Game: Broadside

Thread: Re: Is it difficult for the British to win?

Trelane — 2008-07-31T12:31:54+00:00

The Americans can use their least powerful ships at first to set up on the 4 rows of stars. A "Cutter Patrol" that will be very difficult to defeat because as each is lost it is replaced with a stronger ship. Most British players never get near the merchant fleet. Place the American Frigates in front of each of the merchants, After initial set up, move the cutters to the edges so that they can't have their "T's" crossed and the 2 Brigs act as a back-up.
The British need time to set up a proper invasion. They only have a 5 Sail advantage and this can be broken down by Shore Batteries. If you send a British Cutter down the middle of the Shore Battery area you get to see both batteries, even though you may lose the ship! Another thing to remember. "Blocking". (According to the rules, ships do not continue to lose sails if they sit in place! Something to keep in mind.)

An invasion is necessary by the British to get through. You need to flood the American harbor with British ships to disrupt the defense. It will still be a close call either way.

Thread: Re: Suicidal Broadside

Meander — 2008-07-30T21:13:03+00:00

Thanks Mike. I kind of thought the same thing, but I suppose I needed someone else to confirm and verify it for me. Thanks for taking the time, very much, and for the logical explanations. Pete.

Thread: Re: Suicidal Broadside

Trelane — 2008-07-30T18:23:50+00:00

Pete: The rules are move and fire on your turn. When you "move" into a position as you described, you are acting as a "block". The enemy cannot fire because it has not moved. This is what is wrong with players who interpret that as long as two ships are sitting side by side they continue to remove sails. The game is designed to be where players "move" only one ship at a time. That ship can "move" then "fire". The opponent cannot return fire out of turn unless you move side by side with him. This is the only case where an enemy can remove sails out of turn.

Milton Bradley never intended to make the game one of tedious accounting of sail removal by checking on positions each turn. They wanted you to move 1 ship at a time and then fire and remove sails due to the currently moved ships action.

For example a two masted brig sails between two enemy vessels. It is sunk and the enemy removes 1 mast each from each of the two vessels.

A "Cutter" one sailed vessel, crosses the "T" on a Brig and removes 1 sail. It does not continue to fire turn after turn by sitting there. The ships are "technically" in motion and only one is moved by a player at any one time. To do anything else is to take away from the "blocking" strategy that the game intended to be. If a "Cutter" were to go in between two frigates, the ship is sunk but 1 sail each is removed from the enemy vessels. This is implied because it has moved and can "fire" on both sides of it's hull. Therefore you gain one sail by such an action, otherwise a cutter would never be able to be moved in between two vessels which is silly!

Thread: Suicidal Broadside

Meander — 2008-07-25T23:38:05+00:00

I am introducing Broadside to my grandsons. We've played, had fun, but something came up that I couldn't make a rule judgement on.

If a player moves one of his ships into the bottom position of "crossing the T," does he get fired upon? In other words, a player moves a ship next to an opponent's ship so that his bow is pointing at the broadside of the enemy.

The rules state that a broadside is fired at the end of a turn. Does this mean at the end of that player's turn a broadside can be fired by his opponent even though it was not the opponent's turn?

Obviously, this wouldn't be a desirable position if one was to be fired upon, but if not, there might be a use for the maneuver, if for no other reason than to distract your enemy.

Thread: Alternate way to play

garry_rice — 2008-02-02T21:19:56+00:00

I think my brother and I used to play that the 4 merchant ships had to escape the blockade of the red ships - makes it much more difficult for the American player to win. I think we let them move 4 or 5 spaces. I don't remember if all of them had to survive or just one for the American player to win.

Image

pete belli — 2007-12-29T03:24:06+00:00

Broadside: original 1962 historical booklet

Image

pete belli — 2007-12-29T03:22:36+00:00

Broadside: original 1962 insert showing series games

Image

pete belli — 2007-12-29T03:20:28+00:00

Broadside: original 1962 box

Thread: Re: Review: Broadside

theking — 2007-11-19T20:44:04+00:00

The 1962 version was the original, and had the "big box" and painting. The version with the flag on the cover came out in 1976 for the Bicentennial. All the American Heritage games were reissued that year in the smaller "flag" box.

Thread: Re: Review: Broadside

Bloodybucket — 2007-11-18T22:34:51+00:00

Although my copy oif Broadside is long gone, the ships live on...I kept them for use with Wooden Ships & Iron Men. The removable masts work great in that game.

Thread: Re: Review: Broadside

kimbo — 2007-11-15T00:26:47+00:00

Myrdin T Sasnak wrote:
I apologize for my faulty recollections concerning the rules, that's how I always played it.
Oh heck, there's no need to apologize!

I just thought it was an interesting example of how a "house rule" can become codified overtime and potentially over generations.

Look at it this way: now you can play the game again using the correct rules and see which version you like better!

Thread: Re: Review: Broadside

wargamer55 — 2007-11-14T18:04:22+00:00

For what it's worth, the photo of the big box version doesn't seem to show any dice ...
I suspect that "house rules" are indeed involved. Adding dice would seem to make the game much slower, as I consider the possibility. On average the ships would be moving 3-4 spaces a turn, which would make for a pretty lengthy approach phase for the game considering there are 10 ships in the Red Fleet. The printed rules at least have the virtue of speeding up play.

Thread: Re: Review: Broadside

Myrdin T Sasnak — 2007-11-14T14:41:23+00:00

I honestly don't remember, but judging from my age at the time I guess I was taught. I played the game again about 10 years ago with my then young kids and did not bother to read the rules. I acknowledge I was wrong about the spinaker, but I am surprised to learn that I'm wrong about the dice, too. It's hard to get to, but I will dig my game out this weekend (I was not joking about the ancient catacombs where I have a lot of my old ones - well maybe a little). I apologize for my faulty recollections concerning the rules, that's how I always played it.

Thread: Re: Review: Broadside

kimbo — 2007-11-14T14:24:05+00:00

I don't know if there was more than one version of Broadsides put out or not, but the version I own has some significant differences. My box has a different cover -- the painting of the battling warships comprise almost the entire front except for a gray band on the left that describes the game and a title band across the top - there is no flag on my box like the one pictured.
There were different versions of the box art for Broadside, but over the various copies of the game I owned, the rules never changed. I wonder, Bill, were you taught the game by somebody, or did you learn the game by reading the rules? The use of dice and the incorrect use of the spinnaker as a damage counter sounds like a perfect example of a game that was taught incorrectly. (Or taught with undisclosed house rules.)

For the record, I credit the Milton Bradley American Heritage series of games, but Broadsides, in particular, with sparking my life-long interest in history, military history in particular, and board gaming (wargaming in particular). It was and still is one of my favorite games of all time.

Thread: Re: Review: Broadside

wargamer55 — 2007-11-14T00:06:25+00:00

The copy I have gives every indication of being published in 1962, not later, but I see from some comments in the gallery that the "big box" edition was the original one and the smaller box came later. I think the one I had as a child was the bigger one, and I'm not entirely sure now whether it had dice or not.
Perhaps there are folks who have seen both editions who can shed light on this.

Thread: Re: Review: Broadside

Myrdin T Sasnak — 2007-11-13T21:02:46+00:00

I thought you might be right about the spanker, that's why I prefaced my comment by we might have been playing it wrong. I am positive about the dice and movement though. That makes for a very different game and one that is much more enjoyable. You have inspired me... I'll have to dig out my copy from my ancient catacomb of games and give it a look see and maybe a play or two.

Oh, and I would have gotten the game around '67 or '68, if memory serves me. I was three in 1962...

Thread: Re: Review: Broadside

wargamer55 — 2007-11-13T20:27:47+00:00

My review is based on the 1962 rules. I suspected that there might be some changes in later versions.
In the 1962 rules, at least, it specifically states that the "spanker" sail (the little one on the stern) does NOT count as a mast.

Thread: Re: Review: Broadside

Myrdin T Sasnak — 2007-11-13T17:07:18+00:00

This was one of my all time favorite games as a child in the 60's. I had this game and the other AH (read American Heritage - not Avalon Hill) games of 'Dogfight', 'Battle Cry', and 'Hit the Beach'. 'Broadsides was the best followed closely by Dogfight.

I don't know if there was more than one version of Broadsides put out or not, but the version I own has some significant differences. My box has a different cover -- the painting of the battling warships comprise almost the entire front except for a gray band on the left that describes the game and a title band across the top - there is no flag on my box like the one pictured.

Some of the notable differences:

As a matter of fact, there is no luck involved in the game at all.

Ship movement is very abstract. Basically a ship can turn and move any number of open spaces in one move. The main obstacles to flying all over the board are some land masses, friendly and enemy ships, the mines and the forts.

My game had a dice. Each turn, one ship could move the exact number of spaces as pips rolled on the dice. There was no 'any number of open space movement in my version. This made it really tricky for the red fleet to make its way into the harbor and avoid the buoys and shore batteries. I would think that not having the dice to determine the movement would take much of the fun out of the game (weird coming from me since I tend to dislike dice since bad luck hounds me like a hungry mastiff on the trail of a meat wagon). The dice adds a luck element, but it is tempered by the fact that the player must try to maximize his or her move by positioning their ships in such a way that they have a good option available despite what the dice roll may provide.

A Ship-of-the-line has four masts and can therefore take four hits. A frigate has three masts/three hits. A brig has two masts/two hits while the lowly cutter has but a single mast and therefore is gone after one hit.

Perhaps I always played this incorrectly... My ships had more sails than your version. A ship-of-the-line required five hits and had five sails: one sail each in the bow and stern and three main masts in the center. A frigate required four hits having three main masts and one sail in the stern. A brig required three hits having two masts in the center and one in the stern. The cutter required two hits, having the large center sail and one sail in the stern. When playing as the red fleet, we almost always would use the cutters as sacrificial lambs to find out which buoys were the 'sink' ones.

Overall Broadside is a mildly amusing abstract game with a sailing warship theme and a nice presentation. It's not really a wargame except in the most liberal possible reading of the term.
I have fond memories of playing it way back in the day, but recent replaying of the game reveals that there really isn't that good a game there by current standards, so I'd say it's mostly of interest these days as part of a collection.

If playing by the rules you mentioned, I would tend to agree. Not using the dice to determine the movement of a ship takes the heart out of the game making it rather dry and quite predictable. But using the version of the game that I have, the game becomes very exciting and quite tense. You position your ships as best you can to maximize your chance to roll the number required that well net you that 'rake' or get you into position in the front row of the Blue fleet to get at the merchants. I think it still holds up today and is much better than many new games I have learned and played.

Thread: Review: Broadside

wargamer55 — 2007-11-13T06:52:39+00:00

In retrospect the 1960s was a sort of Golden Age for history-based games, especially wargames. It was pre-computer, pre-D&D, pre-Star Wars, pre-a lot of other things.
While the Avalon Hill Game Company found a market among adults for games like Gettysburg and D-Day, the way was also being primed by family game-maker Milton Bradley (pre-Hasbro) which published a line of "American Heritage" games in conjunction with that then-popular magazine. The games themselves were more war-themed games than actual wargames, but they each included a nifty little color illustrated historical booklet that may very well have inspired the designer's note often seen in wargames.
Among the American Heritage titles was Broadside, which is basically an abstract sea fighting game set loosely in the era of the War of 1812. It doesn't represent any particular fight, and the ships don't really behave like sailing warships do, but for young boys it looked rather neat, with red and blue plastic ships with detachable white sail-bearing masts.
The basic situation is a raid by the Red Fleet of 10 ships against a harbor defended by the Blue Fleet, also of 10 ships. The Blue Fleet is slightly weaker than the Red Fleet, but it's aided by some harbor defenses, comprised of four shore batteries and six floating mines (called buoys in the game for some reason). Two of the shore batteries never miss, two never hit -- their marksmanship is revealed by turning the plastic fort over and seeing if it has the word "hit" or "miss" on the bottom. Likewise, the buoys/mines are a 50/50 shot. If run over by a ship the mine is flipped and it either sinks the ship or lets it pass.
As a matter of fact, there is no luck involved in the game at all. Ship combat is similarly deterministic. If a ship moves into a position where its broadside can fire on an enemy ship in an adjacent spot, then it inflicts one hit and removes a mast. If the enemy ship's broadside can bear, it also returns fire, causing a hit on the attacker. Given this, the only way to damage an ship without being hit in return is to move into a firing position directly in front of or behind it so you can fire without taking a return shot. In the game this is called "crossing the T," although the more historically accurate term would be a "rake." Crossing the T was more commonly used after the age of sail and usually refers to fleets rather than individual ships. I assume someone at MB thought "crossing the T" would be an easier term to understand than "rake."
Every ship fires with the same power, so the only difference is the amount of damage they can take. A Ship-of-the-line has four masts and can therefore take four hits. A frigate has three masts/three hits. A brig has two masts/two hits while the lowly cutter has but a single mast and therefore is gone after one hit. A nasty little trick is to sail a cutter between two enemy ships. You get to fire each broadside, inflicting two hits while you can only take one yourself.
Ship movement is very abstract. Basically a ship can turn and move any number of open spaces in one move. The main obstacles to flying all over the board are some land masses, friendly and enemy ships, the mines and the forts.
The object of the game is for the Red Fleet to sink four immobile merchant ships docked in the harbor which each sink if fired upon. It is possible for the Red Team to win while losing all their ships so long as they sink the fourth merchant ship at the same time they take their last hit.

Overall Broadside is a mildly amusing abstract game with a sailing warship theme and a nice presentation. It's not really a wargame except in the most liberal possible reading of the term.
I have fond memories of playing it way back in the day, but recent replaying of the game reveals that there really isn't that good a game there by current standards, so I'd say it's mostly of interest these days as part of a collection.

For other reviews check out my blog: http://pawnderings.blogspot.com

Thread: Re: Is it difficult for the British to win?

gleritte — 2007-10-11T18:44:51+00:00

I found a tough defense for Blue that took 3 moves to set up. Simply move 3 frigates forward 1, 2 and 3 stars. Then they patrol back and forth, and whenever a red ship sticks it's bow in the area, bang, cross the T.

Thread: Re: User Review

smithnewz — 2007-09-10T10:12:48+00:00

No problem. I thought maybe there were two versions.

Unlimited movement is admittedly a bit unrealistic, but then again (when prevailing winds should dictate) so would be the randomness of the die.

Whichever way, it's still quite a cool little game. All the best.

Thread: Re: User Review

bluedionysius — 2007-09-10T04:08:36+00:00

Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I learned the game from my cousin as a kid. Later I got a copy of the game and taught my brother how to play and recently my son. All the while teaching the game the wrong way. I have two red wooden dice in my game but I can't be sure they came with the game or with some other game. But anyway, as you say the rules say you can move any number of spaces.

Thread: Re: BROADSIDE - a short review

Eldard — 2007-09-09T22:31:32+00:00

Barry Kendall wrote:
. . . If I recall, the buoys were supposed to mark rocks or shoals and clear channels. . .

You guys are right; I stand corrected. The .pdf file of the rules at the BGG page does indeed describe them as buoys.

Thread: Re: BROADSIDE - a short review

Mandrake — 2007-09-09T22:26:40+00:00

I've never had a chance to play this game but have always wanted to. Thanks for the informative review.

Thread: Re: BROADSIDE - a short review

earache — 2007-09-09T16:59:03+00:00

Having suffered a flashback to my youth, it was while searching for this game that I stumbled onto the Geek and descended into madness.

Thread: Re: BROADSIDE - a short review

Barry Kendall — 2007-09-09T16:19:11+00:00

I loved this game as a kid and still play it once in a while. I wish they'd reissue it!

If I recall, the buoys were supposed to mark rocks or shoals and clear channels. Knowing which was which gave the US player an advantage particularly if the British player hadn't yet found all three "SINK" buoys (meaning, you just hit the rocks, and this is what happens to your ship)--a US ship could sail right through a "PASS" buoy (removing it) and get a shot at somebody if the opportunity presented itself.

My only complaint was that the ships looked sadly bare without bowsprits--only the British ships of the line had them. At least everybody got a spanker.

Warning: Don't try to paint the gunport bands. You'll drive yourself crazy.

Thread: Re: BROADSIDE - a short review

Eldard — 2007-09-09T13:37:42+00:00

Good review, Martin. Thanks.

It's been decades since I last played Broadside, but together with its MB American Heritage series sisters Battle Cry, Dogfight, and Hit The Beach, we played it often. I think it's second only to Dogfight in terms of fun and realism.

Regarding the buoys, I seem to recall them being refered to as mines (or what would've been more accurately labeled as torpedoes in the 19th Century). The placing of the "hits" in conjunction with the battery placement did give the Blue player some strategic flexibility, in the he/she could always load the "hits" toward one channel while massing most of his ships toward the other. Tactically, remembering where the "Misses" were was important for Blue because it gave him/her the ability to sudeenly sortie out of the harbor over a Miss to cross the T on a Red ship.

Thread: Re: User Review

smithnewz — 2007-09-09T10:42:45+00:00

Hi. I'm a bit puzzled, or intrigued. My copy of the game doesn't refer at all to using a die for movement (or anything else). My box-lid rules are the same as the Broadside Instruction Booklet in the PDF download file on BGG, namely:

"1. RED moves first. Turns alternate.
2. Each player moves ONE warship of his own colour each turn.
3. A ship must move in a STRAIGHT LINE, along a line of blue crosses, and STOP on a cross.
4. A ship may move ANY NUMBER of OPEN crosses. It CANNOT move across a land area, through another ship, or into a water area where no spots exist. Only one ship may occupy one spot at a time. ..."

And no dice are listed in the game contents at Darwin's Game Closet [http://www.darwinsgamecloset.com/broadside1962.html]

But yours obviously refers to dice for moving ...

Thread: BROADSIDE - a short review

smithnewz — 2007-09-09T07:55:55+00:00

As there didn’t seem to be a review on BGG for Milton Bradley’s ‘Broadside’, I thought I should contribute a short one. Otherwise, how will someone know if it’s for them (and fully complete copies are not all that cheap on the Internet auction sites)?

As an upfront confession, I’ve moved on from – or maybe it’s more like moving back from - very long, serious and complicated board wargames and miniatures games, to games that are simpler to learn, fun to play, but still also have elements of strategy, something to learn, and are absorbing to play. This is, therefore, the bias in this review (and others I might do).

MB seem to have had a liking for the Broadside name. Its 1940s paper-based version of ‘Battleships’ was called ‘Broadsides – The Game of Naval Strategy’, this here ‘Broadside’ game was brought out in the 1960s (an American Heritage game), and in the 1980s they brought out the quite different and rather more imposing ‘Broadsides and Boarding Parties’ (as the first of the Gamemaster series).

The large-format box includes a blue fleet and a red fleet (or if you want to make out it’s historical, an American fleet and a British fleet), each with 10 ships. It also includes 4 merchant ships – for the American fleet to protect – and some useful extras for the defenders, in the form of shore batteries and buoys marking treacherous rocks. Plus a whole mess of plastic masts/sails to be put in the little plastic ships, to designate their different types (cutters, brigs, frigates and ships-of-the-line).

The intention of the game is to broadly replicate the sea battles and strategies of the naval war of 1812, and you also get an excellent little 30-page booklet about that conflict, with colour illustrations etc, to set the scene.

The scenario is that the red fleet must invade the blue fleet’s harbour and sink the 4 merchant ships, which is to be strongly opposed as an outcome by the blue admiral – making the victory conditions pretty straightforward.

Once the ships have their various sails inserted and are trundling around the board, I defy any gamer with a heart not to think they look pretty darn cool (see pictures in the BGG game listing)! Each hit a ship takes from a broadside from an enemy gunboat, removes one sail, and when the last one is lost, that’s it and the vessel is sunk. It can be a bit fiddly with the sails, but it’s quite a cute way of removing damage points bookkeeping.

A broadside on a parallel course can be quite dangerous, as your intended victim can do the same to you, but sometimes (often even) that can be a calculated risk, deliberately taken. Even better, though, is ‘crossing the opponent’s T’, which (as it was in fact back then) allows you to broadside the enemy without their being able to bring their guns to bear on you. In its modest way, the game gives quite a good feel for the manoeuvring difficulties the seamen of the time had to master. And it’s good fun!

Sometimes the game feels slightly chess-like, with the importance of relative positioning, and the fact that ships can move any distance across the board in a straight line (meaning that you have to watch out for that enemy frigate over there, that’s seemingly a long way away - until you move into a position where he can scoot over and send you to Davy Jones’ Locker). But it still feels like a little naval wargame.

Criticisms? To me, it seems pretty hard for the red admiral to win too often. Even though the red fleet is a bit stronger in ship types, the blue fleet has the advantage of the shore batteries and the rocks under the buoys, and (as with many invasion/capture games) blue knows exactly where the red invaders must get to (ie, the 4 merchant ships).

One obvious anomaly (that probably assists the blue fleet) is that ship types only affect the amount of damage that can be taken, rather than the volume of offensive fire as well. So, a broadside from a cutter packs the same wallop - minus one sail - as one from a frigate or ship-of-the-line. I guess you could develop house rules around this, but I haven’t bothered yet – a heap of house rules for a game of this type would seem to come close to missing the point …

The rules on shore batteries and buoys are also very simplistic. For example, 2 of the shore batteries are artillery geniuses (hit every time), and the other 2 can’t hit the side of a barn (always miss). But red doesn’t know which are which until the gauntlet is run. [And there are no rules allowing the blue commander to apply further training or discipline to the hopeless ones, so once they are identified the red mariners can wave to them as they sail past!]

But, as I hope I’ve made clear, the game doesn’t try to be a true-to-life exercise in miniatures. The box says ages 10 to adult, which seems right, but two adults can definitely have fun playing it. Highly recommended (if expectations are set at the appropriate level)!

Thread: Re: Is it difficult for the British to win?

Michael Ward — 2007-04-02T03:01:16+00:00

Thanks for the rules info. I had no idea. My box, also circa 1962, says "remove the buoy". You're right, not removing them really hurts the British efforts to break through the American defenses. Its a common tactic to use a sloop or brig to sacrifice itself to blast a hole through the line of buoys, wherever the Americans are weak. Then British frigates and SOLs pour through the gap.

If the Brits take too long to set up their attack the Americans can set up a tough defense that's almost impossible to get through. If I'm the American player faced by an indecisive British player here's the defense I prefer to set up. First, get your four frigates facing the British position on the stars that cover the breaches/exits from the four sides of the line of buoys. Three of these are easy, if you set up correctly. That is, make sure your frigates have a straight forward move to these positions. The fourth one will take three moves to get into place. Then, if the Brits are still uncommitted, place six other ships just behind the line of buoys. That will leave you two ships as a fire brigade to plug holes.

Thread: Re: Is it difficult for the British to win?

rod3556lhs — 2007-04-01T14:42:31+00:00

I have two copies of the game, each with its own box lid of course. They both are copyrighted 1962. Under the BUOYS section on one set of rules it says that after a ship is sunk by a buoy, the buoy is REMOVED from the game. The other box lid does NOT say the buoy is "removed". Of course removing the buoy would be advantageous to the British, so that is the one we use to give the British a better opportunity. The box lid rules with the buoy NOT REMOVED is my original game and the one we played all the time, until I picked up the second one on eBay.

As to "procrastinating" as the British, there are times when the British are spending several moves to "set up" their attack, in order to take advantage of any break-through with follow up forces. I see what you mean by allowing the Americans to prepare their defense.

Thread: Re: Is it difficult for the British to win?

Michael Ward — 2007-04-01T10:09:11+00:00

I find it pretty well balanced. Though if the Brits procrastinate and give the Americans lots of time to set up a solid defense it can be quite difficult for them.

Two set of rules? Where? All I'm aware of are the ones inside the box lid of my copy.

Thread: Is it difficult for the British to win?

rod3556lhs — 2007-03-31T15:19:44+00:00

This is an old game from my youth that my wargaming buddies and I pulled out of the attic recently. We wanted to take a breather from heavier wargames and do something light and quick. We have played it a half dozen times with the Americans winning each time. One of my buddies is convinced that the British can not win against an experienced American player. It sure seems to be the case. Does anyone have any comment on this? Maybe some special British strategy that could make a difference? We have noted that there are two different versions of the rules. The later rules help balance it somewhat, but still with no British wins.

Thread: would like historical pamphlet

RichardC — 2006-08-18T22:52:20+00:00

could someone post the historical pamphlet for the Broadsides game for me in the downloadable files section please....

thanks

Image

cmessenger — 2005-10-30T03:03:41+00:00

Thread: User Review

bluedionysius — 2005-09-19T05:03:16+00:00

Broadside by Milton Bradley is quick, fun game for ages 10 to adults. The background for the game is the naval war of 1812 between the United States and Great Britain. The game is abstracted to a single, large battle in an American harbor. The object of the game for the American’s is to wipe out the enemy fleet. The British must sink the four merchant ships in the American harbor.

The British have the American’s outgunned with their ships-of-the-line but the American’s have the home court advantage. Each side has 10 ships with 1 to 4 masts. A ship is able to take a number of hits equal to its number of masts before being sunk.

Each side, beginning with the British, moves one ship any number of spaces. Movement must be in a straight line along grid marked out with white crosses. The direction the ship points and the end of movement must be in the same direction of the movement. Naval battle occurs whenever enemy ships are adjacent with guns bearing on the enemy. In a broadside enemy ships are side by side with both ships taking a hit. Crossing the “T” occurs when a ship moves across the bow or stern of an enemy ship with guns pointing at the enemy ship.

The movement grid is divided in half. One half is open sea where the British start. The other half is the harbor where the American’s start. In order to sink the merchant ships the British must enter the port by one of two harbor entrances. American shore batteries and mines protect both entrances.

Half of the shore batteries are marked “hit” and half are marked “miss”. The shore batteries inflict damage in a similar way as naval battles when the British ship crosses their line of fire of a battery marked “hit”. The shore batteries do not fire on their own ships.

Half of the mines are marked “sink” and half are marked “pass”. Any ship that moves to a grid point with a mine must end its turn there. If the mine is marked “sink” the ship is immediately removed from play regardless of the owner. If the mine is marked “pass” the ship may move normally on the players next turn.

The game board is beautifully illustrated. The masts are a little fiddly when handling the ships (building, moving, taking hits) but give the game a very nice look with a period feel.

The game mechanic is simple and very easy to learn. There are various strategies that can be developed by young minds on how to block or penetrate the harbor. I have fond memories of this game from my childhood and enjoy playing it from time to time with my son.

Image

bluedionysius — 2005-09-06T14:32:26+00:00

Image

bluedionysius — 2005-09-06T14:32:22+00:00

Image

bluedionysius — 2005-09-06T14:32:22+00:00

Broadside

Image

bluedionysius — 2005-09-06T14:32:17+00:00

Board Art

Image

bluedionysius — 2005-09-06T14:32:17+00:00

Anchors Away

Image

bluedionysius — 2005-09-06T14:29:21+00:00

Your Move