Game: War Galley

Thread: Re: missing counter sheet, round 2

aduclos — 2008-11-12T18:22:24+00:00

Just got word back that replacement pieces will be sent out right away!

Great turnaround on getting back to me by GMT!!

Thread: Re: missing counter sheet, round 2

BROG — 2008-11-12T17:25:38+00:00

"Does anyone have any other ideas/thoughts on how to get these missing counters while I await word back? "

GMT is very good at replacing missing parts . . . if they don't contact you by week's end, let me know.

RHB

Thread: missing counter sheet, round 2

aduclos — 2008-11-12T16:46:56+00:00

Thrown off by my missing counter sheet from Devils Horsemen, I decide to crack open my new copy of War Galley...looks pretty good, start popping out pieces and setting up for the learning scenario. I go to retrieve the wind marker and note that page 6 of the counters (with all the informational counters from what I can tell) is missing!!

I contacted GMT as well (in addition to my issue with The Devils Horsemen, but am doing some research while I await a response.

I came across this:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/331317

which seems similar, especially due to the same issue occurring for War Galley in this noted thread.

Does anyone have any other ideas/thoughts on how to get these missing counters while I await word back?

0 for 2 on my Veterans Day gaming...hopefully I can rectify this in time for Thanksgiving post turkey wargaming!!

Thanks for any input/insight!

Thread: Re: War Galley: Not strict enough command control?

duckweed — 2008-08-07T22:05:33+00:00

Seth, I agree with all your points. Some incentive to stay in tighter formations might be nice, and might reduce the overall chaos level a tad.

As they stand, I'm reasonably satisfied with the Command rules for War Galley. However, it's too easy to define a squadron at any given instant in order to exploit a situation. Ships come and go from different squadrons, go independent, return to a squadron, etc. throughout the game. Really it's not simulating squadrons so much as limited ability to activate your ships all at the same time. This is fine from a game play standpoint, but there might be a better way to make it feel "real."

One such way might be to assign each ship to a squadron at start. Then, that ship is either part of that squadron, or it is independent until some point when it returns to that squadron. Another would be your facing suggestion, above.

Thread: War Galley: Not strict enough command control?

wargamer55 — 2008-06-14T00:33:54+00:00

Perhaps the hardest thing for wargames to replicate (aside from the fear of death, naturally) are the problems of command and control. By nature the little cardboard counters, blocks or toy soldiers do as they are told. Where they are is generally pretty clear and their overall status known.

In addition, the wargamer has a bird's eye or map's eye view of the action in real time.

This isn't too big a problem for 20th and 21st Century wargames, outside the very tactical level. Even fairly low-level commanders at battalion and regimental levels are often fighting their battles on the map, as it were. The modern battlefield is often far too expansive for anyone other than a company commander to see his whole fight. At sea and in the air the same is true. The captain fights his ship from the computer screens in the Combat Information Center, not from the salt-sprayed bridge. The fighter pilot relies on his head-up display at least as much as his eyes.

Even in the black powder era, top level commanders were familiar with maps and probably imagined their battle plans from that perspective, although exercising anything other than the most general command was difficult. A lot depends on the man on the spot. The problems of command at sea were similar, with flag signals being a very crude level of control, barely adequate with the stately pace of sailing warships and breaking down completely under the quickened pace of steamships. The wireless set came not a moment too soon.

But in ancient times maps were few and crude and there's little evidence they were used much by leaders. Everything was seen from ground level. There's not a lot of evidence for exactly how commands were transmitted, but couriers, musical instruments and visual signals were probably used.

War Galley makes stab at reflecting the problems of command control, and deserves kudos for the attempt, but battles in the game system usually degenerate into a confused melee. This is a problem in other games, too such as the age of sail wargame Close Action.

The wargamer, able to look down from above, is much more aware of the tactical possibilities than any real-life captain could have been from his sea-level vantage point. The turn-based temporal system of wargames also provides opportunities that wouldn't occur in the swirling midst of battle.

In any era, the thing commanders fear most of all is disorder, but this fear was particularly salient in earlier times. In ancient warfare the first army or fleet to fall into disorder was usually defeated and in the wake of defeat the slaughter would begin.

It's unreasonable to ask gamers in the heat of battle to forgo tactical advantages, but there needs to be a greater incentive for keeping formation. Perhaps all ships not facing the same way as the flagship should be considered "independent squadrons." It's hard to imagine a squadron commander coordinating the actions of a dozen triremes in the middle of a melee from the deck of his own ship that's busy dodging rams.

From my game blog at http://pawnderings.blogspot.com

Image

521tiger — 2008-05-02T23:30:32+00:00

War Galley Scenario Counters-Back (from C3I #18)

Image

521tiger — 2008-05-02T23:12:46+00:00

War Galley Scenario Counters-Front (from C3I #18)

Thread: Re: Reaction Fire - marking RF used

duckweed — 2008-04-18T04:26:45+00:00

I use "Fired" markers from my TCS games (see pics posted here at BGG).

Thread: Sapriportis

Minedog3 — 2008-02-02T19:48:48+00:00

Had a great game of Sapriportis yesterday. This was a scenario from C3i #13, and is relatively low density and a good learning scenario. This was my 3rd game and my opponents first.

I played the Romans and come onto the board line astern with sails up, and spent the initial turns spreading into line abreast and taking down sails. On my right flank, the light ships head wide. The Tarentines send their left wide as well, and of these vessels, 2 Biremes and the Tremiola are soon overtaken and raked and boarded by the Tarentines.

Conversely, on my left I slightly overlap his flank, and my quaderemes ram three ships in succession, fouling only once. However, this quadereme fails to unfoul and the rammed trireme promptly sinks, taking both to the bottom.

A desperate battle unfolds on the left, as the Tarentines rake my vessels, but fail to break loose and the Roman boarding parties are stronger. All up, the Romans have rammed 3 triremes and captured 2-3 triremes, whilst the Tarentines have rammed 1 trireme and captured 2 biremes and the tremiola.

In the centre the two admirals finally meet, and despite most Roman vessels being raked, Quinctius boards Democrates quadreme and captures the vessel. Democrates fluffs his commander transfer roll, and his killed. With the loss of the admiral, and being slightly behind in points (32-26), the Tarentines flee. A Roman victory (of sorts), but better than a Roman defeat.

This game really brought the mechanics of the game together for me, and despite the disparity of crew experience (C4 crews are supermen), it played out really well. The result was even historical in texture, though the boot was on the other foot.

The 1 to 1 ship scale means you don't really reflect on the oddity of the scaling. I give it a big thumbs up.

Image

athos — 2007-12-13T15:53:11+00:00

2nd ed. scenario book cover

Image

athos — 2007-12-13T15:52:05+00:00

2nd ed. rulebook cover

Thread: Reaction Fire - marking RF used

Minedog3 — 2007-11-20T05:56:09+00:00

How do people mark if a Galley has used Reaction Fire in that turn?

Image

jet-turkey — 2007-09-06T22:46:30+00:00

My VASSAL version of War Galley. Battle of the Ebro.

Image

jet-turkey — 2007-09-05T14:50:54+00:00

My VASSAL version of War Galley. Can be found at http://www.esnips.com/web/VASSAL

Thread: Re: Hex and Counter Size (minis conversion)

Zopper-Alf — 2007-08-09T09:58:30+00:00

I uploaded an image where I showed one of my custom build paper ships. Next to the original counter I placed a ruler - it's 2,5 cm long. Hope that helps.
Simon

Edit: here's the pic
]]>

Image

Zopper-Alf — 2007-08-09T09:56:53+00:00

custom made paper ships to replace the counters

Thread: Hex and Counter Size (minis conversion)

Harkonnen13 — 2007-08-09T07:39:39+00:00

(yeah another thread because with a game like this I want to be informed before I buy)

Can someone tell me how big the ship counters and hexes are in War Galley? I'm asking because I would probably be using the rules for miniatures battles. From the images here it looks like 1/2" hexes and with a ship being 2 hexes long the scale might be about right for 1:1200 miniatures. Navwar has some good galleys in that scale and the less scale conversion the better.

Thread: Re: One Ship Per Counter?

Harkonnen13 — 2007-08-05T01:52:51+00:00

Thanks. Looks like I'll have to check this game out. The LGS had a couple packs of miniatures galleys that are about the right scale to use in place of the peices too. Looks like I'm all over the War Galley.

Thread: Re: One Ship Per Counter?

Archilochus — 2007-08-04T17:57:31+00:00

The tournement rules are great, and are the only reasonable way to achieve "balance," as most of the historical scenarios are somewhat one-sided.

Good Gaming~! Mick

Thread: Re: One Ship Per Counter?

Harkonnen13 — 2007-08-01T20:49:12+00:00

It's sounding better and better...

How are those "build your own fleet" rules?

Thread: Re: One Ship Per Counter?

Tompy — 2007-08-01T20:47:53+00:00

Correct. It's a matter of scope.

The actions (ramming, boarding, firing, etc) are all handled with ship vs ship mechanics.

Thread: Re: One Ship Per Counter?

Harkonnen13 — 2007-08-01T19:55:28+00:00

wargamer55 wrote:
Basically the ships behave as if every ship counter represents one ship. Most of the scenarios are scaled down to a more manageable size by having one ship counter for every 2-10 ships historically present. For example, the Battle of Drepanum is described as having a ship scale of 1 counter = 4 galleys. This should not be interpreted literally. The counters don't behave as a suadron, they behave like individual ships. There are just only 1/4 the number in the game as there were in the historical battle. (About 120 ships per side are reduced to 31)
It would be like replaying the Battle of Jutland but just using one battleship for every 4 that were present historically, so you'd have a British fleet with 7-8 battleships and 2-3 battlecruisers instead of the historical 28 battleships and 9 battlecruisers.
There is one scenario with a 1-1 scale in War Galley (Side, 190BC) but in game terms it doesn't play any differently than any of the otehrs.

Fast response! If I'm reading you right the number of ships that were historically present are abstracted, one counter isn't really a squadron. Sounds ok to me.

Thread: Re: One Ship Per Counter?

wargamer55 — 2007-08-01T19:48:53+00:00

Basically the ships behave as if every ship counter represents one ship. Most of the scenarios are scaled down to a more manageable size by having one ship counter for every 2-10 ships historically present. For example, the Battle of Drepanum is described as having a ship scale of 1 counter = 4 galleys. This should not be interpreted literally. The counters don't behave as a suadron, they behave like individual ships. There are just only 1/4 the number in the game as there were in the historical battle. (About 120 ships per side are reduced to 31)
It would be like replaying the Battle of Jutland but just using one battleship for every 4 that were present historically, so you'd have a British fleet with 7-8 battleships and 2-3 battlecruisers instead of the historical 28 battleships and 9 battlecruisers.
There is one scenario with a 1-1 scale in War Galley (Side, 190BC) but in game terms it doesn't play any differently than any of the otehrs.

Thread: One Ship Per Counter?

Harkonnen13 — 2007-08-01T18:58:01+00:00

There's not a lot of information available here on the geek for War Galley and I have a question. The one favorable review of the game mentions that one counter represents several ships. I like the idea of ancients naval warfare but multiple ships per counter isn't something that appeals to me as far as rules go.

It is mentioned that there's options for 1:1 ships per counter. How often does this come into play and how does it fit in for the build your own fleets/scenarios options? I'm getting ready to place a big thoughthammer order and this is a game I have my eye on. Any response would be appreciated.

Image

Xookliba — 2007-07-18T06:28:06+00:00

Ben Hur scenario (C3i#11), back

Image

Xookliba — 2007-07-18T06:27:37+00:00

Ben Hur scenario (C3i#11), front

Image

2007-06-19T07:15:21+00:00

Thread: Re: User Review

Ronin49 — 2007-06-01T21:50:17+00:00

I have a long response to this review.

First, I must admit that my copy of "War Gally" won't arrive for another 2 days. I have done a good deal of research on the game mechanics and design and I am satisfied with the effort of the designer(s).

In my defense I would point out that I have been playing wargames from the early '60's and started with the "Ancient Naval Rules" by Ed Smith (England). Later, I played "Trireme" and other games of that ilk. For a number of uears I played on a team of Americans who regularly played and often beat a Canadian team from Vancouver, B.C. using ancient naval rules. One of my college degrees is in military history with a focus on Mediterranean Naval Warfare. While the ship details changed over the centuries, the basic design and standard tactics varied little from the very early times through the final days of Gally warfare during the Renaissance. The Rennasance gally of Lapanto, aside from the forward firing cannon was little more than a big cousin of the Quints and Quads of the ancients.

Background aside, the point is this. The mechanics of any game are a matter of taste and I leave that to the individual. The historical representation is another matter and everything I have read on "War Gally" would indicate that it is as accurate as a "simulation" can be in representing oar powered naval warfare.

Communication between ships was limited at best, and within fleets was all but impossible. Gallys require time to increase speed, had a limited period of maximum speed, and require extended periods of recovery afterwards to return to anything like "normal" movement. In battle, a slow of stopped ship was a "sitting duck" and ships remained moving as much as possible until they could effect their attack (a ram or an oar rake). Speed was as much a defense as a factor in the attack. Any ship that was stopped most often was sunk, burned or captured. Missle fire did not win battles, even in the later days of slow firing muzzle loading cannon.

Finally, the end result of every naval battle fought by oar powered vessels was an evolution into a chaotic "dog fight" not unlike the air battles of WWI and WWII. A mad scramble, sudden oppertunity, quick response and "bang"...it's over but the hacking and boarding.

I would suggest more research on the subject before you critic this game on its "realism".

J.C.

Thread: Re: War Galley Rules Questions

cgiacoppo — 2007-05-30T02:24:42+00:00

Thanks Mark. That's helpful. Appreciate the response.

Chris

Thread: Re: War Galley Rules Questions

duckweed — 2007-05-07T02:28:05+00:00

Sorry it took so long to notice your questions.

1. Once per turn, period. Not once per activation. Note that missile fire performed during your own activation is NOT reaction fire, thus each galley can actually fire twice per turn- once as reaction fire, and once when you activate that galley.

2. I assume it means the attacker's flank... or that is how we play it.

3. I don't have the rules in front of me at the moment, but I'm pretty sure there is something that says that a ship cannot be activated until the turn following its capture (maybe it's in the errata).

Enjoy!

Thread: War Galley Rules Questions

cgiacoppo — 2007-04-20T00:32:26+00:00

Hello,
I have recently started playing War Galley and I have a few questions.

1) How often can a galley use reaction fire? Once per movement phase or once per turn? In other words, if a galley uses reaction fire against a ship in a particular squadron, can the same galley use reaction fire against a ship in another squadron later that same turn or must it wait until after the next initiative is rolled?

2) The rules state that missile fire must be through a flank hexside. Does this refer to the target’s flank or the attacker’s flank or both?

3) When a ship that has not been activated yet is captured, can it be activated that turn by the new owner or must it wait until the following turn?

Thank you.

Chris Giacoppo
New York

Thread: Re: Musings on War Galley- misunderstood aquatic cousin of G

Sprydle — 2007-03-26T04:21:23+00:00

Excellent review! It's making me want the game again though--I went back and forth on it then finally decided not to p500 it based on the comments. Unfortunate for me since as you point out many of the comments are in error!

Thread: Re: 3-on-2 Tauris

itsmarty — 2007-02-12T04:22:09+00:00

Thanks for the insight. I may have to shoehorn Close Action into the lineup, but we broke up into groups of two for Up Front and Napoleon the first night of the month and had fun, so multiplayer is more of a preference then a must-have.

Thread: Re: 3-on-2 Tauris

elbmc1969 — 2007-02-12T00:42:30+00:00

Impulse games are not generally a good choice for multi-player, because they just add to downtime. With IGO-UGO, multiplayer both reduces downtime and speeds the whole game alone (4 players usually reduced playing time ~35% vs. 2-player).

Thread: Re: 3-on-2 Tauris

itsmarty — 2007-02-10T22:57:42+00:00

Great session report. I admit to using a loophole in the rating system on this one...I try to stick to the official guidelines, but I can only give it an 8 because I don't think it will be offered frequently enough for me to turn it down.

I wouldn't worry about it taking over H&CF...I think we'll probably try an area impulse game on Friday, and hopefully Attack Sub.

Thread: 3-on-2 Tauris

grantham — 2007-02-10T22:12:04+00:00

After Martin, Ben, Paul and I got our feet wet with War Galley last week (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/149845), we moved on to the Tauris scenario this week. Paul and Steve divided up the Pompeians, with Paul taking Admiral Marcus Octavius, and Steve taking Varus and Cleomacles. Ben showed up just as the game was about to start and grabbed Cleomacles from Steve. Cleomacles initially commanded five of the rear ships in the Pompeian formation.

I took Admiral Vatinius, and Martin controlled Agricola (who ran the smaller Caesarian ships) and Drusus.

As a side note, our continuing experiment in making 2-player war games into multiplayer games (via team play) continued this week. I think it went well. The only drawback was that it probably lengthened the game...a decision about who should go first could lead to a five minute discussion on tactics.

First Turn:
Marcus Octavius brought his column of ships towards our disorganized group of Caesarians. The flank that Marcus Octavius presented was too much to resist, so I went for a quick capture. Success! Hail Caesar! Unfortunately, the scoundrel Marcus Octavius escaped.

That quick score was the highlight of the first turn, which mostly involved the two groups of ships moving closer.

Caesar 7, Pompey 0.

Second Turn:
Action really heated up on this turn...literally! Varus brought his ship forward to ram Vatinius's ship. My admiral got stuck on the rammed ship, from which he gallantly commanded the rest of the battle. Marcus Octavius, from his new ship, came up and set fire to a ship in my fleet. The Caesarians struck back, however, as we best knew how -- by grappling and boarding. We captured two of the Pompeian ships, taking prisoner Marcus Octavius and, immediately thereafter, his successor. Two of Agricola's small ships and Vatinius' cripped ship grappled, but did not board, Varus' ship. This led the Pompeiian side to cheer for the sinking of Vatinius's ship, which would have taken 3 of our ships (2 in good working order), but only 1 of theirs. Their best bet seemed to overwhelm us with superior numbers. My ship held, however, and the numbers started turning towards our favor. Hail Caesar! Also, we extinguished the fire.

Caesar 19, Pompey 7. At this point, it was getting pretty late, so I suggested the Pompeians might grant us a "minor, inconsequential victory." The mood of the table was to let the third turn make things clear, so we pressed on.

Third Turn:
Agricola was able to capture Varus and his now-depleted ship. Drusus came forward and took two more enemy vessels. The Pompeians were only able to effect minor damage in return. With Vatinius' squadron (smaller and mostly tied up in combat) and Cleomacles' rear guard (swelled up to eight ships with stragglers from the other two groups) left to go, a Pompeian comeback seemed very unlikely. Also, it was getting really late. So we agreed to skip all further movement and just roll to see if Vatinius's ship sank. It didn't.

Final Score: Caesar 40, Pompey 13. It turned into a major, consequential victory. In fact, I believe it will help ensure that the name of Caesar persists in history books centuries in the future, while Pompey will only get confused with that lovely city in the shadow of the dormant volcano. Hail Caesar!

Analysis:
This game played better than last week's, because we knew the rules better. It also was less lopsided...we think it would have been more even, but the Pompeians inadvertently put many of their best ships in the back, where they didn't reach the battle until after the tide had turned against them. Tournament rules, as someone suggested to us, would eliminate this. We did briefly consider putting together 4 (possibly 5) fleets for a big free-for-all. That has some potential.

In the end, after two plays, I rated War Galley a 6. "A bit long, combat rules are a bit fiddly, but...where else are you going to get your ancient naval battle fix? And it is fun to smash ships into each other." were my comments. I see Paul gave it a 7 and Martin gave it an 8. I imagine getting it onto the table every once in a while, but I haven't developed a new favorite. I look forward to Hex-and-Counter February moving on to new games. The others may get in another War Galley session in my absence next Friday.

Thread: Re: 2-on-2 Aegatian Isles

duckweed — 2007-02-04T19:10:55+00:00

Thanks for the outstanding session report. You've hit on one of the main problems with this game: the scenarios are lopsided, Aegatian Isles even moreso than the others. Try the tourney rules sometime for a much better game.

Thread: Re: 2-on-2 Aegatian Isles

pfglenn — 2007-02-04T18:47:17+00:00

I was involved in this with Jon, and I think his assessment is on target. I might like the game a bit more than Jon, but it's hard to say.

The scenario is *very* unbalanced. I hope that getting their butts kicked didn't turn off Ben and Martin; I don't think it did.

Thread: 2-on-2 Aegatian Isles

grantham — 2007-02-04T04:25:46+00:00

After a session of Up Front for me and Ben (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/1318915) and a session of Napoleon for Paul and Martin, we decided we'd like to play something 4-player. The problem: we had designated this month "hex-and-counter* February" and thus were confronted by a pile of 2-player games.

The solution: 2-on-2 War Galley. Since none of us had ever played before (though Martin was familiar with the rules), we tried the introductory "Aegatian Isles" scenario. Martin and Ben gamely took the hapless Carthiginians, while Paul and I were the dominating Romans.

For those of you not familiar with the scenario, the Carthiginians come sailing along and are intercepted by the Romans. The Romans are vastly superior, but the Carthiginians can get 3 victory points for each ship they get past the Romans. (Standard victory points applied for sinking/ramming or capturing -- 7 or 8, in this case.)

The first two turns consisted of movement, as the ships under the command of Metellus and Agricola (my two leaders) protected the right flank. On the third turn, I decided it was go time, so Metellus went full speed into a group of ships controlled by Ben.

This attack was educational for us. We realized that it was better to handle each ship one at a time (rather than move all the ships, then do all the attacks). Also, once we finished, we realized it would have been possible to do missile fire and possibly other attacks in addition to ramming. (I felt a little cheated, until we realized how overpowering the Roman side was.) We also learned how much going full speed and ramming can chew up the attacking side. 2 of my ships (including Metellus') ended up fouled with rammed ships, and most of those from that squadron were fatigued.

Paul and Martin had a similar exchange a turn later (though at normal speed and with no ramming). Paul started capturing ships and disabling others. Ben and Martin tried to squeeze a few ships through the middle, but some more ramming from Agricola meant that there was only a passageway one or two hexes wide. At this point, it was getting very late, so we agreed to award a "minor, indecisive victory" to the Romans. As a final act, we determined if any fouled Roman ships were sunk. As it turns out, Metellus' own ship sunk (but he was able to escape). This gave the Carthiginians the only points of the game (and a certain amount of satisfaction). Final score: Rome 60, Carthage 7.

If we continued, Carthage could have gotten some ships through Roman lines, but Rome was going to sink, disable or capture a bunch more enemy ships.

Conclusions: The rules warned us that the scenario was lopsided, and boy were they right. That wasn't too bad as a learning scenario, as the losing players didn't feel too bad for losing, and the winning players didn't get to gloat.

Turning a 2-player game into a 4-player game worked pretty well for us, although I imagine you might have problems if you're less friendly with your fellow players (we've known each other for 20+ years, so we know we can handle sharing command in a cordial way). I think hex-and-counter February may see more games modified in this way.

Personally, I felt the rules seemed a bit fiddly. That may have been partially because we were doing them wrong from time to time. I was definitely intrigued by the game, though, and I'd like to see how this plays in a more balanced scenario now that we have a better idea of the rules. I'm hoping this gets on the table next week, partially because we've been doing a lot of "let's try this new game" and not a lot of "let's play something we're familiar with."

*Blocks and cards also acceptable.

Thread: Re: Musings on War Galley- misunderstood aquatic cousin of GBOH

Archilochus — 2006-11-19T15:51:38+00:00

Thanks for the clear, consise, and well written review. I am fascinated by this period and subject, and am now convinced that I will thoroughly enjoy this game. Mick

Thread: Re: Musings on War Galley- misunderstood aquatic cousin of G

mgringo — 2006-07-10T07:13:52+00:00

Thanks! Mine is in the mail. I haven't played War Galley in about three years and I'm looking forward to it.

Thread: Musings on War Galley- misunderstood aquatic cousin of GBOH

duckweed — 2006-07-10T00:57:52+00:00

(This is partly a brief review of War Galley, partly a comparison of the new and old editions, and partly a response to many of the criticisms of the game I've read here on the Geek. It is not my intention to go into depth describing the rules or mechanics here. The living rules are available at GMT's website, for those who are interested.)

The new reprint of War Galley arrived from GMT the other day, and all I can say is "Wow!" Two maps, six countersheets, a rule book plus scenario book, and a heavy cardstock screen incorporating all the charts and tables you need to play. The components score an A+. So how about the game?

Firstly, I should clarify that I am already familiar with War Galley. I played and enjoyed Caesar in Alexandria (also part of the Great Battles of History series) which includes a galley component, and the rules are virtually the same. I'd also downloaded and read the latest living rules from the GMT website. So I am no stranger to the game. Obviously, I like the game or I would not have placed a P500 order.

War Galley uses a reasonably sleek system that requires quite a bit of micromanagement. As such, it won't be everyone's cup of tea. The rules evokes a nice feel for the subject matter, even if many aspects (including scale) are heavily abstracted. I'd say the game is worth a try for anyone interested in this subject matter, and who isn't afraid of the counter clutter and micro-management involved.

It's rather fun and frustrating to watch your best plans devolve into the sheer chaos that is a galley battle. And chaotic is an understatement. The scenarios, even the smaller ones, are rather large and can become somewhat of a burden. You'll find yourself piling markers on top of markers for keeping track of fatigue, manpower depletions, rammed/raked/grappled/captured galleys, galleys reduced to 1/2 speed, individual squadrons (galleys that are not part of any other squadron), etc. etc. It can become quite a mess. See my photos posted here at BGG if you don't believe me.

Even with all the provided markers, some additional notetaking may be necessary to keep track of certain other things: which galleys used reaction fire, which galleys successfully repulsed a boarding attempt (since this yields a bonus DRM to their grapple disengage roll), and which galleys are part of which squadron (since squadron designation occurs at the start of the turn, before sheer chaos breaks loose). Yes, it can be somewhat fiddly and tedious. Whether it's too much of a good thing may depend on your tastes.

It's worth pointing out that you can also keep track of galley status on a sheet of paper, and avoid all the marker clutter. Personally, I found this to be even more annoying, since you then need to constantly look up the status of the galleys before planning anything.

Most of the scenarios are unbalanced. Some of those that are not still require a rather specific strategy to win as one side. Many players won't mind this aspect, opting for historical accuracy over artificially imposed balance.

The Tournament rules, which give each player a set amount of points to build his own fleet, is where the game really shines. These rules allow you to make the battle as large or as small as you wish. Not knowing which galleys, crews, and marines your opponent will purchase adds an element of suspence that is lacking from the historical scenarios.

Ever since the War Galley reprint arrived from GMT a few days ago, we've been playing this game a lot. My overall opinion has improved since my earlier comments here at BGG (where I rated the game as a "7") in part because the rules themselves have improved. It's trickier to ram now (you can't turn more than once- you basically have to charge in a straight line) and the rules for reaction ram (previously only mentioned as an optional rule in the errata) are incorporated directly into the movement portion of the rules.

Now I'd like to address some of the criticisms others have made of War Galley. In doing so, hopefully I'll also shed some more light on the basic mechanics of the game for those who are unfamiliar with it.

I disagree with others that the boats behave unrealistically, and/or like speed boats. Yes, a certain level of abstraction is inherent (each ship counter represents 1-9 ships, depending on scenario) but if you are playing it correctly you'll find it very hard to zoom about like a speed boat. Keep in mind that boats are 2 hexes long, and max cruise speed is typically just 4 or 5 hexes, so you're not going very far per turn. Coupled with the vast openess of the maps, this gives your opponent a lot of time to plot and react to your strategies. Sure, you can go to maximum speed and move 7 hexes (8 for some ships) but then you're most likely going to spend your next 3 or 4 turns fatigued and moving only 1 or 2 hexes per turn. So it's usually not worth it to use max speed unless you're going in for the kill.

I also disagree with comments that it's too easy to maneuver around, through, and among enemy vessels in order to deliver a killing blow. Again, if you're playing correctly, your opponent will be reacting, avoiding, attempting to block your path, and using the reaction ram attack on you. Plus there is enemy missile fire to consider. Try that kind of tactic at my table and you'll end up blocked, collided, and boarded the following turn. :-)

Then there are the C&C issues. Many others seem to feel that C&C over your fleets is too "perfect" given the limitations of the era. Again, played precisely by the rules as written, you'll be designating squadrons and even choosing your *speed levels* for all ships before any of them get to activate. When it's time to finally activate that ship, it's stuck with the speed level and squadron you assigned to it. If a great opportunity to ram/rake/board has arisen in the meantime... tough luck.

For example: Setup a line of ships at maximum speed to do a ram or rake attempt, and weep as your opponent activates first and maneuvers to avoid you. Realistic. They see you coming at max speed across the open sea, and have time to react. This is more than I can say for C&C realism in most other wargames, even my beloved SCS, where faster units often move circles around the enemy while he stands still, patiently waiting his turn.

Even other GBOH games (Devil's Horsemen comes to mind) suffer from this same "perfect tactical control" coupled with an inability to react while the enemy moves circles around you. But in War Galley, you'll often see those attacks coming, and you'll have time to activate and react. Even if you can't activate before your opponent, you can still attempt avoidance.

While the lack of control when orchestrating attacks can be frustrating at times, it's realistic. So I can't fault the game for it's C&C. It's damn difficult to get your ships to do exactly what you want them to do, when you want them to do it. Any less control, and the game would begin to feel hopelessly random. Given the high chaos factor that already exists for this type of warfare, any more randomness would not be a good thing.

Looking over many of the negative comments I see for War Galley, I realize that many of them are in plain error. Now if you don't like the game, that's fair. It's certainly not for everyone. But I feel that criticisms should at least be accurate and baseed on an understanding of the actual rules.

For example, this game does *NOT* use a chit pull system and cannot fairly be criticized for using one. Galleys do *NOT* need to unrealistically charge across the map to build up speed. In fact, a galley can place itself at attack (maximum) speed and move only a single hex, if it desires. And it can, in fact, pay a single movement point to "turn on a dime" without moving forward. These are misunderstandings. The rules for movement and maneuvering feel well researched. Apparently the critics did not spend nearly so much time researching the rulebook.

The game has it's faults. It is marker-heavy and it requires a lot of micro-management... but so do most Berg games. This one is actually simpler than most Berg games (and it's the easiest in the GBOH series, having fewer pages of rules than even Samurai). And best of all, the Tournament rules, whereby you build your own fleets to do battle, are a hoot.

My ratings:

Overall 7.5 / 10
Complexity 4.5 /10

Recommended mainly to those with an interest in the subject matter, due to the complexity and sheer number of markers/counters involved.

Thread: Re: Charged!

dcjackso — 2006-04-24T05:26:28+00:00

Cool! I can't wait to see it.

Thread: Charged!

cscottk — 2006-03-23T21:21:49+00:00

I was officially charged for the War Galley reprint yesterday. The reprint looms closer.

Thread: User Review

BoardGameGeek — 2001-09-23T20:19:45+00:00

This game is out of print, but GMT seems comitted to reprinting it in the near future and it remains in demand on eBay and such, so I offer this review in hopes of giving you a little more information.

By any objective standards, this game is absolutely terrible. Richard Berg is at least usually known for getting the historical details right, but the rules for movement and combat in this game are bizzare and contradictory (for example, in order to ram a ship you are approaching at full speed, you will generally drive around the target ship in a wide circle to attack some other ship, because ramming modifiers are based on 'hexes moved this turn' rather than speed). The scale of the game is weird; in order to accomodate the massive numbers of ships usually present in ancient naval battles, Herman & Berg have adoped a 'one ship counter = multiple ships' abstraction, but this just doesn't work. The movement abstractions only make sense at all if the game is large-scale (multi-ship counters with lots of space), while the detailed combat resolution sequence only makes any sense if the game is small-scale (one counter = one ship).

Throw in that the system is largely chaotic and lacks interesting player decision making, has a truly excessive quantity of die rolling (you'll get carpal tunnel just rolling for all the missle fire--somthing which has a very small effect on the game) and a group of scenarios that is mostly totally unplayable due to extreme imbalance, and it's amazing anybody even plays this sucker. Although given the history of the Great Battles of Ancient History series, it's possible that nobody actually plays face-to-face.

So as I say, it really is a game without easily discernable merit--neither interesting as a game-playing exercise, nor having any obvious historical interest to speak of. And yet I do kind of like it, in a wierd kind of way. Kind of. Admittedly, it doesn't make my list of 'top 10 wargames I'd like to play today', and that's even counting the 17 games of The Gamer's OCS series, MMP's Great Campaigns of the American Civil War series, and Columbia's Front series as only 3 games. And stuff that doesn't make the top 10 usually doesn't get played at all. But, it does have an interesting chaotic feel--sort of like watching that computer 'game' of Life unfold. It's interesting to see what happens, and it does--in a perverse kind of a way--convey what I imagine is the chaotic feel of ancient naval combat.

Anyway, I suspect this game is "popular" (or what passes for popular in the wargame community) because a lot of people are interested in ancient naval combat, and the games on the subject are few and far between. And mostly bad; despite a few merits, this one is too. This is a challenging subject for a game, but that's relatively little excuse for not trying, as design team obviously didn't here.