G'day guys,
OK any chance of me getting an html version of the survey up in the very near
future are rapidly approaching zero (eventually, maybe as a general curosity
thing on the web, but not any time soon), so we're going to have to live with
the ditsy one I posted before. So here's your opportunity to tell me what you
think of the various nations, even if you don't like the idea of incorporating
it in the game tell me anyway, it'd be fun to know and you can get a warm
cuddly feeling that you helped me out (cos so far
I've only got 5 people's responses/opinions and that's a pretty small
sample size);)
Thanks
Beth
> [quoted text omitted]
FT National crew and ship characteristics:
1. Crew quality? Please use a 1-5 scale where 1=mostly poorly trained
troops (either militia or green) and 5=mostly elite crews (top of the line,
well trained and very experienced) ESU FCT FSE IC IF JAP LLAR KNG (Dutch) NAC
NI NSL OU PAU RH SWISS UNSC
Other..<name>.....
2. Leadership quality (admirals)?
Please use a 1-5 scale where 1=mostly bad leaders (abysmal who lack
training/intelligence/charisma) and 5=mostly terrific leaders (well
educated/quick thinkers/men would follow them to hell and back)
ESU FCT FSE IC IF JAP LLAR KNG (Dutch) NAC NI NSL OU PAU RH SWISS UNSC
Other..<name>.....
3. General professionalism?
Please use a 1-5 scale where 1 = vessel unlikely to accomplish unsual or
difficult tasks and 5 = pretty much do anything asked of them. ESU FCT FSE IC
IF JAP LLAR KNG (Dutch) NAC NI NSL OU PAU RH SWISS UNSC
Other..<name>.....
4. Vessel reliabilty?
Please use a 1-5 scale where 1 = board at own risk and 5 = made to last
.
ESU FCT FSE IC IF JAP LLAR KNG (Dutch) NAC NI NSL OU PAU RH SWISS UNSC
Other..<name>.....
5. Ability to make the best of opportunities (say to capitalise on anothers
mistake to get a shot in etc)?
Please use a 1-5 scale where 1 = wouldn't know an opportunity they fell
over it and 5 = give them an inch and they'll make it a golden mile. ESU FCT
FSE IC IF JAP LLAR KNG (Dutch) NAC NI NSL OU PAU RH SWISS UNSC
Other..<name>.....
Beth,
here's my twenty millieuros' worth. i'm not commenting on the Dutch, as i'd be
too tempted to uberise them. i think they're good, but not excellent; the same
sort of level as the major powers (the modern Dutch navy is pretty good, and
historically the Dutch were a great naval power).
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Beth Fulton wrote:
> FT National crew and ship characteristics:
X
> NAC
X
> NAC
X
> NAC
X
> NAC
X
> NAC
and that's yer lot. bear in mind that there are confidence limits of about 2
on all these numbers:).
peace, tom
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Tom Anderson wrote:
> Beth,
i never thought i'd say this, but...
doh! that was supposed to go just to Beth, not to the list.
anyway, nothing in there i wouldn't stand by in public, so no worries.
tom a
> Beth Fulton wrote:
Can your server handle PERL? If so, we might be able to do one for you.
In a message dated 1/9/00 5:57:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au writes:
> FT National crew and ship characteristics:
> troops (either militia or green) and 5=mostly elite crews (top of the
line,
> well trained and very experienced)
3
> NAC
> FCT
4 (good tradition)
> NAC
still count for too much)
> SWISS
3 (lacks the experience of the major powers)
> NAC
4
> NAC
3
> NAC
Enjoy.
Rob
> At 08:57 10/01/00 +1000, you wrote:
Gday Beth, I've been offline for a week or more so forgive me if some of this
is repedative, here are my thoughts on what you are asking. I've thought about
your levels in terms of percentage of each fleet that would fall into each
level.
Crew Quality. You can really see this as being the ability of the crew to make
the most of their vessel and keep it running under battle conditions. This is
mainly a function of training (its realism, its frequency etc) but is also
effected by the general education level of the crew (we are talking about a
very technical piece of equipment after all) and their professionalism and
length of service. Short term conscripts are not going to have the time to
aquire those skills. Elite crews are likely to have had combat experience.
Level 5: 20% NAC fleet, 10% NSL, 7-8% FSE (language problems), FCT
30-40%,
10% UNSC, 30-40% NI (a portion are conscripts but constantly recalled
and
retrained regularly), 2-3% OU, RH, Jap, Swiss, 3-4 "Banner" ships ESU
Note: Most of these crews would serve in small vessels which tend to see more
action than the larger fleet units.
Level 4: 30% NAC, 30-40% NSL, 30% FSE (conscription keeping it down),
60-70% NI, FCT, 20-30% UNSC, 20-25% OU,RH, JAP, Swiss, 10% PAU, IF,
LLAR, KNG, ESU (mostly large fleet units)
Level 3: Rest of NAC, NSL, FSE, UNSC, OU, RH, Jap, Swiss, KNG, 30% PAU, IF,
LLAR, ESU
Level 2: 50% PAU,ESU,IF, LLAR possibly the odd FSE ship
Level 1: Rest of PAU, ESU,IF,LLAR
Professionalism. Crew. The main thing that is likely to effect overall
professionalism is reason for being in the service. Volenteers are going to
take the whole thing much more stoically than conscripts who are thinking that
they never wanted to be here in the first place. This all ties in with basic
morale as well. Crews with high morale tend to be more professional but also
the more professional crews keep their morale longer. Level 5 crews would be
highly motivated and trained crews with a record of combat success, level 1's
would have been conscripted at gun point.
Level 5: 5-10% NSL, 5-7% NAC, 5% FSE, 20-25% NI (never again), 0% FCT
(profession of arms, whats that? go and salute yourself Sir), 2-3% OU,
Jap, Swiss, KNG and UNSC (we do things other than fight)
Level 4: 45-50% NAC, 40% NSL, NI,UNSC,OU, Jap, Swiss,KNG, 30% FSE, FCT,
5%
ESU,RH,PAU
Level 3: Rest of NAC,NSL,OU, NI,FCT,Jap,Swiss,KNG,UNSC, 45% FSE, 25%
ESU,PAU,RH, 5% LLAR, IF
Level 2: Rest of FSE,RH, 50% ESU,PAU,LLAR,IF
Level 1: rest of ESU,PAU, RH,LLAR,IF
Professionalism. Officers. The thing to consider here is that the
professionalism of the officer corp is not just about the appraoch of its
members to the profession of arms but also how up to date they are in tactical
and technical thinking about their profession. British cavalry officers at the
start of WWII were very profeesional if we just consider "soldiering" but
hopelessly out of date with tank tactics as Guderian was to show. Still even
Guderian was restrained by more senior officers who did not understand the
type of warfare he was waging, witness the famous "Stop" order. Therefore
professionalism would also drop off a bit with rank particularly in those
nations were advancement is on things other than merit (corruption, ideaology,
patronage, religous devotion etc). For example if looking at officers for
NAC,NSL,OU and ESU
Junoir Officer Ship Captain Flag Rank NAC Level 4 40% 60% 40% Level 2 10% 0 5%
(out of touch)
NSL Level 4 50% 70% 50% Level 2 0 0 5%
OU Level 4 40% 60-70%
40% level 2 10% 5% 15% (this last is based on my own experiences in the RAN
and the influence some Admirals have on their sons careers)
ESU Level 4 35% 40% 5% Level 2 25% 25% 40%
Leadership. Well this is an easy topic.(okay no more sarcasm) Military minds
have been arguing over this snice the first armies were organised. Anyway my
thought is that any nation will produce the same proportion of good and bad
leaders as any other nation. The question then is are the bad leaders weeded
out or does the system promote people on factors other than ability? Much the
same ideas as I gave for officer professionalism would apply.
Ship Reliability. This is tricky. This is partly a result of the quality of
the ships design, partly a result of ability of the crew to find a fix
problems and parlty of the "train" services being able to stock and supply
spare parts. There were some interesting rules for ship class proformance
posted quite some time back. The second part can really be determined by crew
quality. That leaves supply. Needless to say that the richer nations will far
much better here. I did like the idea that someone posted that ESU are only
3/4
as effective as NAC but should be cheaper. the missing 1/4 being the
time
the ship spends in dry/space dock having minor repairs done. I'm going
to leave this one to you.
Oppotunism. I really don't think you can quantify this in any meaningful way.
After all the ability to make the most of every oppotunity in battle is the
result of the interplay of crew and officer quality, morale, motivation and
even ship reliabilty (this is want we want to do but can the ship do it?)
Really all these other factors that you have asked about determine this one.
If you come up with rules to simulate the other factors then you will have
already dealt with this one.
Anyway I hope that some of this might be useful.
Wilko.
G'day,
Thanks for taking the time to give me a response, it looks like it'll be very
helpful thanks!
Cheers
Beth