Game: Modern Naval Battles

Image

Howitzer_120mm — 2008-11-28T07:01:20+00:00

1 side of these cards is a reference aid, the other is a player order #.

Image

Howitzer_120mm — 2008-11-28T06:56:44+00:00

All the Action Cards from the base game

Image

Howitzer_120mm — 2008-11-28T06:56:30+00:00

Subs have 2 sides - Active and Passive

Image

Howitzer_120mm — 2008-11-28T06:52:15+00:00

All the Ship Cards from the base game

Image

Howitzer_120mm — 2008-10-14T06:39:19+00:00

For the base game you need 14 sheets of action cards.

Image

Howitzer_120mm — 2008-10-14T06:39:12+00:00

For the base game you need 7 sheets of ship cards.

Thread: Re: Another Oldie.....

JackFlash — 2008-08-01T00:15:20+00:00

How big is China's navy compared to the US or Russia?

Thread: Re: Another Oldie.....

Freitag — 2008-07-31T04:35:57+00:00

The new version looks to have a lot of little extras. Also a bigger focus on China's navy.

Thread: Re: Forget the Pretzels and Put Away The Beer!

fusag — 2008-07-30T02:09:20+00:00

cferejohn wrote:
What? Maybe "Beer and Pretzels" has a different meaning in the wargame set, but one of the primary attributes of Beer and Pretzel games (as far as I'm concerned) is that they are *short*. Axis and Allies may not have the strategic or tactical depth of other wargames, but it is about as far from a Beer and Pretzel game as I can imagine.

Guillotine, Bang, and Fluxx are what I think of when I think beer and pretzel game.
Then it probably is my wargaming roots. Axis & Allies definitely isn't short, but it's mindless fun (that's probably where the beer comes in, because you don't need to be sober to enjoy it). Guillotine and Fluxx are "filler," stuff we play while waiting for another game to finish or because someone can't stay for a longer game.

Thread: Re: Forget the Pretzels and Put Away The Beer!

cferejohn — 2008-07-29T20:06:59+00:00

fusag wrote:
reapersaurus wrote:
Just because something isn't a wargame, doesn't mean it's devoid of tactics and is only good for random beer-infused sessions.
Did I say it was devoid of tactics? Do I look down on games that aren't wargames? No and no, so please don't misrepresent me.

I most often hear beer & pretzels in conjunction with Axis & Allies. Simple game, still some tactics/strategy involved but questionable simulation value, and game mechanisms that reflect that.

What? Maybe "Beer and Pretzels" has a different meaning in the wargame set, but one of the primary attributes of Beer and Pretzel games (as far as I'm concerned) is that they are *short*. Axis and Allies may not have the strategic or tactical depth of other wargames, but it is about as far from a Beer and Pretzel game as I can imagine.

Guillotine, Bang, and Fluxx are what I think of when I think beer and pretzel game.

Thread: Re: Forget the Pretzels and Put Away The Beer!

jascps — 2008-07-28T23:16:49+00:00

You may want to check out Dan Verssen's updated version of this game. You can find it here: www.dvg.com

Thread: Re: Forget the Pretzels and Put Away The Beer!

da pyrate — 2008-07-28T21:42:41+00:00

reapersaurus wrote:

Since when does "not being a naval simulation game" equal "beer and pretzels game"?!

Just because something isn't a wargame, doesn't mean it's devoid of tactics and is only good for random beer-infused sessions.

That's got to be one of the more elitist insinuations I've read on BGG... well, at least this week.

If I've told you once, I've told you a million times, don't exagerate!

Thread: Re: Forget the Pretzels and Put Away The Beer!

da pyrate — 2008-07-28T21:41:18+00:00

garygarison wrote:
fusag wrote:
Those looking for simulation value will find MNB1 lacking.

Frankly, if all the naval iconography in the game were replaced with abstract geometric shapes, I'd still enjoy it. Compelling decisions is what elevates a game above mindless Fluxxism, not its simulation of reality.

I agree - it is the decision making process that makes this more than 'beer and pretzels' - the simulation value is not relevant when juding it solely as a game, IMHO.

Thread: Re: Forget the Pretzels and Put Away The Beer!

fusag — 2008-07-28T21:26:45+00:00

reapersaurus wrote:
Just because something isn't a wargame, doesn't mean it's devoid of tactics and is only good for random beer-infused sessions.
Did I say it was devoid of tactics? Do I look down on games that aren't wargames? No and no, so please don't misrepresent me.

I most often hear beer & pretzels in conjunction with Axis & Allies. Simple game, still some tactics/strategy involved but questionable simulation value, and game mechanisms that reflect that.

Thread: Re: Forget the Pretzels and Put Away The Beer!

fusag — 2008-07-28T21:20:35+00:00

moldndecay wrote:
*cough* Leyte Gulf *cough*
Actually, Leyte Gulf only supports my argument that no admiral would willingly allow surface ships to engage his carriers. As you are likely well aware, Leyte Gulf was part Japanese subterfuge, part accident/luck.

With an enormous carrier air disparity, the remaining decisive arm of the IJN was its surface force. In fact, Ozama's carrier fleet was used as bait to draw off the US fleet carriers in order for Kurita's surface force to attack the invasion force. Both sides realized the supremacy of air power, so the Japanese planned attempted to remove US air cover from hindering its surface forces.

On the US side, the Taffy's were only stumbled into Kurita's force because they thought it had retreated, recon had since lost track of them, and TF34 was not left to cover the San Bernardino Strait. The surprise was so completely that the escort carriers launched aircraft to attack with whatever they were armed with, even depth charges. The US certainly didn't willingly let surface forces engage its carriers.

Leyte Gulf was an exception to the rule, which only more clearly delineates what that rule is: surface guns in a carrier air battle is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. The Prince of Wales and Repulse agree.

Thread: Re: Forget the Pretzels and Put Away The Beer!

mikoyan — 2008-07-28T20:44:48+00:00

fusag wrote:

Other reasons why: since you must setup ships into all 3 rows, there will always be ships within gunnery or missile range. Excuse me, but what admiral throws out all naval doctrine from the past 7 decades and willingly allows even the screen of his carrier task force come within gunnery range of the opposing fleet?

Furthermore, due to the mix of cards, gunnery and missile combat is usually as common as air strikes. Missiles I can understand, but again with the guns; this isn't WW2, it's supposed to be "modern." And the dearth of air cards means even the strongest US carrier can't put up a standing CAP.

Those looking for simulation value will find MNB1 lacking. The expansions address this, at the added cost of rules complexity (much like the campaign rules for Down in Flames). Thus I do lump MNB into the beer & pretzels category.
Most ships still have a gun mounted on them and it is entirely possible for guns to enter the picture.

Thread: Re: Forget the Pretzels and Put Away The Beer!

reapersaurus — 2008-07-28T20:44:47+00:00

Since when does "not being a naval simulation game" equal "beer and pretzels game"?!

Just because something isn't a wargame, doesn't mean it's devoid of tactics and is only good for random beer-infused sessions.

That's got to be one of the more elitist insinuations I've read on BGG... well, at least this week.

Thread: Re: Forget the Pretzels and Put Away The Beer!

moldndecay — 2008-07-28T20:21:07+00:00

Thread: Re: Forget the Pretzels and Put Away The Beer!

garygarison — 2008-07-28T17:42:00+00:00

fusag wrote:
Those looking for simulation value will find MNB1 lacking.

Frankly, if all the naval iconography in the game were replaced with abstract geometric shapes, I'd still enjoy it. Compelling decisions is what elevates a game above mindless Fluxxism, not its simulation of reality.

Thread: Re: Forget the Pretzels and Put Away The Beer!

fusag — 2008-07-28T17:06:48+00:00

I must humbly disagree. If you're playing with just the first set, you forgot to mention that both players draw ships from the same deck, so its likely they'll get a mix of US, Soviet, British, French, etc. ships. And reinforcements are drawn from the same deck. This is one of the many abstractions where the designer chose simplicity in design over realism in simulation. Now, I'm all for elegance in design, but this is one reason I put this game (like many Dan Verssen games) into beer & pretzels rather than wargames.

Other reasons why: since you must setup ships into all 3 rows, there will always be ships within gunnery or missile range. Excuse me, but what admiral throws out all naval doctrine from the past 7 decades and willingly allows even the screen of his carrier task force come within gunnery range of the opposing fleet?

Furthermore, due to the mix of cards, gunnery and missile combat is usually as common as air strikes. Missiles I can understand, but again with the guns; this isn't WW2, it's supposed to be "modern." And the dearth of air cards means even the strongest US carrier can't put up a standing CAP.

Those looking for simulation value will find MNB1 lacking. The expansions address this, at the added cost of rules complexity (much like the campaign rules for Down in Flames). Thus I do lump MNB into the beer & pretzels category.

Thread: Re: Forget the Pretzels and Put Away The Beer!

cerulean — 2008-07-28T15:15:17+00:00

reapersaurus wrote:
I just wanted to add that way back when I first started reading BGG (back in 2001, and earlier on rec.games.board), I started hearing the term "beer and pretzels game" and was confused, because people used MNB as an example of it.

I didn't 'get' the term, because I agree with your review - it just doesn't feel like a "turn off your brain" game - there are way too many tactical decisions.

Agreed. CWNB is one of the meatiest entries in the Naval War family of games.

Thread: Re: Forget the Pretzels and Put Away The Beer!

reapersaurus — 2008-07-28T05:33:56+00:00

I just wanted to add that way back when I first started reading BGG (back in 2001, and earlier on rec.games.board), I started hearing the term "beer and pretzels game" and was confused, because people used MNB as an example of it.

I didn't 'get' the term, because I agree with your review - it just doesn't feel like a "turn off your brain" game - there are way too many tactical decisions.

Throw in the psychological interplay and bluffing (do I have the right card to defend against your attack? Do I play this defense card face down, to intimidate/demotivate the opponents from attacking me, or do I play it face up to discourage those attacks?), and the luck management and I think it's not as brain-dead as has been gotten across thru the years.

We played this a LOT in college, with various groups and playstyles, and invariably the winner was the one that played smart and had their gambles pay off. Any person in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place going into round 3 could win.

I don't think this is the case where the luckiest person will likely win, unless they are VERY lucky.

Thread: Re: Forget the Pretzels and Put Away The Beer!

garygarison — 2008-07-28T03:19:09+00:00

Looking for info on AH Naval War after enjoying a game, I discovered MNB. I'm a DIY junkie, so the lure of the PnP version Cold War Naval Battles was irresistible. One session with just the basic game was all it took to convince me. I've now made the expansions through #5 and am hoping to get to play some one-on-one campaign mode real soon.

Thread: Forget the Pretzels and Put Away The Beer!

da pyrate — 2008-07-28T00:14:35+00:00

Modern Naval Battles

]]>
Military-themed Card Game of Modern Naval Warfare
3-6 Players
30-90 Minutes
Designed by Dan Verssen & Alan Emrich
Published by World Wide Wargames (1989)

“Proximity to beer and pretzels impairs the judgement of fleet commanders in combat situations. For this reason, and for this reason alone, all ‘beer and pretzels’ should be removed from the bridge and stored in foot lockers prior to entering combat.”
Dan Verrsen (designer of Modern Naval Battles)

For some reason that is totally beyond my understanding, many people seem to put Modern Naval Battles into the ‘beer and pretzel’ class of game. I suspect that it may be due to having a physical similarity to the Avalon Hill game, Naval War. I know – they are both card games, they both give victory to the person who scores the most points from sinking enemy ships and they both have a military/naval-theme. Ferraris have four wheels and an engine and so do Volkswagen Beetles – Volkswagen Beetles must be sports cars.

To those of us who have played both, and thought about how we play the game, we know that the similarity ends the moment you read the rules. It’s a bit like saying that the meat pattie in a Big Mac is the same as a finely cooked piece of Rib-eye steak – they don’t look the same, they don’t feel the same and they certainly don’t taste the same. They are not really the same thing at all and nor are MNB and NW.

NW is a ‘beer and pretzel’ game – it is fairly simple and doesn’t take much thought to play and enjoy. IMHO, MNB is a totally different style of game that is relatively complex for a card game and requires the players to make many significant decisions throughout the game. I feel that this complexity is due to rather sophisticated integration of ships and weapon systems as portrayed by the game system.

]]>
“I want you guys to go out there and roll sixes!”
Chester Nimitz (during a planning meeting prior to the Battle of Midway)

To explain the game is simpler than to play it well. You start the game with seven ships in your fleet and you have to arrange them. You can have one, two or three rows of ships and your submarines are moored to the side. Ships have different weapon systems – guns, missiles, torpedos and aircraft. The weapons systems will have a bearing on how your fleet is deployed. Ships firing guns must be in the first row of your fleet (Main Attack Group) and is only allowed to fire their guns at the enemy Main Attack Group. Ships firing missiles must be in the Main Attack Group or in the second row of the fleet (Screening Vessels) and is only allowed to fire at enemy ships in the Main Attack Group or Screening Vessels. The third row are referred to as Screened Vessels. Screened Vessels may only be attacked by aircraft and submarines – normally aircraft carriers are placed in the Screened Vessels group. The bottom line is: where you place your ships is important as it has a direct bearing on how effectively they can use their weapons and how vulnerable they will be to attack.

At the start of each turn each player draws a card to determine turn order. The turn order will vary from turn to turn and it is possible that one player may have two turns in a row.

Each player then has their turn. They will roll a “fog-of-war” die to see how many actions they have for the turn – roll a one and you have one action, roll a six and you have six actions. Each action involves either playing a card or declaring a carrier-based air-strike.

After you have rolled your dice you have to select how best to use your options. During your turn you can use action cards to make attacks (gun attacks, missile attacks, torpedos, anti-submarine warfare, land-based air-strikes, bomber strikes and carrier air-strikes) or you can use defense cards as area defenses.

Defense Cards: there are different defense cards (evasive manoeuvres, electronic counter-measures, air cover and anti-submarine warfare) which will protect against various types of attacks. You can play the defense card during your turn as an action and it becomes an area defense (these cards will be discarded at the start of your next turn and before then will protect your entire fleet from the appropriate type of attack) or they can be held in your hand and played as point defense (played from your hand during other people’s turns – in this case each card will only stop one attack).

]]>
“I want you to hit ‘em hard, hit ‘em low and, if they move, hit ‘em again!”
George S. Patton (in the dressing room of the army football team prior to an Army/Navy match)

Gunnery, missile and torpedo attack cards have a number which represents the damage the attack will do to the target vessel. When the accumulated damage equals or exceeds the armour value of the target ship, it will sink and the person making the final attack will be credited with victory points. Air strikes amount to rolling dice and a hit will sink the target immediately. Carrier air-strikes normally need a one or a two on the dice to be successful. Land-based air-strikes have a higher chance of being successful against the Main Battle Group than against Screening Vessels and has less chance again when launched against the Screened Vessels. Before selecting your targets you should ask yourself, “How lucky do I feel?” Alternatively, if there is a small Main Attack Group you may be able to completely wipe it out, thus making the Screening Vessels the new Main Attack Group.

Submarines are interesting parts of your fleet. They can be Active or Passive. Active submarines are easier to sink than Passive submarines. Submarines have the option to target any enemy ship regardless of its location in the fleet. Los Angles and Alpha class submarines are more effective on the attack and harder to sink due to their greater speed and/or stealth.

Bomber strikes are handled differently – for each “Fog-of-War” point allocated to the strike the player will roll a die. For each 1, 2, 3 or 4 rolled they will sink a ship in a single enemy fleet.

There are also special cards that allow you to gain additional ships, to retreat for a turn, repair ships during combat and make your aircraft carrier crews more efficient.

“You don’t have to be a rocket scientist – but it does help”
Wernher von Braun (Father of the U.S. space Program)

The game has advanced rules which are quite sophisticated. Without going into details, the advanced rules create situations where defense systems become more integrated and the effect of this on game play is to give the players more decisions regarding which targets are easier or more difficult to sink.

]]>
“Do you want fries with that?”
(Nameless Employee of Large Multi-national Corporation)

The quality of the components is quite good. The game comes with 55 Ship Cards and 114 Action Cards. The cards are printed in multi-colours on thick, glossy cardboard. The two decks have different sized cards which makes it easy to sort them out if necessary. They would be better with rounded corners but this is a minor complaint.

The rules are only four pages long and are clearly written (unlike many other 3W games of this vintage).

The six player-order cards have neat summaries on their reverse side that make it easy for people to check when and in what situation they can play the basic attack and defense cards.

The game requires players to make a lot of decisions and the decisions will have a significant bearing on the game. This lifts it from being just another ‘beer and pretzels” game.

Weapon systems, particularly if using the advanced rules, are highly integrated, making the location of ships within fleets quite significant. At the start of each turn a player may move a single ship to an adjacent group, so your initial deployment is important.

The ‘Fog-of-War’ is an interesting concept that works in this game. Even having the right cards is not necessarily enough. As with many cards games, how you play the cards is more important than simply having the right cards.

The person who has 180 or more points at the end of a complete hand will win the game. The game does have an element of “let’s gang up on the leader”, but due to the complexity of the integrated aspects of combat this is not necessarily a big deal.

When you have had enough of ‘beer and pretzel’ games and want to play a real wargamer’s card game, please pull out a copy of Modern Naval Battles and deal me in.

“Dead Men Tell No Tales!”

Thread: Re: Another Oldie.....

TimAllen — 2008-07-23T13:55:52+00:00

Hey guys:

I have the old game (technically the downloadable Cold War Naval Battles version, but its the same thing). Do you know if there are any rules changes in the new version, or is it strictly a graphics update?

Thread: Re: Another Oldie.....

mikoyan — 2008-07-23T03:22:58+00:00

JackFlash wrote:
Kenneth, Did you know that Dan Verssen games is reprinting this? I believe it's for sale right now! Check the website and it should be listed!
I have all 3...

Thread: Re: Another Oldie.....

JackFlash — 2008-07-23T03:02:15+00:00

Kenneth, Did you know that Dan Verssen games is reprinting this? I believe it's for sale right now! Check the website and it should be listed!

Thread: Re: Another Oldie.....

mikoyan — 2008-07-22T22:16:39+00:00

I thought I put an analysis up there. I guess not. But I like this game. It's a good beer and peanuts version of other Naval games. It is not too complicated (although it gets more complicated with the other versions out there). One of my complaints is the unbalancing of ships but as you said, the bigger ships make you the bigger target. My other complaint is the variation in weapon types. You're swimming in A launchers but all your cards are C missiles. The other rules in the other books add to the game but sometimes they bog the game down.

Thread: Re: Another Oldie.....

reapersaurus — 2008-07-22T21:08:27+00:00

While I appreciate a review of an undervalued game, this review is almost all rules description, and little analysis.
Some people may like rules, but to me the strength of a review is in the knowledge, comparisons, and observations (balance, gameflow, fun, etc) that the reviewer brings to the article.

You twice mentioned that ship draws leads to imbalance and that is your biggest complaint.
In my experience, when you get a strong ship, the majority of the time it just makes you a big target for other player's attacks. Yeah, the US carriers can defend themselves better, but that juicy 22 points just means more attacks are coming your way. Sometimes you weather them and take a lead that round, other times you're blown to bits while others take the lead. A big equalising factor of getting the best ships is that
a) if playing with more than 2 players, there are always more opponents than you who will have plenty of attacks against you.
b) Just because you get the good ships, doesn't mean you will get the attacks to use them well. Even someone who has a crappy fleet can pull Air Strikes and Bomber Strikes and decimate the (strong-fleeted) leader.

I find MNB to be an excellent multiplayer attack-fest, where the luck factor is so prevalent that it provides ample opportunities for big changes of momentum, multiple leaders (everyone dogpiles the leaders), and a lot of decisions leading to (sometimes opposed) dicerolls (risk management) and most importantly lots of fun in a short time, with very friendly rules.

Thread: Another Oldie.....

mikoyan — 2008-07-22T19:23:40+00:00

We've been playing this game for quite a while and I'm going from memory on some of the rules, so forgive me if I omit some stuff. This is a game that was release in the early 90's and was a very abstract reflection of the Naval situation at the time. It was basically NATO vs. the Soviet Union with the ship cards giving relative strengths.

To start the game each player is given a certain number of ships (in one of the optional rules this modified somewhat where each player is given a certain number of destroyers, cruisers, a carrier and a submarine). Since NATO and Soviet ships aren't balanced, this could lead to a fairly unbalanced mix of ships (US Carriers kick ass....Soviet Carriers don't...I'll talk about that a little later). Your ships are arranged into rows. The first row is typically your low value ships. Your middle row is your higher value ships. Your last row is typically your carrier.

A turn consists of rolling the die to determine the number of actions you get that turn and then performing those actions. If you have an additional ship, play before your take your turn. Same with damage control and retreat. Then you can discard as many cards you want and finally draw your hand up to seven (or eight...I forget which). You can also re-adjust your fleet by moving one ship (I forget if you can move more) but this is at the beginning of your turn.

An action can be one of the following actions:
1. An attack. In order to make an attack, one of your ships must have that type of card and you can only make 1 attack per type of launcher on your ship. Guns can only go from the first row and attack the first row of an opponents ships. Missiles can go from either the first row or second row and attack either the first or second row. An airstrike from a carrier can hit any row. There are defenses against each attack.
2. Place an area defense. Area defenses cover your whole fleet until the beginning of your next turn.
3. Perform an air strike (if you have a carrier or a card)
4. ASW - If you have the card.

To defend against an attack, there are defensive cards that you can play from your hand (or if you put up an area defense, they cover your whole fleet). ECM works against missiles. Evade works against guns. I forget what works against planes.

Carriers allow you to make an airstrike, and it's either based on the airstrike rating if you have the first set or the card that comes with the carrier in the later sets. Attacks made on the first row are more likely to succeed. I forget how the airstrike rating works, but if I remember correctly, you get +1 on attacks make to the first row and -1 to attacks made to the back row. If the airstrike hits, the ship is sunk (unless it's a capital ship, in which case it's crippled).

Overall, I think this is a pretty fun game. It's in the same vein as Avalon Hill's Naval War but a little more complicated. It gets even more complicated as you add the other sets. One of the other sets has a provision for playing a campaign game. The other set gives you tactics and potentially bad luck events. I think the biggest complaint about this game is the imbalance if one person gets an American carrier and someone else gets one of the Soviet "carriers".

Some of the cards give bonuses and have different effects. For instance there is a landbased bomber card that can be devastating in conjunction with a surprise attack. There are rules for the additional ship, that if you have a poor fog of war roll, you can get a better ship.

Thread: Re: 14yo Admiral kicked my butt!

TheChin! — 2007-08-04T13:51:05+00:00

Next time I wont be helping him. Perhaps helping is too strong a word for turning down that carrier near the beginning. It was a deliberate choice on my part and it did make a significant difference to how it played. Yet that was the only "help" he had. After that he roundly kicked my butt fair and square.

Well if you would have taken the carrier and beat him 39 to 4 he might have soured on the game and wouldn't have played again. You would have never been able to play with the balanced fleet option and he would have missed out on many good plays. Especially with kids I feel it's important to play a "practice" game first that you can make sacrifice choices in order to learn the game and get them hooked. This strategy is also good for introducing games to people who you think might enjoy it but are resistant to it, either because of theme, type or any other factor. Once they have a good time playing it, then you can pull out all the daggers.

Thread: Re: 14yo Admiral kicked my butt!

TheChin! — 2007-08-04T13:41:19+00:00

lantern314 wrote:
We always use the one carrier, one sub, two cruisers, four destroyers method for determining initial ships. That gives everyone a complete fleet, and avoids the circumstance that you described above. Being lopsided on carriers would make the game not any fun to play.

We do do too, but the people who get Soviet carriers invariably grumble because the U.S. carriers are so much better. What has to be repeatably explained though is that U.S. carriers are so many points that they are attack magnets. Live by the sword, die by the sword. The grubling does have more credence in a one-on-one, but we usually play with 5-7 people.

Maybe in a one-on-one, both sides could start with a U.S. carrier and it would be more even. Or, after the initial draw, the lower point fleet could draw extra destroyers to make up the difference.

Thread: Re: 14yo Admiral kicked my butt!

FNH1 — 2007-08-04T12:40:11+00:00

Thread: Re: 14yo Admiral kicked my butt!

lantern314 — 2007-08-04T04:38:26+00:00

We always use the one carrier, one sub, two cruisers, four destroyers method for determining initial ships. That gives everyone a complete fleet, and avoids the circumstance that you described above. Being lopsided on carriers would make the game not any fun to play.

Thread: Re: 14yo Admiral kicked my butt!

JackFlash — 2007-08-03T23:51:07+00:00

Never give a kid a break!

Thread: 14yo Admiral kicked my butt!

FNH1 — 2007-08-03T20:35:17+00:00

Okay I may of helped him a bit, but really I make one mistake and it's like 'Game Over"!

We drew our initial ships and laid them in the required 3 lines. Neither of us managed to draw an aircraft carrier which was a genuine bummer. The carrier always makes a great big hammer with which to pound the enemy.

I got to go first. Feeling mean I managed to launch three missiles and a single gun attack all at one ship. I wanted to get some points early and demonstrate how to score points.

He was tentatively trying to stop the gun attack. I pointed out that unless he also stopped the missiles he would be wasting a card. He withdrew his defensive card and I made the first kill of the game.

He came back with a misslie spread, hiting four targets but not sinking any of them.

Next turn I got to go first again. I had a card that would allow me to draw a new ship. I looked at the top ship card. It was a carrier! I almost reached for it. Then I thought about it. I didn't want to trounce him on his first play of the game. So being the friendly dad I didn't take the ship. I instead threw a bunch of gun attacks at him that he prompty ignored with some good card play.

Next turn he fortuantely ( for him ) drew an "Additional Ship" card. He got the carrier. It was at this point that childly luck become an overpowering force in the game.

He came in with his aircraft aiming for my big Victory Point ships. He had six Fog of War points to spend so he also threw some missiles my way. My air cover fended off this attack, but the missiles took out two ships! My response was rather ineffective.

Next turn he simply played a card that causes a disengagement, during which he gets to remove three damage cards from his ships! I didn't get the chance to repair any of mine.

In the next few turns we traded hits, my additional ship cards only seemed to provide fodder for his ships and I didn't sink a single ship of his. He pounded and pounded on me.

We were playing a short game, only going to 35 points. We ended with a score of 39 to 4. :-(

Next time I wont be helping him. Perhaps helping is too strong a word for turning down that carrier near the beginning. It was a deliberate choice on my part and it did make a significant difference to how it played. Yet that was the only "help" he had. After that he roundly kicked my butt fair and square.

I love playing games, win or lose, especially with the kids. This game was a big hit for me. The 14yo in question also had a lot of fun.

It's taken two weeks to construct this game in my spare time, and I'm glad to find the end result to be as good as I had hoped. Will definitely be playing this again.

I'll be doing a review on this game in the not too distant future on my Print and Play podcast.

Thread: Naval Battles with War at Sea minis

reapersaurus — 2007-07-18T07:07:27+00:00

The first thing that popped into my mind when I saw the War at Sea miniatures that a local player had been collecting was :

Wouldn't this spice up a game of Modern Naval Battles?!

Simply get some common and uncommons cheap and play them on your cards:
]]>

]]>

When you play an Air Strike, or a Bomber Strike card, drop the figure on 'em!
]]>

The only problem with this idea is that it may be a little bit before the War at Sea product gets restocked, and the minis get cheap enough to pick up some.

Thread: Is it just me

lordunborn — 2007-01-15T18:17:42+00:00

I found that this a a very well done game and there is ALOT to be added with the expansions BUT this is a rehash of Naval War ]]>I looked everywhere on the website for some kind of homage to Naval War but nothing. C'mon guys give credit where it is do and let everyone know where this game really came from. I still have a copy of Naval War somewhere. Though this will replace it in my game library as it is FREE and has MUCH more to offer in terms of expandibility. I just hate to see people so boldly use another game and not give the orignial creators some form of credit.

Image

cmhladik — 2006-10-06T14:37:59+00:00

Back of Box

Image

belial1134 — 2005-11-10T01:18:18+00:00

Box set which includes both expansions

Image

dillo — 2005-02-03T20:25:12+00:00

Image

GROGnads — 2004-12-22T17:25:54+00:00

Optional Rules for "Modern Naval Battles"

Thread: Re:Anyone Selling?

jdarnold — 2004-01-05T22:13:07+00:00

turf (#25043),

Are you aware the game is available as a free download from the designer? It is even updated to include lots of new ships. It's now called "Cold War Naval Battles" and can be found here:

http://www.relativerange.com/cwnb/

Thread: Anyone Selling?

turf — 2004-01-05T20:25:24+00:00

I will pay decent coinage for this game and any additions to it that you may want to sell. Please reply to this and I will purchase your game for a very fair price. We enjoy playing this game, but only our friend has it, and he lives about 5 hours distant.

Thread: User Review

Beelzebub — 2003-09-10T13:45:15+00:00

Modern Naval Battles was one of the first non-Monopoly type games that I ever played. Growing up on Monopoly and Risk, Modern Naval Battles was a welcome departure. In the early 1990s I enjoyed playing MNB mostly because it was so different. As I have become exposed to more games, and thus more discriminating, I find myself enjoying it less.
MNB and its sequels (MNB II – The Campaign Game, and MNB III) are a turn-based naval combat card game. The game consists of ship cards based on actual modern naval vessels (Frigates, Destroyers, Battleships, Carriers, Submarines, and various support vessels). Each vessel has specific armaments (guns, missiles, torpedoes), specific defense abilities (anti-aircraft, anti-missile, anti-submarine), damage points (used to determine when a ship is sunk) and victory points. The game also has Action Cards used for offense (gun shells, missiles, torpedoes, bombers, etc.), defense (anti-submarine warfare, defensive tactics, evasive maneuvers, etc.), Bad Luck (Ship Fire, Intelligence Leak, etc), and other cards (Damage Control, Special Tactics, Carrier Crew Efficiency, etc).
To setup, each player is given a number of randomly selected ships and one submarine that are arranged into a fleet. The fleet consists of three rows of ships with the highest valued ships (usually the carriers) in the last row. Certain armaments can only hit certain rows, but air strikes can hit any row. The submarine is placed off to the side of the fleet and is not considered part of any row. Players are dealt out Action Cards and the game can begin. Player order is randomly determined with cards each turn. Players roll a six-sided die to determine their “Fog of War” (number of actions they can do that turn) then declare their attacks. Players use Action Cards accordingly for their attacks. After the attacks have been declared, the attacked players may defend their fleet using Action Cards. Players roll a six-sided dice to determine the outcome of combat. Ships that are sunk are handed over to the winner to track victory points and then the next player begins their turn.
One of the most common, and valid complaints is the lack of weapons cards, specifically torpedoes. You may have a very powerful submarine yet never be able to use it in an offensive manner. This also can lead to protracted games as players search for appropriate weapons for their remaining fleet. With a large number of players, this can drag on for quite a while. Another complaint is the method for acquiring new ships. Players use Additional Ship Action Cards to gain new ships during the beginning of their turn. The type of ship that the player can acquire is based on the Fog of War roll – the lower the roll the higher value ship.
Overall the game can be enjoyable with slight modifications to the rules (each player starts with one torpedo per sub, a predetermined time limit for the game, increased maximum hand size). Some naval enthusiasts may enjoy the game as-is or may suggest alternate rules. The game quality is high and will withstand years of play. I still play MNB a few times per year and enjoy tweaking the rules. MNB is not for everyone, but you may want to try it and find out for yourself.

Thread: Session Report

gschloesser — 2003-03-04T14:11:33+00:00

Report by: Steve Pouey

Geoff is a big fan of this older 3W title that is apparently related to the Avalon Hill Naval Wars and Enemy in Sight games. He has been eager to introduce the game to our group and found willing opponents in Spouey and Michael.

Spouey was nice enough to take some “after-action” notes and renders the following report:

We played the basic rules and opted to play once through the action deck as opposed to the 180-point requirement listed in the rules.

The one decisive play of the game was a bomber strike card played against Michael. Geoff had four attacks and sunk four ships, sending all of Michael’s surface ships to the bottom of the ocean. Michael was left with only one submarine. He suffered through the rest of the game, only acquiring two more ships as reinforcements.

My overview: Nice, simple rules. It’s basically just a card game with a ship theme. There is some strategy in terms of which cards you play and how you place them. The game does seem well balanced.

Finals: Geoff 66, Spouey 22, Michael 16

Ratings: Geoff 9, Spouey 6, Michael 5

Thread: Preview

BoardGameGeek — 2001-07-21T00:13:39+00:00

I remember playing this game in college. One of my friends was a Navy reservist, and, as opposed to the rest of us engineers, he came from a strong wargaming background. Anyway, one day, to show us the kind of "easy" game he liked to play when he was on active duty, he broke out his set of Modern Naval Battles with both expansion sets.

Keeping in mind that all of the other players were non-military engineers, with little wargaming experience, we actually did rather well. The basic mechanics are simple enough that we were able to play competently after only two or three games, and by the time the next week rolled around it was quite a challenge to win.

Wargamers will find the mechanics behind Modern Naval Battles simplistic at best; play it as a "light snack" if you're waiting for other gamers to show up at your weekly game. Families will find it mildly entertaining, especially if any family members are in the military and can regale the others with stories prompted by the cards. All in all, an enjoyable, easy-to-learn game with no long-term rule-study commitments to be made.