RE: Transport Fleets (Full Version)

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



Message

obsidiandrag -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/10/2009 7:09:56 PM)

I feel this would GREATLY remove capabilities of several nations - for starters Austria and Prussia could NEVER be able to transport troops on their own.. Turkey could only transport 2 corps (feudal or otherwise) as they only have 2 heavy fleets, which limits the conquest of N.Africa as well as anywhere else. Switching to no transports and only Heavies carrying causes the other nations to beg England to borrow a fleet for troop movement and makes england even more untouchable (in my opinion as it limits the resources of other nations and the ability to gain more).

I know this was how the basic game did transporting by fleet but there were more counters for fleets (at least I am pretty sure there were)...

OD





pzgndr -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/10/2009 7:30:14 PM)

quote:

Certainly, Napoleon built trasnport vessels on the channel but they never took to sea.


This would be the historical basis for the cheap, short-range (3 MP) transports in addition to regular fleets. Nothing prevents a player from using the regular fleets as originally intended.



Mardonius -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/10/2009 7:34:48 PM)

That is a good point about Austria/Prussia. In the old game they had one Fleet. So perhaps we could give them one of each LF and Heavy Fleets.

Per Turkey, well, that is just one of the limitations of Turkey. They had 2 fleets in the old game and 2 HS fleets now. Besides the Black Sea... the Transport fleet is relatively limited. Or so in my experience as Turkey.



Mardonius -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/10/2009 7:36:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

Certainly, Napoleon built trasnport vessels on the channel but they never took to sea.


This would be the historical basis for the cheap, short-range (3 MP) transports in addition to regular fleets. Nothing prevents a player from using the regular fleets as originally intended.


I don't think I can argue with this. I would not start countries with Transport Fleets (France, perhaps, excepted). But Your logic is sound.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/10/2009 10:39:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

Certainly, Napoleon built trasnport vessels on the channel but they never took to sea.


This would be the historical basis for the cheap, short-range (3 MP) transports in addition to regular fleets. Nothing prevents a player from using the regular fleets as originally intended.


Aha! Very good point indeed! This also exlpains the "3" movement. I do remember the prep for the step across the English channel that Napoleon worked on all the way up to 1805 (I believe???) and these were bascially smaller transport vessels that were in no way like ships-of-the-line but maybe a step above a john boat :-)

I think we should leave these alone in EiANW guys!





NeverMan -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/11/2009 12:48:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

Certainly, Napoleon built trasnport vessels on the channel but they never took to sea.


This would be the historical basis for the cheap, short-range (3 MP) transports in addition to regular fleets. Nothing prevents a player from using the regular fleets as originally intended.


Aha! Very good point indeed! This also exlpains the "3" movement. I do remember the prep for the step across the English channel that Napoleon worked on all the way up to 1805 (I believe???) and these were bascially smaller transport vessels that were in no way like ships-of-the-line but maybe a step above a john boat :-)

I think we should leave these alone in EiANW guys!





WHAT???

Simply because they are a somewhat creation of the real never-used French English Channel invasion fleet, that somehow forces these pathetic fleets onto the rest of the world's navy?

Amazing, almost everyone in this thread wants to change these things, yet, here we go!

I'd post this link to that old thread with Erik but honestly I stopped posting in that one because it too was pointless. Matrix listens!??



DodgyDave -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/11/2009 2:41:04 PM)

why not disband these transportfleet and change fleets a bit, so that a heavy fleet can include 10 transports and a light can include 5 transports, as you would most likely want to defend the transports... this would increase capacity and movement...

now i know, that people will, wait you want to change the game, but consider we are using EIH rules, not just the basic EIA rules, so why not just change it a bit more and perhaps even keep a transport fleet counter, with a max of 20 transports, as you could have 127 now, this will fall with this suggestion... and all major nations should have a transport fleet...



pzgndr -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/11/2009 2:58:02 PM)

quote:

WHAT???
Simply because they are a somewhat creation of the real never-used French English Channel invasion fleet, that somehow forces these pathetic fleets onto the rest of the world's navy?
Amazing, almost everyone in this thread wants to change these things, yet, here we go!
I'd post this link to that old thread with Erik but honestly I stopped posting in that one because it too was pointless. Matrix listens!??


What WHAT??? ?[8|]

In what possible way are players FORCED to use transports? Only France starts with some and there is no reason France HAS to use them. Historically, Napoleon started the actual wars (the game) with transports and CHOSE not to use them. Other MPs must CHOOSE to build transports or not, and then CHOOSE again to use them or not. There is no forcing function involved here; players are free to use the regular fleets as originally intended and also use transports if they choose to do so. This is somehow a major problem?

And Matrix isn't listening? Nay, nay. Au contraire, v1.06 with the Editor will allow players to delete the "pathetic" transports and light fleets if that's what they really want. No more pesky interfence by historical facts such as real French transports on the channel coast ready to go in 1805 but never used, or the reality of piracy and privateers throughout the wars. Marshall is working on a classic EiA scenario with classic map and OOB. How is that not listening and not responding, however slowly things are progressing? I suppose one motivation for complaining is to return to the old EiA gamesmanship of using 1-ship "fleets" to rapidly move whole corps around, without regard for any historical accuracy or realism, eh? EiANW can and should provide improvements over the old game system, as options if necessary.

To paraphrase Mardonius, I cannot agree with Neverman's spurious assertions; his logic is not sound. [:'(]



hellfirejet -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/11/2009 3:03:46 PM)

Hey Guys,
As yet I don't know everything that the editor is capable off doing in version 1.06.
So Why not just have the game come as per the original version,then leave it to the editor to alter anything that the player is not happy with.
That way everybody can please themselves, I'm sure there are a lot of players who don't play against anyone else except the AI,So I feel the AI improvement should be of paramount importance.[8|]



ndrose -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/11/2009 4:03:42 PM)

You are not forced to use transports, but as things stand now there is no other way to move large corps. If you have a full French corps (any of the first 6 corps or the guards), there is no way to move it by sea without the transports, and therefore no way at all to move it more than three steps (including one to get out of port, of course).

Same is true of a full Prussian corps with 4c: even the mighty British fleet cannot move them.



easterner -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/11/2009 7:13:30 PM)

Let me see if I have this straight. You don't want the transports that existed historically. But you want to transport 50,000 INF and 6000 horses that was never done historically?



ndrose -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/11/2009 9:22:51 PM)

If you want to make the argument that no army of that size could be transported, OK. Maybe you're right; others are more qualified to answer that than I am. But that doesn't really speak to the discrepancy here, which is that you can transport a much *larger* army if it's in smaller corps, but all the ships in the world can't transport a single corps above a certain arbitrary size.

Look at it this way: with two full heavy fleets, you can transport, say, two French corps of 15i, 2c each, but not one French corps with 20i, 3c. I don't know about the laws of history, but that defies the laws of physics.



easterner -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/11/2009 10:23:27 PM)

That it does but this is a game, not reality sim and fudge and abstract are work in unlike say WitP or UV from Matrix.  In original game a single SOL could transport 56,000  that was just as abstracted.

But it doesn't defy law of physics.  There are no divisional breakdowns here to show what you want; Physics aren't normally concerned with abstract representations of French TO&E! [:)]



NeverMan -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/12/2009 12:10:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: easterner

Let me see if I have this straight. You don't want the transports that existed historically. But you want to transport 50,000 INF and 6000 horses that was never done historically?


Like I've said, what I want.... what I've ALWAYS wanted is a PC version of Empires in Arms.... I'm still waiting for someone out there to produce such a game.



NeverMan -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/12/2009 12:11:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr



In what possible way are players FORCED to use transports? Only France starts with some



Then why do I have some as Turkey? I didn't buy any, that's for sure.



pzgndr -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/12/2009 1:20:50 AM)

And the Turks, yes.

Back to ndrose's comment, something to consider for EiANW is the size of the fleet counters to allow for greater transport capacity. Instead of 20 Hvy and 10 Lt fleets, maybe something else would work. Since corps counters can contain infantry AND/OR militia, plus cavalry in many cases, why couldn't fleet counters also be made more flexible to contain heavy AND/OR light ships? I've reviewed the EiH v4 OOBs and they have fleets of 30/7 (max 30 Hvy and 7 Lt) and squadrons of 5 (Hvy or Lt), which seems like that might be the way to go with EiANW. If Marshall could recode the fleet counters to be more like corps counters and allow combinations of heavy/light ships, that should resolve the discrepancies. For PPs, here's the applicable EiH rule 6.7.3.6.3:

quote:

One political point is gained or lost for every Squadron in the defeated stack, and two political points are gained or lost for every Fleet in the defeated (rounding fractions up) stack during the combat up to a maximum of “+/-3” political points. Political points are only awarded/lost if there are more than two ships on each side. Galley Fleets and Transport Fleets have no impact on the gain/loss of political points.


Whether EiANW fleets should be 1 pp or 2pp is debatable. Maybe the EiH rule was trying to avoid fractions but Marshall says this isn't a problem. So 1pp for fleets and 1/2pp for squadrons should work, and no pp for transports? Classic EiA scenarios with just heavy fleets and ships would then work fine under the same rules.






Ted1066 -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/12/2009 11:15:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Like I've said, what I want.... what I've ALWAYS wanted is a PC version of Empires in Arms.... I'm still waiting for someone out there to produce such a game.


here here! Me too - EiH blows IMO. While it may have improved some rules (arguable), it mostly complicated things even more and added little to nothing.

Ted



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/13/2009 12:34:00 PM)

Wow LOL! Isn't it just simple enough to not use them if you do not want to???




NeverMan -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/13/2009 2:14:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Wow LOL! Isn't it just simple enough to not use them if you do not want to???




How do we "not use them"???

Like Jimmer said, it's impossible to move the game forward without placing them and once they are on the map they are a liability and must be protected.

Is this indeed something that can be "taken out" in 1.06 with the editor? If so, I'd be very curious to see how many games moving forward use these silly fleets.



Mardonius -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/13/2009 2:26:02 PM)

Or you could solve the problem in the near term by giving them a button that says "go to sea on merchant duty" that mirrors the button for sending LS to privateering/anti privateering duty. There is no upkeep cost for such fleets. And they need not be protected either.



ndrose -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/13/2009 3:46:39 PM)

Regarding the liability question, although they do cost upkeep, I believe that there is no PP cost for having your unprotected transports captured. Am I mistaken about that?

I don't know about the case in which they are protected. It could be they count as a fleet on your side for calculation of PPs; I haven't checked that.

Speaking of which, I'm pretty sure (although I didn't get a save) that I have seen transports shoot back at attacking fleets (and sink ships!). I think it happens when they are attacked in a port (the AI sometimes puts things in ungarrisoned ports). If so, it's a bug, obviously; anyone else noticed this?



Mardonius -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/13/2009 4:00:55 PM)

I have seen Transports cost and gain PP, but this was in an earlier version. Not sure now. They should not, per the EiH rules.



obsidiandrag -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/13/2009 5:40:06 PM)

Yes, I have seen this also where in open water they are on the battle screen but do not fight (though I can't recall if they can be taken as losses) but in a port raid they do fight and have sunk my ships before...

I didn't think they counted against you as pp if they were by themselves and got attacked or captured etc..

In which case if you dont like the transports and that $1 each econ phase for the maintenance is too much for you then by all means take them out against Naples or Sweeden and loose them to a minor fleet, or in your first Major Power war (I am sure even the 2 ship Austrian light fleet would welcome the chance to sink something..)

I personally have found MANY uses for them, as France you can tie up a british fleet just by having it in a port with a corps there (even if only 1 factor as they don't know that and it represents a possible invasion) Russia can use it for Sweeden as long as he has other fleet support for the minor fleet, or from Corfu can reach most of the Medeteranian.. Turkey needs all the ships it can get and that transport fleet carrying capacity is more than the rest of its combined starting fleet. Spain and England are the only 2 who really don't need them for transport or tieing up fleets, but they work GREAT for sitting on that home depot to support invasion supply as you need someone there and this frees up your light and heavies to go and do what you want to...

So I am still for having them and have come to the conclusion going back to 30 heavies in a fleet will only help england as they are the only country with enough boats to fill 2 of those! Everyone else will pretty much have the same thing (1 full and one less than half at best) but that would also fix the capacity issues...

I think the thing that most makes me laugh is the fact we keep referring to the French corps size (and occasionally Prussian who has no ships) like they are going to go anywhere and expect the fleet to be able to carry them! even at 30 ships, do you think the British are going to let that thing out of port?

OD



Jimmer -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/13/2009 6:41:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
What WHAT??? ?[8|]

In what possible way are players FORCED to use transports? Only France starts with some and ...[:'(]

This is false.



NeverMan -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/13/2009 7:44:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
What WHAT??? ?[8|]

In what possible way are players FORCED to use transports? Only France starts with some and ...[:'(]

This is false.


yes, I already pointed that out for him :)

I mostly ignore his posts since 90% are uninformed.



pzgndr -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/14/2009 12:05:20 AM)

quote:

This is false.


Yes Jimmer, I already acknowledged that the part about "only France" should have also included the Turks. I can fess up to my occassional errors; some cannot. [:)]

Howzabout the rest of what I said, or are you too selective in your response?? The part about players are not FORCED to use transports remains true. Players can still use heavy and light fleets and perform invasions and transports. Of course, not all full corps can be transported, and this requires some additional forethought and planning by players. Some players apparently have a major problem with this??



NeverMan -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/14/2009 12:26:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

This is false.


Yes Jimmer, I already acknowledged that the part about "only France" should have also included the Turks. I can fess up to my occassional errors; some cannot. [:)]

Howzabout the rest of what I said, or are you too selective in your response?? The part about players are not FORCED to use transports remains true. Players can still use heavy and light fleets and perform invasions and transports. Of course, not all full corps can be transported, and this requires some additional forethought and planning by players. Some players apparently have a major problem with this??


Since we are FORCED to place them at setup then we are FORCED to use them, no?



pzgndr -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/14/2009 12:39:36 AM)

Uh sure Neverman, like setting up the Guards is exactly the same as committing the guard and actually using them.  I suppose this gets into how the setup phase is not playable yet, or something.  Or whatever.  [8|]

So, assuming for the sake of argument that the context of the word "use" really means "to use DURING THE GAME" the part about players are not FORCED to use transports still remains true, no?  



NeverMan -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/14/2009 1:02:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Uh sure Neverman, like setting up the Guards is exactly the same as committing the guard and actually using them.  I suppose this gets into how the setup phase is not playable yet, or something.  Or whatever.  [8|]

So, assuming for the sake of argument that the context of the word "use" really means "to use DURING THE GAME" the part about players are not FORCED to use transports still remains true, no?  


Turkey doesn't really have a lot of money to begin with so making her pay extra just to keep a fleet on the map that is of LITTLE USE is a bit pointless.



pzgndr -> RE: Transport Fleets (4/14/2009 2:50:23 AM)

You're right, if you are paying for something you choose not to use then that's pointless.  Disband the transports then and take the pp hit.  Big deal.  In the great scheme of things and total victory points needed to win, this is a mouse turd of a problem. 

Good news is this will all be moot for you guys very shortly with the editor and ability to completely eliminate light fleets and transports.  Reset all the fleets to size 30 heavy ships and all will be merry upon the seas.  And then no more complaints...  Probably not...

For the rest of the EiANW players interested in maintaining the diversity of heavy, light and transport ships and the option of piracy ops for historical gameplay, the discussions will continue.  The naval combat rules, naval counters, pp's and such can be improved. 



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75