The Rise and Fall Of An Empire!

[OxfordGuy3]

ORIGINAL: SIPRES

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield

Ok, before I continue I would like a boss decision. Kirk? SPIRES?
The British ship has a transparency. The Frech one has a sub counter cut. The Ottoman has a counter cut. Which variant should it be? [8D]

Yep the british definitely
Sorry I was away few days, sounds like I miss many post
After for the national color, what about using the "1st rate panel" background as a national color?
Or something similar to what I did on my WW2 MOD for battleships.

I like that idea!

[SIPRES]

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield

I think it will fit better. [:)]

Perhaps we also need a few contemporary fortresses. SIPRES has a skilled hand...

Your not that bad also for graphics handling.
Could you prepare any Map Napoleonic enhancement for us (If Kirk do agree)
I would be disapointed to see some Russian Sapeur building Concrete bunkers instead of Fleches redoubt.
I think Harbors should deserves some retouch also, and certainly many other items

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

Regarding ships of this period I think you should use a different classification instead of rates, as you know for sure only the Royal Navy had 2nd rate ships, and in the third rate are the large 80s and 74s together with the small 74s and 64s, and there was a big difference between a 64 and a an 80s. Then there is the problem of carronades that makes rating even more misleading. Finally, within "frigate" you have everything from the 8pdrs to the 24pdrs "Superfrigates". In all I think your ship classification would benefit from some reconsideration.

First, I'm only a unit helper. Kirk is the mod creator. You are of course right for your information. But I think there must be some compromises in the sense of clarity and simplification. The vanilla game does it and take the German order of battle as a frame for (nearly) all countries. So I believe Kirk take the French OOB for land units and the British OOB for naval units. This is just as comprehensible for this epoch, as well as for the possibilities of the game engine makes sense. Hope this will help. [;)]

I agree, but at the same time, since this is a mod, I think some historical flavour would be good, without really compromising clarity. A classification by guns instead of rates would be very clear and better adapted to minor maritime powers. Just my opinion.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

Regarding game scale, I think it is impossible to do a Napoleonic strategic mod with the SC engine, but I think individual campaigns are doable. I recall there was a FrancoPrussian war scenario for SC2 that could serve as a model. I myself did 2 Napoleonic scenarios for TOAW XIX century game, Prussia 1807 and a Germany 1813 campaign starting after the truce.
IMO something like a 5Km/hex/Division/week turns for the 1813 scenario or something like 1Km/hex/brigade/half week turns is doable, but not a long game covering several years.

[OxfordGuy3]

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield

I think it will fit better. [:)]

Perhaps we also need a few contemporary fortresses. SIPRES has a skilled hand...

BTW I think this graphic style for the ships works, but for land units I want counters...

[TheBattlefield]

Sail away...[:)]

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

Regarding game scale, I think it is impossible to do a Napoleonic strategic mod with the SC engine, but I think individual campaigns are doable. I recall there was a FrancoPrussian war scenario for SC2 that could serve as a model. I myself did 2 Napoleonic scenarios for TOAW XIX century game, Prussia 1807 and a Germany 1813 campaign starting after the truce.
IMO something like a 5Km/hex/Division/week turns for the 1813 scenario or something like 1Km/hex/brigade/half week turns is doable, but not a long game covering several years.

Unfortunately there is a little bit of truth there. I hate to say these words, but antiqe (turn) strategy games at a global level need unit stacking and zone of control for land and sea areas. But maybe with some compromises we manage a playable multiplayer mod. Or something more...we will see.

[SIPRES]

Some Schwarzenberg friends

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: SIPRES

Some Schwarzenberg friends

[daon]

Yes you can do this in the form of campaigns that follow
And players can discuss peace treaties
Campaigns are prepared in advance and adapted as needed ( with the editor) based on the result of the previous campaign, so alliances and neutrals can be changed .
You can even draw random events between campaigns

[TheBattlefield]

Here we go: A Russian "6th Rate" Frigate. Armed with 32 guns and ready for fast scouting and conv...oh...trade route intercepting. With all due respect, Kirk, beside a Bomb Ketch (mortar strategical attack?) this should be the smallest ship unit at our scale. For smaller ships, there are no real tasks that can be displayed with the current engine.

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

Regarding ships of this period I think you should use a different classification instead of rates, as you know for sure only the Royal Navy had 2nd rate ships, and in the third rate are the large 80s and 74s together with the small 74s and 64s, and there was a big difference between a 64 and a an 80s. Then there is the problem of carronades that makes rating even more misleading. Finally, within "frigate" you have everything from the 8pdrs to the 24pdrs "Superfrigates". In all I think your ship classification would benefit from some reconsideration.

First, I'm only a unit helper. Kirk is the mod creator. You are of course right for your information. But I think there must be some compromises in the sense of clarity and simplification. The vanilla game does it and take the German order of battle as a frame for (nearly) all countries. So I believe Kirk take the French OOB for land units and the British OOB for naval units. This is just as comprehensible for this epoch, as well as for the possibilities of the game engine makes sense. Hope this will help. [;)]

I agree, but at the same time, since this is a mod, I think some historical flavour would be good, without really compromising clarity. A classification by guns instead of rates would be very clear and better adapted to minor maritime powers. Just my opinion.

Again a compromise...
We could address a extended name to the localization file. Like "Frigate (32G)" and "First Rate (86G)". The "xxG(uns)" designation serves as a reference to the armament of the ship and should convey a feeling for the impact force of the unit. The abbreviation remains on the wooden counter-plate. [8D]

[TheBattlefield]

Kirk-SIPRES, for my next counter works I need a decision in view of the used naval slots. I would suggest the following OOB:

Ships of the line:

Battleship= 1st Rate [106G]
Battle Cruiser= 2nd Rate [86G]
Heavy Cruiser= 3rd Rate [74G]
Light Cruiser= 4th Rate [58G]

Auxiliary ships:

Destroyer= Frigate [32G] - Fast scouting and trade route intercepting
Dreadnought= Privateer Brig [26G] - Attacking various (pirate) raiding points, accessible only for this naval unit (Supply Event or dummy Decision Event)
Torpedo Boat= Bomb Ketch [2M] – Strategic attack (range 2 hex?) on shore resources
Mulberry= Armed Merchantmen [20G] (Galleone/Indiaman/Fluyt) - Access Trading Points (Minor based trade unit for all majors via DE)

Transports:

Long Range Transport= Merchantmen [12G]
Short Range Transport= Sloop [4G]

(Carriers and Sub would not fit due to their special abilities)

Additional proposal: work on some “Trade-Points” on the maps edge for both sides (Far East, Africa, East India, South America) which will be executed by a merchant naval unit via dummy Decision Events (x MPP for 1 turn) flanked by a single Popup Event for information. (Together with the Privateer raiding points this may push the naval warfare in a different way than WW1/WW2)


Cheers
[8D]

PS: We need some new and quality sound files!

[TheBattlefield]

The "Privateer" Brig...

[SIPRES]

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield

The "Privateer" Brig...

BRAVO [&o]

I like very much the Fortress and Harbor graphics it really gives a 19th century flavor.
For Vessels if you could differentiate 1st to 6th rate graphics. I think it was in you plans, but just in case.
something like;
1st/2nd rate (3 decks)
3rd/4th rate (2 decks)
5th/6th rate (1 deck)

Battlefield, I dont know yet the unit INDEX (I think nothink is written in the stone yet)
For Land unit I simply prepare few graphics until INDEX will be decided

[SIPRES]

VIVA ESPANA!!

[Hellfirejet]

Hi guys all the land unit types highlight in RED are fixtures that I don't expect to change.


The naval units can still be decided upon,but the ones listed from 1st Rate down to the Privateer Brig, I'm happy with there addition to the game IE:

Dreadnought = 1st Rate
Battleship = 2nd Rate
Battlecruiser = 3rd Rate
Heavy Cruiser = 4th Rate
Light Cruiser = Frigate
Destroyer = Privateer Brig
MTB = Still to decide ?

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield

Aye, Sir.
Vote Bomb Ketch for MTB. For overall gameplay we need to change (name and function) "Industrial" Centers to "Trade" Centers. Beside the capital this will be the cities of main harbors. So it would be nice if we field a naval unit which could endanger this recources from the sea side. A fireship would just be another (tiny kamikaze) tactical unit. My opinion. Your decision! [;)]
The Mulberry slot should go to the Armed Merchantmen. Together with the Privateer this will be "trigger" units for each side. As a result we would get five main naval actions instead of only three vanilla. 1. Fleet action. (Classic ship to ship fight) 2. Harbor blockade action. (Reducing the targets supply) 3. Trade (ex convoy) route raiding action. (Reduces convoy income) In addition: 4. Piracy action (reduces major budget) and 5. Manual trade action. (increases major budget)

Hi, Kirk. Hi, SIPRES. Do you agree with the slot allocation to the Bomb Ketch and the Armed Merchantmen? Or two more Frigates? [:D]

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

I will insist on the case of frigates, there is a world of difference between a 9pdr frigate and a 24pdr frigate, it would be a mistake to classify all of them equal. Besides, there is the question of carronades, a 24 pdr frigate with 42pdr carronades was a match for a light 74s.
Regarding second rate, remember that the type was only built for the Royal Navy, no other navy had the 90/98s type.

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

I will insist on the case of frigates, there is a world of difference between a 9pdr frigate and a 24pdr frigate, it would be a mistake to classify all of them equal. Besides, there is the question of carronades, a 24 pdr frigate with 42pdr carronades was a match for a light 74s.
Regarding second rate, remember that the type was only built for the Royal Navy, no other navy had the 90/98s type.

You are of course right.
And there is a wide range between a 2 cm and a 8,8 cm AAG. But we have one AA unit in the vanilla game. Why? Because thre are limited unit slots and only one function: Defending air attacks! Same for Frigates. We could discuss a renaming in 5/6th Rate (I vote against!). I think for this mod we do not need another ship of the line Frigate, but we need a auxiliary one. After all it will be no historical simulation. Please do not count hull types, paintings, gun inches or country specefic organisations. It will be hard enough to finalize something playable. But as far as I know Kirk, he will do his best. And we will help him. Hope this helps to understand some of the necessary decisions...
But constructive criticism is always welcome. Thanks Iñaki Harrizabalagatar! [8D]