One final naval question please

If I blockade an anemy inside of a port how do I get him out? Can he hide in there forever?

You'll need to send troops (by land) to flush the enemy vessels out of the port...unless they come out fighting of their own accord.

Shame really, that would be the perfect justification for the existence of bomb-ketches and rocket ships. A fleet with those should be allowed to use them to fire on ships in a port, but not allowed to use them in the open sea. It would actually have made sense.

Which is probably why CA didn't do it that way. :p

Yeah! god forbid that they should actually get something right.

yep, best thing you can do is to remove 50% of units that are in vanilla and rather use their slots for something else... for example in my mods i have changed rocket ships and bomb ketches into late versions of Frigates with different armament.. funny part is, more i remove, better the game is...

btw, did you know rifled cannons and improved grapeshots actually dont improve anything? You research them, but nothing is upgraded.. projectile entries are not used... and if you add them, upgraded guns wont make sound... because no sound is defined for Rifled guns or improved grapeshot in ETW...

Plenty of options for that sort on thing, even ignoring all the classes of vessel that are missing completely. They must be a hundred or more different classes of ship of the line scattered amongst the various nations involved.

These are just the British ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...the_Royal_Navy

yeah, i know, but because of limited number of models in game, it had to be somehow similar to existing ships in game.. so while making "late 32gun Frigate" with 18pdrs instead of 12pdrs is possible, creating new let say 38 gun Frigate is not because model is missing..

That probably explains why I noticed that the 38 gun Frigates in my Peninsula Campaign only have 14 gun ports per broadside. I'm surprised though that the models themselves can't be improved, after all modders seem able to change the models of the soldiers in the land based system.

Originally Posted by Didz

Shame really, that would be the perfect justification for the existence of bomb-ketches and rocket ships. A fleet with those should be allowed to use them to fire on ships in a port, but not allowed to use them in the open sea. It would actually have made sense.

I agree with the first part, it would give a reason to actually include them in a fleet. There's no reason why they shouldn't be used in a ship-to-ship engagement using their secondary armament (in reality, most bomb vessels actually spent most of their time operating in other duties, such as in convoy escort).

I've actually modded my game for both vessel types so that the mortars and rockets are woefully inaccurate in ship-to-ship combat (and naturally I don't bother building them for my navy).

Originally Posted by Didz

Plenty of options for that sort on thing, even ignoring all the classes of vessel that are missing completely.

The problem would be that, given the simplification of naval warfare in the game, there would be little to effectively differentiate the vessels. In a battle, the performance difference of a 38-gun frigate (such as the Leda class) against a 36-gun frigate (e.g. the Apollo class), wouldn't be all that significant.

In the real world, it was economics and logistics that decided which got built - the British navy used the 36-gun frigate classes because they were smaller and therefore cheaper to build and operate than the 38s. They relied on their better crews to make up the notional difference in fighting ability. Where the 38s had an advantage was their larger size that allowed them to carry more stores and, therefore, they could operate at sea for longer. Of course, in the game ships can stay at sea indefinitely so this 'real world' difference is meaningless.

The same would go for the ships of the line. For example. it would be very difficult to produce meaningful in-game differences between the various classes and sizes of 74, especially if you're trying to maintain game balance. In game, no one would bother building the inferior designs, whereas in the real world, they didn't really know if a design was any good until it was built and operating.

Originally Posted by Didz

That probably explains why I noticed that the 38 gun Frigates in my Peninsula Campaign only have 14 gun ports per broadside.

British and French 38s of the period had a main battery of 28 18-pounders so that would equate to 14 guns ports per side. Looking at the plan for the British Leda class frigate HMS Surprise, there are 15 ports per side but the 15th pair are before the cathead and so are effectively forward facing (presumably to allow the fore-most 18-pounders to be used as additional chase guns). The plan for the French-built 40-gun La Sybille (which became the 38-gun HMS Sybille) shows 14 gun-ports for the main battery.

It's worth noting that, by the Napoleonic period, the British '38' didn't carry 38 guns. If you stuck to the establishment rating system of counting only long guns then they were actually only 32-gun ships (28x 18pdrs + 4x9pdrs) . If you include the carronades (usually 14x32pdrs) then they actually carried 46-guns. In fact, in 1817 the Admiralty actually changed the rating system to reflect the actual number of guns carried and all of the remaining 38s were re-rated as 46s.

Originally Posted by meme_engine

I agree with the first part, it would give a reason to actually include them in a fleet. There's no reason why they shouldn't be used in a ship-to-ship engagement using their secondary armament (in reality, most bomb vessels actually spent most of their time operating in other duties, such as in convoy escort).

I've actually modded my game for both vessel types so that the mortars and rockets are woefully inaccurate in ship-to-ship combat (and naturally I don't bother building them for my navy).

Well my understanding it that bomb ketches and rocket ships could not even fire their weapons unless anchored and sprung, as they used the springs to aim the entire ship at the enemy not just the mortars.

Clearly that would not be possible in deep water, or while the ship was moving and laying out the springs required over an hour of rowing around in a rowing boat, so basically it's not going to happen in the middle of a battle.

Originally Posted by meme_engine

The problem would be that, given the simplification of naval warfare in the game, there would be little to effectively differentiate the vessels. In a battle, the performance difference of a 38-gun frigate (such as the Leda class) against a 36-gun frigate (e.g. the Apollo class), wouldn't be all that significant.

Well you say that, but the naval mod that came packaged in TROM for ETW seemed to manage it.

The ships in ETW do have designated cannon loadouts so it is possible to adjust them, and provided you change the cannon stat tables to make them historically correct the ships will then perform in a reasonable simulation of a real ship with that boradside composition.

The big discovery in ETW was the realisation that CA had screwed with the performance of the 6pdr naval cannon to try and make brigs and sloops more powerful in MP games. In the end we had to edit out all the 6pdr guns and replace them with slightly larger or smaller options to avoid the cheat.

Originally Posted by meme_engine

In the real world, it was economics and logistics that decided which got built

Yeah! unfortunately neither ETW or NTW handles that aspect very well. It's very difficult to simulate the cost of raising troops or commissioning ships when you are dealing with a abstract unit of purchase cost.

Originally Posted by meme_engine

The same would go for the ships of the line. For example. it would be very difficult to produce meaningful in-game differences between the various classes and sizes of 74, especially if you're trying to maintain game balance. In game, no one would bother building the inferior designs, whereas in the real world, they didn't really know if a design was any good until it was built and operating.

Well again TROM seemed to manage it in ETW.

In particular there were marked differences between British, French and Spanish built 74's that really added a national personality to the battles. The only real problem was that when captured as prizes the ships retained their former national configurations, as it was built into the models. Personally, I preferred the French 74's so I was quite happy to use them in the Royal Navy, but for obvious reasons historically they were modified before being commisisoned, only retaining their general advantages in hull design and build quality.

At the moment I'm playing the NTW Peninsula Campaign and can see that there is a hell of a lot of work to be done on the naval game before it is even remotely playable. It's far worse than the ETW naval game despite the supposedly improved ship models. Certainly, it's impossible use authentic nval tactic's in NTW, whereas with the modifications in ETW, the wind guage now actually works and ship configurations have some tangible meaning.

You have a real challenge ahead.

Originally Posted by Didz

Well my understanding it that bomb ketches and rocket ships could not even fire their weapons unless anchored and sprung, as they used the springs to aim the entire ship at the enemy not just the mortars.

It wasn't that they couldn't be fired so much as they couldn't be fired with any degree of accuracy. British admiral Edward Vernon had actually proposed using bomb vessels in the line of battle, in the first half of the 18th century. The idea seems to have been for the mortars to be used as giant shotguns to hit the enemy masts, sails and rigging. I imagine that would have been very hazardous for the bomb vessel's crew.

Originally Posted by Didz

Well you say that, but the naval mod that came packaged in TROM for ETW seemed to manage it.

The ships in ETW do have designated cannon loadouts so it is possible to adjust them, and provided you change the cannon stat tables to make them historically correct the ships will then perform in a reasonable simulation of a real ship with that boradside composition.

My point wasn't so much that the stats couldn't be tweaked to represent a difference so much as that the minor differences would have negligible impact on how the battles played out. The reasons for the large number of historic variations in vessel type and design arose due to strategic and logistical considerations that aren't included in the game.

Originally Posted by Didz

The big discovery in ETW was the realisation that CA had screwed with the performance of the 6pdr naval cannon to try and make brigs and sloops more powerful in MP games. In the end we had to edit out all the 6pdr guns and replace them with slightly larger or smaller options to avoid the cheat.

They've done much the same in NTW with 'long range' versions of both the 6- and 9-pounders, which is ironic since most brigs of the period were armed with short-range carronades. However, I think 'cheat' is possibly the wrong word. It was simply an attempt to keep brigs and sloops as valuable units within the game. If they were always outclassed, there would be no reason to build them.

Again, in the real world, the main functions of the small ships ('sloops of war') were for communication, commerce protection, commerce raiding and coastal protection - all functions that are essentially meaningless within the game.

Originally Posted by Didz

In particular there were marked differences between British, French and Spanish built 74's that really added a national personality to the battles. The only real problem was that when captured as prizes the ships retained their former national configurations, as it was built into the models. Personally, I preferred the French 74's so I was quite happy to use them in the Royal Navy, but for obvious reasons historically they were modified before being commisisoned, only retaining their general advantages in hull design and build quality.

As I've mentioned in other threads, one of the problems of putting "national personality" into the stats of the ships is that the 'traits' that are being represented are a result of real history. Since NTW effectively represents an alternative history, how valid is it to keep those traits in place?

For example, in the vanilla stats, the French ships are faster because traditionally they put a premium on ship handling whereas the British, who needed a lot of vessels at sea, compromised their designs for overall seaworthiness (i.e. they built smaller, sturdier ships). However, in the game, those considerations aren't necessarily true - e.g. if the British don't have a large number of oversea's possessions then there's no need for them to have a large fleet, and so they have no need to compromise on the designs.

Likewise, in the vanilla stats, the British ships have a higher morale rating than their French or Spanish counterparts. This, no doubt, is intended as a reflection of the historic situation. The British warships spent more time at sea and kept their enemies bottled up in port. The result of which was that the French and Spanish crews had comparatively little experience in handling their ships when they did put to sea. Consequently, British crews were confident and did go into battle fully expecting to win.

Of course, in the game that isn't necessarily true. If the French or Spanish commander puts some emphasis on the navy, there's no reason that their vessels would spend their time blockaded in port. Therefore, there's no justification to have their vessels handicapped by a trait that doesn't reflect the in-game reality.

Originally Posted by meme_engine

It wasn't that they couldn't be fired so much as they couldn't be fired with any degree of accuracy. British admiral Edward Vernon had actually proposed using bomb vessels in the line of battle, in the first half of the 18th century. The idea seems to have been for the mortars to be used as giant shotguns to hit the enemy masts, sails and rigging. I imagine that would have been very hazardous for the bomb vessel's crew.

Well from what I understand of the physic's of sailing vessels the most obvoius result of firing a huge mortar whilst your ship was under sail would probably be to tear the masts out of her. The sudden shock to the rigging would certainly do damage, espacially as unlike a ship of the line firing a broadside the shock cannot be dampened by a rolling of the hull, and so would have a similar affect to suddenly going all back and change the pressure on the rigging from back to front instantly.

Originally Posted by meme_engine

They've done much the same in NTW with 'long range' versions of both the 6- and 9-pounders, which is ironic since most brigs of the period were armed with short-range carronades. However, I think 'cheat' is possibly the wrong word. It was simply an attempt to keep brigs and sloops as valuable units within the game. If they were always outclassed, there would be no reason to build them.

Oh! we know why they did it.

It was to cover up another design flaw in the naval game which excluded land and shoal water. The whole point of small naval vessels was for coastal patrols and commerce protection, where vessels with a shallow draft were necessary to hunt down pirates and smugglers.

CA chose to ignore the coast, and put their pirates in huge overly large ships that can be caught by 74 gun ships of the line. Hence, no point in sloops and brig's, hence 'What can we do?'

Oh! I know lets give the slopps and brigs stupidly powerful guns.

Lesson to learn CA "Two wrongs, don't make a right.", try getting the game right instead.


Again, in the real world, the main functions of the small ships ('sloops of war') were for communication, commerce protection, commerce raiding and coastal protection - all functions that are essentially meaningless within the game.

Originally Posted by meme_engine

As I've mentioned in other threads, one of the problems of putting "national personality" into the stats of the ships is that the 'traits' that are being represented are a result of real history. Since NTW effectively represents an alternative history, how valid is it to keep those traits in place?

Very....as it stands the game is too boring to play.

What is needed is something that more accurately reflect Napoleonic naval warfare, rather than a bunch of pointless gimmicks.

deleted

They've done much the same in NTW with 'long range' versions of both the 6- and 9-pounders, which is ironic since most brigs of the period were armed with short-range carronades. However, I think 'cheat' is possibly the wrong word. It was simply an attempt to keep brigs and sloops as valuable units within the game. If they were always outclassed, there would be no reason to build them.

Again, in the real world, the main functions of the small ships ('sloops of war') were for communication, commerce protection, commerce raiding and coastal protection - all functions that are essentially meaningless within the game.

Sloops and Brigs have other benefits. They are cheap, can be used to disrupt trade routes, attack trade ships, etc.. but they have no place in the line of battle... This is just a nonsense.. In my mod, i made Sloops and Brigs to represent Privateer vessels, so they have 0 upkeep (and higher price). That way once you place them on the trade line, they actually collect money by it... same way I have dealt with pirates who have small ships only (largest ship they have is 24gun small frigate).. I also gave Sloops and Brigs more range on campaign map, so they can escape from Ships of the Line who have shorter radius. Trade ships are somewhere in the middle, so they can escape from Ships of the Line also, but not from small ships. Frigates are able to catch anybody, but cost money..

CA instead of looking for having rock-paper-scissors relations in naval battles should instead look at this from global perspective which would make whole game more realistic and better to play...

For example, in the vanilla stats, the French ships are faster because traditionally they put a premium on ship handling whereas the British, who needed a lot of vessels at sea, compromised their designs for overall seaworthiness (i.e. they built smaller, sturdier ships). However, in the game, those considerations aren't necessarily true - e.g. if the British don't have a large number of oversea's possessions then there's no need for them to have a large fleet, and so they have no need to compromise on the designs.

That is not true. French ships were fast, but, they were much worse sea worthy due to it.. several captured ships were rather scrapped than used because of that, especially all trippledeckers they captured. Same with Frigates, while some French designs were faster on calm sea, British were much better handling all conditions, but again this depends on ship model, as even some British designs were not very good...

See the nice model of a Spanish bomb ketch of 1782 at http://www.modelships.de/Verkaufte_S...aria_I_eng.htm & http://www.modelships.de/Verkaufte_S...Candelaria.htm - if you tried to use it on the open sea you would almost certainly set your own vessel alight! (OK I know it is just prior to Revolutionary & Napoleonic times but the principle is the same - anchor , take down sails etc & then open fire...).

Originally Posted by JaM

In my mod, i made Sloops and Brigs to represent Privateer vessels, so they have 0 upkeep (and higher price). That way once you place them on the trade line, they actually collect money by it... same way I have dealt with pirates who have small ships only (largest ship they have is 24gun small frigate).. I also gave Sloops and Brigs more range on campaign map, so they can escape from Ships of the Line who have shorter radius. Trade ships are somewhere in the middle, so they can escape from Ships of the Line also, but not from small ships. Frigates are able to catch anybody, but cost money..

CA instead of looking for having rock-paper-scissors relations in naval battles should instead look at this from global perspective which would make whole game more realistic and better to play...

I would have liked privateers to have been available in the game but to make them worthwhile the trade mechanism would need to change. One of the problems with the trade nodes model is that the AI builds up fleets on the nodes where the ratio of warships to trade ships is often 1:1. Commerce raiding then requires a fleet of your own to be successful. The model also only represents international trade. Plenty of the merchant vessels of the period were actually engaged in costal transport, i.e. moving goods from one port to another of the same (or neighbouring) country. These costal vessels, as much as the international traders, were the target of privateers and naval sloops-of-war alike.

However, we do have to bear in mind that CA were making a game for all levels of wargamers. No doubt, if the sloops-of-war had been realistically presented, there would have been stream of complaints about how useless they were in the game.

Originally Posted by JaM

That is not true. French ships were fast, but, they were much worse sea worthy due to it..

That is pretty much what I said. However, there's always the risk of over-generalising. Certainly by the end of the Napoleonic period, the British frigates were a match in every respect for their French counterparts in terms of sailing. Likewise, there were some very well built French vessels. For example, HMS Implacable, which started life as the French Le Téméraire class 74, Le Duguay-Trouin, was built in 1806, was in active service until 1840 and actually survived until 1949 when it was scuttled in the channel.

Originally Posted by Didz

Well from what I understand of the physic's of sailing vessels the most obvoius result of firing a huge mortar whilst your ship was under sail would probably be to tear the masts out of her. The sudden shock to the rigging would certainly do damage, espacially as unlike a ship of the line firing a broadside the shock cannot be dampened by a rolling of the hull, and so would have a similar affect to suddenly going all back and change the pressure on the rigging from back to front instantly.

It's unlikely that they would have been under full sail at the point of firing, as ships rarely were under full sail in battle. That said, as far as I know, Adm Vernon didn't actually put his tactic into practice so we'll never know if it was a effective idea or not but it must have been at least theoretically possible. From the British perspective, by the Napoleonic period all of the bomb vessels in use were ship-rigged and their mortars were set up to fire to the sides rather than over the bow. Therefore the recoil effect would have been similar to firing a broadside of conventional cannon. As I said in my earlier post, using mortars ship-to-ship would have been very difficult to pull off with any accuracy and would have been rather ineffective.

Originally Posted by Didz

Very....as it stands the game is too boring to play.

What is needed is something that more accurately reflect Napoleonic naval warfare, rather than a bunch of pointless gimmicks.

As I said above, the risk is that you just substitute one gimmick for another. As it stands the British ships have better crews and stronger ships regardless of what they actually do with them. If I play as France and aggressively attack the British fleet and keep them bottled up in port throughout the game, does it actually make sense that the British are still better sailors?

What would have been better is to have had the choice of building faster, lightweight ships or slower, sturdier ones. Plus introducing a requirement for ships to visit port for repairs after being at sea for a given period, the stronger the ship the longer they could remain at sea. The player could then decide on the strategy that they would adopt and build a fleet appropriate to that strategy.

Originally Posted by meme_engine

I would have liked privateers to have been available in the game but to make them worthwhile the trade mechanism would need to change. One of the problems with the trade nodes model is that the AI builds up fleets on the nodes where the ratio of warships to trade ships is often 1:1. Commerce raiding then requires a fleet of your own to be successful.

Thats only true because CA got the basic principles of naval warfare wrong. Namely, that a ship powerful enough to defeat another ship can't catch it, whilst a ship incapable of defeating another ship can always outrun it.

The AI's habit of sticking 74's and large frigates on a trade node ought to be pointless as they would be able to catch a pirate vessel, a trade ship, or an enemy privateer.

This was precisely why both privateers and pirates used small lightly armed ships. So, that they could catch the trade ships and outrun the enemy naval vessels. And why Maynard went after Blackbeard in two sloops not a 74 gun ship of the line.

Originally Posted by meme_engine

However, we do have to bear in mind that CA were making a game for all levels of wargamers. No doubt, if the sloops-of-war had been realistically presented, there would have been stream of complaints about how useless they were in the game.

Actually I think it's an insult to call NTW a wargame at all, and if CA had taken the trouble to get it right there would have been no complaint's at all. If nothing else at least it would at least have made sense, and bore some resemblance to Napoleonic warfare.

Originally Posted by meme_engine

As I said above, the risk is that you just substitute one gimmick for another. As it stands the British ships have better crews and stronger ships regardless of what they actually do with them. If I play as France and aggressively attack the British fleet and keep them bottled up in port throughout the game, does it actually make sense that the British are still better sailors?

True, in proper naval wargame campaigns the efficiency and seamanship of a crew is determined by their experience, not by the deck they happen to be standing on.

In one 'what if' campaign based on the theory that Nelson had lost at Trafalgar and Napoleon was preparing to invade England, my French fleet was gaining considerably from being on blockade and bottling the British fleet in it's ports.

Originally Posted by meme_engine

What would have been better is to have had the choice of building faster, lightweight ships or slower, sturdier ones. Plus introducing a requirement for ships to visit port for repairs after being at sea for a given period, the stronger the ship the longer they could remain at sea. The player could then decide on the strategy that they would adopt and build a fleet appropriate to that strategy.

Yes, once again in a proper wargame ships would suffer gradual wear and tear whilst at sea, and also be limited in the duration they could remain on blockade by the supplies of food and water on board.

This can be lengthened by using supply ships, or transferring food between ships, but eventually one has to return to port for routine repairs and careening if nothing else. The idea that a ship can be parked outside a port for a year, or worse still in the middle of the ocean is silly.

you dont need to engage ships on trade nodes to make profit with privateers in my mod.. all you need to do is to block the trade line - that way you reduce amount of goods and you gain money from it... and because privateers dont have upkeep, its pure money... AI always tends to attack ships pirating on the trade lines. So it will send a ship to attack your privateers. but because they have longer cruising range, they will escape. unless its frigate

Originally Posted by Didz

Thats only true because CA got the basic principles of naval warfare wrong. Namely, that a ship powerful enough to defeat another ship can't catch it, whilst a ship incapable of defeating another ship can always outrun it.

While that might have been the ideal, it obviously didn't always happen in practice. If it had, then there wouldn't have been any conclusive outcomes in one-on-one battles because the outclassed vessel would always have escaped.

A famous example would be the recapture of the frigate Ambuscade from the French by HMS Victory in 1803. The first rate was easily the more powerful vessel and it proved fast enough to overhaul and catch the smaller ship.

Originally Posted by Didz

This was precisely why both privateers and pirates used small lightly armed ships. So, that they could catch the trade ships and outrun the enemy naval vessels.

The use of smaller ships would almost certainly have been due to economic and logistical reasons. Large warships were expensive to build, fit out and operate. Whether you're a privateer or a pure pirate, your targets are merchant vessels so you only need a ship that's capable of beating them in a straight fight. Anything bigger would be unnecessary overkill. Of course, another disadvantage is that a larger ship would need a larger crew, which in turn would mean more men to pay/share the spoils.

During the Napoleonic wars, British frigates captured considerable numbers of smaller French privateer vessels. If the choice of vessel was simply determined by the need to out-run the enemy warships then it clearly didn't work.

Originally Posted by Didz

And why Maynard went after Blackbeard in two sloops not a 74 gun ship of the line.

There were probably several factors in the decision to give Maynard two sloops and not a 74 gun ship of the line. Firstly, Blackbeard was known to be operating in the coastal waters and inlets of the North Carolina coast so a deep draught ship of the line would be impractical. Secondly, it's unlikely that the Governor of Virginia would have had a ship of the line under his command. Thirdly, Maynard was only a lieutenant and wouldn't have been put in command of a ship of the line. Finally, there weren't any 74-gun ships-of-the-line in British Navy service in 1718.