RE: naval transport

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: naval transport

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: naval transport - 1/11/2008 10:40:17 PM

Soapy Frog

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline

Yeah have never played without it either, actually I had forgotten it was even optional. Seems like it would REALLY change things to play without this rule!

(in reply to KenClark)

Post #: 31

RE: naval transport - 1/11/2008 10:43:30 PM

AresMars

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline

I agree also that we played with this rule everytime.

Allowing the Brits to project (x number fleets) of (x number of Ships) 7 MP is excessive

Allowing the Brits to project 1 fleet of 30 ships 7 MP is not - add a CORPS and that is 6 MP. Very fair IMHO

This rule makes the base EiA Naval Rules acceptable, fair and playable.

(in reply to KenClark)

Post #: 32

RE: naval transport - 1/13/2008 4:11:20 AM

iamspamus

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline

For the life of me, I can't remember whether we used this or not. I don't have 25 games but probably 10-15. I guess it really didn't matter much to me either way.

All I remember was that either GB was incompetant or a PSYCHO! I just never got it. The guy would be fine until he puts on the GB hat and goes crazy...

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: carnifex

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.

(in reply to carnifex)

Post #: 33

RE: naval transport - 1/13/2008 5:44:01 AM

zaquex

Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

All I remember was that either GB was incompetant or a PSYCHO! I just never got it. The guy would be fine until he puts on the GB hat and goes crazy...

strangly enough that happend alot in the games ive playd too, seems GB brings out the worst in ppl, on the other hand it might not be historicly incorrect ;-)

(in reply to iamspamus)

Post #: 34

RE: naval transport - 1/13/2008 10:10:51 AM

delatbabel

Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

In terms of speed of fleets, accept a bit of input from an ocean sailor.

You can sail from Plymouth to Gibraltar in a week if the wind lets you. Then, if you get a favourable shift, you can be in Alexandria a week later. If, on the other hand, you don't get favourable winds then you may not make it out of the channel at all. I know of one couple who spent 6 weeks trying to get from Kent to Brest, and entering the Bay of Biscay is either impossible or suicidal (depending on your vessel).

In reality, square rigged vessels such as heavy warships are quite a bit faster off the wind than a lateen or fore-and-aft rigged vessel (which many transport vessels of the time were), however that's really only locally -- over a period of a month most of the transport vessels would, on average, cover about the same ground as a fully rigged ship. However that, in a month, could either be London to Capetown (in good winds) or perhaps only as far as Cadiz. Also, due to the way these vessels were weighted, a fully loaded (with troops) vessel doesn't actually travel any slower than an unloaded vessel -- mostly due to the fact that the unloaded vessel has to carry extra ballast to stay upright, and therefore weighs about the same and has the same wetted area, which is what determines hull speed.

Whether you're likely to get favourable winds depends mostly on the time of the year. It's commonly accepted amongst all but the foolhardiest of British sailors that if you're crossing the channel, the North Sea, or the Bay of Biscay any time between mid October and early March then you're as likely to lose your ship and life as not. If you're heading out in June or July and can spare a few days to wait for the right weather, then it's not unreasonable to expect to make the trip from any of the channel ports to, say, Gibraltar in a week or two. Once you're in the mediterranean the weather window widens, you can reasonably expect to be able to make a crossing from one side of the med to the other for about 11 months of the year without hitting too much in the way of bad weather, as long as you avoid the known trouble spots. Most of this applies to the fully rigged vessels of the 18th and 19th Cs as much as it applies to modern bermuda rigged sailing yachts.

What EiA needs is a good method to introduce some randomness into the naval movement rules, to reflect reality, weighted towards being able to get better speed in the good months and not so good or no speed at all in the winter months. It also needs to take into consideration some of the known trouble spots -- pretty much any of the Bay of Biscay ports *, the outer islands (Hebrides and Orkneys, not marked on the map but represented by the sea areas to the north of Great Britain), and to a lesser extent the Skaggerak and southern Baltic.

Otherwise any discussion of "I think transport ships should have X movement factors and heavy and light ships should have Y movement factors" is just idly fiddling with the game rules with no eye to realism.

So in terms of the comments above:

quote:

Allowing the Brits to project (x number fleets) of (x number of Ships) 7 MP is excessive

Yes, but depending on the wind conditions and taking into account that a turn is one month, not unrealistic.

quote:

1 fleet - move 7
2 fleets (in same stack) - both move 6
3 fleets (in same stack) - all move 5

Another good way of limiting British naval power, but not actually realistic either. The wind doesn't slow down or change direction because there are more ships at sea. If there are more ships in a fleet or more fleets in a stack then it does increase the chance that some of them will become "separated" from the main fleet or lose direction / course, or end up somewhere else, but that's entirely random (and a matter of good seamanship).

* The bay is shallow, which means there is larger and more violent swell than out on the open sea, and the prevailing wind is onshore for most of the year. Getting away from port in a strong onshore wind with a heavy sea is impossible for ships of this period. For nearly the entire period of war between Britain and France, Britain never bothered to keep a blockade on the Bay of Biscay ports -- the Bay itself does that quite well enough. When the wind shifted around so that the ports could be used, it was usually faster for the British ships to sail from blockade stations in the channel to the Biscay ports than it was for the French to get the ships in those ports ready to move.

_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 35

RE: naval transport - 1/14/2008 4:31:36 AM

AresMars

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline

delatbabel,

I am in no way a sailor, I get sea sick in the bath tub.

On the subject of EiA, I have a little more experince and would like you (and any others who care to read on) to understand, how I understand Navy's in EiA.

It is a game and thus an abstraction, but that abstraction needs to work in the context of what is trying to be accomplished.

A FLEET counter represents, the ability to project INFLUENCE (perhaps even CONTROL) into an AREA (Sea/Blockade/Port) of the game map.

It represents the Command, Recruitment, Logistical and Supply structure required to control the MOVEMENT _through_ and _around_ a particular sea area and TRADE/Ecomomics through these same areas.

The more fleets available to a country, the more they can project this influence and limit the ability of movement, supply and control/influence of other Naval Powers that may oppose them.

The original EiA had the following Fleet strenghts;
GB - 7, France - 4, Russia - 3, Spain -3 , Turkey - 2, Austria - 1, Prussia - 1
Minors (Sicily, Sweden, Portugal, Holland and Denmark) - 1 each

Now you note that GB has the greatest ability to project influence then any other single Naval power. This is the most important play element of Fleets in the EIA NAVAL game. Why you ask?

It took an alliance of two or more Major powers to EQUAL or EXCEED (I would also use compete with here - I'll explain later) the Fleet strenght of England.

This is why you will often see a (French-Spanish [4+3 Fleets] ) (Spanish-Russian [3+3 Fleets]) naval alliance to help control the ambitions of England.

Also, the 5 minor countries with fleets play a greater role in the Naval game, then they do in the LAND game and their control is critical to GB's interest to keep their dominate power of INFLUENCE over of the seas, or for the other major powers to gain an EDGE over the English.

Having said all that - I am I hope I have been clear.

We move on to the question of SHIPS....

The more ships you find in a fleet the increased POWER (and Control) that fleet represents in terms of INFLUENCE.

A Fleet with 1 ship or 30 ships can blockade any port, but it is much more likely that the 30 ship fleet will remain in place.

A Fleet wth 1 ship or 30 ships can provide Naval supply to a Port or Invasion, but again it is much more likely that the 30 ship fleet will remain in place.

In theory, a Fleet with 1 ship or 30 ships could transport a Army Corp a certain distance. (ie. 6 sea areas) [there where/are optional rules to make this more realistic]

This represented the COMBAT (1 ship) and LOGISTICAL support available (smaller ships, merchant ships, etc...) to a FLEET; However, a 1 Ship Fleet is a target begging to be attacked or intercepted en route - It has only 1 defender of note.

Put 30 COMBAT ships in that fleet and now, the risks go up for any naval Agressor, but the Fleet and its Influence is just being used to move troops elsewhere the projection of power through another medium - Land power!

This is why the number of ships and the building of ships is an important part of the game, as a Fleet is only part of the equation, more ships means an increased NAVAL POWER in combat and the possibility of removal of enemy Fleet's from areas of interest. This is also a way for power's with LESS FLEETS to compete aginst others by GAINING or INREASING their ability to Influence or have Naval Power.

Now that I have briefly covered my views on the Naval aspect of the EIA FLEETS's 101, lets discuss the MOVEMENT question.

NOTE: I use the word FLEET and not the word SHIP - This is an important concept to understand IMHO. A Fleet can contain from 1 to 30 COMBAT SHIPS, but actually represents more ships the those combat capable ships.

7 MP would allow a GB Fleet to sail from London to the ends of the Baltic, but not to a PORT in 1 game TURN (1 'month')

7 MP would allow a GB Fleet to sail from London to the Gulf of Almiera (sea area south of Catagena)

This two statements pretty much mean that the ATLANTIC COAST's and BALTIC COAST's are always under GB NAVAL influence

7 MP would allow a GB Fleet sail from Plymouth to the Gulf of Caglari (sea area south of Caglari on Sardinia)

This statement is important for the following two reasons;

a) it takes GB 2 game turns (2 'months') to project influence all the way to the end of the Mediterranean
b) it makes the requirement of Mediterranean PORTS critical to the interests of GB, and that forces GB to worry about Gibraltar (for moving troops into the MED) and Malta (for moving troops further into the MED as well as making sure that fleets can influence all PORTS and COASTAL AREAs) at all times.

The more ports that GB has available, the more CONTROL that can be assurted on the Spanish and Turks (or others) - However, the Brits start with the minimum from the beginning!
[Take note of this GB Rookies!]

You point of the time to sail from point A to point B is impossible to argue with. You know better then I.

However, with the following in mind; 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)

Each fleet represents a different COMMAND structure; orders would need to decided on, drafted, put on a ship with the vague destination of the Admiral in charge and his Fleet location, be hand deilvered, opened and re-distriubuted to all components of that fleet and then the whole process done once again for any other fleets that would be included, supplies/provisions need to be gathered, delivered or picked up from a supply PORT, all this taking time, time, time.....No GPS, No Radio, nothing modern except maps and a vague idea of where and when....

With this interpertaion in mind, from a game perspective, 4 sea areas gets you pretty far in 1 game turn.

This is why I loved the EiA naval rules - abstract but very effective and it keeps the GB player on his toes, as he only has 7 fleets and 100 ships (to start) to keep enemies from landing in England!

(in reply to delatbabel)

Post #: 36

RE: naval transport - 1/14/2008 8:25:24 AM

delatbabel

Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AresMars
I am in no way a sailor, I get sea sick in the bath tub.

As do a number of damn fine sailors, until they've been at sea for a few days. :)

quote:

It is a game and thus an abstraction, but that abstraction needs to work in the context of what is trying to be accomplished.

A FLEET counter represents, the ability to project INFLUENCE (perhaps even CONTROL) into an AREA (Sea/Blockade/Port) of the game map.

It represents the Command, Recruitment, Logistical and Supply structure required to control the MOVEMENT _through_ and _around_ a particular sea area and TRADE/Ecomomics through these same areas.

The more fleets available to a country, the more they can project this influence and limit the ability of movement, supply and control/influence of other Naval Powers that may oppose them.

Now you note that GB has the greatest ability to project influence then any other single Naval power. This is the most important play element of Fleets in the EIA NAVAL game. Why you ask?

It took an alliance of two or more Major powers to EQUAL or EXCEED (I would also use compete with here - I'll explain later) the Fleet strenght of England.

This is because Britain had, as a stated and implemented policy during most of this period to (either, it varied over the years):

* Have a fleet strength roughly equal to double the size of the next largest navy; or
* Have a fleet strength roughly equal to the next two largest navies combined.

However in any case I don't accept your analogy. A "fleet" in EiA represents a number of ships. Even a single ship of the line could project a significant amount of naval power -- enough to blockade a small port, fire guns at an unprotected or insufficiently protected harbour sufficient to wreak havoc, or carry and support a small detachment of troops.

The EiA system attempts to portray this by representing both "ships of the line" (as individual ships) and "fleets" as collections of those ships of the line. The original EiA boardgame did away with representing smaller ships -- cutters, sloops, frigates, transports, etc, that would of course accompany any ships of the line (except into battle), and although this has been partially corrected in EiANW it hasn't been done so very well. Ships of the line would rarely engage smaller vessels because it wasn't worth their effort, similarly smaller vessels would rarely engage ships of the line because they couldn't do any serious damage to them -- so in all logical thinking and planning exercises of the period, navies and admirals discussed numbers of ships of the line, because anything less than this (or less than a third rate at least) isn't really of a serious concern.

The combat system in terms of representing "ships" being lost during battles between "fleets" does an OK sort of job, although as someone has pointed out casualties are often not high enough. However the naval movement system doesn't adequately portray the ability of ships to get around from place to place, which is the point I was making.

In terms of the ability to project power -- if the admiralty makes a decision to get Nelson from Copenhagen to Alexandria at the end of June, and Nelson in fact leaves Copenhagen on the 1st June, it should be fundamentally possible to do that (even with corps loaded). Similarly, if the admiralty makes a decision to get Nelson from Copenhagen to Alexandria at the end of January, and Nelson leaves Copenhagen on the 1st January, then he's likely to either sink half way across the North Sea, be blown entirely off course, or get nowhere. Yes, I know that Copenhagen doesn't count as an iced in port in EiA (and it doesn't really ice in every year) but regardless of that prevailing weather conditions aren't going to allow any change in where naval power is being projected during the northern winter. Whereas in the northern summer, given good winds and good enough luck, it's entirely possible.

Examine the 1798 campaign for a few minutes:

* Nelson leaves Gibraltar with 3 ships, 2nd May.
* Brueys leaves Marseilles on the 17th May, and escorts the main (transport) fleet from Toulon leaving on the 19th May. Carries 15,000 men (say 15 factors) and Napoleon.
* Troubridge leaves Gibraltar with 9 ships, 24th May.
* Desaix sails from Italy on the 26th May.
* Nelson and Troubridge meet up in the Gulf of Lyons, 7th June, fail to find the French, and are becalmed north of Corsica until about the 12th June.
* French avoid British south of Candia (Cyprus) on the 27th June, warned of the proximity of the British fleet by an escorting Frigate, 26th June.
* French capture Malta 9th - 19th June.
* 28th June, Nelson arrives in Egypt, finds nothing, sails north.
* French landing in Aboukir Bay, 29th June - 3rd July.

After that the following months events basically see Nelson doing a few laps of the Mediterranean -- he was south of Turkey around the 4th July, went back as far as Sicily during a gale, stayed in Greece until about the 28th July, and then finally returned to Egypt on the 1st August. Obviously his next die roll was a successful intercept, the French failed to evade, and the rest (exploding French flagships included) is history.

quote:

7 MP would allow a GB Fleet sail from Plymouth to the Gulf of Caglari (sea area south of Caglari on Sardinia)

This statement is important for the following two reasons;

a) it takes GB 2 game turns (2 'months') to project influence all the way to the end of the Mediterranean
b) it makes the requirement of Mediterranean PORTS critical to the interests of GB, and that forces GB to worry about Gibraltar (for moving troops into the MED) and Malta (for moving troops further into the MED as well as making sure that fleets can influence all PORTS and COASTAL AREAs) at all times.

However, with the following in mind; 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)

As I stated earlier, not at all realistic (and in any case this was an optional rule). In any case, why does one fleet of 20 ships of the line move slower than 2 fleets each carrying 10 ships of the line?

_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to AresMars)

Post #: 37

RE: naval transport - 1/14/2008 7:06:48 PM

praem

Posts: 220
Joined: 12/15/2007
Status: offline

quote:

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.

This would make it imposible to move units from Brittain to Gibraltar.

I can live with the transport ships, as they make a cheap way to buy a fleet for Prussia or Austria, but makes no impact on the game. The Heavies can do the job for the most part, except the bick french corps.

(in reply to KenClark)

Post #: 38

RE: naval transport - 1/14/2008 7:19:08 PM

AresMars

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline

To quote a part-time game designer friend of mine...

don't look for the rule to be realistic in and of itself: look for the rule to do a good job of modelling supply and warfare within the context of the game

the ends justifies the means, in short

(in reply to praem)

Post #: 39

RE: naval transport - 1/14/2008 11:46:58 PM

iamspamus

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
As I stated earlier, not at all realistic (and in any case this was an optional rule). In any case, why does one fleet of 20 ships of the line move slower than 2 fleets each carrying 10 ships of the line?

Having been in the military, one unified command is easier to move than two. Two is easier than three, etc. However, my guess on why this was done, was to be a game mechanic that would limit the size of fleets sailing around everywhere and a limiting factor on British naval supremacy.

Let's be honest in EIA there was a tendency to have "monster stacks" and this game mechanic could work to reduce or penalize that. In addition, there was the issue (some people thought) of a too strong GB in naval terms. Finally, if I remember correctly, the largest fleet battle of the Napoleonic wars was basically Trafalgar. That involved 27 GB ships (not even one fleets max) vs 33 FR and SP ships. So, anything larger than than that is as "ahistorical" as your description of non-realism with fleet movement points.

So, it was an optional rule. It worked ok. Some groups played with it (most of mine), while others didn't. No biggie.

Actually, in my last group, we played with a series of random events. Included in that was a "bad weather" roll that affected land and/or water. We divided up the world into 10 "zones" and bad weather affected one or more, if rolled. Interesting. I might still have those, if anyone cares.

Jason

(in reply to delatbabel)

Post #: 40

RE: naval transport - 1/17/2008 10:34:04 AM

j-s

Posts: 76
Joined: 3/18/2003
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: carnifex

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.

Yes, that's true. Another way was that all fleets move 7 and that's all. This optional just give others that GB a small change to play naval game :)

(in reply to carnifex)

Post #: 41

RE: naval transport - 1/17/2008 4:14:09 PM

isandlwana

Posts: 30
Joined: 1/16/2008
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

This is actually a rule designed to make things more historically accurate--in the sailing era fleets traveled at the speed of the slowest ship in the fleet--convoys in particular wre notoriously slow at sailing. The more ships and fleets combined the slower the rate of travel--this was a rule we wre happy with when playing the board game because it historically made sense.

(in reply to j-s)

Post #: 42