From: Lumen@x.com (Lumen)
Subject: Wooden Ships and Iron Men (playable demo) - comments

Game is simul-plot&resolve-based.  Rudimentary sounds.  640x480x256
(looks like x16 to me) is antiquated, more of late 80's vintage, but is
adequate for the task.  Demo has one scenario, the Yank Bon Home Richard
vs the Brit Serapis.  It has a scen editor, which is disabled.  You can
play head-to-head, or PBEM (PBEM is disabled in demo).  There are 4
nationalities: Yanks, Brits, Frogs, and Spaniards.  There are 3 main ship
types (frigate, sloop, ship-of-the-line), each with varying grades in
terms of number of guns.  Crews have experience ratings.

For mechanics of play, you can download the demo and try it yourself.
The following my impressions.  I'm no expert on the Age of Sails, so
these comments are strictly on playability & appeal.

Goodly number of details:  4 different types of shots (round, chain,
double, grape), 3 sail settings (full, plain, battle).  Manuever seems
real enough (speaking as a landlubber).  Problem(?):  I see a wind speed
indicator, but no wind direction indicator.  Map graphics is good with
the default isometric view.  Smooth & fast scroll.  Zoom levels are good,
except for the 1:4 view, then it's hard to make out the direction of
ships other than your own (an arrow to denote direction would be nice).
Controls are straightforward enough; not too critical since it's not a
real-time game.

In playing this game, I was reminded of Ancient Art of War at Sea.  That
game was in real-time, and you control multiple ships at once, with most
of the elements of combat, including boarding & melee, hull/sails damage,
crew morale/number, port/starboard guns.  Inevitably, comparisons arise
between the two games.

WSIM plays capably, with all the required elements, but it feels
uninspired.  May be it's the barebone sounds or the ancient graphics, but
I wasn't drawn into the game.  The visceral appeal of the game is about
zero.  I can't visualize the straining sails, the salt-water sprays, the
grunting crews.  It's all very tepid.

On the cerebral level, the WSIM game  "pulse" is too long, making large
portions of the move plot irrelevant.  The computer was going left and I
would be going right, since I can't change the orders to follow the enemy
ship.  This is my largest gripe, the poor interaction that the game
allows.  Shortening the game pulse would make it less of a guesswork in
plotting moves.  (BTW, the old AAWS allows for some automation, such as
Purse, Evade, etc).

The melee portion is just a readout.  You get a text box of how many
casualties were incurred on either side.  In AAWS, you get a graphical
display of the two ships, and can even direct men to certain areas of the
enemy ship.

The number of control elements in WSIM is almost identical to AAWS,
except that WSIM has different types of shots, and you have to move crews
around.  From my view, making the player having to attend to crew
shifting is mostly a "make-work" mechanism.  The only time the player
should worry about such is during boarding and perhaps repair, and he
decides how much of the crew should engage in such activity.  It should
be automatic the rest of the time.  And under the AAWS scheme, you can
accomodate different shot types w/o unduly burdening the player.  In
short, I feel that WSIM could be a much better game had it be a
continuous-play sim rather than a phase-based sim.  And the game's
sound/graphics would be OK for an 80'ish game, but not for present-day.
AAWS's graphics, even in CGA, beats out WSIM's hands down.  The game may
be the choice for wargamers looking for a game in the Age of Sails genre,
but AH would need to shorten the phase to make it less of a guessing
game.

The above are my opinions.  Feel free to form your own.

From: bruno@minmet.lan.mcgill.ca
Subject: Re: Wooden Ships and Iron Men (playable demo) - comments

>   Lumen@x.com (Lumen) writes:
>  
snip
>  Goodly number of details:  4 different types of shots (round, chain,
>  double, grape), 3 sail settings (full, plain, battle).  Manuever seems
>  real enough (speaking as a landlubber).  Problem(?):  I see a wind speed
>  indicator, but no wind direction indicator.

Its in the compass.  Look for the arrow pointing towards your ship.

  Map graphics is good with
>  the default isometric view.  Smooth & fast scroll.  Zoom levels are good,
>  except for the 1:4 view, then it's hard to make out the direction of
>  ships other than your own (an arrow to denote direction would be nice).
>  Controls are straightforward enough; not too critical since it's not a
>  real-time game.
>  
>  In playing this game, I was reminded of Ancient Art of War at Sea.  That
>  game was in real-time, and you control multiple ships at once, with most
>  of the elements of combat, including boarding & melee, hull/sails damage,
>  crew morale/number, port/starboard guns.  Inevitably, comparisons arise
>  between the two games.
>  
>  WSIM plays capably, with all the required elements, but it feels
>  uninspired.  May be it's the barebone sounds or the ancient graphics, but
>  I wasn't drawn into the game.  The visceral appeal of the game is about
>  zero.  I can't visualize the straining sails, the salt-water sprays, the
>  grunting crews.  It's all very tepid.
>  
>  On the cerebral level, the WSIM game  "pulse" is too long, making large
>  portions of the move plot irrelevant.  The computer was going left and I
>  would be going right, since I can't change the orders to follow the enemy
>  ship.  This is my largest gripe, the poor interaction that the game
>  allows.  Shortening the game pulse would make it less of a guesswork in
>  plotting moves.  (BTW, the old AAWS allows for some automation, such as
>  Purse, Evade, etc).
>  

Well, these ships had a pretty slow peak speed and a manpower run rudder.
Therefore, maneuverability is pretty low.  Basically, the two sides would
try to maneuver for hours to get ONE shot.  That would suck.  This is a bit
more of 'stylized' play.

>  The melee portion is just a readout.  You get a text box of how many
>  casualties were incurred on either side.  In AAWS, you get a graphical
>  display of the two ships, and can even direct men to certain areas of the
>  enemy ship.
>  
This is a strategy game with you being the captain of the ship. I don't think 
most captains had control over this.

>  The number of control elements in WSIM is almost identical to AAWS,
>  except that WSIM has different types of shots, and you have to move crews
>  around.  From my view, making the player having to attend to crew
>  shifting is mostly a "make-work" mechanism.  The only time the player
>  should worry about such is during boarding and perhaps repair, and he
>  decides how much of the crew should engage in such activity.  It should
>  be automatic the rest of the time.

Actually, there are subtle points to this.  If you put more men in the sails,
you will maneuver faster.  Shifting too many men from the guns will decrease
your firepower.  There is a big tradeoff here.

And under the AAWS scheme, you can
>  accomodate different shot types w/o unduly burdening the player.  In
>  short, I feel that WSIM could be a much better game had it be a
>  continuous-play sim rather than a phase-based sim.  And the game's
>  sound/graphics would be OK for an 80'ish game, but not for present-day.
>  AAWS's graphics, even in CGA, beats out WSIM's hands down.  The game may
>  be the choice for wargamers looking for a game in the Age of Sails genre,
>  but AH would need to shorten the phase to make it less of a guessing
>  game.
>  
>  The above are my opinions.  Feel free to form your own.
>  
>>>>
Well, you certainly make good points.  However, AAWS, while a great game,
is a bit arcadish.  This is a bit more realistic, which I am sure will be
more evident in the full release.  The national characteristics will be 
more obvious (although in the scenario, the Brits cannot fire chain shot,
as they relied on hull damage).

Ian

PS get the game out to the stores

From: kitchy@ix.netcom.com (Michael Oberly)
Subject: Re: Wooden Ships and Iron Men (playable demo) - comments

Lumen@x.com (Lumen) wrote:

>On the cerebral level, the WSIM game  "pulse" is too long, making large
>portions of the move plot irrelevant.  The computer was going left and I
>would be going right, since I can't change the orders to follow the enemy
>ship.  This is my largest gripe, the poor interaction that the game
>allows.  Shortening the game pulse would make it less of a guesswork in
>plotting moves.  (BTW, the old AAWS allows for some automation, such as
>Purse, Evade, etc).

Yeah,actually this is the thing I disliked most about the
boardgame.It's as if the opposing commanders say "ok,I'll close my
eyes,you close yours,and we'll open them when the movement phase is
over".I was hoping AH would incorporate a better movement system in
the comp game.Oh well;would like to support AH,but may have to give
this one a miss.

Mike