Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Fleet strenghts historical v Empires in Arms

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Fleet strenghts historical v Empires in Arms Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Fleet strenghts historical v Empires in Arms - 1/2/2009 12:22:42 PM   
hellfirejet


Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline
May I start by wishing every one a happy new year. Right down to the problem, as far as I can see there appears to be no restriction as to the size of the combating forces in the Naval fleets. Lets say it is very easy to have 100 Heavy ships in a single battle in E i a, with 5 full fleets combined in the same area. In the same period in history, the strongest fleet Britain could muster in one battle, was the Channel fleet. This fleet never at any time exceeded 50 Heavy ships of the line or had more than 20 Frigates. So is it possible to implement a stacking limit. Hellfirejet.
Post #: 1
RE: Fleet strenghts historical v Empires in Arms - 1/2/2009 3:03:06 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline
Good point Hell Fire Jet.

There is an optional rule from the board game that restricts the movement of larger fleets, thereby making the large fleets (reduced movement by "1" per extra fleet counter down to a minimum of "4") less likely to occur.

But you are right on. There are quite a few things missing in the naval system: Evasion; limited interception, morale based combat, ship captures (prizes), the ability to choose a chit in naval combat vice simply roll 1 die, realistic build costs, and other aspects. At some point, it would be nice to have some imporvements to the naval system.

BTW, if you look at earlier engagements (see Salamis, Lepanto, or the Spanish Armada) there is no reason per force that a larger engagement could not happen... it is just harder in the open sea under sail...

best
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

(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 2
RE: Fleet strenghts historical v Empires in Arms - 1/2/2009 3:24:14 PM   
hellfirejet


Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Hello Mardonius, Thank you for your feedback. I agree with you 100% that the Naval part of the game is over looked. I have been interested in this period for many years. I'm new to pc version of these games,but was hoping that they were based more on fact. I find that the combat simulation of the naval engagements are totally useless, in that they seem to say that the ships are lost in battle,does this mean they are SUNK! excuse me but it is extremely difficult to sink a wooden ship, as I'm sure you are aware there was only 1 ship sunk at the battle of Trafalgar. It must be possible to simulate ships disengaging and returning to port damaged in stead of saying that they are sunk total rubbish. There must be prizes and captures introduced for it to be of any use as a game!

(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 3
RE: Fleet strenghts historical v Empires in Arms - 1/2/2009 3:46:36 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
I dont agree.
The game is not that detailed historical unless you want to start making a "new-game".

I know in 1807, the British mustered a fleet at one point for invading Copenhagen(when claming the danish fleet).
Under Admiral Gambier 
21 Line ships
9 Frigats
37 Other Battleships
And estimated 380 other ships.

With a invasion force of aprox 30.000 men and 3000 Horses.

For some reason the orders of the Danish King to rather than burned as ordered where not followed.
Capturing from the surrender :
21 Line ships (3 of them in store and broken up, and not counting those lost in the battles during this), 11 Frigates, and about 40 other war-ships/boats.
(1 Ship of the Line, Was in Norway escaping this incident) 

Of the captured fleet (Some where lost in battles, and on some where lost in travel) 15 Line ships arrived in England.

Regards
Bresh


< Message edited by bresh -- 1/2/2009 3:49:08 PM >

(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 4
RE: Fleet strenghts historical v Empires in Arms - 1/2/2009 4:04:11 PM   
hellfirejet


Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Hello Bresh, Thanks for your interest with this post,all I'm trying to say here is that that naval part off the game, is seriously out of touch with the facts of naval combat in the Napoleonic era. Ok I can agree with saying that 1st - 3rd rates be treated as heavies,but 1st rate 3 deckers should be treated with a bit more respect. The French navy were always trying to disable the sails of the enemy in this period.There are many flaws in the game and the naval part of it is to put it mildly shocking. 

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 5
RE: Fleet strenghts historical v Empires in Arms - 1/2/2009 4:54:01 PM   
hellfirejet


Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Hi Bresh, Just been checking my history books about the Copenhagen 1807 so called battle, Britain had 1= (98) gun 2nd rate, 18 = (74) gun 3rd rates,6 = (64) gun 3rd rates total heavys 25 ships, 4 = 5th rate frigates + smaller 6th rate frigates sloops and brigs. The Danish fleet had 18 heavies, 9 5th rate frigates + small insignificant ships hardly able to fight a battle on the high seas. Still not a battle fleet of 100 heavies that you can use in Eia.Sorry but your Danish harbour stack does not apply, most ships are not battle worthy in your scenario.

(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 6
RE: Fleet strenghts historical v Empires in Arms - 1/2/2009 5:23:49 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 2836
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

The game is not that detailed historical unless you want to start making a "new-game".


The point is not to make a "new" game at the expense of the original rules, but to offer optional enhancements that players can select to use or not use. EiH stuff adds light fleets, transports, and piracy/anti-piracy operations and even The General published an advanced naval combat module. Why not include these?? hellfirejet and Mardonius raise good and valid points. I'd also like to see a more robust and historical naval model for the game. As options of course.

(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 7
RE: Fleet strenghts historical v Empires in Arms - 1/2/2009 5:29:38 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

The game is not that detailed historical unless you want to start making a "new-game".


The point is not to make a "new" game at the expense of the original rules, but to offer optional enhancements that players can select to use or not use. EiH stuff adds light fleets, transports, and piracy/anti-piracy operations and even The General published an advanced naval combat module. Why not include these?? hellfirejet and Mardonius raise good and valid points. I'd also like to see a more robust and historical naval model for the game. As options of course.



Here Here.

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 8
RE: Fleet strenghts historical v Empires in Arms - 1/2/2009 5:48:25 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

Hi Bresh, Just been checking my history books about the Copenhagen 1807 so called battle, Britain had 1= (98) gun 2nd rate, 18 = (74) gun 3rd rates,6 = (64) gun 3rd rates total heavys 25 ships, 4 = 5th rate frigates + smaller 6th rate frigates sloops and brigs. The Danish fleet had 18 heavies, 9 5th rate frigates + small insignificant ships hardly able to fight a battle on the high seas. Still not a battle fleet of 100 heavies that you can use in Eia.Sorry but your Danish harbour stack does not apply, most ships are not battle worthy in your scenario.


The point is, you can not count just the bigger ships, and limit them because of top ships that could sail in one fleet.

The British force was a fleet of aprox 450 ships...

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 9
RE: Fleet strenghts historical v Empires in Arms - 1/2/2009 6:09:48 PM   
hellfirejet


Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Dear Bresh, yes there were 450 + ships but as I stated earlier most were not fit for battle transports and the likes, unless you expect the troops to throw stones and try to sink a heavy I don't think so not today Josphine.However the Danish were good at making bacon. 

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 10
RE: Fleet strenghts historical v Empires in Arms - 1/2/2009 9:28:57 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

Dear Bresh, yes there were 450 + ships but as I stated earlier most were not fit for battle transports and the likes, unless you expect the troops to throw stones and try to sink a heavy I don't think so not today Josphine.However the Danish were good at making bacon. 


Scooners and gunboats when in numbers still took out bigger ships so they did matter..
Well atleast the Danes, did not attack a at that time a neutral nation like the honourless Brits did attacking without a DOW.
Maybe we should implement this to, that MPs dont need to DOW minors, since historically this was not always the case..


Regards
Bresh

< Message edited by bresh -- 1/2/2009 9:33:04 PM >

(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 11
RE: Fleet strenghts historical v Empires in Arms - 1/2/2009 10:33:48 PM   
borner


Posts: 1486
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
The one difference you have to account for when trying to make things "Historical" is that in real life, forces were far more divided than in a game. Yes, huge fleets were unusual in reality, but so were "super stack" armies that are so common in the game. The question to me is was it POSSILE to get huge fleets together? You do not have to account in the game for different commanders fighting giving up units, and the movement rules often lending themselves to gathering units then breaking them up the next movement phase.


I am all for making the naval system more complex, but then you can argue that the system should even more heavliy favor the English than the current system does. Yes, Morale is a start, but the sea war was far more one sided than the land war ever came close to being. Before the time the game starts, the leadership of the French navy had been gutted, and over time, being blockded in port, and therefore not being able to practice moving and fighting as a fleet, was a HUGE disadvantage. Many times, GB ships were getting off two broadsides to one for the French or Spanish. If you are going to re-do the naval system, looking to make it "historical", this needs to be taken into account as well.

< Message edited by borner -- 1/4/2009 4:22:31 AM >

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 12
RE: Fleet strenghts historical v Empires in Arms - 1/3/2009 9:34:11 AM   
hellfirejet


Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Hi Bresh, Yes schooners and gunboats when working together in numbers could severely damaged or even cripple the odd 5th rate frigate, but I'm talking about heavies 1st rate 3 deckers - 3rd Rate 74s. The schooners 6lbs were as useful as a snow ball in hell against heavies. You can allow stacks of as many as you like of light fleets transports are non combatant units, my query was about limiting heavies of more than sixty in a fleet this time period 1792 - 1805.

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 1/4/2009 7:16:37 PM >

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 13
RE: Fleet strenghts historical v Empires in Arms - 1/3/2009 9:58:59 AM   
hellfirejet


Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Hi borner, welcome to this debate the british fleet of the period although stronger than any other 2 nations, had more commitments because of the british empire, plus unlike the game at setup France and Spains fleets were scattered in a dozen different ports. This had the effect of weakening the british fleet because of the need to blockade each of the ports. I have to admit I know very little about the land campaign, but do know that like the british fleet at sea,Napoleons land army was extremely strong and required the help of combined nations to defeat it. So to sum up maybe the land forces should have stacking limits also.

Regards, Hellfirejet.

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 14
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/4/2009 1:58:59 PM   
DCWhitworth


Posts: 676
Joined: 12/15/2007
From: Norwich, England
Status: offline
I have to agree with Borner. While making the naval system more realistic may be thought desirable, the reality is that some areas may make it favour the British even more heavily. I've long felt the system was a serious weak point in the game, I would like to see -

1. A more complex naval combat system.
2. More realistic naval transport capacities.
3. Revised ship building costs and times so more people will actually build them.

There are other considerations however. The first is the age long debate that has pervaded this forum from the start. This is a computer game of a board game. How far (if at all) should the computer game deviate from this ?

Secondly, the reality is that the naval aspect does not have a huge impact on the overall conduct of the game. To introduce excessive complexity for the sake of realism may well degrade from the playability of the game.

_____________________________

Regards
David

(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 15
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/4/2009 5:48:07 PM   
hellfirejet


Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Hi DC,
I just brought this up because after playing the game, I felt the land combat was ok, but the naval stuff well less said about that the better, been better no naval in the game if thats the best they could come up with, to put it mildly it is crap.

First of yes Britain is superior at sea, that was a fact in reality yo 1 to the game, but thats the only point it wins.

Britains advantage can easily be nullified by the fact that the French and other naval Nations, if possible always tried to disengage from any combat.

The French evaded combat simply because there ships were faster on average compared to the British ships. A simple die roll in the combat phase can take this into account and implement it in to the game.

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 1/4/2009 5:53:01 PM >

(in reply to DCWhitworth)
Post #: 16
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/4/2009 7:22:11 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline
I would add that British supremacy -- true -- remained because Britain's enemies made no concerted effort to challenge GB at sea. Had they built the right ships (first rates) invested in gunnery training, recruited experienced seamen(fishermen/merchant mariners) from all sources, and the like they could have had a fighting chance.

The US managed to fight quite a few successful engagements against the Brits and we are no supermen... we just made an decent effort and trained to the task.

A great study of overthrowing naval supremacy canbe found in the history of the Peloponnesian War where the Peloponnesians (Spartans, Thebans etc) paid a 50% bonus for trained seaman (using Persian money) over what the Athenians could paid. In a few years, all the experienced seamen from all over Greece and the neighboring states were sailing under the Peloponnesian League's banner. No reason why the French could not have done the same thing to attract the best mariners from our age. Another case is the Roman navy in the 1st Punic War; initially outclassed, with investment and a few hard knocks, it beat the Carthaginians.

best
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

(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 17
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/4/2009 7:31:32 PM   
hellfirejet


Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Hi Mardonius,
You a correct again the US did indeed give Britain a run for there money, they built bigger Frigates that were more heavily armed.

(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 18
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/4/2009 9:38:25 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline
That the US frigate construction was better and that they were more heavily armed is true in all but one case I can think of. But to attribute the US victories soley due to this matter is not sound, as both French and Spanish ships were usually better built and armed than their British adversaries.

Theodore Roosevelt's "Naval War of 1812" gives an exceptional account of shot ratios/crew ratios and casualty ratios for US vs GB conflicts (and a few GB vs French for camparison) and the conclusion therefrom is that the US sailors were on average better sailors and gunners.

My point is this: GB was very good or excellent at what it did (dominate the sea). But there is nothing to keep men of other nations from achieving the same result with effort. Think about the US Navy, the Imperial German Navy. the earlier Dutch Navies, the French Navy of Corbett and again during the War of American Independence, or the later Japanese Navy.


best
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

(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 19
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/4/2009 10:37:49 PM   
hellfirejet


Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline
I stand corrected, yes again you are right the US were better trained and prepared than there European cousins,but the game deals with the European navies.

Yes the French and Spanish ships were also bigger and more heavy armed, but the French ships more than the Spanish were off weaker build quality as they were not expected to remain at sea for prolonged periods of time,as the Admiralty later discovered when they inspected many captured ships, were in very bad condition.

The Imperial German navy were to scared to use there surface fleets in both wars due to the Kaiser & Hitler, but there ships were of better protection with there honeycombed compartments being able to withstand more damage from excessive flooding.

The Japanese they have a more aggressive mentality so were much harder opponents than almost any other nation, with there beliefs in serving the Emporer and it was an honour for them to die for the country.

Regards, hellfirejet.

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 1/5/2009 9:48:16 AM >

(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 20
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/5/2009 11:59:58 AM   
iamspamus

 

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline
That or build steamboats. I read somewhere that Fulton pitched his steam boat idea to Nap who discounted the idea. Apparently in the English channel as in other seas, wind is reduced and sailing ships don't sail very well. A "fleet" of steam boats may have made a difference in buying enough time to transfer French corps over to England. Now this may all be poppycock, but it offers a possibility.

Enough digression. Napoleon (like Hitler later) was a land animal. When I play the game (as any country) I am not solely a land animal. So there is a game balance factor to numbers of ships, sizes of fleets, etc.

Regarding US "superiority" in the War of 1812, that was because US Frigates were larger; they primarily fought in small level engagements; and the Brits never committed their big ships to hunt Frigates, (similar to Japanese in WWII not deeming it necessary to guard convoys. It was beneath their dignity.)

So, much rambling here, but I think that the naval rules could use some of the add-on's from the general or other places. (Agree, Mardonius.) I don't think that this will ever be a supreme naval game that you want, hellfirejet. I think that you are stuck with the likes of Wooden Ships and Iron Men. But, after the other stuff gets fixed, whe should be able to have some more realism to the naval system.

Jason


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

I would add that British supremacy -- true -- remained because Britain's enemies made no concerted effort to challenge GB at sea. Had they built the right ships (first rates) invested in gunnery training, recruited experienced seamen(fishermen/merchant mariners) from all sources, and the like they could have had a fighting chance.

The US managed to fight quite a few successful engagements against the Brits and we are no supermen... we just made an decent effort and trained to the task.

A great study of overthrowing naval supremacy canbe found in the history of the Peloponnesian War where the Peloponnesians (Spartans, Thebans etc) paid a 50% bonus for trained seaman (using Persian money) over what the Athenians could paid. In a few years, all the experienced seamen from all over Greece and the neighboring states were sailing under the Peloponnesian League's banner. No reason why the French could not have done the same thing to attract the best mariners from our age. Another case is the Roman navy in the 1st Punic War; initially outclassed, with investment and a few hard knocks, it beat the Carthaginians.

best
Mardonius


(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 21
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/5/2009 12:18:17 PM   
DCWhitworth


Posts: 676
Joined: 12/15/2007
From: Norwich, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

That the US frigate construction was better and that they were more heavily armed is true in all but one case I can think of. But to attribute the US victories soley due to this matter is not sound, as both French and Spanish ships were usually better built and armed than their British adversaries.

Theodore Roosevelt's "Naval War of 1812" gives an exceptional account of shot ratios/crew ratios and casualty ratios for US vs GB conflicts (and a few GB vs French for camparison) and the conclusion therefrom is that the US sailors were on average better sailors and gunners.

My point is this: GB was very good or excellent at what it did (dominate the sea). But there is nothing to keep men of other nations from achieving the same result with effort. Think about the US Navy, the Imperial German Navy. the earlier Dutch Navies, the French Navy of Corbett and again during the War of American Independence, or the later Japanese Navy.

best
Mardonius


The biggest difference I can see between the US and France is simply scale. During the Napoleonic wars Britain kept the French navy under more or less continuous blockade which seriously hampered their ability to train and operate.

They couldn't do this with the US due to the huge size of the country, large inland lakes and distance from their main bases. This would have enabled the US to get some serious training in for their sailors, training that France couldn't do, you can't create good sailors on land or even in a harbour.

_____________________________

Regards
David

(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 22
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/5/2009 12:21:43 PM   
iamspamus

 

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline
To go along with the scale issue, wasn't it also that the US had no "big" ships (or army for that point) and so was not a threat to England itself?


quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

The biggest difference I can see between the US and France is simply scale. During the Napoleonic wars Britain kept the French navy under more or less continuous blockade which seriously hampered their ability to train and operate.

They couldn't do this with the US due to the huge size of the country, large inland lakes and distance from their main bases. This would have enabled the US to get some serious training in for their sailors, training that France couldn't do, you can't create good sailors on land or even in a harbour.


(in reply to DCWhitworth)
Post #: 23
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/5/2009 6:56:45 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus


Regarding US "superiority" in the War of 1812, that was because US Frigates were larger; they primarily fought in small level engagements; and the Brits never committed their big ships to hunt Frigates

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

Hi Jason:

You are advancing an old and long disproven myth by claiming that the US performance was due solely or mostly to larger frigates. US Frigates were, on average, larger than most British Frigates and did throw a greater weight of shot per broadside. But the same can be said of most French and many Spanish (versus British) ships? Why the difference in performance?

The reason is due to better gunnery and seamanship in the US Navy than in the other, including the British, Navies. See Theodore Roosevelt's "Naval War of 1812" for a scientific breakdown of tonnage, broadside weights, and crew sizes. Please give it a look over. He has all kinds of charts and tables that compare the various navies.

As far as "beneath their dignity", I would dispute this as well as GB thought it a good idea not to engage US Frigates unless they had a two to one ratio... a tactic that bespeaks of putting dignity and the like aside.

best
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

(in reply to iamspamus)
Post #: 24
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/5/2009 7:04:07 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth


"The biggest difference I can see between the US and France is simply scale. During the Napoleonic wars Britain kept the French navy under more or less continuous blockade which seriously hampered their ability to train and operate.

They couldn't do this with the US due to the huge size of the country, large inland lakes and distance from their main bases. This would have enabled the US to get some serious training in for their sailors, training that France couldn't do, you can't create good sailors on land or even in a harbour."



True David... this problem of French Naval Training would be very hard for the French (or Spanish) to resolve for the cogent reasons you cite. I would rejoin (partially) that much of the training, particularly gunnnery can be done within harbors and one can hire expereinced sailors from many ports or occupations (e.g privateers), not necessarily solely French. Unlike soldiers, sailors (if well remunerated) tend to be a more fungible asset. The Spartans did this against the Athenians (circa 410-104 bc) by paying the Greek sailors a 50% higher wage to row for the Peloponnesian Fleets.


best
Mardonius

(in reply to DCWhitworth)
Post #: 25
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/5/2009 7:10:01 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

To go along with the scale issue, wasn't it also that the US had no "big" ships (or army for that point) and so was not a threat to England itself?



True, Jason. The US had no naval capacity or population to directly threaten the British Navy or the British Home Islands... They did have several powerful ships of the line under construction/just completed at the close of the war, but no matter how good these individual ships were, they could be outnumbered by a ten to one or more ratio, Lake Ontario excepted.

The real damage the US Navy did to the British Navy is that the US Navy eroded GB's aura of invincibility. If this small nation (this "David") could smite the Goliath of GB, then what might the French et alias do if they put their efforts to it? This was the fear that resounded in the halls of the admiralty more so than any American invasion fleet.


best
Mardonius

(in reply to iamspamus)
Post #: 26
RE: Fleet strenghts historical v Empires in Arms - 1/5/2009 10:00:33 PM   
Lee1776

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 1/5/2009
Status: offline
The rules for upgrading the naval combat system are out there already.

The original box game had the same generic combat, but I remember playing with a group of people years ago that had optional rules with capturing hulks and combat Chits. I'm sure with some net search, some one can find them.

The Chits where either to fire at range, close to board and another one I can not remember. Each country had different bonuses.

I can at least see a Simple Chits combat be added like in land combat, without a major changes to the programming.

As for the optional hulk rules, time for new construction and cost is reduced for rebuilding the ships. But these rules maybe would be too much to be programmed into the game.

The British liked to steel minor country fleets like they did the Danes. One time it was Nelson by sea and the second time it was Wellington that captured Danish fleet by land. The Danes never had a chance against either of those two leaders. Either the Brits would capture the Fleets or let the French take them by land (which Nap. was about to do). The Danes would side with the French for the rest of the wars. It is interesting that the Allies wanted the Danes to side with them near the end, instead of the Swedish. But they refused and lost Norway because they could not bring themselves to side with the Brits.

(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 27
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/5/2009 10:22:09 PM   
DCWhitworth


Posts: 676
Joined: 12/15/2007
From: Norwich, England
Status: offline
This sounds like the rules out of the General magazine. The rules for hulks were interesting but the chits didn't really work if I recall. You had linear attack, linear defence and melee. But Linear defence beats linear attack and melee beats both so the chit system isn't balanced.

Rules can be found here -

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/254

< Message edited by DCWhitworth -- 1/5/2009 10:23:02 PM >


_____________________________

Regards
David

(in reply to Lee1776)
Post #: 28
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/5/2009 10:28:27 PM   
hellfirejet


Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Hello DC,
Thanks for that info, may I draw your attention to my other gripe on the naval subject NAVAL GAME BALANCE new threat.

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to DCWhitworth)
Post #: 29
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/6/2009 5:26:05 AM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline
The concept for the chits is sound... If your perspective is true, then why not tweak the tables so that:

(1) Melee can lose to both if the melee choser does not close (like a failed outflank); there should be a heavy first round of morale and physical damage (allowing for ship recoveries, not sinkings, in most cases). On subsequent rounds if the melee line does not close, then another heavy round of linear attacker/Defender vlasts.

(2) Give Linear Attack a bonus over linear defense after the ships close (3rd round) due to to hull, vice sail, shots

(3) Give Linear Defense an advantage over Linear Attack for the first round as the angle of advance on the Linear Attacker will occlude many of its guns and prevent them from being brought to bear on an equal basis until the second round.

Just some thoughts...

Mardonius

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

This sounds like the rules out of the General magazine. The rules for hulks were interesting but the chits didn't really work if I recall. You had linear attack, linear defence and melee. But Linear defence beats linear attack and melee beats both so the chit system isn't balanced.

Rules can be found here -

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/254



_____________________________

"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

(in reply to DCWhitworth)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Fleet strenghts historical v Empires in Arms Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.235