Alternative ship type proposal

[Skanvak]

Hell fire,

first/ The debate you have with Ashtar is the point I try to show you, to improve the system you need to think out of the box. That is do something different that give a better feeling of the battle of the time. Giving more than +1 with battle superiority might need a 2 dice table for example. The land battle is interesting because it is played on 2 level moral and actual troops. But I feel (but not sure) that another distinction is needed for naval battle.

Second/ I don't like the light ship, because I have a feeling that they don't operate in fleet and not for see superiority. So I feel that they should only be bought to be send to the privateer/escort pool.

Third/ If transport fleet simulate the gathering for invasion of England, they does not qualify for Fleet, just for sea-crossing arrow. May be you could "buy" a gathering of ships to create a sea arrow in a sea area that don't have one for 3 months and it disappear after. It will allow for invasion of Corsica for example.

I would be in line with Ashtar that fleet transporting corps should be limited to 5 mouvement points, that should do the trick. (3 is still too few).

When discuting recently, I begin to think that I would have liked better a straight EiA adaptation, and the EiH as optional (as I understand soem want them, aspecially the map).

Marshall, I don't think Hellfire is in a hurry. He still has to improve his proposal.

And may be can you looked at ours (only heavy fleet, limited to 5 movement points when carrying troops) [8D]

[AresMars]

I want to throw this out for consideration.....

EIANW is a game and thus only simulates history...

With all due respect to the point of view of Hellfirejet, the effort to make the naval game more granular is a interesting idea _but_ IMHO a colossal waste of time without extensive play testing.

The important point to realize is that the winning and losing of the game is based on the effect of gaining and losing Political Points....and the VP collected from that effect....

On land, where the majority of the game is played PP are based on CORPS and not the components of those CORPS...the only variance to this is if CORPS can contact 20+ factors....

On the sea, where England rules supreme, the component is a FLEET COUNTER, where the number of fleets represents the ability to project NAVAL POWER and INFLUENCE.....

The game was designed with a specific number of fleet counters (GB 7, FR 4, SP and RS 3, Tu 2, and the various Minors with 1 each)

This allows GB to protect itself one on one, but against 2 or more enemies a challenge to the Wooden Wall arises...

It also allows France to gain control of the several minors and challenge England alone.....

All that is REALLY missing is the ADVANCED NAVAL CHART so that the 1 die roll effect is removed and returning the Fleets to 30 "ships" with the various optional rules for Naval transport and the such....

The adoption of the EIH naval CRAP (my word) added nothing to the game......

[Skanvak]

a colossal waste of time without extensive play testing

That true for all rules changes.

I just want to add one thing, don't be too much focalized on balance, what is fun in EiA is that there is no real balance of power which allow the game to start.

[AresMars]

Balance is a critical part of any game.....

What is the fun if you dont have as equal a chance as any other player to WIN the game?

It is possible that our definations of fun are very different.....

[Marshall Ellis]

Hey guys:

I certainly would not implement any new units or change/offer optional the naval combat system without a ton of testing! I have added some stuff in the past that did affect balance (Big surprise huh?) so I am MUCH more resistant to changes this drastic than I was in the past. I'm not saying to no BUT I am challenging more stuff that deviates from the norm of EiA!

[Skanvak]

What is the fun if you dont have as equal a chance as any other player to WIN the game?

In diplomacy game, if every one have equal chance to win the game don't start, there are no war when the relative power are balanced. It is because France is more powerful that the war can begun.

Diplomacy, is the way to try to change this state of thing, so balance is relatively less important than the dynamic of the game. Beside it is the VP goals that balance the chance of winning. But definetly a game that say I have strict equal chance of winning like Goose Game (stairs and snakes in english) is as a uninteresting as a game that garantee you lose/win. You need a dynamic, so a player with an advantage that make him move. Dynamics means unbalanced but not has much as the result to be known.

[AresMars]

Okay, we wont hijack the thread....

I return the thread to its point of ship types etc.....

The point I was trying to make it is that the way to deal with that is make ships a "factor" thing and not a specific the way Hellfirejet is proposing....

The FLEET represents the Country Naval Power, the ability to transport, the way to win and lose political points....

There ALSO needs to be a way to balance the large sums of money that GB has, and that was reflected in the cost and build times found in EIA....

They do not represent the actual time and money involved as Mardionus has shown so well....

It is on these points of my previous post that I would prefer we focus....

[Skanvak]

Ares,

There ALSO needs to be a way to balance the large sums of money that GB

hmm, I think that it is diplomacy that do that. GB is here to finance war in Europe.

The point I was trying to make it is that the way to deal with that is make ships a "factor" thing and not a specific the way Hellfirejet is proposing....

Thought I am not oppose to detail battle system, I agree with you that I don't see yet the advantage over a factor system. (that why I have not reply to this point first nothing much to add compare to my preious post, but for balance I am an admant opposer after some 30 years of gaming so hard to pass on it, sorry no mean to hijacked here).

[pzgndr]

The point I was trying to make it is that the way to deal with that is make ships a "factor" thing and not a specific the way Hellfirejet is proposing....

Having two ship types (heavy and light) for main fleets and smaller squadrons, respectively, is adequate for a game of this scale. Introducing a third ship type (medium) or perhaps more would require further adjustments of the combat model and PP system. I agree that this issue could be handled offline as a factor thing with third party combat resolution where some percentage of heavy fleets could be considered to be medium ships (ie, 1 heavy = 2 medium or such) and upon resolution remaining medium ships are converted back to heavy factors.

There may be a valid basis for considering more naval flavor in the game and eventually considering a game option to introduce more ship types, but Marshall has enough on his plate just trying to implement the previously established rules for proportional losses and advanced naval combat. Those should be the priority. Once the game is "done" with bug fixes, rules deviation fixes, classic scenario, and AI enhancements, then new game options could be looked at.

There ALSO needs to be a way to balance the large sums of money that GB has, and that was reflected in the cost and build times found in EIA....

They do not represent the actual time and money involved as Mardionus has shown so well....

I'm still not convinced that this is an issue. Sure, if you reduce some costs then GB can build more, but then so can everyone else. This should make the game more dynamic, and not necessarily unbalanced in GB's favor. GB should still dominate with its qualitative and quantitative superiority, but would have to spread out more to handle diverse threats and that could allow another MP to gain local superiority. Introducing a little more naval action surely cannot hurt the game, no?

[AresMars]

More naval action is not a bad thing.....this would be good....however, there is little that a more details ship subset would add....even when looking at a historical basis....

The EIA game reflects this already based on the fleet abstract i mentioned before.....EIH tried to expand on it, and I did not see a great improvment....

Naval evasion, interception, fleet transport are more important elements to the naval game IMHO - along with advanced Naval combat rules to minimize single die roll win/lose.

Something like - 1st round ships are damaged, 2nd round ships are 50/50 damaged/capture, last round are captured/damaged

This suggests that fleet factors have different states combat ready/damaged/hulk/captured which is possible to track in a computer game.....

Where I agree with Hellfirejet is that the current combat systems is very poor, that ship losses should be minimized, or losses should be factors LOST via capture to the victor, or a combo of both....

Just some disorganized thoughts on the subject......

I am enjoying the thread very much otherwise.....

[pzgndr]

This suggests that fleet factors have different states combat ready/damaged/hulk/captured which is possible to track in a computer game.....

Agreed. EiH has rules along these lines that could be considered:

6.1 SHIP STATES
Ships have four possible states: active (in commission), in ordinary, under construction, and damaged.
6.1.1 ACTIVE (IN COMMISSION) SHIPS
These vessels represent the standing active naval forces of a nation, move and participate in combat.
6.1.2 SHIPS IN ORDINARY
These vessels are either lacking in crew or supplies, but are otherwise seaworthy vessels. With a little time and expense
these vessels can easily be returned to active duty.
• Ships in ordinary must be assigned to a port at the start of a Campaign when that Major Power sets up its naval forces
and that of controlled minor countries and Kingdoms.
• A ship in commission may be placed in ordinary at any port during the Naval Reinforcement Step (5.1.4). (The port
should be recorded in case of capture and limitations on harbour build capacity, optional rule, 8.5.4.2).
• Ships in ordinary may be taken as losses (becoming damaged) if enemy Fleet(s) runs the harbour guns and attack the
port. Ships in ordinary may not leave the port or otherwise participate in the battle.
• A ship in ordinary is returned to commission at a cost of $3 and one manpower factor. This process takes four months
with the ship arriving in the reinforcement phase in the manner of a new construction. It should be noted that bringing
ships out of ordinary contributes towards the harbour build capacity, in the same manner as new constructions (See
8.5.4.2). One ship may be brought out of ordinary at a time in any port, even if that port has no shipbuilding capacity.
6.1.3 SHIPS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
These vessels are ships in the process of being built. See 8.5.4 for building ships.
6.1.4 DAMAGED SHIPS
These vessels have either been damaged in combat, or suffering from extreme neglect.
• Damaged vessels take no part in naval combat.
• Damaged vessels may be repaired at a cost of $5 and one manpower factor, and return to commission in seven months.
(See 5.1.2 for placement procedure) Damaged vessels may be repaired at a cost of $3 and return to ordinary in four
months. It should be noted that repairing damaged ships contributes towards the harbour build capacity, in the same
manner as new constructions (See 8.5.4.2). One ship may be repaired at a time in any port, even if it has no
shipbuilding capacity.
• Damaged vessels not in home nation ports may be repaired and recommissioned, though money costs are 1.5 times
normal and it takes 1.5 times (round down) as long to repair the vessel. EXCEPTION: Malta and Gibraltar are
considered part of the British home nation for purposes of this rule.

[SkyElf]

Note there is another ship not mention, the bomb Ketch which armed with one large mortar which fired from a short barreled cannon used to fire shells at high angles mostly used in seizing ports!  Although in the grand scale of the game it is not needed.  Yes, the Naval Warfare is lacking in the game and can be improved later when time is available to work on it!
 
1st and 3rd rates Ships of the Line could pulverized with a well aimed one broadside to a Sloop, Schooner, Brig, (Bomb Ketch) they relied on speed and manuvering and shallow water. During a sea battle they would stand off and signal messages from Flagship to other ships.  Even a frigate would not stand up very long to 1st and 3rd rates Ships of the Line.  The smaller ships were to scout for enemy ships ahead of main fleet to send despatches to naval station or a fleet.  Sailing close to shore to capture merchant ships trying to evade capture, land raids,etc. They proved very versatile ships to have.  Galleys are another ship around for along time which used oars and sail primary oars to move in enclosed waters like Med./Baltic.  In general with the introduction of the introduction cannons the galley was on the way to being obsolete.  Lepanto II 7th Oct. 1571 was the last great sea battle of oared ships!
 
I believe a good read on Naval Sea Power is "[font="times new roman"]The Influence of Sea Power Upon History" by Rear Adm. Alfred Thayer Mahan!  A new book just out is [font=verdana]Fighting Techniques of Naval Warfare: 1190 BC-Present: Strategy, Weapons, Commanders, and Ships[/font][font=verdana] [/font]
By Dickie Iain, Dougherty Martin J., Jestice Phyllis J. at Amazon I found it looking up the info on the book I have read.  [:)][/font]

[Mardonius]

Great thoughts here Ashtar... I like the uncertainty of the sea movement you have encapsulated and think such variable concepts of movement might be good to work into a system.

I would (being the questioning person that I am) ask you to not be 100% confident of the statement "Obviously Malta was needed as an intermediate base, to forage troops and to protect communications between France and Egypt."

There was no certainty of the French stopping at Malta and, though revictually did occur, I am doubtful that this was a requirement. More likely, it was Napoleon want to add another conquest to his record. Certainly not a big deal in the day, but the hearkening back to the siege of 1565 (this date is a guess from my distant recollection so is probably wrong) and the Ottoman defeat by the Knights of St John is was a clarion call across Europe.

If you want figures on the ability of the French to move troops by sea (albeit during a hiatus of conflict with Britain... so the combat mechanisms are not there) look at the transport of troops to Hispaniola (Haiti) during the Peace of Amiens. Lots more troops, I believe, move far farther than Egypt...

Anyway, some great thoughts and I would appreciate that we make a record of these conversations so that when we actually make the Naval Rules draft we haev a solid point to start our discourse from.

best
Mardonius

[Mardonius]

Ares:

Your ratio of fleet point is critical. Any Naval System would, in my opinion, have to work around those ratios with perhaps some minor tweaking for local (meaning not able to force the English channel) options.

However, I do not think that the proposed revision of the naval system would ever be a waste of time. The current system is in adequate and has been recognized as such by naval afficiandos for 25 years now. I will grant you this, though, the GENERAL MAGAZINE article that revised the naval rules also has problems. I reckon that the adopted solution should have, basically, potential results roughly in line with the current system with more potenial for vaiable and dynamism.

I am going to use your points about the VP and Political Points in a different thread (Winning the Game) as they are cogent and captured how the MP input has been overlooked herein...

best
Mardonius

[Mardonius]

Great points SkyElf. I'd love to capture these and other aspects as part of a naval rules revision.

best
Mardonius

[Mardonius]

Hi Panzergrenadier:

Some great ideas on this list. Of course I woudl quibble with one or two but there are some gems here.
So a lot of the work that would need to be done is already done.

best
Mardonius

[Ashtar]

Hi Mardonious,

I would (being the questioning person that I am) ask you to not be 100% confident of the statement "Obviously Malta was needed as an intermediate base, to forage troops and to protect communications between France and Egypt."

There was no certainty of the French stopping at Malta and, though revictually did occur, I am doubtful that this was a requirement. More likely, it was Napoleon want to add another conquest to his record. Certainly not a big deal in the day, but the hearkening back to the siege of 1565 (this date is a guess from my distant recollection so is probably wrong) and the Ottoman defeat by the Knights of St John is was a clarion call across Europe.

I agree I have been a bit too positive. However, I still think naval bases were quite important
(as they always have been, have a look at the role played by Malta in WWII) and I would like this factor to be captured by the game.

It is obvious that GB needs Malta and Gibraltar to project into the Mediterranean --or Russia may benefit from Rhodes) --, and this could be reflected in mechanism that penalize/improve trading, and/or help in anti-privateering operations (EiH had different map sectors for privateering) and/or facilitate troop transport/supply in the eastern part of Mediterranean. I personally think rules along this lines will had much more strategic depth to the naval part of the game that any further micro-differentiation in ship types.

If you want figures on the ability of the French to move troops by sea (albeit during a hiatus of conflict with Britain... so the combat mechanisms are not there) look at the transport of troops to Hispaniola (Haiti) during the Peace of Amiens. Lots more troops, I believe, move far farther than Egypt...

Point taken, indeed the French sent there two expeditions, the first 12.000 men strong, the second 15.000. Each voyage involved smaller numbers then Egypt invasion (25.000) but still impressive. However, as you pointed out, they really had not the need to fight their way through/escaping an opposing Naval force.

[pzgndr]

Some great ideas on this list. Of course I woudl quibble with one or two but there are some gems here.
So a lot of the work that would need to be done is already done.

Mardonius, yeah no point reinventing the wheel since there are established rules already. IMHO, best thing would be to eventually implement all these rules and allow players to reassess the overall naval model. Then make adjustments and consider enhancements down the road.

Big question may be which rules to make official and which to leave as genuine game options. Would players NOT want to use the proportional losses rule? Would players NOT want to use the advanced naval combat model with chit selection? Etc. It may be easier for Marshall (and for AI development) to focus on primary rulesets without a plethora of game options except for those where players are adamently split on what rules to use.

[Skanvak]

I found 2 set of optional rules, some part deal with shipyard and capturing ships.

http://home.earthlink.net/~toadkillerdo ... rules.html

same one but from grognard website

http://grognard.com/variants/eiasuppl.txt

http://grognard.com/variants/eianat.txt