Transport Fleets

[Mardonius]

One can not, to my knowledge, disband or scuttle one's fleets outside of losing a port battle.

[pzgndr]

Good point.  I haven't been too concerned about not using transports or trying to get rid of them so this hasn't been an issue for me.  The maintenance cost for transports issue begs a question; could this be reduced or eliminated for EiANW?  These are not exactly first rates requiring much effort for upkeep.

[Marshall Ellis]

Now that is a good point about the transports???
What about reducing to corps maint levels (1 in and 1 out of ports).
This would make them more valuable since there would not be a huge penalty for leaving them out of port on an eco month!
 
Thoughts?
 
 
 
 

[obsidiandrag]

This would make them more useful as a cheaper invasion supply if the invasion will be lasting over the economic phase..  Since it would not cost extra to leave them out there while the heavies and lights go into port for refit and cheaper maintenance.
 
As for getting rid of the transports, I already covered that, all you have to do is sail into whoever you are at war with (even a minor) and they can gobble them up (or even capture them automatically) then you dont even have to USE them in any respect of the word.  To me the light fleets for the turkish are more useless to turkey than the transports as none of the primary minors for Turkey have boats, the transports and whopping 12 heavies are used to shuttle troops and the lights just sit there, thats the good thing about the piracy is you can send them there and not have to pay for them.
 
OD
 
 

[Mardonius]

The reduced maintenance cost to $1 in port and $1 at sea would be no use, really Marshall.

I would suggest again that you add a button for mechant fleets akin to your piracy option for lt fleets that could send them to merchant duty for 0 maintenance (or perhaps slight income... whioch woudl be an incentive to have and build them but would need some forethought) or a recall button that has them recalled to fleet duty at the regular upkeep costs.

Think about it. For poorer countries like Turkey, you are taking around 4% of their income per phase and putting it towards maintenance of a marginal fleet. 3% Spain etc. This is like taking away $4 from France per economic phase.

I implore you find some mechanism to let players not have to pay for these fleets.

best
Mardonius

[DodgyDave]

why not go with my suggestion instead then, make it so that every nation have a transport fleet with max 20 ships and max speed of 7... and a heavy fleet can have 10 transports and light fleets 5 transports, that way you can spread it out a bit more and most of the time, you will want to defend your transports, so might as well have them included as part of the heavy and light fleets as well...

or at least make it so, that in the editor, that you can change fleets to include them as i would like that change in my games...

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: DodgyDave

why not go with my suggestion instead then, make it so that every nation have a transport fleet with max 20 ships and max speed of 7... and a heavy fleet can have 10 transports and light fleets 5 transports, that way you can spread it out a bit more and most of the time, you will want to defend your transports, so might as well have them included as part of the heavy and light fleets as well...

or at least make it so, that in the editor, that you can change fleets to include them as i would like that change in my games...

Dave, I think would cause the most work for Marshall, which I think he is trying to avoid having to do a lot of work on this one.

Marshall, I don't like your suggestion. I would really like to get rid of them altogether for the points mentioned by Mardonius.

pzndgr, why should I have to take a PP hit? That makes NO sense.

[obsidiandrag]

You could always add the option on setup to not place your transports (or even any ships for that matter) to instead locate a port where they have been built awaiting a reinforcement phase to put them into a fleet marker.  This way if you never want /use them, you never have to although the warning each phase to place them would get annoying..  I often build ships for Spain the same way and leave them into the port until I have enough there to make it worth the $$ to put on the counter.
 
I wonder if we could have a don't show box for the fleets instead (if they are in the same place as previously checked not to show)??
 
this way they are still there for those who want and not a hinderance for those who dont.. you could even go the step further like the training militia and refit / upgrade them to light ships (I KNOW.. not realistic but an option to make them useful to some).
 
OD
 
 

[Thresh]

pzndgr, why should I have to take a PP hit? That makes NO sense.

Ships are a larger and more costly investment of time and money.  Sinking say, $70 worth of ships in a voluntary move shouldn't be a penalty of some sort?

Todd

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Thresh

pzndgr, why should I have to take a PP hit? That makes NO sense.

Ships are a larger and more costly investment of time and money.  Sinking say, $70 worth of ships in a voluntary move shouldn't be a penalty of some sort?

Todd

If you're replying to me I think you missed the conversation somewhere along the lines. I agree with you, it should be, absolutely, that's why Transports should be GONE ALTOGETHER, UNLIKE how pzndgr suggestion, which is more in line with your response.

[pzgndr]

Light fleets and transports should remain in default EiANW for those interested in a more historically accurate game. Period. The classic EiA scenarios and OOBs can have these be gone altogether, for those who don't care. Both sides can be happy. [:)]

My comment about the transport pp loss was for the current game rules. If you lose the transport fleet and take the pp loss, this would be less significant in the long run than paying the maintenance costs every eco phase. This is difficult to understand? I also commented that future rules should be changed so that transport fleets have no impact on the gain/loss of pp's, which is actually agreeing with you guys if you take time to read. Again, this is difficult to understand? [8|]

[Marshall Ellis]

I will not remove these units in the EiANW but you could yourselves in the editor. I will not have these in the classic scenarios.

[NeverMan]

So how many people think the Transport rules in EiANW should be changed?

How many think they should stay the same?

[pzgndr]

Neverman, what the heck do you care about transport rule changes??  You want them to go away altogether and you will have this with the classic EiA scenarios.  You're done.  Now you want to get into rules changes for actually keeping and using transports??  Too funny.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Neverman, what the heck do you care about transport rule changes??  You want them to go away altogether and you will have this with the classic EiA scenarios.  You're done.  Now you want to get into rules changes for actually keeping and using transports??  Too funny.

I'd love to see the button "Go Away" for them added to existing games. They are useless and silly and it seems most peopl here agree with that, except Matrix and yourself (who I'm almost certian is some sort of PR guy hired by Marshall, ).

[easterner]

I love transports, mine carry UK troops to Baltic & Med, Fr troops to N. Afr, Aus troops to Sardinia, Turks from Egy to Balkans, Rus in Baltic, even built some Pr for comedy relief (don't remember if used).

So why beat a dead horse, they are staying, you'll have an editor to erase them?

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: easterner

I love transports, mine carry UK troops to Baltic & Med, Fr troops to N. Afr, Aus troops to Sardinia, Turks from Egy to Balkans, Rus in Baltic, even built some Pr for comedy relief (don't remember if used).

So why beat a dead horse, they are staying, you'll have an editor to erase them?

By Balkans do you mean Greece?

[obsidiandrag]

I think they are fine as is.. If some like adjusting as options or to remove via the editor that is fine with me but I like them as they are and will keep using them as such. They serve a strategic purpose and if used to that extent are indeed useful to every nation in one way or another.

OD

[easterner]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: easterner

I love transports, mine carry UK troops to Baltic & Med, Fr troops to N. Afr, Aus troops to Sardinia, Turks from Egy to Balkans, Rus in Baltic, even built some Pr for comedy relief (don't remember if used).

So why beat a dead horse, they are staying, you'll have an editor to erase them?

By Balkans do you mean Greece?

Athens (site of my greatest humiliation when my French fleet was destroyed by RN back in our 1st game of EiA ADG version)

[Ted1066]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I will not remove these units in the EiANW but you could yourselves in the editor. I will not have these in the classic scenarios.

This I am looking forward to - Classic EiA.

I still don't see the charm in EiH - they're a bunch of untested (or poorly tested) add-ons trying to make EiA more of a simulation game, something Harry R. never intended in the first place. This game is an abstraction based on a historical period as a framework. Okay, the original EiA rules were not perfect (I know I've had more than a few disputes over rule interpretations), but they still are a damn sight better than any of the EiH rules.

Cheers,

Ted