Transport Fleets

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
They will be gone in the classic scenario (When/if we do this).
If you do not like them then don't use them. You can use the heavies and lights to xport!

This isn't correct. All powers are REQUIRED by the game to set up all of their ships, whether they want/need them or not. So, for the whole game, we have to pay for the transport fleet every quarter. Plus, we have to protect it, or lose a PP. Of course, we could trade the PP for the money, but ...

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

Hi Mardonius,
Nappy made a few stop along the way to Egypt, Mainly to pick up additional ships and Infantry that were in that part of Europe, If all his forces had been available to him from his initial port of departure, there would have been no need for him to stop at ports along the way, he could have sailed from France - Egypt none stop.

Only stop was at Malta. All reinforcements joined him under sail from ports in NW Italy.

[obsidiandrag]

I'm good for the option on movement, as for the carrying capacity of heavy/light, I kindof like where it is as more reasonable for proportion fleet to corps.  It adds a little more strategy and planning(which does bite me in the rear once and a while) as you have to prepare your cargo(troops) on the reinforcement phase to fit on your ships prior to the naval phase...  Otherwise, once on the Naval phase your troops will not fit and can not be modified until land or the next reinforcement phase...  But I have scalled down the French corps to 14 inf and 3 cav to go by sea and resupply the troops at the destination back to full size on reinforcement of a later turn.  Its all in the strategy and timing. 
 
The 1 corps per fleet marker makes the game really unfair if you compare the Austrian Army vs navy with NO heavies to the english army to the navy with so many markers IT could transport the entire French army as well just because of the number of counters available with or without actual ships in it.
 
Without the current transports, Austria and Prussia ARE landlocked and destined to stay that way.

[pzgndr]

Of course, we could trade the PP for the money, but ...

Speaking of pp, shouldn't the loss for light fleets and transports really be -1/2pp?? With the upcoming Editor and ability to keep light fleets and transports or not (rendering this issue moot), this should help with pp balance in either case (classic EiA or EiANW). I still do not see this happening yet?

In the boardgame, you could carry one corps per fleet iirc, whereas now you are limited to a certain number of infantry etc. per fleet factor.
I think that is partly justified since it is silly to be able to carry a full corps on a 1-factor fleet. A pro-rated system makes sense to me.

I agree. I generally like the EiANW system but question the limit of only one transport fleet per MP with such high transport capacity. With the Editor players can experiment with customizing the OOBs where GB and Fr could have two or more transport fleets of modest size, then you could have transports in both Atlantic and Med. Prussia and Austria might still have only one transport fleet but of limited capacity. Etc.

[ess1]

You could retain the 3 MP but allow transports to remain at sea.
An option?

[AresMars]

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

I'm not against Heavies or Light fleets transporting any size of Corps, but the transports are cheaper and quicker to build, I'm hoping I might be able to implement various option via the editor, there is no logical reason to restrict the transports to 3 MP and for having them unload and reload is a farce, I have never played the game untill this version appeared, so I have no prior knowledge of what went before. As for heavies I think that I read somewhere that original rules listed them as 50 guns I could be wrong don't know, but if not then the original rules were crap in my opinion.

Does anyone know were I can get a copy of the original rules for this game, I'm interested in reading them so that I can get a better picture of the difference between the original and this pc version?

http://eia.xnetz.com/ for the EIA rules

This game is 'based' on the Empires in Harms v3.x version and you have to join the YAHOO Groups for a peek at those...

Changing the MP from 3 to 7 seems the easiest fix....

[obsidiandrag]

I would think if you could just build a depot where you stop at sea for sea supply on your land phase (just like the invasion supply) and pay for them like normal just while still on the transports that would be a real quick fix.  Since you would need to pay to feed them anyway, the depots there already, its just tieing the two together and allowing them to stay and eat there.
 
I wonder if both could be options to choose from like the 3 move no stay, 3 move allow stay, 7 move no stay, and even a 7 move allow stay...
 (or just 2 seperate options one for movement and the other for allowing for long trips with remaining onboard)
 
I'm all for the multi functionality and options..
 
OD

[Mardonius]

Gents:

Respectfully, I think that most of you are missing the issue here. The naval fleet counters in the original game represented not only the ships of the navy, but the potential of that nation to take to the sea: its maritime traditon, capability, heritage etc.

The Transport Counter, at the expense of expanded fleet carrying capacity, is a bad idea. It represents the concept of there being a military fleet of transport vessels on hand and in a central location, something like the USMC's Maritime Pre-positioning fleet of today. This was not the case. In all instances of maritime transport of troops, troops were transported on board naval vessels, or -- in far greater numbers -- in merchant vessels that were enrolled/dragooned/hired etc for the mission. There was no military transport fleet. This is an anachronism. I can provide plenty of examples of these instances. Certainly, Napoleon built trasnport vessels on the channel but they never took to sea.

The Fleet counter of the old game -- or the heavy fleet in this new game -- being able to transport a corps is the best solution. What this fleet-ca-transport-acorps does is abstractly encorporate the merchant fleet capacity of the transporting nation --something that should not be easily swept away as the trasnport fleet counter is. When you stike down that transport fleet, all of the hitherto abstracted and dispersed merchant naval capacity of the target nation is gone. Swept away. This makes the current naval combat system even more lethargic and problematic.

Certainly, such a fleet and corps could be vulnerable if it only contained one HS (Ship of the Line). This vulnerablity has and will limit the use of these fleets, as there is a large risk of loosing your corps and your fleet. But it does a great job of capturing the concept of the merchant fleet enrolled to transport troops and all the risks inherent therein. And it keeps the game alive and a bit more vital at sea.

Just some observations from a man who spends a good chunk of his time plotting naval operations landing troops on hostile shores.

Semper Fi,
Mardonius

[Marshall Ellis]

Mardonius:
 
Good points on the abstraction of the fleets!
What do you think the transports represented in EiH?
 
 

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Mardonius:

Good points on the abstraction of the fleets!
What do you think the transports represented in EiH?

Hi Marshall:

For those who might be reading/wathcin, here is the transport fleet excerpt from EiH 4.0: 6.2.2.5 Transport Fleet:

These represent large concentrations of small transport vessels, build or gathered to conduct ambitious amphibious operations, such as Napoleon’s planned invasion of England.
• Transport Fleets have a movement of “3”.
• Each naval transport factor is capable of transporting land forces, following the rules of naval transport (6.5.5). Naval transports may also perform beach evacuations (6.5.5.6)
• Naval transports do not participate in any form of naval combat. If the stack of which they are a part, participates in combat, they are treated as not being present. The only exception to this is if all other Squadron and Fleets in their stack become either damaged or sunk, the Transport Fleet (and any passengers) are captured. If the stack of which they are a part, retreats or pursues, the Transport Fleet move with the stack.

(Break)

These transports would have some historical founding in Napoleon's Planned invasion of England... but that is about it. I would argue that the building of these transports was more of an Information Operations Campaign (to screw with the Brits/Austrians) in preparation for the Austerlitz campaign. They never put to sea.

I think the same benefit without the increase cost of building/maintaining (remember, you are basically taking a $1 away from all countries that have these fleets per economic phase) the fleets can be encompassed thoroughly by allowing any HS fleet to carry any corps. Not to mention the whole PP exchange for losing a battle with Transports involved. So, with the abstraction concept, France could, typically put together a big invasion force... but it would be very vulnerable to interception. But the threat of invasion would not go away 100% if the invasion fleet was destroyed as a new collection of boats/ships could be garnered up from various merchantmen and fishermen. This potential was on the minds of the Brits durign the entire period. As things stand now in our game, GB is almost invulnerable.

So, I would scrap the transports and allow the HS fleets (only... no Lt Ship transporting) to each carry a corps.

best
Mardonius

[obsidiandrag]

I feel this would GREATLY remove capabilities of several nations - for starters Austria and Prussia could NEVER be able to transport troops on their own.. Turkey could only transport 2 corps (feudal or otherwise) as they only have 2 heavy fleets, which limits the conquest of N.Africa as well as anywhere else. Switching to no transports and only Heavies carrying causes the other nations to beg England to borrow a fleet for troop movement and makes england even more untouchable (in my opinion as it limits the resources of other nations and the ability to gain more).

I know this was how the basic game did transporting by fleet but there were more counters for fleets (at least I am pretty sure there were)...

OD

[pzgndr]

Certainly, Napoleon built trasnport vessels on the channel but they never took to sea.

This would be the historical basis for the cheap, short-range (3 MP) transports in addition to regular fleets. Nothing prevents a player from using the regular fleets as originally intended.

[Mardonius]

That is a good point about Austria/Prussia. In the old game they had one Fleet. So perhaps we could give them one of each LF and Heavy Fleets.

Per Turkey, well, that is just one of the limitations of Turkey. They had 2 fleets in the old game and 2 HS fleets now. Besides the Black Sea... the Transport fleet is relatively limited. Or so in my experience as Turkey.

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Certainly, Napoleon built trasnport vessels on the channel but they never took to sea.

This would be the historical basis for the cheap, short-range (3 MP) transports in addition to regular fleets. Nothing prevents a player from using the regular fleets as originally intended.

I don't think I can argue with this. I would not start countries with Transport Fleets (France, perhaps, excepted). But Your logic is sound.

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Certainly, Napoleon built trasnport vessels on the channel but they never took to sea.

This would be the historical basis for the cheap, short-range (3 MP) transports in addition to regular fleets. Nothing prevents a player from using the regular fleets as originally intended.

Aha! Very good point indeed! This also exlpains the "3" movement. I do remember the prep for the step across the English channel that Napoleon worked on all the way up to 1805 (I believe???) and these were bascially smaller transport vessels that were in no way like ships-of-the-line but maybe a step above a john boat

I think we should leave these alone in EiANW guys!

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Certainly, Napoleon built trasnport vessels on the channel but they never took to sea.

This would be the historical basis for the cheap, short-range (3 MP) transports in addition to regular fleets. Nothing prevents a player from using the regular fleets as originally intended.

Aha! Very good point indeed! This also exlpains the "3" movement. I do remember the prep for the step across the English channel that Napoleon worked on all the way up to 1805 (I believe???) and these were bascially smaller transport vessels that were in no way like ships-of-the-line but maybe a step above a john boat

I think we should leave these alone in EiANW guys!

WHAT???

Simply because they are a somewhat creation of the real never-used French English Channel invasion fleet, that somehow forces these pathetic fleets onto the rest of the world's navy?

Amazing, almost everyone in this thread wants to change these things, yet, here we go!

I'd post this link to that old thread with Erik but honestly I stopped posting in that one because it too was pointless. Matrix listens!??

[DodgyDave]

why not disband these transportfleet and change fleets a bit, so that a heavy fleet can include 10 transports and a light can include 5 transports, as you would most likely want to defend the transports... this would increase capacity and movement...

now i know, that people will, wait you want to change the game, but consider we are using EIH rules, not just the basic EIA rules, so why not just change it a bit more and perhaps even keep a transport fleet counter, with a max of 20 transports, as you could have 127 now, this will fall with this suggestion... and all major nations should have a transport fleet...

[pzgndr]

WHAT???
Simply because they are a somewhat creation of the real never-used French English Channel invasion fleet, that somehow forces these pathetic fleets onto the rest of the world's navy?
Amazing, almost everyone in this thread wants to change these things, yet, here we go!
I'd post this link to that old thread with Erik but honestly I stopped posting in that one because it too was pointless. Matrix listens!??

What WHAT??? ?[8|]

In what possible way are players FORCED to use transports? Only France starts with some and there is no reason France HAS to use them. Historically, Napoleon started the actual wars (the game) with transports and CHOSE not to use them. Other MPs must CHOOSE to build transports or not, and then CHOOSE again to use them or not. There is no forcing function involved here; players are free to use the regular fleets as originally intended and also use transports if they choose to do so. This is somehow a major problem?

And Matrix isn't listening? Nay, nay. Au contraire, v1.06 with the Editor will allow players to delete the "pathetic" transports and light fleets if that's what they really want. No more pesky interfence by historical facts such as real French transports on the channel coast ready to go in 1805 but never used, or the reality of piracy and privateers throughout the wars. Marshall is working on a classic EiA scenario with classic map and OOB. How is that not listening and not responding, however slowly things are progressing? I suppose one motivation for complaining is to return to the old EiA gamesmanship of using 1-ship "fleets" to rapidly move whole corps around, without regard for any historical accuracy or realism, eh? EiANW can and should provide improvements over the old game system, as options if necessary.

To paraphrase Mardonius, I cannot agree with Neverman's spurious assertions; his logic is not sound. [:'(]

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Hey Guys,
As yet I don't know everything that the editor is capable off doing in version 1.06.
So Why not just have the game come as per the original version,then leave it to the editor to alter anything that the player is not happy with.
That way everybody can please themselves, I'm sure there are a lot of players who don't play against anyone else except the AI,So I feel the AI improvement should be of paramount importance.[8|]

[ndrose]

You are not forced to use transports, but as things stand now there is no other way to move large corps. If you have a full French corps (any of the first 6 corps or the guards), there is no way to move it by sea without the transports, and therefore no way at all to move it more than three steps (including one to get out of port, of course).

Same is true of a full Prussian corps with 4c: even the mighty British fleet cannot move them.