me navy rules

mepbmlist
#1

Here is another dig at the navy rules.

I have just sailed a Noldo navy of 30 warships and 1 troopship carrying 200 ma into a DS Corsair DS shore/plains hex (say 2337) where I happen to know there is a Cor navy of 12 warships and 20 transports carrying 5000 hi. I know there is an army of at least 400hi garrisoning the hex overand above the navy.

Logically my navy should be able to sink the Cor navy, troops and all, and sail away without landing.

Where is the order, attack navy?

There isn't one.

So that gives me the choice of attacking, in which case I win the naval battle easily, but, out of control, my 200 men-at-arms storm ashore, abandon their ships, and get slaughtered by the Cor garrison of 400 hi, or not attacking at all.

I love the ME game, but this is nonsense whichever way you look at it.

A navy should be able to fight an enemy navy, even in a shore hex, WITHOUT being forced into automatic land combat afterwards.

Take a step back: historically there were two sorts of navies, or rather, fleets:
1) a battle fleet designed to fight, capture or sink enemy ships OR
2) a fleet designed to land the maximum numbers of troops on an enemy coast.
Sometimes one fleet was given both tasks, but my point is, it should be be up to the COMMANDER of such a fleet whether he attacks:
i) the enemy fleet or
ii) the enemy fleet AND any enemies on land.

Can anybody show me a SINGLE example of an invading fleet fighting a defending fleet and straightaway landing and fighting the defending army? That's a CHALLENGE guys!

In all the historical examples I can recall, if a fleet wanted to invade enemy territory, it chose somewhere where the enemy fleet was NOT, and in most cases, where there was neither a defending army nor for that matter a fortified pop.

After winning the sea battle at Salamis, did the Greek fleet land and attack the Persian army? Of course not - the Greeks knew that their handful of marines stood no chance against the Persian hordes. Besides, they didn't need to attack. The Persian hordes could not now be supplied by sea.

CHANGE the navy rules to give ME players the same options!

All that is needed is an 'attack navy' order, say order no 233.

Richard.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#2

Perhaps you should view it as the land based garrison trading cannon shots with the ships if "realism" is needed. But logically this then should not depend upon HI vs MA rankings.

I'm not sure an "attack navy" order is the answer. The land based garrison should still have an influence. But it should be based on cannon size and cannon skill. Perhaps assign a combat skill level to harbors and ports? But I agree, should not be based on the military troop types involved.

You've definitely run afoul of the simplicity of the game and perhaps this will be address once code changes are possible.

Tom

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: richard devereux
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 4:03 PM
  Subject: [mepbmlist] me navy rules

  Here is another dig at the navy rules.

  I have just sailed a Noldo navy of 30 warships and 1 troopship carrying 200 ma into a DS Corsair DS shore/plains hex (say 2337) where I happen to know there is a Cor navy of 12 warships and 20 transports carrying 5000 hi. I know there is an army of at least 400hi garrisoning the hex overand above the navy.

  Logically my navy should be able to sink the Cor navy, troops and all, and sail away without landing.

  Where is the order, attack navy?

  There isn't one.

  So that gives me the choice of attacking, in which case I win the naval battle easily, but, out of control, my 200 men-at-arms storm ashore, abandon their ships, and get slaughtered by the Cor garrison of 400 hi, or not attacking at all.

  I love the ME game, but this is nonsense whichever way you look at it.

  A navy should be able to fight an enemy navy, even in a shore hex, WITHOUT being forced into automatic land combat afterwards.

  Take a step back: historically there were two sorts of navies, or rather, fleets:
  1) a battle fleet designed to fight, capture or sink enemy ships OR
  2) a fleet designed to land the maximum numbers of troops on an enemy coast.
  Sometimes one fleet was given both tasks, but my point is, it should be be up to the COMMANDER of such a fleet whether he attacks:
  i) the enemy fleet or
  ii) the enemy fleet AND any enemies on land.

  Can anybody show me a SINGLE example of an invading fleet fighting a defending fleet and straightaway landing and fighting the defending army? That's a CHALLENGE guys!

  In all the historical examples I can recall, if a fleet wanted to invade enemy territory, it chose somewhere where the enemy fleet was NOT, and in most cases, where there was neither a defending army nor for that matter a fortified pop.

  After winning the sea battle at Salamis, did the Greek fleet land and attack the Persian army? Of course not - the Greeks knew that their handful of marines stood no chance against the Persian hordes. Besides, they didn't need to attack. The Persian hordes could not now be supplied by sea.

  CHANGE the navy rules to give ME players the same options!

  All that is needed is an 'attack navy' order, say order no 233.

  Richard.

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mepbmlist/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    mepbmlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#3

Richard:
Certainly I don't object to your suggestion which has much merit. There are two other ways to look at the situation. You are talking offensive but I am thinking defensuvely. I found it very useful, as a Northman, to defeat the LR fleet and hustle those marines ashore to engage the LR cav at Dilgul. Also, you could have a second transport with a second Noldo commander to Pick Up Ships.

While not disgreeing with your proposal, I can't resist your challenge. Here is two examples off the top of my head:
ONE: In 1340 Edward III's navy of 150 ships defeated 190 French ships at Sluys. He then immediately landed and attack the French at Tournai.
TWO: After running the forts at Mobile the US navy defeated the Confederate gunboats and ironclad Tennessee. General Canby's troops then landed in Mobile Bay.
Best,
Ed

···

From: "richard devereux" <rd@pagan-47.fsnet.co.uk>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [mepbmlist] me navy rules
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 21:03:31 -0000

Here is another dig at the navy rules.

I have just sailed a Noldo navy of 30 warships and 1 troopship carrying 200 ma into a DS Corsair DS shore/plains hex (say 2337) where I happen to know there is a Cor navy of 12 warships and 20 transports carrying 5000 hi. I know there is an army of at least 400hi garrisoning the hex overand above the navy.

Logically my navy should be able to sink the Cor navy, troops and all, and sail away without landing.

Where is the order, attack navy?

There isn't one.

So that gives me the choice of attacking, in which case I win the naval battle easily, but, out of control, my 200 men-at-arms storm ashore, abandon their ships, and get slaughtered by the Cor garrison of 400 hi, or not attacking at all.

I love the ME game, but this is nonsense whichever way you look at it.

A navy should be able to fight an enemy navy, even in a shore hex, WITHOUT being forced into automatic land combat afterwards.

Take a step back: historically there were two sorts of navies, or rather, fleets:
1) a battle fleet designed to fight, capture or sink enemy ships OR
2) a fleet designed to land the maximum numbers of troops on an enemy coast.
Sometimes one fleet was given both tasks, but my point is, it should be be up to the COMMANDER of such a fleet whether he attacks:
i) the enemy fleet or
ii) the enemy fleet AND any enemies on land.

Can anybody show me a SINGLE example of an invading fleet fighting a defending fleet and straightaway landing and fighting the defending army? That's a CHALLENGE guys!

In all the historical examples I can recall, if a fleet wanted to invade enemy territory, it chose somewhere where the enemy fleet was NOT, and in most cases, where there was neither a defending army nor for that matter a fortified pop.

After winning the sea battle at Salamis, did the Greek fleet land and attack the Persian army? Of course not - the Greeks knew that their handful of marines stood no chance against the Persian hordes. Besides, they didn't need to attack. The Persian hordes could not now be supplied by sea.

CHANGE the navy rules to give ME players the same options!

All that is needed is an 'attack navy' order, say order no 233.

Richard.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#4

Richard:
Certainly I don't object to your suggestion which has much merit. There

are

two other ways to look at the situation. You are talking offensive but I

am

thinking defensuvely. I found it very useful, as a Northman, to defeat

the

LR fleet and hustle those marines ashore to engage the LR cav at Dilgul.
Also, you could have a second transport with a second Noldo commander to
Pick Up Ships.

While not disgreeing with your proposal, I can't resist your challenge.
Here is two examples off the top of my head:
ONE: In 1340 Edward III's navy of 150 ships defeated 190 French ships at
Sluys. He then immediately landed and attack the French at Tournai.
TWO: After running the forts at Mobile the US navy defeated the

Confederate

gunboats and ironclad Tennessee. General Canby's troops then landed in
Mobile Bay.
Best,
Ed

RD: Ed, I knew that if anybody was going to rise to my challenge it would be
you :slight_smile:

I do not object to a navy having the -ability- to fight first a sea battle,
then a land battle. What I object to is a navy being -forced- to do this by
the 230 order. Hence my request for an 'attack navy' order.

I agree, you can sometimes get round the peculiarities of naval rules by
using an extra commander, but you shouldn't have to do this. It makes
navies more difficult, expensive and cumbersome than they should be,
especially when compared with armies.

Richard.

>From: "richard devereux" <rd@pagan-47.fsnet.co.uk>
>Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
>To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: [mepbmlist] me navy rules
>Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 21:03:31 -0000
>
>Here is another dig at the navy rules.
>
>I have just sailed a Noldo navy of 30 warships and 1 troopship carrying

200

>ma into a DS Corsair DS shore/plains hex (say 2337) where I happen to

know

>there is a Cor navy of 12 warships and 20 transports carrying 5000 hi. I
>know there is an army of at least 400hi garrisoning the hex overand above
>the navy.
>
>Logically my navy should be able to sink the Cor navy, troops and all,

and

>sail away without landing.
>
>Where is the order, attack navy?
>
>There isn't one.
>
>So that gives me the choice of attacking, in which case I win the naval
>battle easily, but, out of control, my 200 men-at-arms storm ashore,
>abandon their ships, and get slaughtered by the Cor garrison of 400 hi,

or

>not attacking at all.
>
>I love the ME game, but this is nonsense whichever way you look at it.
>
>A navy should be able to fight an enemy navy, even in a shore hex,

WITHOUT

>being forced into automatic land combat afterwards.
>
>Take a step back: historically there were two sorts of navies, or rather,
>fleets:
>1) a battle fleet designed to fight, capture or sink enemy ships OR
>2) a fleet designed to land the maximum numbers of troops on an enemy
>coast.
>Sometimes one fleet was given both tasks, but my point is, it should be

be

>up to the COMMANDER of such a fleet whether he attacks:
>i) the enemy fleet or
>ii) the enemy fleet AND any enemies on land.
>
>Can anybody show me a SINGLE example of an invading fleet fighting a
>defending fleet and straightaway landing and fighting the defending army?
>That's a CHALLENGE guys!
>
>In all the historical examples I can recall, if a fleet wanted to invade
>enemy territory, it chose somewhere where the enemy fleet was NOT, and in
>most cases, where there was neither a defending army nor for that matter

a

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ovatha Easterling" <ovatha88@hotmail.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 10:41 PM
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] me navy rules

>fortified pop.
>
>After winning the sea battle at Salamis, did the Greek fleet land and
>attack the Persian army? Of course not - the Greeks knew that their
>handful of marines stood no chance against the Persian hordes. Besides,

>they didn't need to attack. The Persian hordes could not now be supplied
>by sea.
>
>CHANGE the navy rules to give ME players the same options!
>
>All that is needed is an 'attack navy' order, say order no 233.
>
>Richard.
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Yahoo! Groups Links