Matrix Games Forums

I was reading the rules on supply again last night and saw this on page 20...

"Note that it is very easy to disrupt unprotected navy supply chains, but a single frigate can ward off merchants and privateers. Ships can never the less be supplied from adjacent supply depots, including land provences."

This means that I need to build a chain of supply depots at sea to keep my navies, ships, and privateers in good condition if I want to them to operate near distant shores? Otherwise they suffer attrition? Do I lose entire ships? Or do they just take part of their 10 points as damage? Does this apply to merchants?

It is a good question, and I'm curious to hear the answer myself
 
BTW guys, I love the naval part of this game. The AI is actually FAIRLY competent, but no match for me obviously [:'(]

Actually no, you don't need supply depots for the navy so I'm not quite sure what that refers to.  Err I know, maybe it is referring to troops on ships but supply lines aren't needed for the ships themselves to the best of my knowledge.
 
You can build supply depots across the water though to supply your land troops as this is necessary for invasions and in some cases even without invasions, it leads to a shorter supply line.  France would love to do this through the Baltic if going to war in Russia for example but it's chances of protecting it's supply line that way are pretty slim.

I think the wording may be a little off, I think the supply part is as Joram says, for Troops being carry by the Fleets

it looks like ships can take some damage, but I think this is part of the attriction rules

Heres a weird sea supply question.  If you load up troops in a province with a depot and then the fleet sails through unsupplied sea hexes and lands in a zone with a depot at the end of the turn are those troops "in supply" that turn?

Yes, it's actually the end point that is judged for supply rules.

I was thinking that fleets not needing supply is kinda unrealistic, but then rethought not. I guess when ships would set out to sea they would have stocked up provisions for months. Now if a fleet stays out of any friendly port for over a year or so, I guess that would be kinda unrealistic, but given the low probability that that would actually happen it seems to be a minor issue.
 
A related thing that I was thinking about: Ammo in the detailed naval battles. At present it seems there is a limitless supply. Would it not be neat for a mod if there was a limited supply of ammo? Could it be done? How many salvos could your average late 18th century vessel fire off before it depleted its supply of ammo?

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Now if a fleet stays out of any friendly port for over a year or so, I guess that would be kinda unrealistic, but given the low probability that that would actually happen it seems to be a minor issue.

I remember a PBEM I had playing the first version of COG. I was at war as GB against Prussia, I succeeded in destroying the Prussian navy, and I could block all of the Prussian ports for years without suffering attrition (and no need to go back to the home ports). I thought the rule about naval supply was changed (I have begun reading the manual, but I've not played a single turn yet). In any case, if the rule has not changed, I'm not sure it's such a minor issue, and the manual should be corrected: consider also that IIRC merchants and privateers cannot load troops, so that the reference to supply would make no sense for them.

Well, it would seem that these massive ships with 1000 men would need supplies.  And I suppose that they could "forage" along the coasts of the regions they were next to.  But what about the massive concentrations?  Isn't this part of what the advantage of having a port in the region was about?  So you could supply your navies and keep them "on station" for a greater percentage of time?  I think units with bases in the area should be more effective at almost everything they do.

Anthropoid-

I was really intrigued by that question. Actually, I had thought along the same lines whether shot was at all limited in real life. After a little searching, I found no general comments, but according to the Royal Navy website, at Trafalgar H.M.S. Victory fired a total of 2669 round shot weighing a total of 27 tons, but her total supply of shot was about 120 tons. So even during one of the largest battles, she still only used 25% of her total supply. So I guess unilimited ammo is a pretty good approximation. (the site did not give figures for powder, but I assume it was stored and used in a similar proportion to shot).

Oh, the site does also give figures on powder. H.M.S. Victory could store 35 tons of powder and used 7.5 tons at Trafalgar. So again, supply was not an issue for ammunition.

Barb

well, one thing to remember this is a month turn, so some abstrake got to be going on (of course English ships in the channel would feel okay, vs English ships in the black sea, but...)

and in the long run, the AI does return to port, it is the player that tends to stay out at sea all game

Hard Sarge,
 
Are these AI fleets returning to port for fun?  Or is there a reason?
 
I am personally not a 18th century naval expert.  I don't know if a British fleet blockading Toulon was sent supplies or if it just pulled up anchor and headed back to England/Gibraltar so it could give it another go after restocking properly.  I am sure a mix of strategies was used.
 
I was actually happy to see that a supply chain might be needed to keep permanent blockades in place.  But now I see this might not be the case.  In another thread, Ericbabe mentioned he wanted to come up with reasons bases were important and convert that into rules for the game.  Like I mentioned, a fleet with a base in the region should perhaps be more effective at many things it does.

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

Well, it would seem that these massive ships with 1000 men would need supplies.  And I suppose that they could "forage" along the coasts of the regions they were next to.  But what about the massive concentrations?  Isn't this part of what the advantage of having a port in the region was about?  So you could supply your navies and keep then "on station" for a greater percentage of time?  I think units with bases in the area should be more effective at almost everything they do.

Probably I didn't express my point clearly. I mean, if in game terms merchants and privateers don't need supply, I don't understand the manual statuition about their supply need (which cannot be referred to troops loaded). I agree with you about unit bases in the area, but I've the impression that the game engine works differently (at least I'm rather sure that in COG I you could leave a massive fleet on station far away from your coasts without suffering attrition).

well, as I said, there is atrition damage going on, depending on the levels played, and I do see AI fleets with damaged ships in them, (that I didn't do, maybe other AI fleets ?) but they go back for repair

(the way the damage system works between turns, Crew is the major factor, Hull and Rigging can be repaired)

Ships could stay at sea for many months but generally rotated back to the nearest port at intervals for water, provisions and spares. I for one am grateful the CoG-EE does not require micromanagement of blockading fleets. To be sure there would be a regular traffic of chartered supply ships, water hoys and the like sailing in support of the fleets at sea but I would consider that these are what the maintenance costs for Fleet container units represents. During this era virtually all naval infrastructure was tied to the shore, either through friendly controlled harbours or contracted out with diplomatic consuls as facilitators. It seems that in the game all of this happens invisibly, which is perhaps a good thing.

However, it does raise the question of what a Fleet container unit actually represents. What does the player actually receive for the price of (advanced economy) 50 money, 20 labour, 20 iron, 100 lumber and 30 textiles?

It is easy to see why Corps and Armies cost, you are paying for not only the ever expanding command and control element but the huge numbers of specialists like sutlers, brothels, blacksmiths, teamsters and camp followers to name just a few of the groups that moved with the ground forces and required time and money to organize and administer.

A Napoleonic fleet was different, one Senior Officer (usually an Admiral and perhaps his secretary and a Flag Lieutenant) with ‘X’ number of ships under command and you have an instant fleet. That’s it, and the Admiral was probably already hanging around waiting for an appointment anyway. The infrastructure already exists as Docks and costs money as ship maintenance costs. There were no naval staffs as such, no dedicated Fleet Train and nothing at all remotely similar to the administrative and logistical tail in a Corps or Army existed outside the confines of a naval port. And you have already paid for the port facilities once so paying again just to use them seems wrong both in a historical and game context particularly since you are already paying maintenance costs for the ship and the Fleet.

It is easy to see why Fleet containers cost to maintain, indeed the maintenance costs are probably understated given that it should represent not only chartered merchants bringing needed supplies but also dispatch cutters with orders and reports and probably funds for detached consuls operating under orders of the admiralty. The money is perhaps reasonable but the lumber, iron and textile costs make no sense.

As for the Admirals command staff, he really did not have any. If the command was large enough he may employ a Captain of the Fleet (Chief of Staff) but there was no specialist training for this, like as not this officer would be a friend, relative or mentored subordinate and this would probably be the case for all an admiral’s “staff”. Indeed the Captain’s of a Fleet were little more than superior administrative clerks since warships, by their nature, were independent in a way that land combat formations can never be.

Suggest that Fleet container units cost only money and this value be reduced.

Randomizer, I agree that it is nice that much of this (all of this) is invisible.  But there can/should perhaps be a bonus for just being close to a base for operations.  This would make Britains bases of Gibraltar and Malta more valuable and I believe historically so.  Imagine, a British fleet operating off of Sicily with a full base just to the south doesn't have any advantage over a Danish fleet which has come to do the same. 
 
P.S. I agree on your assertions about the fleet holding containers and wondered about this immediately.  They really do seem over priced.  And I don't know that splitting 20 ships up into 4 gourps of five was anything like splitting an army into 4 individual and fully independent Corps.

Nice thread, and great info everybody! It is great to learn more about military history through these games