Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

7. External combat resolution (Good for combat resolution outside of game ie. miniatures).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Hey guys:

I wanted to let you guys know what to expect in our first release. This is really a summary of what is different in EiANW that is not in classic EiA.

1. Map based on EiH v4.0
2. Minor diplomacy based on EiH v3.0 (Influenced, allied minors).
3. Naval units based on EiH v3.0 (Heavy, light and tranports).
4. Combat is based on classic EiA (Chits and tables are identical).
5. Solo play (AI had 3 levels of difficulty selectable for each MP).
6. In game MP bidding or MP bidding import capable.
7. External combat resolution (Good for combat resolution outside of game ie. miniatures).
8. PBEM. The game host can skip a player's turn, use the AI to play a turn or replace a player.

Anyway, just a few things I wanted to let you guys know. I may have have stated these in the past but a features summary is probably "a little" overdue.

Thank you

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

In reference to point 3.

With all repsect, my I ask to call the heavy ships ships of the line (since all were SOLs) and the light ones frigates, since the majority of them were IRL 18-44 gun 6th rates (see N.A.M Rodgers command of the ocean)? Even though Europa Universalis is not compatible, it also used similar phraseology. Just to be more historic. Thank you in advance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

In reference to point 3.

With all repsect, my I ask to call the heavy ships ships of the line (since all were SOLs) and the light ones frigates, since the majority of them were IRL 18-44 gun 6th rates (see N.A.M Rodgers command of the ocean)? Even though Europa Universalis is not compatible, it also used similar phraseology. Just to be more historic. Thank you in advance.

This would be neither accurate nor desirable.

At this scale, the naval strength points represent units of ships that may comprise several different types. They do not connote individual ships.

Ships of the line and frigates often sailed together as part of the same force, and they were accompanied by many secondary and auxiliary vessels, as well. A squadron of "light" combatants could include frigates, brigs, schooners, and any number of other types.

Besides, not all ships of "18-44 guns" were frigates, and many frigates carried more guns than that. The lightest-armed frigates of the period were around 32 guns, and some carried as many as 54 or 58 (in fact, some 64-gun ships in the Royal Navy were classed "frigates" due to the number of decks on which the primary batteries were situated).

I prefer the game's terminology. A "heavy" naval combat unit would be one composed primarily of ships of the line, to be sure, but the terminology indicates accurately that these are your "big, bad, and loaded for bear" squadrons, no matter what the individual ships are called. "Light" connotes that this is a group best suited for tasks other than taking on "heavy" units.

Art by the amazing Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior
Well even thugh frigates acommpanied SOLs they DID not take part in the fighting

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

In reference to point 3.

With all repsect, my I ask to call the heavy ships ships of the line (since all were SOLs) and the light ones frigates, since the majority of them were IRL 18-44 gun 6th rates (see N.A.M Rodgers command of the ocean)?`

quote:

Even though Europa Universalis is not compatible, it also used similar phraseology.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

This is absolutely incorrect, but I'm not interested in arguing with you. Whenever anyone disagrees with you, you get insulted, and, before long, the personal insults start.

quote:

I was merely trying to be informative on a subject that you, apparently, have not studied at all in any depth. My comments about game scale and naval force composition during this era have escaped you completely. Remaining true to the board game terminology doesn't seem to concern you, either.
As for erudition, I suggest that you start with a force composition and battle narrative for Trafalgar, then take it from there.

Art by the amazing Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

Wow, another time when you talk out your ass. Paternakski basically dealt with this but you seriously need to review your sources, as usual, before you start talking.

quote:

quote:

Even though Europa Universalis is not compatible, it also used similar phraseology.

No, it didn't. It used Ship, Galley, Transport as the categories.

Art by the amazing Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

Actually the heavier Frigates absolutely did take part in fleet engagements, even major fleet battles, as the battles degraded down from major fleet engagements to skirmishes between smaller numbers this was even more so the case.
To give a rough estimate the British navy of around this period had roughly 2 or 3 non SOL rated ships for every SOL, including but not limited to sloops, ketches, brigantines, barques, schooners and frigates.
SOL and Heavy frigates would generally stand in line of battle in large engagements while the lighter stuff would run messages, relay signals, act as scouts and attempt to harrass any enemy actions in as far as they could.
On distant stations lighter frigates would often be included in line of battle.
If you still want to dismiss Frigates from taking part in battles, try looking up the ships involved in a few of the major engagements.
Here is one for you
Battle of the Nile
Frigates French guns are nominal numbers and the description varies for 40 gun ships from 36 to 48
Artemise(Captured) ,Diane & Justice 40 Gun
Seriuese 36 Gun (Sunk)

English
Leander 50
Mutine 16

Art by the amazing Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
Besides, not all ships of "18-44 guns" were frigates, and many frigates carried more guns than that. The lightest-armed frigates of the period were around 32 guns, and some carried as many as 54 or 58 (in fact, some 64-gun ships in the Royal Navy were

Art by the amazing Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I know I said that I wasn't going to post on this thread again, but, fer chrissake, everybody, look at the unit scale. You are not talking individual ships here, you are wielding and building "unit points" that have to be seen as being at least squadron size. The abstraction is such that you are projecting naval power (whether expressed as "heavy," "light" or "transport") into the area where it is going, and accomplishing or failing to accomplish your objectives without having any control over force compositions or ship types (except at the level of - dare I say it again - "heavy" or "light" combatants or "transports").

What happened at Trafalgar, Copenhagen, Alexandria, or the Sea of Tranquility and what specific ship types were involved is nothing to the point of this game.

So, I now shut up again, probably to the relief of many.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
Remaining true to the board game terminology doesn't seem to concern you, either.
.
.
.
You are not talking individual ships here, you are wielding and building "unit points" that have to be seen as being at least squadron size. The abstraction is such that you are projecting naval power (whether expressed as "heavy," "light" or "transport") into the area where it is going, and accomplishing or failing to accomplish your objectives without having any control over force compositions or ship types (except at the level of - dare I say it again - "heavy" or "light" combatants or "transports").

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus
No, scale of game indicates that one "fleet" is a squadron. From old EIA a fleet could have 30 "ships". Amazingly enough the British Coastal fleet was 30 "ships" if I recall correctly. So, I'd say that these ships probably represent a ship.

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus
No, scale of game indicates that one "fleet" is a squadron. From old EIA a fleet could have 30 "ships". Amazingly enough the British Coastal fleet was 30 "ships" if I recall correctly. So, I'd say that these ships probably represent a ship.

Jason

You know, I'd respond to your post if it made any frickin' sense at all, but it doesn't, so I won't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger
Tell me what is the difference between a couple of 74's a 64 a couple of 48's and a 36 vs a similar squadron when compared to a 110 a 90 a 86 and a couple of 74's and a 64 vs a similar squadron? My answer would be the first battle is probably fought in the caribbean or Indian ocean while the second is closer to home.  

quote:

the Dutch frigates, contrary to custom, bravely joining in the action, in which two of them were taken

Art by the amazing Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I'm gonna be nice, now. I got a little irritated, but some lotion and a glass of vegetable juice, and I'm back to my normal self again (I never did much like being big, green, overmuscled and suffering from tinnitus, anyway).

I don't seem to have been very clear. When I look at the EiA fleet counters, I don't see any depiction of what each NSP is, be it SoL, frigate, brig, Yamato, or otherwise (and I even used a magnifying glass and a pair of tweezers). So, I guess what I've been saying, then, is that you can call 'em whatever you want, but at this scale, all they are is a strength point. The terms "heavy," "light" and "transport" relate to function, not ship type. In any event, what difference does it make? This is EiA. Let's use EiA terms...