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: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...???

 
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 >> Tech Support >> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/27/2008 1:00:35 AM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

Ray belive me, GB does not need that bonus, currently there are no evasion rules.
So GB is the still the favorite naval nation with or without Heavy ship bonus.
This is why i dont see this as a big issue, not even when i played GB in a pbm game.


Regards
Bresh

So, the answer is that one bad rule cancels out the other one?

I can go for that, but then that requires that when the one is fixed, the other should be, too. At the same time, since they are balancing things now.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 31
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/27/2008 1:07:16 AM   
RayKinStL

 

Posts: 130
Joined: 7/4/2008
Status: offline 		Thank you for the support Jimmer.  I was starting to feel like I was the only one that saw the stupidity in how conflicting this set of rules are and how inconsistent it is.  Hopefully Marshall keeps reading this thread and realizes that it is not right and chooses to do something about it.  I simply don't see the problem in giving GB a +2 if he earned it, and just having a modified 6 be the highest roll he can get.  They do this with the wind gauge already.  Despite the fact that GB can get higher than a 6, it modifies to a 6 regardless.  Just treat the combat the same may, but make the max modified a 6 or 7.  Technically 6 and 7 are the same, since both create 25% damage, so in a sense, a post-modified 6 is really the highest you can get, so what difference does it make it GB could potentially roll an 8.  An 8 or a 7 would still be treated the same as 6.  Makes no sense.  Guess people just like inconsistency in their games.

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 32
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/27/2008 3:42:53 AM   
eske

 

Posts: 258
Joined: 1/2/2008
Status: offline 		The important difference is not if GB's max. roll is 7 or 8. The important difference is if GB's min. roll is 1,2 or 3. That decides the size of GB's minimum effective blocking fleet, and thus how many ships he needs to contain France.

The question is not if a max of +2 is consistent or "earned". It is more if it keeps the game balanced or not. Maybe it should be +3 ??

/eske

_____________________________

Alea iacta est

(in reply to RayKinStL)
Post #: 33
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/27/2008 4:24:59 AM   
RayKinStL

 

Posts: 130
Joined: 7/4/2008
Status: offline 		for a blockade...if GB is willing to commit enough ships to maintain a heavy adavantage of 1.5, then I say she deserves the multiplier.  Think about it.  Against France, she would have to dedicate 59 of her 76 ships to get that advantage.  That leaves her with 17 heavies AND she still would need to blockade the Holland fleets and maintain channel preseence!  So while I appreicate your sarcasm about the "+3", my answer would be yes, GB does deserve the modifier if she is willing to committ the forces necessary to gain that advantage.  But I'll make the debate even easier for you eske....answer 1 question...

If it is considered to be such a naval advantage to have heavy superiority that Matrix deems such an advantage deserves a +1 modifier on the combat resolution table, why should every country get that advantage but GB? What is your justification that GB does not get to take advantage of this rule? Answer this will a reasonable, logical response, and I will drop the debate!

Plus remember, the more heavies GB dedicates to blockading to have the 1.5 advantage, the less she has for transporting troops to gobble up minors.  This is a MAJOR trade off.  So, yes, if you ask me, giving GB a +2 modifier if she shifts her forces such that she has a heavy superiority, still maintains the balance, as there is always a trade off for doing this...in this case, the trade off being the inability to transport more troops/corps around the map! And given the long build time, and the limited resources if GB is unable to gobble up coastal minors, this would be a major consideration. The balance would definitely still exist. If anything, it adds more skill to GB, in figuring out the exact best way to delve out her ships, expecially if France chooses a multi-port set up.

< Message edited by RayKinStL -- 8/27/2008 4:34:24 AM >

(in reply to eske)
Post #: 34
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/27/2008 11:12:09 AM   
eske

 

Posts: 258
Joined: 1/2/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL
for a blockade...if GB is willing to commit enough ships to maintain a heavy adavantage of 1.5, then I say she deserves the multiplier.  Think about it.  Against France, she would have to dedicate 59 of her 76 ships to get that advantage.  That leaves her with 17 heavies AND she still would need to blockade the Holland fleets and maintain channel preseence!  So while I appreicate your sarcasm about the "+3", my answer would be yes, GB does deserve the modifier if she is willing to committ the forces necessary to gain that advantage. 

I do not see why a players decision to use his nations forces in a certain way should earn him an extra rules bonus.
quote:


But I'll make the debate even easier for you eske....answer 1 question...

If it is considered to be such a naval advantage to have heavy superiority that Matrix deems such an advantage deserves a +1 modifier on the combat resolution table, why should every country get that advantage but GB? What is your justification that GB does not get to take advantage of this rule? Answer this will a reasonable, logical response, and I will drop the debate!

I'll ask a perfectly logical counterquestion: Why does a single rule has to give the same advantage to every nation, when there are lots of rules in EiA(NW) that does not? In my view this rule is made explicitely to make the life of GB harder, making it possible for GB to lose his general +1 advantage.
quote:


Plus remember, the more heavies GB dedicates to blockading to have the 1.5 advantage, the less she has for transporting troops to gobble up minors.  This is a MAJOR trade off.  So, yes, if you ask me, giving GB a +2 modifier if she shifts her forces such that she has a heavy superiority, still maintains the balance, as there is always a trade off for doing this...in this case, the trade off being the inability to transport more troops/corps around the map! And given the long build time, and the limited resources if GB is unable to gobble up coastal minors, this would be a major consideration. The balance would definitely still exist. If anything, it adds more skill to GB, in figuring out the exact best way to delve out her ships, expecially if France chooses a multi-port set up.

I agree with you. It is very hard to decide how to blockade the french fleets. But needing more skill to play a nation is not an argument for giving that nation advantages. As I recall it, GB more or less has to give France a 1 in 6 chance to break out in average. Specially if he wants to be able to transport troops with more than his transport fleet (which is ok for invading France). Except of course if France does GB the favor of puttting all ships in one port.

But to get back to the point, where is the game balance in this. At the risque of being regarded a EiA purist (I'm not - really) I would say EiA is the only possible comparison there is. The overall picture goes something like this (without going to deep into the math):

In EiA GB has 7 fleets to block 4 franch + holland leaving him 2 propably very small fleets for transporting purposes. Using 10 factors pr fleet optional gives a transport capacity of 20inf/cav. (Using 1 factor pr. fleet factor gives less). If one of the fleet minors goes to France GB can almost hold the fort. If anything more goes to France GB cannot expect to maintain his blockades.

In EiANW - using max. +1 math - GB has 8 (I think) LtS fleets in addition to the 7 HS fleets. That is so many there is no point in counting anything but ships. To aviod France getting HS bonus GB only needs 2/3 times the number of french HS, 26 plus 1 for each blockaded french HS fleet. Counting Holland say 32. But to get the total "Anything but a GB roll of 1 holds the blockade" situation you need the number of blockaded ships plus a third. France plus Holland is 79. GB needs 104, leaving 29, which can all be HS, since you anly need 32 of those. GB transport capacity now is 42 factors, when you add 10 for the transport. Way more than in EiA. AND you got sufficient ships to fully control any one minor France may get. Also better than EiA even though yet a minor fleet controlled by France does present a problem.

So why is it GB deserves a +2 ??

/eske

_____________________________

Alea iacta est

(in reply to RayKinStL)
Post #: 35
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/27/2008 11:59:14 AM   
GShock


Posts: 1245
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline 		Eske, sorry to jump into the discussion but both points are good to a prophane eye like mine.

How do the EiA rules treat this issue?



(in reply to eske)
Post #: 36
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/27/2008 1:46:09 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GShock

Eske, sorry to jump into the discussion but both points are good to a prophane eye like mine.

How do the EiA rules treat this issue?





Heavy/Light ships are from EIH, not EIA.
I have never read the EIH rules, so cant say how they dealt with it.
So EIA does not have this issue.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to GShock)
Post #: 37
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/27/2008 1:48:57 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		Well, we are definitely in some fuzzy territory.

Original EiA does not address this simply because they do not have heavies and lights so there are no heavy bonuses. Std EiA would only have a +1 if your side had a British fleet. It does not address this because it did not need to.

HOWEVER:

EiH V3.0 clearly allows more than a +1 mod BUT this is not quite apples to apples since their combat system is much different (Chits are selected, etc) so these mods could be a lot less destructive.

I could conclude from reading this thread that a +2 mod would be in line IMO. I would still obviously only allow a max net roll of "7".

Does this sound acceptable?





_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to GShock)
Post #: 38
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/27/2008 3:38:43 PM   
KenClark

 

Posts: 87
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline 		Just because people scream loudly doesn't make it balanced. Does Britain really need a +2 in every naval battle it's going to fight? I don't think it does. Since Britain could have an all-light fleet and still get a +1 against a foreign fleet that is a very big advantage. If Britain wants to deny the other side a +1 it sends in the heavies. Given that in a 1-on-1 fight Britain is likely to have a significant heavy advantage anyway, I don't think it's a good idea.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 39
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/27/2008 6:16:33 PM   
sw30

 

Posts: 410
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: San Francisco, CA
Status: offline 		Please tell me you guys are kidding.  It's already bad enough with the permanent +1 and no evasion, you're proposing a possible +2? and free up more?  When you can get to a point where GB can blockade FR and SP at the same time, are you finally going to be happy?

Giving a net +2 is like giving Nappy the +1 for tactical bonus, his opponent a -1 for beign a sucky general, and another +1 (net +2) for cav superiority.  It's bad enough for the first two, and you want to pile on the third?  I mean, why even bother rolling the die?


_____________________________


(in reply to KenClark)
Post #: 40
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/27/2008 6:58:47 PM   
RayKinStL

 

Posts: 130
Joined: 7/4/2008
Status: offline 		Some of you are amazing.  Take the heavy modifier out then.  My point is that it simply is not fair.  I don't care whether I am GB or not.  It makes absolutely no logical sense that every country gets a +1 mod for having a heavy superiority but GB.  Just stop and think about the rule from a logical standpoint...

Matrix says that in naval warfare, a admiral going into battle with 1.5x heavies had such a numerical advantage over his adversary that such an advantage on the board would warrant a modification to damage in the form of a +1 modifier on the combat resolution table.  I agree with this.  It makes sense.  Maybe the rule should be tweaked to 2x heavies instead of 1.5x?  I don't know.  But regardless, you can NOT have this rule, then tell GB that it does not apply to you since you already have a +1 modifier for your navy being the best-trained and most-discplined of that era.  It is inconsistent and logically erroneous.

I am not advocating that GB MUST get a +2 modifier.  I am open to other suggestions, such as changing the amount of heavies necessary to achieve this modifier, or doing away with it altogether.  The point is, you can not make a blanket rule like the heavy superiority one, and then tell one country that they have no way of taking advantage of it.  Either heavy superiority means you do more damage or it doesn't.  It really is that simple!

(in reply to sw30)
Post #: 41
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/27/2008 7:22:00 PM   
NeverMan

 

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

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL

Some of you are amazing.  Take the heavy modifier out then.  My point is that it simply is not fair.  I don't care whether I am GB or not.  It makes absolutely no logical sense that every country gets a +1 mod for having a heavy superiority but GB.  Just stop and think about the rule from a logical standpoint...

Matrix says that in naval warfare, a admiral going into battle with 1.5x heavies had such a numerical advantage over his adversary that such an advantage on the board would warrant a modification to damage in the form of a +1 modifier on the combat resolution table.  I agree with this.  It makes sense.  Maybe the rule should be tweaked to 2x heavies instead of 1.5x?  I don't know.  But regardless, you can NOT have this rule, then tell GB that it does not apply to you since you already have a +1 modifier for your navy being the best-trained and most-discplined of that era.  It is inconsistent and logically erroneous.

I am not advocating that GB MUST get a +2 modifier.  I am open to other suggestions, such as changing the amount of heavies necessary to achieve this modifier, or doing away with it altogether.  The point is, you can not make a blanket rule like the heavy superiority one, and then tell one country that they have no way of taking advantage of it.  Either heavy superiority means you do more damage or it doesn't.  It really is that simple!


I think there can be a point where the advantages get saturated. That is, that after a +1 type-advantage maybe anymore advantage is really useless.

Also, if you wanted to make it interesting, I think rather than giving GB +2 for this (since the most you can roll is a 7) why not give it's enemies a -1?

(in reply to RayKinStL)
Post #: 42
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/27/2008 8:07:32 PM   
Murat


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

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL

Some of you are amazing.  Take the heavy modifier out then.  My point is that it simply is not fair.  I don't care whether I am GB or not.  It makes absolutely no logical sense that every country gets a +1 mod for having a heavy superiority but GB.  Just stop and think about the rule from a logical standpoint...

Matrix says that in naval warfare, a admiral going into battle with 1.5x heavies had such a numerical advantage over his adversary that such an advantage on the board would warrant a modification to damage in the form of a +1 modifier on the combat resolution table.  I agree with this.  It makes sense.  Maybe the rule should be tweaked to 2x heavies instead of 1.5x?  I don't know.  But regardless, you can NOT have this rule, then tell GB that it does not apply to you since you already have a +1 modifier for your navy being the best-trained and most-discplined of that era.  It is inconsistent and logically erroneous.

I am not advocating that GB MUST get a +2 modifier.  I am open to other suggestions, such as changing the amount of heavies necessary to achieve this modifier, or doing away with it altogether.  The point is, you can not make a blanket rule like the heavy superiority one, and then tell one country that they have no way of taking advantage of it.  Either heavy superiority means you do more damage or it doesn't.  It really is that simple!


I think there can be a point where the advantages get saturated. That is, that after a +1 type-advantage maybe anymore advantage is really useless.

Also, if you wanted to make it interesting, I think rather than giving GB +2 for this (since the most you can roll is a 7) why not give it's enemies a -1?


RAY

Heavy modifier is basically for France and Spain. They were major navies at this time and should have an advantage against the other MPs, just like Prussia and Austria who were not navally focused have a disadvantage. The French and the Spanish could (and did) defeat the British in naval battles, but it required an advantage to overcome British training, in this case a 1.5X advantage in heavies under the rules nullifies, not overcomes British training. EiH has the max +1 modifier in naval battles - it was designed that way intentionally (+2 is only for interceptions by Nelson, NOT for combat resolution). You can do a bunch of rule modifications to fit 'what ifs' - "what if Nappy applied his advanced training skills to fleet operations? we should remove the british training bonus from the rules" but in the end play balance and game design gave us the current rules. If you do not like them, then you do not have to play. If you want the +2 bonus for British fleets then give all French forces a +1 training modifier to recognize their land superiority and allow a max of +2 for the French in combat - no one will play.

NEVERMAN

What about the already existing -1 for Prussia/Austria?

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 43
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/27/2008 9:18:59 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL

for a blockade...if GB is willing to commit enough ships to maintain a heavy adavantage of 1.5, then I say she deserves the multiplier.  Think about it.  Against France, she would have to dedicate 59 of her 76 ships to get that advantage.

Actually, she would need more than 59, assuming France is not an idiot. All France has to do to maximize GB's needed heavy count is to use an odd number of heavies in each force. For example:

France uses 4 fleets of 7 heavy ships and one fleet of 11 (the lights don't matter for this purpose).

GB must blockade the fleets that have 7 ships with 11 each in order to hit 1.5x (10 is only ~1.42). The fleet of 11 must be blockaded by 17 ships. That adds up to 61 heavies needed.

By the way, as a tip for French players setting up out there: Even under the current rules, there is yet another version of this calculation: France should always try to have his heavy ships laid out in odd multiples of 3. The reason for this is that GB needs to prevent France from getting the +1 for heavy 1.5x ratio. Any multiple of 3 allows for an integer to be the value 2/3 (the inverse of 3/2 or 1.5). So, a fleet of 9h blockaded by 6h grants the +1 to the force in port. GB must, therefore, place at least 7h into that port's blockade box.

The reason for it having to be odd is in case this current discussion bears fruit in the "GB should get +2" discussion. Otherwise, any multiple of 3 will work.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to RayKinStL)
Post #: 44
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/27/2008 9:36:39 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
I could conclude from reading this thread that a +2 mod would be in line IMO. I would still obviously only allow a max net roll of "7".

Does this sound acceptable?

Yes.

Actually, don't change the code for this, but the maximum effective roll only needs to be a six, because the tables are the same for the two rolls. So, whether you are using +1 max or +2 max, if you cap the actual die total at 6, the end result is the same as with a 7.

As Neverman (I think) pointed out, the real value of +2 (and +1, for that matter) is at the bottom end of the scale. GB cannot roll a modified 1. Therefore, his minimum damage is 10%. If the rule changes to +2, then his minimum modified roll is a 3, and his minimum damage is 15%. THAT is where it really comes into play.

However, having played GB more than all other countries combined (nobody ever wants to bid high enough, so I get stuck with it), I can say I'm not sure I would focus on the 1.5 bonus so much as preventing the France from getting it. I'll use Holland as an example:

Holland has 13h and 6l. To gain 100% victory odds (the best kind), GB needs to kill 4 ships. With the +1, she requires 35 ships for this. With +2, she requires 22. She saves 13 total ships, but 20 of them have to be heavy (13 more than she would otherwise have to commit). I probably wouldn't do this at all ports. Saving 26 light ships at the expense of 13 extra heavy ships is non-obvious whether that's a good idea or not. It would depend a lot on who my allies were. If I wind up in a war with Spain, I'ld better have those heavy fleets available to fight.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 45
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/27/2008 9:39:25 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sw30
When you can get to a point where GB can blockade FR and SP at the same time, are you finally going to be happy?

That WOULD be more historical, but no, I'm not arguing for that. Straw arguments are easily defeated. Try better ones next time.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to sw30)
Post #: 46
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/27/2008 9:48:42 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL
Matrix says that in naval warfare, a admiral going into battle with 1.5x heavies had such a numerical advantage over his adversary that such an advantage on the board would warrant a modification to damage in the form of a +1 modifier on the combat resolution table.  I agree with this.  It makes sense.  ...  But regardless, you can NOT have this rule, then tell GB that it does not apply to you since you already have a +1 modifier for your navy being the best-trained and most-discplined of that era.  It is inconsistent and logically erroneous.

This is a good point. VERY good point, in fact (although, you've been saying it all along; not many have been listening to you, and even I -- who agrees with you -- missed this one).

What should happen if the BEST sailors in the world also happen to have 50% more ships-of-the-line in a particular battle than does its opponent? GB crushed the French and Spanish outmanned and outgunned by nearly 25% (calculated both ways: Total ships or SotLs only). What one earth would have happened if GB had had, say, 50-60 SotLs and a smaller number of Frigates?

+2 makes even more sense to me now. Consider me back in the debate. :)

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to RayKinStL)
Post #: 47
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/27/2008 9:56:12 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat
Heavy modifier is basically for France and Spain. They were major navies at this time and should have an advantage against the other MPs, just like Prussia and Austria who were not navally focused have a disadvantage. The French and the Spanish could (and did) defeat the British in naval battles, but it required an advantage to overcome British training, in this case a 1.5X advantage in heavies under the rules nullifies, not overcomes British training. EiH has the max +1 modifier in naval battles - it was designed that way intentionally (+2 is only for interceptions by Nelson, NOT for combat resolution). You can do a bunch of rule modifications to fit 'what ifs' - "what if Nappy applied his advanced training skills to fleet operations? we should remove the british training bonus from the rules" but in the end play balance and game design gave us the current rules. If you do not like them, then you do not have to play. If you want the +2 bonus for British fleets then give all French forces a +1 training modifier to recognize their land superiority and allow a max of +2 for the French in combat - no one will play.

That doesn't answer his challenge. Answer this: What would have happened in a real, historical (1805-1815) naval battle if the British had 50% more ships-of-the-line than her opponents?

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 48
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/28/2008 1:11:57 AM   
RayKinStL

 

Posts: 130
Joined: 7/4/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL

Some of you are amazing.  Take the heavy modifier out then.  My point is that it simply is not fair.  I don't care whether I am GB or not.  It makes absolutely no logical sense that every country gets a +1 mod for having a heavy superiority but GB.  Just stop and think about the rule from a logical standpoint...

Matrix says that in naval warfare, a admiral going into battle with 1.5x heavies had such a numerical advantage over his adversary that such an advantage on the board would warrant a modification to damage in the form of a +1 modifier on the combat resolution table.  I agree with this.  It makes sense.  Maybe the rule should be tweaked to 2x heavies instead of 1.5x?  I don't know.  But regardless, you can NOT have this rule, then tell GB that it does not apply to you since you already have a +1 modifier for your navy being the best-trained and most-discplined of that era.  It is inconsistent and logically erroneous.

I am not advocating that GB MUST get a +2 modifier.  I am open to other suggestions, such as changing the amount of heavies necessary to achieve this modifier, or doing away with it altogether.  The point is, you can not make a blanket rule like the heavy superiority one, and then tell one country that they have no way of taking advantage of it.  Either heavy superiority means you do more damage or it doesn't.  It really is that simple!


I think there can be a point where the advantages get saturated. That is, that after a +1 type-advantage maybe anymore advantage is really useless.

Also, if you wanted to make it interesting, I think rather than giving GB +2 for this (since the most you can roll is a 7) why not give it's enemies a -1?


Neverman, as I said, I am totally open to suggestions and this is a good suggestion. Are you suggesting this would be a special case for GB, or that we change the heavy rule so that it modifies the enemies roll -1? Either suggestion is a good one. It maintains the consistency I desire. If you could expand on your idea, I am all ears.

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 49
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/28/2008 1:29:45 AM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline 		Ray, I was suggesting the -1 only for (against) GB. All other MPs would get a +1 for 1.5x heavies.

(in reply to RayKinStL)
Post #: 50
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/28/2008 2:27:40 AM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Ray, I was suggesting the -1 only for (against) GB. All other MPs would get a +1 for 1.5x heavies.


Neverman thats the worst joke i read on boards so far.
GB has +1-+2 Wind Gauge, +1 Always in combat.
And you wish to add -1 to his opponent ??? GB was not invincible on the sea, they lost sea battles..


Ray, i think you should accept +1 as the max battle-modifier.
Maybe you should think playing some other Nation.

Regard
Bresh

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 51
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/28/2008 2:42:52 AM   
RayKinStL

 

Posts: 130
Joined: 7/4/2008
Status: offline 		Bresh.  Multiple people agree with my arguement.  I am sorry you don't share the same opinion.  If you want to make a logical arguement, pertaining to the specific rule, and why it is not inconsistent or illogical, I am all ears.  If you choose to attack me with the arguement that "I should accept" simply because that is the opinion you hold, you can shove it.  I have no problem playing any other nation, and I still would fully support GB getting all applicable modifiers, whether I am France, Spain, or any other major power.  I thought NeverMan's suggestion was a good one.  Marshall, your thoughts?

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 52
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/28/2008 2:52:38 AM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL

Bresh.  Multiple people agree with my arguement.  I am sorry you don't share the same opinion.  If you want to make a logical arguement, pertaining to the specific rule, and why it is not inconsistent or illogical, I am all ears.  If you choose to attack me with the arguement that "I should accept" simply because that is the opinion you hold, you can shove it.  I have no problem playing any other nation, and I still would fully support GB getting all applicable modifiers, whether I am France, Spain, or any other major power.  I thought NeverMan's suggestion was a good one.  Marshall, your thoughts?


Multiple people agree, ehm thats no argument, i can say excactly the same.

Im 100% against -1 to all vs GB thats a big game destroying rule.
Your arguments where mathematical, so you should see this is a bad road to go, decreasing GB Naval risk by aprox 16%. Game balance is ****ed by such changes.
EIANW favors GB more than in EIA at the current situation.
You cant talk inconsistency and forget game balance.

I have nothing personal against you.


Regards
Bresh

< Message edited by bresh -- 8/28/2008 11:00:50 AM >

(in reply to RayKinStL)
Post #: 53
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/28/2008 3:15:29 AM   
RayKinStL

 

Posts: 130
Joined: 7/4/2008
Status: offline 		OK, well I am done with this arguement.  I can no longer restate my logic and reasoning (I've only done it like 5 times).  All I keep hearing form those that oppose the idea is that they are worried about GB being too dominant at sea (as if she has anything else!), and they ignore debating any of the logic I present.  Therefor they are either choosing to ignore my post (in which case I have no dsire to argue with you then) or they simply can't refute it.  Marshall, I believe this is a major inconsistency, and I ask that you change it.  If anyone wants to argue it, please go make your own thread as to why you think it's wrong, and I'll be sure to avoid it. 

Marshall, I have laid out all my reasoning and logic in this thread, and I don't think you can truthfully disagree with it.  I am open to ideas and suggestions to rid the game of this inconsistency.  NeverMan's suggestion was a good one.  I'd love to hear your opinions and thoughts on the subject.

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 54
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/28/2008 12:49:47 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL

Marshall, the classic scenario wouldn't have to address this since there is no heavy/light distinction.  This is peculiar to the EiANW rules.


Ray:

That's what I meant by the classic scenario addressing this (Only one ship type).
We're on the same page.



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to RayKinStL)
Post #: 55
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/28/2008 2:23:20 PM   
eske

 

Posts: 258
Joined: 1/2/2008
Status: offline 		Ray

Praise to you for fighting the battles you believe in.

I'm sorry to tell you that I disagree with you - well almost sorry that is .
In forums like this, whats logical and consistent becomes subjective.

Here is my version:

Naval battle is a game, where you either have advantage (+1), disadvantage (-1) or none of those (+0).

If you have more benefits than drawbacks you get advantage.
If you have more drawsbacks than benefits you get disadvantage.

Benefits: Outnumber opposing HS 1.5 to 1, have british ships.
Drawbacks: Have only LS, have preussian or austrian ships.

The british are lucky, they can get advantage with only 1 HS. But so are Preussia and Austria, they don't get disadvantage for using only LS.

Logic and consistent to me .
But that is when you look at it isolated. I still believe you have to view it in the game context. If it works here, my feeling of logic and consistancy comes second.

/eske

_____________________________

Alea iacta est

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 56
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/28/2008 5:03:07 PM   
NeverMan

 

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

ORIGINAL: bresh


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Ray, I was suggesting the -1 only for (against) GB. All other MPs would get a +1 for 1.5x heavies.


Neverman thats the worst joke i read on boards so far.
GB has +1-+2 Wind Gauge, +1 Always in combat.
And you wish to add -1 to his opponent ??? GB was not invincible on the sea, they lost sea battles..


Ray, i think you should accept +1 as the max battle-modifier.
Maybe you should think playing some other Nation.

Regard
Bresh


You realize that the -1 is only if GB has 1.5x heavies right?

I agree with Ray that it makes NO SENSE that a naval rule exists that benefits everyone EXCEPT the major naval player. How does that make sense???????????????

I have an idea, let's make a rule that everyone can get cav superiority +1 EXCEPT Turkey. Yeah, that's a great ****ing idea!!!!! LOLOLOLOL.

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 57
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/28/2008 5:28:19 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Ray, I was suggesting the -1 only for (against) GB. All other MPs would get a +1 for 1.5x heavies.


Neverman thats the worst joke i read on boards so far.
GB has +1-+2 Wind Gauge, +1 Always in combat.
And you wish to add -1 to his opponent ??? GB was not invincible on the sea, they lost sea battles..


Ray, i think you should accept +1 as the max battle-modifier.
Maybe you should think playing some other Nation.

Regard
Bresh


You realize that the -1 is only if GB has 1.5x heavies right?

I agree with Ray that it makes NO SENSE that a naval rule exists that benefits everyone EXCEPT the major naval player. How does that make sense???????????????

I have an idea, let's make a rule that everyone can get cav superiority +1 EXCEPT Turkey. Yeah, that's a great ****ing idea!!!!! LOLOLOLOL.


About the only vs GB who has 1.5 heavies, no sorry that didnt show in your description.
I guess you then want -2 to Austria/Prussia Light fleets to ? And not cap at 1 as modifers, as Eske so good described.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 58
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/28/2008 5:47:41 PM   
NeverMan

 

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

ORIGINAL: bresh


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Ray, I was suggesting the -1 only for (against) GB. All other MPs would get a +1 for 1.5x heavies.


Neverman thats the worst joke i read on boards so far.
GB has +1-+2 Wind Gauge, +1 Always in combat.
And you wish to add -1 to his opponent ??? GB was not invincible on the sea, they lost sea battles..


Ray, i think you should accept +1 as the max battle-modifier.
Maybe you should think playing some other Nation.

Regard
Bresh


You realize that the -1 is only if GB has 1.5x heavies right?

I agree with Ray that it makes NO SENSE that a naval rule exists that benefits everyone EXCEPT the major naval player. How does that make sense???????????????

I have an idea, let's make a rule that everyone can get cav superiority +1 EXCEPT Turkey. Yeah, that's a great ****ing idea!!!!! LOLOLOLOL.


About the only vs GB who has 1.5 heavies, no sorry that didnt show in your description.
I guess you then want -2 to Austria/Prussia Light fleets to ? And not cap at 1 as modifers, as Eske so good described.

Regards
Bresh



I'm getting the impression that you didn't bother to actually read any of my posts.

No, I think the cap should be +1 or -1, besides, how many games have you been in where Au or Pr are outnumbered in heavies 1.5 to 1 by GB???? I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS EVER, EVEN IN EMPIRES IN ARMS, so it's really a moot point.


(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 59
RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this..... - 8/28/2008 6:09:51 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Ray, I was suggesting the -1 only for (against) GB. All other MPs would get a +1 for 1.5x heavies.


Neverman thats the worst joke i read on boards so far.
GB has +1-+2 Wind Gauge, +1 Always in combat.
And you wish to add -1 to his opponent ??? GB was not invincible on the sea, they lost sea battles..


Ray, i think you should accept +1 as the max battle-modifier.
Maybe you should think playing some other Nation.

Regard
Bresh


You realize that the -1 is only if GB has 1.5x heavies right?

I agree with Ray that it makes NO SENSE that a naval rule exists that benefits everyone EXCEPT the major naval player. How does that make sense???????????????

I have an idea, let's make a rule that everyone can get cav superiority +1 EXCEPT Turkey. Yeah, that's a great ****ing idea!!!!! LOLOLOLOL.


About the only vs GB who has 1.5 heavies, no sorry that didnt show in your description.
I guess you then want -2 to Austria/Prussia Light fleets to ? And not cap at 1 as modifers, as Eske so good described.

Regards
Bresh



I'm getting the impression that you didn't bother to actually read any of my posts.

No, I think the cap should be +1 or -1, besides, how many games have you been in where Au or Pr are outnumbered in heavies 1.5 to 1 by GB???? I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS EVER, EVEN IN EMPIRES IN ARMS, so it's really a moot point.




Actually Neverman, i guess you dont read mine.

I wrote Light Fleets. Light fleet alone is default -1, Au/Pr fleets in your force is also -1.

That would even vs GB with a 1 heavy ship, GB Heavy fleet be -3 if you didnt put a cap of 1. With your -1 modier.
I did read you think 1 is the cap. But trying to fix a +2 to -1, so that cap of 1 is held, does not sound good.
Then all who fight austria+prussia light fleets should get a default +1 to, even if both sides only had light ships.

Im not sure witch post you refer to, i read these 2 nothing says that your suggested -1 modifer is when GB has 1.5 heavies ?

quote:


1.
Ray, I was suggesting the -1 only for (against) GB. All other MPs would get a +1 for 1.5x heavies.
2.
I think there can be a point where the advantages get saturated. That is, that after a +1 type-advantage maybe anymore advantage is really useless.

Also, if you wanted to make it interesting, I think rather than giving GB +2 for this (since the most you can roll is a 7) why not give it's enemies a -1?


< Message edited by bresh -- 8/28/2008 6:15:36 PM >

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Tech Support >> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.641