We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (Full Version)

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



Message

Ashtar -> We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/9/2009 10:52:39 AM)

This is something like the third time I open this thread.
Naval evasion, Naval pursuit and 1/2 pp per fleet in combat

These are standard EIA core rules that are missing here and implementing it should be high priority. It is easy to implement them (much easier then improving AI) and they are IMPORTANT.

Nothing to do here with improved naval rules, we just want the standard certified EIA rules.

For a start, it could be ok to link naval evasion with intercept choices, so that you do not have to add new
field in the database. Better this then nothing.

Could all the people interested in having this please sign in this thread and bump it up to keep it in Marshall mind?



Mardonius -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/9/2009 12:42:45 PM)

These are needed rules.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/9/2009 1:26:01 PM)

I am actually looking at some ways to implement.



Dancing Bear -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/9/2009 1:36:20 PM)

I agree, this is a very important missing element from the game.

Also add the 90 guns to Toulon. How hard can that be to put in 1.05.02?



Marshall Ellis -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/9/2009 1:45:24 PM)

Toulon fix is in 1.06.00



hellfirejet -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/9/2009 3:25:42 PM)

Yes I agree the evade option is a fundemental requirement in any strategy.



easterner -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/9/2009 3:51:17 PM)

I agree.



j-s -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/9/2009 5:34:14 PM)

Many of my friends won't buy this game before there is original naval rules & fleet strengts. "Classic naval rules" as option is most important fix that can be in this game.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/12/2009 2:27:18 PM)

Maybe we will get the go ahead to do a classic scenario which is where this would be!
I would really like to pursue this.




borner -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/13/2009 3:41:02 AM)

Amen... yet another EiH changed noticed and shot down!   [sm=00000028.gif]



pzgndr -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/13/2009 12:23:10 PM)

quote:

"Classic naval rules" as option is most important fix that can be in this game.


Should evasion and pursuit be an option or just integrated into the naval system? It should be relatively simple to set these as standing orders for a fleet. In fact, it has been proposed to simply use the existing standing orders for interception, where a fleet posture is essentially aggressive or passive. Fleets set to intercept would probably also seek to pursue, and those set to not intercept would probably also seek to evade. This should not need to be more complicated?

What should be optional is whether the classic naval combat rules are used or the advanced naval combat system from The General or the EiH naval system (is it different than the advanced naval combat?).



Marshall Ellis -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/13/2009 12:45:43 PM)

I am looking at ways to implement evasion. This (hopefully) will not be too complex to add.



Mardonius -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/13/2009 1:56:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr


What should be optional is whether the classic naval combat rules are used or the advanced naval combat system from The General or the EiH naval system (is it different than the advanced naval combat?).


The EiH version 5.2 Naval combat is substantialy different than the Advanced Naval Combat in the General in that it is based on a single die roll and has no morale system. I'd say it is only slightly better than what we have now, though it does have evasion and interception, which is a big plus.

One thing I like is that Light Ships may not combat HS unless they have a 5-1 advantage, I believe.
I also really like that only two fleets may stack together (plus transports) unless there is a Naval leaer present. The only naval leaders I saw were Nelson and Villeneuve. Limitts huge PP swings from combat and massive fleets.

The port defense is a bit more powerful in that all ships in port can defend using a single die roll on naval combat table adn the guns seem to be added to this table. But for some reason the defending guns get a -1 on the "initial" die roll... which might make sense if there were more than one die roll for combat.... but I could not find any thing to confirm this.

Maybe Jason (IAMSPAMUS) has some perspectives...

The galley use for the Black and Baltic Sea regions is a good option. I'd probably expand it to the Med costal areas too.

best
Mardonius



ereiser -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/14/2009 2:07:02 AM)

Yes, we NEED naval evasion.  and pusuit.  These are the most important items needed for the naval rules.

Also, in the original EiA, it was 1 PP per fleet.  With so many more possible fleets, this should definitely be reduced to 1/2 PP per fleet.

Regards,
Eric



hellfirejet -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/14/2009 7:19:25 AM)

One thing I like is that Light Ships may not combat HS unless they have a 5-1 advantage, I believe.
I also really like that only two fleets may stack together (plus transports) unless there is a Naval leader present. The only naval leaders I saw were Nelson and Villeneuve. Limits huge PP swings from combat and massive fleets. Original quote by Mardonius.


The observation that Light ships (Frigates) do not engage heavies is correct, they are not designed to fight ships of the line, they are the eyes and ears of the fleet, and should only fight other Frigates in any combat.

Also the 2 fleet stack limit, should be introduced to the game as soon as possible, as this reflects more what really happened in the Napoleonics war, 40 Heavies per side is more in keeping with facts of the period. [:)]



iamspamus -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/14/2009 3:16:41 PM)

Two fleets is fine, but what about lights? Are you talking two heavies, or one heavy and one light or two lights? OR only two heavies stacked together and light ships are extra? The divergence here is that in EIA all ships were the same, ie. the Light ships were sort of added in. In this case, with light ships specified, there needs to be some thought as to how to work them.

For evasion, light ships should be able to generally get away from only heavy ships. (Good/poor rolls should allow them to be caught sometimes.) A light fleet attached to the heavies should even up the odds.

This is where you get into lots of potential gamey-ness. Do numbers of ships matter or one light fleet with one ship is enough to reduce the enemies advantage. Thus you can have several ways of counting: just have a light fleet (any number of ships), have more lights than the opponent, or more light fleets. And this is JUST heavies & lights vs lights.

On admirals, it depends on how much you want to diverge from EIA...:-) Britain should have a couple of admirals. (BTW: Ol' Nelson was not the most senior Brit Admiral.) France and Spain should have one. Russia probably should, as maybe Denmark and Holland. So, this greatly changes stuff.

Galleys were still a big part of the navies iand influenced operations n the black and baltic seas. They were also used somewhat in the med. I would like to tinker with those rules from EIH. I think that they were too limiting. Needing 5-1 for a chance to win. I know that Russians and Swedes fought some with galleys. Here's an interesting website. http://www.multi.fi/~goranfri/navalwar.html

Some of this has to do with shallow water fighting. The EIH system worked ok with galleys.

Well, enough rambling.
Jason


quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

One thing I like is that Light Ships may not combat HS unless they have a 5-1 advantage, I believe.
I also really like that only two fleets may stack together (plus transports) unless there is a Naval leader present. The only naval leaders I saw were Nelson and Villeneuve. Limits huge PP swings from combat and massive fleets. Original quote by Mardonius.


The observation that Light ships (Frigates) do not engage heavies is correct, they are not designed to fight ships of the line, they are the eyes and ears of the fleet, and should only fight other Frigates in any combat.

Also the 2 fleet stack limit, should be introduced to the game as soon as possible, as this reflects more what really happened in the Napoleonics war, 40 Heavies per side is more in keeping with facts of the period. [:)]





hellfirejet -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/14/2009 6:07:24 PM)

Two fleets is fine, but what about lights? Are you talking two heavies, or one heavy and one light or two lights? OR only two heavies stacked together and light ships are extra? The divergence here is that in EIA all ships were the same, ie. the Light ships were sort of added in. In this case, with light ships specified, there needs to be some thought as to how to work them.

Above quote by iamspamus
 
 
Hi ianspamus,
 
             By fleet stacking I mean maximum 2 Heavy fleets per side.(40 heavies each )
                                                              1 Light fleet    per side. (10 Lights each )
 

So three fleets per side maximum 2 heavies + 1 light [:)]


The reason for only 1 Light fleet is that Frigates were in short numbers during the Napoleonic wars, due to them being maid off all works, convoy duty, blockades and other missions, The admirals were always wanting more Frigates in the main fleets, actually the average number in the main fleets was around 10 and thats if the admiral was lucky.
 
                    as for transports no limit as they don't count in combat anyway.[:)]



iamspamus -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/15/2009 11:21:47 AM)

Yeah, that's what I'd think too. Basically, 2 heavy fleets and one light fleet max in a space.

This brings up [:@] multiple country stacking and/or multiple "stacks" from a country per sea. Otherwise, you could have SPA, FRA, and RUS all with three fleets in the English channel (and if they can't fight together then that's all the better) and only one English fleet. Either way, bad for the Brits. Either they all fight as a stack ie. 9 fleets v 3 fleets max for the Brits OR they all are independent stacks and Britain can only fight one (allowing the other two to drop off their guys) OR Brit has to fight each one in turn (slowly weakening as it continues to fight). So, all of these are not good.

To solve this you could allow multiple stacks in a space, but they don't fight together (weird) OR only one 3 fleets total in a sea zone (why? and that gives the advantage to powers who go first.) So, there's not a good way to implement this that I can see. Anyone else have thoughts on the subject?

On a related note, can any two heavies stack or do you need an admiral? If the latter you'd need to increase the number of admirals. OR you could do what we did (trying to implement these rules in a game once) and say that the I Heavy Fleet has the "main admiral" for the navy, thus allowing it to stack with another heavy fleet for "free", ie. it's automatic. This gives the Brits an advantage because they could stack the I Hvy fleet with another and then another two under Nelson. Also, this penalizes the Russians (primarily), because they would then have to pick to do that in the Baltic or the Black. So...

Jason


quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

Two fleets is fine, but what about lights? Are you talking two heavies, or one heavy and one light or two lights? OR only two heavies stacked together and light ships are extra? The divergence here is that in EIA all ships were the same, ie. the Light ships were sort of added in. In this case, with light ships specified, there needs to be some thought as to how to work them.

Above quote by iamspamus
 
 
Hi ianspamus,
 
             By fleet stacking I mean maximum 2 Heavy fleets per side.(40 heavies each )
                                                              1 Light fleet    per side. (10 Lights each )
 

So three fleets per side maximum 2 heavies + 1 light [:)]


The reason for only 1 Light fleet is that Frigates were in short numbers during the Napoleonic wars, due to them being maid off all works, convoy duty, blockades and other missions, The admirals were always wanting more Frigates in the main fleets, actually the average number in the main fleets was around 10 and thats if the admiral was lucky.
 
                    as for transports no limit as they don't count in combat anyway.[:)]




pzgndr -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/15/2009 12:17:38 PM)

quote:

This brings up multiple country stacking and/or multiple "stacks" from a country per sea.


I would think the issue is how many fleets can reasonably be engaged in a battle at one time? The sea areas are large enough to accomodate unlimited stacking, but battlespace is another issue. Perhaps some way of limiting fleets per day of battle, which players can select, with option to continue battle into multiple days using pursuit and evasion rules. This could become a very interesting combat model. [8D]



Mardonius -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/15/2009 10:36:36 PM)

Empires in Harm had a good feature that allowed only two fleets stacked per battle, or three if there was an admiral. UNfortunelatly, there was only a French and British Admiral (Villeneuve and Nelson) so it kind of scr@wed Spain.

Note that fleet counter capacity size was a bit differnt than EiA NW. With reduced ship costs, this could form the basis of an enhance naval aspect of the game.

Here they are EiH capacities in/around 1800 1810 for anyone who is interested:

Austria

I Squadron 5 LS/HS 2.0 (morale, note that some areas gave certain nations home water bonus to morale)
II Squadron 5 LS/HS 2.0
III Squadron 5 LS/HS 2.0
Transport unlimited ~
I Priv. 5 Pr ~

GB
I Fleet 30 HS, 7 LS 3.5
II Fleet 30 HS, 7 LS 3.5
III Fleet 30 HS, 7 LS 3.5
IV Fleet 30 HS, 7 LS 3.5
V Fleet 30 HS, 7 LS 3.5
I Squadron 5 LS/HS 3.5
II Squadron 5 LS/HS 3.5
III Squadron 5 LS/HS 3.5
IV Squadron 5 LS/HS 3.5
V Squadron 5 LS/HS 3.5
VI Squadron 5 LS/HS 3.5
VII Squadron 5 LS/HS 3.5
VIII Squadron 5 LS/HS 3.5
IX Squadron 5 LS/HS 3.5
X Squadron 5 LS/HS 3.5
I Priv. 5 Pr ~
II Priv. 5 Pr ~
Transport unlimited ~

France:
I Fleet 28 HS, 6 LS 3.0
II Fleet 28 HS, 6 LS 3.0
III Fleet 28 HS, 6 LS 3.0
I Squadron 5 LS/HS 3.0
II Squadron 5 LS/HS 3.0
III Squadron 5 LS/HS 3.0
IV Squadron 5 LS/HS 3.0
V Squadron 5 LS/HS 3.0
I Priv. 5 Pr ~
II Priv. 5 Pr ~
III Priv. 5 Pr ~
IV Priv. 5 Pr ~
Transport unlimited ~


Ottoman (Turkey)
I Fleet 22 HS, 6 LS 2.5
II Fleet 22 HS, 6 LS 2.5
I Squadron 5 HS/LS 2.5
II Squadron 5 HS/LS 2.5
I Gal. 20 Gal 2.5
II Gal. 20 Gal 2.5
I Priv. 5 Pr ~
II Priv. 5 Pr ~
Transport unlimited ~


Prussia
I Squadron 5 LS/HS 2.0
II Squadron 5 LS/HS 2.0
I Gal. 10 Gal 2.0
I Priv. 5 Pr ~
Transport unlimited ~


Russia
I Fleet 24 HS, 6 LS 3.0
II Fleet 24 HS, 6 LS 3.0
III Fleet 24 HS, 6 LS 3.0
I Squadron 5 LS/HS 3.0
II Squadron 5 LS/HS 3.0
III Squadron 5 LS/HS 3.0
IV Squadron 5 LS/HS 3.0
I Gal. 20 Gal 3.0
II Gal. 20 Gal 3.0
III Gal. 20 Gal 3.0
I Priv. 5 Pr ~
Transport unlimited ~


I Fleet 28 HS, 6 LS 2.5
II Fleet 28 HS, 6 LS 2.5
III Fleet 28 HS, 6 LS 2.5
I Squadron 5 LS/HS 2.5
II Squadron 5 LS/HS 2.5
III Squadron 5 LS/HS 2.5
IV Squadron 5 LS/HS 2.5
V Squadron 5 LS/HS 2.5
I Priv. 5 Pr ~
II Priv. 5 Pr ~

Denmark
I Fleet 22 HS, 6 LS 3.0

I Squadron 5 LS/HS 3.0
II Squadron 5 LS/HS 3.0

I Gal. 20 Gal 3.0
I Priv. 5 Pr ~

Egypt
I Fleet 22 HS, 6 LS 2.0
I Squadron 5 LS/HS 2.0
II Squadron 5 LS/HS 2.0
I Priv. 5 Pr ~
II Priv. 5 Pr ~

Genoa
I Squadron 5 LS/HS 2.5
I Priv. 5 Pr ~

Holland
I Fleet 24 HS, 6 LS 3.0
II Fleet 24 HS, 6 LS 3.0

I Squadron 5 HS/LS 3.0
II Squadron 5 HS/LS 3.0
III Squadron 5 HS/LS 3.0

I Priv. 5 Pr ~
II Priv. 5 Pr ~

Malta
I Priv. 5 Pr

Morocco
I Priv. 5 Pr
II Priv. 5 Pr

Portugal
I Fleet 22 HS, 6 LS 3.0
I Squadron 5 HS/LS 3.0
II Squadron 5 HS/LS 3.0
III Squadron 5 HS/LS 3.0
I Priv. 5 Pr ~

Rhodes
I Priv. 5 Pr

Sicily
I Fleet 22 HS, 6 LS 2.5
I Squadron 5 HS/LS 2.5
II Squadron 5 HS/LS 2.5
I Priv. 5 Pr ~


I Fleet 22 HS, 6 LS 3.0
II Fleet 22 HS, 6 LS 3.0
I Squadron 5 HS/LS 3.0
II Squadron 5 HS/LS 3.0
III Squadron 5 HS/LS 3.0
I Gal. 20 Gal 3.0
II Gal. 20 Gal 3.0
I Priv. 5 Pr ~

Tripolitania
I Priv. 5 Pr


US
I Squadron 5 HS/LS 4.0
II Squadron 5 HS/LS 4.0
I Priv. 5 Pr ~
II Priv. 5 Pr ~
III Priv. 5 Pr ~
IV Priv. 5 Pr ~


Venice
I Fleet 22 HS, 6 LS 2.5
I Squadron 5 HS/LS 2.5
II Squadron 5 HS/LS 2.5
I Priv. 5 Pr ~



hellfirejet -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/15/2009 10:48:00 PM)

Hey folks,

               I really like the idea of squadrons as well as fleets much more like the era.[:)]



Ashtar -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/23/2009 8:32:50 AM)

Ok folks,
this thread was to have Naval evasion rules ASAP, not to discuss exotic and untested rules changes to reproduce in fine details the differences between the quality of the sails used by the Turkish navy as compared to the Spanish one...

Circolare, circolare, non c'e' nulla da vedere qua [:D]



iamspamus -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/23/2009 9:52:47 AM)

Our discussions are not hampering ME from any changes that he's doing. In fact, it helps to fill the time. So, pipe up more on naval evasion all you want but don't deny HFJ his fun on talking about the esoteric wonders of Napoleonic sailing...[:-]

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

Ok folks,
this thread was to have Naval evasion rules ASAP, not to discuss exotic and untested rules changes to reproduce in fine details the differences between the quality of the sails used by the Turkish navy as compared to the Spanish one...

Circolare, circolare, non c'e' nulla da vedere qua [:D]




Ashtar -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/23/2009 10:25:47 AM)

quote:

In fact, it helps to fill the time. So, pipe up more on naval evasion all you want but don't deny HFJ his fun on talking about the esoteric wonders of Napoleonic sailing...


Yes, of course you can do it in the wacky rules thread. But I do not see the point in doing also in the naval evasion thread [:D]. Here it is just noise



iamspamus -> RE: We really want NAVAL EVASION and naval pursuit rules (1/23/2009 10:33:24 AM)

Well, I think that Naval issues may blend together...[:(] Stupid navy. Give me some field to fight over any day...oops. Did I say that out loud?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

quote:

In fact, it helps to fill the time. So, pipe up more on naval evasion all you want but don't deny HFJ his fun on talking about the esoteric wonders of Napoleonic sailing...


Yes, of course you can do it in the wacky rules thread. But I do not see the point in doing also in the naval evasion thread [:D]. Here it is just noise




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.703125