming

The reason threedecks exists in the first place.
Post Reply
sgtfox
Warrant Officer
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:05 am
Location: Idyllwild, California

The Question of Turning in Age of Sail wargaming

Post by sgtfox »

The Question of Turning in Age of Sail wargames
When it comes to turning, wargame designers seem to favor pretending that Age of Sail vessels had engines. My old favorite set of rules Don’t Give Up the Ship handled it by allowing players to turn their vessels, in place, up to 45 degrees. A few designers saw the error in that method and created turning circles. There are serious problems with both systems. Sailing ships did not turn on a dime (or a six pence), as most rules allow. Turning is actually one of the most technically challenging things to model in an Age of Sail game. Daniel G. Harris, in his excellent book F.H. Chapman: The First Naval Architect and His Work, published by the Naval Institute Press, did us a favor on page 222. It seems, when the Royal Swedish Navy was doing sea trials for their new 60-gun ship of the line Wasa, they kept a detailed log. Harris was kind enough to translate a part of a page for August 6, 1779. Except for a typo on #4 the course for 1345. It’s listed as North by west, then south-east by south. Anyone on this site would realize you must scratch out the south and put in east. That aside, it states that Wasa could veer 20 points in two and a half minutes. The starting speed was four knots and six fathoms, in what was translated as a fresh topsail breeze. The sails carried were three topsails, jibs and staysails. Of course, the ship was wearing and started from a beating position. I like to move my ships at their movement for one minute, at 1/1200, with battle sails. That could be interpreted as the ship turning eight points (90 degrees) in one minute. That’s pretty good for a ship of the line. If you get the book, you’ll see all the results for August 6, 1779, but the print is so tiny, you’d better have a good magnifying glass. Also, it would help to have some knowledge of Swedish, plus the odd handwriting of the time. The main point of interest is the fact that I’ve never come across serious sea trials of the era.
Systems Examined
I guess I should mention that I don’t play squadron actions. It’s just not my thing to pit large battle lines against each other. My nature has always been that of a frigate captain. So, I’m not concerned how turning is handled in large scale games. In ship-to-ship actions, turning can make all the difference in a battle. I left turning in place back in the old century. The problem with turning circles, besides the obvious need to have them correspond with the size of the vessel turning, is the fact that sailing ships automatically change speeds when they go into a different attitude to the wind. When that happens, the “circle” would have to be enlarged or decreased. That would slow things down a lot. Heart of Oak used a very practical method, for the time. If a ship were allowed to turn a certain number of points, you would simply move your vessel ahead one half the forward distance. At the end, you would turn the ship, then continue forward at the new rate of speed. That accounted for the change in speed, but it still saw ships turning several degrees in place. It also forced the ship to go where it would not have travelled if it had turned in a more circular motion. I once made up a turning gauge that allowed you to move one point. Once you had moved, you would move the ship forward, then move another point. Just turning eight points took a long time, but it was pretty accurate. When I compared the ship’s final move to the method in Heart of Oak, the ships ended up more than one base length ahead. That may not seem like much, but it would be critical when trying to plot a move in a tactical game. A new set of rules came out in 2015. I really liked how innovative one of their gauges was for determining speed. Where they went down the drain, besides the arbitrary gunnery chart, was having one turning circle for all ships. By my calculations, it would have been a perfect for a Cruizer class gun-brig. The problem there was that a gunboat and 120-gun ship of the line would turn at the same rate. That’s like you telling me that your eighteen-wheel truck and trailer can turn in the same space as my Hyundai Accent!
If someone were to ask me what one set of rules to come out in this century is really innovative, I would have to say Captaincy. After such a bold statement, let me qualify it. The actual combat rules could have been written in the 1980s, so don’t interest me at all. Where this set shines is the movement system. It’s a quantum leap on all other games. Just moving your ships is exceedingly fun, and you actually feel like you are handling all of the challenges of sailing a square rigger. I decided that as soon as the 2nd edition was out, I would start using it for my wargames. It would be easy enough to plug in my own rules with the movement system. My main point of contention was that, as realistic as the rules are, the designer failed to do anything about sailing ships pivoting in place. I still think that the sailing rules are brilliant, but it’s like buying your dream car only to find out it doesn’t have an engine. That said, if you must put up with pivoting in place, there are no movement rules to rival these. They are available online from Wargamer’s Vault.
So, I still don’t have an answer to the turning problem, but perhaps someone else will. After all, this should act as a forum for developing better rules. I have eighteen different sets, after throwing out two before I moved, and none answer all of my needs. I suggest that everyone write their own. That said, I plan to post a few articles to move gamers to that end. Those great old reference works hold most of the answers, it’s just up to one to study them, then develop a system to go with the history.
Post Reply