Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Battleship Scouts/Fog of War

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition >> Battleship Scouts/Fog of War Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Battleship Scouts/Fog of War - 7/7/2009 1:02:49 AM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline 		If I am not mistaken, as it stands now in CoG:EE, a single battleship sitting next to a region can see "into" it and tell me if there are enemy armies there. However, I have noticed that a diplomat moving around territory in "fog of war" can't see anything (not even if other diplomats are there?). And if this isn't the case normally for everyone, this is the case for me at the moment.

Suggestions:
1. Naval units should not see any land units (or diplomats) in a region.
2. Naval units should see naval units "in port" in a region (the adjacent player would see the naval unit(s) present in a greyed out "fog of war" region).
3. Diplomats can see if an army is in a region (according to Jomini*, spying is the single most important means of gathering information)
4. I think we need more frigates in the game. People are using battleships for the purpose of collecting information, when most of the naval reading I have done now indicates that battleships were only employed in this role when a frigate could not be had. Battleships were virtually never out prowling around alone doing this stuff. Frigates (and sloops) were for this.

*Antoine-Henri, baron Jomini (March 6, 1779–March 24, 1869) was a general in the French and later in the Russian service, and one of the most celebrated writers on the Napoleonic art of war. According to the historian John Shy, Jomini "deserves the dubious title of founder of modern strategy." - From Wiki

< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 7/7/2009 1:20:21 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: Battleship Scouts/Fog of War - 7/7/2009 1:15:14 AM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		Diplomats can ALREADY see into a region, they only have to do a "spy" mission.

Perhaps a way to stop individual "battleship scouts" being used is to only allow a FLEET (as long as it had one ship, of course) to see into the adjacent region. That would also negate the need for more frigates.

I must admit, I haven't noticed the individual ship thing, though. I assume it does NOT apply to merchantmen. I know merchants can't see into adjacent regions.

(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 2
RE: Battleship Scouts/Fog of War - 7/7/2009 1:43:36 AM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline 		I think everyone knows the effect of putting a fleet next to a shoreline. Suddenly, you can see everything in it (or most of it).

I think this was done to show the fleet the enemy naval units in port. That's fine with me, but in my strong opinion, this intelligence should be limited to naval units and the retrieval of other information from the province should be ended. So, as I said...keep the regions "greyed out", but show the naval units in them.



< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 7/7/2009 1:53:44 AM >

_____________________________

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori*.
-Wilfred Owen
*It is sweet and right to die for your country.

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 3
RE: Battleship Scouts/Fog of War - 7/7/2009 1:54:51 AM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		I don't necessarily disagree BUT I would imagine that ships off shore would have lots of ways to gain intel on what was in the region (send parties ashore, stop merchantmen, etc).

Maybe a way to help prevent scouting (thus hiding things like an invasion of England) would be to allow diplomats to 'obscure' their own AND all adjacent regions in their home country on a success.

That would allow one diplomat to hide an entire section of the country for a turn.

(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 4
RE: Battleship Scouts/Fog of War - 7/7/2009 1:59:52 AM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline 		Hey B2.  Even at the height of hostilities blockading ships or vessels in transit might interface with fishermen of even an enemy nation, to buy food or seek information about the shore.  A little gold, perhaps some issue spirits and some 'innocent' conversation might yield good results but it might be nice if it was sometimes less than reliable news.  Perhaps something like that is what we see here?

It was not yet time for navies to wipe civilians completely from the surface of the ocean.

Best Regards

(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 5
RE: Battleship Scouts/Fog of War - 7/7/2009 2:16:16 AM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline 		Randomizer, you are completely right there. :)

However, I think that a single battleship sitting off a coast can collect more information than an entire army corps adjacent to a region. Or?

However, Randomizer, I do like your spin on this and I will consider it. :)

P.S. I just picked up the great book "Feeding Nelson's Navy" by MacDonald. Great, great book. I would definitely say that based on the reading I have done in the area, the ability to purchase supplies and land freely on shore was limited against pure enemies. Most all of the stories of such landings I have read originate from British-Spanish interactions during the Peninsular War. Of course, this requisitioning (usually with promises to pay or cash) was certainly doable with most neutral nations--although during the Napoleonic Wars, the Pope insisted that this type of trade and supply be carried on with neutral ships.

< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 7/7/2009 2:18:30 AM >

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 6
RE: Battleship Scouts/Fog of War - 7/7/2009 2:23:56 AM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

However, I think that a single battleship sitting off a coast can collect more information than an entire army corps adjacent to a region. Or?


Only if the powers involved are at peace. If they are at war the normal FOW/espionage rules kick in and you need cavalry and espionage upgrades to scout details.

_____________________________

Mindset, Tactics, Skill, Equipment
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 7
RE: Battleship Scouts/Fog of War - 7/7/2009 2:48:15 AM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline 		Interesting! Thanks Mus. 

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 8
RE: Battleship Scouts/Fog of War - 7/7/2009 8:28:46 PM   
Kingmaker

 

Posts: 1678
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline 		HiHi

People are using battleships for the purpose of collecting information, when most of the naval reading I have done now indicates that battleships were only employed in this role when a frigate could not be had. Battleships were virtually never out prowling around alone doing this stuff. Frigates (and sloops) were for this.

No I’m not B2, I’m using 4th Rates, and this should meet with your criteria as I’m assuming just as WCS ran both 1st & 2nd rates into 1 icon then at the other end of the scale 4th Rates will be representative of 50 gun ships and lower (6th / 7th Rate, 5th rate of course being Frigates) including sloops, that were not then normally considered fit (except in shallow water situations) of taking up a place in the line of Battle, there were exceptions of course Camperdown and Copenhagen being 2 battles were 4th rates took an active part.

In Game terms therefore the balance of Frigates to 4th Rates at least for the English Navy is probably about right (ish), and 4th rates can & should be legitimately used for information gathering, as well as for Troop transport, Blockading of Ports without an enemy fleet in etc. etc.

Possibly as an indication of Game balance re Frigates, it is alleged that while searching for the french fleet before the Battle of the Nile Nelson was heard to exclaim “Frigates! Were I to die this moment, want of frigates would be found engraved on my heart!”

All the Best
Peter



(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 9
RE: Battleship Scouts/Fog of War - 7/8/2009 12:58:39 AM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline 		Agreed on the utility function of the 4th rates. In my games as GB I have been using them as blockade squadrons and transports almost exclusively.

_____________________________

Mindset, Tactics, Skill, Equipment
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

(in reply to Kingmaker)
Post #: 10
RE: Battleship Scouts/Fog of War - 7/8/2009 8:26:04 AM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline 		I don't get it Kingmaker. Are you saying 4th rates aren't "ships of the line"?

In all of the reading I have done, a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rate are described as "ships of the line".  Frigates, in the reading I have done (and built in or before 1814) are known as 5th and 6th rates. Everything above them "ship of the line", or "battleship".

Even though the books "The Command of the Ocean" and "Frigates, Sloops, and Brigs" have a more thorough discussion of frigates, the Wikipedia entry and list of frigates launched before 1814 sums it up well...

"Before the "true" sail frigate come into being in the 1740s, the equivalent was the single-deck cruising vessel of the Sixth Rate, armed with either 20, 22 or 24 guns, which established itself in the 1690s and lasted until the arrival of the new "true" frigates. For half a century the main armament of this type was the 6-pounder gun, until it was replaced by 9-pounder guns just prior to being superseded by the 28-gun Sixth Rate frigate. Two nominally 24-gun ships - the Lyme and Unicorn - were built in 1747-1749 with twenty-four 9-pounders on the upper deck but also carried four smaller guns on the quarter deck; the pair were designated at 24-gun ship (disregarding the smaller guns) until 1756, when they were reclassed as 28-gun frigates. However other 24-gun and 20-gun ships continued to be built, with twenty-two or twenty 9-pounder guns on the upper deck."

"Following the success of the Lyme and Unicorn, the mid-century period saw the simultaneous introduction in 1756 both of Sixth Rate frigates of 28 guns (with a main battery of twenty-four 9-pounder guns, plus four lesser guns mounted on the quarterdeck and/or forecastle) and of Fifth Rate frigates of 32 or 36 guns (with a main battery of twenty-six 12-pounder guns, plus six or ten lesser guns mounted on the quarterdeck and/or forecastle). The American Revolution saw the emergence of new Fifth Rates of 36 or 38 guns which carried a main battery of 18-pounder guns, and were thus known as "heavy" frigates, while the French Revolutionary War brought about the introduction of a few 24-pounder gun armed frigates. In the 1830s, new types emerged with a main battery of 32-pounder guns."

From the wiki entry for "fourth rates" (again, short and quick instead of grabbing "Frigates, Sloops, and Brigs" or "Command of the Ocean" and going quote mining...)

"In the British Royal Navy, a Fourth Rate was, during the first half of the 18th century, a ship of the line mounting from 46 up to 60 guns."

A "ship of the line". So, I don't understand your point Kingmaker. The 4th rate is a "ship of the line"--or "battleship" as I have seen them interchangeably called. And I am saying that as far as the reading I have done, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rate ships (i.e. "battleships") were not used for scouting unless there were no frigates available. However, if you have information which seems to claim the opposite, I would like to see it for a project I am working on. It would be very useful.

I have read about this quote of Nelson's which you referred to as well. A couple of times. But all it says is that he was short of frigates at that place and time for any number of reasons, so it is tempting to speculate on "shortages".

But here are the real numbers for the Royal Navy in 1793 and 1814 from Henderson's "Frigates, Sloops, and Brigs". Please note that the word "frigates" was used in his table and has not been inserted by me.:

1793
First Rate (3 decks/100-120 guns/2500 tons): 5 in commission, 1 in reserve or repair, 0 relegated
Second Rate (3 decks/98 guns/2,200 tons): 9 in commission, 7 in reserve or repair, 3 relegated
Third Rate (2 decks/64-80 guns/1,750 tons): 71 in commission, 24 in reserve or repair, 22 relegated
Fourth Rate (2 decks/50 guns/1,100 tons): 8 in commission, 4 in reserve or repair, 7 relegated
Fifth Rate (2 decks/44 guns/900 tons): 12 in commission, 3 in reserve or repair, 3 relegated
Fifth Rate ("frigates"/32-44 guns/900 tons): 66 in commission, 3 in reserve or repair, 4 relegated
Sixth Rate ("frigates"/28 guns/600 tons): 22 in commission, 2 in reserve or repair, 4 relegated
Sixth Rate (post ship/20-24 guns/500 tons): 10 in commission, 2 in reserve or repair, 2 relegated

1814
First Rate (3 decks/100-120 guns/2500 tons): 7 in commission, 2 in reserve or repair, 2 relegated
Second Rate (3 decks/98 guns/2,200 tons): 5 in commission, 3 in reserve or repair, 4 relegated
Third Rate (2 decks/64-80 guns/1,750 tons): 87 in commission, 16 in reserve or repair, 80 relegated
Fourth Rate (2 decks/50 guns/1,100 tons): 8 in commission, 2 in reserve or repair, 9 relegated
Fifth Rate (2 decks/44 guns/900 tons): 2 in commission, 1 in reserve or repair, 1 relegated
Fifth Rate ("frigates"/32-44 guns/900 tons): 121 in commission, 11 in reserve or repair, 45 relegated
Sixth Rate ("frigates"/28 guns/600 tons): 0 in commission, 0 in reserve or repair, 4 relegated
Sixth Rate (post ship/20-24 guns/500 tons): 25 in commission, 4 in reserve or repair, 11 relegated

So, based on the reading I have done, I am still saying that the notion of putting a bunch of 4th rates (ships of the line or "battleships") on "spy" duty around the world is not historically accurate. Although I have no problem with this "spying" stuff in general. It is just that to the best of my knowledge, 4th rate ships weren't used in this role.

It seems all of the 1st-4th rates are accounted for in CoG:EE. I think the frigates could be too. And obviously from the increase in commissioned frigate numbers between 1793 and 1814 (88 to 121), they were useful ships.

**********************************************************

Below is a list of frigates built before or during the Napoleonic Wars...

9-pounder armed


12-pounder armed


18-pounder armed








< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 7/8/2009 9:31:34 AM >

_____________________________

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori*.
-Wilfred Owen
*It is sweet and right to die for your country.

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 11
RE: Battleship Scouts/Fog of War - 7/8/2009 8:48:29 AM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

"In the British Royal Navy, a Fourth Rate was, during the first half of the 18th century, a ship of the line mounting from 46 up to 60 guns."


Odd that you would quote that saying his point doesnt make sense, when the line immediately following says:

quote:

While the number of guns stayed subsequently in the same range up until 1817, after 1756 the ships of 50 guns and below were considered too weak to stand in the line of battle, although the remaining 60-gun ships were still classed as fit to be ships of the line.


Of course that was the point Kingmaker was making.

I would say that 4th rates in COG EE represent the 50ish and below gun ships that arent frigates and high 50s to low 60s gun ships would be merged with the 3rd rates.

If you consider the huge penalties (-5 to assault -3 to counterassault) they receive, 4th rates certainly arent strong enough to be exposed to front line fighting. When I am estimating the strength of an enemy fleet for a predicted outcome in a battle in PBEM (instant combat) I count frigates (frigates receive -2 to assault and counterassault) and 4th rates as "half" a ship because of the big penalty they receive. Of course frigates are super fast so they aid in pursuing or withdrawal, but it works for the purposes of just "counting rifles" and deciding whether or not I can win a battle.

Edited to put correct values for quick combat and fourth rates.

< Message edited by Mus -- 7/8/2009 8:59:42 AM >

_____________________________

Mindset, Tactics, Skill, Equipment
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 12
RE: Battleship Scouts/Fog of War - 7/8/2009 9:05:20 AM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline 		LOL. I wasn't finished editing my entry. LOL

_____________________________

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori*.
-Wilfred Owen
*It is sweet and right to die for your country.

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 13
RE: Battleship Scouts/Fog of War - 7/8/2009 9:07:21 AM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline 		One key thing is, I have absolutely no problem with anyone breaking off small ships to cruise people's coasts. And I have absolutely no problem with Kingmaker having ships all over my coast! (As a rational human being that is! As the King of France I have a problem with it though! )

Anyway...

My initial main point was..."People are using battleships for the purpose of collecting information...."

Kingmaker's initial response was... "No I’m not B2, I’m using 4th Rates...."

I am saying 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rates are "ships of the line". Hence, "People are using battleships for the purpose of collecting information." 4th rates were double decked ships. Frigates are not. Frigates are faster, because they are smaller and shallower and sport basically the same rigging as a 4th, 3rd, 2nd, and 1st rate. Interestingly, the frigate was virtually indistinguishable from one of these larger ships over the horizon (at least that's what the author of "Frigates, Sloops, and Brigs" claims.)

My other question is: Since when is a 4th rate not a ship of the line? Or isn't it? Do I have something entirely screwed up?

Kingmaker indicated: "I’m assuming just as WCS ran both 1st & 2nd rates into 1 icon then at the other end of the scale 4th Rates will be representative of 50 gun ships and lower."

I guess I know (from a very reliable source) that frigates are not included in the 4th rate numbers in CoG:EE (you will note, the ships each have individual names...the 4th rates too, which were researched by WCS). And this may be the source of confusion here. And I am curious as to why one would assume 4th rates include ships with fewer than 50 guns when there is a unit in the game known as a frigate.

< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 7/8/2009 9:34:59 AM >

(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 14
RE: Battleship Scouts/Fog of War - 7/8/2009 9:20:56 AM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline 		I dont think Great Britain could be given a realistic number of frigates without throwing off combat balance.

One thing though, if COG EE "4th Rates" dont represent soley the lower end of the 4th rate range historically with the upper ranges being merged with 3rd rates it doesnt make much sense for their combat penalty to be so severe.

4th Rates in COG EE as I said are pretty much restricted in use to blockading ports that dont contain enemy fleets and transporting troops.

The QC penalties are pretty harsh. A frigate is more powerful in QC than a 4th rate in COG EE.

_____________________________

Mindset, Tactics, Skill, Equipment
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 15
RE: Battleship Scouts/Fog of War - 7/8/2009 9:27:58 AM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline 		Ah! Now that is a valid arguement Mus (as it is entirely subjective and a matter of opinion).... "I don't think Great Britain could be given a realistic number of frigates without throwing off combat balance."

However, if giving Britain its historical numbers of frigates would throw off balance dramatically, then there is a problem with the tactical and strategic models or assumptions.

And what does QC mean?

Anyway. This discussion is all good. Because I am not an expert in sailing ships and anything I can do to improve this is a help right now.

< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 7/8/2009 9:32:36 AM >

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 16
RE: Battleship Scouts/Fog of War - 7/8/2009 9:37:40 AM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline 		Quick Combat. Instant combat uses the same rules as QC and is what happens in PBEM.

In Quick Combat 4th rates receive -5 to their assault and -3 to their counterassault. Frigates receive -2 to both, plus have the advantage of increasing pursuit damage or mitigating it depending on whether or not you win or lose. 3rd rates are neutral (no penalty or bonus) and 1st/2nd Rates are +2 assault and +1 counterassault.

2 Things might make this state of affairs make sense:

1. IF European frigates in practice carried more guns than they were officially rated for as American frigates of the time did.

2. That COG EE "4th rates" might indeed represent the lower end of the official 4th rate range and the ships in the upper range are counted as COG EE "3rd Rates" as I speculated.

If both these points are true the penalties are logical, frigates being much more nimble, and also carrying only slightly fewer guns than 4th rates, they might be more effective in combat. But we dont know if thats the case.

PS Bear with my incessant editing. Im having to pull an all nighter here as I have a very early trip out of town this morning and wasnt able to get to sleep when I wanted due to extreme allergic sneezing fits.



< Message edited by Mus -- 7/8/2009 9:46:04 AM >

_____________________________

Mindset, Tactics, Skill, Equipment
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 17
RE: Battleship Scouts/Fog of War - 7/8/2009 9:56:33 AM   
Kingmaker

 

Posts: 1678
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline 		HiHi

Fourth Rate: Two decker ships of 50 to 60 guns, were, by the end of the 18th century, no longer reckoned to be ‘fit to stand in the line of battle’.

Now as I see it, that’s for the top end of the Games 4th rate ships, so without trying to be too pedantic, as the above quote would indicate that 4th rates were considered not fit to be used in Battle they were not really “Battleships”, and, by implication therefore not ‘Ships of the Line’ either. As I suggested, in game terms I am taking the games classification of 4th rate to include all ships not considered worthy of holding the line in Battle, ergo , not “Battleships”.

Therefore can I suggest my use of 4th rates for Intel gathering does not fall within your definition of, People are using battleships for the purpose of collecting information

All the Best
Peter

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 18
RE: Battleship Scouts/Fog of War - 7/8/2009 9:57:05 AM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

However, if giving Britain its historical numbers of frigates would throw off balance dramatically, then there is a problem with the tactical and strategic models or assumptions.


I dont agree with that necessarily. Great Britain historically was probably more dominant than they are in COG EE.

I think Great Britain has about 12-15 frigates in most scenarios. Any idea how many they had historically?

< Message edited by Mus -- 7/8/2009 9:59:41 AM >

_____________________________

Mindset, Tactics, Skill, Equipment
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 19
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition >> Battleship Scouts/Fog of War Page: [1]
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

2.203