naval transport (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815



Message

demonterico -> naval transport (1/4/2008 2:04:26 AM)

Does anyone besides me think that naval transport is to slow? I may have been doing something wrong, and I haven't had an opportunity to review the process yet, but it took me four months to transport a corp from Cadiz to Naples. This is a trip that a ship moving at a mere two knots could make in less than a month.



Murat -> RE: naval transport (1/4/2008 2:36:46 AM)

Yes, I figured that the transports should be slower than fleet ships but not 3/7ths. Maybe a 5 for transports.  On the flip side, Heavy ships can transport 1/2 as well as transports and lights can carry some inf at 7 so all is not lost.



zaquex -> RE: naval transport (1/4/2008 2:49:49 AM)

I think it would be reasonable to increase the move for transports to 4 but im inclined to think its unwise to give them more moves.

As stated heavy fleets are clearly viable for long range transports.



Grognot -> RE: naval transport (1/4/2008 3:00:32 AM)

...and safer, too, since a single enemy warship will capture any number of unescorted transports without needing to stop.



zaquex -> RE: naval transport (1/4/2008 3:09:02 AM)

Isnt it:

Transport takes 2 pts
Heavy takes 1 pt
Light takes 1/2 pt

where

Inf is 1 pt
Cav is 2 pts

Correct me if im wrong dont have the manual here to check atm

dunno if this is relevant or if it is thought about but shouldnt artillery be like 3 pts or something as they probably have horses and the pieces are quite heavy...

ok, i know all corps to a certain extent have artillery but still this is supposed to be pure artillery, it should be heavy.



demonterico -> RE: naval transport (1/4/2008 7:46:59 AM)

"...and safer, too, since a single enemy warship will capture any number of unescorted transports without needing to stop." - Grognot

The key word in your statement is "unescorted". Anyone transporting army units by sea without escorts deserves what he gets.



dude -> RE: naval transport (1/4/2008 3:41:18 PM)

Playing as GB a few times now, I found the transports mostly useless.  Unless I just wanted to transport some troops across the chanel or for other very short hops I couldn't use them to move troops from GB to places in the Med very well.  I pretty much rely on the heavies now for most transport duty and just use the transport fleet to provide invasion supply.

Dude



Jimmer -> RE: naval transport (1/4/2008 5:40:57 PM)

Transports are useless as is, IMO. I agree, though, that they should be slower.

What I would opt for, instead of giving them 1 or 2 extra movement points, is making entry to open ocean from a controlled port free, rather than 1 MP. And, vice-versa for entering controlled port (free). This would allow five MPs, but only controlled port to controlled port. Speed would be four leaving a controlled port and dropping from sea, and three open ocean to open ocean.

I think that if transports are made speed five normally, they run the risk of becoming too valuable?



demonterico -> RE: naval transport (1/4/2008 8:09:58 PM)

No we wouldn't want the humble transport to become to valuable. For every tank in Iraq there are probably a 1000 trucks or humvees (at least). For every Battleship in WWII Pacific there must have been a 1000 transports (at least). I'll have to look at WitP one of these days to count them. No I guess we wouldn't want the unglamorous transport to become to important.



carnifex -> RE: naval transport (1/4/2008 10:03:51 PM)

We wouldn't. As a matter of fact I object to the whole transport concept as unneeded complexity. This isn't Huge Napoleonic Sea-Borne Invasions in Arms Which Didn't Even Happen Anyway - any invasions which need to be made can be handled by heavies, and besides, it's not like there aren't crossing arrows to get you everywhere.

If there was one thing I would change, it would be that corps loaded on transports would not be required to land during the land phase but instead would pay $3 or forage at zero.



SkyElf -> RE: naval transport (1/6/2008 7:25:39 AM)

The naval transports needs to be fixed to 4 movement and on a naval transports you would not have to unload, and you would have to pay for the transported units or forge at 0 value!



Grapeshot Bob -> RE: naval transport (1/6/2008 11:20:02 PM)

Just out of curiosity was there naval transport in the boardgame?

Did anyone who played the boardgame use naval transport? Was it really that useful?



GSB



gwheelock -> RE: naval transport (1/6/2008 11:48:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grapeshot Bob

Just out of curiosity was there naval transport in the boardgame?

Did anyone who played the boardgame use naval transport? Was it really that useful?



GSB

EIA? No it only had 1 kind of ship - it did the transport duty (& no "piracy" options either)



demonterico -> RE: naval transport (1/7/2008 1:22:20 AM)

The board game has Fleet counters of no specified type. The intention of these fleet counters was to represent the main battle lines of each country's Navy, and could be compared to the heavy fleets in this new computer version of the game. These fleets did however have a transport capacity. Each fleet counter, regardless of the number of ship factors in the fleet, could transport a corp. The fleets had a movement of 7 whether they were doing transport or not. The first time I was confronted by different types of fleets was when I got involved with a Empires in Harms game that was started up in the old Battlegrounds forum. An intersting side note to this is that Empires in Harms included the Americas as well and had as an 8th player the USA. Also, all of Spain's American colonies were in the game as well. Very interesting.



yammahoper -> RE: naval transport (1/7/2008 4:09:04 AM)

There was an optionl rule in TT EiA that reduced capacity of a fleet to 10 factors per fleet, so 25 factors required 3 fleets, 11 factors 2 fleets, etc.  It seems this rule has been added via the restrictions on heavy and light ships.

There was another optional rule that when fleets traveled in stacks, they lost one movement point for each fleet over (some number I forget...2 fleets?  four fleets?  Hated the rule...) one, to a minimum movement rate of four.  This slowed massive armadas down drastically.

yamma



Obsolete -> RE: naval transport (1/7/2008 5:27:04 AM)

quote:

Did anyone who played the boardgame use naval transport? Was it really that useful?


Yes, and please let's not start increasing the movement of transports.  Doing so makes them too overpowered and breaks a lot of other things that would take 20 pages of dicussion, and still not get close to being solved.




Grapeshot Bob -> RE: naval transport (1/7/2008 6:16:25 PM)

Just out of curiosity what do the 3 numbers listed beside a port mean?


GSB



Soapy Frog -> RE: naval transport (1/7/2008 7:10:52 PM)

Trade values, and port defence guns. The number like 2/3 are trade... GB gets the value on the left, you get the value on the right (if GB owns the port he gets both). The guns are for shooting at enemy fleets that try to attack you in port. They get a free shot at the attacking fleet before the fight starts.



Grapeshot Bob -> RE: naval transport (1/7/2008 9:15:38 PM)

Ok,


So (using your example) if the trade values are 2/3 then GB gets 5 if it owns the port, 2 if it doesn't (??) and any other country gets 3 if it owns the port.

Does GB somehow get some kind of tax from ports I control?



GSB



Grognot -> RE: naval transport (1/7/2008 9:46:52 PM)

Trading is supposed to be mutually beneficial...

If the domestic trading doesn't happen, because it's not requested or the request is denied, then neither party gets it.  Allying with France is a good way to tell GB not to trade with you.



Grapeshot Bob -> RE: naval transport (1/7/2008 11:33:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognot
Trading is supposed to be mutually beneficial...



I get this.

My question remains: does GB get trade values for ports it doesn't control?

I understand that trade is mutually beneficial but why can't another country get this same double trade bonus (GB gets 5 if it owns the hypothetical 2/3 port and 2 if it doesn't)?



GSB



AresMars -> RE: naval transport (1/7/2008 11:45:38 PM)

Yes, all ports trade with GB.

So all trade is done with GB....part of GB's strenght.

If it is GB controlled, it ALSO gets the local PORT value....

Think of it this way....

ex.So (using your example) if the trade values are 2/3 then GB gets 5 if it owns the port, 2 if it doesn't (??) and any other country gets 3 if it owns the port.

the 2 is the trade IN England FOR England, the 3 is local in the port for the <OWNER> of the port.

Hope that clears it up... ?




Grapeshot Bob -> RE: naval transport (1/8/2008 12:44:15 AM)

Ok,


Now. I have two questions.

1. If I'm France (or any country at war with Great Britian) will they still get trade from my ports that they don't own or control?

2. If I select "No Trade" as a surrender option with a country and it accepts surrender, does Great Britian still get the port trade from that country?

Sorry for being dense.

P.S. While I'm at it: what do the numbers printed on each province on the map mean?


GSB




zaquex -> RE: naval transport (1/8/2008 1:33:29 AM)

 
"No trade" means ur not allowed to trade with GB, neither the owner or GB should get any money, its a type of economic warfare. If you are allowed and want to trade both gets the benefit if either of you refuses to trade none gets the benefit.

Wich numbers are you refering to? The large numerals are the forage value and the ports also have trade and port defences printed on them as for example 2/3/80.




demonterico -> RE: naval transport (1/8/2008 3:48:10 AM)

Thats the power of the British Navy.  During the Napoleonic Wars Great Britain basicly controled all the trade throughout Europe.  You traded with Great Britain or with nobody.  Or you were a smuggler.



j-s -> RE: naval transport (1/8/2008 11:19:04 PM)

Naval rules in the computer game are a disaster. I have played original board game a lot and I don't like Matrix version of naval transports, or naval rules. In original game, royal navy was strong but it was a important part of the gamebalance. If others wanted to beat GB, they should combine their strength and that was politics...[8D]

There is no point that trasporter can move only 3 MP, when all other fleets can move 7. This makes transport ships just for invasion supply. Adding "light ships" or "transporters" to naval system gives nothing more, only makes a turkish and spanish life harder. Now Turkey will do almost nothing with it's transport fleet with movement "3".

In original game, naval movement was like this and there was only one type of ships who took care about fight and transport:
1 fleet - move 7
2 fleets (in same stack) - both move 6
3 fleets (in same stack) - all move 5
4+ fleets (in same stack) - all move 4
if fleet transports a corps: -1 to movement (but all move at least 4)

And how much fleets/country (max. 30s/fleet)?
GB - 7 (their ships get +1 to wind gauge roll and Nelson-commander)
France - 4
Russia - 3
Spain -3
Turkey - 2
Austria - 1 (-1 to wind gauge rolls)
Prussia - 1 (-1 to wind gauge rolls)
Minors (Sicily, Sweden, Portugal, Holland and Denmark) - 1 each

Summa summarum:
I miss the original naval system. It was simple and worked much better. I pray that in some patch we could see "use original naval system"-option. Please, naval system is worst part of computer game (after AI [;)]).



CapnKnuck -> RE: naval transport (1/11/2008 7:23:49 PM)

Suggested improvement for Naval Invasions:    when you stack fleets together, you should be able to straddle corps across them.  For example, if you have an infantry corps with 10 infantry in it, then you would require a heavy fleet with 10 ships in it.   Even if you stack all your heavy fleets together, you are still required to have a single fleet capable of shipping the entire corps together.  Therefore, two fleets, one with 8 ships, and one with two ships, stacked, would be able to carry the entire corps to it's destination. 

I appreciate the programming for this next suggestion might be more complex, however, you should be ble to stack a heavy feet with a light fleet and achieve the same effect.

Thanks,
The Cap'n.



CapnKnuck -> RE: naval transport (1/11/2008 7:26:06 PM)

I wonder if an option to transport fleet movement might be such that an unburdened (ie, empty) fleet could move 7 sea spaces, whereas a transport fleet unit shipping troops to an invasion site would be reduced to 3 spaces (or more depending).  This might, at the very least, allow you to position you fleet more quickly, but limit the range of naval invasion.



carnifex -> RE: naval transport (1/11/2008 9:03:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: j-s

In original game, naval movement was like this and there was only one type of ships who took care about fight and transport:
1 fleet - move 7
2 fleets (in same stack) - both move 6
3 fleets (in same stack) - all move 5
4+ fleets (in same stack) - all move 4
if fleet transports a corps: -1 to movement (but all move at least 4)



In the original game, the above was an optional rule, which not everyone used. As a matter of fact, none of the games I was ever involved used Moving Large Fleets/Transports.



KenClark -> RE: naval transport (1/11/2008 10:36:36 PM)

Well every game I ever played used it, and that's over 25 games.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.6875