Sim start date: Jan. 1, 1870.
Initial Setup for main-line countries:
$1000, 200 BP
The map is attached.
Here's a spreadsheet to help players through the initial setup of their country.
did you intend to limit our coast artillery to 12" disappearing or 12" casemated, 10" disappearing or 10" casemated, and 6" disappearing or 6" casemated guns? Or was that just an accident?
Edit: Let me make it clear that I don't disagree with a chance to make set up simpler by limiting coast artillery choices, but I do believe a lighter gun (3" perhaps?) should be added to the list as well.
Those sizes were just ones that I used in the last set-up, it's not intended to restrict players. After all, at this time period, the US coast artillery included 20" and 15" Rodmans.... :)
Okay. Sounds good to me. Will there be any tweaks to the rules for coastal artillery? Are there disappearing guns in 1870? Or are they introduced later?
Also, my proposed list of naval bases for the RN includes Gibraltar, Malta, Bermuda, Singapore, and Aden. I couldn't find the list of English colonies (Australia, Canada, and a small part of India were definitely included) and I couldn't recall if Gibraltar was included. I thought it was. The others I'm not so sure about.
Quote from: Darman on September 01, 2013, 11:22:39 PM
Okay. Sounds good to me. Will there be any tweaks to the rules for coastal artillery? Are there disappearing guns in 1870? Or are they introduced later?
Historically, they were invented in the 1860s and then later (in the 1880s) refined, so they're available. The general coast gun rules..... well..... (see follow-on post).
QuoteAlso, my proposed list of naval bases for the RN includes Gibraltar, Malta, Bermuda, Singapore, and Aden. I couldn't find the list of English colonies (Australia, Canada, and a small part of India were definitely included) and I couldn't recall if Gibraltar was included. I thought it was. The others I'm not so sure about.
Those look correct.
Would it be possible to include gun positions "en barbette" as an option? Basically it just means firing from behind a wall or earthworks.
Quote from: Darman on September 02, 2013, 08:21:15 AM
Would it be possible to include gun positions "en barbette" as an option? Basically it just means firing from behind a wall or earthworks.
In my coast gun post, that's what I called a parapet mounting.
The Guns on the spreadsheet are heavy land guns, but not coastal artillery?
Quote from: Guinness on September 02, 2013, 12:02:44 PM
The Guns on the spreadsheet are heavy land guns, but not coastal artillery?
The guns that you buy on the spreadsheet are coast artillery, using the N3 rules for them. Heavy land guns for siege purposes are purchased by buying siege artillery regiments.
Quote from: KWorld on September 02, 2013, 12:35:17 PM
Quote from: Guinness on September 02, 2013, 12:02:44 PM
The Guns on the spreadsheet are heavy land guns, but not coastal artillery?
The guns that you buy on the spreadsheet are coast artillery, using the N3 rules for them. Heavy land guns for siege purposes are purchased by buying siege artillery regiments.
I will note that in my N4.5 or whatever we called it, war between Brazil and Chile I did mount 6" CD guns on makeshift field carriages for siege work. Why? Because it happened historically during one of the Boer Wars.
Quote from: KWorld on September 02, 2013, 12:35:17 PM
The guns that you buy on the spreadsheet are coast artillery, using the N3 rules for them. Heavy land guns for siege purposes are purchased by buying siege artillery regiments.
Ok, that confuses me, as those guns are right next to fortresses and just a bit above and to the right of the coast defense artillery.
Quote from: Guinness on September 02, 2013, 07:15:49 PM
Quote from: KWorld on September 02, 2013, 12:35:17 PM
The guns that you buy on the spreadsheet are coast artillery, using the N3 rules for them. Heavy land guns for siege purposes are purchased by buying siege artillery regiments.
Ok, that confuses me, as those guns are right next to fortresses and just a bit above and to the right of the coast defense artillery.
Ah, OK, you're talking about the gun technology lines, ie, what guns & mountings have you researched, as opposed to what guns have you purchased..
The map you've attached is not right. Svizzera should have been made orange, not Tunisia. I need the ability to sell those high-quality chocolats to you. :)
I would like to make an argument that the Suez Canal opened as OTL in 1869. The British Empire does indeed still have Imperial colonies on the far side of the world, most easily accessed through the Suez Canal so the commercial and communications importance of the canal are still important prior to 1870. It will also create a trouble-point in the Mediterranean. I propose that the ownership of the canal ought to be 30% English, 30% French, and 40% Egyptian, yet another bone of contention.
Quote from: Darman on September 03, 2013, 10:56:27 AM
I would like to make an argument that the Suez Canal opened as OTL in 1869. The British Empire does indeed still have Imperial colonies on the far side of the world, most easily accessed through the Suez Canal so the commercial and communications importance of the canal are still important prior to 1870. It will also create a trouble-point in the Mediterranean. I propose that the ownership of the canal ought to be 30% English, 30% French, and 40% Egyptian, yet another bone of contention.
What I've discussed with Guinness on Suez and Egypt says that the Suez Canal DOES exist, as historical, in 1870. The Ottomans, however, have deposed Khedive Ismail because of non-payment of tribute and brought Egypt back more firmly into the empire.
Okay. So the Canal exists and is owned entirely by the Ottomans?
Quote from: Darman on September 03, 2013, 11:57:08 AM
Okay. So the Canal exists and is owned entirely by the Ottomans?
I wouldn't think so, they'd have had to fund it for that to happen, and there's little reason for the Porte to have done so. It's more that the Canal exists and the surrounding lands are controlled by the Ottomans.
Quote from: KWorld on September 03, 2013, 12:12:52 PM
Quote from: Darman on September 03, 2013, 11:57:08 AM
Okay. So the Canal exists and is owned entirely by the Ottomans?
I wouldn't think so, they'd have had to fund it for that to happen, and there's little reason for the Porte to have done so. It's more that the Canal exists and the surrounding lands are controlled by the Ottomans.
Okay, so 30/30/40 still works?
Quote from: Darman on September 03, 2013, 12:17:42 PM
Quote from: KWorld on September 03, 2013, 12:12:52 PM
Quote from: Darman on September 03, 2013, 11:57:08 AM
Okay. So the Canal exists and is owned entirely by the Ottomans?
I wouldn't think so, they'd have had to fund it for that to happen, and there's little reason for the Porte to have done so. It's more that the Canal exists and the surrounding lands are controlled by the Ottomans.
Okay, so 30/30/40 still works?
Should, I'd think.
From what I read on wiki, British+Ottoman shares < French shares. I think that should be the case here as well.
Yeah, looking at it, it looks like the ownership at this time should be something like 56% French/44% Egyptian/Ottoman (the British purchase of shares from Egypt didn't happen until 1875).
Quote from: KWorld on September 03, 2013, 12:50:19 PM
Yeah, looking at it, it looks like the ownership at this time should be something like 56% French/44% Egyptian/Ottoman (the British purchase of shares from Egypt didn't happen until 1875).
works for me.
I rather think our own version of the Constantinople Convention could be fun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_of_Constantinople
Throwing stuff into the spreadsheet resulted in something that was quite different from what I had originally calculated.
Looking around I noticed that the formulas of E114 and F114 are wrong. They only went as far down as E/F77 and thus missed part of the army costs. They should run all the way down to E/F110. I assume that the spreadsheet here is the same as the one you posted in the other thread where you posted it the first time (and which is the one I downloaded).
Quote from: Walter on September 05, 2013, 08:54:23 AM
Throwing stuff into the spreadsheet resulted in something that was quite different from what I had originally calculated.
Looking around I noticed that the formulas of E114 and F114 are wrong. They only went as far down as E/F77 and thus missed part of the army costs. They should run all the way down to E/F110. I assume that the spreadsheet here is the same as the one you posted in the other thread where you posted it the first time (and which is the one I downloaded).
Drat. Fixed, and the file has been updated.