Harbour Build Limits

[pzgndr]

So I take it that everybody agrees that we are we negating the harbour build limits?

I would caution against throwing out the baby with the bath water. Wherever possible to provide game options or editor options for players to use either classic EiA OOBs/map/rules/etc, EiH variants or mix&match, that would be best. Since build limits are probably hardcoded with the map data, maybe an on/off game option would be the way to go? I can see where different size ports should have different build limits, but it seems the more critical issue is costs and build times.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
December 1804 build? Wheeeeew! Now you're really scaring me since I would have to part the Red Sea to make that one happen. I've never heard that one before???

This one became popular through some wargaming magazine in the 80s, I think. The idea is that people never get ANY factors until at least April, and not until June or later do they get GOOD factors. So, doing a pre-game turn allowed them to have some boys show up earlier in the game.

It was favored more by guys who liked early wars (or, even, pre-game wars). So, our groups never used it.

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

It would be great to include this option in the editor.

I can't say what everybody else was thinking, but I woudl like to see the editor allow ship costs and builds to be reduced.
Perhaps a sliding scale with LS running down to $6 and 6 months and HS down to $9 and 9 months. (Plus, please ensure that the extra month of delivery time is removed.... A light ship started in December shows up in the January after the next Dec)

I can certainly quickly get you historical build times if you want. Will take some time to get the costs, but these could be gained by doing relative costs compared to the cost of outfitting a regiment of infantry or cavalry.


Another minor thing you might want to include in the editor... we used to allow a December 1804 build at the start of a Jan 1805 campaign to keep the flow of forces and money moving.


best
Mardonius

I think ship build times should be 12 months for heavy, 9 months for light.

Regards
Bresh

[Jimmer]

Hey, Marshall? How about getting the ship building MONTH moved back a month. If I buy ships now in December, they show up in 13 months. They really should show up in December.
 
This is NOT critical at all, but would help. The current numbers are 19 months and 13 months, so that would shave a whole month off of each.
 
By the way, the number of months to build, IF changed (and it should be an OPTIONAL change, as always) does not have to be a multiple of 3. I think they did that in the boardgame so it fit on the chart better. A computer doesn't have that limitation.

[j-s]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
What are we deciding on the build times / cost.

First, thank you if you will remove building limits.

Then, time for heavy ship should be 12 months. This is long time in game, anyway. 18 month building time is too long and helps just GB. After all, I hope that "original" naval rules (only one kind of ships, 30 ships/fleet and building time 12 months) can be used in the future.

[Marshall Ellis]

Does everybody agree with 12 and 9 build times (Hvy then Lt)?
 

[Jimmer]

I can agree with that.
 
How about transports? As long as you are in the code, if we adopt 12 and 9, should transports drop to 3? It's not essential (especially since I've not once seen them built), but it might cause a few people to actually buy a few (Prussia and Austria come to mind).

[Jimmer]

Oh, and what about existing games? I am assuming that ships already in the pipe will maintain whatever their originally-set arrival date was going to be (about which I would have no complaints). But, you probably should double-check the code to make sure something isn't going to blow up (you may have situations where ships are already in the pipe, and new ships get built, but they arrive BEFORE the first set, or at the same time).

[fvianello]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
Does everybody agree with 12 and 9 build times (Hvy then Lt)?

I'm not so sure it's a good idea....I cannot say I find it illogical, as build times are probably too high, but there's something fishy about it.

The only suggestion is to leave the ship costs unchanged; creating a fleet is and must remain a difficult and insanely expensive task.

[Marshall Ellis]

So change times BUT not cost?
I need a few more to chime in.
 

[j-s]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

So change times BUT not cost?
I need a few more to chime in.

Original cost for ship was 10 and for cavalry 15.
Ships are too expensive, at least heavy ships.

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
Does everybody agree with 12 and 9 build times (Hvy then Lt)?

I'm not so sure it's a good idea....I cannot say I find it illogical, as build times are probably too high, but there's something fishy about it.

The only suggestion is to leave the ship costs unchanged; creating a fleet is and must remain a difficult and insanely expensive task.

Although I usually agree with Hanbarca, I rejoin his comment that the fllet should be insanely difficult to build. I will get some hard data so I am not writing out of my backside, but there real dificulty is less cost (though certainly considerable) and more training, which requires years at sea.

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
Does everybody agree with 12 and 9 build times (Hvy then Lt)?

I'm not so sure it's a good idea....I cannot say I find it illogical, as build times are probably too high, but there's something fishy about it.

The only suggestion is to leave the ship costs unchanged; creating a fleet is and must remain a difficult and insanely expensive task.

Although I usually agree with Hanbarca, I rejoin his comment that the fllet should be insanely difficult to build. I will get some hard data so I am not writing out of my backside, but there real dificulty is less cost (though certainly considerable) and more training, which requires years at sea.

OK here is what I got in about 20 minutes of research:

1799 to 1804 period

Frigate: Large US one around $300k. Small US 200k
SOL 400 to 500K. Say 500 K including crew bounties etc.
Gunboat: $10,500
Source: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:C4 ... cd=4&gl=us

Do a search on costs or ships and you’ll see the numbers

Each British man cost £26 to train as a infantry soldier in 1795 or so. Assuming each factor equals 1500 men, then each infantry facots cost £39k pounds.
Source:
http://books.google.com/books?id=xiV5Q7 ... #PPA131,M1
page 130, see foot notes

Exchange of US Dollars to British Pounds during this period is roughly rate 5 to 1
http://www.likesbooks.com/money.html
(OK, not the most scholary source, but it will do for rough numbers as those love novels are a huge genre and well researched. [;)])

Therefore, a regiment of 1500 men costs about 190, 000 dollars or just under half of a cost ship of the line, minus the ship’s crew.

In our EiA World, an infantry regiment costs $3. Based on our rations, a ship of the line (heavy Ship) should cost around $7 or 8 at most.

A frigate (light ship) should cost $3 or $4.

Note that these numbers discount maintenance costs, but these are mostly ignored in EiA for both Land and Sea forces.

Therefore, it is not unrealistic to significantly lower the costs of building a navy.

If anybody wants me to research build times, I will do so.

best
Mardonius

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

So change times BUT not cost?
I need a few more to chime in.

Cost could change, too, and it would get my blessing. But, cavalry prices should go up to match.

However, please remember that this should all be "optional", not mandatory. IF you can swing that, that is.

[fvianello]

Really nice research Mardonius!
Despite that the conclusions (8$ for a heavy ship and 3$ for a light one) leave me with some doubts that I'll try to summarize:

Historically, since the Greek era building a fleet was one of the most expensive and long tasks a city or nation could embark upon.

Talking of simulations, I cannot remember a single good strategic abstract game where a trireme/line ship/dreadnought/battleship/carrier factor wasn't by far the most expensive and longest item to build (with maybe the only exception of fortresses and atomic bomb).

In other words, making heavy ships only slightly more expensive than artillery and a lot cheaper than cavalry is definitely too much in my opinion.

Moreover, shouldn't this be an Empires in Arms or Empires in Harm conversion ? I'd stick more or less to the original rules when possible...Of course if the changes are optionals or editable then they're welcome.

[fvianello]

Here's some unit costs from Crown of Glory, definitely several generations ahead compared to EiA:

Heavy ship: 200 money, 0 horses, 60 labor, 1 population, 20 iron, 100 timber, 40 textiles, 6 upkeep, 15 turns
Infantry: 50 money, 20 horses, 20 labor, 2 population, 20 iron, 0 timber, 0 textiles, 2 upkeep, 3 turns
Cavalry: 100 money, 80 horses, 20 labor, 1 population, 10 iron, 0 timber, 0 textiles, 4 upkeep, 6 turns

The "message" the game wants to give the player here is the same as EiA: "it's gonna cost you a LOT of time and a LOT of everything to build a navy"

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

Really nice research Mardonius!
Despite that the conclusions (8$ for a heavy ship and 3$ for a light one) leave me with some doubts that I'll try to summarize:

Historically, since the Greek era building a fleet was one of the most expensive and long tasks a city or nation could embark upon.

Talking of simulations, I cannot remember a single good strategic abstract game where a trireme/line ship/dreadnought/battleship/carrier factor wasn't by far the most expensive and longest item to build (with maybe the only exception of fortresses and atomic bomb).

In other words, making heavy ships only slightly more expensive than artillery and a lot cheaper than cavalry is definitely too much in my opinion.

Moreover, shouldn't this be an Empires in Arms or Empires in Harm conversion ? I'd stick more or less to the original rules when possible...Of course if the changes are optionals or editable then they're welcome.

Thanks Hanbarca. There does need to be some balance effect, of course. IMO, most of this balance effect is captured by the long construction times... even in fast programs wood seasoning was essential. See the Great Lakes Campaign (Sacketts Harbor, NY) for some good examples.

Alos, did I mention we should get rid of the light ships unless we revamp the naval combat? They have no place in a Ship of the Line Battle unless ou take them at 3 to 1 or so casualties and 1 to 3 efficacy.


Caveat: the following is only of interest to people who need a life [:D], like me

In truth, though, the really long construction times/inordinate costs don't hit the world until the dreadnaught age.
My historical specialty is the classical Greek/Persian/Peloponnesian War era... Corinth went from about 0 to 90 triremes in 434 to 431 BC. Its colonies and minor allies added another 60 during the same time. They were still outclassed by the Athenians but that is a different matter. The Spartans (classless bafoons) did the same thing several times int he 411-407BC era... but they needed Persian money.

best
Mardonius

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

Here's some unit costs from Crown of Glory, definitely several generations ahead compared to EiA:

Heavy ship: 200 money, 0 horses, 60 labor, 1 population, 20 iron, 100 timber, 40 textiles, 6 upkeep, 15 turns
Infantry: 50 money, 20 horses, 20 labor, 2 population, 20 iron, 0 timber, 0 textiles, 2 upkeep, 3 turns
Cavalry: 100 money, 80 horses, 20 labor, 1 population, 10 iron, 0 timber, 0 textiles, 4 upkeep, 6 turns

The "message" the game wants to give the player here is the same as EiA: "it's gonna cost you a LOT of time and a LOT of everything to build a navy"

I like the upkeep concept.

[fvianello]

I like the upkeep thing too, particularly for fleets at sea, but I fear that charging it too much could bring to some unwanted effects..

My historical specialty is the classical Greek/Persian/Peloponnesian War era... Corinth went from about 0 to 90 triremes in 434 to 431 BC. Its colonies and minor allies added another 60 during the same time. They were still outclassed by the Athenians but that is a different matter. The Spartans (classless bafoons) did the same thing several times int he 411-407BC era... but they needed Persian money.

Well, 4 years IS a lot of time to build 90 ships, particulary considering that Corinth was one of the great powers of the era and the fact that the athenian navy had about 600 ships; that means that building a navy able to confront athens would have taken at least 16 years for corithians.

BTW, I too was going to use Sparta as example

[Mardonius]

Warning: More esoteric Greek history

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

I like the upkeep thing too, particularly for fleets at sea, but I fear that charging it too much could bring to some unwanted effects..

My historical specialty is the classical Greek/Persian/Peloponnesian War era... Corinth went from about 0 to 90 triremes in 434 to 431 BC. Its colonies and minor allies added another 60 during the same time. They were still outclassed by the Athenians but that is a different matter. The Spartans (classless bafoons) did the same thing several times int he 411-407BC era... but they needed Persian money.

Well, 4 years IS a lot of time to build 90 ships, particulary considering that Corinth was one of the great powers of the era and the fact that the athenian navy had about 600 ships; that means that building a navy able to confront athens would have taken at least 16 years for corithians.

BTW, I too was going to use Sparta as example

The above period concerning the Corinthian Navy was actually about three years... I'll double check... the original sources are a bit unclear as there are two campaigns. The Athenians, at this time, had around 200 triremes, including two colonies in the eastern Aegean. The only other standing Greece Greek (Syracuse in Sicily had a force too) Navy was Corcyra (Corfu) of about 90 triremes. Also, only Athens had first class naval tactics (diekplous/pieriplous) vice land battles at sea.

Considering that Corinth had only the West (Ionian Sae/Gulf of Corinth) to worry about and could move ships, if needed, across the ithmus of Corinth, 150 Triremes is a first class navy in size, if not skill.

To my knowledge, Athens never approached more than 350 Triremes... I think the highwater mark was the Syracuse Campaign. I'll break out my Kagan and review.

best
Mardonius