Capturing transports

[Ralegh]

Current behaviour:
- if as a result of a battle in a sea area all combat vessels are lost, then any transports on that side are captured.
- if as a result of a port raid all combat vessels are lost, transports are NOT captured.
- transports ARE captured if they are the only thing in the port when a port raid occurs.

BUG. Desired behaviour: If in a port raid all combat vessels on one side are lost, any transports in the port should be automatically captured.


-----
As a seperate issue, many players think this is unhistorical. I agree. Perhaps one day in the distant future we can implement the EIH rule whereby only a portion are captured, and then the captured vessels have a chance to not make it to nearest friendly port - etc etc. This would be one for the wish list, I think.

[Marshall Ellis]

Steve:
 
I thought we all decided that going into port and capturing xports after a port raid was not the preferred method?
 
 

[gwheelock]

My suggestion is that surviving (after taking losses from harbor guns) raiders
can each KILL (not capture) 1 transport.
 
This should more closely represent the time constraints that the raiders would
be working under (ie. get their shot off & then get the h*** out of there before
the harbor batteries get another shot in)
 
(This assumes a GARRISONED port.  If there is no garrison; then yes they should
be able to capture the entire transport fleet)

[bresh]

Yeah, I dont see how some ships can sail out of habor dragging a anchored transport fleet along.
 
 
Regards
Bresh

[Jimmer]

Some variant of gwheelock's idea might fit the bill, too (numbers are merely for illustration). Items happen in this order:
 
Kill 1 transport per 5 heavy ships present
Capture 1 additional transport for the third group of 5 ships
Repeat until all ships accounted for
 
So, with every 15 heavies attacking, 3 transports would be killed and one captured (the capture only happening if there were four transports to start with).

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Some variant of gwheelock's idea might fit the bill, too (numbers are merely for illustration). Items happen in this order:

Kill 1 transport per 5 heavy ships present
Capture 1 additional transport for the third group of 5 ships
Repeat until all ships accounted for

So, with every 15 heavies attacking, 3 transports would be killed and one captured (the capture only happening if there were four transports to start with).

How can you explain transports beeing towed away from a garrisoned habor, note a habor with canons, this is not logical. You sink the ships, you cant capture transports while they are at the docks and anchored, and secured.

At sea, transports got captured, I fail to remember any incident where this happend while inside a city.


Regards
Bresh

[Jimmer]

Ones that were prepping for a voyage. That's one reason why it would be fewer than the ones just sunk.
 
You also need to remember that even the cannons firing from shore are made generic in this game (like everything else in naval). They get only one "shot" in the game, but that represents the number of kills they inflict over the course of the entire battle (which could last many hours). Those dead ships could have been attempting to make captures at the end of regular combat. Remember that they managed to sink EVERY defending ship. That would have required quite a bit of maneuvering to accomplish.

[Marshall Ellis]

I think the testers mentioned to me that it was not very realistic to think that these raiders could go into a port and snag these fleets while troops and cannons were there. I tend to agree with this. Is there any historical precedent here that someone knows about that would indicate otherwise?
 

[Jimmer]

Only nighttime pirate raids, and none of those "officially" ever happened (nations just "lost" ships ... somehow).
 

[Jimmer]

But, I could certainly go with "they can't be captured, but they CAN be killed". I'm not really emotionally tied to any of these. Transports are pretty worthless, except to GB.

[Marshall Ellis]

Understood. I actually like the idea of transports being available to some of the MPs that don't have the large navies. It gives some unlikely MPs a chance to make some interesting amphib moves. I actually thought they were less valuable to GB because of all the Heavies she has BUT very important to a smaller MP such as Turkey.
 
 

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Understood. I actually like the idea of transports being available to some of the MPs that don't have the large navies. It gives some unlikely MPs a chance to make some interesting amphib moves. I actually thought they were less valuable to GB because of all the Heavies she has BUT very important to a smaller MP such as Turkey.

Transports, fullfills some role, giving the "major" fleets more options.
I do enjoy them as Turkey.

Though their moveallowence doesnt give them many uses.

Regards
Bresh

[Jimmer]

Actually, Marshall, the reason for my comment about transports is their movement. The only power that has "real" targets within range three with any regularity is GB. Austria could count Romagna and Naples in such a way, too, but they can just as easily walk there. Paying $1 per econ phase for the rest of the game pretty much precludes Austria (or Prussia) from using them.
 
They CAN fulfill some minor roles for Turkey or Russia can use them in the Black Sea. But with the Dardenelles not closed off to enemies, that gets a little dicey.
 
I think giving them movement 4 and/or the possibility of acting as an automatic depot for troops actually in that sea zone would be useful. In other words, don't require the troops to land if there are transports present, and don't make the transports have to have a depot to supply them (but, they still need to pay for supply, just not the depot). I would not have this "free depot" allow invasion supply, although I wouldn't object to it, either.
 
Regarding moving 4 spaces, if the above idea about transports being allowed to keep troops on board is adopted, then the movement of four could be allowed, but only when they start at sea (they have a "running start", more or less).

[Marshall Ellis]

Jimmer:
 
OK, I see now. The transport capacity benefit is mostly negated by its lack of movement ability. Good point on that! I think we're using the EiH movement factors. Do you know why the MA was "3" on the transports? Would changing that change the balance? Just curious...

[Ashtar]

Marshall, just my two cents:

1.
Before worrying about transports there are a lot of much more critical enhancements to be answered to improve the
game, like - to cite a few - loaning units WITH leaders, loaning ships, awarding political points (pp) for loaned
units involved into battles, halving the pp gained/lost in naval battles, giving Constantinople control
over the Dardanelles, reintroducing the Kingdom of Italy, allowing single defending corps to ask for
reinforcement from nearby troops (now AI runs them and does not), fix corps landing from blockaded boxes.
These are all extensively tested EIA features and their lack significantly unbalance present gameplay.

2.
About transport movement allowance and game balance.
Original EIA had some optional rule to limit fleet movements in large stacks and/or transporting troops.
Anyhow this limit could not reduce movement below 4, so increasing transport movement to 4 could be reasonable.
On the other hand, it could be a very good idea to to reduce the movement allowance of heavy and light fleets transporting corps to 5 or 6.
On reverse, higher movement rates for transport or other strangeness could seriously unbalance the game.
In particular:

(...) the possibility [for transports] of acting as an automatic depot for troops actually in that sea zone would be useful. In other words, don't require the troops to land if there are transports present, and don't make the transports have to have a depot to supply them (...)

is absolutely foolish.

Presently, the only way to transport troops over long sea distance is to have some intermediate place where to land them. This gives great strategic importance (as it was historically) to places like Malta, Corfu, Gibraltar...
Spoil Malta and Gibraltar from GB and you would have cut its access to Mediterranean. Change the rules as Jimmer suggested and GB will not care at all about those strategic possessions. Let corps stay at sea for more then one phase, and you will see huge armies waiting months at sea the right moment to land on enemy soil.
More generally, the smallest is the "sea range" over which you can transport troops, the more important are strategic considerations. The longer gets the sea range, the more minors importance is solely determined by their money/manpower contribution.
If Turkey wants to project in the entire Mediterranean, for instance, it has probably to conquer either Sicily or Tunisia. Spain and GB, knowing that, will oppose this policy. Spain too needs the south of Italy to project east. Give Turkey the ability to project everywhere and it will invariably open his game in Jen 1805 by declaring war to Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria at once. Maybe to Tripolitania too.
Moreover, even if GB has a huge fleet, it will keep it invariably busy blockading French ships and guarding the channel from a Spanish betrayal. So you are left with your transport fleets and your Malta and Gibraltar bases to bully around on the African coast...
Finally, remember that this is Napoleonic era and not WWII. Amphib operations were extremely difficult to realize, and I strongly suspect that even present rule make them too easy to plan/realize.

In conclusion, my advice: do not increase transports movements above 4, DO NOT let corps stay at sea for more then one month and seriously consider reducing other fleets movement with corps onboard to 5 or 6 (maybe 6 if <= 5 factors onboard and 5 if more then that).

[Marshall Ellis]

Ashtar:
&nbsp;
Appreciate the 2 cents! Make no mistake that this transport discussion is for action at a much later date!
I'm battling evil in other dimensions right now (Some of which you stated).
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Jimmer:

OK, I see now. The transport capacity benefit is mostly negated by its lack of movement ability. Good point on that! I think we're using the EiH movement factors. Do you know why the MA was "3" on the transports? Would changing that change the balance? Just curious...

It would indeed change balance, but I don't know by how much (I never played EiH).

If you took a poll, though, I think most people would say they are pretty close to useless as they stand. Once the Dardenelles stuff is cleared up, Turkey could find big uses for them (as they are). Russia, if she has the guts/insanity to place them in the Black Sea at the beginning of the game, could find them useful there, too. But, she might be giving up Sweden to do it.

Austria and Prussia are pretty close to insane if they spend any money more than one factor on them. GB, France, and Spain find them mildly usefull, with GB the most (due to close interaction with a near-constant enemy) and France the least (because they're always stuck in port).

Changing movement to 4 would make them much more useful, but still not "great". The reason I suggested a hybrid approach is simply to prevent the change from being too large. I would take a poll before implementing, though, and there easily could be things I didn't think of.

Allowing them to supply the local sea zone's troops for free could prove useful. This would require the corollary rule change that troops can be left on board ships in general or transports, without dying. And, I don't think it would unbalance things to much (they're still quite vulnerable). Combining this with the hybrid movement change (speed 4 only if they started at sea) may be unbalancing, but it certainly might get people to think about actually using them, too (especially GB).

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Allowing them to supply the local sea zone's troops for free could prove useful. This would require the corollary rule change that troops can be left on board ships in general or transports, without dying. And, I don't think it would unbalance things to much (they're still quite vulnerable). Combining this with the hybrid movement change (speed 4 only if they started at sea) may be unbalancing, but it certainly might get people to think about actually using them, too (especially GB).

I do belive allowing Corps stay on fleets is not very EIA.
EIA 6.2.5.2
I wouldnt strongly hope this would not happen.

Allowing 4-5 move, might do it.



Regards
Bresh

[Ashtar]

A big NO NO!!!

It would indeed change balance, but I don't know by how much (I never played EiH). (..)

Allowing them to supply the local sea zone's troops for free could prove useful. This would require the corollary rule change that troops can be left on board ships in general or transports, without dying. And, I don't think it would unbalance things to much (...)

Jimmer, as I wrote three posts ago, this would change things A LOT. Do you see those little minors with 0$ 0 manpower
so utterly important to GB (Gibraltar and Malta)? They are important since without them GB cannot operate reasonably
in the Mediterranean sea. Implement your rule and they will be useless.
And the fine complex strategies major powers currently need to project their military power far away will disappear
thanks to your "near teleport" rule. This is Napoleonic era, not WWII

If you took a poll, though, I think most people would say they are pretty close to useless as they stand.

They are not. They can be used to invasion supply your troops ashore without diverting your heavy ships from more important tasks, and they can transport a lot of your troops at a reasonable distance (like from Adalia to Tripoli if you are the Turk) and then from Tripoli to Tunisi and Algeri to seal the Ottoman Empire in only 6 months if you are the Turk). Spain can go to Africa and (from Maiorca) to Italy... Sure, Prussia cannot use them to invade the Papacy
and Austria cannot enjoy Portugal sweet wine, but I hope you will agree with me this would be foolish.

Changing movement to 4 would make them much more useful, but still not "great"

Transport are cheaper and faster to build then other ships, they have to be useful (and indeed they are) not "great" and game unbalancing. For instance, I suppose Nappy could find great being able to use his artillery to bomb London over the blocked channel, but I would rather avoid introducing this option in EIANW.

[gwheelock]

ORIGINAL: bresh

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Allowing them to supply the local sea zone's troops for free could prove useful. This would require the corollary rule change that troops can be left on board ships in general or transports, without dying. And, I don't think it would unbalance things to much (they're still quite vulnerable). Combining this with the hybrid movement change (speed 4 only if they started at sea) may be unbalancing, but it certainly might get people to think about actually using them, too (especially GB).

I do belive allowing Corps stay on fleets is not very EIA.
EIA 6.2.5.2
I wouldnt strongly hope this would not happen.

Allowing 4-5 move, might do it.



Regards
Bresh

The WHOLE naval system is "not very EIA" - EIA didn't have multiple types/classes of ship.

I don't think allowing troops to continue to live on transport fleets to be a game unbalancer.
This would allow Russia to ship an army from St. Pete down the Africa - it would just take time
& would mitigate the problems with the 3 movement (an especially big problem when you also
have to stop & reload your troops every month)