Game: Close Action

Thread: Re: Cookie Crumbs and Imperfections: Training New Midshipmen

SpFiota — 2008-07-13T02:42:11+00:00

Great report. I felt as though I were reading a Patrick O'Brian naval battle. I suppose the captain of the HMS Cookie drank a bit too much rum before the action, eh?

Thread: Re: Are You a Captain on half-pay? Try Close Action to get back in the Action!

Doolan — 2008-06-28T17:21:45+00:00

A brilliant review, and I agree wholeheartedly!

FC and CA really can't be compared, because they were opposite from the design board.

What FC does for tactics and fleet operations, CA does for seamanship and micromanagement. It's like comparing a grand strategy game to a squad-level simulation: it's not only different degrees of complexity, it's a different focus altogether.

Thread: From the shelf to the table: a Close Action review

Doolan — 2008-06-28T16:40:49+00:00

Introduction:

This is a rather complex game that, without doubt, will make many people's head hurt at first. Two things can be done about this. One is making the experience easier to everyone by explaining the rules in plain English, which I intend to do in future articles. The other is analyzing what on Earth would move a person with no previous display of masochistic tendencies to dive into this micromanagement hell out of free will. In layman terms this is called a "review" and it's what we're going to do now: unveiling the beauty of this game system from the store's shelf to the first play on your table.

The game concept:

Age of Sail naval wargames are one touchy subject. As a good friend of mine (and a scholar of the period in question) put it, there are two kinds of napoleonic simulations: those that put gameplay on top of realism, and those in which the English win :D

Sure, it's a mocking comment, but there's some truth to it. Back in the day, it was mostly about ship classes, crew quality and good seamanship. "Tactics" remained fairly stable for very extended periods of time and were generally reduced to holding a favorable position relative to the wind, keeping a coherent formation to maximize firepower and coordination and hoping for the best. The hard work was more in the captain's and crew's hands than in the Admiral's.

This said, the fact that Close Action features an absolutely absurd level of micromanagement is actually a bold attempt at realism more than anything else: it's the handling of the ship, the quality of the crew and the power of your broadside that get you the prize and the medals, not an elaborate session of ballet with the French and the God of the Sea.

What this means is that this game is not better or worse than other naval wargames. It has a completely different focus. If you want to feel like Horatio Nelson at the Nile, this is not the game for you. If you want to be the skipper of your own ship, wear a bicorne in your living room and drink grog instead of water for four hours of gameplay, keep reading!

The box:

Ok, so you finally bought the box hoping at least one person you know is as stark raving mad as you are and will play with you. Now, for most of us, opening a wargame box is an elaborate religious ceremony, and what first meets the eye matters. What will you find when you break the seal of this little jewel?

Where there's a wargame, there's counters. Close Action includes a good 70 ship counters and 140 status counters, all reversible, extremely well painted and colorful. The ships even sport different rigging on each side of the counter, one for medium and one for battle rigging. One slight complaint in this department is that the counters put up quite a fight when you try to punch them out, and you have to be extremely careful if you don't want to bend or flake them. Even if you're against the practice, some corner-clipping will do them well.

The maps are printed on paper, not cardboard, so they might look a bit flimsy, but their rough texture keeps the counters from sliding and the coloring is done with as much care and attention as in the counters. Even without miniatures, the game is extremely pleasing to the eye.

Also included are a blank ship log template (more on this later) and two filled-in ones that are used in the examples in the rulebook. This is actually quite useful, because the task of filling in the blanks in your first log can seem pretty daunting at first without some guidelines.

The player aid charts are printed on paper as well (not cardboard) so make sure to protect them in some way or they will end up looking ugly. The same goes for the rulebook, which is well made overall, but printed in relatively sub-par paper without a cover.

The scenario book is printed in the same fashion, but features a ton of content, and you can acquire more in the form of the official expansions (which, by the way, are better printed than the original rulebook and do have colorful protective covers).

The game mechanics:

Since this is a review and not a rule book commentary (that will come later), we will not explain each step of your average game with detail. Instead, we'll see how it compares to other titles.

The main focus of Close Action is on the micromanagement of each particular ship. The player will spend most of his or her time instructing "crew sections" what to do and when. This includes altering rigging state, conducting damage control, preparing boarding parties (yarrr!), readying guns, towing, anchoring with and without springs and a long et cetera. The result is rather pleasing and reasonably accurate. Once you get the hang of it, it's even more or less quick.

Where the game really shines, though, is at the structure of the turns themselves. To contrast the brutal amount of control you have over your own ship, the rules add a very high level of uncertainty to every move. This is done in two ways:

a) Simultaneous plot and movement: instead of the traditional "I go, you go" system most of us are used to, opposing players plot their movement in a sheet of paper (the famous "ship's log") secretly before the movement starts and then execute the actions simultaneously. This alone alters the game flow a lot, and it forces you to carefully study the conditions of each opposing ship (relative facing to the wind, rigging state, crew, movement in past turns...) to make an educated guess of what it will do and act accordingly.

b) The signaling system: a truly genius idea, the signaling system prevents two players in the same side from communicating freely about game-relevant issues. You can still call them names, but if you want to tell them what to do you'll have to write a short message and wait till it's delivered. With some changes, this can be applied to two-player games if each player controls more than one ship.

Those two gameplay elements alter the game flow a lot, and in my opinion it's for the better, since it simulates the chaos inherent to this kind of engagements.

Another good thing about it is that, since every single move of the game is registered in the ship's log, you can write after-action reviews with painstaking detail just by reading those logs after each session.

Complexity:

Ok, I won't fool you here, the game is rather complicated. The rules are not exactly intuitive, there's a lot of book-keeping to be done and, as happens with most convoluted rule books, you'll go a long way if you actually try to play with somebody to have a visual representation of what the rules are saying. As in ASL, just studying those pages won't do you any good. You have to see it to get the hang of it.

Once you have digested the basic concepts and managed to convert the rules to plain English (the rule book is rather obscure in some departments) you'll find that game turns are relatively quick, and minor scenarios should be done in a couple of hours.

To get a game going:

Preparing a ship's log and organizing a scenario for play take a long time, specially if more than two ships are involved. My recommendation is that you call your friends the day before and make sure everyone has their ship ready by the time they show up at the house or club of your choice. This will reduce standby time greatly and you'll see that games become shorter and shorter. Still, miracles can't be done. Ships can take a lot of punishment, specially large ones, and at first you will be double-checking tables a lot, so this is not going to be a walk in the park.

The scenarios:

All the scenarios included in the box are engaging and provide a wealth of historical background, but a number of them are impossible to play unless you have a ton of friends and they are all as crazy as you. Out of the 25 scenarios included, 12 are intended for two players, and the rest require many more, one even suggesting an ideal number of 18 and a minimum of 12. The book stresses that this is to be taken seriously, and I can vouch for that. If you value your sanity at all, do what the book says.

Closing comments:

I tell you nothing new if I claim that this is a game for true enthusiasts. If you love the Age of Sail, it's the game for you. If you are half-hearted and just want some quick and easy fun with your friends over a generic board game, forget about it, you'll cut your own head off by the time turn two starts.

I am indeed a fan of the era and the theme, so I love it dearly, and while I feel the rules could be more straightforward I honestly picture an episode of Horatio Hornblower or a novel by Patrick O'Brian while I play. If you like imagining a real situation while you roll dice, you will love Close Action: the elaborate and verbose rules will give you a million occasions to play movies in your head, and even reading the ship's log after a session will make you smile.

The game is visually appealing (and will blow you away with miniatures), the game system shows a lot of thought and love, and while the complexity sort of slows it down, most guidelines of the game mechanics are well made and produce the intended results. Turns are thrilling from the very beginning (when you wonder whether your opponent will actually do what you predicted or do something completely different and make you look like a colossal moron) and keep up the tension as you roll for colorful and devastating critical hits or watch the wind change and flush your plans down the toilet. After all the hard work involved, there's some sort of sinister satisfaction when you see your enemy strike their colors (I suppose, because I got massacred, but my friend sure seemed to be enjoying himself).

Thread: Re: Ideal no of players -Q

eker — 2008-06-22T19:14:34+00:00

Malacandra wrote:

I think, for a given scenario, the choice shouldn't be to cut ships out, but get more players! ;)

Yes - Was my initial thought - but then I alter the ideal number in most scenarios. As it is, you will end up with 3 ships each as ideal. It will probably be the minimum. I can of course ignore the official ideal number and add one or two players to give each player max 2 ships

But I must say I find the discrepancy between introduction (page 2) and the actual ideal numbers in the scenarios very strange.

..................

Thank you both -guys.

..................

Finally I must point out that this is not a big issue. It will not ruin my initial impression of a great game!

Thread: Re: Ideal no of players -Q

Malacandra — 2008-06-22T18:24:18+00:00

You could do that, but then you're altering the scenario so that it's not the historical or historically plausible scenario anymore.

I think, for a given scenario, the choice shouldn't be to cut ships out, but get more players! ;)

Thread: Re: Ideal no of players -Q

wargamer55 — 2008-06-22T18:22:01+00:00

eker wrote:
Thanks!

It was not exactly the answer I was looking for. But you confirmed my understanding of max players.I agree that 3 ships are too many. That`s why I am not happy with the suggested ideal players in each scenario.

I will probably cut down number of ships avail in each scenario to give 2 ships to each player and 1 ship to the Commander.

For example - in scenario 14 I will delete the highest rated British ship Lively (excluding the Admiral ship) and the weakest Spanish Clara.

Unless you really have some reason why you simply must play a particular scenario despite not having an adequate number of players there are two workable alternatives.

First, simply play a scenario that better matches the number of players present that day. Between the base game and the two scenario books there are scenarios suitable for everything from 2 players to 40+.

Second. play a DYO scenario that matches the number of players available. If you don't want to do a simple straight up fight you can take the situation of a historical scenario but substitute the DYO points. Just reduce the number of DYO points to account for the number of players. About 100-150 points per player will work well, allowing each player to afford about two SOLs.

Thread: Re: Ideal no of players -Q

eker — 2008-06-22T14:10:17+00:00

Thanks!

It was not exactly the answer I was looking for. But you confirmed my understanding of max players.I agree that 3 ships are too many. That`s why I am not happy with the suggested ideal players in each scenario.

I will probably cut down number of ships avail in each scenario to give 2 ships to each player and 1 ship to the Commander.

For example - in scenario 14 I will delete the highest rated British ship Lively (excluding the Admiral ship) and the weakest Spanish Clara.

Thread: Re: Ideal no of players -Q

Malacandra — 2008-06-22T13:19:51+00:00

The true ideal number for each scenario is one player per ship. The author makes that clear. However, for best results when that is not possible, the ideal number for the scenario should be used. Barring that, the minimum number is what is realistically possible.

In practice, we've found that three ships per player is our limit simply because that's a lot to keep track of.

Part of CA's simulation is the command aspect, which is why he suggests one ship per player (and then crafts minimum and ideal numbers where this is not possible).

You can, of course, play as many ships per player as you like, but the more ships per player, the higher the workload and the less realistic the command aspect.

The author makes it pretty clear that the ideal is one ship per player but also acknowledges that most people won't be able to do that.

(For example, note the suggestion that if you command two or more ships, they not be adjacent, so that you will be forced to use signaling and simulate command.

Thread: Ideal no of players -Q

eker — 2008-06-22T10:53:07+00:00

I have a problem with ideal # of players in most scenarios.

Ref -introduction:

Each player should command not more than two ships. A Commander - a single ship.

In most scenarios these numbers are busted.

Example - Scenario 14 the ideal number of players is 4 (2 British 2 Spain). -But the number of ships is 4 each side. With one player as a Commander the other player must then control 3 ship. (IMO the ideal number should be at least 6 players.)

Maybe the solution is to pick and choose only 3 ship from the OOB?

Seems to be great game anyway - Hope to try it soon!
:)

Thread: Re: Are You a Captain on half-pay? Try Close Action to get back in the Action!

Malacandra — 2008-05-20T18:53:24+00:00

I recently got both expansions. I highly recommend them! For one thing, they include updates and rules errata. There are a wide variety of scenarios, many with only a few players, which is what we usually have. But the historical introductions are worth the price just for their reference and learning value. Good stuff!

Thread: Re: Are You a Captain on half-pay? Try Close Action to get back in the Action!

eker — 2008-05-20T15:25:10+00:00

Now you have talked me into buying this game. After a week hesitation.

I want to have a naval game to play - and I own several of them. I thought Far God & Dread Nought would have hit my sweet spot. With just plain propulsion (no wind) and with no radar and missiles to make it complicated. But it is more like a huge database than a game.

Now I hope CA would be my Naval Game.

Thread: Re: Are You a Captain on half-pay? Try Close Action to get back in the Action!

Malacandra — 2008-05-15T01:35:49+00:00

As I said, I don't know about WS&IM. I did read some of Mark Campbell's critiques of WS&IM (at a link from webgrognard, I think). I was also reading Mike Nagel (FC's designer) design notes just today. He mentions that CA was an "anti-inspiration," for FC, that is, CA is exactly NOT what he wanted out of FC.

I think it's really two ways of approaching it: individual commanders control individual ships with a high level of detail. Or, few players control a great number of ships with more abstraction of elements.

What's great is that there are both games for whatever your play group warrants!

Thread: Re: Are You a Captain on half-pay? Try Close Action to get back in the Action!

Lufbery — 2008-05-14T17:50:41+00:00

Thanks for the excellent review. I'm in a mirror-image situation: I've played WS&IM, but not Close Action.

From what I can tell, WS&IM is not as fine-grained as Close Action, but it would play more quickly and allow a single person to control more ships without bogging down play.

Thread: Are You a Captain on half-pay? Try Close Action to get back in the Action!

Malacandra — 2008-05-12T02:21:16+00:00

I know you. You were made a captain but there weren't any ships available. So there you sit, at home, on half pay, living off the little bit of prize money you have left. You long for the salt spray washing across the deck of your own ship. You long for the thunderous roar of the cannon pouring iron shot into your enemy's ship. You miss the crackle of musketry from the maintops, the acrid smoke billowing up from the gun decks. You miss being in the heat of battle for King and country. You want a ship, any ship. You want to be in command. You want to sail. And to fight. And to win. You want to, but there are no ships for a captain on half pay. But there is [GAMEID=3553] Naval Tactical Warfare in the Age of Sail, 1740-1815 by Mark A. Campbell (publ. Clash of Arms Games). Now you can fight again, commanding a tiny corvette, or perhaps a speedy frigate or even an imposing ship of the line.

Close Action (CA) is a tactical naval simulation. Essentially, each player controls one or more ships in a naval battle. The game can be played by a nearly unlimited number of players since it is designed for each player to control one ship. (The designer and others often run CA games at conventions, enlisting as many as 30+ players to participate.) We'll take a look at what's in the box and how the game is set up and played. I'll also make some comparisons to [GAMEID=8730] (FC) since I have played both and FC is the other currently popular Age of Sail boardgame. (I have not played and know nothing about [GAMEID=237].) There is not as much information out there about CA as other games and so the intent of my review is to give you a feel not only of the play of the game but what you actually are getting for your money.

My credentials and perspective: The Age of Sail is one of my favorite periods in history. I suppose that is on account of the excellent historical fiction by the likes of O'Brian (Jack Aubrey), Forrester (Horatio Hornblower), Kent (Richard Bolitho) and others. There really is something amazing about the grueling conditions which those men endured not only in sailing the ships but in fighting them. There is also something romantic (in the historical sense) about the way those ships were worlds unto themselves, able to navigate anywhere on the globe with nothing but the stars and their own knowledge and skills; self contained platforms able to project force anywhere in the world. So I was exciteed, as I had time to get back into gaming, to explore the games that allowed me to take command. I started a couple of years ago with Flying Colors and more recently, looking for some additional detail in the ship handling, began playing CA.

:I::N: :T::H::E: :B::O::X:

What does the game box include? Everything you need to play some exciting Age of Sail Scenarios as well as making your own or simply doing a "pick up" game using general ship data.

RULES BOOK
The rulebook for CA is 42 pages. It includes a sequence of play outline on the back for handy reference during play.
The rulebook is outlined as follows:
1. Introduction
2. Sequence of Play
3. Reinforcement & Weather Phase
4. Plot Phase
5. Movement
6. Movement Execution
7. Gun Fire and Marine Fire
8. Maintenance Phase
9. Crew Quality and Morale
10. Boarding
11. Signaling
12. Towing
13. Anchoring
14. Optional Rules
Glossary and other information.

The outline of the rules is according to the play sequence which makes looking up items a relatively easy task. The rules for CA are not overly complicated given the level of detail that is being addressed in the game. Like any good simulation, complexity lies primarily in the resolution of rarer but more difficult cases. In the CA's case, I have found that the most difficult rules to grasp are the rules for resolving collisions between ships and/or situations in which two ships would move into the same hex. Additionally, the Boarding Combat is a bit tricky to get the hang of as it involves some detailed calculations and effects. Fortunately, the rules for CA have copious examples. Rule examples are given frequently often accompanied with diagrams to illustrate the various explanations. I have found that re-reading the rules, breaking down the examples and paying close attention to the diagrams is all that is needed to “get it” and smooth the play.

SCENARIO BOOK
CA also includes a 45 page Scenario Book. The book outlines the various parts of the scenarios and how to set them up. There are 25 scenarios ranging from one-on-one actions to the largest fleet action involving 31 ships. Scenarios are begin as early as 1794 and on up through 1814. The scenarios are both historical and historically based “what if” opportunities.

The author does a good job of breaking down how to use the Scenario book, that is, how to choose scenarios based upon number of players and size of the engagement. There is an extremely helpful [Guide to Choosing A Scenario which lists the scenarios in order with a quick reference to the number of ships and Minimum and Best number of players. CA works best when each ship has its own player. The author makes this point quite clear and has been quite helpful in laying out the minimum and ideal number of players for each scenario.

One more note of interest with regard to the Scenario Book is that it is evident how much historical research has gone into not only the game and its mechanics but the scenarios as well. The introductions written for the scenarios are very detailed as is the book's introduction to the period. Also appealing and interesting is the back of the Scenario Book upon which there is a map (Europe and the Mediterranean) marking the major battles of the time and indicating where each scenario is located. As a good simulation should, CA will teach you some history in the process of learning and playing it.

REFERENCE CHARTS
CA includes four colored double-sided sets of charts.

Ship Data Chart/Ship Data Chart Notes
The green Ship Data Chart lays out general specifications for various types of ships, from small frigates (32 guns) up through huge ships of the line (SOLs). The charts include data for British, French, Spanish and American ships. The purpose of this data is to fill out the ship logs (see below) when designing scenarios or playing “free build” games. (Ship data for the scenarios is provided along with each scenario in the Scenario Book.)

The Ship Data Chart gives the ship's rate (number of guns), Year Available, Class and Maneuver type, Type of ship (Line, frigate, and speed: fast, slow, etc.), Rigging section information, Hull section information, Crew sections information, Guns factors and victory point cost at various crew qualities. Using the Ship Data Chart, you can easily set up a balanced scenario by selecting opposing forces of equal victory points.

Gunnery Setup/Gunfire Table
The blue Gun tables show on the one side how to calculate the Basic Gunfire Number for each ship. A ship has a certain gunnery factor based on the its compliment of long guns and carronades (shorter but more powerful at close range guns). Using these ship gun factors, the Gunnery tables show you how to calculate your base gunfire number for use when firing the guns. This is dependent upon the ship's stats and the range.

The other side of the gunnery table is the Gunfire Table. In CA, you take the base number which is for a certain range, add or subtract various modifiers and then roll 1d6 to fire. The Gunfire Table shows the results for both aiming low (shooting at the enemy's hull) and firing high (targeting the enemy's masts, sails and rigging). The Gunfire Results chart also indicates what is needed to roll a critical hit. (If the gunfire die roll is a “6” you roll again to see if you get a critical hit.) This sheet also includes the chart used to determine what sort of crew is hit (sailors or marines) and the Marine fire chart for firing Marines at an enemy ship.

Movement/Various Movement and Other Charts
The pink sheet has on one side the Movement charts. A ship is classed as Line, Frigate, or Corvette. Also, a ship may have four, three, two, or one available rigging sections. Wind Speed in the game is either Calm (no movement), Very Light, Light, Fresh, or Heavy. A ship may be moving either Close Hauled (diagonal toward the wind), Broad Reaching (diagonal away from the wind) or Running (straight with the wind). Also a ship may have one of four sail states: Plain (full) sails, Medium Sail, Fighting Sail, or Furled (or dismasted). Combining all of these attributes of wind speed and sail state, as well as ship type, the Movement Chart gives the number of Movement Factors the ship can use. (This is kept written and updated on the log as rigging sections are lost in battle.)

As an example: A Ship of the Line, Fast (L-f) in a Light wind, with all four rigging sections, using plain sail, could run (straight with the wind) and have 7 movement factors (Mfs). If the ship were to reduce to Medium Sail, 5 Mfs, or only 3 Mfs if at Fighting Sail. If the same ship had a rigging section gone, he could run with medium sail 4 Mfs or with fighting sail 2 Mfs (and no plain sail at all). This information is kept up to date on the player's ship log.

This side of the chart also includes charts for determining a ships acceleration and deceleration as well as how many hexes it must move in a straight line between turns, based on its maneuver type.

The other side of the Red card contains the following charts used at various times in the game: Boarding Combat and Skill Factors, Boarding Combat Results, Grappling, Unfouling, Poor Maneuvering, Drifting, Collision Resolution, Tacking, Bearing Off, Winds Speed Change and Wind Direction Change. You can see from the list what sorts of actions are simulated in the game.

Hull Critical Hits/Rigging Critical Hits
The yellow reference page has the hull and rigging critical hits charts. There are two columns to get results, one is a more limited (1d6) result which is a Hull or Rigging Check made when a Hull or Rigging section is eliminated. The larger column of full possibilities (2d6) is checked when a ship takes a critical hit from gunfire.

SHIP LOG FORMS
Every ship is kept track of via a ship log form. The log shows the ship's name, as well as information about it's class, rate, nationality, and other details from the scenario or ship data chart. The log is broadly divided into three main sections:
Rigging, Hull and Crew sections are a block of smaller boxes. Each ship has a certain number of empty boxes with which is begins in each section. (Unused boxes are shaded). During the game, as damage is taken, the turn number that a box is lost is entered into each box. This not only indicates that the box is lost, but what turn it happened, as a sort of historical record as well as for making sure details are accurately tracked. The log also includes in this top third, the Crew Quality indicater. (Crew Quality gives you a certain skill modifier for tasks as well as a gunnery modifier).

The gunnery and movement areas take up the next ¼ of the page. The Gunnery area shows the gunnery numbers calculated from the blue sheet as well as a list of modifiers. These modifiers are totaled and as they change, the total changes so that you can quickly find your final gunnery number to which you add your firing die roll. The Movement Area shows the information from the Movement Chart on the red sheet, that is, how many movement factors you have for each amount of sail and direction of sailing, as well as acceleration and deceleration and turning information.

The bottom half of the Ship Log is a grid used to plot movement and crew activities as well as record gunfire results and other notes about things that happened during the turn. To the right of this is a summary of the notation used to write movement and crew activity plots.

Sample Logs
There are also two logs that are filled out for a British and a French ship. These are helpful for showing exactly how one would prepare a log before play. There is also a sample log showing an actual game. This log is referred to in several of the rule example and it has a very helpful summary on the back of what happens on various turns. It's really an actual sample game log that serves as a play example and a reference for the rules examples.

Before playing, each ship has to have a log filled out. This means determining all of the ship's information (from the scenario or “free build”) as well as calculating the gunnery numbers and the initial movement numbers. It does take some time to fill out the ship logs and if there are going to be several ships involved it is a good idea to have them filled out before the players arrive. This is also a helpful suggestion for newer players, though learning to fill out the log is a useful skill. Although not particularly exciting, filling out the log can be imagined as your in-port final outfitting before you head out to sea!

It is permitted to make copies of the Ship Log.

SIGNAL FORM
The Signal Form is used in multi-player games. The designer, Mark Campbell has designed the game so that it works best and is most realistic when each player controls his own ship. In order to communicate, as the ships actually did, a Signal Form is used. At the beginning of the turn, a message is written down (using strict guidelines for how and what may be said). The signal is then handed to the other captains at the end of the turn.

The author permits copying the Signal Form, too.

COUNTERS
One counter sheet comes with the game. There are ship counters and status counters. The ship counters are two hexes long. Each counter has a number and a letter. The number refers to the Class of ship and the letter is a designation used to identify a particular ship. Thus, a British 100 gun ship might be the red 1A whereas a French frigate might be a yellow 3B. (The letter just distinguish ships of the same type but are not named so that you can use them in every scenario as needed). The ships show either medium sail (showing white canvas) or fighting sail (no canvas showing). These sails states can be modified by adding Plain or furled status counters.

There are a variety of status counters such as “Plain Sail,” “Men in Rigging,” “Grappled,” “Struck,” and so on. The status counters are used as a way of remembering what is already evident and trackable on the ship log forms.

MAPS
Two maps are included, an “A” map and a “B” map. Each map has a wind rose and numbered hexes (for indicating initial ship placement). The maps have various shaded areas which can be used for areas of shallow water in certain scenarios. The shaded areas on the maps are such that the maps can be used together either end to end or side to side, depending on the scenario.

DICE
A white and black d10 and a white and black d6 are included.

:P::L::A::Y::I::N::G: :T::H::E: :G::A::M::E:
What is the game play like? It is, in short, really fun. As with any detailed simulation, the first few games will have a god deal of pausing to verify a rule or double check how something is done. I find it helpful, after playing, to skim the rule book again to see if I missed anything or if I can understand something better after having actually played.

The first order of business is choosing a scenario or just grabbing some ships and going at it. As I noted previously, the ship logs have to be filled out first. For a “pick up” game this doesn't take terribly long if there are only a few ships. For more players and ships, it's a good idea to fill these out ahead of time.

The turn is divided into 5 phases: Reinfforcements & Weather, Plot, Movement, Combat, and Maintenance. Each phase has subphases in which various activities are taken care of.

Essentially it works like this:

You begin the turn by rolling for changes in wind. If the wind changes speed and/or direction, this will happen at the beginning of the next turn.

Then, each captain plots the movement of his ship based on how he is facing with respect to the wind and how fast he was moving the previous turn. At this time, crew sections (there are four sailor sections and one marine/topmen section) are also assigned tasks. For example, a crew section might be set to change sails, turn the ship by tacking, forming a boarding party, or conducting repairs. Messages are also written now.

Next, movement is carried out. The rules are quite detailed as to how movement is conducted and are explicit (and somewhat complex) with respect to resolving possible collisions and the tight maneuvering as ships get close together.

Combat is next, beginning with declarations of boarding followed by gunfire and marine fire. Firing is simultaneous which means that damage that might affect your shooting does not count for your shots. Each ship gets to fire once. A ship may either fire at one target or two. However, firing at two targets incurs a severe -10 modifier, reflecting the difficulty in having the crew run back and forth to fire guns on both sides of the ship. Marine fire, if it hits, will take out a crew box. While not huge, it is a good harassing tactic when ships are near one another (marine fire is one or two hexes).

After combat, there is a “maintenance” phase when drifting, unfouling, fire and other such situations and checks are resolved. Then the ship logs and game counters are all updated and checked for accuracy before moving on to the next turn.

One of the things that I notice about CA is that there is not a terribly large amount of luck. Die rolls are used to do various things and so that is a factor. You can always fail a check or roll and so that can ruin your day. But the basic operation of the game is in accordance with the historical reality: Bigger ships with more guns could really hurt small ships with few guns. It is extremely unlikely in CA that a ship much smaller than another could successfully destroy or even board her enemy. If you're looking for a small underdog to wipe out a huge rival, you probably are looking at the wrong game. This doesn't mean, however, that a given game has a predetermined outcome. Indeed, crew quality plays an important part in many aspects of sailing and fighting and a smaller ship with a better crew will be more of a match for a larger ship with a poorer crew.

What makes CA a very fun game for me is in the level of detail that is simulated. You are master over your ship. The sailing is certainly one aspect but the really interesting thing are the choices you have to make with your crew. For example, you're close in with some enemy ships and you've got to turn around. If you take the long way (“wear ship”) you will be blasted mercilessly. So, you might try turning across the wind (“tacking”). The problem is, if you don't make the turn, you'll be a sitting duck. The problem however, is that to successfully tack you'll need to roll on the Tacking Table. However, your chance of tacking goes down unless you assign crew sections to manage the turn. (Three crew sections is ideal). But, if you have crew sections tacking the ship, they can't also fire the guns, so your firing numbers will go down. What do you do? You have to tack but you also need to fire well at those close range enemies. Tough choices!

I also like the simultaneous plotted movement and gunfire. It seems to keep a certain momentum to the game. The movement resolution rules are a bit sticky but as with any game a little bit of common sense will help sort things out. Essentially, if two ships' sterns or bows are making for the same hex on the same movement point, there is a die roll to determine who gets the hex and the other ship has to bear off if possible. Collisions aren't actually that hard to resolve. If a ship's bow enters a hex with a ship in it, it hits it. Collisions are never good since there is the possibility of the ramming ship to lose a bunch more rigging.

Gunfire, as it was in real life, is pretty sad when you're far away and pretty darn scary when you're up close. The chance for various critical hits is also an important part of the game. When that gunfire die roll is a “6” you will always cheer, hoping your next roll will secure a critical hit and the critical hit roll will be something really nasty (like destroying the rudder of causing a ship to catch fire!).

The multi-player Signaling rules are also well done. This is how CA represents command, by letting each captain do his own thing but by letting admirals signal to the other ships. This is real communication in which there is every possibility of having your instructions misunderstood or even just disobeyed. The fact that you don't know what the other players on your own team are thinking makes it really difficult to properly plan and execute your battle plans. Just like the real thing!

All in all, once the rules are grasped, the game play is pretty fast. You will find that once the firing phase begins, everyone can easily roll and get their numbers and then it's simply a matter of announcing what damage each target takes. So while things can get involved, there really isn't any appreciable downtime. We recently taught the game to two bright games who, by the middle of the game had learned the ropes and were handling their ships just fine.

:C::L::O::S::E: :A::C::T::I::O::N: :V::S: :F::L::Y::I::N::G: :C::O::L::O::R::S:
I want to make some comments on CA and FC side by side. These seem to be the two main currently available Age of Sail games and both have their following.

Number of Players and Scenario Size
Close Action will play any large battle but you need enough players to handle each individual ship or maybe at the most two or even three ships. (I think three ships is a physically practical limit; I wouldn't want to play more than that number). The game is designed so that the realistic command and Signaling rules work best with one ship per player. Such large games have been done and I would be eager to take part in one. The really large games are aided by someone acting as “game master” to help resolve movement conflicts and so on. This strength of CA, the ability to actually do large battles, is also its main weakness. You really can't play a ship action with a large number of vessels with only a few players. Our usual gaming group is three. That's enough to play, maybe, six or seven ships total, which is fine and lots of fun. But the system isn't at all designed for such large battles with a small number of players.

Flying Colors, on the other hand, allows the playing of battles with large numbers of ships with only two players (or even solo). That is what it is designed to do. The detail for each ship is minimal (rigging and hull damage, fires, but not detailed plotting of moves or crew or individual sections of hull and rigging). As an example, our gaming group of three played Trafalgar one day. While it certainly took several hours, it was entirely manageable given the rules and mechanics of FC.

This, I think, is the main difference between the two games: The detail simulated per ship by CA is not suitable for large engagements unless you have a large number of players. The lack of detail in FC means you can simulate larger engagements with fewer players, but I don't think the operation of the ships is quite as fun.

Command and Leadership
In Close Action, command and leadership are really represented by the player and his ability to effectively communicate to other players. In CA, the command and control aspects are “outside” the game board in how the players interact and communicate with the limited (and realistic) signaling rules.

In Flying Colors, the Command System is “built in” to the game itself. Individual commanders are represented and placed aboard ships. Ships must be in the same formation as the commander's ship or else within his command range. If not, a ship that is “out of command” is severely limited in its ability to engage the enemy and fight. Put another way, being out of command physically (and game mechanically) limits a ship in what it can do. This is a restriction upon the player, but is a great deal of what makes FC suitable for large engagements with few players. (Having various commanders is also one way of having opportunities for more players in FC which is otherwise essentially a two player game).

Movement and Gunfire
In CA, movement and gunfire is simultaneous. In FC, one group of ships (command) is moved at a time with gunfire being handled as part of the movement (and enemy gunfire also possible as part of that movement). Again, the way of handling these in each game makes CA good at what it does and FC the choice for larger actions.

Which do I Prefer?
If I had to pick between Close Action and Flying Colors, I would pick CA. (Fortunately I own both and have friends who will play both). I like CA better because of the level of detail which, in my opinion, doesn't slow the game down (Naval games take long anyway). I really enjoy micromanaging what is going on aboard the ship that I command. I have very much enjoyed the games of CA that I have played so far. My regret with CA, however, is that I am unlikely to get into a large FTF battle, which I think would be really fun. And it would be the only way to see a large battle played out with CA. Still, I have to admit that since we've been playing CA, I've now had a desire to get FC out and try some larger fleet actions. Our gaming group of three tried FC with some move plotting and other house rules to increase the detail. I didn't like them. I like FC as is, and it is really good for large actions with few players. But CA really addresses that desire for detailed plotting of movement and crew management which make the game so interesting to play.

:C::O::N::C::L::U::S::I::O::N:

If you're still reading this, Captain (and you are because you're a half-pay captain with nothing better to do), I hope you'll be able to judge whether Close Action is a game worth investing in. I've recently ordered it's expansions, [GAMEID=15233] and [GAMEID=31251] which are really scenario books for the Revolutionary War and also events in the Indian Ocean (with additional rules and historical background).

Close Action combines detailed simulation with good and fun game play while being extremely informative and educational about the period. Mark Campbell has made a great game. He indicates that this is a decades-long labor of love and it shows in his enthusiasm and attention to detail. I'm sure the work he has put into the game is what generates the enthusiasm we have when playing it.

Close Action earns a “10” rating in my book because of my desire to see this on the table as often as we can get to it (which, recently has been almost weekly!).

Thread: Cookie Crumbs and Imperfections: Training New Midshipmen

Malacandra — 2008-05-10T12:44:38+00:00

Marc, Risdon and I play Close Action just about every weekend. We pressed two new players into the game last night: Michael and his son Ben. For our "training" scenario we decided on a wind speed of three straight down the Map (A) and a sea state of 3. We declared that the wind would not be subject to any change in direction or speed, to assist Michael and Ben in learning how to sail.

After filling out the ship cards and a very brief introduction to how movement is plotted and executed, we began. The lineup was as follows (described from my side of the board).

Map A stretched long ways left to right in front of me (wind rose at the right end). There were no shoals in play, also to keep things easy for the new captains.

The French were in the upper left corner, coming in line abreast at plain sail.

From right to left was the flagship, Commmodore Marc's French 74, the Marsellaise. Next over was new Captain MIchael's 50 gun frigate the Champaigne. Farthest left was Marc's frigate the 44 gun Jardin de Aeux. All ships were flying plain sail and with the wind down the board (from our left) they were rushing toward us broad-reaching.

Our little squadron was about a third of the way to the left edge coming in from the bottom (our) side of the map. I was commanding the British Argonaut, a 64 gun ship of the line. Ben was two hexes behind me in a line commanding the HMS Cookie (don't laugh! We were eating cookies as we filled in the ship logs and it was the first word that popped into his head!). I had Risdon ahead and to the left in his little frigate, the 44 gun Flawless.

Sails sighted!

Recognizing that we had enemy ships in sight and that we needed to get our canvas down, I set the signal midshipman to work: ARGONAUT TO FLEET, MAKE FIGHTING SAIL. This would take two crew sections two turns to start pulling in the sheets plus another turn to get it all the way down to fighting sail. The Marsellaise signaled to the Champaigne to MAINTAIN WIND GAGE, SHORTEN SAIL. The French, too, knew the fight was on. Our problem, as I saw it already, was that they could turn to give us battle effectively, since the wind was from their larboard quarter. We, on the other hand, close-hauled, would not be able to turn quickly to keep in the fight, because we would have to tack to do so.

The two squadrons continued to close and the Champaigne made a turn to port, as if she were going to head out past her squadron. I was confident that my Argonaut and Ben's Cookie could reach her in our line and do her harm. So I sent to Risdon: FLAWLESS, ENGAGE SMALLEST SAIL. Flawless was able to get in close (about 3 hexes) and she hauled over to starboard. But the Marsellaise made hard to starboard putting her broadside right into the face of Flawless. Flawless was equipped with carronades that gave her equivalent shooting power at short range but she did not have equivalent decking and rigging. Her shot tore threw Marsellais's sails and killed some crew, but M's return fire was devastating. Flawless proved she wasn't as her sails were shredded and her masts and crosspoles were blasted apart. Marsellaise's crew cheered as Flawless saw an entire rigging section gone and then, tottering briefly, one of her masts came crashing down to the deck, [critical hit lost a mast].

Suddenly slowed, Risdon tried to tack flawless and barely made it, swinging away from the J.D.A but still in range to be pounded mercilessly. Seeing that the Champaigne was in a position to get raked, I raised a signal: ARGONAUT TO COOKIE, BREAK FORMATION. My hope was to get Ben to turn out from behind me and engage the French as I continued ahead. But that was bad planning because he could not turn into the battle without risking being in irons turning through the wind. In any case, he would not have turned in time to avoid being raked by the French ships as they passed. It made little difference as Ben wasn't sure of the order. My plan was to slow the Argonaut even as her crew scrambled to trim us at Fighting sail. Cookie proceeded onward at full steam and could not bear off, slamming into the back of Argonaut and taking several rigging damage!

J.D.A. and Marsellaise had swung around and were close hauled, attempting to dismast the Flawless. Argonaut began moving again and ordered COOKIE, WEAR SHIP. My plan now was to have both our ships swing around. While this would cost us some time, our solid hits on the French ships assured me that the time would be well spent. To wear ship means we would turn clockwise all the way around until we were facing back toward our side of the map, close-hauled back into action. I could see that if we could do that, we would prevent the Frogs from moving past us. They were tied up trying to obliterate the Flawless anyway. Well, Ben, still learning his sailing made a turn all right--into the wind! He did that to avoid hitting me, the exact thing I hoped he would not do. I had begin my turn and the Champaigne arrive one hex in front of and to port of Ben's Cookie. I was able to blast the Champaigne good, and there was a lot of fire from the tops from all the ships, sailors crashing to the decks of ships as the musket balls tore their throats out.

We managed, in that confined space, to keep from having any more collisions! I continued to wear the Argonaut, trying to get around and engage the Marsellaise or the J.D.A. before they could kill the Flawless. But by this time, Flawless had been completely dismasted and lay adrift to the "left" of the pile. The Champaigne apparently thought she could head around and take it to the Flawless. But the Argonaut had her in sight. She was turned tightly in (heading toward our side of the board) and the Argonaut was finishing her turn, trying to catch up to her.

Meanwhile, the J.D.A., Marsellaise and were going to take advantage of the Cookie's slow start. The J.D.A was able to "cross the T" on the Cookie which tried to bear off but was unable [had already turned that game turn]. The Cookie therefore crashed into the stern section of the J.D.A. bringing both to a standstill. At this point in the battle, the J.D.A. drifted but not away from the Cookie. She was able to secure the J.D.A. with grappling hooks. At that point the sailors began grabbing their axes and cutlasses and getting ready to board. Aboard the J.D.A, the Frogs were also grabbing weapons and preparing to fight.

The Marsellaise only barely slid off to starboard, pouring a point-blank broad side into the poor Cookie which now had no crew to fight back as they were all mustering to repel boarders. The Marsellaise continued around the Cookie's stern, aided by the wind at her back and poured horrendous fire down her length. By the time the first turn of hand to hand fighting had taken place, the Cookie was only left with one crew section that could fight [S4, her Marines having just died from Marsellaise's fire]. The hand to hand combat saw the men from J.D.A. stream across to the Cookie, but the first bit of fighting was ineffectual. [J.D.A. had double the combat factors but the rolls didn't cause much damage on either side].

Meanwhile, the Champaigne had swung around and was raking the Flawless. After being pounded to no purpose, she hauled down her colors, leaving Champaigne to try to swing around and engage the Argonaut who was only lightly damaged at all.

Marsellaise continued her slow run around Cookie's stern, raking her mercilessly in an attempt to persuade her surrender. With only two crew boxes left, Captain Ben decided not to waste their lives too and hauled down his colors.

I thought the Argonaut had a good chance to capture the Champaigne but instead, seeing the destruction of her sister ships, she made for the home island to fight another day [Michael and Ben had to leave, and with two struck ships, we called it a French victory]. Though maybe Argonaut won't be sailed by me again. Returning home down two ships with no prize of my own surely means a court martial! Punishment: Time machine banishment to die in the chariot races (Circus Maximus was next up on the table) [I'm tempted to pit the Argonaut and Champaigne against one another, to continue the chase using the ships as they ended this battle]

-----------------------------------------

GAME COMMENTS

Michael and Ben weren't sure what they were doing at the start but quickly got the hang of things. (Michael was still getting all the crew plotting down as he declared one of his sections was plotting "P." "P?" we asked? "Over the side," he said.) :laugh:

I suppose that just about the time they were figuring it out, poor Ben was stopped, grappled and being boarded. He would have had a better chance if the Marsellaise hadn't been blasting the heck out of him.

This was the first game with new sailors such that our command signals were uncertain in their being understood. This is what made it so entertaining. Break formation? No, crash into the lead ship! Wear ships? No, he tacks. Those kinds of mistakes were funny to watch, since we were trying hard not to talk any sailing with one another (though we talked lots about the mechanics of the game, etc.)

This game played a little bit more slowly than our usual games. With new players, we took our time plotting gunfire and resolving it systematically, so everyone could see what was happening. Once players are familiar with the game, these tasks are certainly easier and accomplished more quickly.

What I enjoy most about Close Action is the level of detail. Having to actually worry about your crew and what they're doing is tough. For example, when Ben was tacking, he was very close to the French ships, so his decision was how many crew sections to plot to the turn and how many to leave for the guns (ended up 2 each). But that's a very hard decision. Marine fire, while not game deciding, is always fun to do.

There were no complicated collision or avoidance situations in this particular game but the Boarding is a bit tricky in working out the melee results and applying them.

QUESTION for expert Close Action PLayers: Can you plot your crew directly from FB (Form Boarders) to BA (Boarders Away) or do they have to be at least one turn as BR (Boarder's Ready).

This was a fantastic battle. The new players had fun and Marc, Ris and I were much more challenged than in our last two games ("pick up" sceanarios in which both times the wind dropped to "0" and left ships in a position to get raked without ceasing!)

The only downsisde to Close Action is that without a large number of people, you can't play out a battle with a large number of ships (this is the point and entirely possible in Flying Colors; but between the two, I prefer Close Action for its detail).

Close Action, over the several weeks that we have been playing, has gone just about to the top of my favorite games list. I just ordered a copy for myself (always good to have extra charts when we play!) as well as [GAMEID=15233] and [GAMEID=31251] (the scenario book expansions).

Thread: The Little Girl Who Shouted So Loud

Malacandra — 2008-04-26T04:18:02+00:00

It was now or never. Reports from intelligence sources in France indicated a mighty warship was getting ready to put to sea. The British blockade was the only thing standing between her and the open ocean.

But now, with the waves high in the Bay of Biscay [Sea State 4] and a Heavy Wind [Wind Speed 4] it was now or never to get that magnificent ship out to sea. In a bit of hubristic irony, she was the La Puella (French? Latin? Both? The "Littel Girl") and she was anything but little. She was the newest, fasted 120 gun Ship of the French Line. And now was her time. With a wind howling out into the Bay, she left port, on the assumption the British frigates would not be able to catch her. In rough seas, she would slip out and join her sister ships on the way to cause grief for the Limeys in the Mediterranean.

But it wasn't frigates she was trying to get past. As she neared the mouth of the harbor, sails close in, hull up and directly across her bow: Not one but TWO British 64s! This would be a tough fight to get past them and out to sea. But she had the wind at her back and they could only hope to catch her.

It was the Trident and the Revenge, British 64s who saw her. Rubbing their hands in anticipation, the Captain Mark of the Trident signals to Captain Marcus of the Revenge: "Engage Enemy Sail." The Revenge is closer and the Trident's plan is to swing wide and downwind to catch the Frog ship farther to the East. [Risdon started the La Puella in the top left corner and we were about 20 hexes away.]

It seemed as if the La Puella would hug the shore but then she broke to starboard and began running downwind. In a trick designed to throw off her pursuers, the La Puella went to Fighting Sail and then back to Medium Sail. The British followed suit: "To Revenge: Make Fighting Sail." This change of sails and speed allowed the La Puella to get past the Revenge. But Trident's bet to cut her off had paid off.

Balls were already flying from the second turn from the La Puella and the Revenge. Trident held tight unitl she was in range and let loose with a terrific broadside. By this point, it was a dance between Trident and La Puella; Revenge had fallen astern though both British ships had gone again to Medium Sail. Trident was taking a beating as she and La Puella wove back and forth through the rough seas. For awhile, Trident suffered from an inability to fire her leeward guns because of the swell of the sea [Her freeboard is 4, so firing the downwind guns means a -4 modifier, since her lower gun ports had to remain closed].

At some point, however, Trident seemed to anticipate the Frog liner and was able to trade positions, getting slightly to leeward of the Frenchie and thus trade whose lower guns couldn't fire.

But the fact is, 64 guns against 120 is just not a fair match. Revenge was struggling to keep up but that meant only the Trident could tangle with the La Puella. And she was taking a mighty beating. Braces snapping. Sheets sliced. Hulls holed and splintered. Trident was not giving as good as she was getting. With almost 3:1 odds in Marines, the La Puella was sniping the Trident's crew pretty well. [More marines means a better chance of hitting the other ship one or two hexes away].

By turn 10, the Trident had lost her first crew section. By turn 13, she lost the next one. By turn 17, she was down to only two crew sections and three riggins sections were gone. SHe was also into the last of her hull sections. By this time she was very slows and the wind dropped to 3 which meant even less movement for the ships. It was a slow winding down. But La Puella's maneuvering had cost her sea room and her engagement with Trident finally allowed Revenge to get close. But close taking fire from a 64 is not the same as close taking fire from a 120. Critical hits here and there were bringing both British ships closer and closer to defeat.

But the British don't quit. Even as Trident struggled to gather some sternway and turn to take advantage of the wind [with only one rigging section, she could not be close hauled and move] La Puella was able to rake her savagely through her stern. It was futile really. By turn 21, the Trident's marines and topmen were no more. But Revenge had been too close for too long. SHe was battered and on turn 21 the last of her masts came down. She drifted a bit even as La Puella wore ship to come again at the Trident.

Finally, on turn 23, both the Trident and the Revenge hauled down their colors. It was a shame because there were actually close to dismasting the French ship. But the Royal Navy ships just didn't have the manpower left even if they could have closed and grappled successfully.

In the end, it was a French victory. Risdon caused 117 VPs worth of damage while the La Puella only gave us 46.2 VPs. We like to think there was something of a tactical victory. With only a fex boxes left in the third rigging section and the fourth left, La Puella wasn't going anywhere but back to the Yard for repairs. But she would be sailing in with two prizes alongside. A bad day for the British in rough seas! Both British ships had also been reduced from "A" crews down to "C" crews after failing morale checks.

----------------------------------
Game Notes:

Close Action has become our favorite Age of Sail game. You can't play large battles with just three like you can in Flying Colors, but the tradeoff is the detail in the sailing and crew plotting that CA gives.

Another aspect of CA that is really challenging is the sailing characteristics. You have different sailing speeds for each amount of sail you have raised and these change with wind speed and also as you lose rigging sections. What a tough choice to have your crew trying to turn a luffed ship while making sure you've got enough to fire the guns.

I think, if we could have done it differently, we might have tried more chain shot to try and take down the La Puella's rigging quicker. The problem with that is, you need to be within 7 and a 120 gun ship at range seven is the same gunnery number as what our 64s are at one hex away! You just can't get close without taking it on the chin.

Also, if we had coordinated better, bringing both ships to bear on the La Puella at once would have been much more damaging, but once Trident and the La Puella were downwind of the Revenge, she had a really hard time keeping up. Doing it again, I probably would have risked ordering Plain (Full) Sails for the Revenge to get in range. By the time she was close, it seemed like Trident was in her way then. It was only when Trident slowed to a stop that the Revenge could come past the La Puella's stern and trade broadsides up close. But up close isn't where you want to be. If only we could have both flanked her and let her have two broadsides at once for a bit!

I have read that the most complicated party of the CA rules are the contested hexes and I would agree. We have to refer to the rules more than anything when those near collision contested hexes come up. It's not really intuitive and it takes re-reading the movement resolution rules to work out the solution when ships cross sterns and so on. Still, I appreciate how the rules try to resolve it carefully and realistically.

The thing that Close Action does well is put you into that mode of really caring what happens to your ship and crew. Marking off those crew boxes is painful and watching your ability to sail the ship and fire the guns diminish is a rough experience.

This was our 5th Close Action game.

QUESTION: When the Critical Hit tables says to "Immediately" plot a crew section to reorganize, is the plot changed (or added) that exact turn or on the following turn? We played on the next turn, because that would mean full turns required. But was that correct?

Thread: Play by Vassal

jtovb — 2008-03-19T00:28:07+00:00

Anyone up for a game online via Vassal? Just got the game and wanting to play. Would rather have someone in same time zone or near same I guess.

Thread: Re: WS&IM

Bloodybucket — 2008-02-17T03:55:25+00:00

Chanfan wrote:
I know this is an older thread, but I'd very much agree that CA seems like advanced/refined WS&IM. The games feel very similar to me, but I like CA better.

Could you be more specific?

Thread: Re: WS&IM

Chanfan — 2008-02-15T18:26:29+00:00

I know this is an older thread, but I'd very much agree that CA seems like advanced/refined WS&IM. The games feel very similar to me, but I like CA better.

Thread: Re: Scale and a larger map

wargamer55 — 2008-01-23T16:42:54+00:00

I think people use the bigger ships for the visual effect. The ground scale and model scales in miniatures are almost always out of sync. If you matche dthem things will end up looking pretty tiny by the time you're done.
I think 1:1200 ships are also more available for that era.

Thread: Scale and a larger map

Ombwiri — 2008-01-23T10:13:31+00:00

I've been pondering buying a 1" hexmap for close action and have been pondering the scale of models to use with hexes that size. I've read on consimworld that people use 1/1200 for 1" hexes, but doing the maths based on 30 hexes = 1 nautical mile i can't help but think that the correct scale would be 1/2400.

Is my maths wrong?

Thread: Re: Minis from another game?

Firepigeon — 2008-01-09T12:54:53+00:00

Too small even for the smallest ships from PotSM, I know I thought it already. If the board would be greater it would work perfectly! (and would be gorgeous!!)

Thread: Minis from another game?

Sternenfahrer-MUC — 2008-01-08T15:48:59+00:00

Wouldn't it be fun to play CA with minis from [GAMEID=10653]?

Or would the map become to large?

Image

kjuice — 2008-01-08T13:45:24+00:00

new countersheet

Thread: Re: User Review

Rauss — 2007-09-10T23:24:39+00:00

(close action computer stuff)
http://www.thenavalregister.com/tnr_files/tnr_home.html

Image

wtrollkin2000 — 2007-06-07T22:07:31+00:00

Image

wtrollkin2000 — 2007-06-07T22:06:07+00:00

Image

wtrollkin2000 — 2007-06-07T21:59:28+00:00

Image

kjuice — 2007-06-01T22:52:06+00:00

Thread: Re: WS&IM

Mark_WH — 2007-05-24T12:17:35+00:00

aforandy wrote:
Close Action is miniatures rules with a map and countersheet, so very different and more deatiled than WS&IM, which is a 30-year-old design and it shows. Flying Colors is essentially a more accurate version of WS&IM presented as a modern design.

WS&IM is also miniature rules converted to map and counters, the rules were called 'Ship of the Line'. CA seems like WS&IM on steroids.

Thread: Re: WS&IM

aforandy — 2007-05-22T11:12:23+00:00

Close Action is miniatures rules with a map and countersheet, so very different and more deatiled than WS&IM, which is a 30-year-old design and it shows. Flying Colors is essentially a more accurate version of WS&IM presented as a modern design.

Thread: WS&IM

leberegel — 2007-05-22T10:36:39+00:00

When I read the review here on the geek, it looks like Wooden Ships and Close Action are very similar games. Can anybody show up the differences? Which game is more complex?

Thread: Re: User Review

keaaw — 2006-12-12T06:01:53+00:00

The website referenced above has become an advertising site.

Thread: Re: rules question: Crew Quality modifier

dr glaze et al — 2006-12-11T04:07:09+00:00

Thanks!

Thread: Re: rules question: Crew Quality modifier

Wazdakka — 2006-12-10T22:55:47+00:00

Dr Glaze,

The CQ modifiers should only be applied to die rolls that specifically say so. Modifiers due to crew quality come in three flavors:
1) The CQ gunnery modifier is applied to the ship's BGN when computing it's MGN ("basic" and "modified" gunnary number, that is).
2) The CQ skill modifier is applied to anything noted on the "pink" sheet and the crew order codes as "(+/- SK)"
3) Finally CQ factors into several of the charts on the "pink" sheet that don't have modifiers per se, but simply have columns for each CQ level.

Image

Wazdakka — 2006-12-07T13:00:22+00:00

Close-up of the British fleet

Image

Wazdakka — 2006-12-07T13:00:00+00:00

Close-up of the French fleet

Image

Wazdakka — 2006-12-07T12:40:38+00:00

Two fleets closing on opposite tacks

Image

theaney — 2006-11-13T17:22:16+00:00

BGG.con: During Dr. Glaze's game, Joe playfully mocks Rusty as the later's French frigate is reduced to a small bit of driftwood by two massive English broadsides.

Thread: Re: Log of HMS Walpole 17 May 1802

dr glaze et al — 2006-11-04T14:31:35+00:00

The more the merrier!

Seriously, if can can scrape together a total of 5-7 it will be ideal. Enough to crete chaos and use the signalling rules, but not too many that play will be bogged down.

Thread: Re: Log of HMS Walpole 17 May 1802

SabreRedleg — 2006-11-04T01:40:03+00:00

I'll play. And I already know what close hauled and broad reaching mean. (Would it help if I brought along an ASA Sailing manual?)

Thread: Re: Log of HMS Walpole 17 May 1899

dr glaze et al — 2006-11-01T16:11:01+00:00

Holy Cow. How did I miss that last year??

I can try to sneak the stuff into a box and bring it along, but folks will get antsy listening to the long-winded explanations of broad-reaching versus close-hauled, etc.

We tried using PotSM figurines, but they were a wee bit too big for the hex grid. I should keep my eyes peeled for cheap paper maps with a larger grid.

On the other hand it's totally worth the little bit of baggage space for the payoff in case we can rope two or three others into a small fleet action. But how will we have time enough for you to teach me EastFront AND me to teach a bunch of us Close Action??

Thread: Re: Log of HMS Walpole 17 May 1899

kuhrusty — 2006-11-01T11:25:24+00:00

dr glaze et al wrote:
Adding more people would hardly add any time: you plot and move simultaneous. Gunfire is really easy and you cross out boxes, just like Federation Commander or Silent Death. Plus adding players would mean we get to use the great signalling rules to limit communication, which looks like another great part to this system.
What would it take to get a multi-player game of this at BGG.CON? You can't just bring the rules, right; you need a big hex mat and something to use for the ships? Could those be borrowed from Pirate's Cove etc.?

(I was going to say, if BradyLS brings his "Just Go Straight At 'Em" stuff again, maybe you could borrow his bits, but looking at pictures from last year, the ships look like they're probably stuck on fairly large cards, and he's using a blue sheet, not the table-sized hex mat I remembered: http://www.rozmiarek.info/gallery/BGGCon2005?page=9)

Thread: Re: Log of HMS Walpole 17 May 1899

dr glaze et al — 2006-10-31T14:28:10+00:00

kuhrusty wrote:
How long did this session take to play?

Well, first time on the table, so even small duel took like three hours. But now we know our broad-reaching versus our close-hauled and so on, the same duel would be like 90 minutes flat.

Adding more people would hardly add any time: you plot and move simultaneous. Gunfire is really easy and you cross out boxes, just like Federation Commander or Silent Death. Plus adding players would mean we get to use the great signalling rules to limit communication, which looks like another great part to this system.

Thread: Re: Log of HMS Walpole 17 May 1899

dr glaze et al — 2006-10-31T14:07:32+00:00

Well, actually I DID roll a six. Thanks for asking.

But I got a heap of crew casualties due to 1)close range, 2)the stern raking fire [doubles crew kills and gives a bonus], and 3) it was my initial broadside [more bonuses: the first broadside was often simultaneous and the only one actually aimed!].

So yes, I used my artistic license a bit to describe the result of that one. Considering Scott lost a good fraction of his entire crew in one instant, the bodies would have had to go SOMEWHERE in a hurry for him to return fire a minute or so later.

Thanks for the kudos!

Thread: Re: Log of HMS Walpole 17 May 1899

kuhrusty — 2006-10-31T09:24:21+00:00

dr glaze et al wrote:
Not a minute later we see the corpses tossed out the portholes.
Holy crap!! Is this game really this cool, or are you taking "I rolled a six" & turning it into a paragraph?

How long did this session take to play?

Thread: Log of HMS Walpole 17 May 1802

dr glaze et al — 2006-10-27T18:42:31+00:00

Excerpt from Log of HMS Walpole

17 May 1802: Lat 48' 28" N, Long 5' 27" W, Winds fresh due S. At Sunrise one sail spotted on horizon NNE, helm turned to investigate. Halted holystoning of quarterdeck and sent men to mess should ship prove unfriendly. Midshipmen hoping for another Dutch merchant.

Our best day-glass reveals her as a French 80, likely escaped from Brest blockade in storm of last week, but without any frigates or squadron of any sort to accompany her. Turned helm to NNW in attempt to gain the wind gage. Beat all hands to quarters, sent men aloft to reduce to medium sail. She flies the tricolour bold and makes no ruses with false flags. Even with a full crew and heavier broadside, the French have oft been reluctant to invite a duel at anywhere near even odds. Is something amiss? Yet there are no other sails to be seen.

My French adversary is taking mirror course to mine to also gain the wind. We shall meet bows at this rate. It shall be a battle of nerves to see who will turn and bring their guns to bear... and therefore fire the first broadside down the other's bow. Unless there is some change. She comes on steady - the nerve in this Frenchman!. I wonder if it's one of the old captains fighting since before 1893... none of their class of '98 would engage us, much less chase for the wind so boldly. Rare nerve I say!

The French still has hands aloft and he is making plain sail. A risky gambit - with her wide spread of canvas she will take the gage on me for certain. He can take the positional advantage if he chooses yet it presents a large target for our guns. Conversely I call up to the topmen to reduce our trim to fighting sail. Trim enough to manoeuvre and expose only what is necessary. By the textbook, as I always say. Now something must give - our bows shall crash if we both maintain this deadly course! My helmsman grows nervous yet holds his tongue. England must prevail.

The wily Frenchman gets the better of me. He turns hard-a-port and has completed filling his sails broad-reaching just as our starboard turn pays off. He surrenders the wind gage after all that fuss with his sails but we pay a mean price for it. His treble-shotted broadside pours down our bow, raking us from stem to stern. From the quarterdeck we hear the tumult below and resolve ourselves to repay in kind.

We send topmen aloft to make repairs to our cordage. As the smoke clears from his starboard we can see his rigging still acrawl with hands, now reducing his trim after this lightning-fast pass. The French takes a meandering course and we train on her stern. We cruise cautiously ahead and our debt is repaid with interest compounded! Before he can slip away we jink and fire down his backside, knowing full well that shot is crashing down more than the officers quarters! Right down the length of his gun deck in fact. Not a minute later we see the corpses tossed out the portholes. A cheer from our starboard battery tells me my hands are yet with me.

He gains on me and plinks away with his battery of long guns. We change course and close - we can yet service all our cannons, even being short hands. Yet our refitted 74-gun ship carries fewer of the reliable old long guns in favour of dozen new, stout carronades. A long-range duel plays into his hands. I shall take a page from Nelson: Engage the Enemy More Closely, as he is wont to say!

Again I get the better of him! With all that wind in his sails from his broad-reaching facing to the wind, he makes a wide loop downwind of me. We plot for a direct course at his stern then execute a tight turn. The hands below on the gundeck had to run to man the port side guns as our helm turned the SE. The gun captains must have had success in calming the crew, for never has fire been to accurate or deadly, much less after the hands are fagged out from servicing the starboard guns. These fresh cool cannons were patiently aimed and double-shotted, and positively wreaked havoc with a second raking broadside along his already-mauled stern! As the smoke clears his aft is little more than mass of splinters. The cheers again rise from our gundeck. The hands know from hard experience what this blow has done to our enemy. I take a moment to evaluate the effect of our broadside and behold a cannonball lodged squarely in his mizzenmast, and his men are pouring buckets of water on it. They too are gaping at this uncanny sight as much as I was! Had that ball struck a few feet higher he would have lost his mast!*

Here is where the desperation began to take hold and get the better of my adversary's judgement. He makes an ill-advised course change N, straight into the wind! Well-seasoned hands can tack after facing the wind, by working the rigging such that the ship stays underway after facing to the windward - the momentum of the ship can carry it through. But a raw crew, and from their blockaded ports? The volunteers from Brest have little experience with this sort of manoeuvre and we are positively licking our chops on the quarterdeck! With luck he'll get stalled and be a sitting duck! But this seemingly suicidal move by the French captain gives him the chance to hurt us dearly. Our helm was aimed noncommittal ahead slow, but by luck alone he can only bring his rear guns bear. We are saved. No major damage is sustained from the chaotic fire aimed at our hull. Matters are getting tense and the nerves on the quarterdeck are reaching a breaking point. All of this sharp turning at close range is out of the ken of any of our lieutenants, and never such reckless daring from the French!

All of that excitement seems to be contagious. For though I'm certain I ordered a starboard turn, my helm turned to port**... on a parallel course to the stalled French 80-gunner. Which meant we too were now heading straight into the wind. And the French had started their tack even before us! Oh cruel fates! As his men ran aloft to tack, we felt the wind start to fall from our sails and we blasted a deadly rain of iron at him, the closest yet we had engaged. Our cannons struck home, and from this range we could see the effects even through the clouds of smoke***. His braces were cut so we know he wouldn't be pulling away fast. His gundeck was obviously disorganized, as only a quarter of his cannons were manned, and his quarterdeck was red with the blood of brave French officers. Our men wanted to keep firing, but the gun crews felt the lash of a bosun's club in order get them aloft. We still had the momentum from our accidental port-ward turn, and we had only precious moments to tack the ship around. Otherwise we would be dead to the wind, "in irons" as they say, and adrift. And speaking of that very predicament, that is what we saw happening to our enemy. The reckless French had not only turned into the wind, but was now fighting that momentum and trying to re-tack back to the Starboard to take a NE course. The Gallic lubbers made a miserable show of it, and a brief moment of calm prevailed between irregular fire as both crews were largely aloft desperately trying to harness the same fickle wind.

Now it was our turn to tack into that gusty breeze, and the hands moved more eagerly about it after we saw the helpless French ship in irons. We know a similar fate awaited us if this move was not executed! Both vessels drifted S with the wind blowing in our faces. Our sails started to fill! Huzzah! But the same could not be said for our adversary, who could now be seen shouting at his men to now tack NW and follow our course. A few cannons fired to little effect, and I was interrupted from my thoughts as a young midshipman reported that repairs to the cordage were completed. Nevermind that now the plentiful holes through our canvas had more than undone these diligent repairs. They are ordered to again secure the loose rigging forward until such time as we are within pistolshot.

As we pay off and get underway again, we take a few parting shots from the immobile French vessel and cannot return the favour. We pray that the winds die before he can get his hulk moving again. We see his braces still unrepaired and the crews are still clearly in chaos over there. Things have never looked better for His Majesty's servants. But then we see those sails slowly fill and we curse****. The victory will not be so easy as that but the advantage remains firmly in our grasp. Sporadic French fire continues, but our new heading means we still cannot bring our guns to bear.

We are now engaged broadside-to-broadside, for a change. With a more organized crew, less damage, and less guns dismounted we will gladly take the exchange.

Soon amid the smoke and chaos, we lose sight of our enemy. We only discover his position when we are mauled from right ahead! The wily fox has not given up yet, and somehow fired right through the smoke windward of him and into our bow. But as often happens in these close engagements, as he passes by his tail must show, and I in turn rake his stern. Never have two gun decks been so mercilessly mauled by shot as on this bloody 17th of May.

The series of events plays out again like a staged performance. We cautiously inch forward to await a commitment from the hulk to our starboard, only to see him take wind and cut right ahead of us and again rake our bow. Of all the nerve and persistence! This jackal can't long keep this up! Yet again, by passing over my bows he shows his tail, a tail which we lay into with every cannon we can bring to bear! This time it proves to be the last straw. His rigging in tatters, a lucky shot cracks his mainmast! A cheer rises from all around us, and the cannon fire has slowed to nearly a halt aboard the French vessel. The men pause at the guns when they see the tattered tricolour dip and finally come down from the hulk off our side.

It is nearly afternoon by the time we are prepared to board her, and it was a doubtful thing that the limping hulk would be of any value as a prize. We have captured and her and set a course for Portsmouth, and already she has more water below her deck than air. We ourselves cannot stay at sea either. We too must return to a friendly port to press more hands and take in fresh yards. England prevails, yet this latest contest may signal a new streak of cunning and boldness on the part of the Napoleon's captains.

* possible critical hit, failed die roll
** I got my part and starboard mixed up but we went with my written order. Lesson learned!
*** This barrage took out Scott's first rigging and crew section. He ended up with 3 criticals and a morale check, and the 'quarterdeck casualties' crit caused a second morale check. The second one failed so the French morale rating takes a crucial drop: all skill checks are at -2 now for him, from bad to worse for Scott there.
**** His disheartened and French crew had a -2 to skill checks, and tacked against the momentum to force an additional -3. By comparison, my British hands have a +2 and chose to go with the momentum.

Some closing thoughts on the game system:

This was our first game of Close Action and I really enjoyed the session and the system. I used the sample British 74 Ship-of-the-Line that comes pre-filled out, and my gaming pal Scott used the French 80.

The wonderful tension in the game is plotting 1-6 hexes of movement, factoring in your facing to the wind, and trying to predict your position relative to your enemy's. Damage is incremental, so a one-turn mistake will rarely cost you the game. But enough little errors will certainly hurt you. Skill checks, gunfire, resolution of critical hits, and morale are all very simple.

We managed to use lots of extra detailed stuff that we didn't expect to come up, such as repair, tacking, repairing crits, drift, dismounted guns, multiple morale checks in one turn, and more. Never did these present a problem. The only confusing part of the game is the cases where you turn to a less-favorable wind facing and take turns 'free' as long as your forward movement does not exceed your new wind facing speed. I think that's how we played and I'm not even sure we did that correctly. The 'corner-cases' for movement are the only onerous rules in the game. I look forward to a multiplayer game because it is fun, simple, and evocative.

Thread: rules question: Crew Quality modifier

dr glaze et al — 2006-10-18T14:36:20+00:00

I'm about to get this classic to the table for teh first time tonight, but I have one question: Do you apply to the Crew Quality modifier to EVERYTHING? It seems so, because the designer purposefully made low results good on every chart and included a 'less than 1' result.

Does Crew Quality apply to the morale check too? The rules section doesn't say one way of the other, but it occurs to me that low-morale ships [Bligh, anyone?] are doomed to slippery slope of inaction and ineffectiveness after their second or third morale check. Then again the period seems full of actions in which ships accomplished little after hours of fighting...

Image

Henry To — 2006-10-08T04:05:34+00:00

Thread: Re:Model Ships?

Bubba Cleese — 2005-04-06T12:04:59+00:00

[IMG]http://www.portsmouthminiatures.com/images/rs1.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://www.portsmouthminiatures.com/images/TripBag.jpg[/IMG]

Hey Guys, Check out Portsmouth Miniatures for model ships. www.portsmouthminiatures.com 1:900 scale and triple decker ship kits are only $10.00.

Thread: Re:Model Ships?

wtrollkin2000 — 2004-08-09T16:33:09+00:00

Ipecac (#45188),

I'm not an expert, and can't tell from the fuzzy pictures, but they could be 1:1200th NavWar:

http://www.navwar.freeserve.co.uk/

It's the least expensive stuff. The better mail order shops in the US carry it.

Of course if you want to really have nice looking minis go with Langton, but you'll pay more http://www.rodlangton.com/napoleonic/frame.htm

Thread: Model Ships?

Ipecac — 2004-07-14T15:55:14+00:00

Anyone know where they got the fabulous ship models seen in the images?

Thread: User Review

Wazdakka — 2003-02-07T16:58:15+00:00

Before proceeding with this review, I must disclose that I have played Star Fleet Battles, and even played in the tournaments. The author of the SFB review on this site described it one of those games “that are not so much games as they are lifestyle choices,” indicating that such games are “usually distinguished by the … almost scholarly analysis of their rules that must be done before the first game is even played.” Yes, SFB is a complicated game system, and yes, I enjoy complicated games.

I mention this because at the time of this writing, the only other entry for Close Action on this site was a personal comment that indicated that the author thought the game was too complex. I have found the system well manageable, and have no such complaints.

On with the review…

Close Action (henceforth CA) is a tactical simulation of Napoleonic-era Naval warfare – commonly referred to as the “Age Of Fighting Sail.” Players command at least one sailing ship ranging in size from a small eight gun Corvette to a 120 gun ship of the line from one of four Navies. Players can choose ships from the American, British, French, and Spanish navies.

It is possible to command more than one or two ships, although the author strongly recommends keeping that to a minimum. I believe that this is less due to the complexity of operating multiple ships, and more for the sake of realism. The game rules enforce very limited communications between players (even allies), and having one player operate multiple ships is a significant advantage. However, if you find players to be at a premium, fear not: I have found I can comfortably control three ships, so you and your buddy should be able to have some decent sized games. There are a number of minor rules aimed at maintaining balance when a single player is controlling multiple ships.

The game consists of some number of turns, each of which is divided into five phases. The game continues until one side or the other has accomplished their victory conditions, surrenders, or is destroyed. Some scenarios have fixed game length; the games I have played have ranged from twenty to forty turns. The phases are: Weather, Plotting, Movement, Combat, and Maintenance. A brief summary of each:

Weather
– Determine if the wind changes speed or direction. Sea state does not change through the course of a scenario (but does differ from game to game).

Plotting
– The number of movement points that a particular ship has available is affected by the ship’s type (Corvette, Frigate, Ship of the Line), its speed type, sail state, and the ship’s position relative to the wind. These parameters are listed in a matrix that takes a few minutes of staring at to really understand. It’s easy once you have done a few times though, and the result is a single number indicating how many points of movement the ship can expend that turn. Within the ship’s acceleration/deceleration limits and turn mode, the player plots the ship’s move for the entire turn.
- For example, in a typical duel taking place in a fresh breeze, a fast Frigate in fighting sail might have six points to spend, and might allocate five to move forward 3, turn once to Port, and move forward once (plotted as: 3P1). The ship would not be required to use all six points.
- Crew actions are also plotted in this phase. You crew is used to change sail states, fire the great guns, board enemy ships, anchor, tow, repair, etc. A single crew section can only take one action per turn, and some actions require multiple turns. As you might imagine, crew management is fairly important, and the loss of a crew section due to combat damage is very significant.
- The final piece of the “plot phase” is the writing of signals. More to come about signaling later on.

Movement
– All ships move their plotted courses. The rules for arbitrating collisions and overlaps at first seem complicated, but work in a fairly sensible fashion. There is an optional impulse movement system that spreads ships’ movements out over four impulses. This more accurately represents a fast ship’s ability to “cut in front of” a slower ship without getting hit. It is possible to have a collision (collisions are extremely bad for the ship doing the ramming), and the ships involved may become fowled.

Combat
– Based on their new positions, ships secretly and simultaneously allocate their fire. Maximum range is fifteen hexes, but you aren’t going to hurt much way out there. Players can choose from two kinds of shot (round and dismantling), and can aim their guns high or low. Ship’s marines also fire at this time, and boarding attempts are resolved. Beware of the boarding rules, they are extremely complex.
- Damage is recorded by eliminating boxes in the ship’s remaining sections of rigging, hull, or crew. A typical Frigate might have four rigging sections of five boxes each, and four hull sections of four or five each. That same frigate is likely to cause one or two boxes of damage when firing a broadside at moderate range (~5 hexes). Bad things happen when entire sections are destroyed (reduced capabilities and critical hits)
- There is an optional set of rules that provide firing opportunities after every impulse of movement (of course, they are used with the impulse movement rules). I have played one game with this rule, and found it to have a very cool affect on the game. I think I will continue to use the impulse rules, but the author cautions against their use in medium to large games.

Maintenance
– Repairs and record keeping.
– Deliver signals written in the plot phase.

The signaling system in CA is fascinating, and deserves a few words here. Close Action does not allow players to openly communicate game information with each other, instead requiring the use of signaling rules in multiplayer scenarios. The rules are very simple, and seem to accurately reflect the limited command and control available to fleet commanders of the day. When I first bought the game and heard how great it was to use this system in multiplayer games I thought the rave reviews had to be overblown. After playing several games with signals I have to say that it is incredibly fun and adds a whole new dimension to the game play. I strongly recommend that you always use the signaling system when playing with more than one person on a side. Failing to do so is not only a huge advantage for that side, but is also depriving yourself of the entertainment of a major aspect of the game.

Conspicuously absent from CA are rules for shore batteries, ships boats, and bow/stern chasers. The author indicates in the opening portion of the rulebook that rules for shore batteries and ships’ boats will be introduced in a future product, although the first of three planned supplements (Rebel Seas) has not done so.

Unfortunately, the game suffers from lack of support. The publisher (Clash Of Arms Games) produces a newsletter with scenarios for some of their other games, but nothing for CA. The rulebook comes with 25 scenarios, and the first expansion includes about 20 more. Out of those 45 total scenarios, half can only be played by large (10-30 person) gaming groups. Due to the historical natures of the scenarios, several of the remaining 20 scenarios are not particularly balanced. Close Action would benefit from a strong web presence that could provide for the distribution of new scenarios, game aids, rules updates, etc.

On the plus side, there is a point system which allows you to battle with theoretically balanced fleets of some number of points. Just tell your buddy to show up with a 100-point fleet, and off you go. The master ship chart has around 75 ships to choose from with their associated point values at each level of crew quality and moral rating.

In general, I have found CA to be a very good game, and my friend and I play about every third week. We haven’t run out of scenarios yet, and I guess when we do I’ll have to start researching the period to make up my own! CA scales incredibly well, and makes a superb convention game. I have played in several very large games (20+ players), and have run several more modest-sized events at local and regional conventions. Every one has been a success.

One final note. Check out http://www.closeaction.com/ for a sanctioned online version of the game. The website is not done by the author, but is done with his permission. It allows experienced players to stage large games via a combination web-based and play-by-email system.

Originally posted 2003.02.07, edited 2005.06.06.