Alternative ship type proposal

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
hellfirejet
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: Alternative ship type proposal

Post by hellfirejet »

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
Any chance of applying any of the above via the editor

Yes. Creating the new ship counters, setting attributes, and revising the orders of battle will be possible with the editor. Should be doable as a custom campaign but not something to impose on everyone. But combat will still be tricky, even if/when Marshall implements optional proportional naval losses by type and revises PP losses. It's one thing to have heavies and lights for 1pp and 1/2pp respectively, but where would mediums and others fit in??

Hi pzgndr,
Hopefully within the next 2 years,we may have a chit picking system similar to the land combat,if so I don't see any reason why, Heavy ship types can't have a high MORAL ATTRIBUTE added,with Medium and Lights having a lesser Moral on a decreasing sliding scale one option.PP losses can also be altered and looked at,you could increase Heavy too 11/2 pp,Medium 1 pp and lights 1/2 pp losses ?

Lights could have there combat effects reduce even further to -2 on the combat chart. If I can use the editor in the mean time to create more pleasing scenarios so much the better,as I only want to play against a stronger AI anyway.Other than that after Marshall has completed the Original Empire in arms scenario,the worlds our oyster so to speak via future game option's yes/no maybe?[;)]
Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller
Skanvak
Posts: 572
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: Alternative ship type proposal

Post by Skanvak »

Hellfire,
Talking about different ship types being pointless,well everything about the Naval combat rules is pointless then, for they are based on fiction.During the battle of Trafalgar only 1 Heavy,Medium in game terms was sunk!!!!!!!!


This sentence is exactly what I am warning about. Either the system as nothing to do with the really and is aimed at representing relative strength, then only one type of ship is enough and captured or sunk might have the same result so are not discriminated.
I mean does captured ships where use by the capturing nation? how does it cost to repair a badly damaged ship, and time. If all this thing lead to heavy damage = capture = sunk in effect then again why bother.

If you want a better system you need a total rethinking of the system and back it with historical statisitcs. I just want more to they are better then they shoudl be 1,5x time better and take 1,5 time more to build that means that this is a useless rule. One interesting example is WWI navy, Dreadnought where the most powerful and cost effective ship, only their price and time will limit their construction and the need for destroyer to kill submarine. But definetly cruiser where not effecient at all (you build them when you are desesperate or poor). So I try to challenge you to think of a naval system that simulate napoleonic sea battle at the same level as the land battle (not more) with realistic result, not simply say there was medium ship so let's add them. (Thinking of moral for fleet why not but I am not sure that on the fleet level it is pertinent. This need to be check but is a way to add depth. I think that giving life point to ship is better).

Best regards

Skanvak
pzgndr
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: Alternative ship type proposal

Post by pzgndr »

If you want a better system you need a total rethinking of the system and back it with historical statisitcs.

This is a game and not a sim. As a game, there are optional advanced naval combat rules and proportional loss rules already out there that can more or less be implemented as game options. Beyond that, if you want to get down into the weeds with all sorts of different ship types and their historical charateristics, that's something else. Perhaps the current two ship types can be retained and house rules could allow some percentages of either to be mediums for third party combat resolution. But really, there isn't that much naval activity to justify spending too much time/resources on making this way more complex than it needs to be?
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
Skanvak
Posts: 572
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: Alternative ship type proposal

Post by Skanvak »

I share your concern, pzgndr, I wonder what it will bring to the game.

Best regards

Skanvak
TechSgt
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:41 pm
Location: Los Angeles

RE: Alternative ship type proposal

Post by TechSgt »

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
If you want a better system you need a total rethinking of the system and back it with historical statisitcs.

This is a game and not a sim. As a game, there are optional advanced naval combat rules and proportional loss rules already out there that can more or less be implemented as game options. Beyond that, if you want to get down into the weeds with all sorts of different ship types and their historical charateristics, that's something else. Perhaps the current two ship types can be retained and house rules could allow some percentages of either to be mediums for third party combat resolution. But really, there isn't that much naval activity to justify spending too much time/resources on making this way more complex than it needs to be?

Hello to all.

I just purchased the game -- have not loaded though.
It has been about 10 to 15 years since playing. I use to be involved in "meet-once-a-week-get togethers" or "spend-a-holiday-weekend" games.
Blah, blah, blah...


Interesting thread about the naval side of the game.
1) Wasn't the advanced naval rules from the AH General incorporated in the game? Chit picks and proportional loss.

2) IMHO Isn't there really just three types of "impact" ships in those days.
a) Ship-of-the-line type. Operated as a fleet.
b) Scouts, Armed Messenger, show-the-flag type. Operated as a single ship or squadrons.
c) Transport. Generally, lightly armed and operated single or convoy.
OR, Ship-of-the-Line (Heavy), Frigates (Lights), and transports.

3) In past EiA BOARD games, it seems the only player truly interested in the naval side was the Brits.

Keep up the debate! I enjoy a good read.

TS
pzgndr
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: Alternative ship type proposal

Post by pzgndr »

1) Wasn't the advanced naval rules from the AH General incorporated in the game? Chit picks and proportional loss.

No and that's the main source of angst here. There are already established rules for advanced naval combat and proportional loss rules by nationality and by ship type that should eventually be implemented as an option. And currently all fleets count for 1pp and this should be reconsidered for 1pp heavy, 1/2pp light and 0pp transport. Fix these issues and the naval game should be pretty good. Beyond that, more complex schemes can be reserved for possible later game enhancements or custom campaign creation using the editor.
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
Kai
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:33 am
Contact:

RE: Alternative ship type proposal

Post by Kai »

Unless the ship combat resolution engine becomes a lot more complex, I don't see any reason to incorporate additional ship types.

Ashtar
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:22 pm

RE: Alternative ship type proposal

Post by Ashtar »

Hellfirejet, frankly and trying not to be unpolite, discussing with you is somehow discouraging, since you do not seem to read with care what other people write:
Ashtar wrote
Think of France wanting to force the channel to invade UK via Lille arrow.
hellfirejet answered
As I stated above earlier only Heavy and Medium ships can carry Calvary factors so unless Napoleon wants to be without these units,then lights are of little use to him.

I know exactly that in your proposed rules lights cannot transport cavalry, but in my example I was considering an invasion carried across the Lille crossing arrow, so that you do not need transport capabilities to get to London, you just have to clear the channel from that GB fleet.
Ashtar
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:22 pm

RE: Alternative ship type proposal

Post by Ashtar »

Said that, I restate plain and simply:

1. I do not think that your proposed money/build time for heavy/medium/light ships are correct in term of game balance, that is medium and lights are too cheap/too fast to build for their effective value. How did you chose those values? I would like to remind you that, according to good old EIA rules one ship factor represents
one ship-of-the-line or a larger number of smaller ships.

2. Transport have been introduced in EiH to simulate the gathering by Nappy of a large fleet of commercial vessel (i.e. fishing boats - thus unable to fight) to attempt to invade England. What is wrong with that concept (apart that it makes the Lille crossing arrow obsolete)?
User avatar
Mardonius
Posts: 654
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:04 pm
Location: East Coast

RE: Alternative ship type proposal

Post by Mardonius »

ORIGINAL: Ashtar



2. Transport have been introduced in EiH to simulate the gathering by Nappy of a large fleet of commercial vessel (i.e. fishing boats - thus unable to fight) to attempt to invade England. What is wrong with that concept (apart that it makes the Lille crossing arrow obsolete)?


Hi Ashtar:

I will leave the cost for ships aside for now as I reckon we can take this up closer to a real rules discussion.

But the Transports are a concern to me because of a couple of factors: (1) Their limited range. Three sea areas is far too short of a range. Think of Napoleon's invasion of Egypt and you will see the problems in the limited range. Or GB transporting troops accross the Atlantic (outside of the scope, but the concept is the same). If troops could spend a couple of months at sea, I'd have less of a concern, but even then, one should be able to sail via transport from London to Gib in a month (well, most months, but that is another topic).

(2) Transport cost. Sure, Napoleon did build the flatboat (forget the proper name) for invading the GB isles, but most transport fleets of the day were conscripted merchant/fishermen who can be readily abstracted. Best naval campaign to study is the Nile Campaign as it involves frigates, SOLs, merchnament and large amounts transports.

I'd get rid of them (transports) and double (this is a brainstorm point of initiation) the current trasnport capabilites of SOLS etc to represent abstraction and see where this gets us.

Just some thoughts.
Mardonius
"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan
Ashtar
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:22 pm

RE: Alternative ship type proposal

Post by Ashtar »

Hi Mardonious,
nice to read you...
But the Transports are a concern to me because of a couple of factors: (1) Their limited range. Three sea areas is far too short of a range. Think of Napoleon's invasion of Egypt and you will see the problems in the limited range. Or GB transporting troops accross the Atlantic (outside of the scope, but the concept is the same). If troops could spend a couple of months at sea, I'd have less of a concern, but even then, one should be able to sail via transport from London to Gib in a month (well, most months, but that is another topic).

(2) Transport cost. Sure, Napoleon did build the flatboat (forget the proper name) for invading the GB isles, but most transport fleets of the day were conscripted merchant/fishermen who can be readily abstracted. Best naval campaign to study is the Nile Campaign as it involves frigates, SOLs, merchnament and large amounts transports.

1) Not sure which would be the right range, but a) Do not be misguided by trying to model "intercontinental transport" between Europe and America or India. Historically the number of troops moved from/to colonies were very small (I guess in the 1-2 factor range), I suspect by sheer technical impossibility to move larger forces over such distances. To my knowledge, GB never conceived of bringing Indian troops to Europe in the Napoleonic period... So transport to/from colonies should be ideally object of another rule, as it was in EiH. b) Even at the European level, range should be a very strong limiting factor, otherwise I would see no use for naval bases, like for isntance Malta and Gibriltrar, which are historically for GB. Maybe 3 is too small, but on the other hand transporting by 7 areas is probably too much, it implies that -- for instance, invading Algeria from Gibriltrar is not at all easier then doing it all the way from London, which is not the case. Of course there are various ways to make naval bases valuable: reduce movement of naval stacks or ships carrying troops as optional in EIA, introduce transports as in EiH or to link trade with ports to them laying no far then a certain distance from your controlled territories...

2) No idea about the cost, but it has obviously to fit with game balance. And conscripted merchant/fishermen have a cost too, if nothing else but compensations and the lack of income they otherwise produce. Plus the commercial fleet is anyhow limited, so if you want more you will have to build it...
User avatar
hellfirejet
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: Alternative ship type proposal

Post by hellfirejet »

Hi Ashtar,
I apologise if you feel that I don't listen to your points of view,my reason for wanting to add Medium ship types to the game, is because the most common ship type of the period was the 2 decker 3rd Rate ( 74 ) of Medium size in relation to the 3 deckers and Frigates of the era,I also like the Idea of the fleet combination available with the editor,as for proportional losses for ship types,instead of players allocating combat losses to the light ships only as happens now,these losses should be a % split from all ship types,ie 10% Heavy, 30% Medium,60%Light is a possible solution?

As for Transport fleets, most transport fleets of the day were conscripted merchant ships, used by the navy to move troops and supplies,the supplies on board the merchant ships were more than enough to keep the whole force fed and watered for the duration of the voyage,so Transport fleets if used should have the same movement as the heavy and lights in game terms.
Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller
User avatar
hellfirejet
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: Alternative ship type proposal

Post by hellfirejet »

Another problem I have with the game, I see no need for a depot to be used for supply,during the Napoleonic era Heavy & Light ships,had more than enough provision to last for long periods at sea,and if they were running low on fresh water,food etc,they just stopped of at any islands that they were near to top up.
Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller
Ashtar
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:22 pm

RE: Alternative ship type proposal

Post by Ashtar »

I apologise if you feel that I don't listen to your points of view,my reason for wanting to add Medium ship types to the game, is because the most common ship type of the period was the 2 decker 3rd Rate ( 74 ) of Medium size in relation to the 3 deckers and Frigates of the era

I know this hellfire, but my main objection -- as I already wrote and you failed to address -- is that your medium and lights are too cheap in money and manpower compared to their effective combat capabilities (they are basically as good as heavy ones).
Different transport capacities, in my opinion, are not enough to account for such a difference in money/build time.


User avatar
hellfirejet
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: Alternative ship type proposal

Post by hellfirejet »

ORIGINAL: Ashtar
I apologise if you feel that I don't listen to your points of view,my reason for wanting to add Medium ship types to the game, is because the most common ship type of the period was the 2 decker 3rd Rate ( 74 ) of Medium size in relation to the 3 deckers and Frigates of the era

I know this hellfire, but my main objection -- as I already wrote and you failed to address -- is that your medium and lights are too cheap in money and manpower compared to their effective combat capabilities (they are basically as good as heavy ones).
Different transport capacities, in my opinion, are not enough to account for such a difference in money/build time.



Yes In combat terms my Medium ship type has the same +1 Combat as a Heavy,but I would like to increase Heavies to a +2 combat,this is just an idea at this stage,other than that Heavy can carry twice as much factors as a medium type ship.As for Lights I was advocating that they have a -2 in combat terms making Heavy & Mediums 3 or 4 times more powerful in combat terms than the Lights,which is much more in keeping with there true combat effect in regard to there chances of winning any duel with a Heavy or Medium.
Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller
User avatar
hellfirejet
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: Alternative ship type proposal

Post by hellfirejet »

Any changes I'm advocating to are optional,and if possible fully editable via the editor,so that gamers can create there own much improved campaign scenarios.
Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller
Ashtar
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:22 pm

RE: Alternative ship type proposal

Post by Ashtar »

Hi hellfire,
Another problem I have with the game, I see no need for a depot to be used for supply,during the Napoleonic era Heavy & Light ships,had more than enough provision to last for long periods at sea,and if they were running low on fresh water,food etc,they just stopped of at any islands that they were near to top up.
[&:] Are you serious about this? Do you think that unguarded magic islands full of fruits and fresh water were
scattered all around north Atlantic, Baltic and Mediterranean sea? [&:] I think you have a very optimistic
view of sea voyages and foraging in general.
In EIA, warships do not need depots, it is the troops that land from them that have to chose between foraging were they land or use invasion supply. Perfectly logic.
As for Transpo`rt fleets, most transport fleets of the day were conscripted merchant ships, used by the navy to move troops and supplies,the supplies on board the merchant ships were more than enough to keep the whole force fed and watered for the duration of the voyage,so Transport fleets if used should have the same movement as the heavy and lights in game terms.
First of all, transport in EiH have been introduced to simulate a mix of barges, fishing boats and merchant ships
that napoleon was assembling to cross the channel, so pretending them -- filled with tens of thousands of men -- to have the same movement then warships is pretty absurd.
Secondly, transport aside, have you any idea of the logistic problems in shipping huge armies in early 19th century?
Forget voyages to America, large armies never did it.
Consider instead the sea invasion of Egypt:
Only 24.000 men (15 to 20 factors in EIA terms, a single corp) were transported to Egypth with Napoleon, and this
was the largest sea invasion of Napoleonic Era. The French navy didn't sailed directly from the south of France to Alexandria (which is 6-7 sea areas away in your EIA map), but instead bothered to seize Malta from the Knight of St. John on June 9th 1798. Malta lies in between, 3 sea areas away from South France and 4 from Alexandria. Then the fleet sailed to Alexandria were it landed on July 1st.
Why do you think he bothered to take Malta (which in EIA grants no revenue or manpower)? Obviously Malta was needed as an intermediate base, to forage troops and to protect communications between France and Egypt.

This example clearly show us that moving no more then a single corp across the Mediterranean was not an easy issue at all in Napoleonic era. Pretending that a fleet fully loaded with an invasion army of tens of thousands of men could have the same autonomy and sailing speed then a bunch of warships is again risible.
EIA had a few very nice optional rules to limit huge invasions: one was to reduce the movement of fleets carrying corps, the second was to reduce the movement of stacks. As you will know, sailing before the steam was a tricky issue, depending on winds, storms, etc, and it was not unusual for fleets to get scattered. So if you want to travel in huge numbers and benefit from mutual protection, you have to wait for slower ships, lost ones, etc, thus largely reducing the overall speed.
I would frankly like to see this rules reintroduced in EIANW. They will give much more naval flavour then introducing a further almost useless distinction between first and third class ship-of-the-line.

In general lonely rocks such as Malta or Gibraltar may be important in EIA (as they were historically) only if sea invasions and/or commerce are somehow limited to make them vital naval bases.



Ashtar
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:22 pm

RE: Alternative ship type proposal

Post by Ashtar »

Yes In combat terms my Medium ship type has the same +1 Combat as a Heavy,but I would like to increase Heavies to a +2 combat,this is just an idea at this stage,other than that Heavy can carry twice as much factors as a medium type ship.As for Lights I was advocating that they have a -2 in combat terms making Heavy & Mediums 3 or 4 times more powerful in combat terms than the Lights,which is much more in keeping with there true combat effect in regard to there chances of winning any duel with a Heavy or Medium.

Ok, still you should remember that
1) actual rules in EIA forbid bonus or malus larger then +1/-1, so that already GB has no interest in achieving Heavy superiority.
2) It is of little use to propose a -2 malus to fleets composed by lights if it is enough to add a single medium or heavy ship in the lot to cancel it.
3) I do not see the need to add a diffrence between first and third class ships-of-the-line, since they are quite similar in scopes
and characteristic (their main difference being cost, which is dangerously game unbalancing).

Think of actual rules: Guard may commit, Cavalry is faster, retreats better and has a devastating effect when pursuing. Artillery
takes a constant extra toll from enemy. Light ships (which I dislike anyhow) can be used in privateering...
Your mediums are just like heavys, the fact that you cannot easily give them any really special characteristic is an indication in itself that the medium/heavy distinction is too fine for a game taking place at the grand strategy level


User avatar
hellfirejet
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: Alternative ship type proposal

Post by hellfirejet »

Ok I cannot disagree with any of your points raised,I'm only wanting an improved naval combat system similar to the land combat implemented in game,if I cannot alter more via the editor than at present allowed or future editor upgrades,then it is clear to me that this game is not for me,and is just to abstracted and basic in concept,so it appears I will put it down to experience at let the game gather dust.I'm now returning to Crown of glory emperors edition and War in the pacific admirals edition.Will watch for improvements with updates in the months ahead,but for now the game just not interesting enough for me.
Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller
User avatar
Marshall Ellis
Posts: 5630
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 3:00 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: Alternative ship type proposal

Post by Marshall Ellis »

Graham:

I'm not opposed to looking at stuff like this and understand you're looking for a more detailed naval aspect of the game but I must look at this after I have a delivered a few more items ner and dear to many (PBEM streamlining and security). Keep your ideas coming because I am listening!

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games


Post Reply

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