Naval Battles (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory



Message

ironduke1955 -> Naval Battles (5/31/2006 10:40:35 AM)

I am sure its been said but Naval Battles to decide major Naval engagement would give this game a perfect 10/10 from my point of view. You would just need to set the weather guage/wind direction, and the combat system already looks perfect to do the rest.

Please tell me Naval battles at the detail level are being considered.



pixelpusher -> RE: Naval Battles (6/1/2006 2:04:55 AM)

Hi there Ironduke,

FYI, we have indeed talked about having detailed sea battles as a possible future expansion product to CoG. (And also as a possible expansion to the project we are currently hard at work on, about which I must remain tight-lipped.) For myself, I think that it would make a good addition to the game experience.

We've also kicked around other potential expansions for CoG such as: 
-A detailed battles map editor / ladder structure for playing detailed hexwar battles head to head or against the computer. eg: play all the battles of the napoleonic wars against your buddies, and get a score at the end. Or just pop open CoG and play a few HW battles, against the computer.
-Rework the graphics of hexwar, most likely using some kind of 3d system.

These decisions are made on the basis of: work required vs potenial market.
I suppose that if there was a great deal of clamor from the fan base about the desirability of such things, that might tip the equation.

-px



ironduke1955 -> RE: Naval Battles (6/1/2006 3:15:07 PM)

Great a expansion, when's it out and who do I make the cheque payable to[:)]. Oh a minor gripe the fire power of disorganised units seems pretty high, from my table top days I seem to remember a huge reduction in the firepower of disrupted units.

Great job by the way. to make it easier to get opponents is it possible that COG could go on gamespy.



ericbabe -> RE: Naval Battles (6/2/2006 3:48:19 AM)

In my spare time I have been putting together a design document for a COG detailed naval action expansion.  At this point we're just trying to consider how much work it would entail; no definite plans as yet.

Regarding gamespy, I honestly don't know much about how much programming it would take to make things compatible with gamespy (or similar services.)  I'll look into it.

About disorganized firepower: since we're working at the division level our penalties and bonuses aren't as extreme as many tabletop sets of rules that deal with Napoleonics at, say, the regimental level.  Since the divisions are much larger the bonuses become more averaged out.  Our sequel is going to have units at the brigade level and in that some of the bonuses are 2-3 times larger than in COG.



ironduke1955 -> RE: Naval Battles (6/4/2006 2:12:31 AM)

Thanks for your time on this. Please keep up the good work.



Budgie -> RE: Naval Battles (6/8/2006 2:49:04 AM)

Quote . . .

"I suppose that if there was a great deal of clamor from the fan base about the desirability of such things, that might tip the equation.

-px "




clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor   [:'(]



denisonh -> RE: Naval Battles (6/11/2006 9:00:23 PM)

Ditto [:D]
quote:

ORIGINAL: Budgie

Quote . . .

"I suppose that if there was a great deal of clamor from the fan base about the desirability of such things, that might tip the equation.

-px "




clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor   [:'(]




viking92001 -> RE: Naval Battles (6/12/2006 5:44:56 AM)

yeah what they said
quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

Ditto [:D]
quote:

ORIGINAL: Budgie

Quote . . .

"I suppose that if there was a great deal of clamor from the fan base about the desirability of such things, that might tip the equation.

-px "




clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor   [:'(]


[image][/image]


[image]local://upfiles/20427/465B3AD490204CA3B592A838BD6D8FEC.jpg[/image]



Kevan -> RE: Naval Battles (6/12/2006 8:49:02 AM)

I'm an amateur historian at best, and totally ignorant about many aspects of Napoleonic warfare, so perhaps someone can enlighten me...

From what I remember reading about naval battles during this era, they tended to be fairly standard affairs. Sure, someone would get the wind gage and be able to choose whether to engage or not, and if they chose to engage they could dictate the battle to a certain extent. However, most commanders subscribed to the doctrine of forming line and proceeding to unleash broadsides (the few exceptions mostly being English and most importantly Nelson, who were disciples of Edward Hawke, but a minority even in that nation - luckily, a minority who rose to prominent positions). A few engagements, such as Aboukir (sp?) Bay or the raid on Copenhagen's harbour, were notable by reason of a particularly unique set of circumstances.

I think the most important aspects of naval warfare (wind gage, gun crews, more professional English crews) are already modeled in the existing engine. I'm thinking that the intricate details of naval battles couldn't be realistically simulated in any sort of hex-war engine. But then again, I could be wrong - if so, I'd like to hear contrary opinions.



jimwinsor -> RE: Naval Battles (6/12/2006 8:07:52 PM)

I think a tactical naval battle system similar to the AH boardgame Wooden Ships & Iron Men might work well here.



pixelpusher -> RE: Naval Battles (6/12/2006 11:05:35 PM)



quote:

From what I remember reading about naval battles during this era, they tended to be fairly standard affairs.


That was one of the deciding factors for the approach we took in CoG. While it was the romantic era of sail, and there were critical naval engagements (Trafalgar), the scale is wrong. CoG is macro view... tonnage vs. tonnage. Also realistic rules would have to be kind of complex, and maybe un-fun to learn for many people.

quote:

I think the most important aspects of naval warfare (wind gage, gun crews, more professional English crews) are already modeled in the existing engine.


Yep. Nonetheless, being modelled abstractly doesn't capture the imagination in quite the same way as does blasting your foes to bottom of the sea...

quote:

I'm thinking that the intricate details of naval battles couldn't be realistically simulated in any sort of hex-war engine. But then again, I could be wrong - if so, I'd like to hear contrary opinions.


As I understand it, Wooden Ships and Iron Men still has many devotees. Interesting wind gauge / movement rules. Concise description of Wooden Ships, Iron Men rules: http://www.youplay.it/beta/play/ws_GameRulesSimple.asp

The thing about WS&IM is that it's WEGO (I plan my moves, you plan your moves, then when the turn happens, we move simultaneously and run into each other.) I'm not sure how the sequential turns of CoG would work, in that respect. Maybe just make it really hard to change direction. (I've not read Eric's draft of Naval rules, btw.) The units would probably have to be small squadrons of ships, which you place into line, instead of individual ships.



freeboy -> RE: Naval Battles (6/13/2006 12:22:04 AM)

I like pixelpusher was thinking about Iron men and wooden ships.. or allong that line allowing a fast or a detailed combat sould suite those who did not intend to play a dettailed naval game, while giving a choice as does the game for land combat



Budgie -> RE: Naval Battles (6/13/2006 3:43:02 AM)

Wooden Ships and Iron men has been and still is a staple in our group of gamers. (Thanks Jim)

To re-config Crown of Glory’s hex system to allow naval hex battles means it would not be as accurate as a game solely devoted to naval combat of the era but it would be close to WSIM and that game, has been a Hall of Famer and winner for 3 decades.(WSIM is hex battles)

Glory’s hex/combat system as existing now, seems to have all the elements needed to recreate naval battle with the flavor and tactics of the period.

Some thoughts.

- frigate = horse artillery (faster movement much lower firepower)
- ship = normal artillery
- heavy ship = heavy artillery (slower movement but much higher firepower)


- in line = battle sails - slower speed less damge incurred
- in column = full sails - higher speed more damage incurred


- privateer battles = (only on quick combat) (100-200 men)
- merchant ship battles only on QC (30 to 50 men)
- transport ship battles = only on QC (30 to 100 men) disregard seasick soldiers passengers


- firing to flanks only - (reverse of normal land combat as in naval combat your front and rear facing are vulnerable areas.)
- bonuses for ships in line (friendly ships to front and rear) - same as protected flanks.


- boarding is equivalent to charges
- (heavy ship 800-900 men)
- (ship 700 - 800 men)
- (frigate 400 to 600 men)
- use 1,000s but represent as 100s

- firepower and boarding strength based on national moral and on national quality of training.

- boarding = locked in battle until one side is captured. (No firing into or out of ships locked in boarding combat)

- Wind direction on movement? Some kind of weather effect on movement in a certain direction.
- Variable wind/weather during long battles.

- smoke effect was also a factor in sea battles.


Looking this over it’s easier thinking about it than for the poor programer building the new module and writing the code. [8|]

However the terrain should be easy to recreate.[:'(]



The effort would be appreciated by this writer, perhaps others as well and I believe it would add measurably to an already excellent game.


IMHO [:D]



pixelpusher -> RE: Naval Battles (6/15/2006 11:24:08 PM)

Well, one of the bottlenecks of stuff like this is that we have to read up significantly on period naval combat and try to figure out a fun set of rules, that are also programable.

If interested parties on the forum here wanted to develop a set CoG friendly rules for detailed naval combat, we'd certainly read it. (But no guarantees that we'd actually make a product, of course!)

Scale is important. The land units in CoG are 10,000 men. IIRC a large ship like the HMS victory was like 800 men. So a major decision would be: are the units individual ships or groups of ships? (Groups would be more scale appropriate.)

The basic WSIM rule handling wind makes sense, and seems do-able: you get more movement/turning points depending on how your ship is oriented to the giganto wind arrow in the middle of the screen.

Firing to sides, and different vulnerabilities on direction also seems do-able.






ironduke1955 -> RE: Naval Battles (6/16/2006 11:44:07 AM)

Napoleonic Naval vessels are floating gun platforms.

3 capital ships to a group sounds about right.

1 group Victory.Agamemnon. Royal. Sovereign(would be nice if ships could be named within the group by the player). It would be impossible for the programmer to alocate names as fleets would not necessarily follow the historical OB of a particular nation. And you would soon run out of historical names.

Manning level determining strength 100% 800x3= 2400 men at 50% 400x3=1200



Russian Guard -> RE: Naval Battles (6/16/2006 8:46:09 PM)

Squadrons of ships of the line in most navies of the period were 6 ships, so why not go with 6?



ironduke1955 -> RE: Naval Battles (6/17/2006 12:29:49 PM)

The Number Capital ships at Trafalgar for the English, was 27 plus 4 frigates and couple of schooners thats 9x3 or 4.5x6. So a Naval battle would need more units to be worth playing. Bearing in mind that three ships of the line have more cannon than Napoleon had at Waterloo.



ironduke1955 -> RE: Naval Battles (6/18/2006 12:45:29 PM)

In addition, you have three types of shot Ball Chain and grape, attacking Hull Sail and Crew respectively.

Lets not forget the guys at WCS and Matrix, who would have to put this together. We grognards have all had our dreams of the perfect napoleonic simulator. Putting them into a working simulation. is anougther matter. I wonder what the ball park figure is for creating such a game.



ericbabe -> RE: Naval Battles (6/18/2006 1:15:10 PM)

I agree that to keep the number of units interesting it'd be best to do 1 unit = 1 ship.  Then we could keep track of particular damage (rudder shot away and that sort of thing).  Formation changes might be analogous to configurations of sails (whether ship is heaving-to, that sort of thing). 





ironduke1955 -> RE: Naval Battles (6/18/2006 2:22:47 PM)

I am sure it is not necessary to include everydetail of Napoleonic Naval Warfare. Tangled or equivalent to handle a blown away rudder. with a vessel still moving but unable to change direction for the duration of the battle. The only problem I see is the movement, A ship with sail raised does not have the option. of moving or not moving. Even a ship with no Sail at all will move with the direction of the wind(tho that is common to all ships and can de discounted). It can turn of course. reducing its movement rate to zero. But its the wind and how you use it that is the deciding factor.



ironduke1955 -> RE: Naval Battles (6/19/2006 3:14:47 PM)

Ok I'll shut up now, and let you guys get on with it. [8D]



pixelpusher -> RE: Naval Battles (6/19/2006 11:14:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ironduke1955

Lets not forget the guys at WCS and Matrix, who would have to put this together. We grognards have all had our dreams of the perfect napoleonic simulator. Putting them into a working simulation.

<snip>

Ok I'll shut up now, and let you guys get on with it. [8D]


Well, actually it is useful for us to hear what people are looking for in a naval combat game. Again, a significant part of doing these things is the time involved with all the research leading into the general design. It's important to make sure all the important facets of the subject matter are there, and we have to spend time figuring out what those are. If we had a thing we could just pull off the forums, that would concievably reduce the amount of time for that activity. At the very least we'd read it and get a feel for the kinds of things people are looking for / consider fun.

So, seriously: if you know a lot about napoleonic period naval combat and are familiar w/ CoG, come up with something and we'll take a look at it. If you don't feel OK about putting it on the forum, email me w/ the private message thing.

Basic outline so far:
-1 unit = 1 ship. (Would need to correspond to the CoG naval units, though.)
-CoG Unit formations (line/column/square,etc)= ship configuration and orientation (sail orientation)
-Orientation to wind determines # of movement turn points.
-firing cones for units would be out the sides, of course

quote:

ORIGINAL: ironduke1955
I wonder what the ball park figure is for creating such a game.


Depends on the complexity / amount of custom stuff involved. On my end (graphics) 3d units are a pain in the butt and particularly time consuming. However, I already have a lot of that stuff made from CoG. Playtesting / beta testing also very time-consumptive.

Part of the 'design' is making sure the process is reasonably do-able. But that seems to be getting easier with experience...



ironduke1955 -> RE: Naval Battles (6/20/2006 2:33:09 AM)

The use of the hex to determine # of movement points. is well covered in the old Avalon Hill board game, subsequently made into a PC game. Its more a case of, not how many movement points you have to expend, but more the case of how many movement points you must expend. From what I remember if hexside one is the stern of the ship and four is the bow, then the optimum wind direction for movement would be two and six assuming 1 is also the direction of the wind. one would be the next followed by three and five. On a three mast square rigger 45 degrees to the wind is the optimum for movement. Facing straight into the wind needless to say gets you no movement what so ever. Movement points could be determined at the start of the turn based on the current position to the wind and sail configuration. Plus damage to the sails if this was allowed as a factor.

Sail runs from Full sail to Battle sail to no sail ie:at anchor

Ammo
Ball=hull damage and some crew
Chain=Sail damage some to crew
Grape=crew



freeboy -> RE: Naval Battles (6/23/2006 4:57:57 PM)

If memory serves did not IMWS restrict the Brits to not using chain?



ironduke1955 -> RE: Naval Battles (6/24/2006 12:44:20 AM)

You may be right, its decades since I last played Wooden Ships and Iron Men. I don't have my copy of the game anymore.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Naval Battles (6/24/2006 12:46:39 AM)

I don't remember any restrictions.



Russian Guard -> RE: Naval Battles (6/24/2006 12:49:34 AM)


I believe I do remember this restriction; the rules notes stated that while the French used Chain Shot in an effort to slow the Brits so they could sail away from them, the Brits were more interested in sinking ships...


Boy this is dredging up some very old memories...






ironduke1955 -> RE: Naval Battles (6/24/2006 12:34:54 PM)

That sounds like more of a tactical or doctrine descision. Seems a bit unfair to limit the English on that basis.

Again regards movement Turning would cost one movement point, per turn and a ship that had no movement points at the beginning of the turn would be allowed one turn to catch the wind. For the next turn. Pretty much like the current Matrix/ACW land battles the end was result was a enjoyable scrap. Even one ship versus one ship was a tense and enjoyable experience. I think they had a example USS Constitution V HMS Guerriere.



freeboy -> RE: Naval Battles (6/25/2006 5:19:35 AM)

IN IMWS the reason was that the Brits did not use it, sounds like an area for optional rules.. ie allow / disallow chain for Brits.. I always liked taking hold of the other guys ships in a malee after grappling.. We seem to think these ships sunk easily but unless you set on on fire a ship of the line or friget sunk rarely.. thus the prise courts..

My take is that a simple detailed combat would add greatly to this game, but it might need to be in Crown of Glory Two! and know I do not know that this is a real project so don't ask.. at least not me[:D]



Demosthenes -> RE: Naval Battles (7/17/2006 11:02:17 PM)

I just bought CoG (so far - LOVE IT), and I want to add my voice to thiers below...(more detailed naval battles)


clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor

quote:


ORIGINAL: viking92001

yeah what they said
quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

Ditto [:D]
quote:

ORIGINAL: Budgie

Quote . . .

"I suppose that if there was a great deal of clamor from the fan base about the desirability of such things, that might tip the equation.

-px "




clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor clamor   [:'(]







Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.625