Naval Supply? Yes? No?

[barbarossa2]

Once again...the question of naval supply.

I am curious because on page 19 of the manual, in the very first sentence about supply, it states...

"Units (including naval units) need to be supplied to maintain their strength levels."

Later, on page 20, it goes on to state:

"Naval supply chains, therefore, must begin with a depot on land, and extend into an adjacent sea zone.... Ships can nevertheless be supplied from adjacent depots, including land provences."

Yet, I don't believe I have seen any naval units taking losses from being out of supply. It seems they are allowed to roam the oceans oblivious to supply needs. Which may be, partly, why these minor navies can be found in all far flung corners of the map--everywhere but home.

It seems if there were a real need to keep these permanent fire bases afloat supplied with a supply chain, that bases like Corfu, Malta, and Gibraltar would take on the meaning they should have (In another thread Ericbabe mentioned his desire to have rules which would better show the strategic importance of Corfu...IMHO it is right here). I think this makes sense, since many of the ships in these fleets had several hundred men on them...not to mention supplies they went through to keep the ships running.

So has anyone noticed effects of "being out of supply" for their navies? I am a little concerned it is too easy to have massive armies afloat which can stay at sea indefinitely just harassing the enemy with one landing after another. But I could be wrong about that. I will be exploring this issue in a game tonight. In the meantime, I am curious about everyone else's thoughts and experiences on this.

Also, how about keeping these floating armies of 20000 men supplied? How does this work? Do they need to be adjacent to a depot?

[Mike Parker]

Nope I haven't noticed it, and I did note the rule in the manual.  I asked about this here in the forums somewhere and were assured naval units do NOT need supply.
 
I am not certain they should require supply, but your right it would make malta and corfu more valuable to be sure.  although we can then ask ourselves are all such places appropriate for naval supply?  I would assume you would need to be able to grow hemp for rope, manufacture various types of shot for cannon, and produce canvas for sale (they used canvas for sail material I think.. but I could be wrong I am NOT a nautical expert by any stretch)
 
 
 

[Randomizer]

-B, much as I hate to disagree but I really hope that the manual is wrong and WCS have not tried to treat fleets like floating armies for supply purposes.

Sailing ships at sea had no supply train like formations on land and so any discussions of supply lines and the like have no absolutely relevance to navies of the period. A warship of the era could be watered and victualled for six-months and be completely independent of the support bases in a manner impossible for armies.

Having a friendly port close to the area of operations certainly made an admirals job easier but not having one would hardly prevent distant operations. In May 1805 Admiral Villeneuve took British Martinique in the West Indies, his support base was Toulon and the nearest major allied naval ports were Cadiz and Brest. When Admiral Duckworth attacked the Dardenelles in 1807 his support base was Gibraltar and that the operation was a failure had nothing to do with supply or lack thereof. There are other examples aplenty.

Ships cost to maintain just as armies do and Fleets cost to maintain as well. I have asked before in this forum what Fleet container units actually represent and have yet to get a response but is it possible that the cost of the Fleet represents the cost and effort of pushing supply out to the deployed fleet in the form of invisible merchant hulls? All actual naval depots already exist in the game as ports (which are hard coded) and docks (which need to be built and maintained).

It costs 3 times as much upkeep for a 1st Rate (1000 men) as for regular infantry (10,000 men).

Why cannot these cost represent naval supply?

Resupplying a 18th Century warship could not be readily done on the high seas but any bay offering shelter would allow stores and water to be transferred from merchants via lighters and ship’s boats. The current naval supply system makes these evolutions invisible to the player and equal for all navies.

One can certainly wish for a complex game within a game where food, water and ammunition is monitored for each ship at sea but that would get really tiresome really fast and make no one happy in the end.

Ships could and did effectively stay at sea for years and if CoG-EE allows that without creating a huge sub-system of naval micro-management I’m all for it. Certainly not accurate but weighing cause and effect, the system in place does allow for gaming out contemporary naval strategies without all the extra noise of bean-counting supply for individual ships or fleets.

I believe a more complex model naval supply model would detract from playability and add little substantive realism. Warships during the Age of Sail were perhaps the most autonomous military units of all time and I think CoG-EE acknowledges that. Just $0.02.

Best Regards

[barbarossa2]

Actually Randomizer, before you posted, I rethought it and I agree with you.   I am tempted to change my original posting to reflect the fact that IMHO the ships themselves shouldn't need a "supply chain" of depots.  However, I won't change my original posting so your interjection makes sense to those reading it all later.

But I want to make sure that the armies these fleets carry around need supply and that supply chains are needed for landing troops of any sizeable formation. I hope that it isn't easy as pie to keep a rapid deployment force of 60,000 troops at sea waiting for opportunities to present themselves.

Historically, the capture of Corfu by the Russians opened up a whole new ability for them to project power into the Adriatic. I think that the need for a supply chain to the "target" locations in the case of an invasion of troops would make these bases valuable and might reflect this in part. In fact, Randomizer, I just checked and it was your post with this great link to a brief history of the Russian navy:
http://www.neva.ru/EXPO96/book/chap6-1.html

However, Randomizer, in your opinion, how could the value of a naval base like Gibraltar or Malta be better represented in CoG:EE? Or is the current advantage of having these bases close by (or alternately, the penalties of being far from such bases) already adequately represented?

[Randomizer]

… how could the value of a naval base like Gibraltar or Malta be better represented in CoG:EE?

Or is the current advantage of having these bases close by (or alternately, the penalties of being far from such bases) already adequately represented?

I actually do not think there is anything significantly wrong with the way ports work now.

In the game, ports provide several benefits to the owner; naval repair, income from docks, free garrisoning (up to walls level) and income from merchants in adjacent sea zones. Note that the injunction that fleets need no supply lines should not apply to ports since the best way to move commerce and supply was by sea and this is reflected somewhat by the blockade rules. Distant ports can be improved by building additional docks but the cost and effort must be weighed against money gain and risk of loss of the port to enemy action.

Historically the Med did not become the centre of gravity for the British Empire until well into the machine age and the reason for that is simple, steamships needed coal and had a very limited endurance at sea so coaling stations needed to be near to where the fleet was required. This was the exact opposite of the situation in the Age of Sail where fleets could exercise sea control huge distances from their base and for prolonged periods of time. Gibraltar was strategically important to Georgian England to facilitate commerce in the Western Med and to protect merchant traffic bound for India around the Cape of Good Hope. For these reasons alone it is worth England retaining it as a long-term strategic asset but other than for perhaps for Spain, its ownership by other powers is not particularly important.

Gibraltar could not control the Straights during the Age of Sail and enemy fleets could transit them easily under the suitable weather conditions and often did. In the machine age though, whomever owned Gibraltar controlled the western entrance to the Mediterranean and so when Jacky Fisher referred to it as being one of five strategic keys that locked up the World, for an Imperial Power in 1904, this was accurate.

However that is not at all the situation in Napoleonic times.

During the CoG-EE era the English can abandon the Med (they actually did for a time) concentrating their forces elsewhere and principle cost will be a loss of trade income and maybe short-term offensive options.

Now, what is inside the Med?

Mediterranean island ports such as Majorica, Cyprus Malta and Corfu can make convenient springboards for power projection and launching an army onto nearby shores but they are not essential. They make offensive and blockade operations easier but not owning local ports do not make offensive or blockade operations impossible. However, owning them provides income for you and denies income to your enemies so taking them can make strategic sense.

I think that is how it should be.

The experience of the Russian Mediterranean Fleet from 1799 through 1807 actually supports this. The Russian navy entered the Med to support General Suverov’s army in Italy. As long as Russia had allies in the Med her fleet could refit and repair and even without a Russian port was able to take the offensive and capture Corfu. Possession of Corfu made offensive naval operations easier and in the game this is reflected by the ability to concentrate forces, repair ships and quicker Fleet transit times to blockaded areas or important sea zones. Only the treaty of Tilsit forced the Russian Navy to vacate the Med in 1807 but even without it the Russian naval presence there had ceased to be significant since there was no more Russians in Italy and Corfu had been returned to France.

I admit that I am still learning CoG-EE but am not yet convinced there is anything really wrong with the methods used to game out navies, ports and 18th Century power projection.

Best Regards

[Anthropoid]

Your knowledge of the subject matter is impressive, and interesting Randomizer!

[morganbj]

Hear, hear!
 

[barbarossa2]

LOL.  [:D] Yes.  Nice response Randomizer.  This is why I asked you.  I had noticed you post on some naval topics already and could tell you weren't speaking from your ass.  BTW, I am currently reading "The War for All the Oceans" by Adkins.  It covers the naval aspects of the "Napoleonic Wars" and I am making careful note of interesting issues brought up in the book in terms of grand strategy.

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

-B, much as I hate to disagree but I really hope that the manual is wrong and WCS have not tried to treat fleets like floating armies for supply purposes.

Sailing ships at sea had no supply train like formations on land and so any discussions of supply lines and the like have no absolutely relevance to navies of the period. A warship of the era could be watered and victualled for six-months and be completely independent of the support bases in a manner impossible for armies.

True, but in this game a fleet can stay at sea for 23 years...
And I've read that keeping the fleet at Gibraltar able to stay put required no less than 20 tons of food per day, so for prolonged stays at sea, maybe something should be conjoured up?

[barbarossa2]

I agree with you on this terje439.  23 years is a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.

[Randomizer]

ORIGINAL: terje439

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

-B, much as I hate to disagree but I really hope that the manual is wrong and WCS have not tried to treat fleets like floating armies for supply purposes.

Sailing ships at sea had no supply train like formations on land and so any discussions of supply lines and the like have no absolutely relevance to navies of the period. A warship of the era could be watered and victualled for six-months and be completely independent of the support bases in a manner impossible for armies.

True, but in this game a fleet can stay at sea for 23 years...
And I've read that keeping the fleet at Gibraltar able to stay put required no less than 20 tons of food per day, so for prolonged stays at sea, maybe something should be conjoured up?

So what? You seem to prefer micro-management of naval stores at the ship level but how much additional 'realism' would you actually gain? Compared to the mindless and repetitive tedium I mean.

Realistically there would be a steady stream of ships of the line and frigates to and from the nearest friendly port, own or allied, bringing water and provisions and/or escorting contracted merchantmen bringing these resources to the Fleet. Detachments for supply purposes were an operational necessity, witness Nelson's detachment of Rear Admiral Louis's squadron to Gibralter for water and supplies on the eve of Trafalgar as but one example.

I also wrote:

Ships could and did effectively stay at sea for years and if CoG-EE allows that without creating a huge sub-system of naval micro-management I’m all for it. Certainly not accurate but weighing cause and effect, the system in place does allow for gaming out contemporary naval strategies without all the extra noise of bean-counting supply for individual ships or fleets.

The English blockade off Ushant lasted for the entire Revolutionary and Napoleonic period whenever England was at war with France and although the individual ships may have come and gone the naval presence remained constant - for years on end.

At the command level represented by the player in the strategic game, naval supply was both hands-off and transparent, very similar to what you see in CoG-EE.

Best Regards

[barbarossa2]

Once again, good point Randomizer.

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

ORIGINAL: terje439

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

-B, much as I hate to disagree but I really hope that the manual is wrong and WCS have not tried to treat fleets like floating armies for supply purposes.

Sailing ships at sea had no supply train like formations on land and so any discussions of supply lines and the like have no absolutely relevance to navies of the period. A warship of the era could be watered and victualled for six-months and be completely independent of the support bases in a manner impossible for armies.

True, but in this game a fleet can stay at sea for 23 years...
And I've read that keeping the fleet at Gibraltar able to stay put required no less than 20 tons of food per day, so for prolonged stays at sea, maybe something should be conjoured up?

So what? You seem to prefer micro-management of naval stores at the ship level but how much additional 'realism' would you actually gain? Compared to the mindless and repetitive tedium I mean.

Realistically there would be a steady stream of ships of the line and frigates to and from the nearest friendly port, own or allied, bringing water and provisions and/or escorting contracted merchantmen bringing these resources to the Fleet. Detachments for supply purposes were an operational necessity, witness Nelson's detachment of Rear Admiral Louis's squadron to Gibralter for water and supplies on the eve of Trafalgar as but one example.

I also wrote:

Ships could and did effectively stay at sea for years and if CoG-EE allows that without creating a huge sub-system of naval micro-management I’m all for it. Certainly not accurate but weighing cause and effect, the system in place does allow for gaming out contemporary naval strategies without all the extra noise of bean-counting supply for individual ships or fleets.

The English blockade off Ushant lasted for the entire Revolutionary and Napoleonic period whenever England was at war with France and although the individual ships may have come and gone the naval presence remained constant - for years on end.

At the command level represented by the player in the strategic game, naval supply was both hands-off and transparent, very similar to what you see in CoG-EE.

Best Regards

Well I'm always happier the more detail, so nothing shocking there [;)]
But there is one flaw with this game vs the situation you describe. As of now, the naval nations can have ALL ships present in a blockade the ENTIRE game without risk.
So if the French manage to get their entire fleet into Brest, the British can stay at sea off Brest and keep the French bottled up the length of the game (yes I understand that the British might have to deal with some pesky Swedes etc but for this discussion that is behind the point). That is why I feel that something should be done about the ability for fleets to remain at sea for 23 years straight.

Terje

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: terje439

Well I'm always happier the more detail, so nothing shocking there [;)]
But there is one flaw with this game vs the situation you describe. As of now, the naval nations can have ALL ships present in a blockade the ENTIRE game without risk.
So if the French manage to get their entire fleet into Brest, the British can stay at sea off Brest and keep the French bottled up the length of the game (yes I understand that the British might have to deal with some pesky Swedes etc but for this discussion that is behind the point). That is why I feel that something should be done about the ability for fleets to remain at sea for 23 years straight.

Terje

Im glad its abstracted. It would be tedious to have to manually rotate ships back to port to water and resupply, even though from what I have read they stayed at sea for very long durations and wouldnt happen as often as some might think.

Also the advantage that lies with being able to sortie the blockaded fleet at any time would be difficult to balance in the game correctly. In reality if a blockaded French fleet left port the blockading squadron could send word and tail them until sufficient ships were on hand to do battle successfully. In the game combat is I believe guaranteed if the blockaded fleet sorties, requiring the blockader to keep a fleet on every station capable of singlehandedly defeating the blockaded force.

[ptan54]

Not a major issue, IMHO. Even if WCS implemented the change, it'll only mean Britain has to send its ships back from Brest to the nearest friendly port for one turn, and then go back to blockading. I suspect that changing this would be more trouble than its worth.

[barbarossa2]

Here are some answers on page 118 from a book I am reading called, "The War for All the Oceans" by Adkins. Wetherall is a sailor on the British frigate Hussar, which in November of 1803 sailed from Cornwallis' squadron off Brest to join the blockade at Ferrol (NW tip of Spain).

"Wetherell recorded that the Hussar was 'stationed off the harbour mouth to break off all communications between Ferrol and Corunna.  The French lay in Ferrol harbour 8 sail and in Corunna one 74 and two frigates.  We used to go on shore to market frequently and have fresh beef for all the squadron.'  Several of the crew were also in the habit of exchanging tabacco and even their own clothing for alcohol and fruit."

So, the British sailors were apparently quite welcome in the markets of the local "enemy" populations!

It also says that "At the end of the year, after the Brisith ships had spent months on blockade duty, fierce storms inflicted serious damage."  Apparently this damage was repaired locally.  As the captain merely sheltered in nearby Betancos bay to fix it.*

However, one aspect of this all that isn't really represented is the ability to "mothball" ships.  Seems the British had done this with large portions of their navy after the last war and worked hard to put it all back together for the war in 1803 (with some terrifying stories of Press Gangs used to "capture" (their own words!!!) crews from the British male population).  Does readiness impact fleets?  I should check this.

*Seems when ships are at sea in a storm that they should suffer damage! Can we get this?

[Mus]

Read about the food, water and sanitary conditions aboard ship and you find out why people had to be captured and forced to serve in the Royal Navy.

[barbarossa2]

LOL... Mus, I just did.  Man, no wonder they had to "capture" people.  The press gang stories in this book are just terrifying really.  It's a great read this "War for All the Oceans". 

[Mus]

Have you read any descriptions of meat so heavily salted it got harder and harder with time and could be carved into objects like wood and even polished to bring out the "grain" of the material?
 
Sign me up!
 

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: Mus

Have you read any descriptions of meat so heavily salted it got harder and harder with time and could be carved into objects like wood and even polished to bring out the "grain" of the material?

Sign me up!

Well if fresh meat was what you were after, there was always the everpresent maggots in the biscuits [:D]

But I just learned that even though British sailors hardly ate meat every week at home, they would not eat mutton when serving in the RN....go figure...