Game: Naval Battles

Thread: Modern Naval Battles - Global Warfare is already on the shelves

Leonidas01994 — 2008-09-21T11:49:14+00:00

A much better game (in my humble opinion) is Modern Naval Battles - Global Warfare (MNB-GW). It is now on the shelves. If you like Naval Battles you're going to love MNB-GW. Check it out in BoardGameGeek and in designer's page (www.dvg.com)

Thread: Re: Naval Battles Review: Better than Drowning, I suppose

alma1992 — 2008-08-12T04:41:44+00:00

I think that the game works for what it is...a filler game aimed at introducing people to the joys of wargames. It's not meant to be a simulation game, at least I hope not. It always makes the trip with me and my 3 sons ages 10, 13 and 16 whether we're going on vacation or just camping for the weekend. With that in mind I believe it is a great game to have in your collection if you have children.

Thread: Re: House Rule - Air Raids are too powerful

Twilightling — 2008-07-14T15:58:25+00:00

I got the game today and quickly pulled two games in the lunch brake.
The first game I was lucky with reinforcements and won, while thje second my opponent presented two air strickes for a total of 5 hits, needles to say my fleet was decimated.

So a though occured that air strickes are little bit too powerful. Especially if you play japan with Yamato.

My initial idea was to allow only one air raid card per turn (not the best solution) Then I read about the random draw of damage cards, which sounded cool, but the air strickes now seemed too weak. So i decided to use dice.
My first idea was 3d6, which almost works, but then the question what to do with the damage when the "healing" card is used.

That is when I tought of just using a d6 and add that many 3 damage "counter", which are to be threated like damage cards.
Talking in ships and percents that is:

100% chance to sink a tougness 3 ship.
83% chance to sink tougness 6 ship.
50% chance to sink Bismark
33% chance to sink Yamato

This obviosly give bonus to the fleets with large ships, so maybe one of those two rules might balance it out:
a rule that give an anti air cover for small targets.
Small targets roll d3 instead of d6.

But I still have to test this system.
So if any of you guys (girls) is interested to test this, any feedback would be welcomed

Thread: Re: Naval Battles Review: Better than Drowning, I suppose

Comrade_Sarayev — 2008-06-16T05:49:46+00:00

bluekingzog wrote:
40 minutes to explain the rules ! This really is a fairly straight forward game and I ve explained the rules and played a game with 4 players in 40 minutes. Its a light filler, dont get too hung up on the ammo types , yes it could be simplified to small , medium , large guns but you want to know your firing 18" Guns at someone elses 14" guns its part of the fun. I would rate this a 6 but you really shouldnt take it too seriously.

Ditto, Simon.

Mr. Carpenter may not like it, and he is certainly entitled to his opinion of the game. I have to disagree, however. This is one of the games I can get my wife to play on a regular basis!

A more advanced version of the old Battleline/AH Naval War, NB can't be taken seriously but can be loads of fun to play.

Image

montsegur — 2008-06-15T18:07:11+00:00

German Phalanx Version

Thread: Re: Naval Battles Review: Better than Drowning, I suppose

cerulean — 2008-03-17T14:06:53+00:00

1) Gun differentiation is a drag on this game. Having 4" and 5" guns in this game has no added value. It has no bearing on gameplay, so any benefit would be historical accuracy. But as other grognards have readily pointed out, there are many inaccuracies about the armament of particular ships, so the historical merit is moot. The first question asked when we start fleet construction is "what's the gun size breakdown again?" It's a distraction, not a bonus.

2) For all the times I've re-taught this game to someone who's played it before, I would have paid extra to have the game text on the cards. This is a must-have for future editions! The cards don't even have titles, and my games are frequently interrupted by someone asking questions:
THEM: "What does this card do?"
ME: "Well what kind of card is it?"
THEM: "I have no idea. There's no title."
I understand the publisher's interest in cutting costs by making a language independent edition of the game acceptable in many language markets, but the issue of learning how to decipher the card symbols is worth paying extra to avoid.

That said, I've enjoyed several rounds of Naval Battles, and would play it again. Gameplay length is extended with additional players, more like 30 minutes + 10 for each player over 3. I don't recommend this game for more than four players. Many games make the mistake of extending the player quantity beyond a comfortable point. Just because the box says it could be played with X players doesn't mean it should be played with X players. (IGOR is another serious offender to this; Bang is one of the better ones at scaling up.)

Thread: Re: Naval Battles Review: Better than Drowning, I suppose

bluekingzog — 2008-03-16T12:58:03+00:00

40 minutes to explain the rules ! This really is a fairly straight forward game and I ve explained the rules and played a game with 4 players in 40 minutes. Its a light filler, dont get too hung up on the ammo types , yes it could be simplified to small , medium , large guns but you want to know your firing 18" Guns at someone elses 14" guns its part of the fun. I would rate this a 6 but you really shouldnt take it too seriously.

Thread: Re: Naval Battles Review: Better than Drowning, I suppose

spiff40k — 2008-03-16T12:50:17+00:00

I have played this game several times and found it most enjoyable. What I have found, when playing with more than four players, the game plays much better and faster when you divide the players up into teams (axis & allied).

Scott

Thread: Re: Naval Battles Review: Better than Drowning, I suppose

byronczimmer — 2008-03-16T06:02:00+00:00

The time it took to take to explain it was far more than needed for this type of game, and it really set a bad vibe for the following TWO HOURS.

Without realy knowing the makeup of the action card deck, it was random guessing to pick a starting fleet -- some sort of recommendation would have helped here.

The ammo cards are inherantly fiddly for what this type of mechanic. I've seen it elsewhere, but it just seems crazy that your supply line (hand) would have so many mismatched ammunition types. With FIVE different ammo types which require matching (4 different bore sizes plus torpedos), getting a good matchup was very frustratingly difficult.

The massive disadvantage of going last was also apparent, and because the rules brief was so muddled, it took over twenty minutes before I ever got to do anything other than watch my ships sink helplessly to the ocean floor. There are other similar games that can be explained and played twice in the time it took to explain and play through one round of this game.

If a game advertises "2-6", it should play properly with that number. I agree that the game would probably work a lot better in the 3-4 range... but we were playing specifically because it claimed support for six. Though I agree that it would probably play better with fewer players, it's not going to get that second chance due to the completely helpless feeling I got while playing that this was a complete and utter disaster.

As said above, I've played other similar games when in the right mindset -- usually towards the end of an evening or convention, the hour or so before the doors are due to close... something fun and simple that's easy to set up and strike down.

I just feel that the nod towards realism was trumped by the nature of such a card game, and that ultimately, the fun was sucked out of it from the start and I was playing my turns as fast as possible in order to make the game end quickly.

For the same time expenditure, I have more enjoyable games with similar themes or mechanics and less ramp up time for new players. I really should have insisted on playing Bang! or something similar. Next time I know.

Edits: typos, it's late

Thread: Re: Naval Battles Review: Better than Drowning, I suppose

Karlsen — 2008-03-16T05:29:14+00:00

We've never played it with more than four. It's OK for what is fundamentally a dice game (and what pretty dice they are too).

I probably wouldn't ever play it with more than four unless I was a teenage boy again and would prefer to play something else instead. You should try it with three or four, it will certainly play a lot quicker, but there is still no guarantee that you will like it.

Thread: Naval Battles Review: Better than Drowning, I suppose

byronczimmer — 2008-03-16T03:33:07+00:00

Today I played Naval Battles for the first and last time.

We had a slightly larger than number of players than normal at our monthly gaming day, so one of the players said "I have Naval Battles, it can handle six." I looked forlornly at Bang! (the Bullet) and acquiesced, choosing to learn a new game instead.

The explanation took a good forty minutes, and I finally got the jist of the game (after wresting the rulebook from the box and quickly perusing them).

My take on the rules after the muddled teaching session, and how I would teach this game if I were to play it again (which I won't) is as follows:

You start with a fleet of ships worth 25 victory points. You have lots of different kinds of ships, and ships have guns or torpedos or planes. All of your ships start out in a formation and you probably won't be getting many other ships out to play with, so choose wisely, but without any real knowledge of why you're picking various ships.

Ships have guns or other means of attacking. There are 4 gun sizes. Gun sizes are: 4" and 5", which magically take the same kind of ammunition, 6", 7" and 8", which again magically take the same typs of ammunition, 9", 10" and 12", which, you guessed it, take the same magical ammunition, and 14", 15", 16" and 18" which take an entirely different magical type of ammunition.

Now I undertand the desire to be historically accurate, but for the sake of gameplay, it would've been easier to fudge it and only have 4 types of ammunition (small, medium, large and huge) -- or to consolidate to standardized sizes instead of having four different types of bore size be represented by a single class of ammunition card.

There are two other types of ammo here... Torpedos, which require die rolls to hit, and planes, which require die rolls to hit.

Ammunition comes in the form of action cards, which also incorporates defense and 'preparation' cards, which allow you to not get hit (defense) or repair or plan (preparation). I don't know about other people's supply lines, but my generals weren't sending enough of the magical ammunition I did need, weren't sending reinforcements and definitely weren't teaching us how to evade, jam the enemies guns or otherwise not get blown up.

Top this forty minute rules review off with going last, and it's over an hour from opening the box to when I get to play any card, since my first hand was full only ammunition, meaning I couldn't defend even if I wanted to, and couldn't participate in any of the other player's interactions. Two of my front line ships are on the ocean floor, meaning most of my ammo isn't usable any more, and I am starting to wonder the fastest way to sink my entire fleet and escape this game.

I've played similar games and enjoyed myself thoroughly. Battle Cattle and Car Wars come to mind, as does Creatures and Cultists. Ultimately, something here left me wondering where two hours went for a game that lists as having a play time of 30+ minutes.

Should read 30+ minutes, emphasis on the "+".

We had multiple other games capable of handling 5-6 players which would've taken less time and given me more of a feeling of involvement.

Summary of complaints in no particular order:
- Use of red/green in the targetting icons bad for those players with red/green colorblindness.
- Drawing up at the end of your turn (only) really leaves you open when you have no defense cards.
- Air strikes seem very powerful
- Lack of recommended fleet arrangements leave the new player without a clue
- Ship cards look way too much alike and have no real differentiation
- Unnecessary differentiation on bore size of guns, could have been simplified
- Last player at massive disadvantage compared to start player
- Difficulty of getting reinforcements or defenses makes feeling of tactical movement all but vanish

To summarize: I'd rather have folded the cards into paper boats, floated them in a tub and thrown pennies at them. Now THAT's how to run a Naval Battle.

Overall Score: 2 -- The game's not terminally broken, but I'd prefer to play almost any other game than this one.

Thread: Re: House Rule - Air Raids are too powerful

SiddGames — 2008-03-15T05:40:33+00:00

The whole article is good, but specifically lists the following:

Mitchell's concept of a battleship's vulnerability to air attack under "war-time conditions" would be vindicated after his death; a number of warships were sunk by air attack alone during World War II. The battleships Conte di Cavour, Arizona, Utah, Oklahoma, Prince of Wales, Roma, Musashi, Tirpitz, Yamato, Schleswig-Holstein, Impero, Limnos, Kilkis, Ise and Hyūga were all put out of commission or destroyed by aerial attack including bombs, air-dropped torpedoes and missiles fired from aircraft. Some of these ships were destroyed by surprise attacks in harbor, others were sunk at sea after vigorous defense. Most of the sinkings were carried out by aircraft carrier-based planes, not by land-based bombers as envisioned by Mitchell. The world's navies had responded quickly to the Ostfriesland lesson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell

Thread: French Destroy Japanese Fleet!!!

ccarlet1 — 2008-01-13T20:58:24+00:00

As the title of my session report might suggest, Naval Battles is not about recreating historically accurate WWII battles. It is, however, a fast and fun card game in which fleets are pitted against each other.

Round 1:

I was playing the Japanese, so I chose my initial ships. You are only allowed to choose 25 vps worth to begin and reinforcements can sometimes be a long time coming. I opted for the mighty Yamato battleship and the aircraft carrier Hiryu. That didn't leave a lot of points left, so I filled in my fleet with a light cruisers and couple of small destroyers with good torpedo mounts, and a submarine. I kept the destroyers back in the third row to keep them out of harm's way until I needed them to fire, and put my battleship in the second row, with my light cruiser up front.

My wife was playing France and fielded three smallish battleships in the first and second row, and a rather weak aircraft carrier in the third row. She also fielded a submarine, and some light cruisers. She had me outnumbered as far as ships were concerned, but did not have the powerhouse ships that I did.

Japan opened the battle by sinking the French Destroyer Colbert with a secondary salvo. The Yamato's mighty 18" gun missed, and the Hiryu's air raid was countered.

France countered with an submarine attack on my aircraft carrier which failed due to evasive action, which also saved my destroyer from damage. However, a surprise ground-based air attack sunk the mighty Yamato!!!!

Round 2:

Frantic calls were made for reinforcements for the beleaguered Japanese fleet. Imperial command responded with a massive air strike, both ground and deck based. The French fleet was overwhelmed as two battleships, Paris and Jean Bart, and a light cruiser, La Galissonniere, were in flames and keeling over.

The French fleet was hurt badly and received some badly needed reinforcements, and launched another surprise attack. Fortunately, it caused little damage and the aircraft carrier attack was completely averted.

Round 3:

Without air support the Japanese fleet seemed disorganized due to the loss of their battleship. Their deck based air attack was stopped, and they only managed minor damage on a destroyer.

France received yet more reinforcements, and launched a massed torpedo attack on the aircraft carrier Hiryu, and the light cruiser Kashima. The Kashima was sunk immediately, and while the Hiryu successfully took evasive action, it was later sunk by a different torpedo.

Round 4:

The beleaguered Japanese fleet was now in total disarray and could offer no response whatsoever to the French attack. Its two destroyers and sub refused to strike their colours.

With surgical skill the French now turned their attention to the submarine, launching depth charges, and sinking it. A main salvo took care of one of the remaining destroyers.

Round 5:

With a hull strength of only two, the destroyer Shimakaze was left alone to defend the honour of the imperial navy. With the newly reinforced Richelieu looming on the horizon, and its chain of command broken, the destroyer merely awaited its fate.

The Shimakaze sunk under barrage of salvos, leaving the French fleet victorious.

This is a quite fun, if ahistorical, card game. The Japanese were particularly unfortunate in this battle with having no reinforcements, coupled with having few, albeit powerful, ships in the beginning. The air attacks are particularly powerful (as was discovered by navies in WWII), but cannot be relied on solely.

Our next battle was between the Germans and the British, in which the Axis ground out a slow agonizing victory.

Thread: Re: House Rule - Air Raids are too powerful

Duglis — 2007-12-24T03:46:19+00:00

We removed one of the Japanese illustrated Land Based Air Raid cards from play and the American one.

That's our only house rule.

However, using a random hit amount is a good idea for all air raids. Hmmm.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Thread: Re: Comparison

lordunborn — 2007-10-02T12:32:37+00:00

Thanks it is on my next order. The art looks great (alot better then Naval War)

Thread: Re: Comparison

unixrevolution — 2007-10-02T12:29:09+00:00

I have Naval Battles...from what I can tell they are similar, at least. You have a formation of ships, ammo must match the guns of the ships you have, sink X points of enemy ships to win.

I would say that even if it's not a direct replacement, it looks like something you'd enjoy if you like Naval War. I say get it

Thread: Comparison

lordunborn — 2007-09-28T19:04:11+00:00

Is this game anything like the Old AH game Naval War from 1979?

I have Naval War somewhere in storage but I don't want to play it (it is a bit old) and am looking for a replacement that is as easy to teach and play

Thread: Re: House Rule - Air Raids are too powerful

unixrevolution — 2007-09-23T17:34:15+00:00

desertfox2004 wrote:
Karlsen wrote:
Tell that to the Prince of Wales, Yamoto and Repulse. Note I am not counting any battleships that were in port or stationary targets.

And you forgot Yamoto's sister Musashi, which was also sunk by US planes. Then, as you say, there were the Italian and US battleships sunk in port due to airstrikes. I think the lethality of airstrikes is properly demonstrated in the game. However, no problem with people playing with house rules - whatever your group prefers, so long as everyone is having fun!

Also, Tirpitz was sunk by Lancaster bombers, and though Bismarck fell to british shells, it was torpedoes from Swordfish torpedo planes that disabled her so they could catch her.

And yeah, for historic accuracy i think air raids work fine, but it IS your game. Do whatever you like.

Thread: Re: House Rule - Air Raids are too powerful

desertfox2004 — 2007-09-23T11:50:53+00:00

Karlsen wrote:
Tell that to the Prince of Wales, Yamoto and Repulse. Note I am not counting any battleships that were in port or stationary targets.

And you forgot Yamoto's sister Musashi, which was also sunk by US planes. Then, as you say, there were the Italian and US battleships sunk in port due to airstrikes. I think the lethality of airstrikes is properly demonstrated in the game. However, no problem with people playing with house rules - whatever your group prefers, so long as everyone is having fun!

Thread: Re: House Rule - Air Raids are too powerful

unixrevolution — 2007-09-23T09:47:03+00:00

Honestly, they are very powerful, but WWII was a big lesson for modern navies:

Planes sink ships.

That's why modern Capital ships are boomers and Aircraft Carriers.

I think the game does fine in this regard. If you wish you could try modifying the die rolls to make it harder to succeed in launching a raid.

Thread: Re: House Rule - Air Raids are too powerful

Reprint — 2007-09-22T15:19:28+00:00

When airplanes attack, we blind draw from the deck to determine damage. The first explosion symbol that comes up in the deck is the damage. Then all drawn cards are discarded.

That helps us.

Thread: Re: House Rule - Air Raids are too powerful

Karlsen — 2007-09-21T08:35:53+00:00

Tell that to the Prince of Wales, Yamoto and Repulse. Note I am not counting any battleships that were in port or stationary targets.

Thread: House Rule - Air Raids are too powerful

Leonidas01994 — 2007-09-20T00:33:46+00:00

I played this game many times with my older son, and I realized that the air-strike is too powerful and not realistic. It is not possible for many planes to sink a battleship (with 10 or more) for example. So, we desided to put a couple some damage instead. We use counters to remember the damage. Different damage will be for the x1 air-strike card, other for the x2, etc.

Please, let me know what do you think, and if you have a better idea you are welcome to let all of us know.

Thread: Re: Carrier Air Raids

archangel99999 — 2007-09-05T19:27:30+00:00

I agree the rules aren't clear about air raids, but it is like this:

If your carrier is in your first row, then you get to roll three dice! But it can be attacked by every ship..

If your carrier is in your third row, then it is safer.. but you only get to roll 1 dice..

that's how it works.

seeya

Image

getonjolly — 2007-08-01T11:04:34+00:00

Multiple cards (action and ships) and dice from the Dutch version.

Image

getonjolly — 2007-08-01T10:59:38+00:00

French submarine Saphir in silent and active mode (card from the Dutch game).

Image

getonjolly — 2007-08-01T10:55:34+00:00

The 2 Japanese aircraft carriers (cards from Dutch game).

Image

getonjolly — 2007-07-31T18:51:16+00:00

Complete German fleet.

Image

getonjolly — 2007-07-31T18:46:42+00:00

Dutch boxfront and -back.

Thread: Re: Advantage in acting first?

Tache — 2007-06-17T13:46:51+00:00

I don´t like the way the game starts too. Sometimes the first turn spoils the whole of the battle. The "scalating conflict" solution -not deploying all your ships at the beguinning- seems appropiated only for some kind of battles. In games for 2 players (the only ones I have played), I am going to try this approach: player winning the iniciative acts as usual, but the "receiving" player has the option to discard and draw up to 7 cards, before the deployment of his opponet. This way he can make up a good defense strategy, or a good answering fire next turn, as he wishes. This would represent one offensive side, which starts the fire, and a defensive, which has some time to prepare a suitable plan, and dispose its fleet accordingly. I think this is more realistic. What are your 2 cents?

Thread: Re: Advantage in acting first?

420017 — 2007-06-04T20:55:19+00:00

Slow deplyment - - Wow it works

We let players play one of their ship card at the start of their turn.
It makes the game feel more like a naval battle,you don't gat all your fleet there at the same time but it has to build up.

Do you send the aircraft carrier first ,(risky but you get air attacks)or get a sub lurking about for a target.

If feels like the a single ship contact happens ,then get the rest of the fleet there,(as i think it would have happend).
The player who goes first has no targets ,but with only meeteing one ship at the start it has a chance to survive.

Rule we came up with
1 enemy fleet play one ship card per turn
2 enemy fleets play two ship cards per turn
and so on

Give it a go and let me know..
Amos

Thread: Re: Advantage in acting first?

420017 — 2007-06-03T19:15:34+00:00

hi ,did't like the way the game started ,so do you remember "naval war"
the fore runner to this.

you start by playing any red cards first , so we start with a round of;
1 reorganize
2 prepare
3 NO ATTACK CARDS CAN BE PLAYED
4 discard
5 draw

this gives you a chance to get some kinder of defence up..

but like you idea of slow deployment.
gona try deploying one ship card card each turn.....? we'll see

Amos

Thread: see first

420017 — 2007-06-03T19:02:21+00:00

can you play cards after the event:
eg. can you see if a air attack hits before you play "escort ship"
eg. can you see if a torpedo hits before you play "small target"

and also does "evasive action" card stop any one attack(air,salvo,torpedo).

Amos

Thread: Re: Advantage in acting first?

baditude — 2007-05-25T17:51:50+00:00

I was thinking of something like a "phased deployment" of the first players fleet.

So maybe the first player can only deploy 15 points of his fleet to start with and than at the end of his turn he deploys the rest.

either that or the starting player starts off with less action cards (but still draws to seven at the end of his turn.

In a multi-player game you could scale this so that the first player gets 3 action cards to start, the second player 4, the third player 5 etc etc.

-E

Thread: Re: Advantage in acting first?

cerulean — 2007-05-25T13:24:18+00:00

Yes, this has been my experience through several games, from 2-player up through 4 player.

With multiple players, the issue can be resolved through group dynamics. An aggresive opening salvo will make you an immediate threat and tempting target, and too many weak enemies means too many weak future allies. I've found it best to play a cautious opening, spread my damage out among different fleets, and try not to look like the bad guy until it's too late to stop me. Although a thorough pummeling will be a setback for any non-starting player, a wise player can still overcome it.

With 2 players, yes it does suck to be on the receiving end of the first attack, creating a opening hurdle that's difficult to overcome. I'm looking for ways to remedy this, and I'd also be interested in any ideas that others have applied with success. The one upshot I see to first player advantage is that it's a great way to handicap a veteran up against a rookie.

Thread: Advantage in acting first?

baditude — 2007-05-25T00:07:15+00:00

Let me preface by saying I haven't played an actual game yet. just read the rules and set up a few solo practice rounds. It seems like the player who goes first in the game has a significant advantage...especially in a 2-player game...since they can sink a ship or two right off the bat, and the other player isn't given an oportunity to fire back (at least with those sunken ships).

any experienced players find this to be the case?

-E

Thread: Re: Light Cruisers with BIG Guns!?

Nick Barker — 2007-05-07T10:03:42+00:00

Having bought this yesterday, I was interested to see that the "light" cruisers HMS Southampton and HMS Sheffield turn up as armed with 12" guns! I am sure that this would have been nice but in reality, as others note above, these Town Class cruisers had 6" guns. (And one of them, HMS Belfast, is today preserved and moored on the Thames as evidence.)

The Town Class did have 12 of those 6" guns, so assuming that this is not a blunder it could be, as also suggested above, that the game gives them 12" capability to reflect their greater firepower compared to a normal 6" gun cruiser. Even so, were they the equivalent (as they are in game terms) of an 8" gun cruiser like HMS Norfolk? And rating them as 8" (functionally the same in the game as 12") would have been a bit less jaw-dropping.

I cannot avoid the suspicion that somewhere along the production line 12 x 6" somehow became transposed to 6 x 12".

Thread: Re: Prepare or defense?

420017 — 2007-04-20T15:28:27+00:00

RaistlinMajere wrote:
owll (#472286),

Well, I think preparing cards in a two players game can be quite useful - also if not so useful like in multiplayer games - because doing that I can draw more cards at the end of the turn, during the refresh-hand phase.

yer if you have 2 prepare cards out and at the end of your turn ,you can draw upto seven again so you have 9 cards but your enemy knows what 2 are
(YOU MIGHT HAVE TWO COPIES OF THE PREPARE CARDS ONE OUT AND ONE STILL IN YOUR HAND)
but he don't know

Thread: Re: Surprise attack action card

420017 — 2007-04-20T15:16:10+00:00

rogmyersgeek wrote:
The bottom line though is that there is no way to stop the phasing player from removing damage cards with the Retreat card.
removing the Retreat card in play will allowing the opposing player to then attack that fleet.
Roger

this is how we play it
Amos

Thread: Re: First Play and Comments!

420017 — 2007-04-18T10:13:20+00:00

"correct"
found the quote you put .

sorted......
Amos

Thread: Re: First Play and Comments!

desertfox2004 — 2007-04-18T02:52:10+00:00

420017 wrote:
desertfox2004 wrote:
. A number of heavy cruisers (such as the Mogami class for Japan) are shown with 12" main batteries, when in reality they had 8 main guns.

Mogami
light cruiser
15 x 6"
8 x 5"

Amos - that's true that Mogami as originally built was armed with 15 x 6" guns in five triple turrets. However, in 1939, before the war started, she and her sister ship Mikuma were refitted, with the 6" guns being replaced by 10 x 8" in five twin turrets, so my comment is correct for the timeframe of the game, WW2, post-1941.

Details...

"Beginning in 1939, Mogami and her sisters were brought in for substantial reconstruction, converting the triple 155 mm turrets to twin 203 mm (8"), turning over the 155 mm turrets to Yamato. Torpedo bulges were also added; in all, displacement rose to 12,400 tons, speed dropping to 34.5 kt (63.8 km/h)."

Thread: Re: Review

420017 — 2007-04-17T13:45:56+00:00

time out chaps

good fun game.
i have naval wars and like to play it because it is fun ,wore the cards out so have got naval battles now .

i can see what you are saying about the game but it does give you the feel of pounding your enemy fleet .

Amos

Thread: Re: First Play and Comments!

420017 — 2007-04-17T13:20:39+00:00

desertfox2004 wrote:
. A number of heavy cruisers (such as the Mogami class for Japan) are shown with 12" main batteries, when in reality they had 8 main guns.

Mogami
light cruiser
15 x 6"
8 x 5"

Thread: Re: Review

jacksonriker — 2007-04-05T22:52:23+00:00

it might just as well be two battalions of Napoleonic infantry firing at each other...
well, not quite....It has a navy feel to it, and if it plays at all like Modern Naval Battles, it is the best game to play w/a large group of non-gamers as it's really fun to gang up on your uncle (for example). You get to choose who to attack each turn, and w/a lot of players, if 2 people in a row have attacked your uncle, he probably has no defense cards left, and his ships are damaged and ready for the taking! Big family fun! Go for it Jeff, and if you ever want to get in a game, let me know- Jackson from Pleasant Hill

Image

Viriato — 2007-01-10T15:40:18+00:00

Naval Battles - Box Back (English)

Image

Viriato — 2007-01-10T15:35:21+00:00

Naval Battles - Box Contents (English)

Thread: Naval Battles - A Light Review

Neil Thomson — 2007-01-03T01:54:00+00:00

All of my reviews aim to offer a brief overview that allows people to get a good feel for what the game may offer them. I feel that other reviews can be sought if detailed game mechanics is what you are after.

In Naval Battles each player controls the fleet of a major naval power – France, USA, Britain, Germany, Italy or Japan. Each player takes all of the vessels available to that country and selects a total fleet value of 25 points (values are on each card). The ability to customise each game is the first strength of Naval Battles.

The aim of the game is to be the first player to sink a total of 25 points worth of enemy vessel. The same values used to select ships are also the victory points that each ship is worth. This is clever as it allows ships of different capabilities to be valued accordingly and aids the balance of the game.

The players then organise their fleets in rows. Up to three rows are possible, the 1st row is mandatory and a 3rd row cannot be formed without a 2nd row being established. Submarines are placed beside the rows of other vessels. The first thing that strikes you in Naval Battles is the amount of icons and numbers on the cards. Whilst overwhelming at first, the design of the cards is quite brilliant. After reading the rules it is evident that icons on the cards tell the players all they need to know about a card. Ten points for card design! The cards come in two types – vessels and action cards. The vessels include details such as hull rating (once reached the ship is sunk) and the types of weapons it carries – Main Battery, Secondary Battery andor Torpedoes. The action cards are vital as they are used to fire weapon systems and mix up the play with surprise attacks, depth charges, air raids etc. Each player will start with and usually have 7 action cards at their disposal.

The game itself is divided into 4 phases – Re-organize, Prepare, Attack and Discard. Re-organize allows a player to re-arrange their fleet and possibly enlist reinforcements if they have the appropriate action card. Prepare allows a player to play cards to specific vessels to enhance an attack or bolster defences. The attack phase is the most intricate. Each attack action card will list the specific weapon it can fire, so having the weapons themselves is not enough. In addition the attack card will outline which row the attacking ship must be in and which row of vessels it can target. Most attacks are automatically successful unless a defender plays an action card to nullify or blunt the attack. Some attacks require a dice roll (air raids). If the attack succeeds then the damage listed on the card is inflicted and the card is placed under the vessel to keep track of damage. If the ship is sunk then it is added to the attacker’s pile to record scoring.

The final phase allows players to discard cards. This is vital if a player is holding attack cards with weapon systems that they do not have on their vessels.

The Final Word

Naval Battles is very well designed and the game play is balanced. Multi-player games can be tricky as 1 player never wants to weaken a ship that would allow another player to finish it off, but that simply helps to balance the game and ensure tight finishes. The artwork is excellent and it appears that the designers have tried to make the look of each vessel as unique and accurate as the real thing. I’ll see you on deck Admiral!

Thread: Re: 5-Player game

Chump — 2006-11-11T04:03:55+00:00

prizziap wrote:
Cool, I've enjoyed the game a lot since I picked it up but have only played 2 and 3 player games so far. I'm looking forward to trying it out with more, so it good to hear you had fun with 5. Unless, different versions of the game are out there, the Italians aircraft carrier certainily is weak....they don't have one!

Hmmmmm ... looks like Karl pulled the wool over our eyes once again. I seem to remember him babbling about the French fleet briefly before we started. Could it be he was using a French A/C ... ? Sheesh.

Thread: Re: 5-Player game

prizziap — 2006-11-09T05:45:17+00:00

Cool, I've enjoyed the game a lot since I picked it up but have only played 2 and 3 player games so far. I'm looking forward to trying it out with more, so it good to hear you had fun with 5. Unless, different versions of the game are out there, the Italians aircraft carrier certainily is weak....they don't have one!

Thread: 5-Player game

Chump — 2006-11-09T02:07:29+00:00

After our first game of Bazaar, we broke out Naval Battles, which pits the various navies of WWII against each other in a free-for-all. Eugene, who was torn between continuing to play party-games with the girls, gave his head a shake and joined us instead. Interesting again to see how the division between party-gamers and strategy gamers tends to fall along gender lines. Discuss. (It should be noted that the girls were joined by latecomers Ms. Levitt and her Irish boyfriend with the odd name, who, nevertheless, would look longingly over our way, making remarks about playing Risk and stuff--it was obvious where his heart was.)

Karl gave us a quick rundown of the game, but it took a round of playing before the rest of us were comfortable with what, admittedly, were the quite simple mechanics of play. We chose the nationalities randomly: Karl ended up with the Italians, and their weak aircraft carrier; I got the Germans; Hilco got the British; Colin got the Japanese, with the monster that was the Yamato; and Eugene got the Americans.

We all set up using Karl's advise, placing weaker ships in the front line, capital ships in the second line, and any aircraft carriers in a third. During the first round, Karl helped us through each our turns. As the game progressed, we became acutely aware that Karl's "help" tended to have the effect of averting fire at the Italians. We soon collectively remedied this situation. But then Eugene came from behind, and quietly won the game outright.

It was a simple but exciting game, with the not insignificant downtime mitigated by need to make defensive manoeuvres on occasion when it wasn't one's turn per se. I'd like to try it playing teams along the traditional Axis vs. Allies lines.

Thread: Card List

cerulean — 2006-10-05T13:43:35+00:00

A card list for Naval Battles, Phalanx Games, 2004:

Action Cards:
3x Main Salvo 11"12"13" (1 damage)
4x Main Salvo 11"12"13" (2 damage)
3x Main Salvo 11"12"13" (3 damage)
1x Main Salvo 11"12"13" (4 damage)
3x Main Salvo 14"15"16"18" (2 damage)
7x Main Salvo 14"15"16"18" (3 damage)
3x Main Salvo 14"15"16"18" (4 damage)
2x Main Salvo 14"15"16"18" (5 damage)
6x Secondary Salvo 4"5" (1 damage)
3x Secondary Salvo 4"5" (2 damage)
5x Secondary Salvo 6"8" (1 damage)
4x Secondary Salvo 6"8" (2 damage)
1x Secondary Salvo 6"8" (3 damage)
3x Secondary Salvo Double 4"5" (3 damage)
1x Secondary Salvo Double 6"8" (4 damage)
1x Torpedo Spread (2 damage)
1x Torpedo Spread (3 damage)
2x Torpedo Spread (4 damage)
2x Torpedo Spread (5 damage)
2x Torpedo Spread (6 damage)
4x Depth Charges
3x Land-based Air Raid (x1)
2x Land-based Air Raid (x2)
1x Land-based Air Raid (x3)
4x Near Miss
4x Armor Plating
4x Escort Ship
4x Small Target
3x Evasive Action
3x Retreat
2x Reinforcements (3)
3x Reinforcements (4)
2x Reinforcements (5)
3x Surprise Attack
3x Planning

TOTAL ACTION CARDS: 102

Ships (1 each):
(France) Colbert
(France) Commandant Teste
(France) Courbet
(France) Foch
(France) France
(France) La Galissonniere
(France) Jean Bart
(France) Mogador
(France) Paris
(France) Richelieu
(France) Saphir
(France) Suffren
(France) Volta
(Germany) Admiral Hipper
(Germany) Bismarck
(Germany) Erich Giese
(Germany) Gneisenau
(Germany) Graf Zeppelin
(Germany) IXA
(Germany) Prinz Eugen
(Germany) Scharnhorst
(Germany) Schnellboot
(Germany) T13
(Germany) T61
(Germany) Tirpitz
(Germany) XXI
(Great Britain) Dorsetshire
(Great Britain) Exeter
(Great Britain) Hood
(Great Britain) Illustrious
(Great Britain) King George V
(Great Britain) Nepal
(Great Britain) Nestor
(Great Britain) Norfolk
(Great Britain) Renown
(Great Britain) Scythian
(Great Britain) Sheffield
(Great Britain) Southhampton
(Great Britain) Teazer
(Italy) Adua
(Italy) Aliseo
(Italy) Andrea Doria
(Italy) Capitani Romani
(Italy) Ciclone
(Italy) Conte de Cavour
(Italy) Fiume
(Italy) Gorizia
(Italy) Littorio
(Italy) Muzio Attendolo
(Italy) Raimondo Montecuccoli
(Italy) Vittorio Veneto
(Italy) Zara
(Japan) Aoba
(Japan) Hiryu
(Japan) I-174
(Japan) Kagero
(Japan) Kashii
(Japan) Kashima
(Japan) Katori
(Japan) Mikuma
(Japan) Mogami
(Japan) Nagato
(Japan) Shimakaze
(Japan) Shoho
(Japan) Yamato
(United States) Alaska
(United States) Brooklyn
(United States) Cleveland
(United States) Colorado
(United States) Columbia
(United States) Enterprise
(United States) Fletcher
(United States) Gato
(United States) Iowa
(United States) Jenkins
(United States) Pennsylvania
(United States) Radford
(United States) Sangamon

TOTAL SHIP CARDS: 78

TOTAL CARDS: 180

Thread: Re: Optional Rules...Team Games...

stinger_6 — 2006-09-28T15:58:22+00:00

Hi Moonicus,

I wonder if you "fixed" the multiplayer rules yet. We want to play this game next weekend with four players and want to use the teamgame option, because we want to duke it out axis against allies.

The written rules about teamgames are incomplete at best, so if you made up playable houserules, please share.

Greets,
Matt

Thread: Re: English rules in PDF?

Ronnn — 2006-09-21T12:09:02+00:00

Thank you for this link. It confirms what I've always suspected.
I've got the Dutch rules and they contain translation errors that totally alter the game.

Thread: Re: English rules in PDF?

SteF — 2006-09-03T20:07:24+00:00

Hi,

If you still look for them, go to :
http://www.grognard.com/info1/navalbattles.pdf

Cheers,

Image

Konwacht — 2006-09-03T12:45:29+00:00

Thread: Re: English rules in PDF?

bonzillou — 2006-08-26T13:27:55+00:00

Thank you walter for these tips!

Thread: Re: English rules in PDF?

VVoltz — 2006-08-19T18:19:32+00:00

Well I have the game, but sorry I don't have a scanner nor a Digital Camera, still, there is reference card here:

http://boardgamegeek.com/fileinfo.php?fileid=10058

The game is not so hard to understand once you know the meaning of the cards (much like Bang!), still, I add some guidelines:

Preparation cards have to played from a Ship, that ship cannot attack the turn you played the Preparation card, also, the card is discarted on your next turn. Adionally, some Preparation cards may be played as Defense cards.

You can only attack once per cannon, if a ship has two cannons, it can attack both with each cannon only if you have the adequate caliber attack card on your hand.

I truly hope it helps you a little.

Thread: English rules in PDF?

bonzillou — 2006-08-14T23:55:36+00:00

Hi
I've just bought the game (used) on BGG but the rulesbooklet is in german!
I thought I could find the english rules in pdf, but I don't find it no more on Phalanx webpage....?
Could you please help me?
Regards
Bonzillou

Thread: Re: Surprise attack action card

rogmyersgeek — 2006-07-19T16:07:27+00:00

Hi Gunnar,
Thanks for the clarification. From your description it seems then that if the phasing player plays a Retreat card and states that they will remove damage cards there is no way for the opposing player to stop that action since they cannot play a Surprise Attack card until their Attack phase. Thus, when it is the opposing players turn, the Surprise Attack could be played, thus removing the Retreat card and allowing the opposing player to then attack that fleet.

The bottom line though is that there is no way to stop the phasing player from removing damage cards with the Retreat card. Is that how you interpret the rules?

Thanks again for your help
Roger

Image

Datek — 2005-09-09T12:14:55+00:00

cards, 6 dice, rules, nice packaging and box