Ships Of Cerilia

[kgauck]

Do you mean the Brecht Roundship?

They are probabaly both Greatships. The Galleon has a higher boarding rating, the Roundship has a higher missile rating, both of these probabaly reflect the existence of different troop types on board, and the Galleon can take one additional hit, and that first hit doesn't effect the Galleon's maneauverability rating.

Since the Greatship is rated Hull sections 240 (sink 60 sections)
I'd either go with Galleon 240 sections, sink 60 and Roundship 200 sections, sink 50, or
Galleon 280 sections, sink 70, and Roundship 240 sections, sink 60, depending on where I ended up with the Caravel and Cog.

The Stormwrack stuff does a good job of presenting reasonably historical boats. The BR stuff used renaissance names for Anuire and medieval names for Brecht, so looking at historical ships would give Anuire a distinct naval advantage (indeed the warcards give Anuire a maneauver advantage and Brecht a missile advantage).

[Lee]

[I]kgauck wrote:
Do you mean the Brecht Roundship?
No, the legendary towership, pp.90-91 of HotGB.

They are probably both Greatships. The Galleon has a higher boarding rating, the Roundship has a higher missile rating, both of these probably reflect the existence of different troop types on board, and the Galleon can take one additional hit, and that first hit doesn`t effect the Galleon`s maneauverability rating.

Since the Greatship is rated Hull sections 240 (sink 60 sections) I`d either go with Galleon 240 sections, sink 60 and Roundship 200 sections, sink 50, or Galleon 280 sections, sink 70, and Roundship 240 sections, sink 60, depending on where I ended up with the Caravel and Cog.[./i]

Good point.

The Stormwrack stuff does a good job of presenting reasonably historical boats. The BR stuff used renaissance names for Anuire and medieval names for Brecht, so looking at historical ships would give Anuire a distinct naval advantage (indeed the warcards give Anuire a maneuver advantage and Brecht a missile advantage).


I intended to spreadsheet the different types and play around with slotting things in.

Lee.

[Beruin]

Perhaps a bit late to chime in, but nevertheless...

The Stormwrack stuff does a good job of presenting reasonably historical boats. The BR stuff used renaissance names for Anuire and medieval names for Brecht, so looking at historical ships would give Anuire a distinct naval advantage (indeed the warcards give Anuire a maneauver advantage and Brecht a missile advantage).

Still the best rpg overview over historical ships, from the earliest galleys to 19th Century schooners can be found in Dragon 116 and includes AD&D statistics for each ship. A later article in Dragon 130 expands the description to junks and other oriental ships. These articles are really worth checking out.

When I first read Stormwrack a few sentences really angered me, p. 25:

"D&D combat is about melee battles, not vehicle encounters
<snip>
The best way to keep your D&D game running smoothly during a ship-to-ship-encounter is to make any naval battle in which the PCs participate into a boarding action as soon as possible

I mean, c'mon guys, I just bought a maritime expansion for my favourite game, and you're telling my I should forget about sea battles?! Gimme back my money!

This was my initial reaction, at least. On the whole, the book is not that bad, but for ship descriptions and sea combat rules, there are better d20 rules out there, I believe. I especially liked Broadsides! for the Twin Crowns setting, you can find a review here.

[Beruin]

The real problem in dealing with ships is the lack of cannons in the warships being built. By the time galleons were afloat, cannons were standard armament. With cannons, rams would be pretty obsolete. But until that time, ramming and boarding would still be primary means of fighting in ship-to-ship combat, I would think

I agree, and naval combat seriously started my thinking on introducing gun powder to Cerilia. Ramming seems so ancient, somehow. Rich Baker apparently had the same feeling. In an article on Seapower in Cerilia in Dragon 232 (sorry to bombard you with sources again) he introduced, in addition to a number of new war cards and ramming rules, bombards and smaller cannons, writing:

For some reason, players and DMs alike can’t think of a medieval sea battle without envisioning Captain Blood or Treasure Island. In our own history, the innovation of cannons arranged in broadsides didn’t appear until the middle of the 16th century, while the most advanced regions of Cerilia are assumed to have a technology equivalent to the early 15th century. However, in the last 30 or 40 years Brecht and Khinasi alchemists have been experimenting with a substance commonly known as “hellpowder” — the Cerilian equivalent for gunpowder.

Well, I'm still not truly decided whether early cannons would imbalance my game, but I'm willing to introduce at least a few rare prototypes IMC.

Speaking of ship weaponry, catapults are not really useful weapons for naval combat, despite often being mentioned in previous posts as well as in 'official' game products. Their arc of fire is too high and they would first damage the rigging and sails of their own ship before hitting anything else and they also exert serious stress on their vessel, which might even break a smaller ship.
Instead, mangonels are used, essentially a large crossbow, i.e. ballista, modified to fire stones or lead shot instead of oversized arrows.

For my campaign, I started using Wizkids' Pirates line as the basis for naval combat. Originally, I only wanted a few colourful and cheap ship models, but I found the rules for this game so neat and elegant that I started modifying them to adapt them to Cerilia.
I even started working on the ultimate d20 naval combat system, using the Pirates rules and the best parts (imho) of several d20 rules sets, but this is at best semi-finished and one of those projects I intend to complete if ever I find the time

[kgauck]

"D&D combat is about melee battles, not vehicle encounters.

I mean, c'mon guys, I just bought a maritime expansion for my favourite game, and you're telling my I should forget about sea battles?! Gimme back my money!

I think they would also say, D&D is about melee combat, not political encounters. Fortunatly, BR slipped past.

On the whole, the book is not that bad, but for ship descriptions and sea combat rules, there are better d20 rules out there, I believe. I especially liked Broadsides! for the Twin Crowns setting.

I liked the Seven Seas setting which goes by the name Swashbucker and is put out by AEG.

[Galdred]

I liked the Seven Seas setting which goes by the name Swashbucker and is put out by AEG.

It conveys the feel nicely indeed (although it is so heavily based on historical cultures that it would probably have worked better in a historical_with_low_magic setting). I like the roll and keep system, but I found the skill system overspecialized.

Concerning medieval naval warfare, I don't think it needs cannon: early gunpowder weapons were too cumbersome to fit on a ship, there would be no reason why they would be available on sea and not as siege weapons.

Galleys were only used in the mediterranean sea (Western and Northern european countries didn't use galley, probably because their waters were not as calm), thus ramming was only used there.
Atlantic and north sea warfare usually relied on boarding. However, I don't think they made ramming completely obsolete (IIRC, the Spaniards still tried to use it with the invicible armada).

I guess they were dropped from the BR setting because of the forced labor issue, but they would work well to make cultures distinct without using renaissance ships (it would even work better IMO, as these are separate line of ships, while the galleon/carracks are basically evolutions of the former sailing ships):
Brecht could use Cogs/Roundships and Annuire galleys, or the other way around depending on the way one imagine weather in these areas.

[RaspK_FOG]

I think they would also say, D&D is about melee combat, not political encounters. Fortunatly, BR slipped past.

I liked the Seven Seas setting which goes by the name Swashbucker and is put out by AEG.

That would be "7th Sea;" the "logo" of the line changed to "Swashbuckling Adventures" when they reproduced some of the books in d20 and brought some additional with both d20 and their Roll & Keep systems in line.

[Lee]

In a message dated 12/7/2007 2:27:52 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET writes:

I guess they were dropped from the BR setting because of the forced labor issue, but they would work well to make cultures distinct without using renaissance ships (it would even work better IMO, as these are separate line of ships, while the galleon/carracks are basically evolutions of the former sailing ships):


Or that there aren`t waters calm enough to resemble the Mediterranean?

------------ QUOTE ----------
"D&D combat is about melee battles, not vehicle encounters <snip>
The best way to keep your D&D game running smoothly during a ship-to-ship-encounter is to make any naval battle in which the PCs participate into a boarding action as soon as possible
-----------------------------

I mean, c`mon guys, I just bought a maritime expansion for my favourite game, and you`re telling my I should forget about sea battles?! Gimme back my money!

This was my initial reaction, at least.>>

I had the opposite reaction, given that the group I was DMing for didn`t want to play naval tactics.

<< On the whole, the book is not that bad, but for ship descriptions and sea combat rules, there are better d20 rules out there, I believe. I especially liked Broadsides! for the Twin Crowns setting, you can find a review here
(_http://www.gamewyrd.com/review/261_ (http://www.gamewyrd.com/review/261) ).>>

I think I have that Broadsides!, as well as their Pirates! sequel. I thought they seemed too heavy in the PrC`s and maybe too high in the magic for BR. I`ve still grabbed some useful bits from them, and expect to do so in the future.

Lee.

[Ltlconf]

Hello Folks,


Actually, there is no real problem with using galleys, as in reality there were few war galleys using chained POWS or criminals. Think about it; a galley at war, manuevering in battle, is the ultimate expression of "team effort" needing all parties to be hale, hearty, commited, and fully on board (no pun intented). Since a galley slave had a lifespan measured in months (and a pretty horrific one at that), he's nothing to lose by crossing his arms as the enemy ship comes at him and then taking a few deep gulps as the water rushes in. Sure, only a dozen or so would do it, but it would be enough to throw the whole ship out of whack enough to get it sunk. Not what I'd want below decks!
Who rowed the galleys of Athens, Carthage, Tyre, Sparta, Rome (regardless of Ben Hur), Constantinople, and Venice? Free born sailors. In fact they were the largest political block in Athens and nearly as powerful in Venice; both were sea powers and the rowers were the engines. Sure some prison ships existed, but they were rarely frontline warships. Galley slaves were indeed used by Rome, Venice, Ottoman Turkey, the Barbary States, and France but largely in fast merchant, message, and naval supply galleys where trained rowers were redundant and dedication and precision unimportant. If pirates found them, the rowers were often resold as rowers to another ship thus the slaves would often fight the pirates:better the devil you know. If Muslims took a Christian ship, they would free the Muslim slaves, and of course vice versa. Otherwise, no loyalty to religion or nationality was shown (they're freakin' pirates after all!).

As for Northern European Medieval naval combat, I too have rarely heard of anything resembling ramming before the 15th century. Basically they seem to be arrow duals, a few light siege engines fire, then one side closes with the other for boarding action. Satisfies the "Pirates of the Caribbean" fan in all of us through.
This seems deliberate however: From what I've seen of accurate (until the next nit-picker archeologist comes along) reproductions of clinker-built ships (such as Viking longships and knarrs) they where indeed VERY delicate compared to a galley. The clinker ships apparently were also limited in size, largely unable to get much beyond 120ft. or so (the info is fuzzy on this point). The clinker ships were very sea-worthy with the longships able to sail ON (not "through") all but the worst waves due to a very light and flexiable keel. They were more a "amphibious landing ship" than a open water combat vessel and with a low freeboard and thin planking vulnerable to damage. Cogs and roundships had much higher freeboards, fore-and-stern castles (if only added on), and often thicker planking (losing flexiability for toughness) though they could be rowed in a pinch (as could many sailing vessels of the time and the ancient world). This made them good ocean going battle platform and in the 12th century a Danish fleet of cogs sailed unharmed through a much larger fleet of Norwegian longships. The Danes tacked around (not easy with square sails!) sailed back through and proceeded to spread chaos and destruction by arrow fire, flame, and by simply dropping stones THROUGH the hulls of the comparatively delicate longships. Ouch!
As for how many you can pack on the average 16th century galleon etc. well remember that we have VERY different interpretations of personal space and crowding. Don't think a modern warship, think a coach car the 5pm New Dehli-Bombay railroad! Then remember these Medieval folks don't bathe often (though apparently more than previously thought: once a week or so) and are use to a level of funk we can only imagine. Next the food sucks, but you are well aware you're only one bad weather event away from famine at all times, and have the stomach of a billy goat on a good day anyway, you'll eat dang near ANYTHING! to say the least people ate less than folks today even when well off (feasts even for the rich were not a everyday, or even week, thing) if the cloths we have from the bogs are a measure: They were trim. Of course this may be why they died from hunger and cold so easily...Basicly, cramming 200+ colonists, 40+ crew and a couple dozen livestock (yeup, piles of pig poo! Spider-pig, Spider-pig...!) on a 92ft ship is more than plausible, it was COMMON, which is the shocking thing! These were tough, brave (20-30% of ships didn't make it at all!), and tenacious folks. Add in a hostile, unknown alien shore (kinda like landing blind on a alien planet a year away from Earth, and being just being left) and you gotta respect them despite all.
All of the above, of course, is mainly the opinion of historians so to be taken as such. It's a game, so we do as we will.
Now for my own opinion.
Sailing ships move faster in the long haul, or even short haul in a good wind is blowing, than any galley made. Hence why even in the Med the galley fell out of use (plus sailing ships make better gun platforms). However even the best rigged sailing ship needs the wind, while a galley has muscle power no matter what, plus at least some sailing ability. Next, even with a good wind, a sailing ship is limited in it's manueverability: IT CAN NOT LOSE THE WIND. Too sudden and sharp a turn port or starboard and you can lose the wind. These aren't modern racing yachts with mechanized rigging and minimal crew needs (and even those guys pick and choose such manuevers carefully), a galleon needs ALOT of rigging pulled and some very big, heavy sails trimmed. Once a fight is started two sailing ships could manuever for hours before finally closing in for the fight as both tried to keep the wind and currents (not to be discounted close to shore, and a big factor) to their advantage (see "Master and Commander" very accurate in ALL aspects of naval warfare in sailing days). This is not conductive to ramming in any way (except by one side being incompetant and the other very lucky) no quick moving. Even so in the days of sail, boarding action was not rare and up to the mid 17th cent. pretty common. So were landing parties attacking coastal towns (the bulk of buccaneers worked this way).
So, I agree with the idea of Byzantine ect. galleys mixed with sailing ships: it suits the setting, the sea conditions, the usual player's taste in combat, and keeps things gunpowder free (and keeps that can closed!). The sheer number of galley designs still provides for cultural uniqueness while sailing ships still have their place in battle (as battle platforms and troop carriers). Think ships-of-the-line and frigate. The galleons (SOTL) are pretty fast and long-legged but manuever slowly nor can get close to shore for long: no wind and they're trapped. Galleys are the frigates: fast on a short haul, agile, low and small as targets, good for hit and run. A galley could get lucky and ram a galleon (ect.) however it would be vulnerable to everything the sailing ship could throw at it, and being fragile and low, could have her keel snapped by a lucky shot. On the other hand, a galleon with good construction is hard to sink, even when rammed! However, if enough galleys hit a galleon at once, it's likely doomed. Galleys can work like this as they're rowed, galleons or any sailing ship cannot move in such a way quickly or on the spur of the moment. Thus you'd use both just as they did in the Med up to the 18th century for the reasons stated, be creative..