RE: Alternate Naval Combat
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:23 pm
ORIGINAL: Jimmer
I respectfully suggest that it is impossible to create a game concerning the naval war of this period (1805-1815) that is both balanced and historical. To be historical, it would have to allow the possibility of a Trafalgar. In game terms, extrapolated out at roughly the same rate of the current tables, this would require a modified roll of 20 (on a six sider) and -1 (also on a six sider). I seriously doubt anybody would want to play game with such a possible variance in outcomes.
Trafalgar is a classic example of what happens when you get
(a) serious sailing crews vs part-timers or lubbers. The British, even when press-ganging crews, tended to take crews from the merchant marine and other nautical professions, and trained them to the point where they knew how to sail a boat. The Spanish and French tended to take crews from either the army, or off the land. Cape St Vincent was a classic case of this as well -- the British crews were 100% marine trained, the Spanish crews were anything up to 90% first-timers. I recall from reading about it somewhere that one of the Spanish ships captured during that battle still had tompions in the cannons along one side -- left there by crews who basically had no idea how to fire a gun.
(b) wind gauge going to the British.
(c) superior naval tactics going to the British.
Trafalgar was essentially a blockade run. Although the battle didn't really occur in the Cadiz "blockade box", the positions and dispositions of the fleets were essentially a set-up by the British caused by them allowing the Spanish and French to get far enough along the coast so that the British fleets could get around the outside of them, leaving the Spanish and French on a lee shore. This is one of the things that will tend to happen to fleets leaving port into the face of a blockade -- the blockading fleet not only has wind gauge at the point of interception, but also sufficient sea-room to manouver the blockaded fleets into any position it likes, pretty much ensuring a massacre.
I'd be happy enough with rules that allowed fleets manning a blockade box to stomp all over fleets leaving a blockaded port -- as this is pretty much what's going to happen every time. If you reversed the positions and dispositions of the fleets, for example if Nelson was leaving Gibraltar and that was blockaded by the Spanish and French, the outcome of the battle may have been different.
If you look at the major naval engagements that were at sea during the period, that did not begin with or eventuate from a blockade run, the only one I can think of off the top of my head (I'm sure there were others) was the 1st June. Even though that was a pretty impressive victory for the British, it didn't have the same lop-sidedness of Trafalgar even though the British did have the wind-gauge and a clear tactical advantage from the start of the battle. I'm sure you could concoct rules that allowed for both results within the same framework.
Furthermore, the period did not see navies for different nations all working off of the same tables. GB ruled the waves; there's just no other way to put it. Anything that emulates that in a game is going to be either a-historical or lopsided.
True -- however EiA isn't a game about sea battles, it's about control of Europe. In overall game terms, France can afford to surrender the advantage at sea to the British, and still win the game.