naval transport

Empires in Arms is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. Empires in Arms is a seven player game of grand strategy set during the Napoleonic period of 1805-1815. The unit scale is corps level with full diplomatic options

Moderator: MOD_EIA

User avatar
demonterico
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 5:57 am
Location: Seattle WA

naval transport

Post by demonterico »

Does anyone besides me think that naval transport is to slow? I may have been doing something wrong, and I haven't had an opportunity to review the process yet, but it took me four months to transport a corp from Cadiz to Naples. This is a trip that a ship moving at a mere two knots could make in less than a month.
The world has never seen a more impressive demonstration of the influence of sea power upon history. Those far distant, storm-beaten ships, upon which the Grand Army never looked, stood between it and the dominion of the world. -- Alfred Thayer Mahan
User avatar
Murat
Posts: 803
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 9:19 pm
Location: South Carolina

RE: naval transport

Post by Murat »

Yes, I figured that the transports should be slower than fleet ships but not 3/7ths. Maybe a 5 for transports.  On the flip side, Heavy ships can transport 1/2 as well as transports and lights can carry some inf at 7 so all is not lost.
User avatar
zaquex
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:46 pm
Location: Vastervik, Sweden
Contact:

RE: naval transport

Post by zaquex »

I think it would be reasonable to increase the move for transports to 4 but im inclined to think its unwise to give them more moves.
 
As stated heavy fleets are clearly viable for long range transports.
An Elephant
Grognot
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:37 pm

RE: naval transport

Post by Grognot »

...and safer, too, since a single enemy warship will capture any number of unescorted transports without needing to stop.
--
Not a grognard.
Not an optimizer. It's a game to me, not a job.
User avatar
zaquex
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:46 pm
Location: Vastervik, Sweden
Contact:

RE: naval transport

Post by zaquex »

Isnt it:

Transport takes 2 pts
Heavy takes 1 pt
Light takes 1/2 pt

where

Inf is 1 pt
Cav is 2 pts

Correct me if im wrong dont have the manual here to check atm

dunno if this is relevant or if it is thought about but shouldnt artillery be like 3 pts or something as they probably have horses and the pieces are quite heavy...

ok, i know all corps to a certain extent have artillery but still this is supposed to be pure artillery, it should be heavy.
An Elephant
User avatar
demonterico
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 5:57 am
Location: Seattle WA

RE: naval transport

Post by demonterico »

"...and safer, too, since a single enemy warship will capture any number of unescorted transports without needing to stop." - Grognot

The key word in your statement is "unescorted". Anyone transporting army units by sea without escorts deserves what he gets.
The world has never seen a more impressive demonstration of the influence of sea power upon history. Those far distant, storm-beaten ships, upon which the Grand Army never looked, stood between it and the dominion of the world. -- Alfred Thayer Mahan
dude
Posts: 399
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 7:16 am
Location: Fairfax Virginia

RE: naval transport

Post by dude »

Playing as GB a few times now, I found the transports mostly useless.  Unless I just wanted to transport some troops across the chanel or for other very short hops I couldn't use them to move troops from GB to places in the Med very well.  I pretty much rely on the heavies now for most transport duty and just use the transport fleet to provide invasion supply.
 
Dude
“Ifs defeated the Confederates…” U.S.Grant
User avatar
Jimmer
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:50 pm

RE: naval transport

Post by Jimmer »

Transports are useless as is, IMO. I agree, though, that they should be slower.
 
What I would opt for, instead of giving them 1 or 2 extra movement points, is making entry to open ocean from a controlled port free, rather than 1 MP. And, vice-versa for entering controlled port (free). This would allow five MPs, but only controlled port to controlled port. Speed would be four leaving a controlled port and dropping from sea, and three open ocean to open ocean.
 
I think that if transports are made speed five normally, they run the risk of becoming too valuable?
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
User avatar
demonterico
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 5:57 am
Location: Seattle WA

RE: naval transport

Post by demonterico »

No we wouldn't want the humble transport to become to valuable. For every tank in Iraq there are probably a 1000 trucks or humvees (at least). For every Battleship in WWII Pacific there must have been a 1000 transports (at least). I'll have to look at WitP one of these days to count them. No I guess we wouldn't want the unglamorous transport to become to important.
The world has never seen a more impressive demonstration of the influence of sea power upon history. Those far distant, storm-beaten ships, upon which the Grand Army never looked, stood between it and the dominion of the world. -- Alfred Thayer Mahan
User avatar
carnifex
Posts: 1294
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2002 8:47 pm
Location: Latitude 40° 48' 43N Longtitude 74° 7' 29W

RE: naval transport

Post by carnifex »

We wouldn't. As a matter of fact I object to the whole transport concept as unneeded complexity. This isn't Huge Napoleonic Sea-Borne Invasions in Arms Which Didn't Even Happen Anyway - any invasions which need to be made can be handled by heavies, and besides, it's not like there aren't crossing arrows to get you everywhere.

If there was one thing I would change, it would be that corps loaded on transports would not be required to land during the land phase but instead would pay $3 or forage at zero.
SkyElf
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 6:56 am
Contact:

RE: naval transport

Post by SkyElf »

The naval transports needs to be fixed to 4 movement and on a naval transports you would not have to unload, and you would have to pay for the transported units or forge at 0 value!
A True Gamer to the Core!
User avatar
Grapeshot Bob
Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:35 pm
Location: Canada

RE: naval transport

Post by Grapeshot Bob »

Just out of curiosity was there naval transport in the boardgame?
 
Did anyone who played the boardgame use naval transport? Was it really that useful?
 
 
 
GSB
gwheelock
Posts: 563
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:25 am
Location: Coon Rapids, Minnesota

RE: naval transport

Post by gwheelock »

ORIGINAL: Grapeshot Bob

Just out of curiosity was there naval transport in the boardgame?

Did anyone who played the boardgame use naval transport? Was it really that useful?



GSB
EIA? No it only had 1 kind of ship - it did the transport duty (& no "piracy" options either)
Guy
User avatar
demonterico
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 5:57 am
Location: Seattle WA

RE: naval transport

Post by demonterico »

The board game has Fleet counters of no specified type. The intention of these fleet counters was to represent the main battle lines of each country's Navy, and could be compared to the heavy fleets in this new computer version of the game. These fleets did however have a transport capacity. Each fleet counter, regardless of the number of ship factors in the fleet, could transport a corp. The fleets had a movement of 7 whether they were doing transport or not. The first time I was confronted by different types of fleets was when I got involved with a Empires in Harms game that was started up in the old Battlegrounds forum. An intersting side note to this is that Empires in Harms included the Americas as well and had as an 8th player the USA. Also, all of Spain's American colonies were in the game as well. Very interesting.
The world has never seen a more impressive demonstration of the influence of sea power upon history. Those far distant, storm-beaten ships, upon which the Grand Army never looked, stood between it and the dominion of the world. -- Alfred Thayer Mahan
User avatar
yammahoper
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 7:14 pm

RE: naval transport

Post by yammahoper »

There was an optionl rule in TT EiA that reduced capacity of a fleet to 10 factors per fleet, so 25 factors required 3 fleets, 11 factors 2 fleets, etc.  It seems this rule has been added via the restrictions on heavy and light ships.
 
There was another optional rule that when fleets traveled in stacks, they lost one movement point for each fleet over (some number I forget...2 fleets?  four fleets?  Hated the rule...) one, to a minimum movement rate of four.  This slowed massive armadas down drastically.
 
yamma
...nothing is more chaotic than a battle won...
User avatar
Obsolete
Posts: 1388
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:52 pm

RE: naval transport

Post by Obsolete »

Did anyone who played the boardgame use naval transport? Was it really that useful?

Yes, and please let's not start increasing the movement of transports.  Doing so makes them too overpowered and breaks a lot of other things that would take 20 pages of dicussion, and still not get close to being solved.

Image
Image
King-Tigers don't let Tiger-I's get over-run.
User avatar
Grapeshot Bob
Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:35 pm
Location: Canada

RE: naval transport

Post by Grapeshot Bob »

Just out of curiosity what do the 3 numbers listed beside a port mean?
 
 
GSB
Soapy Frog
Posts: 282
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:33 am

RE: naval transport

Post by Soapy Frog »

Trade values, and port defence guns. The number like 2/3 are trade... GB gets the value on the left, you get the value on the right (if GB owns the port he gets both). The guns are for shooting at enemy fleets that try to attack you in port. They get a free shot at the attacking fleet before the fight starts.
User avatar
Grapeshot Bob
Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:35 pm
Location: Canada

RE: naval transport

Post by Grapeshot Bob »

Ok,


So (using your example) if the trade values are 2/3 then GB gets 5 if it owns the port, 2 if it doesn't (??) and any other country gets 3 if it owns the port.

Does GB somehow get some kind of tax from ports I control?



GSB
Grognot
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:37 pm

RE: naval transport

Post by Grognot »

Trading is supposed to be mutually beneficial...

If the domestic trading doesn't happen, because it's not requested or the request is denied, then neither party gets it.  Allying with France is a good way to tell GB not to trade with you.
--
Not a grognard.
Not an optimizer. It's a game to me, not a job.
Post Reply

Return to “Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815”