What to expect...

[Marshall Ellis]

Hey guys:

I wanted to let you guys know what to expect in our first release. This is really a summary of what is different in EiANW that is not in classic EiA.

1. Map based on EiH v4.0
2. Minor diplomacy based on EiH v3.0 (Influenced, allied minors).
3. Naval units based on EiH v3.0 (Heavy, light and tranports).
4. Combat is based on classic EiA (Chits and tables are identical).
5. Solo play (AI had 3 levels of difficulty selectable for each MP).
6. In game MP bidding or MP bidding import capable.
7. External combat resolution (Good for combat resolution outside of game ie. miniatures).
8. PBEM. The game host can skip a player's turn, use the AI to play a turn or replace a player.

Anyway, just a few things I wanted to let you guys know. I may have have stated these in the past but a features summary is probably "a little" overdue.

Thank you

[qgaliana]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

7. External combat resolution (Good for combat resolution outside of game ie. miniatures).

Argh! And I let my kids eat, fold, spindle, torch etc. all my old plastic napoleonics [:D]

[rod]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Hey guys:

I wanted to let you guys know what to expect in our first release. This is really a summary of what is different in EiANW that is not in classic EiA.

1. Map based on EiH v4.0
2. Minor diplomacy based on EiH v3.0 (Influenced, allied minors).
3. Naval units based on EiH v3.0 (Heavy, light and tranports).
4. Combat is based on classic EiA (Chits and tables are identical).
5. Solo play (AI had 3 levels of difficulty selectable for each MP).
6. In game MP bidding or MP bidding import capable.
7. External combat resolution (Good for combat resolution outside of game ie. miniatures).
8. PBEM. The game host can skip a player's turn, use the AI to play a turn or replace a player.

Anyway, just a few things I wanted to let you guys know. I may have have stated these in the past but a features summary is probably "a little" overdue.

Thank you

Anyone that can tell me about 1, 2 and 3 EiH or maybe post a link to some rules, so i can be ready when game comes out ?

[Froonp]

Looks good ! [:D] Thanks Marshall !

EiH is Empire in Harm, an Empire in Arms game with lots of house rule.
From what I know of it (very little), this is real improvement over the original game.

You can google a lot of info by typing its name.
http://www.empiresinharm.com/

[Ursa MAior]

In reference to point 3.
 
With all repsect, my I ask to call the heavy ships ships of the line (since all were SOLs) and the light ones frigates, since the majority of them were IRL 18-44 gun 6th rates (see N.A.M Rodgers command of the ocean)? Even though Europa Universalis is not compatible, it also used similar phraseology. Just to be more historic. Thank you in advance.
 
 

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

In reference to point 3.

With all repsect, my I ask to call the heavy ships ships of the line (since all were SOLs) and the light ones frigates, since the majority of them were IRL 18-44 gun 6th rates (see N.A.M Rodgers command of the ocean)? Even though Europa Universalis is not compatible, it also used similar phraseology. Just to be more historic. Thank you in advance.

This would be neither accurate nor desirable.

At this scale, the naval strength points represent units of ships that may comprise several different types. They do not connote individual ships.

Ships of the line and frigates often sailed together as part of the same force, and they were accompanied by many secondary and auxiliary vessels, as well. A squadron of "light" combatants could include frigates, brigs, schooners, and any number of other types.

Besides, not all ships of "18-44 guns" were frigates, and many frigates carried more guns than that. The lightest-armed frigates of the period were around 32 guns, and some carried as many as 54 or 58 (in fact, some 64-gun ships in the Royal Navy were classed "frigates" due to the number of decks on which the primary batteries were situated).

I prefer the game's terminology. A "heavy" naval combat unit would be one composed primarily of ships of the line, to be sure, but the terminology indicates accurately that these are your "big, bad, and loaded for bear" squadrons, no matter what the individual ships are called. "Light" connotes that this is a group best suited for tasks other than taking on "heavy" units.

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

In reference to point 3.

With all repsect, my I ask to call the heavy ships ships of the line (since all were SOLs) and the light ones frigates, since the majority of them were IRL 18-44 gun 6th rates (see N.A.M Rodgers command of the ocean)? Even though Europa Universalis is not compatible, it also used similar phraseology. Just to be more historic. Thank you in advance.

This would be neither accurate nor desirable.

At this scale, the naval strength points represent units of ships that may comprise several different types. They do not connote individual ships.

Ships of the line and frigates often sailed together as part of the same force, and they were accompanied by many secondary and auxiliary vessels, as well. A squadron of "light" combatants could include frigates, brigs, schooners, and any number of other types.

Besides, not all ships of "18-44 guns" were frigates, and many frigates carried more guns than that. The lightest-armed frigates of the period were around 32 guns, and some carried as many as 54 or 58 (in fact, some 64-gun ships in the Royal Navy were classed "frigates" due to the number of decks on which the primary batteries were situated).

I prefer the game's terminology. A "heavy" naval combat unit would be one composed primarily of ships of the line, to be sure, but the terminology indicates accurately that these are your "big, bad, and loaded for bear" squadrons, no matter what the individual ships are called. "Light" connotes that this is a group best suited for tasks other than taking on "heavy" units.

Well even thugh frigates acommpanied SOLs they DID not take part in the fighting so they are irrelevant in this sense since the number of ships is used only to calculate their fighting power (to which frigates do not contribute). I dont mind if the units are called squadrons divisions whatever but this heavy/light separation is both ahistorical and inaccurate since when sailing with SOLs you would call frigates heavies and when sailing with unrated ships they suddenly become lights.

If you insist we still can use the contemporary cruiser for 6th rates and below (which were nevertheless dominatly 60-80% frigates) but in the heavies category I have yet to see another class beside SOLs (it is not the 20th century with battlecruisers and carriers to be included in the 'heavy class') so I dont understand why this nomenclature should be used.

Edit
In your system one could fill up his/her fleet with frigates and pretend they are SOLs. Nowhere except in the Hornblower series and 1-2 isolated cases have frigates fought SOLs, but never in fleet action.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior
Well even thugh frigates acommpanied SOLs they DID not take part in the fighting

This is absolutely incorrect, but I'm not interested in arguing with you. Whenever anyone disagrees with you, you get insulted, and, before long, the personal insults start.

I was merely trying to be informative on a subject that you, apparently, have not studied at all in any depth. My comments about game scale and naval force composition during this era have escaped you completely. Remaining true to the board game terminology doesn't seem to concern you, either.

As for erudition, I suggest that you start with a force composition and battle narrative for Trafalgar, then take it from there.

Bye.

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

In reference to point 3.

With all repsect, my I ask to call the heavy ships ships of the line (since all were SOLs) and the light ones frigates, since the majority of them were IRL 18-44 gun 6th rates (see N.A.M Rodgers command of the ocean)?`

Wow, another time when you talk out your ass. Paternakski basically dealt with this but you seriously need to review your sources, as usual, before you start talking.

Even though Europa Universalis is not compatible, it also used similar phraseology.

No, it didn't. It used Ship, Galley, Transport as the categories.

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

This is absolutely incorrect, but I'm not interested in arguing with you. Whenever anyone disagrees with you, you get insulted, and, before long, the personal insults start.

Having a bad hair day today hm?

I was merely trying to be informative on a subject that you, apparently, have not studied at all in any depth. My comments about game scale and naval force composition during this era have escaped you completely. Remaining true to the board game terminology doesn't seem to concern you, either.
As for erudition, I suggest that you start with a force composition and battle narrative for Trafalgar, then take it from there.

Well I stated one source, which says otherwise, but do you accept John keegan's Price of admirality? Do you think Euryalus sailed in the battle line? As I said frigates were parts of squadrons (like the Channel or the Mediterrenean) acting as scouts but themselves were NOT participating in battles between SOLs, since they were obviously not in the same league.

If you find a source which says otherwise I am open to a discussion, and I have a record of admitting if I was wrong so please feel free to support your opinion with FACTS.

As of board game terminology I've seen AARs where SOLs and frigates were used instead of the way too generalizing heavy/light phrases.

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: Murat

Wow, another time when you talk out your ass. Paternakski basically dealt with this but you seriously need to review your sources, as usual, before you start talking.

Well thanks for the optimism. How do you know where the sound is coming from? Perhaps looking ata mirror? [;)]

I am dealt if evidnces are shown.

Even though Europa Universalis is not compatible, it also used similar phraseology.

No, it didn't. It used Ship, Galley, Transport as the categories.

To be more precise WARship, Galley and transport which is hard to put other as SIMILAR, not SAME.

Thanks for being constructive. Ya know in the general forums after such opening lines people get a warning. I REALLY dont think you wanna go that LOW.

[Paper Tiger]

Actually the heavier Frigates absolutely did take part in fleet engagements, even major fleet battles, as the battles degraded down from major fleet engagements to skirmishes between smaller numbers this was even more so the case.
To give a rough estimate the British navy of around this period had roughly 2 or 3 non SOL rated ships for every SOL, including but not limited to sloops, ketches, brigantines, barques, schooners and frigates.
SOL and Heavy frigates would generally stand in line of battle in large engagements while the lighter stuff would run messages, relay signals, act as scouts and attempt to harrass any enemy actions in as far as they could.
On distant stations lighter frigates would often be included in line of battle.
If you still want to dismiss Frigates from taking part in battles, try looking up the ships involved in a few of the major engagements.
Here is one for you
Battle of the Nile
Frigates French guns are nominal numbers and the description varies for 40 gun ships from 36 to 48
Artemise(Captured) ,Diane & Justice 40 Gun
Seriuese 36 Gun (Sunk)
 
English
Leander 50
Mutine 16
 
 
 
 

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

Actually the heavier Frigates absolutely did take part in fleet engagements, even major fleet battles, as the battles degraded down from major fleet engagements to skirmishes between smaller numbers this was even more so the case.
To give a rough estimate the British navy of around this period had roughly 2 or 3 non SOL rated ships for every SOL, including but not limited to sloops, ketches, brigantines, barques, schooners and frigates.
SOL and Heavy frigates would generally stand in line of battle in large engagements while the lighter stuff would run messages, relay signals, act as scouts and attempt to harrass any enemy actions in as far as they could.
On distant stations lighter frigates would often be included in line of battle.
If you still want to dismiss Frigates from taking part in battles, try looking up the ships involved in a few of the major engagements.
Here is one for you
Battle of the Nile
Frigates French guns are nominal numbers and the description varies for 40 gun ships from 36 to 48
Artemise(Captured) ,Diane & Justice 40 Gun
Seriuese 36 Gun (Sunk)

English
Leander 50
Mutine 16

With all respect where were they fighting? The 4 french frigates were anchored seperately from the battle line, and were also shot up. Mutine was helping the Culloden that ran aground check
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/onl ... e.htm#nile.

Leander was an old 4th rate two decker. (1780-1817)
http://es.geocities.com/ttroubridge/leander.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-rate

Just cuz some frigates are listed as having participated does not mean they actually fired a shot. See Euryalus in Trafalgar.

It could be that I have forgotten about some famous engagments, so I kindly ask you to please bring other examples, cuz this starting to be an interesting discussion. Of course if it makes you feel better you can start throwing insults at me.

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
Besides, not all ships of "18-44 guns" were frigates, and many frigates carried more guns than that. The lightest-armed frigates of the period were around 32 guns, and some carried as many as 54 or 58 (in fact, some 64-gun ships in the Royal Navy were

Oh yeah I forgot abut the super or heavy frigates such as Constitution, United States and President. Yes later some frigates were biult with 50+ guns and there were the ex 3rd razees too but IMHO they were rather the exception than the rule. Especially given that the Royal Navy had 160 cruisers (rated hips) in 1805, 183 in 1810 and 151 in 1815. Rest of the world posessed around the same amount. (source N.A.M Rodgers Command of the Ocean). How many superfrigates the US had? 8-10? The RN had probably around the same in number. Are they numerous enough to base a rule on them?

BTW there were MANY 20-28 9 pounder armed 6th rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth-rate

PS I usually dont use wiki as a reference but these issues are obscure enough not to draw cheesy cheaters' attention.

[carnifex]

So help me god, the next person who asks for a change to this game will feel my ...

[Paper Tiger]

Could I suggest looking at details of the following battles, Camperdown British vs Dutch in which a number of frigates took an active part, and also Copenhagen, in particular you may want to check the details of Nelsons squadron at Copenhagen.
 
One point to remember in all naval battles is that the commanders do not always get to choose not to commit the lighter elements of the squadron, at Camperdown British Frigates captured a number of Dutch ships, and at Aboukir bay and Copenhagen the defender was commited to all his ships, frigates and SOL standing in line. At Copenhagen additionally light elements were used both seperately from the SOL and with some Frigates directly in line of battle, while at Aboukir bay again as noted the British frigates only became involved "accidentally" but they did get involved.
And these are amongst the larger fleet actions of the period, if you need further details then try looking at the actions involved in the British capture of India and other small squadron actions. In these cases the frigates were almost always (well from what I have read) pressed into the line of battle to make up numbers.
Tell me what is the difference between a couple of 74's a 64 a couple of 48's and a 36 vs a similar squadron when compared to a 110 a 90 a 86 and a couple of 74's and a 64 vs a similar squadron? My answer would be the first battle is probably fought in the caribbean or Indian ocean while the second is closer to home.  

[pasternakski]

I know I said that I wasn't going to post on this thread again, but, fer chrissake, everybody, look at the unit scale. You are not talking individual ships here, you are wielding and building "unit points" that have to be seen as being at least squadron size. The abstraction is such that you are projecting naval power (whether expressed as "heavy," "light" or "transport") into the area where it is going, and accomplishing or failing to accomplish your objectives without having any control over force compositions or ship types (except at the level of - dare I say it again - "heavy" or "light" combatants or "transports").

What happened at Trafalgar, Copenhagen, Alexandria, or the Sea of Tranquility and what specific ship types were involved is nothing to the point of this game.

So, I now shut up again, probably to the relief of many.

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I know I said that I wasn't going to post on this thread again, but, fer chrissake, everybody, look at the unit scale. You are not talking individual ships here, you are wielding and building "unit points" that have to be seen as being at least squadron size. The abstraction is such that you are projecting naval power (whether expressed as "heavy," "light" or "transport") into the area where it is going, and accomplishing or failing to accomplish your objectives without having any control over force compositions or ship types (except at the level of - dare I say it again - "heavy" or "light" combatants or "transports").

What happened at Trafalgar, Copenhagen, Alexandria, or the Sea of Tranquility and what specific ship types were involved is nothing to the point of this game.

So, I now shut up again, probably to the relief of many.

No, scale of game indicates that one "fleet" is a squadron. From old EIA a fleet could have 30 "ships". Amazingly enough the British Coastal fleet was 30 "ships" if I recall correctly. So, I'd say that these ships probably represent a ship.

Jason

[StCyr]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
Remaining true to the board game terminology doesn't seem to concern you, either.
.
.
.
You are not talking individual ships here, you are wielding and building "unit points" that have to be seen as being at least squadron size. The abstraction is such that you are projecting naval power (whether expressed as "heavy," "light" or "transport") into the area where it is going, and accomplishing or failing to accomplish your objectives without having any control over force compositions or ship types (except at the level of - dare I say it again - "heavy" or "light" combatants or "transports").

Well said. And no need to shut up. I wonder how long Ursa goes on to argue like this about a game he never played and rules he goes on to ignore.
And sorry Jason, but check out EiH [:)]

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: iamspamus
No, scale of game indicates that one "fleet" is a squadron. From old EIA a fleet could have 30 "ships". Amazingly enough the British Coastal fleet was 30 "ships" if I recall correctly. So, I'd say that these ships probably represent a ship.

Jason

You know, I'd respond to your post if it made any frickin' sense at all, but it doesn't, so I won't.