Brithish navy leaders are ridiculously overpowered or i dont understand how it works

[Pippin123]

You got me, no such image exists in the annals of history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Chesapeake

Joking aside, it's funny how what looks like relatively minor damage ( "minor", if you're confortably sitting behind a computer, not if you're one of the sailor who intercepted a cannonball with his face) can translate in "strategic victory" for one side of the other.

 

[parliamentlite]

Playing as France, I've been able to husband my forces and slowly whittle away at the superior British forces. However, the differences in commander skill make it impossible for you to ever operate with impunity for more than a short time.

In this game, the difference between naval commanders is represented differently than land ones. On land, commanders always give bonuses, but some commanders give larger bonuses than others. On sea, if the opposing commander is 10% better than yours, your ships get an additional -10% malus to boot, effectively doubling the difference between them.

The best ideas available for making up the gap against the British are Artillery Idea IV, giving your large ships lower initiative, and Fire Idea IV, adding 20% to Big Ship attack. As France, the extra 20% experience gained by ships finished after selecting unique French Idea V is also good for enhancing ships defense. However, the way naval combat is modeled (with the double effect of commander differences) means that no nation but the UK will ever be truly at liberty on the seas (save for the UK).

 

[Thanik]

You forgot about advantage of maneuver attribute , which affect positioning which sometimes(or always) is more important than off/def modifier.
And becouse more ships - less positioning it is hard to win against Nelson/ Jervis/ other great GB admirals with 1:1 or even 4:1 to lack of quality in 1 vs 1 challenge, and positioning mallus when you have more ships.

And this ideas which affect naval things, are important to achieve, but Britain will try to always obtain them too anyway.

 

[unmerged(90249)]

If the Spanish take a beating, that is simply accurate, their fleet was mostly rotting in port (litteraly roting).

French did have some good scadrons, some gave the british a good run, some others even if they sunk did great damage to the RN (I think about the Morlaix, but it did happend several time). The problem for France was while we do have honest scadron commanders, we only have decent fleet commander (Latouche-Treville) with eventually a second one who refused the position (Surcouf, the famous privateer that scared so much the red coats).

Holland did nto have any fleet since we captured it when the zuydersee was frozen.

The RN was in that situation, having been heavily defeated during hte French and Indian war (7 years wars for us) , a big renovation in both new ships, new way of construction, new handling of the creas and their training, new training of the officer class from top to bottom; and now the RN did have new ships, competent crews, worshipped hightly competent commanders (I believe it was at that time the RN started to 'retire' , with extreme prejudice if needed, incompetent commanders).

To be honest, if you put Villeneuve in charge in the RN in Trafalgar, and Nelson in charge of the Franco-spanish fleet, not only it would have been a great victory, but the whole GB would have been french within 6 month. And Nelson was only one amongst many gifted commanders in the RN; while Villeneuve was a 'more than the average' french admiral.

Anyway invading GB, or even challenging it in the Channel shall be almost impossible (the almost being the key word).

 

[parliamentlite]

Thanik,

You are correct about the maneuver trait. I have however noticed that the positioning can vary over the course of a battle (or even go to the lesser rated commander initially), so that modifier is sometimes negated. The combined attack/defense modifiers are unchanging, so in my opinion they likely make more of a difference in the long term.

 

[KingCharlesXII]

In nearly EVERY game about the Napoleonic Wars ever produced-and that includes the board games starting with Avalon Hill's "War and Peace" in 1980-the Royal Navy beats up on the French no matter how many more ships the Frenchie has. The British have better morale, leaders and other modifiers that make it damn near impossible for the French or Franco-Spanish alliance to overcome. This is entirely correct and designed to perfection in the game!

 

[Keanon]

I don't know much about the French or the Spanish fleet, but I do know enough about the Gunboat wars to know that the British were neither better trained nor better equipped than the Dano-Norwegians, they merely outnumbered them.

Nothing else but the fact that the fleet of Denmark-Norway was very able would explain the interest of both the French and the British in obtaining the Dano-Norwegian fleet, and the complete status quo in the first Battle of Copenhagen more than proves this.

Yet you try to defend Copenhagen in this game against Britain, it doesn't matter how many ships you pour out, because the British just send the whole doomstack at once and wipes it out.

 

[No idea]

In nearly EVERY game about the Napoleonic Wars ever produced-and that includes the board games starting with Avalon Hill's "War and Peace" in 1980-the Royal Navy beats up on the French no matter how many more ships the Frenchie has. The British have better morale, leaders and other modifiers that make it damn near impossible for the French or Franco-Spanish alliance to overcome. This is entirely correct and designed to perfection in the game!

If they really are as you say, they seem to be made for fanboys more than anything else

 

[Liquid Sky]

If they really are as you say, they seem to be made for fanboys more than anything else

More like RealityBoys

 

[deadmeat1471]

If they really are as you say, they seem to be made for fanboys more than anything else

Try studying history before you speak.
Specifically the history of the Royal Navy in this case.

There is nothing 'fanboy' about it.

 

[No idea]

Try studying history before you speak.
Specifically the history of the Royal Navy in this case.

There is nothing 'fanboy' about it.

Making it impossible for any other navy to bet the brithish one no matter the numbers, sounds a bit un realistic to me. Just like if the wehrmatch was invencible in a hoi 3 fall blau operation, for example

 

[Blastaz]

Making it impossible for any other navy to bet the brithish one no matter the numbers, sounds a bit un realistic to me. Just like if the wehrmatch was invencible in a hoi 3 fall blau operation, for example

History is rather more definably on the side of the RN...

 

[deadmeat1471]

Making it impossible for any other navy to bet the brithish one no matter the numbers, sounds a bit un realistic to me. Just like if the wehrmatch was invencible in a hoi 3 fall blau operation, for example

It's not impossible, its hard.

 

[unmerged(90249)]

British navy had superior quality of ships, better crew training and tactics when compared to it's french counterpart (and dominated over poorly equipped and trained spaniards) so present power of GB on the seas in MotE is historically accurate.

Btw. Louis-René Levassor de Latouche Tréville (best french admiral in Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars) died in 1804, so he shouldn't be present in MotE at all and it's probably only good naval commander that French Empire and it's allies have currently in MotE

One small point, they were 2 (two), the second being Surcouf (the famous privateer), who smartly refused any commissions offered by Napoleon, but as it may not seems, he was not a mere privateer, but has the capacity to plan long campaign for a fleet (things that are rare), knew how to follow orders, and knew when to use initiative.

The RN was full of such individuals, but alas (for us) there were only 2 in France, once being dead (from flue) at the game time

 

[unmerged(90249)]

If they really are as you say, they seem to be made for fanboys more than anything else

Alas, it was a cruel fact. IT was also the results of the numerous defeat the RN suffered during the French and Indian war and then the US independance.

While France and Spain once powerfull became complacent, the RN went throught a lot of reforms, for the design of ship, training of crews and training of the captain at sea. Also, they reformed the Naval code, and an admiral that performed baddly can be shoot after an hearing (all things that did not exist in both Spain and France).

To give you an idea, the young King LouisXVI (just crowed) went to Brest to check how things were, he started to ask smart questions to a Captain or to an Admiral, and the meetign was cut short by the Courtiers simply because the King was indeed up to date with naval ideas while the Captain or Admiral was only the scion of an old familly ... That is why the RN was that good (partly).

 

[parliamentlite]

Nothing else but the fact that the fleet of Denmark-Norway was very able would explain the interest of both the French and the British in obtaining the Dano-Norwegian fleet, and the complete status quo in the first Battle of Copenhagen more than proves this.

Yet you try to defend Copenhagen in this game against Britain, it doesn't matter how many ships you pour out, because the British just send the whole doomstack at once and wipes it out.

It would be GREAT if there was a coastal modifier on naval battles in the game.

I envision something like friendly forts giving a significant combat bonus to the defending side, however if the attacking fleet enters the sea province unmolested and home country's fleet enters that province from anywhere save that provinces port the bonus should be negated.

I'm not trying to engage in a debate here, but I think it's hard to argue that the British had their hands tied due to the presence of coastal forts around Copenhagen during that battle. Had that been open sea, I think the Brits would have won more handily (just my opinion). It would be AWESOME to see this represented in the game, by giving a bonus to a fleet that is in waters dominated by a coastal fort under friendly control. A human could totally use this to to their advantage in a very realistic way, I think. Especially if having a coastal battery or two enhanced the bonus somewhat (though there should be a cap on that, say at 2 batteries, owing to the range of the guns and how frontage effects things).

 

[Keanon]

I'm not trying to engage in a debate here, but I think it's hard to argue that the British had their hands tied due to the presence of coastal forts around Copenhagen during that battle. Had that been open sea, I think the Brits would have won more handily (just my opinion).

With the ships used in the battle? Definitely. Without a doubt, Denmark was deploying the worst of it's ship, well knowing they had almost half the canons of the British and those worn ships were manned by untrained volunteers, due to the lack of time to properly man any of them. Most of the best ships weren't even assembled at the attack, and had the King been just a tiny bit more sensible, he hadn't asked the Swedes not to fire from their coastal forts, which would've made it almost impossible for Britain to even reach Copenhagen.

Britain got what they wanted; Denmark left the coalition. But the fact is the Tsar was already dead, and so the Coalition didn't even exist. The battle itself, though? Britain lost, though Nelson refused to admit it.

If anyone is in doubt, look at the exchange between Hans Lindholm and Lord Nelson. It's clear as day, how much it pained Nelson that people doubted his victory, with good reason.

I wrote a much longer reply, but my stupid mouse has a 'back' button that loves deleting my posts all the time.

In the end, all I am arguing is, yes, Britannia ruled the sea, but not by magic and not as uncontested as it is painted here in these comments.

 

[unmerged(364820)]

Alas, it was a cruel fact. IT was also the results of the numerous defeat the RN suffered during the French and Indian war and then the US independance.

And I might add: a result of Darwinian necessity. France and Spain - and their respective economies - could survive without dominating the overseas trade routes. It would hurt, but nearly as much as it would hurt the British. Years of protecting their trade routes to India and America produced a trained, dedicated navy.

Another challenge that France faced was that Napoleon saw the fleet as transportation for his troops - not as a viable offensive weapon in it's own right. Given a choice between producing a ship and a cannon, Napoleon would always produce a cannon. The British, on the other hand, when faced with the choice between producing a ship and a cannon, would always produce a cannon - then put it on a ship.