Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Alternative ship type proposal

 
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 >> RE: Alternative ship type proposal Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/12/2009 10:21:30 PM   
Ashtar

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline
Hi Mardonious,
nice to read you...

quote:

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...

(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 31
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/13/2009 9:14:20 AM   
hellfirejet


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

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 10/14/2009 9:19:59 AM >


_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

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

(in reply to Ashtar)
Post #: 32
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/13/2009 2:11:52 PM   
hellfirejet


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

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 10/13/2009 2:17:44 PM >


_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

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

(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 33
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/13/2009 3:30:03 PM   
Ashtar

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline
quote:

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.



(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 34
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/14/2009 9:01:04 AM   
hellfirejet


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

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

quote:

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.

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 10/14/2009 9:14:21 AM >


_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

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

(in reply to Ashtar)
Post #: 35
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/14/2009 10:07:51 AM   
hellfirejet


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

(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 36
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/14/2009 10:44:57 AM   
Ashtar

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline
Hi hellfire,

quote:

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.

quote:

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.




(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 37
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/14/2009 10:55:00 AM   
Ashtar

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline
quote:

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



(in reply to Ashtar)
Post #: 38
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/14/2009 11:12:53 AM   
hellfirejet


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

(in reply to Ashtar)
Post #: 39
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/14/2009 5:38:34 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
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!



< Message edited by Marshall Ellis -- 10/14/2009 5:57:53 PM >


_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 40
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/14/2009 5:52:20 PM   
Skanvak

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline
Hell fire,

first/ The debate you have with Ashtar is the point I try to show you, to improve the system you need to think out of the box. That is do something different that give a better feeling of the battle of the time. Giving more than +1 with battle superiority might need a 2 dice table for example. The land battle is interesting because it is played on 2 level moral and actual troops. But I feel (but not sure) that another distinction is needed for naval battle.

Second/ I don't like the light ship, because I have a feeling that they don't operate in fleet and not for see superiority. So I feel that they should only be bought to be send to the privateer/escort pool.

Third/ If transport fleet simulate the gathering for invasion of England, they does not qualify for Fleet, just for sea-crossing arrow. May be you could "buy" a gathering of ships to create a sea arrow in a sea area that don't have one for 3 months and it disappear after. It will allow for invasion of Corsica for example.

I would be in line with Ashtar that fleet transporting corps should be limited to 5 mouvement points, that should do the trick. (3 is still too few).

When discuting recently, I begin to think that I would have liked better a straight EiA adaptation, and the EiH as optional (as I understand soem want them, aspecially the map).

Marshall, I don't think Hellfire is in a hurry. He still has to improve his proposal.

And may be can you looked at ours (only heavy fleet, limited to 5 movement points when carrying troops)

< Message edited by Skanvak -- 10/14/2009 5:53:26 PM >


_____________________________


Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to hellfirejet)
Post #: 41
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/16/2009 4:20:03 AM   
AresMars

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline

I want to throw this out for consideration.....

EIANW is a game and thus only simulates history...

With all due respect to the point of view of Hellfirejet, the effort to make the naval game more granular is a interesting idea _but_ IMHO a colossal waste of time without extensive play testing.

The important point to realize is that the winning and losing of the game is based on the effect of gaining and losing Political Points....and the VP collected from that effect....

On land, where the majority of the game is played PP are based on CORPS and not the components of those CORPS...the only variance to this is if CORPS can contact 20+ factors....

On the sea, where England rules supreme, the component is a FLEET COUNTER, where the number of fleets represents the ability to project NAVAL POWER and INFLUENCE.....

The game was designed with a specific number of fleet counters (GB 7, FR 4, SP and RS 3, Tu 2, and the various Minors with 1 each)

This allows GB to protect itself one on one, but against 2 or more enemies a challenge to the Wooden Wall arises...

It also allows France to gain control of the several minors and challenge England alone.....

All that is REALLY missing is the ADVANCED NAVAL CHART so that the 1 die roll effect is removed and returning the Fleets to 30 "ships" with the various optional rules for Naval transport and the such....

The adoption of the EIH naval CRAP (my word) added nothing to the game......



(in reply to Skanvak)
Post #: 42
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/16/2009 7:01:30 AM   
Skanvak

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline
quote:

a colossal waste of time without extensive play testing


That true for all rules changes.

I just want to add one thing, don't be too much focalized on balance, what is fun in EiA is that there is no real balance of power which allow the game to start.

_____________________________


Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to AresMars)
Post #: 43
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/16/2009 12:38:36 PM   
AresMars

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline

Balance is a critical part of any game.....

What is the fun if you dont have as equal a chance as any other player to WIN the game?

It is possible that our definations of fun are very different.....

(in reply to Skanvak)
Post #: 44
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/16/2009 1:40:20 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Hey guys:

I certainly would not implement any new units or change/offer optional the naval combat system without a ton of testing! I have added some stuff in the past that did affect balance (Big surprise huh?) so I am MUCH more resistant to changes this drastic than I was in the past. I'm not saying to no BUT I am challenging more stuff that deviates from the norm of EiA!

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to AresMars)
Post #: 45
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/16/2009 4:47:23 PM   
Skanvak

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline
quote:

What is the fun if you dont have as equal a chance as any other player to WIN the game?


In diplomacy game, if every one have equal chance to win the game don't start, there are no war when the relative power are balanced. It is because France is more powerful that the war can begun.

Diplomacy, is the way to try to change this state of thing, so balance is relatively less important than the dynamic of the game. Beside it is the VP goals that balance the chance of winning. But definetly a game that say I have strict equal chance of winning like Goose Game (stairs and snakes in english) is as a uninteresting as a game that garantee you lose/win. You need a dynamic, so a player with an advantage that make him move. Dynamics means unbalanced but not has much as the result to be known.

_____________________________


Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 46
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/17/2009 2:54:28 AM   
AresMars

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline

Okay, we wont hijack the thread....

I return the thread to its point of ship types etc.....

The point I was trying to make it is that the way to deal with that is make ships a "factor" thing and not a specific the way Hellfirejet is proposing....

The FLEET represents the Country Naval Power, the ability to transport, the way to win and lose political points....

There ALSO needs to be a way to balance the large sums of money that GB has, and that was reflected in the cost and build times found in EIA....

They do not represent the actual time and money involved as Mardionus has shown so well....

It is on these points of my previous post that I would prefer we focus....


(in reply to Skanvak)
Post #: 47
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/17/2009 8:26:44 AM   
Skanvak

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline
Ares,

quote:

There ALSO needs to be a way to balance the large sums of money that GB


hmm, I think that it is diplomacy that do that. GB is here to finance war in Europe.

quote:

The point I was trying to make it is that the way to deal with that is make ships a "factor" thing and not a specific the way Hellfirejet is proposing....


Thought I am not oppose to detail battle system, I agree with you that I don't see yet the advantage over a factor system. (that why I have not reply to this point first nothing much to add compare to my preious post, but for balance I am an admant opposer after some 30 years of gaming so hard to pass on it, sorry no mean to hijacked here).

< Message edited by Skanvak -- 10/17/2009 8:28:22 AM >


_____________________________


Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to AresMars)
Post #: 48
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/17/2009 12:49:53 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 2727
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

The point I was trying to make it is that the way to deal with that is make ships a "factor" thing and not a specific the way Hellfirejet is proposing....


Having two ship types (heavy and light) for main fleets and smaller squadrons, respectively, is adequate for a game of this scale. Introducing a third ship type (medium) or perhaps more would require further adjustments of the combat model and PP system. I agree that this issue could be handled offline as a factor thing with third party combat resolution where some percentage of heavy fleets could be considered to be medium ships (ie, 1 heavy = 2 medium or such) and upon resolution remaining medium ships are converted back to heavy factors.

There may be a valid basis for considering more naval flavor in the game and eventually considering a game option to introduce more ship types, but Marshall has enough on his plate just trying to implement the previously established rules for proportional losses and advanced naval combat. Those should be the priority. Once the game is "done" with bug fixes, rules deviation fixes, classic scenario, and AI enhancements, then new game options could be looked at.

quote:

There ALSO needs to be a way to balance the large sums of money that GB has, and that was reflected in the cost and build times found in EIA....

They do not represent the actual time and money involved as Mardionus has shown so well....


I'm still not convinced that this is an issue. Sure, if you reduce some costs then GB can build more, but then so can everyone else. This should make the game more dynamic, and not necessarily unbalanced in GB's favor. GB should still dominate with its qualitative and quantitative superiority, but would have to spread out more to handle diverse threats and that could allow another MP to gain local superiority. Introducing a little more naval action surely cannot hurt the game, no?

(in reply to Skanvak)
Post #: 49
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/17/2009 3:26:53 PM   
AresMars

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline

More naval action is not a bad thing.....this would be good....however, there is little that a more details ship subset would add....even when looking at a historical basis....

The EIA game reflects this already based on the fleet abstract i mentioned before.....EIH tried to expand on it, and I did not see a great improvment....

Naval evasion, interception, fleet transport are more important elements to the naval game IMHO - along with advanced Naval combat rules to minimize single die roll win/lose.

Something like - 1st round ships are damaged, 2nd round ships are 50/50 damaged/capture, last round are captured/damaged

This suggests that fleet factors have different states combat ready/damaged/hulk/captured which is possible to track in a computer game.....

Where I agree with Hellfirejet is that the current combat systems is very poor, that ship losses should be minimized, or losses should be factors LOST via capture to the victor, or a combo of both....

Just some disorganized thoughts on the subject......

I am enjoying the thread very much otherwise.....


(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 50
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/17/2009 4:20:01 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 2727
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

This suggests that fleet factors have different states combat ready/damaged/hulk/captured which is possible to track in a computer game.....


Agreed. EiH has rules along these lines that could be considered:

quote:

6.1 SHIP STATES
Ships have four possible states: active (in commission), in ordinary, under construction, and damaged.
6.1.1 ACTIVE (IN COMMISSION) SHIPS
These vessels represent the standing active naval forces of a nation, move and participate in combat.
6.1.2 SHIPS IN ORDINARY
These vessels are either lacking in crew or supplies, but are otherwise seaworthy vessels. With a little time and expense
these vessels can easily be returned to active duty.
• Ships in ordinary must be assigned to a port at the start of a Campaign when that Major Power sets up its naval forces
and that of controlled minor countries and Kingdoms.
• A ship in commission may be placed in ordinary at any port during the Naval Reinforcement Step (5.1.4). (The port
should be recorded in case of capture and limitations on harbour build capacity, optional rule, 8.5.4.2).
• Ships in ordinary may be taken as losses (becoming damaged) if enemy Fleet(s) runs the harbour guns and attack the
port. Ships in ordinary may not leave the port or otherwise participate in the battle.
• A ship in ordinary is returned to commission at a cost of $3 and one manpower factor. This process takes four months
with the ship arriving in the reinforcement phase in the manner of a new construction. It should be noted that bringing
ships out of ordinary contributes towards the harbour build capacity, in the same manner as new constructions (See
8.5.4.2). One ship may be brought out of ordinary at a time in any port, even if that port has no shipbuilding capacity.
6.1.3 SHIPS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
These vessels are ships in the process of being built. See 8.5.4 for building ships.
6.1.4 DAMAGED SHIPS
These vessels have either been damaged in combat, or suffering from extreme neglect.
• Damaged vessels take no part in naval combat.
• Damaged vessels may be repaired at a cost of $5 and one manpower factor, and return to commission in seven months.
(See 5.1.2 for placement procedure) Damaged vessels may be repaired at a cost of $3 and return to ordinary in four
months. It should be noted that repairing damaged ships contributes towards the harbour build capacity, in the same
manner as new constructions (See 8.5.4.2). One ship may be repaired at a time in any port, even if it has no
shipbuilding capacity.
• Damaged vessels not in home nation ports may be repaired and recommissioned, though money costs are 1.5 times
normal and it takes 1.5 times (round down) as long to repair the vessel. EXCEPTION: Malta and Gibraltar are
considered part of the British home nation for purposes of this rule.

(in reply to Ashtar)
Post #: 51
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/18/2009 3:21:41 AM   
SkyElf

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 12/19/2004
Status: offline
Note there is another ship not mention, the bomb Ketch which armed with one large mortar which fired from a short barreled cannon used to fire shells at high angles mostly used in seizing ports!  Although in the grand scale of the game it is not needed.  Yes, the Naval Warfare is lacking in the game and can be improved later when time is available to work on it!

1st and 3rd rates Ships of the Line could pulverized with a well aimed one broadside to a Sloop, Schooner, Brig, (Bomb Ketch) they relied on speed and manuvering and shallow water. During a sea battle they would stand off and signal messages from Flagship to other ships.  Even a frigate would not stand up very long to 1st and 3rd rates Ships of the Line.  The smaller ships were to scout for enemy ships ahead of main fleet to send despatches to naval station or a fleet.  Sailing close to shore to capture merchant ships trying to evade capture, land raids,etc. They proved very versatile ships to have.  Galleys are another ship around for along time which used oars and sail primary oars to move in enclosed waters like Med./Baltic.  In general with the introduction of the introduction cannons the galley was on the way to being obsolete.  Lepanto II 7th Oct. 1571 was the last great sea battle of oared ships!

I believe a good read on Naval Sea Power is "The Influence of Sea Power Upon History" by Rear Adm. Alfred Thayer Mahan!  A new book just out is Fighting Techniques of Naval Warfare: 1190 BC-Present: Strategy, Weapons, Commanders, and Ships
By Dickie Iain, Dougherty Martin J., Jestice Phyllis J. at Amazon I found it looking up the info on the book I have read. 


_____________________________

A True Gamer to the Core!

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 52
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/19/2009 2:01:22 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline
Great thoughts here Ashtar... I like the uncertainty of the sea movement you have encapsulated and think such variable concepts of movement might be good to work into a system.

I would (being the questioning person that I am) ask you to not be 100% confident of the statement "Obviously Malta was needed as an intermediate base, to forage troops and to protect communications between France and Egypt."

There was no certainty of the French stopping at Malta and, though revictually did occur, I am doubtful that this was a requirement. More likely, it was Napoleon want to add another conquest to his record. Certainly not a big deal in the day, but the hearkening back to the siege of 1565 (this date is a guess from my distant recollection so is probably wrong) and the Ottoman defeat by the Knights of St John is was a clarion call across Europe.

If you want figures on the ability of the French to move troops by sea (albeit during a hiatus of conflict with Britain... so the combat mechanisms are not there) look at the transport of troops to Hispaniola (Haiti) during the Peace of Amiens. Lots more troops, I believe, move far farther than Egypt...

Anyway, some great thoughts and I would appreciate that we make a record of these conversations so that when we actually make the Naval Rules draft we haev a solid point to start our discourse from.

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 Ashtar)
Post #: 53
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/19/2009 2:07:44 PM   
Mardonius


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

Your ratio of fleet point is critical. Any Naval System would, in my opinion, have to work around those ratios with perhaps some minor tweaking for local (meaning not able to force the English channel) options.

However, I do not think that the proposed revision of the naval system would ever be a waste of time. The current system is in adequate and has been recognized as such by naval afficiandos for 25 years now. I will grant you this, though, the GENERAL MAGAZINE article that revised the naval rules also has problems. I reckon that the adopted solution should have, basically, potential results roughly in line with the current system with more potenial for vaiable and dynamism.

I am going to use your points about the VP and Political Points in a different thread (Winning the Game) as they are cogent and captured how the MP input has been overlooked herein...

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 AresMars)
Post #: 54
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/19/2009 2:17:29 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline
Great points SkyElf. I'd love to capture these and other aspects as part of a naval rules revision.

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 SkyElf)
Post #: 55
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/19/2009 2:19:32 PM   
Mardonius


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

Some great ideas on this list. Of course I woudl quibble with one or two but there are some gems here.
So a lot of the work that would need to be done is already done.

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 pzgndr)
Post #: 56
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/20/2009 10:40:01 AM   
Ashtar

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline
Hi Mardonious,
quote:

I would (being the questioning person that I am) ask you to not be 100% confident of the statement "Obviously Malta was needed as an intermediate base, to forage troops and to protect communications between France and Egypt."

There was no certainty of the French stopping at Malta and, though revictually did occur, I am doubtful that this was a requirement. More likely, it was Napoleon want to add another conquest to his record. Certainly not a big deal in the day, but the hearkening back to the siege of 1565 (this date is a guess from my distant recollection so is probably wrong) and the Ottoman defeat by the Knights of St John is was a clarion call across Europe.


I agree I have been a bit too positive. However, I still think naval bases were quite important
(as they always have been, have a look at the role played by Malta in WWII) and I would like this factor to be captured by the game.

It is obvious that GB needs Malta and Gibraltar to project into the Mediterranean --or Russia may benefit from Rhodes) --, and this could be reflected in mechanism that penalize/improve trading, and/or help in anti-privateering operations (EiH had different map sectors for privateering) and/or facilitate troop transport/supply in the eastern part of Mediterranean. I personally think rules along this lines will had much more strategic depth to the naval part of the game that any further micro-differentiation in ship types.

quote:


If you want figures on the ability of the French to move troops by sea (albeit during a hiatus of conflict with Britain... so the combat mechanisms are not there) look at the transport of troops to Hispaniola (Haiti) during the Peace of Amiens. Lots more troops, I believe, move far farther than Egypt...


Point taken, indeed the French sent there two expeditions, the first 12.000 men strong, the second 15.000. Each voyage involved smaller numbers then Egypt invasion (25.000) but still impressive. However, as you pointed out, they really had not the need to fight their way through/escaping an opposing Naval force.

(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 57
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/20/2009 12:32:28 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 2727
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

Some great ideas on this list. Of course I woudl quibble with one or two but there are some gems here.
So a lot of the work that would need to be done is already done.


Mardonius, yeah no point reinventing the wheel since there are established rules already. IMHO, best thing would be to eventually implement all these rules and allow players to reassess the overall naval model. Then make adjustments and consider enhancements down the road.

Big question may be which rules to make official and which to leave as genuine game options. Would players NOT want to use the proportional losses rule? Would players NOT want to use the advanced naval combat model with chit selection? Etc. It may be easier for Marshall (and for AI development) to focus on primary rulesets without a plethora of game options except for those where players are adamently split on what rules to use.

(in reply to Ashtar)
Post #: 58
RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/26/2009 9:39:46 PM   
Skanvak

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline
I found 2 set of optional rules, some part deal with shipyard and capturing ships.

http://home.earthlink.net/~toadkillerdog/eia/afa_rules.html

same one but from grognard website

http://grognard.com/variants/eiasuppl.txt

http://grognard.com/variants/eianat.txt

< Message edited by Skanvak -- 10/26/2009 9:48:28 PM >


_____________________________


Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 59
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> RE: Alternative ship type proposal Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.218