Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

OT: - Boston

 
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 >> OT: - Boston Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
OT: - Boston - 1/19/2009 10:42:41 AM   
iamspamus

 

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline
ARGGGGHHHH. I freakin' missed getting out to that when I was in Boston a couple of years ago. I really liked Boston though. Cool city and waterfront.

Jason


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

You should, like your Queen, come visit the USS Constitution in Boston. Now there is a fine ship.


(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 61
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/19/2009 10:46:54 AM   
iamspamus

 

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline
One would have be careful of proposed stacking limits here. Would you pay for buck for a fleet of 5 ships or a buck for potentially 20 ships, though lesser? I'd never buy the biggies. So that's counter historical.

Secondly, what are the 5th and unrated? Are those Frigates or their equivalent?

As I said before, for me, I'd stick with the two types. Heavy and light plus transports. That already differentiates enough. Weren't light ships needed to stop privateers? If not, that's a good idea.

Ciao!
Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

Hello Marshall,

One possible solution to this naval thing is as below;

Heavy Fleets = 1st & 2nd Rates ships, fleet size 5, cost $12, build 18 months.

Medium Fleets = 3rd & 4th Rates ships, fleet size 20, cost $9, build 12 months.

Light Fleets = 5th & unrated ships, Fleet size 10, cost $6, built 9 months.

Transports = Transports & Merchant, Fleet size 50, cost $4, build 6 months.

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 1/16/2009 8:25:47 AM >

_____________________________Please read wacky ideas post for further information for reason behind this post thanks.

Regards,
Hellfirejet

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)



(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 62
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/19/2009 9:08:52 PM   
hellfirejet


Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Hi Jason,
The 3Decker 1st & 2nd rates are something Mardonius and I are trying to incorporate into the heavies, possible improved morale boost to a fleet that has them included + better combat strength value, just ideas at the moment to include for advanced rule set and editor options.

The 5th & 6th Rates are frigates, unrated = Sloop, schooners, brigs and corvettes etc.



_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

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

(in reply to iamspamus)
Post #: 63
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/20/2009 12:24:12 PM   
iamspamus

 

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline
HFJ,
I understand what you are doing. I'm talking about game balance and "chrome" for no purpose. Basically, as you know, in a game there is a balance between playability and historicity. The best games dwell somewhere in the middle. So, adding "chrome" to a game to make it more historical, ie. the naval charts, hulks after battle, etc. can be good, if they also don't damage playability too much. There has to be a balance.

My point with the above post is this. I can pay one dollar per month for maintenance for a fleet that holds 5 (granted "heavy" ships) or I can pay that same dollar per month for maintenance for a fleet that holds 20, say with a -1. Which would you do? Or I could pay $3 for 15 ships or $3 for 60 ships.

So, now we have 4 types of ships (hvy, med, light, trsp) rather than 3 (hvy, lt, trsp). Is it worth the change? That's my issue. We don't have skirmishers and jaegers (they're factored in). We have only one type of cav (besides cossacks), oh and feudal cav, so do we need three or more types of warships for a grand strategic wargame?

Your answer may be yes. I think that mine would be no. There are other things that I'd like to see "fixed" first.

Jason


quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

Hi Jason,
The 3Decker 1st & 2nd rates are something Mardonius and I are trying to incorporate into the heavies, possible improved morale boost to a fleet that has them included + better combat strength value, just ideas at the moment to include for advanced rule set and editor options.

The 5th & 6th Rates are frigates, unrated = Sloop, schooners, brigs and corvettes etc.




(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 64
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/20/2009 12:58:31 PM   
hellfirejet


Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Hi Jason,

Thanks for reply, your question regarding 1st & 2nd Rate heavies fleet ( 5 ) In number, I have compromised and added them into the game system shown below.

I should point out that 3Deckers were the flagships of the fleets and 90% of the time that is where you would find the Admiral of the fleet, so maybe to get the Admiral bonus a fleet should have a 3Decker present.

1st & 2nd Rates ( 3 Decker )= 11/2 Combat bonus + morale + Admiral bonus and 3rd & 4th Rate ( 2 Decker ) = 1 Combat + 1/2 morale, both now classified as heavy as per the game.

So no need to add fleet types = Heavy, light & Transports remain.

Note this upgrade don't alter game balanced because all Nations can have 3 Decker morale and combat bonus.

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 1/22/2009 11:43:14 PM >


_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

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

(in reply to iamspamus)
Post #: 65
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/20/2009 1:07:13 PM   
iamspamus

 

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline
HFJ, this is where one has to be more than the "good idea fairy"... You have to look at the implications of said choice.

Did Prussia have them? Or the Turks? Could they? So, any power could build them? I thought that you said that only FRA, SPA and GB had them? I could be wrong. If we go down this road then why can't the Turks have an art corps? Why not? They had alot of artillery. Yes, but they didn't band them together into "grand batteries" like the French and to some extent the Russians (who just had a lot of them).

So, ease of play and historicalness (what is this word?), need to go together.

Jason


quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

Hi Jason,

Thanks for reply, your question regarding 1st & 2nd Rate heavies fleet ( 5 ) In number, I have compromised and added them into the game system shown below.



1st & 2nd Rates ( 3 Deckers )= 11/2 die rolls per ship + morale and combat bonus, and 3rd & 4th Rate ( 2 Deckers ) = 1 die roll per ship both now classified as heavy as per the game.

So no need to add fleet types = Heavy, light & Transports remain.

Note this upgrade don't alter game balanced because all Nations can have 3 Decker morale and combat bonus.


(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 66
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/20/2009 1:13:28 PM   
hellfirejet


Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Hi Jason,
As I said before the naval side of the game as it stands sucks, it's crap! might as well just build light fleets and Transports, and use the navy as a source for just moving troops about, day trip to Europe anyone.

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 1/20/2009 1:15:02 PM >


_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

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

(in reply to iamspamus)
Post #: 67
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/20/2009 6:02:58 PM   
AresMars

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
Hellfirejet, I totally agree that the NAVAL side of the game is not historical (and crap), however, as iamspamus pointed out, not all of the 7 players could really PLAY that part of the game....the naval side of EIA was pretty much limited to GB, FR and SP (with RS) and control of the MINORS with Fleet counters.

IMHO, the original EIA used NUMBER of fleet counter to represent acutal NAVAL POWER in the game, and the type and makeup of the acutal fleets was abstracted to represent relative strenght of those fleets for game play.

The optional naval rules of EIA where added for improved play balance (IMHO), and the additional CHIT CHOICES and MORALE suggestions in the General mag, where created to try and address the SINGLE DIE roll and math problems of the orginal system.

Though I understand your and Mardionius's interest in the Naval aspect (i have been really enjoying the education you are both providing us) and I agree with the spirt, I am not sure that GAME PLAY would improve for all....

The lack of Evasion and Pursuit in EIANW are a much larger issues, the EIH additions where not well thought out, as to how the affect the real core of the EIA game model --- the Potilitcal Point system (and VP totals)

I like 7 player PBEM games and I find that people who want to play against the PC/AI will like your detail suggestions....I am in the PBEM camp (and an EIA purists) and want an game that allows me to "simulate" a game against peers....

The forum is filled with the ' battle ' of these two camps and though I like what you are thinking, I dont agree with it for EIANW....

I want PLAYABILITY, PLAY BALANCE and an EQUAL CHANCE of VICTORY for all 7 players....I find some of the suggests made here (and not excusively yours and Mardionus) to suggest a divergence from these....without due consideration (YET).

My 2 cents...



(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 68
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/20/2009 8:46:20 PM   
hellfirejet


Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline
in reply to iamspamus,
HFJ, this is where one has to be more than the "good idea fairy"... You have to look at the implications of said choice.

Did Prussia have them? Or the Turks? Could they? So, any power could build them? I thought that you said that only FRA, SPA and GB had them? I could be wrong.

Hi Jason,
On the point of 3DECKERS Britain,France,Spain,Russia & Turkey all built them.

Also in order to give them the respect they deserve, since you object to paying for 3Deckers and there value in the navy arena, 1= 3 Decker has the firepower of an artillery unit with over 100 heavy cannon at there disposal, 30x32lbs,32x24lbs, 30x12lbs & 12x9lbs minimum, more than enough to blow the Bleep Bleep out of any city wall defense and land force!

Oh! yes while I mind they also had a nice anti personel weapon at there disposal 62 lbs carronades perfect for clearing some troops from a battlefield.


< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 1/20/2009 9:26:45 PM >


_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

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

(in reply to iamspamus)
Post #: 69
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/21/2009 8:05:59 AM   
hellfirejet


Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AresMars

dodo,

Austria and Prussia have no real Naval tradition - thus NO fleets.

However, their control of a Minor with a Fleet solves that issue pretty quick....

Some of the points raised by hellfirejet and Mardonius (build times, ship costs, a little more variable in combat results) have serious merit.

I would like to see a return to the EIA limited number of fleets for balance. (ie GB 7, FR 4, SP and RS 3, TU 2, AS and PS 1, plus the Minors) There are a limited amount of sea areas and limiting the game to a total number of FLEETs makes the importance of DIPLOMACY more important, raises the value of MINORS with FLEETS.

(I am just typing off he top of my head....)

Now, with the incorporation of the different classes of ships (3, 2, 1 Deckers and Tranports) you could have a fleet composed of 30 combat ships (plus transports ignored in combat) where the different classes of ships would have various morale levels (ie. 3 Deckers are 4, 2 Deckers are 3 and 1 Deckers are 2) [British would be .5 higher] and the fleet counter would look more like a LAND CORPS (ie. [5/25/25/*]

A fleet of just transports would just be treated like a naval prusuit by the opponent based on the number of 1Decker ships in the fleet.

Thus if I have a fleet of; 2 x 3Deckers (2*4), 18 x 2Deckers (18*3) and 7 x 1Deckers (7*2) and 15 x Transports the BATTLE MORALE of the that fleet would be...2.53 and then would be used on something like the ADVANCED NAVAL CHART proposed in the old GENERAL or Mardonius's suggestions. 3 rounds, etc....

A British Fleet of the same type would have a BATTLE MORALE of 2.73 -- so not an enormous advantage.... but the chart is not about DAMAGE EFFECTS

Casualties from a chart would represent a certain amount of DAMAGE EFFECTs that would then be translated to the OPPOSING fleet each round in STEPS....ie. 6 = CAPTURED, 4=SUNK, 3-2-1 Damaged

Perhaps even a forced to withdraw from combat....

Naval leaders could then be used in a variety of ways. Improve Morale, Raise/Lower DAMAGE EFFECTS, others....

What do people think of this approach?




Yes AresMars,

A 3Decker unit type has merit as a fleet counter, in this period in history the 3Deckers were used not just in naval combat, but were used as part of a Nations prestige in diplomatic missions with other countrys.

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 1/21/2009 8:06:52 AM >


_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

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

(in reply to AresMars)
Post #: 70
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/21/2009 11:25:47 AM   
iamspamus

 

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline
OK, in this one, I was just being a bit tongue in cheek. I am not necessarily adverse to them, I just wanted you to realize how one tweak affects a myriad of other things.

So, they COULD knock down walls and such...but DID they? And did they more than just once or twice?

Thanks for the info on who had the biggie ships. I really didn't know.

Keep 'em comin' and I'll keep fightin' 'em...

Jason


quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

in reply to iamspamus,
HFJ, this is where one has to be more than the "good idea fairy"... You have to look at the implications of said choice.

Did Prussia have them? Or the Turks? Could they? So, any power could build them? I thought that you said that only FRA, SPA and GB had them? I could be wrong.

Hi Jason,
On the point of 3DECKERS Britain,France,Spain,Russia & Turkey all built them.

Also in order to give them the respect they deserve, since you object to paying for 3Deckers and there value in the navy arena, 1= 3 Decker has the firepower of an artillery unit with over 100 heavy cannon at there disposal, 30x32lbs,32x24lbs, 30x12lbs & 12x9lbs minimum, more than enough to blow the Bleep Bleep out of any city wall defense and land force!

Oh! yes while I mind they also had a nice anti personel weapon at there disposal 62 lbs carronades perfect for clearing some troops from a battlefield.



(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 71
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/21/2009 11:26:36 AM   
iamspamus

 

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline
So how does that fit into a grand strategic Napoleonic wargame?

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

quote:

ORIGINAL: AresMars

dodo,

Austria and Prussia have no real Naval tradition - thus NO fleets.

However, their control of a Minor with a Fleet solves that issue pretty quick....

Some of the points raised by hellfirejet and Mardonius (build times, ship costs, a little more variable in combat results) have serious merit.

I would like to see a return to the EIA limited number of fleets for balance. (ie GB 7, FR 4, SP and RS 3, TU 2, AS and PS 1, plus the Minors) There are a limited amount of sea areas and limiting the game to a total number of FLEETs makes the importance of DIPLOMACY more important, raises the value of MINORS with FLEETS.

(I am just typing off he top of my head....)

Now, with the incorporation of the different classes of ships (3, 2, 1 Deckers and Tranports) you could have a fleet composed of 30 combat ships (plus transports ignored in combat) where the different classes of ships would have various morale levels (ie. 3 Deckers are 4, 2 Deckers are 3 and 1 Deckers are 2) [British would be .5 higher] and the fleet counter would look more like a LAND CORPS (ie. [5/25/25/*]

A fleet of just transports would just be treated like a naval prusuit by the opponent based on the number of 1Decker ships in the fleet.

Thus if I have a fleet of; 2 x 3Deckers (2*4), 18 x 2Deckers (18*3) and 7 x 1Deckers (7*2) and 15 x Transports the BATTLE MORALE of the that fleet would be...2.53 and then would be used on something like the ADVANCED NAVAL CHART proposed in the old GENERAL or Mardonius's suggestions. 3 rounds, etc....

A British Fleet of the same type would have a BATTLE MORALE of 2.73 -- so not an enormous advantage.... but the chart is not about DAMAGE EFFECTS

Casualties from a chart would represent a certain amount of DAMAGE EFFECTs that would then be translated to the OPPOSING fleet each round in STEPS....ie. 6 = CAPTURED, 4=SUNK, 3-2-1 Damaged

Perhaps even a forced to withdraw from combat....

Naval leaders could then be used in a variety of ways. Improve Morale, Raise/Lower DAMAGE EFFECTS, others....

What do people think of this approach?




Yes AresMars,

A 3Decker unit type has merit as a fleet counter, in this period in history the 3Deckers were used not just in naval combat, but were used as part of a Nations prestige in diplomatic missions with other countrys.


(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 72
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/21/2009 11:35:36 AM   
hellfirejet


Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline
So how does that fit into a grand strategic Napoleonic wargame?

Jason

Hi Jason,

E I A is a strategic Napoleonic wargame I agree, but to give it a title of grand ? I think not, It is a diplomacy game with abstract combat Land & Sea a good game yes but way short of being grand, lets come down to earth about this, it's a 70s wargame with limited military fact.

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

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

(in reply to iamspamus)
Post #: 73
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/21/2009 11:44:41 AM   
Mardonius


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AresMars

Though I understand your and Mardionius's interest in the Naval aspect (i have been really enjoying the education you are both providing us) and I agree with the spirt, I am not sure that GAME PLAY would improve for all....




Hello AresMars:

I do think that Game Play (as defined as fun with without a headache, balanced by some historical measures) can improve markedly with a refined Naval Combat system. The real killer today is that ships in EiANW cost too much and take too long to build for anyone to build them. So once you have that single die roll combat (with, as you note no chance for evasion) the naval game is stagnant.

Here is what I think the new naval system should try and capture:
Fleets would be limited to 2 Fleet counters, or three with an admiral. Fleet sizes are around 26 HS/4 LS with a slight bonus for GB. LS do not partake in naval combats involving HS but can give wind gause, interception, evasion, running/enforcing blockade and prize percentage die rolls if there is a markedly (2 to 1) greater amount of LS on a side.

Example: Fleet A is Sailing into a Sea Area to do Battle with Fleet B
(1) Fleet A rolls to find fleet B. Roughly 50% with a bonus for home waters and another bonus if the fleet is carrying troops (so a home water "seek battle role against a fleet carrying troops would be a 5 in 6 or 84% chance')

(2) If Fleet A has successfully found Fleet B, Fleet B can try too avoid being brought to battle. This is the "Wind Gauge roll". If Fleet B breaks off, they must move to another adjacent sea area or port and can not land troops that month. 50% base chance with a +1 for GB's roll

(3) If Fleet B does not evade battle, a Battle is fought. Battle consists of three rounds of combat. Morale Based. I would start with the tables in EiH 4.0. For all combats besides Melee combats, damage halved (conceptually... have to work out tables). GB would have a +0.5 morale bonus or thereabouts to all naval combats and a +1 on most die rolls. France would have a +1 on Linear defense die rolls.

(4) After Battle, the loser must retreat to port. If only one side broke, then 1/2 of his losses become prizes. The other 1/2 may retreat to his nearest port. These losses may be rebuilt at a reduced build cost. Each prize has a 1 in 6 chance sinking per sea area it must transit after the battle.


That is the base of the proposed system... should be playable.


best
Mardonius

(in reply to AresMars)
Post #: 74
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/22/2009 6:45:22 PM   
iamspamus

 

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline
"Grand strategic" is a phrase. I was not saying that this game was the "cat's meow". I was not saying that it was "grand". (I think that it's a good game.) Rather the level of play is at the grand strategy arena. One that involves the whole nation.

"Grand strategy is military strategy at the level of movement and use of an entire nation state or empire's resources."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_strategy

So...

There is no icon smiley with egg on it's face. So, you'll just have to imagine that.

...

take your time.

...

ponder it.

...

I'll give this one to me.



So, EIA and now EiANW fits the level of "grand strategic" game. Thus my point before of chrome is good, but we don't need an individual soldier or row boat modeled in a country level game. IMHO. Y

ou also don't have the history of 20 years with the game. Which I honestly believe is good. ME has to deal with old farts who believe EIA's the gospel and the rules are the holy text (not mentioning names here); with those who think it's a good game and needs some tinkering (me); with those who want a whole lot of tinkering (mardonius) and finally with people who have no experience with it and want all new stuff (you). All of these are good and will produce a good game. And never let a man say otherwise... See what I did there?

So, I'll pass the peace pipe. Let's work together to make this a better gaming experience. 'K?
Jason

Jason


quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

So how does that fit into a grand strategic Napoleonic wargame?

Jason

Hi Jason,

E I A is a strategic Napoleonic wargame I agree, but to give it a title of grand ? I think not, It is a diplomacy game with abstract combat Land & Sea a good game yes but way short of being grand, lets come down to earth about this, it's a 70s wargame with limited military fact.



< Message edited by iamspamus -- 1/22/2009 6:49:25 PM >

(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 75
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/22/2009 8:43:48 PM   
hellfirejet


Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline
"Grand strategy is military strategy at the level of movement and use of an entire nation state or empire's resources."

Quote by iamspamus.

Hi Jason,
The game has movement and diplomacy, but it don't use ENTIRE NATION STATE OR EMPIRE'S RESOURSES. Entire means all resourses everything, well this game don't use all resourses, nope that it don't.

It's a Diplomacy game with ABSTRACTED MILITARY FORCES.

Anyway this ain't improving the game, so we will agree to differ! All I want is a more enjoyable game for everyone

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 1/22/2009 11:20:43 PM >


_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

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

(in reply to iamspamus)
Post #: 76
RE: Fleet strengths historical v Empires in Arms - 1/22/2009 11:46:11 PM   
hellfirejet


Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Thanks Jason,

Your post in the previous message stating that EiANW is a grand strategic simulations and that all resourses were used, highlighted this glaring error in the game no 3 Deckers, there are a great number of resourses not accounted for everywhere in the game.


I should point out that 3Deckers were the flagships of the fleets and 90% of the time that is where you would find the Admiral of the fleet, so maybe to get the Admiral bonus a fleet should have a 3Decker present. ( I don't think Napoleon or any other land Generals rode into battle on a DONKEY ?)


1st & 2nd Rates ( 3 Decker )= 11/2 Combat bonus + 4 morale + Admiral bonus.
3rd & 4th Rate ( 2 Decker ) = 1 Combat + 3 morale.

So fleet types = Heavy,Medium, light & Transports.

Note this upgrade don't alter game balanced because all Nations can have 3 Decker morale and combat bonus.

3DECKERS Britain,France,Spain,Russia & Turkey all built them.

Also there is no need to build 3Deckers at the start of the game, because they are already in the fleets at setup.

One possible solution to this naval thing is as below;

Heavy Fleets = 1st & 2nd Rates, fleet size 10, cost $12, build 15 months,11/2 Combat + 4 Morale + Admiral bonus.

Medium Fleets = 3rd & 4th Rates, fleet size 20, cost $9, build 12 months, 1 Combat + 3 Morale.

Light Fleets = 5th & unrated, Fleet size 20, cost $6, built 9 months, 1/2 Combat + 2 Morale.

Transports = Transports & Merchant, Fleet size 60, cost $3, build 6 months.

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 1/23/2009 2:32:19 AM >


_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

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

(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 77
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> OT: - Boston Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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

0.141