Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

No worries Marshall. It just seemed a bit of an anonaly that some things (order of battle) come from EiH 3.0 and others don't.

Please keep up your good work! DiD I mention that if there is any way to adopt a naval combat system similar to EiH 3.0 (for playtesting) and reduced build costs amd times, I would be indebted?

best
Mardonius

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

Just remember any such changes to stay optional.
So that those not wishing it dont get it forced upon them.

Regards
Bresh

quote:

If you ever want a redesigned naval system outlined, citing historical, EiA General revision and EiH improvements, I would be honored to provide you with an improved and historically viable FUN system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

Just remember any such changes to stay optional.
So that those not wishing it dont get it forced upon them.

Regards
Bresh

I won't discount Bresh's suggestion that such changes remain options, as we should try to keep some player preference flexibility here. I will, however, point out that the original game had a charge of $10 per ship and 12 months, significantly lower than the current charges for line of battle ships. So there should be no suggestion that today's curretn EiAnW system is more orthodox than the system I and others have advanced.

best
Mardnonius

quote:

any change to the naval system is going to have a huge impact on game balance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Well said Borner. I am very nervous about such drastic changes and must make sure that they do not sway the game horribly in one direction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

any change to the naval system is going to have a huge impact on game balance.

Any change?? Surely there must be some feedback from players who have used the advanced naval combat rules from The General or the various EiH rules over these many years. This stuff is not new. Did GB lose its automatic advantages and did the balance of naval combat shift decisively away from GB?? I doubt that the impact was "huge". I agree we do not want to disrupt GB's historical advantages. But what's being advocated is the implementation of an optional naval combat system to build upon these previously introduced optional rules, which I assume retain some sense of game balance unless proven otherwise. Let's try it out and see for ourselves, and make adjustments as needed, yes? I'll also add that while this would be interesting, it is not exactly a priority and can wait until other things settle down. Work on evasion and pursuit rules for sure, and the other classic EiA stuff, and then begin experimenting with optional systems.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Well said Borner. I am very nervous about such drastic changes and must make sure that they do not sway the game horribly in one direction.

Respectfully, Marshall, the current naval system is not a success. Due to the increased costs of ships and build times and the non-incorporation of some of the board game optional rules pertaining to stacked movement, GB has even a stronger advantage than it did in the board game.

I earnestly suggest you pursue a dual course fo action that (a) allows you to keep the current system for those who wish to continue to use this system and (b) allows those of us who are disatisfied with the current naval system to adopt a better, more fun, and more historical system that still gives GB advantages but does not make it invulnerable.

Once again, I -- with other's input -- would be honored to provide you with a proposed framework for an improved naval system.

Thank you
Mardonius

quote:

ORIGINAL: AresMars

dodo,

Austria and Prussia have no real Naval tradition - thus NO fleets.

However, their control of a Minor with a Fleet solves that issue pretty quick....

Some of the points raised by hellfirejet and Mardonius (build times, ship costs, a little more variable in combat results) have serious merit.

I would like to see a return to the EIA limited number of fleets for balance.  (ie GB 7, FR 4, SP and RS 3, TU 2, AS and PS 1, plus the Minors) There are a limited amount of sea areas and limiting the game to a total number of FLEETs makes the importance of DIPLOMACY more important, raises the value of MINORS with FLEETS. 

(I am just typing off he top of my head....)

Now, with the incorporation of the different classes of ships (3, 2, 1 Deckers and Tranports) you could have a fleet composed of 30 combat ships (plus transports ignored in combat) where the different classes of ships would have various morale levels (ie. 3 Deckers are 4, 2 Deckers are 3 and 1 Deckers are 2) [British would be .5 higher] and the fleet counter would look more like a LAND CORPS  (ie. [5/25/25/*]

A fleet of just transports would just be treated like a naval prusuit by the opponent based on the number of 1Decker ships in the fleet.

Thus if I have a fleet of; 2 x 3Deckers (2*4), 18 x 2Deckers (18*3) and 7 x 1Deckers (7*2) and 15 x Transports the BATTLE MORALE of the that fleet would be...2.53 and then would be used on something like the ADVANCED NAVAL CHART proposed in the old GENERAL or Mardonius's suggestions. 3 rounds, etc....

A British Fleet of the same type would have a BATTLE MORALE of 2.73 -- so not an enormous advantage.... but the chart is not about DAMAGE EFFECTS

Casualties from a chart would represent a certain amount of DAMAGE EFFECTs that would then be translated to the OPPOSING fleet each round in STEPS....ie. 6 = CAPTURED, 4=SUNK, 3-2-1 Damaged

Perhaps even a forced to withdraw from combat....

Naval leaders could then be used in a variety of ways.  Improve Morale, Raise/Lower DAMAGE EFFECTS, others....

What do people think of this approach?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dodod

I think the biggest GB advantage is that it is impossible to build ships...this allows gb to wipe out navies rather easily, without fear of a  rebuilding by others since gb is by far the richest...

I also think that Austria should be given something like 10 heavies, and prussia 10 transports to begin with....it is utterly ridiculous that no troops can  be sailed by these countries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Well said Borner. I am very nervous about such drastic changes and must make sure that they do not sway the game horribly in one direction.

Respectfully, Marshall, the current naval system is not a success. Due to the increased costs of ships and build times and the non-incorporation of some of the board game optional rules pertaining to stacked movement, GB has even a stronger advantage than it did in the board game.

I earnestly suggest you pursue a dual course fo action that (a) allows you to keep the current system for those who wish to continue to use this system and (b) allows those of us who are disatisfied with the current naval system to adopt a better, more fun, and more historical system that still gives GB advantages but does not make it invulnerable.

Once again, I -- with other's input -- would be honored to provide you with a proposed framework for an improved naval system.

Thank you
Mardonius

I'm not opposed to an advanced combat system for the naval side. It's simply a time thing at this point. I would like to do a classic EiA scenario before I add any naval combat options though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet



Hello dodod,
I think the build costs & times are way to much, its also far to easy to have massive fleets in the game, fleets should be smaller allowing for more naval combat in the game. I should also point out that although France lost a great number of ships during the campaign, it still ended the war with a stronger navy than it begun due to it's ship building program.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet



Hello dodod,
I think the build costs & times are way to much, its also far to easy to have massive fleets in the game, fleets should be smaller allowing for more naval combat in the game. I should also point out that although France lost a great number of ships during the campaign, it still ended the war with a stronger navy than it begun due to it's ship building program.

Please note HFJ's comments that France "still ended the war with a stronger navy than it begun due to it's ship building program". Ans this is a France who marched into Russia. Ship prices and build times must come down.
They are way too high to allow for all but minor builds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet



Hello dodod,
I think the build costs & times are way to much, its also far to easy to have massive fleets in the game, fleets should be smaller allowing for more naval combat in the game. I should also point out that although France lost a great number of ships during the campaign, it still ended the war with a stronger navy than it begun due to it's ship building program.

Please note HFJ's comments that France "still ended the war with a stronger navy than it begun due to it's ship building program". Ans this is a France who marched into Russia. Ship prices and build times must come down.
They are way too high to allow for all but minor builds.

Yo Mardonius,

Hi folks here is a piece of historical fact that proves that France was a major threat to Britains so called dominance of the seas.

In 1813 France had rebuilt her naval strength after Trafalgar and had 71 Heavies at her disposal and had a further 42 building, I would call that a challenge to Britains naval supremacy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Yes, and in WWII, many, many times the Italians out-numbered, out-gunned and out-ranged the British but did not have the mix of confidence/courage/experience - call it what you will - to take that advantage and deliver a good pummelling to their enemy. Having those weapons was clearly not enough........

I do not know too much about this period of history but suspect that the need for a huge land army to try and stem the advancing tide, meant that these ships could never be crewed. If true, this come back to my point from a while ago, that exploring alternatives in these strategic games is fun but care is needed to make things realistic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

What did they never press this and try to take Fr out?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Yes, and in WWII, many, many times the Italians out-numbered, out-gunned and out-ranged the British but did not have the mix of confidence/courage/experience - call it what you will - to take that advantage and deliver a good pummelling to their enemy. Having those weapons was clearly not enough........

I do not know too much about this period of history but suspect that the need for a huge land army to try and stem the advancing tide, meant that these ships could never be crewed. If true, this come back to my point from a while ago, that exploring alternatives in these strategic games is fun but care is needed to make things realistic.

Warspite:

Your Italain example is not exactly appropriate. The Italain Navy did a markedly good job when they had enough fuel and technical parity with the British. Cape Matapan, and the GB victory, had little to do with "confidence/courage/experience" and more to due with British Radar. If you want to see gumption, see Prince Borghese and the Decima MAS. He was certainly as bold as Nelson. I can cite more examples if you wish.

In our Napoleonic era, the technology is close to parity, with the French and Spaninsh having a slight advantage in most instances. The French ships could be crewed... the problem was, as DC Whitworth hit on som time back, was training. Hard to get to sea if blockaded and without sea time it is hard to build up a proficient navy, all the more so if the revolution took your most expereinced leaders.

cordially,
Mardonius