RE: Fog of War

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Fog of War

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> RE: Fog of War

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Fog of War - 1/23/2008 10:16:36 PM

Soapy Frog

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline

Nevermind that the naval war is not realistically depicted AT ALL in EiANW (or really in base EiA).

The Light Ship fleets are just ridiculous, as such masses of frigates never operated together, moreover it does not reflect the true role of frigates and other light ships. A COMPLETE waste of time.

Ditch light fleets, return to the standard fleet setup, and then incorporate the (at least better than basic and better than EiANW) Advanced Naval rules that were published in general magazine.

(in reply to isandlwana)

Post #: 31

RE: Fog of War - 1/24/2008 1:26:19 AM

zaquex

Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline

Heard alot of complaints about the advanced rules not being much better, a bit more fun maybe. Havent played with them in any of our games so I have no real oppinion yet.

(in reply to Soapy Frog)

Post #: 32

RE: Fog of War - 1/24/2008 2:10:11 AM

Soapy Frog

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline

They are a) more fun b) more realistic (especially hulks)

Only problems are balance problems, but at the face they are a million times better than the base rules.

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 33

RE: Fog of War - 1/24/2008 3:11:01 AM

Murat

Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline

We could ask to make advanced naval an option. It involves 3 chits with the best tables and a die modifier going to the British so long as they choose 2 out of the 3 (melee and offensive line) with Nelson adding another modifier in melee arrival (it's like Outflank). If you use the EiA ships Britain gets a bigger advantage using these tables, if you use the EiH ships you may as well keep your fleets in port when at war with Britain.

(in reply to Soapy Frog)

Post #: 34

RE: Fog of War - 1/24/2008 5:29:33 AM

Soapy Frog

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline

Yes that is correct, the biggest complaint of the Advanced naval rules is the advantage it conferred Britian who would (generally) win all the battles (of course it was possible to lose anyway with bad luck, and indeed I have seen it happen, but the tables and morale differences massively favoured the Brits).

However the stratgey for beating Britian in the ANW was much the same, attrition. It was just a much less certain strategy than it is in the base rules. In the base rules, a combination of Span, France and Russia typically results in the destruction of the British fleet (if the British player is so foolish as to fight), a result absolutely carved in stone, barring incompetance. With the ANW Britain could fight it out and have some chance of success, although again the attrition and the probable loss of Nelson would result in defeat.

The problem was that, since Britain would win 80% of the battles they would get most of the hulks and the result was that they could rebuild their navy stronger for the next war at their enemies expense.

The most common solution I saw for this was to drop the British morale to 3.5 from 4 (or conversely, raise Spanish, Russian and French morale to 3.5 from 3, thus lowering the proportion of British victories... but still allowing britian a chance for survival against the Spanish-French-Russian coalition (roughly equivalent in my estimation to Frances' chances against a Prussian-Austrian-Russian-British coalition).

In any case that' s a very simple solution which actually pretty much fixes the central imbalance of the ANW (even though the rules themselves were more historically accurate; Britian could not reasonably be challenged on the seas after Trafalgar, that's not exactly FUN!).

IMHO a more complex solution would be adding chits to the mix as I have seen with other variants, that return the rock-paper-scissors challenge that makes land battles so interesting to fight.

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 35

RE: Fog of War - 1/24/2008 7:17:37 AM

zaquex

Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline

The problem with chits or anything that adds more mail exchanges is that it makes the game even slower and even longer.

I would be very careful to use the advanced rules together with the possibility of economic manipulation as it makes GB a next to sure winner.

(in reply to Soapy Frog)

Post #: 36

RE: Fog of War - 1/24/2008 5:23:57 PM

Soapy Frog

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zaquex

The problem with chits or anything that adds more mail exchanges is that it makes the game even slower and even longer.

Don't much care about this, the fault actually lies with the PBEM implementation in any case. I'd rather just have better naval rules available.

quote:

I would be very careful to use the advanced rules together with the possibility of economic manipulation as it makes GB a next to sure winner.

This is not true anyway, GB did not suddenly start winning every game when our FTF groups started using the ANW (even before we added any balancing modifications).

The one thing that DID happen when we started using the ANW; the game got a LOT more fun for naval powers.

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 37

RE: Fog of War - 1/25/2008 12:05:00 AM

zaquex

Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

This is not true anyway, GB did not suddenly start winning every game when our FTF groups started using the ANW (even before we added any balancing modifications).

Anyone in your group tried "wooden walls"?

(in reply to Soapy Frog)

Post #: 38

RE: Fog of War - 1/25/2008 7:15:26 AM

Soapy Frog

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline

Not sure I catch the reference.

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 39

RE: Fog of War - 1/25/2008 9:19:00 AM

zaquex

Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline

The woodenwall is a potentially game�breaking tactics that can be used by GB.

In short,�at anytime GB reaches�10 vp on the political standings table, he starts to use +2pp economic manipulation, builds a "wooden wall" of ships to protect himself,�and then basicly, by diplomacy,�by using GB's ability to deduct VP and if needed as final measure by force, make sure that�no other power�meet its�victory conditions.

If GB goes for this strategy early or early-midgame it takes a�massive�naval coalition to stop GB from winning. GB is somewhat more vulnerable at the start of the game. Without any provision for combined naval movement it might be impossible to stop GB from winning. This is�probably the most important reasons why many/some game groups�choose�to play�without economic manipulation.

Its utterly boring especially as GB in this case plays for status que, but seems to be effective. Unless you decide to stop GB by ganging up on him early, something you make it sound like you tend to do in your group.

< Message edited by zaquex -- 1/25/2008 10:03:10 AM >

(in reply to Soapy Frog)

Post #: 40

RE: Fog of War - 1/25/2008 6:10:45 PM

megalomania2003

Posts: 55
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline

The "wooden walls" strategy from GB is to be expected (he is playing to win) if he gets the chance. In my gaming group we used a house rule allowing the other nations to subtract PP from GB if a sufficiently large continental embargo dould be established, and we did not allow GB to subtract VP's

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 41

RE: Fog of War - 1/25/2008 6:23:06 PM

isandlwana

Posts: 30
Joined: 1/16/2008
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

When I played GB this was my basic strategy --it worked 9/10 times. Boring but sure to win---

(in reply to megalomania2003)

Post #: 42

RE: Fog of War - 1/25/2008 6:59:05 PM

Soapy Frog

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline

Yes that is correct GB is commonly cut down early in the game by a Spanish-French-Russian coalition, although with the ANW and British Naval morale reduced to 3.5 this became less of a pressing need.

Countering the British "go it alone" stargetgy requires the other players to actually cooperate. In a good group, the signs of Britain attempting the strategy will be spotted early and the necessary steps taken.

(in reply to isandlwana)

Post #: 43

RE: Fog of War - 1/25/2008 9:55:27 PM

baboune

Posts: 121
Joined: 6/1/2003
Status: offline

Which is why it is critical to have a good knowledge of the different countries sihp building activities easily

< Message edited by baboune -- 1/25/2008 9:56:01 PM >

(in reply to Soapy Frog)

Post #: 44

RE: Fog of War - 1/25/2008 10:08:06 PM

AresMars

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline

I don't see why you say that the "Wooden Wall" tactic is game breaking?

It forces the Naval powers to build ships and work against England...something England does not want...

[ 8.1 ]THE VICTORY POINTS STEP from the EiA rules was very clear about someone gets the VP total or GB wins.....

Quote:

8.1.2 POSSIBLE BRITISH CHANGE IN VICTORY POINTS: The British player has the option of spending up to one third of the victory points he gained this step to subtract that same number of victory points from the total victory points of any ONE major power with which Great Britain is currently at war. This is done instead of Great Britain gaining those victory points.

8.1.3 HOW TO WIN A GAME: During the Victory Points Step of a game's final Turn, or possibly sooner, a victor is determined.

8.1.3.1 SCENARIO VICTORY: Each scenario has its own victory conditions (see the individual scenarios in 13.0) and the victory determination systems are different from those used for campaign games.

8.1.3.2 CAMPAIGN VICTORY: Victory points are collected during each Victory Points Step (see 8. 1). In the campaign games, the first player(s) to obtain enough total victory points to reach or exceed his major power's victory level and announce this fact (it does not have to be announced at the first opportunity) is a winner. If two or more major powers have reached or exceeded their victory levels simultaneously, those major powers are cowinners. Players may not transfer victory points to each other. If no player reaches the required victory level by the end of a campaign game, Great Britain wins.

Also Economic Manipulation (EM) works for everyone.....not just England....

(in reply to baboune)

Post #: 45

RE: Fog of War - 1/26/2008 1:45:01 PM

iamspamus

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline

This similiar to how I played Spain. 2 or 3 corps, best general, all ships, and full garrison in Cadiz. Any attacks (such as Portugal or Morocco) done with the remainder. Garrison of one unit in each capital. My "fleets" used for supply or sailing around had 1 point factors. (We figured that this was the warship and anynumber of transport ships were with them.)

So, from that point, got money from FR for "ships". Got money from GB for "cav". Expanded a bit in N Africa and waited for the right time to either jump France or GB. Eco Manipulation to the fullest. It's a bit boring, but I was way out in front once.

Basically, my thinking on Spain is that you are a major power as long as you have a fleet. Similar to Turkey is a major power as long as they have a lot of thos provinces that produce feudal corps.

In my EIANW game, as Russia, I've taken Anatolia, Syria, Bulgaria and Rumelia (as well as others) from the Turk. He's not a happy camper. And last turn Aug 1808 or so, I fought the SP fleets in N Sea with my combined Swedish-Danish-Dutch-Russian fleet and drove them into the German state just north of Holland with a port which they had just taken from Austria. I followed up with a blockade and then a city assault...bye, bye fleet. Too baad since they were the lackeys of the Brits . My ally Nap is waiting across the channel from London, but alas has no few ships himself.

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: megalomania2003

The "wooden walls" strategy from GB is to be expected (he is playing to win) if he gets the chance. In my gaming group we used a house rule allowing the other nations to subtract PP from GB if a sufficiently large continental embargo dould be established, and we did not allow GB to subtract VP's

(in reply to megalomania2003)

Post #: 46

RE: Fog of War - 1/30/2008 4:32:38 PM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DodgyDave

sorry, how will TCP/IP work this better then now? saw some refer too it at times, but dont understand it.

Essentially because that is how the board game is played. How does that not make sense to you? Or did you play the board game via snail mail?

When I played the board game, back in the day, we always set a time to play (maybe once a week or once every two weeks) for a few hours and we would all get together around the gaming table. Strange concept huh?

My guess is that TCP/IP wasn't implemented due to difficulty.

(in reply to DodgyDave)

Post #: 47

RE: Fog of War - 1/30/2008 6:08:03 PM

Murat

Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: DodgyDave

sorry, how will TCP/IP work this better then now? saw some refer too it at times, but dont understand it.

Essentially because that is how the board game is played. How does that not make sense to you? Or did you play the board game via snail mail?

When I played the board game, back in the day, we always set a time to play (maybe once a week or once every two weeks) for a few hours and we would all get together around the gaming table. Strange concept huh?

My guess is that TCP/IP wasn't implemented due to difficulty.

Again, you were a playtester, you should know this answer not be guessing. I think what Dave really wanted to know was how TCP/IP worked so that it would actually make PBEM run smoother as opposed to the current system of emails/groups. Short answer is that it would allow phases to be resolved with everyone on line at the same time leading to a faster game.

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 48

RE: Fog of War - 1/30/2008 7:37:58 PM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: DodgyDave

sorry, how will TCP/IP work this better then now? saw some refer too it at times, but dont understand it.

Essentially because that is how the board game is played. How does that not make sense to you? Or did you play the board game via snail mail?

When I played the board game, back in the day, we always set a time to play (maybe once a week or once every two weeks) for a few hours and we would all get together around the gaming table. Strange concept huh?

My guess is that TCP/IP wasn't implemented due to difficulty.

Again, you were a playtester, you should know this answer not be guessing. I think what Dave really wanted to know was how TCP/IP worked so that it would actually make PBEM run smoother as opposed to the current system of emails/groups. Short answer is that it would allow phases to be resolved with everyone on line at the same time leading to a faster game.

Once again if you actually read my posts you would know that I never got a chance to playtest. I really wish you would get your head out of your ass and read people's posts before replying to them and jumping all over them. It just makes you look ignorant.

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 49

RE: Fog of War - 1/30/2008 10:19:27 PM

Murat

Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline

And I quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
...when I became a betatester...

Feel free to reread your own post that I got that from and identify the word 'NEVER' (it's not there, feel free to edit though).

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 50

RE: Fog of War - 1/31/2008 12:10:15 AM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

And I quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL:� NeverMan
...when I became a betatester...

Feel free to reread your own post that I got that from and identify the word 'NEVER' (it's not there, feel free to edit though).

Yep, I say "BETATESTER": one who is given the opportunity to test the beta release. I NEVER got a chance to actually do any testing. I'm not going to keep repeating myself because I don't have the time to argue semantics with half-wits.

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 51

RE: Fog of War - 1/31/2008 5:23:54 PM

Thresh

Posts: 393
Joined: 12/25/2006
From: KCMO
Status: offline

quote:

Yep, I say "BETATESTER": one who is given the opportunity to test the beta release. I NEVER got a chance to actually do any testing. I'm not going to keep repeating myself because I don't have the time to argue semantics with half-wits.

All evidence to the contrary....

In one of my PbEM games, the GM lived in Brunei. Myself and two players lived in the US, one on the East Coast, one on the west cost, me in mid America. The french player live in Britain, the British player lived in Germany, The Russian player lived in Saudi Arabia.

So, when exactly were we all supposed to get together for some TCP/IP play?

Todd

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 52

RE: Fog of War - 1/31/2008 5:31:09 PM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thresh

All evidence to the contrary....

In one of my PbEM games, the GM lived in Brunei. Myself and two players lived in the US, one on the East Coast, one on the west cost, me in mid America. The french player live in Britain, the British player lived in Germany, The Russian player lived in Saudi Arabia.

So, when exactly were we all supposed to get together for some TCP/IP play?

Todd

I have no clue.

In one of my games, all of the players lived in the same time zone. So, why exactly can't we all get together for a TCP/IP game?

You see, it doesn't have to be a either/or thing. It can be a "both" thing. Why not have PBEM AND (it's a big word "and") TCP/IP play?

I, it's a personal thing and you certainly don't have to agree which you obviously don't, think that for $70 MatrixGames could have, no in fact should have, implemented BOTH.

(in reply to Thresh)

Post #: 53

RE: Fog of War - 1/31/2008 5:43:35 PM

Murat

Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thresh
In one of my PbEM games, the GM lived in Brunei. Myself and two players lived in the US, one on the East Coast, one on the west cost, me in mid America. The french player live in Britain, the British player lived in Germany, The Russian player lived in Saudi Arabia.

So, when exactly were we all supposed to get together for some TCP/IP play?

Todd

Good situation here that can still benefit from TCP/IP. Battle file exchanges can take a long time (Att chit pick, Def chit pick, Att 1st round resolution & loss removal, Def 1st round loss removal & 2nd round resolution & loss removal, etc. * days + pursuit with a 24 hour turn around time between emails) by email but if the 2 combatants can arrange a mutually convenient time they can knock out the battle in a few minutes.

(in reply to Thresh)

Post #: 54

RE: Fog of War - 1/31/2008 10:01:51 PM

isandlwana

Posts: 30
Joined: 1/16/2008
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

Everyone complaining about a GB advantage should remember history--The game is designed to reflect history as much as possible otherwise everyone would start out equals. The ANW are an improvement and still maintain an advantage for GB. This is because in history the Fr and Sp were sorry to say pretty pathetic at both naval tactics and in maintaining a professional navy...in fact in the 1790s the revolutionaries guillotined most of the Fr professional navy who were part of the nobility and promoted many "sans cullottes" into officer positions with little or no experience--because of long periods of enforced idleness the Fr and Sp fleets were poorly trained and would only sally forth in perfect weather notoriously avoiding contrary weather or the possibility of a fight. Remember that even when significantly outgunned very few ship and or fleet actions were considered to have gone against the Brits. You all are whining much as Napoleon whined to Villeneuve and the French Marine Directorate. EVen the Lille crossing is kind of inaccurate in that it falsely elevates the chance of a channel crossing something that while planned remained impossible due to weather and inability of the French to break out of blockaded ports. Even Nappy finally gave up and sent his army into Russia.....another BRILLIANT move!!!!