some new possibilities
Two things I'm contemplating adding to NWOL (and to the Civil War naval module) are blockading neutral commerce and privateering.
Privateering would be declared by one nation against another (eg, France against Britain) and would reduce trade through the ports of the target nation. Its trade partners would also lose income, so all nations would suffer to some extent when one issued letters of marque. The target nation would defend itself by deploying frigates in convoy mode to protect its commerce, much as it now protects itself against raiding by enemy frigates. The essence of this, other than its economic effects, would be to require seafaring nations (primarily Britain, to a lesser extent France, Holland, and Spain, other coastal nations to yet lesser extent) to disperse frigates among the seas where they have ports (and in the Carribbean as well for colonial powers) to protect against privateers. This would be very realistic, economically of some importance, and in particular would give the French a weapon against Britain that they historically used extensively but do not have in NWOL at present.
Blockading neutral commerce would give the option of a blockader stopping neutral ships or not. If a blockader chose to stop neutral ships, then there would be greater indirect trade losses from blockades than there presently are (direct losses would not change). This would make blockading more of an issue for third-party nations than it presently is and lead to somewhat more interesting diplomatic play; not nearly as interesting as it would be if the USA was in play, but interesting nonetheless.
Thoughts? I emphasize that these are things I will add only if it is not too difficult to do so, as I don't have a lot of time to put into it.
Steve
Who's new
- koolguy66
- Sakkal
- David Adams
- rkimler
- AZTiger98
some new possibilities
What would the difference be, between the current "raid enemy shipping" and the privateering option be?
Today, placing ships into SA with Enemy Ports allows us to reduce the economic benefit of these ports.
Would privateering simply be a free way of doing the same thing without having to actually deploy Frigates in raiding mode?
John Vanvark
raiding
Raid enemy shipping causes your frigates to do it.
Privateering is not done by your frigates; it's done by non-naval vessals. They're not explicitly represented in the game, so privateering is something your Naval Minister or maybe Foreign Minister turns on, it happens automatically, and keeps happening until you turn it off.
You can use your frigates to defend against it by issuing convoy orders, but just as the merchant ships in the convoy are not represented in the game, neither are the privateers that prey on them represented.
Steve
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
another idea
With the discussion of the possibilites of an 1812 scenario, I was thinking that a 30 Years War game might not be a bad idea. The existing NWOL map could be used with some modification, the rules would require some minor changes (shooting less effective, squares form easier due to block formations, possibly removing or restricting builds for certain units like light artillery, Huguenot forces instead of Bourbon), and adding the Ottomans and Poles to the playing field. The armies would be smaller but generally the same countries would be involved. The dynamics would be a little different as not all the countries would be ganging up on France, which would make strategies more open to interesting alliances. Perhaps Spain and England would not be allowed to ally as they were at odds at this time and perhaps the Swedes and Austrians couldn't ally.
Von Gottes Gnaden König von Preußen
Don't say the "O" word
Don't say the "O" word (Ottoman) ;) Apparently for map coding reasons it can't be added. It has been a discussion point quite a few times in NWOL already. Poland has also been discussed, but rejected in its 1793-1815 context due to political concerns (and who could you get to play them!). As far as I know, it would be perfectly fine in a 30YW context. Neat idea. The 30YW isn't something I know much about, and would love to get into.
Problem is with Egypt
There shouldn't be an issue with adding the European porition of the Ottoman Empire to the map, the issue is that it can't be expanded beyond what is currently on the GITM map. So you can't have Egypt on there for example. So (it has been determined) that in a Napoleonic context it is not permissable since the most famous Napoleonic era action happened in Egypt.
But I see no reason why it can't be included in a 30YW context though.
-nick
Ottomans in Europe
I tend to agree that we could add the Ottomans to a 30 Years War game. Their activity would have to be confined to the existing map area but in a 30 Years War game that's not a problem, since none of the powers in the 30 Years War had both the ability and desire to project power into the Eastern Med. In the Napoleonic Wars, at least two powers could and did (England and France) and so running the game without the Eastern Med is problematic. For the 30 Years War it isn't.
Steve
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
additional countries for 30 Years War
The most complex changes on the map would occur in the German states and Prussia. Poland would have to be created. Bohemia would be its own country. Prussia would much smaller, probably only a German Frag.
Von Gottes Gnaden König von Preußen
Map stuff
Yes, but that is just making borders, which is different than creating terrain, etc.
terrain and other points
If I remember the map correctly, some terrain would have to be added for Ottoman territory as it is currently just purple squares, right? I have no idea how much effort would have to be put into updating that terrain but hopefully it wouldn't be a massive undertaking.
The more I think about it, the more I think it might be a good choice for a possible spin off of NWOL. I was thinking that the test/Beta run could the first part of the war beginning in 1618. There were only a few countries involved initially and the fighting was limited to central Europe with the Bohemian Revolt and Ottoman-Polish war. Perhaps a second test or larger inital scope would be to start in 1621 when Spain joined in and the fighting spread to Holland and the Palatinate.
I think a full blown game could begin at any point from 1618 to 1648 but it might be easier to start in 1629 or 1630, just as Sweden was joining in and France was on the brink of entering while still trying to deal with the Huguenot issues in France. England wouldn't yet have the naval power of the 19th century so this would limit their abilities which seemed to be the target of some of the complaints (right or wrong) of NWOL3.
All in all, I think it might be more dynamic in strategy because the majors are more evenly matched than in NWOL, alliances often formed between unlikely allies, and nearly every major power has issues with internal rebellion (including England with the threat of Catholic uprisings). Attrition would be worse due to diseases and lack of "modernized" supply methods, and armies wouldn't be as large as they are during the Napoleonic periods. This would drive countries to fight shorter, limited actions and then sit back and rest and rebuild for the next round of fighting.
Another bonus for players is that it might get them interested in learning more about a period that isn't as familiar to many. I know many people interested in the ACW who have generals, corps, divisions, maps, strategies, etc. memorized just as people interested in the Napoleonic era have done the same for that period. I know I reached a point in my gaming career where I wouldn't even consider playing another battle of Waterloo because I could look at the table and name every corps, division, and brigade commander and could identify every regiment/battalion, and their appropriate ratings/unit strengths on the table. I could almost do the same when looking at a Gettysburg game. I am guessing that there is a much smaller number of players that have as strong a knowledge of the 30 Years War period so it might have a freshness about it.
Von Gottes Gnaden König von Preußen
Wars
April is far enough away that I think I can safely point out that there was once an occasion on which I discussed the possibility of a War of Spanish Succession OnLine game (WOSSOL) - in an April Fool's Day prank email....
I think that a 30 Years War scenario for the NWOL engine may be plausible, but a full-fledged 30 Years War Online game seems... to have even more problems for attractive a sufficient player base than the Napoleonic period does.
Steve
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
bad idea number 2
time for my weekly bad idea, sorry about #1 the 1812 thing, I suspect Steve was waiting for someone to suggest it. Stepped in it there.
Anyway, it is Friday night and I have opened my favorite bottle and come up with bad idea #2 and I guarandtee Steve has not thought of it. It involves some recruiting and play changes. Here goes, introduce Zombies into NWOL. Imagine free floating Zombies ranging from Warsaw to Portugal. You'd have to have Torch battlions and axe swinging divisions. It could turn Wuertenberg into a deadly and dead power. If not Zombie armies what about Zombie Ships floating among the British Isle threatening to land, even up the pate a bit. Well enough, we are all encouraged to bring in new players and I thought just think of our motto: Play NWOL and fight Napoleon or the Zombies.
Bottle almost gone, I am done.
Sam
The Bottle
I take it the bottle was not merely a beer bottle, but a 40-ouncer of something? Perhaps rum (mixed with pineapple and orange juice)?
the bottle
Ever had Irish Mist? A drink from the Gods and each sip costly as gold but worth it. Now, not Canadian Mist but Irish Mist. A little iced filtered water and sip, sip; sip.
Sam
zombies
I thought they were the Prussians? :)
Von Gottes Gnaden König von Preußen
prussians
careful, I can see the dueling pistols being polished and loaded now.
sam
better choice
It was just a joke but I should have chosen Revolutionary French anyway as they were much less organized and more like an unstoppable zombie mob than the Prussians. Zombies would never stay in perfect lines. That and obviously the best way to stop a French Revolutionary is to cut off his head.
Von Gottes Gnaden König von Preußen
Ka-thunk!
Isn't that the best way to get rid of the Bourbons? ;)
to the scaffold!
It works for either party.
Von Gottes Gnaden König von Preußen
Like Lafite
Coming from the land of Jean Lafite. I like the idea of Privateers. It would also force the issue of frigates having to sail instead of sitting in port.
Don C.
another bad idea
at some point in the distant future, you may be a wizard but you are human, an actual war of 1812 using NWOL platform might be fun. I have been reading books on 1812 and it seems to break down to a great lakes war, an east coast war and a southern war (thank you Andrew Jackson). Interestingly, the pate war would be most even on the lakes.
sam
1812 Scale?
The 1812 game would have to be done on a different scale, or else you might get to have a really big battle with as many as two or three IN units per side, if you are lucky.
I would certainly be interested, but in my book it would have to occur after the Ottomans and India were added.
-nick
War of 1812
The advantage to the War of 1812 is that I already have the relevant map, which is not the case for the Ottomans (where it cannot be added to the existing map because of the row/column label conventions and it makes little sense to have an Ottomans-only map) nor for India (where I think there is probably not enough player interest for an India-only game). The US map would require some additions, perhaps more than could actually be done, but at least it is not starting from scracth.
Concur that we'd probably have to go to battalion sized units which might (or might not?) require some rethinking of tactical combat. But that's not the biggest problem - the biggest problem would be the logistics rules, since the rules for NWOL certainly don't port to the War of 1812 (because of the vast differences in population density, even in Russia or Spain) and the ROTD rules don't either since they rely on railroads.
Adding Native American units would be really fun. They would usually be responsive to commands but not always. They would never operate in anything other than Skirmish or Evade modes. They'd desert you the first time you lost a substantial engagement in their presence. They would occasionally massacre prisoners. They might occasionally change sides. They might be subject to bribery. They might be a little too much fun.
The War of 1812 is two wars - first the US/Canadian frontier, which should really extend to both the Maritimes and Quebec City at least conceptually though in practice everything will tend to happen between Montreal and Detroit, and second British coastal operations which could take place anywhere from Bangor ME to New Orleans LA. Everything there is really one theme.
Oh, and a big naval map too.... Big.
Steve
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
1812
On playability issues for 1812. You would have to have a player(s) for a US national government, one for each of the states independently, one for each indian tribe or confederation, pirates etc. British issues would be supply and communication, the American issues would be lack of cohesion. State and even militia units could chose to go along or not with the national government. Each side had it's issues and goals. If the Brits could bring full force to bear the American side is in real trouble. One side effect of American loses was eventually to force the states to be more cohesive. One book I have read calls the war the second American revolution. Would winning for the Brits be the destruction of the Federal government, retaking a certain number of colonies or what?
Whatever, side me up now to play test this baby. Happy to do any research you need done.
Sam
State(s) of Anarchy?
I was going to write that having one player per state might be too much, but the more I think about it, the more I start to like it. I haven't played CWOL so I don't have the experience of seeing a lot of states working together (or not). I wonder if 1812 hadn't happened, what the results of the Civil War would be - less cohesive Northern States? Lee in Washington? The CSA around today? I guess Americans should thank us Canadians for allowing your country to be one instead of two (unless you're from the South, I suppose...). And maybe Quebec wouldn't have felt the need to join Confederation, either...
thank the Candians?
Maybe you Canadians should be thankful that the colonists weren't really capable of offensive action during our war with England and be thankful that later on, US citizens weren't more determined to go steal ...I mean acquire...your land as we did parts of Mexico during that same period. US politicians settled for the 49th parallel instead of pushing the 54 40 in the far west.
Von Gottes Gnaden König von Preußen
Thank Canada!
54 40 would have sucked. Then the US would have 2 Vancouvers. 50 Springfields is bad enough ;)
The war wasn't particularly popular in New England, from what I gather. Too much trade to be lost. It was a pretty much pointless exercise in all respects. They burnt York (probably improved things there), we burnt Washington. Would have been interesting if Britain had been able to hold onto their trading posts down the Mississippi. Then we'd have a border with Mexico, too!
Hey dave 54-40 wouldn't have
Hey dave
54-40 wouldn't have sucked all that much, Great Britain, and by extension Canada, would have mopped the floor with the US. This is Great Britain at the height of her power. All the advantages are with Britain here.
Her navy was still on the two power standard, and the second power (France), was an ally (sort of). The main market for US exports, and the source of most of her development capital, was Britain, so the US economy goes "poof", even before the blockade goes into effect.
The Militia and reg force garrison of Canada is 100k at this point, the available troops in Britain, counting reserves, is around 250,000, and the Crimean war showed that Britain can support a large army over a long distance for extended periods. The US cannot reinforce the West coast enough to hold the main coastal towns, and the Britains can put 100,000 men down anywhere they want to on the US east coast. Land, take US city, destroy everything of Military or economic value, back on ships, rinse, repeat.
The end result is going to be the border on the Columbia, and if Britain really wants to be pissy, they will arm and train the Mexicans, and help them get Texas and California back, after burning every city on the US eastern seaboard to the ground. Hell, the thing could be enough of a mess as to cause the US civil war to break out early.
Great Britain
I'm not sure how effective Britain's army would have been in trying to fight the war on US territory. This would have been 10 years prior to the Crimean War and that war showed that there were a number of problems within the overall organization and command structure. That being said, I think if they had pursued a purely defensive approach and defended Candian borders, then the US wouldn't have stood a chance in succeeding.
The US Army was tiny by comparison at the time and would have had to rely on militia and volunteer units to come to the fight. As long as Britain didn't try to fight on US soil, I think there wouldn't have been enough support for a significant number of volunteer forces to be raised. For this reason, I think the war hawks in Washington were very wise to back down in their demands of moving the border.
A couple years later, it was much easier for US war hawks to round up support by villifying the Mexico by playing on fears of another attempt by Mexico to reclaim Texas (the Mexican army invaded Texas in 1841 but withdrew even after reaching San Antonio). Also, there were language, cultural, ethnic differences that made it easier to rationalize going to war Mexico that wouldn't have existed with our British "cousins." Unfortunately for Mexico, they weren't part of a larger commonwealth and didn't have any large allies from which to get outside help and had so many internal problems that they were an easy target for "Manifest Destiny."
Von Gottes Gnaden König von Preußen
54-40
No one doubts that the British if they had gone all out could have defeated US or anyone at that time. With the British the question was always where is the profit? Yes, the Brits could have burned all US cities to the ground and funded the Mexicans, but at the cost of a lot of British Crowns. With military might they could have won the revolutionary war or the 1812 second revolution. They didn't, why? At the end of the day, they totalled up the bill and said "the dance isn't worth it turn off the music." Same thing happened to the US in Vietnam and elsewhere in the 20th Century. Winning was just too expensive. Fighting a super power (when you can't really threaten them) comes down to fighting until the Super Power throws up their hands and says we're losing money on this thing, enough.
Greed is good. When your enemy is overwhelming.
At the end of the day, the British (and they are not alone historically) would fight as long as the looting etc would give a profit to the ruling class. When the crowns were outgoing- the faint heart wins the day.
Sam
winning
I would agree with most of that, but I don't think that the British could have "won" by burning a lot of US cities. If anything, it would only have further stiffened US resolve. For Britain to win a military victory it would have had to destroy the American capacity to invade Canada, and that was probably not possible because the logistic structures to supply a sufficient number of troops on the US-Canadian border didn't exist. (Similarly, the US could probably never have occupied more than a small amount of Canadian territory in the face of Canadian hostility, though if the US had annexed Canada in a peace settlement, it would have been easier for the US to absorb British Canada than it was for British Canada to absorb French Canada after 1763.) I don't think Britain ever had any hope of forcing a military victory. All she could really do was keep fending off incursions into Canada until the Americans gave up trying; the point of the blockade and the coastal incursions was to give the Americans some reasons to stop trying. The burning of Washington DC may have actually been counterproductive in this regard, though it was an effective symbol to the Americans of their inability to protect the coasts against the Royal Navy.
Steve
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
intensity
All that Steve says may be so. I continue to think the Brits could have destroyed the physical structures of the country, but they just were not that committed. It would have bankrupted them. Besides money- always important in war is that "intensity" of purpose. As the Brits had some success against Washington burning the capital, they intensified the opposition and its committment to fighting. The divisions among the states and personalities diminishing as the fight became for survival. The merchants of Baltimore sank their ships in the harbor to block it to the British fleet , a major sacrifice and reason for the Brits defeat. Could one imagine that before the burning of Washington?
The other problem the British faced was they were intensifying long term problems. Look at northern Ireland a clear victory for British military forces and an endless problem thereafter. burning and crushing American cities for a "clear" British win would have left future Monarchs worried about generations of American terrorists seeking payback. It is difficult to spill blood when you know there may be pay back down the road. I have never seen Kings as having courage (after King Henry V).
At some point how do you get 100,000 canadians to fight with great enthusiasm when all they really want is to be left alone? Heck, how do you get paid mercenaries or British regular troops to fight that hard?
How do you get Americans to unite and fight intensely? You burn their capital and other cities. Even the New Englanders would have had enough. The Brits could make them poor, burn their homes but they couldn't make them Brits again or willing to take that level of crap from the Monarchy again. America would have been a nightmare of problems and sapped resources from British terror (eh building an empire) in asia, the subcontinent, and Africa.
I go back to my original thought that no monarchy with an ounce of common sense would take on such a fight when easier and less organized or motivated victims awaited. Yes, I am unapologically anti-empire building in the 17th-21st centuries.
In warfare, intensity of the opponent matters short and long term. This is why the Romans buried Carthage in the sand. 'they made a desert and called it peace.' Tacitus.
Up the Irish!
Oregon War Online?
Sounds like we need to set up an 1845 scenario to see how this would have turned out. :-)
1812
I like the 1812 scenario, if only due to my Canadian-ness. Question: how would unit builds be determined? Would you assume that the war in Europe was historical, thus limiting the British to resources not used in the Peninsula, or would there be a variance to the actual events that occurred, but still resulting in Napoleon's defeat? Would there be some rogue Frenchie frigates to beat up on? Didn't get enough of that in NWOL3 ;)
If we go down to battalion level, that assumes we are in the role of battalion commanders as opposed to brigadiers. That would seem to put the emphasis on when we deploy from column to line, when to detach skirmishers, when to form square (though there wasn't a heck of a lot of cavalry action, at least not in the Lake Erie/Ontario theatre), and the like. Would the GITM system be able to handle any modifications necessary, or would we keep it abstract?
Not a lot of HQ staff - the British side in the Lakes area would barely count for a CQ, let alone AQ. Do we just need to call a CQ a DQ and an AQ a CQ, and keep the roles the same?
Would we need Bateaux instead of TR's?
Interesting to think about, and the First Nations stuff would have the potential to be pretty wild!
1812
Yeah, you'd have to go to battalion/regiment/battery units, and have to look at the rules for raising militia. Might even have to add brigs and sloops to PATE. I'd love to play it, so I could go Isaac Brock all over the Jonathans...
scale
The Ottoman's might be interesting. But the India thing no. How would you simulate the atrocities of the British against the Indian peoples that were so much a part of both the East India Tea company and English governments standard operating procedures. The Napoleonic wars simulates battles the India thing would have to include not only battles but also on a much lower and nastier plane to be historically close to accurate. All war is an atrocity, but in India it was taken to extremes. How do 30 million control 400 or 500 million? Leave me out.
But that's me, I won't play the Nazi's in WW2 or the South in Civil war.
Sam
India
In this period the British still had only a foothold on the subcontinent, so were not in a position to commit the types of atrocities that occurred later in their rule. In fact most of the famous atrocities from the early period, such as the Black Hole of Calcutta, were inflicted on the Europeans. Also, I think it would be disingenuous to gloss over the atrocities of the French Revolution where the reign of terror kills as many as 40k people. We just don't include it in the game as we focus only on the military aspect.
Also, it would give players a chance to change history and drive the Brits (and French, etc) out of India.
But best of all is that it would force Steve to write the code for war elephants. :-)
war elephants
Steve is a wizard, but how do you code for war elephants?
Sam
Privateering
Sounds interesting. I have had no interest in PATE but that really sounds good.
Sam