RE: New Naval Combat System Model (Full Version)

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



Message


Marshall Ellis -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/15/2009 12:51:13 PM)

Oh, I missed that you were asking about EiH Egyptian fleets.
My bad...




Mardonius -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/15/2009 10:16:01 PM)

No worries Marshall. It just seemed a bit of an anonaly that some things (order of battle) come from EiH 3.0 and others don't.

Please keep up your good work! DiD I mention that if there is any way to adopt a naval combat system similar to EiH 3.0 (for playtesting) and reduced build costs amd times, I would be indebted? [:)]

best
Mardonius




hellfirejet -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/15/2009 10:20:15 PM)

Hey Maradonius,

I would love to have a better naval simulation like EIH 3 fingers crossed.




Marshall Ellis -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/16/2009 1:39:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

No worries Marshall. It just seemed a bit of an anonaly that some things (order of battle) come from EiH 3.0 and others don't.

Please keep up your good work! DiD I mention that if there is any way to adopt a naval combat system similar to EiH 3.0 (for playtesting) and reduced build costs amd times, I would be indebted? [:)]

best
Mardonius


A few things I would like to add, are the reduced build times/cost and evasion/pursuit.
Can you refresh me on recommended build times/cost or is this in Mantis already???





Mardonius -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/17/2009 1:02:33 AM)

I have posted on Mantis. If you ever want a redesigned naval system outlined, citing historical, EiA General revision and EiH improvements, I would be honored to provide you with an improved and historically viable FUN system.

I am sure HFJ and others would love to input as well.

best
Mardonius/Varick




bresh -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/17/2009 9:24:25 AM)

Just remember any such changes to stay optional.
So that those not wishing it dont get it forced upon them.

Regards
Bresh




Mardonius -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/17/2009 11:11:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

Just remember any such changes to stay optional.
So that those not wishing it dont get it forced upon them.

Regards
Bresh


I won't discount Bresh's suggestion that such changes remain options, as we should try to keep some player preference flexibility here. I will, however, point out that the original game had a charge of $10 per ship and 12 months, significantly lower than the current charges for line of battle ships. So there should be no suggestion that today's curretn EiAnW system is more orthodox than the system I and others have advanced.

best
Mardnonius




hellfirejet -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/17/2009 12:21:48 PM)

Hey Guys,
              If we can get to use the editor to upgrade our enjoyment of the game I see no down side, if it's optional it should please everyone to suit there own preferences.[:)]




pzgndr -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/17/2009 2:28:56 PM)

quote:

If you ever want a redesigned naval system outlined, citing historical, EiA General revision and EiH improvements, I would be honored to provide you with an improved and historically viable FUN system.


I am all for this. An optional advanced naval combat system would be great. The plain vanilla EiA system is not very interesting. The EiH rules offer some worthwhile improvements for more historical gameplay.




bresh -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/17/2009 11:48:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

Just remember any such changes to stay optional.
So that those not wishing it dont get it forced upon them.

Regards
Bresh


I won't discount Bresh's suggestion that such changes remain options, as we should try to keep some player preference flexibility here. I will, however, point out that the original game had a charge of $10 per ship and 12 months, significantly lower than the current charges for line of battle ships. So there should be no suggestion that today's curretn EiAnW system is more orthodox than the system I and others have advanced.

best
Mardnonius


Mardonius the threat is about naval combat system, witch is what i write about.
And i do keep my opinion dont force changes into games, but set them as options, each game-group themself can decide on/off.

I concour that the cost/build could use a fix.

Regards
Bresh




borner -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/18/2009 9:42:20 PM)

It must be remembered that any change to the naval system is going to have a huge impact on game balance. As it is now, much of GB's strength is that the advanvantages for the Royal navy are automatic. This is important as GB has next to no army, and no way to defend herself if invaded. As I posted before, given the huge advantage the Royal navy had at this time, I think any changes need to be made to at least slightly favor GB. Otherwise, you are not just making naval battles more interesting and challenging, (which coul dbe a very good thing), but causing a very basic shift in the balance of the game.





Marshall Ellis -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/19/2009 2:36:27 PM)

Well said Borner. I am very nervous about such drastic changes and must make sure that they do not sway the game horribly in one direction.




pzgndr -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/19/2009 4:05:44 PM)

quote:

any change to the naval system is going to have a huge impact on game balance.


Any change?? Surely there must be some feedback from players who have used the advanced naval combat rules from The General or the various EiH rules over these many years. This stuff is not new. Did GB lose its automatic advantages and did the balance of naval combat shift decisively away from GB?? I doubt that the impact was "huge". I agree we do not want to disrupt GB's historical advantages. But what's being advocated is the implementation of an optional naval combat system to build upon these previously introduced optional rules, which I assume retain some sense of game balance unless proven otherwise. Let's try it out and see for ourselves, and make adjustments as needed, yes? I'll also add that while this would be interesting, it is not exactly a priority and can wait until other things settle down. Work on evasion and pursuit rules for sure, and the other classic EiA stuff, and then begin experimenting with optional systems.




Mardonius -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/20/2009 12:56:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Well said Borner. I am very nervous about such drastic changes and must make sure that they do not sway the game horribly in one direction.



Respectfully, Marshall, the current naval system is not a success. Due to the increased costs of ships and build times and the non-incorporation of some of the board game optional rules pertaining to stacked movement, GB has even a stronger advantage than it did in the board game.

I earnestly suggest you pursue a dual course fo action that (a) allows you to keep the current system for those who wish to continue to use this system and (b) allows those of us who are disatisfied with the current naval system to adopt a better, more fun, and more historical system that still gives GB advantages but does not make it invulnerable.

Once again, I -- with other's input -- would be honored to provide you with a proposed framework for an improved naval system.

Thank you
Mardonius




hellfirejet -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/20/2009 9:41:30 AM)

Hello Guys,
I have been play testing a naval battle scenario using the EMPIRE IN ARMS ship type system of Heavy & Light fleets.

The 2 opposing fleets were as follows =

Britain have 3 HEAVY FLEETS = ( 60 ) HEAVIES + 1 LIGHT FLEET = ( 10 ) LIGHT.
With a grand total of 70 ships.

France & Spain have 3 HEAVY FLEETS = ( 52 ) HEAVIES note 1 Fleet is 8 heavy ships short of a full compliment, + 2 LIGHT FLEETS = ( 20 ) LIGHTS.
With a total of 72 ships.

NB. Each ship is represented by 1 die roll. Thats 142 die rolls.

You could have 1 die roll per 4 ships whatever to reduce the number off dice rolled.

Note also that the 3Deckers & 2Deckers are heavies in the game!

Ship options.
1st & 2nd Rates ( 3 Decker ) = 1 1/2 die rolls per ship.
3rd & 4th Rates ( 2 Decker ) = 1 die roll per ship.
5th & 6th Rates ( 1 Decker ) = 1/2 die roll per ship.

There are numerous permitations for die roll options for ship types, to reduce the number of dice rolled, but the table below always applies for combat resolution.

The combat is using my system of damage effects, and represents possible ship v ship results.

COMBAT TABLE.

DIE ROLL = RESULT

1 = NO EFFECT

2 = DAMAGED

3 = DAMAGED

4 = DAMAGED

5 = CAPTURED

6 = SUNK


As you can see all die rolls off 1 = No Effect.

All die rolls off 2,3 or 4 = 1 Ship Damaged.

All die rolls off 5 = 1 Ship Captured.

All die rolls off 6 = 1 Ship Sunk. ( Advanced rule option re-roll all 6 results)

This is a combat system in it's simplest form.

At the end of combat all Damaged ships must return to a friendly port, and all Captured ships are added to the opposing fleets, and all ships Sunk are removed from the game.

Also I use an advanced option on the above table by re-rolling any die roll of 6 result, as during this period of history very few ships actually sink, apply any re-roll result as per the table above.[:)]

As a footnote: The above battle ended with the following result after implementing the advanced rule for die rolls off 6.

69 ships damaged, 26 captured and 5 sunk!




iamspamus -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/20/2009 1:02:42 PM)

Me. Feedback. Once we implemented this variant, we never went back. It was good. We played 3 or 4 games with it.

Now, I do like chrome, though not as much as Hellfirejet. I think he wants individual life-boats accounted for...[:-] (Just a friendly poke here...)

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

any change to the naval system is going to have a huge impact on game balance.


Any change?? Surely there must be some feedback from players who have used the advanced naval combat rules from The General or the various EiH rules over these many years. This stuff is not new. Did GB lose its automatic advantages and did the balance of naval combat shift decisively away from GB?? I doubt that the impact was "huge". I agree we do not want to disrupt GB's historical advantages. But what's being advocated is the implementation of an optional naval combat system to build upon these previously introduced optional rules, which I assume retain some sense of game balance unless proven otherwise. Let's try it out and see for ourselves, and make adjustments as needed, yes? I'll also add that while this would be interesting, it is not exactly a priority and can wait until other things settle down. Work on evasion and pursuit rules for sure, and the other classic EiA stuff, and then begin experimenting with optional systems.





Marshall Ellis -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/20/2009 1:58:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Well said Borner. I am very nervous about such drastic changes and must make sure that they do not sway the game horribly in one direction.



Respectfully, Marshall, the current naval system is not a success. Due to the increased costs of ships and build times and the non-incorporation of some of the board game optional rules pertaining to stacked movement, GB has even a stronger advantage than it did in the board game.

I earnestly suggest you pursue a dual course fo action that (a) allows you to keep the current system for those who wish to continue to use this system and (b) allows those of us who are disatisfied with the current naval system to adopt a better, more fun, and more historical system that still gives GB advantages but does not make it invulnerable.

Once again, I -- with other's input -- would be honored to provide you with a proposed framework for an improved naval system.

Thank you
Mardonius



I'm not opposed to an advanced combat system for the naval side. It's simply a time thing at this point. I would like to do a classic EiA scenario before I add any naval combat options though.






hellfirejet -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/20/2009 1:58:46 PM)

Now, I do like chrome, though not as much as Hellfirejet. I think he wants individual life-boats accounted for... (Just a friendly poke here...)

Jason

Yo Jason,

( Friendly banter poke return to sender )

I was not interested in the land campaign of this period my interest lay with the navy, but having played the game I came to realise that I enjoyed playing the Land stuff, I'm willing to learn, with all the chit picks and options.

I also like diplomacy and debates which the game also keeps me interested in, but I'm sure like me there are plenty players fed up with the naval aspect of the game, and this is the reason why I'm trying to improve this side of the game, historical or not it should give you more options similar to the land campaign![:)]




dodod -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/21/2009 2:40:20 AM)

I think the biggest GB advantage is that it is impossible to build ships...this allows gb to wipe out navies rather easily, without fear of a  rebuilding by others since gb is by far the richest...

I also think that Austria should be given something like 10 heavies, and prussia 10 transports to begin with....it is utterly ridiculous that no troops can  be sailed by these countries.




AresMars -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/21/2009 3:17:14 AM)

dodo,

Austria and Prussia have no real Naval tradition - thus NO fleets.

However, their control of a Minor with a Fleet solves that issue pretty quick....

Some of the points raised by hellfirejet and Mardonius (build times, ship costs, a little more variable in combat results) have serious merit.

I would like to see a return to the EIA limited number of fleets for balance.  (ie GB 7, FR 4, SP and RS 3, TU 2, AS and PS 1, plus the Minors) There are a limited amount of sea areas and limiting the game to a total number of FLEETs makes the importance of DIPLOMACY more important, raises the value of MINORS with FLEETS. 

(I am just typing off he top of my head....)

Now, with the incorporation of the different classes of ships (3, 2, 1 Deckers and Tranports) you could have a fleet composed of 30 combat ships (plus transports ignored in combat) where the different classes of ships would have various morale levels (ie. 3 Deckers are 4, 2 Deckers are 3 and 2 Deckers are 2) [British would be .5 higher] and the fleet counter would look more like a LAND CORPS  (ie. [5/25/25/*]

A fleet of just transports would just be treated like a naval prusuit by the opponent based on the number of 1Decker ships in the fleet.

Thus if I have a fleet of; 2 x 3Deckers (2*4), 18 x 2Deckers (18*3) and 7 x 1Deckers (7*2) and 15 x Transports the BATTLE MORALE of the that fleet would be...2.53 and then would be used on something like the ADVANCED NAVAL CHART proposed in the old GENERAL or Mardonius's suggestions. 3 rounds, etc....

A British Fleet of the same type would have a BATTLE MORALE of 2.73 -- so not an enormous advantage.... but the chart is not about DAMAGE EFFECTS

Casualties from a chart would represent a certain amount of DAMAGE EFFECTs that would then be translated to the OPPOSING fleet each round in STEPS....ie. 6 = CAPTURED, 4=SUNK, 3-2-1 Damaged

Perhaps even a forced to withdraw from combat....

Naval leaders could then be used in a variety of ways.  Improve Morale, Raise/Lower DAMAGE EFFECTS, others....

What do people think of this approach?





hellfirejet -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/21/2009 7:40:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AresMars

dodo,

Austria and Prussia have no real Naval tradition - thus NO fleets.

However, their control of a Minor with a Fleet solves that issue pretty quick....

Some of the points raised by hellfirejet and Mardonius (build times, ship costs, a little more variable in combat results) have serious merit.

I would like to see a return to the EIA limited number of fleets for balance.  (ie GB 7, FR 4, SP and RS 3, TU 2, AS and PS 1, plus the Minors) There are a limited amount of sea areas and limiting the game to a total number of FLEETs makes the importance of DIPLOMACY more important, raises the value of MINORS with FLEETS. 

(I am just typing off he top of my head....)

Now, with the incorporation of the different classes of ships (3, 2, 1 Deckers and Tranports) you could have a fleet composed of 30 combat ships (plus transports ignored in combat) where the different classes of ships would have various morale levels (ie. 3 Deckers are 4, 2 Deckers are 3 and 1 Deckers are 2) [British would be .5 higher] and the fleet counter would look more like a LAND CORPS  (ie. [5/25/25/*]

A fleet of just transports would just be treated like a naval prusuit by the opponent based on the number of 1Decker ships in the fleet.

Thus if I have a fleet of; 2 x 3Deckers (2*4), 18 x 2Deckers (18*3) and 7 x 1Deckers (7*2) and 15 x Transports the BATTLE MORALE of the that fleet would be...2.53 and then would be used on something like the ADVANCED NAVAL CHART proposed in the old GENERAL or Mardonius's suggestions. 3 rounds, etc....

A British Fleet of the same type would have a BATTLE MORALE of 2.73 -- so not an enormous advantage.... but the chart is not about DAMAGE EFFECTS

Casualties from a chart would represent a certain amount of DAMAGE EFFECTs that would then be translated to the OPPOSING fleet each round in STEPS....ie. 6 = CAPTURED, 4=SUNK, 3-2-1 Damaged

Perhaps even a forced to withdraw from combat....

Naval leaders could then be used in a variety of ways.  Improve Morale, Raise/Lower DAMAGE EFFECTS, others....

What do people think of this approach?




Yo AresMars,
I'm with you all the way with this one, anything that improves the naval aspect of the game is vital. More Leaders,ship types,build costs & build times reduced, will improve the whole picture of the campaign. All we are asking for is an advanced option that is on a par with the land system![:)]




hellfirejet -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/21/2009 8:18:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dodod

I think the biggest GB advantage is that it is impossible to build ships...this allows gb to wipe out navies rather easily, without fear of a  rebuilding by others since gb is by far the richest...

I also think that Austria should be given something like 10 heavies, and prussia 10 transports to begin with....it is utterly ridiculous that no troops can  be sailed by these countries.


Hello dodod,
I think the build costs & times are way to much, its also far to easy to have massive fleets in the game, fleets should be smaller allowing for more naval combat in the game. I should also point out that although France lost a great number of ships during the campaign, it still ended the war with a stronger navy than it begun due to it's ship building program.




iamspamus -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/21/2009 11:28:37 AM)

ME,

I agree. Do up the "classic" EIA scenario and get those guys off your back. [;)] Then we have years of work for you... muhuhuhahahahahahahahahah...

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Well said Borner. I am very nervous about such drastic changes and must make sure that they do not sway the game horribly in one direction.



Respectfully, Marshall, the current naval system is not a success. Due to the increased costs of ships and build times and the non-incorporation of some of the board game optional rules pertaining to stacked movement, GB has even a stronger advantage than it did in the board game.

I earnestly suggest you pursue a dual course fo action that (a) allows you to keep the current system for those who wish to continue to use this system and (b) allows those of us who are disatisfied with the current naval system to adopt a better, more fun, and more historical system that still gives GB advantages but does not make it invulnerable.

Once again, I -- with other's input -- would be honored to provide you with a proposed framework for an improved naval system.

Thank you
Mardonius



I'm not opposed to an advanced combat system for the naval side. It's simply a time thing at this point. I would like to do a classic EiA scenario before I add any naval combat options though.








Mardonius -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/21/2009 11:47:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet



Hello dodod,
I think the build costs & times are way to much, its also far to easy to have massive fleets in the game, fleets should be smaller allowing for more naval combat in the game. I should also point out that although France lost a great number of ships during the campaign, it still ended the war with a stronger navy than it begun due to it's ship building program.



Please note HFJ's comments that France "still ended the war with a stronger navy than it begun due to it's ship building program". Ans this is a France who marched into Russia. Ship prices and build times must come down.
They are way too high to allow for all but minor builds.




hellfirejet -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/21/2009 12:28:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius


quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet



Hello dodod,
I think the build costs & times are way to much, its also far to easy to have massive fleets in the game, fleets should be smaller allowing for more naval combat in the game. I should also point out that although France lost a great number of ships during the campaign, it still ended the war with a stronger navy than it begun due to it's ship building program.



Please note HFJ's comments that France "still ended the war with a stronger navy than it begun due to it's ship building program". Ans this is a France who marched into Russia. Ship prices and build times must come down.
They are way too high to allow for all but minor builds.



Yo Mardonius,

Hi folks here is a piece of historical fact that proves that France was a major threat to Britains so called dominance of the seas.

In 1813 France had rebuilt her naval strength after Trafalgar and had 71 Heavies at her disposal and had a further 42 building, I would call that a challenge to Britains naval supremacy.




Marshall Ellis -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/21/2009 12:40:43 PM)

What did they never press this and try to take Fr out?




warspite1 -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/21/2009 4:26:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius


quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet



Hello dodod,
I think the build costs & times are way to much, its also far to easy to have massive fleets in the game, fleets should be smaller allowing for more naval combat in the game. I should also point out that although France lost a great number of ships during the campaign, it still ended the war with a stronger navy than it begun due to it's ship building program.



Please note HFJ's comments that France "still ended the war with a stronger navy than it begun due to it's ship building program". Ans this is a France who marched into Russia. Ship prices and build times must come down.
They are way too high to allow for all but minor builds.



Yo Mardonius,

Hi folks here is a piece of historical fact that proves that France was a major threat to Britains so called dominance of the seas.

In 1813 France had rebuilt her naval strength after Trafalgar and had 71 Heavies at her disposal and had a further 42 building, I would call that a challenge to Britains naval supremacy.

Warspite1

Yes, and in WWII, many, many times the Italians out-numbered, out-gunned and out-ranged the British but did not have the mix of confidence/courage/experience - call it what you will - to take that advantage and deliver a good pummelling to their enemy. Having those weapons was clearly not enough........

I do not know too much about this period of history but suspect that the need for a huge land army to try and stem the advancing tide, meant that these ships could never be crewed. If true, this come back to my point from a while ago, that exploring alternatives in these strategic games is fun but care is needed to make things realistic.




Mardonius -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/21/2009 9:09:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Yes, and in WWII, many, many times the Italians out-numbered, out-gunned and out-ranged the British but did not have the mix of confidence/courage/experience - call it what you will - to take that advantage and deliver a good pummelling to their enemy. Having those weapons was clearly not enough........

I do not know too much about this period of history but suspect that the need for a huge land army to try and stem the advancing tide, meant that these ships could never be crewed. If true, this come back to my point from a while ago, that exploring alternatives in these strategic games is fun but care is needed to make things realistic.



Warspite:

Your Italain example is not exactly appropriate. The Italain Navy did a markedly good job when they had enough fuel and technical parity with the British. Cape Matapan, and the GB victory, had little to do with "confidence/courage/experience" and more to due with British Radar. If you want to see gumption, see Prince Borghese and the Decima MAS. He was certainly as bold as Nelson. I can cite more examples if you wish.

In our Napoleonic era, the technology is close to parity, with the French and Spaninsh having a slight advantage in most instances. The French ships could be crewed... the problem was, as DC Whitworth hit on som time back, was training. Hard to get to sea if blockaded and without sea time it is hard to build up a proficient navy, all the more so if the revolution took your most expereinced leaders.

cordially,
Mardonius




Mardonius -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/21/2009 9:13:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

What did they never press this and try to take Fr out?


One of the problems with EiA (the boardgame, so no hit on Matris and your efforts) is that ports are too easy to take out. Effective ampib invasions are a very hard thing to do. Trust me on this one (LtCol USMCR).

So unless you had access to a port, this landing and killing the fleet was very difficult to do. And remmeber, that Toulon was opened up by French Royalists.

Sieges in EiA, unless taken by a coup de main (surprise) are rarely as quick as in our game system. I'd probably halve the odds and limit the amount of assualters to twice the garrison capacity (not garrison total) due to spatial considerations.

Just walked the lines of Yorktown today... worth checking out.

best
Mardonius




warspite1 -> RE: New Naval Combat System Model (1/21/2009 10:28:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Yes, and in WWII, many, many times the Italians out-numbered, out-gunned and out-ranged the British but did not have the mix of confidence/courage/experience - call it what you will - to take that advantage and deliver a good pummelling to their enemy. Having those weapons was clearly not enough........

I do not know too much about this period of history but suspect that the need for a huge land army to try and stem the advancing tide, meant that these ships could never be crewed. If true, this come back to my point from a while ago, that exploring alternatives in these strategic games is fun but care is needed to make things realistic.



Warspite:

Your Italain example is not exactly appropriate. The Italain Navy did a markedly good job when they had enough fuel and technical parity with the British. Cape Matapan, and the GB victory, had little to do with "confidence/courage/experience" and more to due with British Radar. If you want to see gumption, see Prince Borghese and the Decima MAS. He was certainly as bold as Nelson. I can cite more examples if you wish.

In our Napoleonic era, the technology is close to parity, with the French and Spaninsh having a slight advantage in most instances. The French ships could be crewed... the problem was, as DC Whitworth hit on som time back, was training. Hard to get to sea if blockaded and without sea time it is hard to build up a proficient navy, all the more so if the revolution took your most expereinced leaders.

cordially,
Mardonius

Warspite1

I suspected you would pick up on the courage angle, which I purposely tried to show as just being one part within a bigger whole. I would not deride the heroic exploits of the Italian Navy - and as you say - there were some. Equally, to point to a British success and just say oh yes, they had radar, and to ignore men like Cunningham who had to make the decision whether or not to sail toward the enemy coast without air cover is very unfair.

The point is - courage by the few - or any one of those ingredients is not enough. FACT (and going back to the French) - Many good and experienced officers were removed and in addition I cannot believe that a large scale recruitment to the navy would not have seriously denunded the supply of desperately needed troops especially after the losses of 1812.

Summary - Not enough experienced officers, not enough experienced sailors (without hurting the land campaigns), not enough experience of winning and so a major psychological downer from from the start (the later just like the Italian vs RN in WWII).

Fact is I didn`t know about the number of ships - why didn`t they sail??

Rgds

Rob




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
7.59375