DOCSLIB.ORG

Rulebook Ships Bases

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rulebook Ships Bases TACTICAL FLEET COMBAT IN THE AGEof SAIL BY Mike Tuñez FIRELOCK GAMES TABLE OF CONTENTS CREDITS Introduction 3 Game Design Production Game Components 4 & Concept: Manager: Mike Tuñez Alex Aguila Quick Start Setup 8 Playing the Game 11 Design Layout & Initiative Phase 11 Contributors: Graphic Design: Christopher Tuñez Lilian Figueroa Movement Phase 12 Nate Zettle Attack Phase 19 Liam Taylor Game Mat End Phase 23 Fred Barnard Design: Gabriel Garcia Chris Strekker Additional Rules 24 Terrain Set Creating a Squadron 27 Historical Consultation: Illustration: Starting a Game 28 Benerson Little Joshua Hayes Fleet Battles (Multiplayer) 29 Sculpting: Model Painting: Stacy Jenneman Adam Horton Brian Rundlett Jamie Martinson Editing: Jesus Cuevas Drew Saxton Steven Soler Playtesters: Stephen Foulk Sean Martin Andy Sims Pete Barfield Riley Blair Joseph DeLory Tom Pace Jeff Przybylo Gerardo González Jonathan Dispigno Jean Luc Bernard Bryan Wade Nigel King Scott Crowe Paul Dispigno Mark Stigter Gavin Winspear Jesse Abbott Leif MacNaughton Joel Sanchez Glenn Gonzalez Timothy Korklewski Crochet Emmanuel Ian Mann Joseph Dieguez Matt Nott Nicholas Bogart Nic Evans Omar Zaragoza Steven Murga Eric Hansen Robbie Rauch Stephen Smith Rodriguez Steven Quintavalli Dr. Jeffrey Brown Jacob Stauttener Mike Moyer Daniel R Weber Juan Sebastian Mazo Leon Mason Cris Smith Benjy Feldmen William Mitch Reed John Hunter Alex Hood Scott Presley Mac McClelland Jordan Brutlag Dan Carlson Adrian Gonzalez Dillon Rinehart Paul Carolan Kevin McKay Tyler Carlson Mike Jackson Robert Kurzweil Scott Parkin Lee Hulley Bryan Fischer Peter James Nathan Rigaud Vince Usher Steve Holowienko Bruce Boyd Douglas Johnson Matthew K Green Liam Galloway Darren Kephart Rufus Devane Maurice Kent Lee Upton Kevin John Waite Mark Herman Kai Devane Shane Knerl Nathan Jopling Leigh Brewster Kevin Becker Eric Mitchell David Wolf Rune Hoff Lauridsen Graham Cummings 3 INTRODUCTION CHAP. I. Oak & Iron is a game set in the age of fighting sail. It allows players to recreate battles between small fleets and squadrons of armed sailing ships. The game is designed to be simple and intuitive while also challenging players by providing significant tactical depth and being true to the theme and tactics of the period. 4 OAK & IRON GAME COMPONENTS CHAPTER. 2. SHIP CARD BREAKDOWN a POINTS COST a b l c b SHIP TYPE c SHIP CLASS d d SKILL UPGRADE e FORTITUDE VALUE f e h h f BROADSIDE VALUE g i m g CREW VALUE n h WINDWARD VALUE j i SAILING LARGE VALUE j SPECIAL RULES UPGRADE OPTIONS k (DESCRIPTIONS ON THE BACK) l FATIGUE TRACK k ADDITIONAL CREW o m UPGRADE OPTION n DAMAGE TRACK o STOUT UPGRADE OPTION GAME components 5 INITIATIVE CARD ADMIRAL CARD a a c b b d c d e a NATIONALITY c CARD NAME a POINTS COST d ADMIRAL VALUE b INITIATIVE VALUE d EFFECT b NATIONALITY e SPECIAL RULES c ADMIRAL NAME SHIP TERMINOLOGY SIDE EDGE BOW EDGE ID TOKEN SLOT IN BOW MID-POINT THE STERN MID-POINT WIND’S EYE STERN EDGE SHIP MODEL SIDE MID-POINT 6 OAK & IRON List of COMPONENTS RULEBOOK SHIPS BASES EVENT CARDS INITIATIVE CARDS FACTION CARDS SHIP CARDS CLIPS UPGRADE CARDS ADMIRAL CARDS DICE SCENARIO CARDS Settings Objectives Deployments Conditions GAME components 7 List of COMPONENTS COUNTERS & TOKENS Fortune Full Sails Crippled Reload Captured Ship Objective Minimal Sails Shaken Wake Ship ID Anchored Aground Landing Party RANGE RULER Cannon Shot Musket Shot Pistol Shot Yard Arm SEA MAT MOVEMENT TOOLS WIND ARROW TERRAIN TILES Islands & Fog Banks Rocks & Shoals Land Masses QUICKSTART SETUP CHAP. 3. For your first game of Oak & Iron, e Each takes 2 wake tokens and 4 re- we suggest playing the quickstart Player A Player B load tokens game. The quickstart game is de- a signed to let players become com- f Position ships as shown. Each player’s fortable with basic concepts before Flagship must be Pistol Shot distance using more advanced options, such b b directly downwind of the player’s oth- as faction, upgrade, or event cards. er ship. This game uses only rules found in the Playing a Game section (pg. 11); ignore any reference to additional g Each Squadron must be just out of rules. Read through that section and Cannon Shot of the other Squadron. then set up as follows: h The wind arrow is placed as shown to a Place the sea mat between both play- d indicate that the table edge to each ers. Decide who will be Player A and ship’s stern is the Windward Edge. who will be Player B. c c b Find the following Initiative cards, i Keep the dice, status tokens, and they will make up each respective d movement tools within reach of both player’s hand. Player A: Down!, Care- players. ful Aim, Rolling Broadsides, Effective c Fire, Adjust Position c There is no objective card assigned to this game, continue play until one Player B: Fire as She Bears, Take player is forced to Strike (pg. 23) Courage, Fleet Manuever, Reload, g Favorable Wind e f f c Players will control the following e ships and their corresponding cards. Player A: 1 Sloop, 1 Petite Fregate Player B: 1 Corvette, 1 Fluyt h d Assign an “Untested” Admiral card to the Petite Fregate and Fluyt. These are each player’s Flagship. i OAK & IRON 11 PLAYING THE GAME CHAP. 4. Oak & Iron is played over a series of turns. Each turn will be broken down into four phases: I. THE INITIATIVE PHASE II. THE MOVEMENT PHASE III. THE ATTACK PHASE IV. THE END PHASE THE INITIATIVE PHASE N.T. New terms for this section SQUADRON A Squadron is a group of two SKILL TEST A Skill Test is used when a or more ships, including a Flagship, belong- ship’s crew is attempting to do something ing to a player. complex, like working the ship’s rigging to at- tempt to adjust its current speed. To perform FLAGSHIP Each Squadron must have a a Skill Test roll 5 dice (modified by special Flagship. The Flagship is denoted by having rules and Fatigue), If any or results are an Admiral card assigned to it. rolled, the test is successful. SKILL VALUE A ship’s Skill Value rep- CHALLENGE TEST A Challenge Test is resents its sailing & fighting ability. Default a type of Skill Test where both players make Skill is 0. 1 or 2 skill may be purchased as an the test using their Flagship’s special rules upgrade on each ship. For each point of Skill and Fatigue, then compare results. The play- a ship has, the ship may re-roll 1 dice during er who rolls the most and/or wins the Skill Tests and Attacks. Challenge Test. If there is a tie, the Flagship with the highest skill value is the winner. If both Flagships have the same skill value, continue rolling until there is a winner. 12 OAK & IRON During this phase, players will reveal their admiral value has the initiative. If there is a I.P. initiative cards to determine which player has still a tie, both players perform a Challenge the initiative. Each player will also choose a Test. The winner has the initiative. Once new card for the following turn. Take the fol- initiative has been determined, the cards re- lowing steps to complete the Initiative Phase: main face up to remind both players of the effect granted by their initiative card for that 1. REVEAL INITIATIVE CARD Each turn. Initiative and event effects last until player reveals the initiative card they chose they are discarded or returned to the hand during the previous turn’s Initiative Phase. If (Unless otherwise noted on the card). playing the first turn of the game, each player reveals the initiative card chosen during de- 2. SELECT NEW INITIATIVE CARD ployment. The player who reveals the card Each player now chooses a new initiative card with the highest initiative value has the initia- from their initiative hand and places it face- tive and will go first in each following phase down. The chosen facedown initiative card for this turn. If both players reveal a card of will be revealed and applied at the beginning equal value, an event card is drawn from the of the following turn’s Initiative Phase. event deck and its effects are resolved before 3. RESOLVE INITIATIVE CARD moving on. If resolving the event is not pos- EFFECTS Initiative card effects note when sible for some reason, the event card effect is each effect is to be used. Apply the effects ignored. Once the event has been resolved, that state “Immediately” now, and make note the player whose Squadron has the highest of effects which may be used later in the turn. DURING THE PREVIOUS TURN, MIKE AND LILY CHOSE A CARD FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE HANDS TO BE PLAYED FACEDOWN. EXP. THESE CARDS ARE TURNED OVER AT THE SAME TIME. MIKE’S CARD HAS A 3 INITIATIVE AND LILY’S CARD HAS A 4 INITIATIVE. LILY HAS THE HIGHER INITIATIVE VALUE AND WILL BE THE FIRST TO ACTIVATE A SHIP IN THE PROCEEDING PHASES OF THE TURN. THE MOVEMENT PHASE DESIGNER’S NOTES New terms for this section N.T. 1 In reality, there are 5 different points of sail BOW A ship’s Bow is the front edge of its » WINDWARD A ship is sailing Windward if and each has subtle dif- base. its Bow is closer to the table’s Weather Edge ferences on the speed than its Stern. and handling of the ship. STERN A ship’s Stern is the rear edge of » N THE IND S YE We have simplified these its base.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Warren Massachusetts Schooner
    1 Warren (1) Commander William Coas Schooner 2 August 1776-[] October 1776 Massachusetts Privateer Schooner (2) Commander John Coulston 21 October 1776-[] 26 December 1776 (3) Commander Silas Howell 3 September 1777-9 September 1777 Commissioned/First Date: 2 August 1776 Out of Service/Cause: 9 September 1777/captured by HM Frigate Unicorn Owners: (1) Joseph Foster, Winthrop Sargent and Epes Sargent, all of Gloucester, Massachusetts and John Winthrop, Jr. of Boston, Massachusetts; (2) John Coffin Jones of Newburyport, Massachusetts and Stephen Bruce of Boston, Massachusetts et al Tonnage: 70 Battery: Date Reported: 2 August 1776 Number/Caliber Weight Broadside 4/4-pounder 16 pounds 8 pounds 4/3-pounder 12 pounds 6 pounds Total: 8 cannon/28 pounds Broadside: 4 cannon/14 pounds Swivels: twelve Date Reported: 21 October 1776 Number/Caliber Weight Broadside 8/ Total: 8 cannon/ Broadside: 4 cannon/ Swivels: Date Reported: 1 December 1776 Number/Caliber Weight Broadside 12/6-pounder 72 pounds 36 pounds Total: 12 cannon/72 pounds Broadside: 6 cannon/36 pounds ©awiatsea.com-posted August 2019 --1-- Swivels: twelve Date Reported: 3 September 1777 Number/Caliber Weight Broadside 10/ Total: 10 cannon/ Broadside: 5 cannon/ Swivels: Crew: (1) 2 August 1776: 53 [ total (2) 21 October 1776: 61 []total (3) 1 December 1776: 85 []total (4) 3 September 1777: 53 []total Description: Officers: (1) First Lieutenant Coas Gardner, 2 August 1776-; (2) First Lieutenant Benjamin Tucker, 3 September 1777-9 September 1777; (3) Second Lieutenant Moses Harris, 2 August1776-;
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 5 Fort Mchenry.Pdf
    American Battlefield Trust Volume 5 BROADSIDE A Journal of the Wars for Independence for Students Fort McHenry and the Birth of an Anthem Of all the battles in American history none is more With a war being fought on the periphery of the Unit- connected with popular culture than the battle of Fort ed States the British, under the influence of Admiral McHenry fought during the War of 1812. The British George Cockburn, decided to bring the war more di- attack on Fort McHenry and the rectly to America by attacking the large garrison flag that could be Chesapeake Region. The British seen through the early morning Navy, with Marines and elements mist, inspired Washington, DC of their army wreaked havoc along lawyer Francis Scott Key to pen the Chesapeake burning numer- what in 1931 would be adopted ous town and settlements. Howev- by Congress as our National An- er, Cockburn had two prizes in them, the Star-Spangled Ban- mind – Washington, DC and Bal- ner. The anthem is played be- timore, Maryland. Retribution for fore countless sports events the burning of York was never far from high school through the from his mind and what a blow he ranks of professional games. thought, would it be to American The story of the creation of the morale if he could torch the still Star-Spangled Banner is as developing American capital. Af- compelling as the story of the ter pushing aside a motley assort- attack on Baltimore. ment of American defenders of the approach to Washington, DC In 1812, a reluctant President at the battle of Bladensburg, Mar- James Madison asked Congress yland, Cockburn and his forces for a Declaration of War against entered the city and put the torch Great Britain.
    [Show full text]
  • A Timeline of Alexandria's Waterfront
    City of Alexandria Office of Historic Alexandria Alexandria Archaeology Studies of the Old Waterfront A Timeline of Alexandria’s Waterfront By Diane Riker July 2008 In the life story of a city, geography is destiny. And so, it is no surprise that Alexandria was destined to become, at least for a time, a major seaport. Here, close to the Potomac’s headwaters, the river’s natural channel touched shore at two points. Between the two lay a crescent of bluffs, backed by abundant woods and fertile fields. Millennia before the town existed, grasslands bordered a much narrower Potomac, providing hunting and fishing grounds for the earliest Americans. Our timeline begins with a remarkable find in the summer of 2007. Prehistoric Alexandria Alexandria Archaeology Museum 11,000 B.C. In 2007 a broken spear point dating back an estimated 13,000 years is uncovered by archaeologists at a Civil War cemetery above Hunting Creek. The Clovis Point is Alexandria’s oldest artifact. Similar tools, also made of quartzite, have been found in Europe and antedate the Paleolithic period. Perhaps the first Europeans here were not who we thought they were. 9,000 B.C. Following the melting of the glaciers, sea levels rise and the Potomac River becomes much wider. Ancient spear points have been found at Jones Point where native Americans probably hunted deer and other mammals. 1,000 B.C. Charred hearthstones and bowl fragments indicate a more settled population. The river runs with shad and sturgeon. The tidelands provide rich soil for cultivation. At Jones Point in 1990 indications of a “village” are found.
    [Show full text]
  • THE MODERNIZATION of the OTTOMAN NAVY DURING the REIGN of SULTAN ABDÜLAZİZ (1861-1876) By
    THE MODERNIZATION OF THE OTTOMAN NAVY DURING THE REIGN OF SULTAN ABDÜLAZİZ (1861-1876) by DİLARA DAL A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies Department of Classics, Ancient History and Archaeology College of Arts and Law The University of Birmingham April, 2015 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT The main focus of this study is to examine the modernization of the Ottoman navy during the reign of Sultan Abdülaziz, exploring naval administration, education, and technology. Giving a summary of the transformation of shipbuilding technologies and bureaucratic institutions of the Ottoman naval forces between 1808 and 1861, it analyses the structure of the Ottoman navy, its level of development in comparison to previous periods of time, and the condition of the vessels making up the naval fleet from 1861 to 1876. It also intends to evaluate the character of existing administrative structures at the outset of Abdülaziz’s reign in 1861 and the nature of subsequent changes, including structural reorganization of the Imperial Naval Arsenal, the Ministry of Marine, and the Naval Academy, as well as advancements in military training and seafaring; all within the context of the impact of these changes on the military, political, and economic condition of the Empire during the reign of Sultan Abdülaziz.
    [Show full text]
  • Salvage Diary from 1 March – 1942 Through 15 November, 1943
    Salvage Diary from 1 March – 1942 through 15 November, 1943 INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT WAR DIARY COLLECTION It is with deep gratitude to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in San Bruno, California for their kind permission in acquiring and referencing this document. Credit for the reproduction of all or part of its contents should reference NARA and the USS ARIZONA Memorial, National Park Service. Please contact Sharon Woods at the phone # / address below for acknowledgement guidelines. I would like to express my thanks to the Arizona Memorial Museum Association for making this project possible, and to the staff of the USS Arizona Memorial for their assistance and guidance. Invaluable assistance was provided by Stan Melman, who contributed most of the ship classifications, and Zack Anderson, who provided technical guidance and Adobe scans. Most of the Pacific Fleet Salvage that was conducted upon ships impacted by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor occurred within the above dates. The entire document will be soon be available through June, 1945 for viewing. This salvage diary can be searched by any full or partial keyword. The Diaries use an abbreviated series of acronyms, most of which are listed below. Their deciphering is work in progress. If you can provide assistance help “fill in the gaps,” please contact: AMMA Archival specialist Sharon Woods (808) 422-7048, or by mail: USS Arizona Memorial #1 Arizona Memorial Place Honolulu, HI 96818 Missing Dates: 1 Dec, 1941-28 Feb, 1942 (entire 3 months) 11 March, 1942 15 Jun
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring and Incompatible Incentives in the Age of Fighting Sail
    Explorations in Economic History 39, 204–231 (2002) doi:10.1006/exeh.2002.0783, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on The British Navy Rules: Monitoring and Incompatible Incentives in the Age of Fighting Sail Douglas W. Allen1 Simon Fraser University The British Navy during the age of sail was systematically successful against its opponents, most notably the French. This paper documents this success, shows that it cannot be explained by superior ships, training, or other naval capital, and puts forth the hypothesis that the British Navy governance structure provided better incentives to fight than those of their opponents. The hypothesis is tested by examining the structure of the rules and then contrasting them with the rules governing privateers, the army, and the navy over time. The paper concludes with a discussion of why the French did not copy the British strategy. © 2002 Elsevier Science (USA) He asked who the stout man was who had just been so ceremoniously disposed of. “He was an admiral,” they told him. “But why execute this admiral?” he enquired. “Because he had not enough dead men to his credit,” was the reply; “he joined battle with a French admiral, and it has been established that their ships were not close enough to engage.” “But surely,” exclaimed Candide, “the French admiral must have been just as far from the English as the English admiral was from the French!” “True enough,” was the answer; “but in this country we find it pays to shoot an admiral from time to time to encourage the others.” Voltaire,p.
    [Show full text]
  • April, 1SÍAVAL SONGS and BALLADS in the Library of This
    American Antiquarian Society [April, 1SÍAVAL SONGS AND BALLADS BY GAHDNER W. ALLEN N THE library of this Society is a collection of I broadsides marked: "Songs, Ballads, etc. In three Volumes. Purchased from a Ballad Printer and Seller in Boston, 1813. Bound up for Preservation, to show what articles of this kind are in vogue with the Vulgar at this time, 1814. N. B. Songs and common Ballads are not so well printed at this time as 70 years ago, in Boston. Presented to the Society by Isaiah Thomas. August 1814." There are in this set three hundred and two broad- sides containing three hundred and forty-nine distinct poems. Mr. Ford says of them that "no other American library can offer anything like it for the period, and all other libraries combined would still hardly be able to match the contents of these three volumes. "^ In this collection of broadsides are about fifty American naval songs, more than two thirds of them relating to the War of 1812; others to the Revolution and to our hostilities with France and Tripoli. A few are perhaps more political than naval; it is not always easy to draw the line between them. There are a num- ber of other songs, concerning the sea or sailors of a sentimental sort, of less interest to the historian. Several of these latter are British. Fourteen of the naval ballads are listed in "Broadsides, Ballads, etc.. Printed in Massachusetts, 1639-1800. "^ About half »"The Isaiah Thomafl Collection of BaUads," by Worthingtoo C. Ford. Proo. Amer. Antiq.
    [Show full text]
  • The Anglo-German Naval Arms Race, 1906-1916
    Middle States Geographer, 2012, 45: 84-89 FROM INNOVATION TO IMPASSE: THE ANGLO-GERMAN NAVAL ARMS RACE, 1906-1916 Darrell A. Norris Department of Geography S.U.N.Y. College at Geneseo Geneseo, NY 14454 ABSTRACT: Weapons systems’ common compromise of offensive power, defensive protection, and mobility was expressed as a sensational innovation in naval architecture with the completion of HMS Dreadnought in 1906, when Great Power rivalry guaranteed an ensuing arms race. The latter entailed steady improvements of power, protection, and propulsion, all requiring a larger and more costly platform to incorporate even slight advantages. The large dreadnought fleets built by Britain and Germany incorporated few improvements in tactics, command and control. Lengthening big gun ranges exceeded their limits of effectiveness, and hit rates at long range fell to 3 percent or less, yielding probable stalemate other than the destruction of obsolete vessel types and vulnerable hybrids. Advances in destructive power, protection, and speed led inexorably to the increased size and cost of capital ships, climaxed by their inconclusive clash at Jutland in 1916. As a weapon system, the battleship was necessarily modified to cope with air and undersea attack, with imperfect success. Such new vulnerabilities for the battleship echoed the denouement of French armored and mounted knights by English archers and men-at-arms at Agincourt. Perfect weapon symmetry and its related spatial deployment are apt to be transitory phenomena in the practice of modern warfare. Keywords: naval history, arms race In Ancient Greece, the Olympic wrestler already represented a long-outdated and intentionally ritualized form of combat, one with no added protection, strength, or range of movement independent of human anatomy.
    [Show full text]
  • Oliver Cromwell
    Oliver Cromwell Sloop-of-War (1) Commander William Coles Massachusetts Privateer 29 April 1777- Brigantine/Ship (2) []Master Robert Richardson [][]April 1778- June 1778 (3) Commander Thomas Simmons 10 July 1778- (4) Commander James Barr 11 August 1779- (5) Commander John Bray 13 April 1781-7 July 1781 Commissioned/First Date: 29 April 1777 Out of Service/Cause: 7 July 1781/captured by HM Frigate Maidstone Owners: (1) John Derby, George Dodge, Jr. & Co. of Salem, Massachusetts and George, John and Andrew Cabot, Joseph Lee, and others of Beverly, Massachusetts; (2) Jonathan Ingersoll et al of Salem, Massachusetts; (3) John Derby et al of Salem, Massachusetts; (4) Bartholomew Putnam of Salem, Massachusetts Tonnage: 150, 160, 162, 200 Battery: Date Reported: 29 April 1777 Number/Caliber Weight Broadside 16/6-pounder 96 pounds 48 pounds Total: 16 cannon/96 pounds Broadside: 8 cannon/48 pounds Swivels: Date Reported: 6 August 1777 Number/Caliber Weight Broadside 16/ Total: 16 cannon/ Broadside: 8 cannon/ Swivels: Comment on this or any page at our ©awiatsea.com-posted September 2020 --1-- Date Reported: 17 August 1777 Number/Caliber Weight Broadside 16/ Total: 16 cannon/ Broadside: 8 cannon/ Swivels: Date Reported: 23 September 1777 Number/Caliber Weight Broadside 19/6-pounder 114 pounds 54 pounds Total: 19 cannon/114 pounds Broadside: 9 cannon/54 pounds Swivels: Date Reported: 2 October 1777 Number/Caliber Weight Broadside 16/6-pounder 96 pounds 48 pounds Total: 16 cannon/96 pounds Broadside: 8 cannon/48 pounds Swivels: Date Reported: []25
    [Show full text]
  • Naval Accidents 1945-1988, Neptune Papers No. 3
    -- Neptune Papers -- Neptune Paper No. 3: Naval Accidents 1945 - 1988 by William M. Arkin and Joshua Handler Greenpeace/Institute for Policy Studies Washington, D.C. June 1989 Neptune Paper No. 3: Naval Accidents 1945-1988 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Nuclear Weapons Accidents......................................................................................................... 3 Nuclear Reactor Accidents ........................................................................................................... 7 Submarine Accidents .................................................................................................................... 9 Dangers of Routine Naval Operations....................................................................................... 12 Chronology of Naval Accidents: 1945 - 1988........................................................................... 16 Appendix A: Sources and Acknowledgements........................................................................ 73 Appendix B: U.S. Ship Type Abbreviations ............................................................................ 76 Table 1: Number of Ships by Type Involved in Accidents, 1945 - 1988................................ 78 Table 2: Naval Accidents by Type
    [Show full text]
  • Ottoman Sea Power………
    KADIR HAS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES PROGRAM OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS CONTINENTAL POWERS AND QUEST FOR STATUS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SULTAN ABDÜLAZİZ’S FLEET (1861-1876) MEHMET ALİOĞLU SUPERVISOR: PROF. DR. SERHAT GÜVENÇ PHD THESIS ISTANBUL, JUNE 2020 Mehmet Alioğlu Doktora Tezi 2020 Student’s Full Name Ph.D. (or M.S. or M.A.) Thesis 2011 CONTINENTAL POWERS AND QUEST FOR STATUS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SULTAN ABDÜLAZİZ’S FLEET (1861-1876) MEHMET ALİOĞLU SUPERVISOR: PROF. DR. SERHAT GÜVENÇ PHD THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Kadir Has University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of PhD in the Discipline Area of International Relations under the Program of International Relations. ISTANBUL, JUNE, 2020 I, MEHMET ALİOĞLU; Hereby declare that this PhD Thesis is my own original work and that due references have been appropriately provided on all supporting literature and resources. MEHMET ALİOĞLU __________________________ JUNE 2020 ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL This work entitled CONTINENTAL POWERS AND QUEST FOR STATUS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SULTAN ABDÜLAZIZ’S FLEET (1861-1876) prepared by MEHMET ALİOĞLU has been judged to be successful at the defense exam held on ... ... 2020 and accepted by our jury as PHD THESIS. Prof. Dr., Serhat Güvenç (Advisor) Kadir Has University Prof. Dr., Mitat Çelikpala Kadir Has University Doç. Dr., Gün Kut Boğaziçi University Prof. Dr., Gencer Özcan Bilgi University Doç. Dr., Ahmet Salih Bıçakçı Kadir Has University I certify that the above signatures belong to the faculty members named above. SIGNATURE Prof. Sinem Akgül Açıkmeşe Institute Director School of Graduate Studies DATE OF APPROVAL: …/…/….
    [Show full text]
  • Read Book Form Line of Battle Ebook
    FORM LINE OF BATTLE PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Alexander Kent | 368 pages | 04 Jul 2006 | Cornerstone | 9780099497622 | English | London, United Kingdom Form Line of Battle – GeMiGaBoK If things go well, a side can draw all of its three cards and get to act before the other side. Movement is quite regulated, yet randomised, each ship has to throw a number of d6, based on wind direction and ship maneuverability, to determine how far it can move. The player has to decide whether to use all of the dice, or just one. This causes all sorts of chaos and fun in the battleline, when some ships move faster than others. All ships have to first move straight ahead and then turn. Ships of the line turn max of 45 degrees, frigates etc max Corrected angles after comment by Kaptain Kobold. Ships can fire each broadside once during a game turn. Movement and fire is defined so that ships can fire before they move, after they move but before they turn , or after they turn. Fire arc is 60 degrees or so. All ships have broadside values and hull values 10 for a normal 3rd rate plus some additional class and quality modifiers. The result is the number of broadside factors lost by the target and possibly critical hits like masts falling or rudder damage. Well placed hits also reduce the hull factor of the target, making it more vulnerable. When the broadside falls to zero, the ship has to surrender. There are all the normal provisions for raking, collisions, boarding, nice critical hits and all sorts of detail, which makes for a very enjoyable game.
    [Show full text]