Light Ships madness

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Light Ships madness

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 >> Light Ships madness

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Light Ships madness - 4/21/2009 1:30:08 PM

Ashtar

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline

Marshall, are you really lowering LS build cost to 6$ and 9 months? On which base, if I may ask?
HOW MUCH PLAYTESTING have you done before altering a basic game mechanics?

Now, realize that France DOES NOT NEED TO BUILD MUCH HS to tackle GB: GB has already a +1 in combat, so HS
superiority is irrelevant. With current rules, it suffices for France to have a single HS and a lot of lights not to
get a -1 in combat, so what you will see is just a rush to buy more LS. HS are actually pretty useless to France.

Right, the maximum number of LS is lower then the maximum number of HS, so in a serious arms race France will be forced on buying HS, but realize it will do that only when LS will be completely filled up.
All in all, France will be able to boost very quickly his fleet just buying a lot light ships, thus altering game balance in a way I doubt you can foresee...

So, please, just not to ruin running pbem games, either:

1) Make the change in building cost optional.
2) Or, more simply, change the combat rule so that you get -1 to die roll whenever your fleets have more LS then HS,
or even better, if LS are more then half of HS (LS are not done for the first line of combat, and they should
appear in the EIH ratio of 10 LS for 20 HS). With current rules is OK to have a fight with a single HS plus 40
LS...
3) Cancel it altogether, its a bad idea.

Otherwise, thumbs up for evasion and pursuit, this is already limiting GB superiority over the seas

Post #: 1

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/21/2009 1:46:18 PM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Ashtar,
Your whole concept is based on miss information, the rules that are in place for naval combat are wrong to start with, Lights V Heavies never happened in fleet battles period !

Also it was a unwritten rule that Heavies would not engage Lights unless the light was stupid enough to attack the heavy in the first place,plus the fact that the light could out manouver and out run the heavy.

Lets put this idea of lights v heavies to bed it is a bad option,as per this example from history.

FRIGATE V SHIP OF THE LINE.
A frigate captain who avoided battle with a ship of the line would certainly not be accused of cowardice,as the force of the larger ship was totally overwhelming . In fleet actions ships-of-the-line did not normally fire on frigates,unless the latter fired first.For example,at the battle of the Nile the 74 gun Goliath was manoevering into postion alongside the french line when the frigate Serieuse opened fire on her ; the Goliath fired back ,and with a single broadside dismasted her,shattered her hull,and caused her to drift away and sink.Even several frigates were not normally expected to take on a ship of the line.

So please stop saying that it is ok for a frigate to take on a heavy,because in planet real it is not.They are not designed to combat heavies and the rules need to take this into account.On land you would not expect an Infantry soldier armed with a riffle,to take on an artillery cannon because that is the same comparison.

This games whole naval system is based on fantasy, fiction in the extreme. Heavies never ever fought lights unless in very rare circumstances the light attacked the heavy, in which case it was doomed. Lights in fleet actions were there to fight there opposite numbers ie other lights, but there main purpose was as an early warning system for the fleet, and to assist crippled heavys by means of towing them when dismasted.

This game either needs to get the naval side right or just ignore the naval aspect altogether.

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 4/24/2009 6:34:15 PM >

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to Ashtar)

Post #: 2

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/21/2009 1:50:40 PM

Ashtar

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline

quote:

Your whole concept is based on miss information, the rules that are in place for naval combat are wrong to start with, Lights V Heavies never happened in fleet battles period !

Hellfire, I know LS should not be of any good use in battle, but as a matter of fact with current rules they are almost as functional as HS, and now they are going to be ridiculously cheap.

I just proposed a quick fix to reduce they impact in battle and avoid current games to be messed up, do you have any better and readily implementable idea?

(in reply to Ashtar)

Post #: 3

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/21/2009 2:31:12 PM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Ashtar,
I apologise if I'm coming across as being personal,that is the last thing on my mind.

I can only hope that the naval rules will be altered in future updates or as a minimum requirement an option choice,as I have never played the original board game, I'm looking at this with an open mind but My interest is in Naval aspect of the Napoleonic era means that, ALL THESE ERRORS STICKOUT LIKE AS SORE THUMB.

EIA gamers as far as I can see have been missing out on the possibilites available via improving the Naval aspect of the game.

Lights and Heavies should be treat as seperate battles within any combat,and not as now select all loses to the light fleets.

As for your concern about games already in progress, all these changes can and should be available as gamers option's.

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to Ashtar)

Post #: 4

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/21/2009 2:46:15 PM

Ashtar

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline

Hellfire, no need to apologize for being personal (you were not).
This said,

quote:

I have never played the original board game

quite shows part of the problems here. A successful game - like EIA - is a careful combination of playability
and feeling of realism. Playability means an awful lot of playtesting and a reasonable command over
game mechanics, which sadly seems to be lacking here around. Just adding more and more right looking detail
only since they seem realistic, is not going to work, I am sorry. Most of the time it just makes a game unplayable.

It now seems to me that since a small subset of people on the forum has been feeding data on historical ship build costs without any regard for playability, Marshall decided to change them without any playtesting. The result being that we now will have something formally called "light ships" which - due to present rules - is almost as effective as heavy ships in combat but much more cheaper and quick to build. I do not care about their name, I care about the game effect of the new rules about "light ships" which is going to be quite bad.

(in reply to hellfirejet)

Post #: 5

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/21/2009 3:02:25 PM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Well how about the fleet with the most light ships gets a die roll bonus for it's improved ability to evade,in doing this the lights are serving there purpose within the fleet,there sighting is enhanced giving an improved odds chance via the new Evade /pursuit rules, and as for combat like the transports they play no part in any fleet action that has heavies, and only the heavies are taken into account for combat results.

This being a more accurate scenario of what actually occurred, and the heavies are used in the roll they were designed for, IE combat with other heavies.

Combat light v light is perfectly feasiable if 2 light fleets meet each other, but otherwise if fleets contain heavies + lights then only the heavies are taken into account and the lights are treated as transports as per the combat rules.

This highlights the difference between Heavies & Lights and gives them there place within the fleets, and the reason why heavies should be built.

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 4/21/2009 3:30:25 PM >

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to Ashtar)

Post #: 6

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/21/2009 3:39:07 PM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

quote:

Your whole concept is based on miss information, the rules that are in place for naval combat are wrong to start with, Lights V Heavies never happened in fleet battles period !

Hellfire, I know LS should not be of any good use in battle, but as a matter of fact with current rules they are almost as functional as HS, and now they are going to be ridiculously cheap.

I just proposed a quick fix to reduce they impact in battle and avoid current games to be messed up, do you have any better and readily implementable idea?

Combat light v light is perfectly feasiable if 2 light fleets meet each other, but otherwise if fleets contain heavies + lights then only the heavies are taken into account and the lights are treated as transports as per the combat rules. This highlights the difference between Heavies & Lights and gives them there place within the fleets, and the reason why heavies should be built.2 Lights don't equal 1 Heavy, for combat they should never I repeat never be used against heavies!

MARSHALL IF YOU READ THIS CAN YOU PLEASE AT LEAST THINK ABOUT USING THE ABOVE AS A BASIC NAVAL COMBAT OPTION OR SOMETHING SIMILAR LIGHTS AND HEAVIES ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT BEASTS, ITS LIKE A TIGER FIGHTING A TABBY CAT AND THE TABBY WON'T WIN

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 4/21/2009 3:46:05 PM >

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to Ashtar)

Post #: 7

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/21/2009 4:57:06 PM

Ashtar

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline

quote:

hellfire...

Hellfire, your proposals could be sensible but as a matter of fact they would require a lot of tweaking and testing,
basically making LS useless for combat (unless no HS are around) and just good for piracy/antipiracy and evasion/interception.
This is not something you could throw easily into the game without seriously testing build cost/time and, most of all,
initial strength of major powers fleets. And for 1.06 I wont a reasonable solution which does not completely destroy
balance in existing games.

LS are a present of EiH, which changed the originally unspecified 30 factors strong fleets
of EIA in single EiH fleets with 20 HS + 10LS capacity.
Now, to make things worse, EIANW decided to split EiH single fleets in two separate ones, 2O HS and 10 LS fleet.
So fleet numbers have been doubled, but their maintenance cost (1 in port, 5 at sea) and political points value in a battle (1 per fleet) has not be changed
accordingly (i.e. halved). Personally I do not understand why THIS has not been corrected but people had to start messing with build cost/time ??

Now, you advocate making LS ship completely useless in combat with HS, but you would understand (I hope) that this cannot be done overnight
without seriously rethinking initial forces (not to speak of sudden sea-power shift in existing games)

A more simple approach to avoid the too cheap LS to become dominant in 1.06 patch would simply be to extend the -1 combat malus from "no HS at all on a side"
to "more LS then HS on a side" or even to "LS are more the half the HS".
This - I repeat - is badly needed since the +1 bonus for having a HS advantage on your opponent is useless to GB (they already have +1 and cannot have +2)
so that France or Spain have no interest in building anymore HS until their LS roster is complete.

Even simpler, would be to make new build cost optional, but I fear this will not be listened

(in reply to hellfirejet)

Post #: 8

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/21/2009 5:26:15 PM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Ashtar, I understand were you are coming from and your concerns, but as far as lights go they were indeed best suited to blockade duty, piracy & anti-piracy and early warning lookouts for the fleet evasion & interception, how they managed to get involved with naval fleet combat action is a mystery, I assume it was easier to do.

Another option and I'm talking about option's here gamers choice, is for Marshall to somehow be able to have heavies v heavies & lights v lights have there combat results calculated seperately within fleet action's for as now alocating losses to the light ships is a cop out and over simplifies the conflict, I stand by my prefered option of lights being treated as transports as far as combat with heavies goes, for they are out matched in all aspects of battle, there hulls could not with stand the guns of a heavy, and there guns were of little use against heavies.

I suppose what should happen is to copy EIA as per the board game as close as possible to please all the original gamers, and have yes/no option selection for players choice concerning other matters, I believe the EIA scenario is planned ?

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to Ashtar)

Post #: 9

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/21/2009 6:11:03 PM

NeverMan

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

Well hopefully with 1.6 we can go back to EiA naval rules, thus this discussion becomes moot.

(in reply to hellfirejet)

Post #: 10

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/22/2009 12:49:31 AM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

thus this discussion becomes moot.

No. This discussion is about light ships and the EiANW naval system, which will continue. What may become moot is hardcore EiA players trying to argue about EiANW computer game features. Once they have a classic EiA game, they can go off to their corner and enjoy themselves. These rest of the EiANW customers will continue to discuss computer game options, which is a healthy thing to do. Marshall and Matrix are willing to make improvements and enhancements. It's just a question of what adjustments are needed and how to implement new game options. AFTER the bugs are resolved and the classic EiA campaign is made available, of course.

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 11

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/22/2009 1:29:57 AM

NeverMan

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

Well, the game is titled Empires in Arms. If it gets "modded" to the point of no longer resembling EiA at all anymore then what's the point? Why not just call it something else?

Ultimately, this is what I am lobbying for... I'd really like Matrix Games to stop using the title Empires in Arms to sell their Napoleonic Era Wargame product.

And before you say it... I don't really give a rat's ass what Rowland has to say.

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 12

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/22/2009 1:31:37 AM

NeverMan

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

ACTUALLY... if I really had my way (which I won't) Matrix could start a new game for all you EiANW fans and apply all those "cool" mods that you guys want.... then they can abandon EiA and give it to the community via open source.

AH.... one can dream!

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 13

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/22/2009 1:35:41 AM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

I don't really give a rat's ass what Rowland has to say.

This is just pathetic. You obviously don't care what anybody has to say, be it Harry Rowland himself, or Marshall Ellis, or Matrix staff. This is madness; the light ships issue is trivial by comparison.

(in reply to Ashtar)

Post #: 14

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/22/2009 2:59:39 AM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

I don't really give a rat's ass what Rowland has to say.

This is just pathetic. You obviously don't care what anybody has to say, be it Harry Rowland himself, or Marshall Ellis, or Matrix staff. This is madness; the light ships issue is trivial by comparison.

It was a "light" post... though I knew you'd flip out about it, as you always do. LOL. Great stuff!

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 15

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/22/2009 4:07:42 AM

Thresh

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

He probably feels the same way about your opinion Neverman...

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Well, the game is titled Empires in Arms. If it gets "modded" to the point of no longer resembling EiA at all anymore then what's the point? Why not just call it something else?

Ultimately, this is what I am lobbying for... I'd really like Matrix Games to stop using the title Empires in Arms to sell their Napoleonic Era Wargame product.

And before you say it... I don't really give a rat's ass what Rowland has to say.

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 16

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/22/2009 4:08:35 AM

Thresh

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

But only after ones is done complaining for the day...

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ACTUALLY... if I really had my way (which I won't) Matrix could start a new game for all you EiANW fans and apply all those "cool" mods that you guys want.... then they can abandon EiA and give it to the community via open source.

AH.... one can dream!

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 17

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/22/2009 4:50:43 AM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Hey guys it's called EIA so the game should follow as close as possible the original rules,duplicate the board game classic for all the hard core players, I feel this is only fair and I have not even played the board game. But then again this is the cumputer version and a great number of a new generation of player wants options, so give the customer what he wants simple.

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to Thresh)

Post #: 18

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/22/2009 5:13:56 AM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

thus this discussion becomes moot.

No. This discussion is about light ships and the EiANW naval system, which will continue. What may become moot is hardcore EiA players trying to argue about EiANW computer game features. Once they have a classic EiA game, they can go off to their corner and enjoy themselves. These rest of the EiANW customers will continue to discuss computer game options, which is a healthy thing to do. Marshall and Matrix are willing to make improvements and enhancements. It's just a question of what adjustments are needed and how to implement new game options. AFTER the bugs are resolved and the classic EiA campaign is made available, of course.

I agree 100% I never played the original so have nothing to compare this too, The hard core players should have the Board game duplicated as close as possible, that been said this is the pc version and offers the opportunity to experiment with new ideas, the editor hopefully will be able to tweak most things to suit each gamer. Other than that I see no reason for not having a load of yes/no option's at setup simple.

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 19

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/22/2009 2:38:29 PM

Marshall Ellis

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

Hey guys:

The build costs are changing in 1.06 and it is too late to change now. Guys, I'm sorry but I must quit circling back to change things that many wanted changed. At this pace (I cannot keep up with Mantis as it is) we will never get to 1.07! I don't mind the changes but the undos can be expensive!

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to hellfirejet)

Post #: 20

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/22/2009 3:09:57 PM

Mardonius

Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: East Coast
Status: offline

The change is a good change Marshal. Ashar has not disclosed that he playing GB in a game pitted against Continental Europe's Naval Powers and is militating for his game position vice realism or balance in the game.

Ashtar: These numbers are founded in historical data. If you want to see the threads, go back through these forums. As far as balance goes, they are in balance and restore a measure of realistic vulnerability to the GB position.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 21

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/22/2009 4:31:21 PM

Ashtar

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline

quote:

Marshall
Hey guys:

The build costs are changing in 1.06 and it is too late to change now. Guys, I'm sorry but I must quit circling back to change things that many wanted changed.

Marshall, many who? Do you really think it is wise to change game mechanisms without any PLAYTESTING only since a few but very vocal people ask for them?

Moreover, did you bothered to read my post to the end?
I am not asking you to cancel the change - since I know it will be hard - but just to realize that now you have light ship much cheaper but almost as effective as Heavy ones, which is both unrealistic and game unbalancing. I just proposed a quick solution, which is (can you please read it to the end? otherwise I do not understand why one should bother to post anymore here around)

Change the combat rule so that you get -1 to die roll whenever your fleets have more LS then HS, or even better, if LS are more then half of HS (LS are not done for the first line of combat, and they should
appear in the EIH ratio of 10 LS for 20 HS).
With current rules is OK to have a fight with a single HS plus 40 LS and this is obviously absurd...

thanks

(in reply to Mardonius)

Post #: 22

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/22/2009 4:47:24 PM

Ashtar

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline

quote:

The change is a good change Marshal. Ashar has not disclosed that he playing GB in a game pitted against Continental Europe's Naval Powers and is militating for his game position vice realism or balance in the game.

Ashtar: These numbers are founded in historical data. If you want to see the threads, go back through these forums. As far as balance goes, they are in balance and restore a measure of realistic vulnerability to the GB position.

Mardonius, I am frankly sick of your attitude and your total lack of understanding of what game mechanics more complex then monopoly are. In short:

1) I do not care a damn about my GB game, I have been asking for naval evasion since months, and you could easily realize that the lack of naval evasion strongly favors GB. Moreover, usually I like to play as France.
Insinuation like yours just reveal your character.

2) According to you the change is good since numbers are found in historical data. Do you understand the word PLAYTESTING? Did you ever stopped to think (or just bothered to read my posts, just read the above were I am repeating my self for people like you) that WITH CURRENT RULES
LIGHT SHIP ARE ALMOST EQUAL TO HEAVY SHIPS? It is not only me saying this, but also hellfire, which is asking in vain for light ship combat capabilities to be toned down. I just proposed a quick way to do it.

3) This is grand strategy game which abstracts the Napoleonic period. Not Wooden ships and Iron Men. You proposed some historical data on shipbuilding and compared it to levy cost (contrary to you I read other people posts with care). Do you think it is enough? Do you know if current major power income and trade digits are historical? Do you know if maintenance and supply costs are correct? Did you ever checked the effect on game balance? Did you ever realized that - thanks to current rules - the entity called "light ship" in this game is not a real light ship, but just some kind of II class heavy? I think not

You just pick some side of a wonderfully working classic game and start to mess it to suit your personal historical interest without understanding what you are really doing to the game

< Message edited by Ashtar -- 4/22/2009 4:50:12 PM >

(in reply to Ashtar)

Post #: 23

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/22/2009 6:26:08 PM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

I have to agree with ashtar here regarding light fleets, why no one will listen to the facts about these ships, please read all your history books, they are not designed to fight anything but other lights, they are not cheap ships of the line, they have no place fighting any battles in fleet actions, and must be treated as transports via the current combat rules.
Or they will be built as a cheaper option to heavies and used as miniature heavies, the new costs and build times are correct, it is there roll they play in battles that is totally wrong!
If they must play a combat roll in fleet battles then they must be handicaped as follows : Heavies should count as say 4 factors and lights as 1 (for combat and losses)

Lets put this idea of lights v heavies to bed it is a bad option,as per this example from history.

FRIGATE V SHIP OF THE LINE.
A frigate captain who avoided battle with a ship of the line would certainly not be accused of cowardice,as the force of the larger ship was totally overwhelming . In fleet actions ships-of-the-line did not normally fire on frigates,unless the latter fired first.For example,at the battle of the Nile the 74 gun Goliath was manoevering into postion alongside the french line when the frigate Serieuse opened fire on her ; the Goliath fired back ,and with a single broadside dismasted her,shattered her hull,and caused her to drift away and sink.Even several frigates were not normally expected to take on a ship of the line.

So please stop saying that it is ok for a frigate to take on a heavy,because in planet real it is not.They are not designed to combat heavies and the rules need to take this into account.On land you would not expect an Infantry soldier armed with a riffle,to take on an artillery cannon because that is the same comparison.

This games whole naval system is based on fantasy, fiction in the extreme. Heavies never ever fought lights unless in very rare circumstances the light attacked the heavy, in which case it was doomed. Lights in fleet actions were there to fight there opposite numbers ie other lights, but there main purpose was as an early warning system for the fleet, and to assist crippled heavys by means of towing them when dismasted.

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 4/22/2009 6:47:14 PM >

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to Ashtar)

Post #: 24

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/22/2009 6:35:56 PM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

quote:

Marshall
Hey guys:

The build costs are changing in 1.06 and it is too late to change now. Guys, I'm sorry but I must quit circling back to change things that many wanted changed.

Marshall, many who? Do you really think it is wise to change game mechanisms without any PLAYTESTING only since a few but very vocal people ask for them?

EiANW is built on EiH so this is a silly question....... of course he's ok with it!

(in reply to Ashtar)

Post #: 25

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/22/2009 8:59:35 PM

Ted1066

Posts: 214
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Status: offline

Actually, the original EIA naval rules would have been superior in this discussion. Fleet counters contained up to 30 ships, with no distinction between ship types. Also, all nations had significantly fewer fleet counters (GB had 7, France and Spain had 4, Russia 3, Turkey 2 and Austria and Prussia 1 each).

Cheers,

Ted

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 26

ks of RE: Light Ships madness - 4/22/2009 9:31:08 PM

Ashtar

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline

quote:

Actually, the original EIA naval rules would have been superior in this discussion. Fleet counters contained up to 30 ships, with no distinction between ship types. Also, all nations had significantly fewer fleet counters (GB had 7, France and Spain had 4, Russia 3, Turkey 2 and Austria and Prussia 1 each).

Of course, but try to explain here around...

They wanted light ships to implement the piracy option (which by the way seems to be bugged, in a game I am running we had to start to manually roll for piracy each eco phase, since nothing ever happened notwithstanding a huge number of light fleets on piracy constantly trying to hit GB).
As a consequence the number of fleets are doubled, while the maintenance cost and political point value of a fleet stayed the same. I have been asking to halve them, but up to date I think they have not been changed yet.
When pressed Marshall answered that he does not feel like changing game mechanics.

Moreover, with present rules the "light ships" are doing much better in combat then they did in real life, but again none seems to care/realize. No they just wanted to change their build cost to be "historical" so that now we are supposed to pay the "right" cost for light ships, which are never the less not historical at all, being too strong in battle...

The old build costs (10 LS, 12 HS) partially reflected LS being almost as good as HS, since their cost ratio was only 5/6.
Now, only gods know why, the cost are 6 LS and 9 HS, for a ratio of 2/3. Thank god Marshall did not like to touch game mechanics.

Results of the change:
1. LS are now performing the same (actually too good to be historical)
but they are more convenient then before...
2. The ship starting advantage of GB setup has been drastically devalued, but GB required victory points are the same.

Do you think anyone stopped to think and comment on this? Anyone tried to foresee what change we would have with respect to the well working classic EIA mechanics? It seems not to me...

(in reply to Ted1066)

Post #: 27

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/22/2009 9:41:43 PM

Mardonius

Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: East Coast
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

[Mardonius, I am frankly sick of your attitude and your total lack of understanding of what game mechanics more complex then monopoly are.

Thank you for the personal attack Ashtar. For the record I do understand mechanics pretty well. As a commanding and commissioned officer in the USMC, I have led real men in real combat and hold Masters degrees from two nation's foremost colleges: Yale (with a focus on operations) and Trinity in Dublin, Ireland. Glad to send you my resume.

What have you ever done? Are you an academic?

_____________________________

"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan

(in reply to Ashtar)

Post #: 28

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/22/2009 10:05:16 PM

Thresh

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

quote:

Do you think anyone stopped to think and comment on this? Anyone tried to foresee what change we would have with respect to the well working classic EIA mechanics? It seems not to me...

Honestly I'd much rather play it first and see if its broken, rather than just declare it broken without any gameplay evidence.

YMMV,
Todd

(in reply to Mardonius)

Post #: 29

RE: Light Ships madness - 4/22/2009 11:12:37 PM

Ashtar

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline

quote:

Honestly I'd much rather play it first and see if its broken, rather than just declare it broken without any gameplay evidence.

== you do not know, but you are willing to playtest it and to oblige everyone else to playtest too.

Considered that a pbem game lasts around 3 years, I would rather prefer to play with tested rules and keep the untested with option then to waste my time with untested rules.

(in reply to Thresh)

Post #: 30