Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Alternate Naval Combat

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Alternate Naval Combat Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Alternate Naval Combat - 8/12/2008 11:33:13 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: East Coast
Status: offline
Marshall:

I done a bit of playing with the new Light Ship/Heavy ship sea battles in EiANW. Although I really like the concept, in execution it is, in my opinion, less satisfactory than the old board game version. Plus, the transports with their marginal movement of 3 are not of much use except in confined waters (Baltic, Black Sea). And the increased costs/build times sway naval dominance even further to the UK.

I would recommend two courses of action: (1) Include an option to revert to the same naval combat rules as in the board game and (2) Include and option to have a naval combat version that is somewhat similar to that used in Empires in Harm.

Obviously, some playtesting will be needed to done with the second option. If done properly, it could make the Naval Combat a lot more viable and exciting. Glad to help with the concept documents/charts/tables if you are keen.

Oh, and where is the Barbary Pirates option? Arghhhh!
best,

Mardonius

_____________________________

"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan
Post #: 1
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/13/2008 12:55:49 AM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
But why two courses of action?  If using classic EiA OOBs then only heavy fleets are used and the current naval combat system should work fine.  If using EiH OOBs with light fleets then the current naval combat already accounts for combined heavy/light fleets versus heavy/light fleets and should also work fine.  Heavy versus heavy should be the same with either OOB, or is there a difference??  If the current system could be enhanced for better heavy/light combat per EiH rules, then that's worth considering; it would only affect games using EiH OOBs.

If possible, it would be best to have a single comprehensive system that would accommodate either OOB version, so then it becomes a matter of scenario design and not an either/or argument about game rules.  You either have light fleets in play or you don't.  The pp issue is still unresolved, yes?  Question is whether light fleets and transports should count as 1 pp or 1/2 pp.  I would think 1/2 pp is fine but it was still up in the air when I last saw anything?

Speaking of the pirates, the optional piracy seems to be a compelling game feature to warrant light fleets, since there's not too much you can do with them.  Some don't care for the option at all, but that's like playing a WWII game without U-boats and ASW strategic warfare.  It may help to consider some enhancements to piracy to also make that a lot more viable and exciting.

(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 2
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/13/2008 2:04:02 AM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
I think an EiA classic scenario would solve this.



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 3
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/15/2008 5:43:56 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Three cheers for EiA classic.

Here is my simple fix for the heavy ships / light ships question:

* When a combat is fought by adversary A vs adversary B, compare A's relative strength in terms of heavy vs light ships.
* If B suffers losses, then those losses must be taken in proportion to A's relative ship strength. e.g. if A has 10 heavy ships and 30 light ships, then B must take 25% of his losses in heavy ships and 75% in light ships.
* Excess light ship losses may be taken as 2:1 for heavy ships. e.g. instead of taking 4 light ship losses, B may take 2 heavy ship losses.
* Excess heavy ship losses may be taken as 3:1 for light ships. e.g. instead of taking 2 heavy ship losses, B may take 6 light ship losses.


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 4
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/15/2008 6:36:15 AM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel


Here is my simple fix for the heavy ships / light ships question:




Here is mine: Get rid of them. :) Was that positive? LOL.

Anyways, yes, 3 large cheers for Empires in Arms.

It's not really "classic" since there is only 1.

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 5
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/15/2008 6:47:46 AM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

But why two courses of action?  If using classic EiA OOBs then only heavy fleets are used and the current naval combat system should work fine.  If using EiH OOBs with light fleets then the current naval combat already accounts for combined heavy/light fleets versus heavy/light fleets and should also work fine.  Heavy versus heavy should be the same with either OOB, or is there a difference??  If the current system could be enhanced for better heavy/light combat per EiH rules, then that's worth considering; it would only affect games using EiH OOBs.

If possible, it would be best to have a single comprehensive system that would accommodate either OOB version, so then it becomes a matter of scenario design and not an either/or argument about game rules.  You either have light fleets in play or you don't.  The pp issue is still unresolved, yes?  Question is whether light fleets and transports should count as 1 pp or 1/2 pp.  I would think 1/2 pp is fine but it was still up in the air when I last saw anything?

Speaking of the pirates, the optional piracy seems to be a compelling game feature to warrant light fleets, since there's not too much you can do with them.  Some don't care for the option at all, but that's like playing a WWII game without U-boats and ASW strategic warfare.  It may help to consider some enhancements to piracy to also make that a lot more viable and exciting.



Actually the "Classic EIA OOB" is LIGHT ships only (look at the cost & construction times) with 30 (instead of 20) ship corp &
NO heavy or Transport corp (& no ability to build them) & no pirate options. Very simple to do. (The NUMBER of corp each
nation has would of course have to be the correct number from EIA - not EIANW or EIH)

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 6
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/15/2008 2:28:39 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Are they lights? Or all heavies? OR in between (An abstraction of lights, heavies and trransports)?


_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to gwheelock)
Post #: 7
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/15/2008 2:30:26 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
Guy is saying that they are lights because of the corps size and the build time, which makes sense.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 8
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/15/2008 2:37:13 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Light ship corps are only 10 in size???
(Doesn't really matter, I'm just curious)



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 9
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/15/2008 2:46:35 PM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Guy is saying that they are lights because of the corps size and the build time, which makes sense.



Actually NOT the corp size (that is the part that DOESNT match). What DOES match
is the COST ($/MP) and the build time. So to provide a "Classic EIA Naval OOB"; just
use only light ships with >30< ship fleets instead of 10s (& the correct NUMBERS of fleets & ships for each MP).

There would still be a problem with transport capacity since EIA is based on a
per-fleet instead of a per-ship system. (A 1-ship EIA fleet can still carry an
army corp)

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 10
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/15/2008 2:47:46 PM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Light ship corps are only 10 in size???
(Doesn't really matter, I'm just curious)





Opps; yep current lights are 10 not 20 - my bad. (Thats what happens when you post after midnight & most of the brain-cells are asleep)

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 11
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/15/2008 4:08:17 PM   
RayKinStL

 

Posts: 130
Joined: 7/4/2008
Status: offline
And, if I remember correctly (been so long), ANY fleet counter (regardless of size or number of ships it contains) can carry a corp of any size.

(in reply to gwheelock)
Post #: 12
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/15/2008 4:58:56 PM   
yammahoper

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 4/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL

And, if I remember correctly (been so long), ANY fleet counter (regardless of size or number of ships it contains) can carry a corp of any size.


There was an optional rule that one fleet counter could carry 10 factors. The core rule was one corp per fleet.

yamma

_____________________________

...nothing is more chaotic than a battle won...

(in reply to RayKinStL)
Post #: 13
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/15/2008 5:43:10 PM   
AresMars

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
In the orginal EIA, the fleets where an abstraction of ships and naval power, where only the combat ships where represented by factors.

The fleet counters themselves represented, smaller, lighter ships, transports and the such.....as well as a supported naval organization.

The beauty of EiA, was that the number of fleet counters available to a Country represented its ability to influence the oceans, and the number of counters was as critical as the number of Ship factors in them, depending on what you where trying to do.

This is why a FLEET COUNTER with 1 SHIP FACTOR could transport a CORPS.

It abstracted the realities of the period and EiH tried to remedy that by having Heavy, Light and Transports.... IMHO not a great improvement.....

I like the game balance the orginal EiA naval rules offered, even thought it was a little abstracted....also, the abstraction really made the additional fleet counters offered by the Minors MUCH MUCH more valuable then the Money and Manpower they offered.....offered increased naval influence.....even to countries like Prussia and Austria.....

The EiA optional rule mentioned above by yammahopper was always an excellent one IMHO.


(in reply to yammahoper)
Post #: 14
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/16/2008 2:41:40 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Light ship corps are only 10 in size???
(Doesn't really matter, I'm just curious)





Opps; yep current lights are 10 not 20 - my bad. (Thats what happens when you post after midnight & most of the brain-cells are asleep)



No biggy, I was just worried that I missed something :-)



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to gwheelock)
Post #: 15
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/16/2008 2:44:38 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: yammahoper@yahoo.com


quote:

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL

And, if I remember correctly (been so long), ANY fleet counter (regardless of size or number of ships it contains) can carry a corp of any size.


There was an optional rule that one fleet counter could carry 10 factors. The core rule was one corp per fleet.

yamma


What about my current xport rate on heavies = 1 to 1 (20 ships can carry 20 inf factors or 10 cav, etc)?


< Message edited by Marshall Ellis -- 8/16/2008 2:45:08 PM >


_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to yammahoper)
Post #: 16
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/16/2008 7:30:53 PM   
yammahoper

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 4/23/2004
Status: offline
I've had no problens with moving trrops using the current set up.  Since new corps can be reinforced ontop of existing armies even over seas, I have sent one corp, established my depot, then filled up a few corps once there.

The transport navy is useful for moving troops and providing supply off the coast.  When dancing around the med and Italy, I find it vital.

yamma

_____________________________

...nothing is more chaotic than a battle won...

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 17
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/17/2008 5:59:53 AM   
RayKinStL

 

Posts: 130
Joined: 7/4/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

quote:

ORIGINAL: yammahoper@yahoo.com


quote:

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL

And, if I remember correctly (been so long), ANY fleet counter (regardless of size or number of ships it contains) can carry a corp of any size.


There was an optional rule that one fleet counter could carry 10 factors. The core rule was one corp per fleet.

yamma


What about my current xport rate on heavies = 1 to 1 (20 ships can carry 20 inf factors or 10 cav, etc)?




Personally, I hate it. But I am an EiA purist. I am not sure I understand the optional rule mentioned above. Are you saying that as Britain, with the optional rule, if I had a full I corps, I needed to fleet counters to transport the troops? Or are you saying I could only put 10 factors in a corps if it wanted to board a fleet?

I am curiosu, but regardless, I liked the original rules. One corps per counter. Ship strength made no difference. Id'd prefer a "fog of war" option for ships. I never understood why everyone got to know the strength of each fleet counter whenever they wanted. Seems odd.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 18
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/17/2008 10:06:45 AM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

quote:

ORIGINAL: yammahoper@yahoo.com


quote:

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL

And, if I remember correctly (been so long), ANY fleet counter (regardless of size or number of ships it contains) can carry a corp of any size.


There was an optional rule that one fleet counter could carry 10 factors. The core rule was one corp per fleet.

yamma


What about my current xport rate on heavies = 1 to 1 (20 ships can carry 20 inf factors or 10 cav, etc)?




Personally, I hate it. But I am an EiA purist. I am not sure I understand the optional rule mentioned above. Are you saying that as Britain, with the optional rule, if I had a full I corps, I needed to fleet counters to transport the troops? Or are you saying I could only put 10 factors in a corps if it wanted to board a fleet?

I am curiosu, but regardless, I liked the original rules. One corps per counter. Ship strength made no difference. Id'd prefer a "fog of war" option for ships. I never understood why everyone got to know the strength of each fleet counter whenever they wanted. Seems odd.



Yes, this is how EIA miscellaneous options section 12. Same section other paragraphs im guessing atleast some you used

Limitied transport was about 10 factor limit on fleets.12.2.4.
Following are from the same section and included in EIANW
Economic manipulation 12.5,
Cavalry options [Cavalry superiority 12.3.3.1 and Cavalry withdrawals 12.3.3.2],
Guard commitment 12.3.4,
Artillery corps 12.3.5,
Leader Casulties 12.7,
Detaching/Absorbing minor free state factors 12.3.8.

Im bit puzzled by the concept when you mention purist.
Beeing a purist you used none of those EIA rules or only a selection ?
As a purist you would allow all or none no ?

Regards
Bresh

< Message edited by bresh -- 8/17/2008 10:11:15 AM >

(in reply to RayKinStL)
Post #: 19
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/18/2008 4:59:43 PM   
RayKinStL

 

Posts: 130
Joined: 7/4/2008
Status: offline
We must have voted on each individually I guess (it was so long ago).  I know for a fact that one fleet counter carried one corp...plain and simple.  I know we used Guard committment and I know we used Economic Manipulation as well as Leader Casualties.  I guess we must have voted on each miscellaneous option individually (or perhaps they had a set way they played...which rules they used).  So i may not be a purist PURIST, but I guess I am keen to the rules we used cause I felt they worked well with the game.  Limited fleet capacity, ro the goofy way EiANW does it seems tedious and stupid. 

Do you know why one can not hide the power of each fleet?  WHy is this general knowledge when corp strength is hidden?  I never understood this, btu never erally questioned it either.  Is there a fog of war option to hide the strength of fleets and treat naval strength like army strength?

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 20
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/18/2008 5:03:32 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: East Coast
Status: offline
That fleet strength question always had me wondering too. Why do you always know how big the enemy fleet is?
I'd like to see this changed and make them like corps with hidden values.

(in reply to RayKinStL)
Post #: 21
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/18/2008 6:03:03 PM   
RayKinStL

 

Posts: 130
Joined: 7/4/2008
Status: offline
Exactly.  Is that what fog of war is, or is that something different and I am using the wrong terms?

Regardless, that is the one rule I never understood about EiA.  I should be able to bluff with my stacks (fleet) in the same way MPs can bluff with their stacks (armies) in terms of strength.  Even if it was an optional rule, I think it would be a good one.  If you can scout an enemy fleet strength, then you can do the same with armies, so that arguement does not apply.  I would like to see enemy fleet strength hidden or as an optional rule in a future release.  Me and Mardonius obviously agree.  What is everyone else's feelings on this?  Jimmer, how about you, since you seem to have the same affinity for GB that I do?

(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 22
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/18/2008 6:06:58 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
To Guy: Yes, sorry, got that mixed up. The heavy corps size (30) is ~= to the original.

As far as moving corps: I like the original rules, that 1 fleet counter can move one corps. In the current EiANW I often find fleet counters being useless since they can't move corps. This has happened to me both as Russia and as Turkey now.

(in reply to RayKinStL)
Post #: 23
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/18/2008 6:20:30 PM   
RayKinStL

 

Posts: 130
Joined: 7/4/2008
Status: offline
Neverman, besides returning to the original rules of just one fleet per corp (regardless of fleet strength) what do you think about hidding the strength of fleets much in the same way the strength of corps is hidden?  This would give countries the option to pull bluffs with their fleet stacks, etc...  I would like as many opinions as possible, especially from EiA fans...not ust EiANW fans!

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 24
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/18/2008 6:57:14 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL

Neverman, besides returning to the original rules of just one fleet per corp (regardless of fleet strength) what do you think about hidding the strength of fleets much in the same way the strength of corps is hidden?  This would give countries the option to pull bluffs with their fleet stacks, etc...  I would like as many opinions as possible, especially from EiA fans...not ust EiANW fans!


Ray, not taking any historical accuracy in mind, I like the idea.

(in reply to RayKinStL)
Post #: 25
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/18/2008 7:58:45 PM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

That fleet strength question always had me wondering too. Why do you always know how big the enemy fleet is?
I'd like to see this changed and make them like corps with hidden values.


I suspect that this is because it has historically (pre-airplane/satalite) been much easier to
track & count ships than it was to track armies (ships take a long time to build and
have to come back to port regularly for resupply). This means that foreign agents
could just hang around & count them (esp those great big VISIBLE sails)

(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 26
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/18/2008 9:05:31 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

That fleet strength question always had me wondering too. Why do you always know how big the enemy fleet is?
I'd like to see this changed and make them like corps with hidden values.


I suspect that this is because it has historically (pre-airplane/satalite) been much easier to
track & count ships than it was to track armies (ships take a long time to build and
have to come back to port regularly for resupply). This means that foreign agents
could just hang around & count them (esp those great big VISIBLE sails)


I'm sure it didn't happen that often, but there's not much from stopping a country from changing fleet sizes AT SEA, making it almost impossible to tell what fleets are what when they are AT SEA.

(in reply to gwheelock)
Post #: 27
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/18/2008 9:10:41 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Actually, from what I understand fleet size intelligence was quite common. anybody else know any sources to confirm this?



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 28
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/18/2008 10:18:15 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: East Coast
Status: offline
I can confirm that size of location of a fleet was NOT a known thing. Nelson's pursuit of the French to Egypt is a classic example of missing the enemy (composed of a multiple slow transports as well as SOLs) multiple times. Moreover, Nelson had no idea how large the French fleet was until they sighted the mast tops in Aboukir Bay...

I can cite sources and historical documentation if any one is interested...

We really should have lessened chance of interception and evasion rules at sea.

_____________________________

"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 29
RE: Alternate Naval Combat - 8/19/2008 5:44:03 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
The problem with adding fog of war for fleets to the game, regardless of the historical accuracy, is that the game becomes very short and brutal. France loads its ports up with a fleet and a corps each. Britain doesn't know the sizes of those fleets, and so stacks essentially random ships into fleets in the blockade boxes. France tries a blockade run on each port, one or two (the one which France has actually stacked large numbers of ships into the fleets) succeeds and Britain is over-run by French troops in Jan 1805. Rinse, lather, repeat. Game over essentially as the allies on the continent can't fight on without British money. This is obviously a highly ahistorical situation -- it never happened and never really could happen, for various reasons.

Several issues need to be considered:

* The British navy had a pretty good idea of French ship dispositions in the Atlantic ports. Sail a few sloops close enough in to shore and count the masts. Out in the open waters of the mediterranean or the open seas fog of war may well apply (and in those cases the evasion rules pretty much cover it), but in terms of counting the masts in Le Havre or La Rochelle, it was simple enough.

* The game doesn't really allow fleets to "react" to blockade runs as actually happened in period. In reality, the RN didn't have a lot of ships on blockade duty. It had a number of small, fast, light, and easily manouverable frigates, sloops and cutters mostly manning the blockade, and a set of signals that allowed the bulk of the navy, stationed in the channel or at Spithead, to react quickly to any attempted blockade run. The process of a large ship leaving port is a difficult and time consuming one (from the time you start sending monkeys up the mast to cross the yards, which in itself is easily spotted from offshore), and a fleet stationed a few dozen miles away can easily be across the port leads before you actually get underway in any serious numbers.

* The process of leaving port, especially when there is a blockade to run, is actually quite difficult. It's a complex enough procedure in a modern sailing vessel which has a diesel engine down below, but trying same in a 17th / 18th C line of battle warship, with no engine and no oars, takes some serious skill. More importantly, the wind needs to be blowing exactly the right way, and except in the case of the Mediterranean and Baltic ports, tides have to be judged. So in reality a blockading fleet knows pretty much exactly when (time and date) a blockade can potentially be run at various ports, and be standing off at those times, while conserving sail and energy for the times when a blockade run isn't a possibility. In a good number of the French ports depicted on the map, notably those along the Atlantic coast south of Brest, those conditions of favourable wind and tide often didn't eventuate for months at a stretch. The British almost never blockaded La Rochelle -- the Atlantic winds and Bay of Biscay sailing conditions usually did that job for them.

* Finally, even given the right conditions of wind and tide, a fleet leaving port is seriously at a disadvantage to a blockading fleet -- more than the "auto wind gauge" allowed by EiA would suggest. In simple terms, each ship leaving port has to expose itself to a broadside, initially a bow rake and then, assuming the blockading ships have enough windage to come about, secondly up the stern, to pretty much the entire blockading fleet. If you've got even a moderate number of line of battle ships ready on the blockade, only the heaviest of your blockade running ships are going to survive that to actually make it into battle.

In reality it's pretty much impossible for a fleet to run a blockade without getting spotted and then nailed. If you have sufficient wind and weather conditions to disrupt the blockading fleet (which actually did happen quite a bit) then you also have sufficient wind and weather conditions to make leaving port impossible. If you have good wind and clear weather, then you can leave port easily enough, but every ship within any kind of range is going to see you doing so, and they'll be onto you (as we say down here) like a seagull onto a sick prawn. So naval evasion doesn't really apply to ships in or leaving port, and neither does fog of war.

Your example of Nelson's pursuit of the French is not a particularly good example, as it happened at sea not in port, and doesn't really confirm anything about sizes and locations of fleets not being known (certainly not in port). In terms of fleet strength -- both sides were pretty much exactly sure of the other side's naval strength based on counting the ships that had left port (or counting the ships that were there a week ago and subtracting the ones that were still there), and it was for that reason alone Brueys was running and Nelson was chasing.

In game turns the French got a couple of good evasion rolls in, until Aboukir Bay of course at which point they failed the evasion roll, Nelson got the wind gauge, and then the combat dice favoured the British as well.

_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Alternate Naval Combat Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.563