Unit Strengths by Era

[Anaximander]

First of all, it is not about the size of the gun, so much as it is about the volume of fire. Union Monitor style ironclads were equiped with 11 and 15 inch guns, yet proved to be very ineffective at shore bombardment because their rate of fire was very slow. The New Ironsides, a U.S. ironclad frigate, carried twenty guns and was much more successful at shore bombarment. The monitors guns were heavier, but the New Ironsides had more of them.

The New Ironsides problem, and the problem with most larger ships, is that their draft was too deep to get close enough to be effective, and the Monitor style ships that were shallow enough were outgunned by most shore batteries.

Also, a note on the 5 inch gun. The 5 inch gun was the standard armerment for WWII destroyers and these ships DID conduct shore bombardment. In fact, US destroyers mounted 5 inch guns up through the Spruance Class launched in 1975, ships of which are still in service today.

[Commy]

When I said 60 cannons, I wasn't referring to the one on the Monitor or the Merimac...I was referring to 60 cannons that are located on the side of a ship known as a frigate...so maybe the boat can't get within 100 feet of the shore...it doesn't need to, because cannons go much farther than that...

A 5 inch gun is more accurate than an 18th and 19th century cannon, but isn't capable of destroying "improvements" like roads, whole irrigation systems, or mines...it is possible to have a rare exception, such as having a mine extrememly close to the shore, but all the same, the largest "improvement" destroyed is a bridge in vietnam, and that was done by air power...

[Anaximander]

When you are refering to a 60 gun frigate you are refering to a sail powered ship that would be lucky to get with in 1,000 yards of a fortification. Firing rounded shot, a frigate would have been a major threat to another ship; however, it would be at a serious disadvantage when attacking a land-based fortification. Frigates did not attack "improvements" and when ships of that type did go against land-based fortifications they lost more often than not. Land-based fortifications could mount more and heavier guns. The sail frigates, and other ships of their type, would have to remain stationaryas being dependent on the winds made it very difficult to sail around close to shore and still fire their guns effectivly. This also made them perfect targets for the gunners in the fort.

The advantage that fortifications had overships was not overturned until the advent of armor, as was demonstrated by the French armored batteries in the Crimean War, and steam, which was demonstrated by US Steam Screw ships in the American Civil War. Even then, attacking forts didn't always work, as can be seen as the Union attack on Charleston Harbor with ironclad steam powered warships in 1863 was repulsed with heavy damage.

WWII Destroyers, armed with five inch guns, were effective at bombarding instalations close to shore, as well as providing fire support for naval landings. A sub with a five inch gun could bombard. I am not saying that it would or should, but that it could. It's not what I would use a sub for, but in a pinch it could work.

[akulla]

Originally posted by Anaximander
WWII Destroyers, armed with five inch guns, were effective at bombarding instalations close to shore, as well as providing fire support for naval landings. A sub with a five inch gun could bombard. I am not saying that it would or should, but that it could. It's not what I would use a sub for, but in a pinch it could work.

What pinch would you be refering to?

[akulla]

hmmmm

[smarty_nine10]

Combat system

Many of you have said that the battle system (who wins a combat) can use a little revising, vis. a Spearman should not hold up to a stack of 5 Modern Armor (happened to me... funny story), or that a frigate should not have a single chance against a sub.

I think I do have an idea that might fix this. Increasing the hitpoints of newer units (such a one more hitpoint per upgrade, so that a veteran Chariot has 4 HP, a veteran Cavalry has 7 HP,) has been mentioned several times in this forum. I think that there could be these changes that would balance the situation out:

- Hitpoints doubled every Age (veteran Horsemen have 4 HP, veteran Knights have 8 HP)
- Three (or so) hitpoints added every inter-Age generation or upgrade (veteran Chariots have 4 HP, veteran Horsemen have 7 HP)
- Increase bonuses from experience (extra hitpoints) by one or so every generation (veteran Chariots have one hitpoint more than regulars, veteran Horsemen have two hitpoints more than regulars.)

This is pretty good, since a veteran Horseman will have 7 hitpoints against the 14 of a veteran Knight. This will make the Horseman have a 12.5% chance of winning now instead of the 25% chance he currently has.

Of course, to completely rule out any chance for a stack of obsolete, ancient age units to win against a modern machine, and to keep battles fairly short:

- Each generation, the units take off one more hitpoint per successful attack than before. In other words, the successful Horseman will take off 2 HP per round, the Knight 3 HP.

This will probably make things a bit more ballanced. I also support any auto-upgrade-or-disband ideas, by the way.

[Gpa]

Land mines are effective in modern revolutionary wars. Sharpened barricades worked for horses/cavalry which might serve to slow this much touted strategy. I would like land areas that could still be settled by the year 2050...as it is today, just slow the population growth and still maintain technical advancement. There are so many things out there that could be, that predicted unpredictability would be the appeal to us all.

[sugan]

online game currencies

Anyone bought from www.belrion.com before ? heard they are a paypal world seller and are macfee seucred. Appreciate some feedback from anyone ^^
buy ffxi gil
buy eq plat
cheap wow gold
buy world of warcraft gold
buy aoc gold
buy L2 adena
buy gil
cheap gold wow
buy wow gold
buy warhammer
buy warhammer
alliance horde gold

[vmxa1]

Never used them, sorry.