Alternative ship type proposal

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Alternative ship type proposal

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 >> Alternative ship type proposal

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Alternative ship type proposal - 10/8/2009 11:11:12 AM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Possible alternative to replace the Transport fleet,please note that all of these ship types are combat capable.

8.1 Ship Types
Three types of ships are available: Heavy, Medium and Light.

8.1.1 Heavy Ships

These represent 3 DECKER 1st & 2nd rate ships of the line, the big ships with big guns. If a side of a naval combat has 1.5 times more heavy ships than the other.

It receives a +2 to the random number chosen, between 1 and 6 on the Naval combat table.

Each heavy ship is capable of carrying 1 cavalry factor or 2 factor of any other type permitted to be transported by sea, following the rules of naval transport.

Heavy ships cost $9 and 1 manpower, taking 12 months to build to commission.

8.1.2 Medium Ships

These represent 2 DECKER 3rd & 4th rate ships of the line,they are the maid of all work,able to perform any task asked of them,whether it be fighting in Naval battles even against Heavy ships or on blockade duty of enemy ports.

It receives a +1 to the random number chosen, between 1 and 6 on the Naval combat table.

Each medium ship is capable of carrying 1/2 cavalry factor or 1 factor of any other type permitted to be transported by sea, following the rules of naval transport.

Medium ships cost $6 and 1 manpower, taking 9 months to build to commission.

8.1.3 Light ships

These represent 5th & 6th rate Frigates + Sloops etc, which would perform anti-piracy operations, act as scouts for the heavy & medium ships and occasionally participate in major battles.

If a side consists solely of light ships, it receives a -2 to the random number chosen, between 1 and 6, on the Naval combat table.

Each light ship is capable of carrying only 1/2 infantry factor that is permitted to be transported by sea,following the rules of naval transport.

Piracy and anti-piracy has been simplified to be standard light ships only and can be added to either the piracy mission, at which point the major nation can target the Major Power of choice (to inflict losses on trade),or by adding them to anti-piracy operations and defending their own commerce from piracy.

Light ships cost $4 and 1 manpower, taking 6 months to build.

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 10/14/2009 9:04:33 AM >

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

Post #: 1

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/8/2009 1:24:51 PM

Mardonius

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

Hello HFJ:

These are great concepts... Thought about galleys or North African pirates?

I have been pinging Marshall for almost two years now on the naval aspects of this game, as they could benefit from some redressal. He commented most recently (within the last two or three weeks) that he would come looking for me when he was ready to take on the naval options revisions. If possible, i'd like your help workign out these should we have the opportunity.

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

(in reply to hellfirejet)

Post #: 2

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/8/2009 1:37:22 PM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Hi Mardonius,
I have never been happy with the Transport fleet concept,and feel that something along the above lines is a feasable alternative.As stated earlier I would be more than happy to assist in updating and upgrading the Naval aspect of the game,count me in always.

galleys or North African pirates? Light fleets could represent these?

I posted this on Mantis to try and get a positive reaction hopefully,as most gamers were unhappy with the Transport fleets ?

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 10/8/2009 2:01:06 PM >

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to Mardonius)

Post #: 3

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/8/2009 2:03:23 PM

Ashtar

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline

Hellfire, your rules will never work. Same critics as ever:

Your ships are too similar combat-wise: Why I should buy 40 medium ships if I can just get 39 light ships and a single medium to avoid the -1?
And why on earth GB should buy more heavy ones if it has already an automatic +1 bonus to combat, and your max total bonus is +1?

etc...

(in reply to hellfirejet)

Post #: 4

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/8/2009 2:07:50 PM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Above scenario only Heavy and Medium ships are able to carry Calvary factors,plus you would need to build 2 Medium or 4 Light ships to have the same factor capacity of a heavy.

Combat wise it would not be hard to give Heavy & Medium +1 combat bonus while lights would be -2 for combat.

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 10/9/2009 10:29:12 AM >

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to Ashtar)

Post #: 5

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/8/2009 2:18:29 PM

Ashtar

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline

What I am trying to explain to you is that the different troop carrying capacity is not enough to justify
for such a large difference in money/build time.
What you propose is to have three different kind of ships, largely different in transport, cost and build time but essentially equal in combat capabilities,
and this will never work.

Think of France wanting to force the channel to invade UK via Lille arrow. It just needs to build lights. France can save up a little money (200$) and
then buy 50 lights at once, to arrive in 6 months. This will force UK too to buy lights (you need a lot of ships to defend yourself, and you need them asap),
so sooner we will have forces mainly composed by lights.

(in reply to hellfirejet)

Post #: 6

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/8/2009 2:22:04 PM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

As I stated above earlier only Heavy and Medium ships can carry Calvary factors so unless Napoleon wants to be without these units,then lights are of little use to him.

What I'm trying to point out is that in reality, there was 3 very different ship types during the Napoleonic wars.

The Heavy 1st & 2nd rate 3 Decker armed with between ( 130 - 90 ) guns.

The Medium 3rd & 4th rate 2 Decker armed with between ( 80 - 50 ) guns.

The Light 5th & 6th rate Frigates etc armed with between ( 40 - 8 ) guns.

The ships are not to blame but the abstract rules are

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 10/8/2009 9:39:08 PM >

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to Ashtar)

Post #: 7

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/8/2009 2:28:02 PM

Mardonius

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

The concepts are great, in my opinion. Certainly there are aspects that will have to be worked out. I would not sweat these kinds of things too much just now (though Ashtar's comments are certainly welcome) as I reckon we have a year or two to hash out the details -- during which much woudl change -- before we go to a beta version. Any thoughts Marshall?

_____________________________

(in reply to hellfirejet)

Post #: 8

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/8/2009 2:35:46 PM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

I'm all for debate of any kind Mardonius,and yes we have plenty of time to tweak aspects of the naval side of the game,I just feel that my suggestion is much better than what is currently available.

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 10/8/2009 2:36:10 PM >

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to Mardonius)

Post #: 9

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/8/2009 3:05:39 PM

Mardonius

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

True.

_____________________________

(in reply to hellfirejet)

Post #: 10

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/8/2009 4:37:17 PM

Marshall Ellis

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

I can look at this type of stuff (And I'm open to it) but again my que is full for a bit so this will lay for a while!

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to Mardonius)

Post #: 11

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/8/2009 9:47:41 PM

Mardonius

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

I, for one, am glad to make all the concepts smooth as glass for your programming ease....

_____________________________

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 12

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/8/2009 9:50:05 PM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Hi Marshall,
Any chance of applying any of the above via the editor Pleaseeeeeeeeee

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 13

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/8/2009 10:12:44 PM

Skanvak

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline

I need to study on napoleonic naval warfare to make a comprehensive answer.

But I do share that the difference in ship is not really useful if they are not really different. Before making a new rule, we should look at how the various ship differ. Then I would advice adding more deepness in the stat, like giving 2 hits points to the heavier ships or a bonus to intercep with light ship.

Up to now I just don't see the need for different ship (even the actual heavy/light is just a limitation on the fleet and a need for pirate otherwise I just build heavy). As for your cav only, beside I don't see why, I will use my transport fleet for cav if heavy are not interesting.

I wonder too if fleet should be able to hold any type of ship? why make heavy and light fleet, they all move the same speed. Is there a rtional here beyond compellng player to build light ship?

_____________________________

Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to hellfirejet)

Post #: 14

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/8/2009 10:19:20 PM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Hi Skanvak,
Welcome to the debate,my idea is to replace the Transport fleet completely,I like the idea via the editor to built Fleets with a mix of ship types,what I propose is the 3 types to use should be Heavy,Medium and Light, and not as is now Heavy,Light and Transports.

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 10/8/2009 10:20:14 PM >

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to Skanvak)

Post #: 15

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/8/2009 10:46:13 PM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Since the Naval combat is so poor in game terms, with only 1 die roll and 1 combat round, we are very much restricted to what can be altered untill a chit pick system is hopefully introduced further down the line, in the future similar to the land combat.

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 10/8/2009 10:47:27 PM >

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to hellfirejet)

Post #: 16

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/8/2009 10:59:41 PM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

By the way while I'm here, In 1805 Napoleon planned an invasion of England,and massed 180,000 troops at Boulogne.So how come in game terms France only has 135 Infantry factors at setup game scale at 2,000 men per factor,big short fall that only leaves 90,000 to protect the whole of France?

Also there were a great many more ships available to each nation than is represented by the game setups how come ?

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 10/8/2009 11:06:09 PM >

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to hellfirejet)

Post #: 17

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/9/2009 12:21:04 AM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

Any chance of applying any of the above via the editor

Yes. Creating the new ship counters, setting attributes, and revising the orders of battle will be possible with the editor. Should be doable as a custom campaign but not something to impose on everyone. But combat will still be tricky, even if/when Marshall implements optional proportional naval losses by type and revises PP losses. It's one thing to have heavies and lights for 1pp and 1/2pp respectively, but where would mediums and others fit in??

(in reply to hellfirejet)

Post #: 18

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/9/2009 7:28:25 AM

Skanvak

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline

Before making a new rule we need to know if it is needed. For that we need to look at what was the historical situation. You said there are 3 differents class of ships. Does they operate and make a real difference in the end? You want to get read of transport fleet, is that to say that there was no transport ship at the time? I don't think so. Why do you want only heavier to carry cav? Do you have any historical evidence to back your decision?

I don't want a new rule just to say that we add more thinks if basically that just the same thing. Adding shipbuilding location add to realism. Adding different ship may or may not. If for example 10 med vs 10 heavy had historicla result equal to 10 heavy vs 10 heavy or 10 med vs 10 med, then making a difference is pointless.

If you want to convince me, I want to see historical evidence to back the change (ok you did describe the difference in guns and decks, which I agree but that does not translate in actual performance).

_____________________________

Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 19

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/9/2009 8:47:11 AM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Hi Skanvak,
Talking about different ship types being pointless,well everything about the Naval combat rules is pointless then, for they are based on fiction.During the battle of Trafalgar only 1 Heavy,Medium in game terms was sunk!!!!!!!!

Wooden ships are extremely hard to sink,during the Napoleonic wars Ships of the line during battle were CAPTURED not sunk,the constant cannon broadsides from ships over a period of many hours,reduced the crews fighting ability and moral,so that when they eventually were boarded by the enemy,after fighting on deck they struck there colours and surrendered the ship.As for the difference in ship types, 1st & 2nd rates were the largest ships,with very thick HULLS FOR PROTECTION making them extremely hard to sink, you can still visit HMS Victory today,over 200 years since the Napoleonic era, at the Naval dockyard in Portsmouth UK.

Or to put it another way.

1st & 2nd Rate Heavy ship type = KILLER WHALE ( ORCA ) = Extremely Deadly.

3rd & 4th Rate Medium ship type = GREAT WHITE SHARK.= Very Scary.

5th & 6th Rate Light ship type = MAKO SHARK.= Keep out of the water.

Transport ship type = FISH & CHIPS.= Too late yer dead.

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 10/9/2009 10:19:55 AM >

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to Skanvak)

Post #: 20

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/9/2009 9:57:09 AM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

Any chance of applying any of the above via the editor

Yes. Creating the new ship counters, setting attributes, and revising the orders of battle will be possible with the editor. Should be doable as a custom campaign but not something to impose on everyone. But combat will still be tricky, even if/when Marshall implements optional proportional naval losses by type and revises PP losses. It's one thing to have heavies and lights for 1pp and 1/2pp respectively, but where would mediums and others fit in??

Hi pzgndr,
Hopefully within the next 2 years,we may have a chit picking system similar to the land combat,if so I don't see any reason why, Heavy ship types can't have a high MORAL ATTRIBUTE added,with Medium and Lights having a lesser Moral on a decreasing sliding scale one option.PP losses can also be altered and looked at,you could increase Heavy too 11/2 pp,Medium 1 pp and lights 1/2 pp losses ?

Lights could have there combat effects reduce even further to -2 on the combat chart. If I can use the editor in the mean time to create more pleasing scenarios so much the better,as I only want to play against a stronger AI anyway.Other than that after Marshall has completed the Original Empire in arms scenario,the worlds our oyster so to speak via future game option's yes/no maybe?

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 10/14/2009 9:11:00 AM >

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 21

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/9/2009 5:30:00 PM

Skanvak

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline

Hellfire,

quote:

Talking about different ship types being pointless,well everything about the Naval combat rules is pointless then, for they are based on fiction.During the battle of Trafalgar only 1 Heavy,Medium in game terms was sunk!!!!!!!!

This sentence is exactly what I am warning about. Either the system as nothing to do with the really and is aimed at representing relative strength, then only one type of ship is enough and captured or sunk might have the same result so are not discriminated.
I mean does captured ships where use by the capturing nation? how does it cost to repair a badly damaged ship, and time. If all this thing lead to heavy damage = capture = sunk in effect then again why bother.

If you want a better system you need a total rethinking of the system and back it with historical statisitcs. I just want more to they are better then they shoudl be 1,5x time better and take 1,5 time more to build that means that this is a useless rule. One interesting example is WWI navy, Dreadnought where the most powerful and cost effective ship, only their price and time will limit their construction and the need for destroyer to kill submarine. But definetly cruiser where not effecient at all (you build them when you are desesperate or poor). So I try to challenge you to think of a naval system that simulate napoleonic sea battle at the same level as the land battle (not more) with realistic result, not simply say there was medium ship so let's add them. (Thinking of moral for fleet why not but I am not sure that on the fleet level it is pertinent. This need to be check but is a way to add depth. I think that giving life point to ship is better).

_____________________________

Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to hellfirejet)

Post #: 22

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/9/2009 6:19:35 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

If you want a better system you need a total rethinking of the system and back it with historical statisitcs.

This is a game and not a sim. As a game, there are optional advanced naval combat rules and proportional loss rules already out there that can more or less be implemented as game options. Beyond that, if you want to get down into the weeds with all sorts of different ship types and their historical charateristics, that's something else. Perhaps the current two ship types can be retained and house rules could allow some percentages of either to be mediums for third party combat resolution. But really, there isn't that much naval activity to justify spending too much time/resources on making this way more complex than it needs to be?

(in reply to hellfirejet)

Post #: 23

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/9/2009 9:42:59 PM

Skanvak

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline

I share your concern, pzgndr, I wonder what it will bring to the game.

_____________________________

Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 24

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/10/2009 11:34:28 AM

TechSgt

Posts: 306
Joined: 9/19/2008
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

If you want a better system you need a total rethinking of the system and back it with historical statisitcs.

This is a game and not a sim. As a game, there are optional advanced naval combat rules and proportional loss rules already out there that can more or less be implemented as game options. Beyond that, if you want to get down into the weeds with all sorts of different ship types and their historical charateristics, that's something else. Perhaps the current two ship types can be retained and house rules could allow some percentages of either to be mediums for third party combat resolution. But really, there isn't that much naval activity to justify spending too much time/resources on making this way more complex than it needs to be?

Hello to all.

I just purchased the game -- have not loaded though.
It has been about 10 to 15 years since playing. I use to be involved in "meet-once-a-week-get togethers" or "spend-a-holiday-weekend" games.
Blah, blah, blah...

Interesting thread about the naval side of the game.
1) Wasn't the advanced naval rules from the AH General incorporated in the game? Chit picks and proportional loss.

2) IMHO Isn't there really just three types of "impact" ships in those days.
a) Ship-of-the-line type. Operated as a fleet.
b) Scouts, Armed Messenger, show-the-flag type. Operated as a single ship or squadrons.
c) Transport. Generally, lightly armed and operated single or convoy.
OR, Ship-of-the-Line (Heavy), Frigates (Lights), and transports.

3) In past EiA BOARD games, it seems the only player truly interested in the naval side was the Brits.

Keep up the debate! I enjoy a good read.

TS

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 25

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/10/2009 3:53:46 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

1) Wasn't the advanced naval rules from the AH General incorporated in the game? Chit picks and proportional loss.

No and that's the main source of angst here. There are already established rules for advanced naval combat and proportional loss rules by nationality and by ship type that should eventually be implemented as an option. And currently all fleets count for 1pp and this should be reconsidered for 1pp heavy, 1/2pp light and 0pp transport. Fix these issues and the naval game should be pretty good. Beyond that, more complex schemes can be reserved for possible later game enhancements or custom campaign creation using the editor.

(in reply to hellfirejet)

Post #: 26

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/10/2009 5:31:20 PM

Kai

Posts: 150
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

Unless the ship combat resolution engine becomes a lot more complex, I don't see any reason to incorporate additional ship types.

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 27

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/12/2009 5:41:40 PM

Ashtar

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline

Hellfirejet, frankly and trying not to be unpolite, discussing with you is somehow discouraging, since you do not seem to read with care what other people write:

quote:

Ashtar wrote
Think of France wanting to force the channel to invade UK via Lille arrow.

quote:

hellfirejet answered
As I stated above earlier only Heavy and Medium ships can carry Calvary factors so unless Napoleon wants to be without these units,then lights are of little use to him.

I know exactly that in your proposed rules lights cannot transport cavalry, but in my example I was considering an invasion carried across the Lille crossing arrow, so that you do not need transport capabilities to get to London, you just have to clear the channel from that GB fleet.

(in reply to Kai)

Post #: 28

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/12/2009 5:52:47 PM

Ashtar

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline

Said that, I restate plain and simply:

1. I do not think that your proposed money/build time for heavy/medium/light ships are correct in term of game balance, that is medium and lights are too cheap/too fast to build for their effective value. How did you chose those values? I would like to remind you that, according to good old EIA rules one ship factor represents
one ship-of-the-line or a larger number of smaller ships.

2. Transport have been introduced in EiH to simulate the gathering by Nappy of a large fleet of commercial vessel (i.e. fishing boats - thus unable to fight) to attempt to invade England. What is wrong with that concept (apart that it makes the Lille crossing arrow obsolete)?

(in reply to Ashtar)

Post #: 29

RE: Alternative ship type proposal - 10/12/2009 7:56:48 PM

Mardonius

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

2. Transport have been introduced in EiH to simulate the gathering by Nappy of a large fleet of commercial vessel (i.e. fishing boats - thus unable to fight) to attempt to invade England. What is wrong with that concept (apart that it makes the Lille crossing arrow obsolete)?

Hi Ashtar:

I will leave the cost for ships aside for now as I reckon we can take this up closer to a real rules discussion.

But the Transports are a concern to me because of a couple of factors: (1) Their limited range. Three sea areas is far too short of a range. Think of Napoleon's invasion of Egypt and you will see the problems in the limited range. Or GB transporting troops accross the Atlantic (outside of the scope, but the concept is the same). If troops could spend a couple of months at sea, I'd have less of a concern, but even then, one should be able to sail via transport from London to Gib in a month (well, most months, but that is another topic).

(2) Transport cost. Sure, Napoleon did build the flatboat (forget the proper name) for invading the GB isles, but most transport fleets of the day were conscripted merchant/fishermen who can be readily abstracted. Best naval campaign to study is the Nile Campaign as it involves frigates, SOLs, merchnament and large amounts transports.

I'd get rid of them (transports) and double (this is a brainstorm point of initiation) the current trasnport capabilites of SOLS etc to represent abstraction and see where this gets us.

Just some thoughts.
Mardonius

_____________________________

(in reply to Ashtar)

Post #: 30