Game: Flying Colors

Thread: Re: Where can I buy the base game?

GeoMan — 2008-10-21T09:36:15+00:00

There are a few copies left at www.planetongames.com (Spain) for those interested.

Thread: Re: In Irons?

da pyrate — 2008-10-07T22:19:05+00:00

nyhotep wrote:
You're the bloody pirate!

You should know this!

If that's your attitude I'll give you a full broadside - just as soon as I figure out how to get out of irons!

Thread: Re: Map Configuration

Minedog3 — 2008-10-01T20:54:51+00:00

da pyrate wrote:
Regarding setting up multi-map scenarios I know which maps to use but don't know how they should be aligned.

If the map say AB how should they be placed adjacent? Long ways? Short ways?

Long edge to long edge. So map A at the top, Map B under A, Map C under B
So the column numbers should match up.

A2534 should be adjacent to B2501, B2534 adjacent to C2501 (and C2534 adjacent to D2501 when Ship of the Line is published).

Thread: Map Configuration

da pyrate — 2008-09-30T21:06:32+00:00

Regarding setting up multi-map scenarios I know which maps to use but don't know how they should be aligned.

If the map say AB how should they be placed adjacent? Long ways? Short ways?

Hope you can help a poor old pyrate?

Thread: Re: In Irons?

Capt_S — 2008-09-24T18:22:32+00:00

mpnagel wrote:
David,

The ship is stuck that way for the rest of the turn. It does not drift during the Drift segment as it was underway at the beginning of the turn. During the next turn, it can make Sternway to get out of Irons. The turn after than it can attempt another Tack.

Going into Irons is a really bad thing!

I will update my rules too. Thanks for the info.

See, I told you some "rules lawyer" would come along and correct me

Can't get any more definitive than the game's designer! Ha!!

Thread: Re: In Irons?

nyhotep — 2008-09-24T15:57:37+00:00

You're the bloody pirate!

You should know this!

Thread: Re: In Irons?

mpnagel — 2008-09-24T13:57:37+00:00

David,

The ship is stuck that way for the rest of the turn. It does not drift during the Drift segment as it was underway at the beginning of the turn. During the next turn, it can make Sternway to get out of Irons. The turn after than it can attempt another Tack.

Going into Irons is a really bad thing!

Thread: Re: In Irons?

Malacandra — 2008-09-24T11:06:25+00:00

Yeah, she would drift that turn and then you roll on the sternway table next turn to get moving again.

Thread: Re: In Irons?

Capt_S — 2008-09-24T03:35:33+00:00

Although this may be wrong, I have played it so that she drifts in that turn's Drifting phase/segment and then, upon her next Activiation in the following turn, can perform a sternaway rotation (the manner of which depends on a die roll).

I think that I found the bit about performing the sternaway roll in an Activation (as opposed to doing it in the Drifting segment) in some errata.

Perhaps some rules lawyer out there as a more definitive answer for you?

Thread: In Irons?

da pyrate — 2008-09-24T02:12:11+00:00

If a ship fails to tack and goes 'in irons' is it allowed to finish its tack during its next turn?

Thread: Re: Where can I buy the base game?

yosemite — 2008-09-20T00:58:50+00:00

COOL! Glad you got hooked up, Tom! I've purchased several games from Don over the years. You can totally trust the descriptions on the website. He's VERY conservative on grading used games, so if you buy one that he lists as "very good", chances are it's closer to "excellent". He'll also take your wishlist if you're looking for older games.

Thread: Re: Where can I buy the base game?

Thomas-Of-Ultramar — 2008-09-20T00:26:28+00:00

yosemite wrote:
It is out of print. GMT had their last few copies at Origins and quickly sold them at their table.

I got mine from Don at Enterprise Games...online at enterprisegames.com
Don is a GREAT guy and, the last I checked, he still had a few copies for sale at LIST PRICE! Shipping is reasonable and the game will be in minty-fresh condition!

I have to thank you for that tip! I have been looking everywhere for this game. I placed an order with this site. No hassles and quick responses.

Thread: Re: Where can I buy the base game?

aquaranger — 2008-09-12T04:41:08+00:00

I just asked GMT about a reprint today. The response was a reprint sometime late spring summer of next year... I have the expansions pre-ordered, but no base game either. Better get it now. I don't want to wait that long.

Thread: Re: Where can I buy the base game?

jpat — 2008-08-28T22:07:41+00:00

I think Boulder Games might have had it until recently, but not now. It is indeed out of print, but I'm not sure how long that'll last. As I recall, GMT is putting an expansion out there. Maybe FC will go back onto the P500.

Thread: Re: Where can I buy the base game?

yosemite — 2008-08-28T21:01:04+00:00

It is out of print. GMT had their last few copies at Origins and quickly sold them at their table.

I got mine from Don at Enterprise Games...online at enterprisegames.com
Don is a GREAT guy and, the last I checked, he still had a few copies for sale at LIST PRICE! Shipping is reasonable and the game will be in minty-fresh condition!

Thread: Where can I buy the base game?

Hansolo88 — 2008-08-28T20:33:33+00:00

Do you guys know of anywhere (besides Ebay) where this game can be bought online? Is it out of print or what? I can't seem to find it anywhere (besides Ebay).

Thread: Re: Does Flying Colors work for command control in practice?

Malacandra — 2008-08-26T17:19:26+00:00

mpnagel wrote:
Excellent thread indeed!

One clarification for those who have never played the game: Mark B indicates that Out of Command (OOC) ships cannot fire until fired upon. This is not strictly correct. OOC ships can act as if they are in command by passing a command check (basically rolling against the quality of the Fleet Admiral), ergo Captains under Nelson will be able to do pretty much anything most of the time. Captains under Arbuthnot ... not so much. In addition, OOC ships can always fire when starting adjacent to the enemy.

Apologies for that. As I said, it's been awhile since I played. (We're getting ready to participate in a giant online CA Chesapeake...perhaps we'll do some "research" by playing the VA Capes in Flying Colors!)

Thread: Re: Does Flying Colors work for command control in practice?

wargamer55 — 2008-08-26T16:39:30+00:00

Minedog3 wrote:
wargamer55 wrote:
There can be little doubt that the most satisfying way to play any tactical naval game is with as many individual ship captains as possible. ..... It's the best way to explore the command and control issues involved.

I have doubts on this. I think it is true is the players are reasonably proficient in their ability, but often with Close Action you have more to fear from your comrades than the enemy, and indeed I've seen reasonable attacks fall totally into disarray because of one player.

So Flying colors differs totally from Close Action in that it assumes the proficiency of the captains, and concentrates maneuver in the Admirals hands.

That being said, the command mechanics do work, but can be manipulated to a certain extent. There are some important errata about Out of Command ships that make it more sensible to keep movement order (rather than have to move around Out of Command Ships, and to not count OOC ships in the turn sequence (so no using multiple OOC ships to save the key formation for the final movement.)

Once into close melee, Command radius becomes the predominant command formation, since ships tend to maneuver for position wily nilly.

Wargamers will tend to be more aggressive than real-life captains -- they don't have to answer for shot-up ships and mangled bodies -- and less disciplined than professional naval officers, so it's not merely a question of proficiency.

Having taken part in a number of CA games, I've come to appreciate that the "Fighting Instructions" may have had more merit than is oft supposed. While it's true that they constricted the talents of a Nelson of Rodney, the truth of the matter is that few admirals or captains are a Nelson or a Pellew.

I rather suspect that if one could actually get a bunch of CA players to have enough discipline to follow orders and follow the fighting instructions they might have considerable success against the usual disorganized mob. A good tight line of battle that stayed in line no matter what would be hard to break. The superior crew quality of British ships covers up a lot of bad tactics.

Thread: Re: Does Flying Colors work for command control in practice?

mpnagel — 2008-08-26T15:08:09+00:00

Excellent thread indeed!

One clarification for those who have never played the game: Mark B indicates that Out of Command (OOC) ships cannot fire until fired upon. This is not strictly correct. OOC ships can act as if they are in command by passing a command check (basically rolling against the quality of the Fleet Admiral), ergo Captains under Nelson will be able to do pretty much anything most of the time. Captains under Arbuthnot ... not so much. In addition, OOC ships can always fire when starting adjacent to the enemy.

Thread: Re: Does Flying Colors work for command control in practice?

Malacandra — 2008-08-26T13:05:41+00:00

Minedog3 wrote:

I have doubts on this. I think it is true is the players are reasonably proficient in their ability, but often with Close Action you have more to fear from your comrades than the enemy, and indeed I've seen reasonable attacks fall totally into disarray because of one player.

So Flying colors differs totally from Close Action in that it assumes the proficiency of the captains, and concentrates maneuver in the Admirals hands.

Well said, and more succinctly than my own comments.

It is worth exploring the relative benefit of traditional versus "radical" tactics in either game. It seems to me that when traditional line of battle tactics were used, either the battle was inconclusive or came down to a decision on weight-of-shot.

It's when things don't go "old school" that you see battles like the Nile and Trafalgar. I know when we play, we play aggressively, as Nelson did. Of course, part of his success was owing to the overall superiority of the British crews, something that is simulated rather directly in CA but more abstractly (audacity, admiral stats, ship rates) in FC.

Good thread.

Thread: Re: Does Flying Colors work for command control in practice?

Minedog3 — 2008-08-26T08:52:01+00:00

wargamer55 wrote:
There can be little doubt that the most satisfying way to play any tactical naval game is with as many individual ship captains as possible. ..... It's the best way to explore the command and control issues involved.

I have doubts on this. I think it is true is the players are reasonably proficient in their ability, but often with Close Action you have more to fear from your comrades than the enemy, and indeed I've seen reasonable attacks fall totally into disarray because of one player.

So Flying colors differs totally from Close Action in that it assumes the proficiency of the captains, and concentrates maneuver in the Admirals hands.

That being said, the command mechanics do work, but can be manipulated to a certain extent. There are some important errata about Out of Command ships that make it more sensible to keep movement order (rather than have to move around Out of Command Ships, and to not count OOC ships in the turn sequence (so no using multiple OOC ships to save the key formation for the final movement.)

Once into close melee, Command radius becomes the predominant command formation, since ships tend to maneuver for position wily nilly.

Thread: Re: Does Flying Colors work for command control in practice?

Malacandra — 2008-08-26T02:05:50+00:00

I would answer "yes" based on several plays (including Trafalgar).

There are probably two schools of thought: those who want to simulate historical tactics and those who want to "go right at 'em" like Nelson said.

In the first set of rules, out-of-command ships took their turns last. I believe that's been changed so that you can activate a command or ooc ship when it's your turn to move.

I never liked the rule that ooc ships could not fire unless fired upon, as if the preponderance of captains were reluctant to engage. Let's face it: there were lots of naval battles that were "draws" or "skirmishes." I don't play age of sail games to recreate an inconclusive result but to to mix it up and go full bore, boarding ships and sailing down to the last uncracked spars! Perhaps you could say that naval combat in boardgame form begs for more aggressive play than reality.

In any case, FC sacrifices individual ship detail (a la Close Action) for the ability of one player to actually control the whole fleet.

My preference is for Close Action but with our usual number, that limits us to small engagements. If we wanted to play a full lineup of ships for a major battle, we could easily do it with Flying Colors.

Recognize that in a game like Close Action, the main "unit" is each ship. In Flying Colors, the main "unit" is the fleet or portions of the fleet at once. Individual ships. Meaning, CA is designed to simulate ship detail but does so with the requirement of no more than a few ships per player. FC simulates fleet detail so that an individual player can control as large a fleet as desired.

FC is a very good game. I haven't gone through the latest edition of the rules, though to see everything that's changed. There may be some tweaks made that shore up the realism of the command rules.

Thread: Does Flying Colors work for command control in practice?

wargamer55 — 2008-08-26T00:27:41+00:00

Flying Colors is GMT's attempt to make a workable two-player fleet action game for the age of sail.

There can be little doubt that the most satisfying way to play any tactical naval game is with as many individual ship captains as possible. Even in the data-linked modern era of Harpoon or the TBS-equipped World War II era it's better to have each ship controlled by one player, or at least have each player control no more than a couple of ships. It's the best way to explore the command and control issues involved.

But you can't always get a bunch of folks together for a multi-commander game of Close Action, so Flying Colors attempts to mimic the command and control of age of sail fleets with two rules. One is a simple command span rule, which lets players move ships freely so long as they are within the command range of a leader. This is a tried-and-true wargame rule. Except for a few rare and talented folks (such as Nelson, Hood and de Grasse) this range is inadequate to control the whole fleet. That brings in the second rule, formations, which allows an admiral to command all the ships that face the same direction and are within 4 hexes of at least one other ship in the same formation. This would seem to encourage historical formations. Is it enough? I haven't played enough to judge, but I'd be interested in hearing from those who have.

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

Thread: Re: Game length

Felkor — 2008-08-19T21:59:17+00:00

Thanks guys, that's good to know!

Thread: Re: Game length

mpnagel — 2008-08-19T21:30:38+00:00

James,

The two-map scenarios generally take about four hours to complete, there are several one-map scenarios that can be completed in significantly less time.

Thread: Re: Game length

Wulf Corbett — 2008-08-19T21:20:48+00:00

The scenario sizes differ massively, from 2-ship duels to Trafalgar, with no fewer than 60 ships!

Thread: Game length

Felkor — 2008-08-19T18:56:04+00:00

The game is listed as taking 4 hours. Is this accurate? Are some scenarios longer or shorter than others?

The game looks interesting, but I think I'd have trouble being able to get 4 hour games in on a regular basis, so I'm curious if there are scenarios that take less time.

Thread: Re: Best scale for ships 1/2400 or 1/1200

anemaat — 2008-07-23T12:05:57+00:00

I don't know about the 1/2400 scale, but the 1/1200 are certainly way too big to fit in the hexagonal grid.

What you can do is to buy a blue cloth and dot it with a hexagonal grid. If you spent some evening hours you can do that in a week.

However, if you do the flying color battles in 1/1200 you will need a lot of ships. I bought mine at Rod Langton, which though of terrific qualitiy are not inexpensive.

Thread: Re: A Review by an Olde Tyme WSIM player.

Minedog3 — 2008-07-14T11:06:25+00:00

Mike Duffy wrote:

3) There should be counters to mark shoals and land areas, as well as to mark moved ships.

A late reply, but if this is a problem to remember, I suggest rotating the Commander or Out of Command counter to face the stern once moved.

And there needs to be several types of Shoals markers
Shoals
Shoals -1
Shoals -2
Shoals Auto (a.k.a Dry Land)

Thread: Re: Three Player Scenarios

medievalbanquet — 2008-06-28T01:36:35+00:00

Thanks Mike. Hope to get it on the table!

Thread: Re: Three Player Scenarios

mpnagel — 2008-06-28T01:34:33+00:00

Andy,

I suggest you start with El Ferrol and play two British players against a single Spanish player. The Brits can split their command.

Thread: Three Player Scenarios

medievalbanquet — 2008-06-27T17:25:43+00:00

Any 3 player scenarios for FC that are for novices?

Thanks,
Andy

Thread: Re: El Ferrol - Solitaire Report and General Impressions

SorenK23 — 2008-05-19T21:48:19+00:00

I got Flying Colors back out yesterday and this is the scenario I am planning to play tonight (also solo). Figured I'd check here at BGG to see if anything new had come along since I last checked FC's entry.

Nice report. I use the ship rosters to track all the damage, so I only have counters like vulnerable, in chains, fire, grappled, on the map. Of course, playing solo, I don't have to worry about my opponent constantly wanting to check my roster to decide which ship to blast next.

Thread: Re: El Ferrol - Solitaire Report and General Impressions

Capt_S — 2008-04-24T17:21:05+00:00

I was just poking through the Living Rules posted on the GMT website and it appears that the changes are pretty significant as compared to those rules that came with the game. Interestingly enough, the few issues that I had, in particular the loss of the flagship meaning loss of the game (see above), have been addressed. Hurrah! It appears that the rake rules are very different also, no doubt an attempt to keep those ships afloat a little longer ...

I greatly recommend that new players first get a copy of the new rules and use those instead. Same for the charts.

Thread: El Ferrol - Solitaire Report and General Impressions

Capt_S — 2008-04-22T23:40:12+00:00

This is my first attempt at a Session Report. In addition, I wanted to give a few general impressions about the game after playing this scenario, my 5th to date.

Scenario 18.14 – El Ferrol

This is an imaginary battle fought between the Spanish and British in 1800. I chose it for a Session Report as it was smaller than many of the more famous encounters found in the game. It starts off with the two fleets approaching each other at 120 degrees and equal to the wind. I played it solo. Please note that this was played with the rules that came with the game and I did not use the errata that should increase ship survivability.

Spanish advantages – Weight of shot. The Spanish have 6 ships to the British 5 in addition to having some big boys (four are either 1st or 2nd rate, the top two largest classes vs only one British ship in the same category). Admiral of the Fleet Moreno possesses a higher Quality rating than his counterpart, Admiral Warren, which helps in gaining Initiative each turn (which determines who goes first – rather important).

British advantages – Command flexibility in the form of two admirals (Warren and Pellew) vs the lonely Spanish Admiral Moreno. In addition, the British have firepower advantages despite the size of their ships, especially in close quarters. Finally, the British have superior Audacity, which allows for die roll enhancements, in particular to improve firepower.

Turns 1 though 4:

The two fleets approached each other at a 120 degree angle, both beating to the wind under full sail at MP=3 (Movement Points). At times, they both turned to reach into the wind (MP=8 under full sail), but often returned to beat. Each looked for an opportunity to cross the other fleet's "T" and, by the end of Turn 3 the British saw an opportunity and made a dash for the gap between the two leading Spanish ships. Alas, the person making this decision (note that this was played solitaire) miscalculated and left the lead British ship (the flaghip Renown with Warren) just shy of the enemy line. Multiple bow-end rakes ensued, sinking Renown and setting on fire the next British ship, the Captain. (Note to self: rakes are painful). However, the plucky lads were able to put out the fire before it spread or reached the magazines. Note that the loss of the flagship Renown actually gave the Spanish a victory at that point, but I do not like that rule (tends to make for less aggressive movements which I think are a-historical) and I wanted to fight it out regardless. Things were looking good for the Spanish until...

Turn 5:

... the wind changed (there is a possibility that the wind will change direction as determined by a die roll every 5th game turn). This placed the vast majority of the Spanish fleet to beating and even left the flagship, San Fernando with Moreno on board, in irons (MP=0 and adrift). Meanwhile, what remained of the British fleet were suddenly reaching to the wind (MP=8 under full sail). Ouch! To make matters worse for the boys from Spain, the British gained Initiative for the turn and choose to move first. And where did they head you ask? Right for the two hex gap in the Spanish line previously filled by the now sunk Renown. Three of the British ships passed into the gap and performed rakes on enemy ships to port and starboard. This left the San Fernando rather badly off. Subsequently, the Spanish scrambled to rescue their admiral and close the gap.

Turn 6:

The fleet lines collapsed upon the point of the gap and Captain was grappled by both the San Fernando and the 1st rate, 112 gun San Hermenegildo. Luckily, the former freed herself from the much larger San Herm and poured broadsides into the weakened, but still attached, San Fernando, in addition to throwing back a boarding party from the latter. The other ships from each fleet attempted to support their compatriots at the centre of the action as best they could. Towards the end of the turn, the San Fernando struck its colours as she was dismasted and sinking after a devastating stern rake.

Turn 7:

Admiral Moreno chooses discretion over valour and leaves the doomed San Fernando, transferring his flag to the larger San Herm, which delivers another rake into Captain prior to leaving the area. The remaining ships of each fleet separate themselves from the stricken and grappled ships and position themselves for more long range shooting. Luckily for Captain, she threw off the grapples of San Fernando just before the latter went beneath the waves. Despite this, the British ship was forced to strike her colours due to damaged sustained and was in great danger of capture.

Turn 8:

Assessing the situation, wounded British Admiral Pellew, his fleet in tatters and facing two relatively intake Spanish 1st raters, decides to call it a day, leaving the stricken Captain to her fate. The Spanish are happy to let them leave in peace, especially considering that their Argonauta is badly damaged and on fire and San Antonio is dismasted and adrift. No doubt an Admiralty Board will be called to pass judgement on poor Pellew.

General Impressions and Observations:

I really enjoy Flying Colors. As I mentioned, this is the 5th scenario that I have played and each and every occurrence has been a hoot. The ship battles create nice narratives that greatly enhance the entertainment aspect for me. This is a good beer and pretzels game (although I think this term means different things to different people; for me it suggests a wargame that is relatively brief which flows nicely, even if it is complex). Flying Colors is certainly not complex by many standards and any difficulties that arise for me personally is entirely due to my getting used to manipulating an object whose movement rate is determined by its facing.

Cons for this game are few and far between, but I know that some folks will get annoyed by the counter density. This is a counter-heavy game as a ship can sustain three different categories of damage (sail, hull and manpower), each of which requires a counter. In addition, more counters record such things as shots made during the current turn (port/starboard), on fire, dismasted, vulnerability, under full sail, anchored and the presence of admirals. I am probably forgetting some. The end result are ships that are covered in counters. This can be alleviated somewhat by placing the information counters near (not on) the ships themselves, but this becomes impossible in close encounters as described in the session above. The game does come with pads to record damage and whatnot, so this would fix this issue for those of us who dislike clutter. I do not mind it personally.

It has been my experience to date that a lot depends on gaining the Initiative each turn. A side with the Initiative can move one of their commands first or force the enemy to do so. This can be quite crucial during close quarters fighting since damage inflicted is not normally simultaneous. I have found that I defer the first move to the enemy when the fleets are at a distance from each other (so as to better react to approach movements), but move first once the opposing ships close. Defensive Fire, which normally precedes fire from the moving side, can somewhat reduce the advantage of Initiative, but only somewhat. This can be a “set up the next turn” sort of game as you can position yourself at the end of turns to take advantage of the wind relative to the location of your opponent. Again, this applies more to a situation when the fleets are far apart, but only somewhat.

All in all, this is a first rate game. It is good for solitaire and multi-player. I see that GMT has a module in addition to a second game in the series on the P500 list and I will be ordering both shortly.

Image

rennyb — 2008-03-24T21:29:57+00:00

Ben and the British

Image

rennyb — 2008-03-23T17:31:48+00:00

Nile at Sea 5

Image

rennyb — 2008-03-23T17:29:07+00:00

Nile at Sea 3

Image

rennyb — 2008-03-23T17:22:16+00:00

Nile at Sea 1

Image

James_Blair — 2008-03-11T16:49:09+00:00

1st June scenerio - the British start their attack.

Image

James_Blair — 2008-03-11T16:46:53+00:00

Glorious 1st of June - the British lead ships prepare to engage.

Image

James_Blair — 2008-03-11T16:45:35+00:00

Close action! (1st June scenerio)

Image

James_Blair — 2008-03-11T16:44:13+00:00

The lead British ships turn about to unleash initial port broadsides on the lead French ships! (A bold move that didn't go well!)

Image

James_Blair — 2008-03-11T16:41:20+00:00

Glorious 1st of June - initial line-up!

Thread: Re: scaling: map hexsizes for 1/1200 mini's

Wulf Corbett — 2008-02-24T15:08:37+00:00

dcjackso wrote:
Looks nice. Good fit. Wulf, what sites would I check out to see some ships in 1/3000 scale?
I don't know - I'd like to see some too (and find some other manufacturers other than Navwar). You can read what ships are available on http://www.navwar.co.uk/nav/default.asp?MMID=62 but the Navwar website if pretty basic - and you have to fax or snail-mail orders! That pic comes from the BGG Gallery.

Image

rennyb — 2008-02-24T09:20:03+00:00

British Frigates - 1.5" hex mat by hotzartworks

Thread: Re: scaling: map hexsizes for 1/1200 mini's

dcjackso — 2008-02-22T01:56:36+00:00

Looks nice. Good fit. Wulf, what sites would I check out to see some ships in 1/3000 scale? It would be *so* cool to have a big ol' battle like Kamperduin or Trafalgar, with named ships of the line all rigged and painted. I've done very little poking around online--but 1/1200 scale seemed to come up a lot, which I assumed meant it was somewhat standard (sort of like 25mm andn 28mm fantasy/sci-fi mini's). I also gathered from other threads here at the BGG Flying Colors page that 1/1200 was more common--although I could be dead wrong about that!

And skippen, I'm with you on this all the way--imagine Trafalgar with some of the ships from the pics on this site! It would be one of those once in a lifetime gaming experiences.

Thread: Re: scaling: map hexsizes for 1/1200 mini's

Wulf Corbett — 2008-02-21T20:58:45+00:00

Minedog3 wrote:
I've also got a handful of 1/3000 Napoleonic ships, and they fit very nicely onto the counters and the 1/2" hex grid.
Are these the type?
]]>
They look fairly presentable.

Thread: Re: scaling: map hexsizes for 1/1200 mini's

cscottk — 2008-02-21T20:16:43+00:00

dcjackso wrote:
There are a few posts (and some great pics!) about playing Flying Colors using mini's.

I really like the Langton 1/1200 figures. I *think* the maps that come with FC have 5/8" hexes. To play using 1/1200 mini's, with the FC rules as written (e.g., most ships take up two hexes, smaller vessels only one; no changes to maneuver and broadside range rules, etc.), what mapscale would be best? Would 1" hexes do the trick? Or are blue hexmaps with 5/8" available? Any info on size/quality/availablity (and online links) of sea maps would be appreciated. Ocean depth gradients and terrain--land, that is--aren't a problem, as they could easily be simulated for each scenario.

Basically, I'd like to play FC with 1/1200 Langton mini's with no changes to the existing ruleset.

Thanks!
-daren

Oh, I am so there with ya Jackson. We need to break this sucker out again soon.

Thread: Re: scaling: map hexsizes for 1/1200 mini's

Wulf Corbett — 2008-02-20T19:14:21+00:00

Minedog3 wrote:
I've also got a handful of 1/3000 Napoleonic ships, and they fit very nicely onto the counters and the 1/2" hex grid.

I did submit a few pictures of 1/3000th miniatures to BGG, but they seem to have disappeared. My early painting efforts leave a little to be desired I suppose.. if you are interested, I'll dig them up..
Very interested, thanks!

Thread: Re: scaling: map hexsizes for 1/1200 mini's

dcjackso — 2008-02-20T14:16:53+00:00

Thanks Mark!
When you say "just fit"--is that with a Langton base?
thanks,
-daren

Thread: Re: scaling: map hexsizes for 1/1200 mini's

Minedog3 — 2008-02-20T10:46:13+00:00

Wulf Corbett wrote:
Hope you don't mind me piggy-backing on here, but I was considering Navwar's 1/3000 Napoleonic ships for this, but I've yet to see decent pics of them, and they seem to have a rather limited range of types. Anyone checked them out?

I've also got a handful of 1/3000 Napoleonic ships, and they fit very nicely onto the counters and the 1/2" hex grid.

I did submit a few pictures of 1/3000th miniatures to BGG, but they seem to have disappeared. My early painting efforts leave a little to be desired I suppose.. if you are interested, I'll dig them up..

Thread: Re: scaling: map hexsizes for 1/1200 mini's

Minedog3 — 2008-02-20T10:42:53+00:00

dcjackso wrote:
There are a few posts (and some great pics!) about playing Flying Colors using mini's.

I really like the Langton 1/1200 figures. I *think* the maps that come with FC have 5/8" hexes. To play using 1/1200 mini's, with the FC rules as written (e.g., most ships take up two hexes, smaller vessels only one; no changes to maneuver and broadside range rules, etc.), what mapscale would be best? Would 1" hexes do the trick? Or are blue hexmaps with 5/8" available? Any info on size/quality/availablity (and online links) of sea maps would be appreciated. Ocean depth gradients and terrain--land, that is--aren't a problem, as they could easily be simulated for each scenario.

Basically, I'd like to play FC with 1/1200 Langton mini's with no changes to the existing ruleset.

Thanks!
-daren

I have 1 1/1200th miniature, Bellona (74) and it just fits into a pair 1" hexes. I know Chessex www.chessex.com makes 1" Naval blue hex maps, and I've seen a cloth sea map with hexes.. maybe ask the Langton people?

Thread: Re: scaling: map hexsizes for 1/1200 mini's

Wulf Corbett — 2008-02-20T06:29:12+00:00

dcjackso wrote:
Looks like we might be out of luck re: getting some advice, Wulf.
Well, mine are cheaper to experiment with

But I'd also guess the recent problem of no-one being informed of updates would reduce the chance of replies. Maybe these comments will draw some attention...

Thread: Re: scaling: map hexsizes for 1/1200 mini's

dcjackso — 2008-02-20T02:35:21+00:00

Looks like we might be out of luck re: getting some advice, Wulf.
Pity the geeks, forgotten and forlorn.

Thread: Re: scaling: map hexsizes for 1/1200 mini's

Wulf Corbett — 2008-02-17T16:10:45+00:00

Hope you don't mind me piggy-backing on here, but I was considering Navwar's 1/3000 Napoleonic ships for this, but I've yet to see decent pics of them, and they seem to have a rather limited range of types. Anyone checked them out?

Thread: scaling: map hexsizes for 1/1200 mini's

dcjackso — 2008-02-17T15:54:42+00:00

There are a few posts (and some great pics!) about playing Flying Colors using mini's.

I really like the Langton 1/1200 figures. I *think* the maps that come with FC have 5/8" hexes. To play using 1/1200 mini's, with the FC rules as written (e.g., most ships take up two hexes, smaller vessels only one; no changes to maneuver and broadside range rules, etc.), what mapscale would be best? Would 1" hexes do the trick? Or are blue hexmaps with 5/8" available? Any info on size/quality/availablity (and online links) of sea maps would be appreciated. Ocean depth gradients and terrain--land, that is--aren't a problem, as they could easily be simulated for each scenario.

Basically, I'd like to play FC with 1/1200 Langton mini's with no changes to the existing ruleset.

Thanks!
-daren

Thread: Re: Trafalgar! History Rewritten Before One in the Afternoon

marcuswoot — 2008-01-02T22:01:49+00:00

Mark, that was an excellent review of our last battle, and I appreciate that you mentioned that my British fleet was chewing up the Combined fleet nicely. The difference in audacity ratings and the advantage the British have when targeting the hulls of enemy ships makes a substantial difference once the fleets close, and had I not lost lost Nelson and Collingwood so early in the action I believe the outcome would have been very different. I have been enthralled by every aspect of sailing ships, particularly from this period, from the time I was a child and first saw a wooden model my grandfather made. Until I lost this scenario though,I never appreciated the audacity, the sheer guts that Nelson must have had to attempt to break the line as he did, nor his genius in knowing that his sailors' experience and elan would be enough to overcome the initial and apparently suicidal disadvantage of sailing ever so slowly directly into their broadsides. Would I approach the same way next time, follow Nelson's dictum? You bet!

Thread: Re: A Review by an Olde Tyme WSIM player.

mpnagel — 2008-01-02T13:18:37+00:00

Mike,

"Ship of the Line" will includes a new, cleaned up, rule book and two player aid cards. I like the shoal marker idea and will see if I can get a few into SotL as well. I hear you regarding the organization of the card, but getting all the tables to fit into limited space may necessitate some flipping.

The only thing I don't think I'd be able to address is the movement status markers, given the number that would be required. If you they would be really helpful, send me a picture of a sample and I'll see if I can get a print-and-cut version available for download.

Thread: Re: A Review by an Olde Tyme WSIM player.

mpnagel — 2008-01-02T13:11:51+00:00

Kenneth,

If you have not done so, please download the Living Rules. We've taken great strides in reducing the bloodiness of the game. I'm also going to be taking a few further steps in upcoming releases, although this will lengthen play time.