Need confirmation on a rule (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Tech Support



Message

Jimmer -> Need confirmation on a rule (1/10/2008 12:07:38 AM)

Rule 9.2.2 "Naval Combat Resolution" says

quote:

Each side receives a random number of between 1 and 6, adding one if a British fleet is present on that side, adding one for having 1.5 times more heavy ships than the other, subtracting one if a side consists solely of light ships and subtracting one if a Prussian and/or an Austrian fleet is present on that side (these modifiers may cancel each other if both are present in the same stack). The random
number is compared to the Naval Combat Table and the result is the percentage of that side’s number of ships, which number of ships the other side must remove as losses.


The naval combat table has these entries below it:

quote:

Random Number Modifiers:
+1: British fleet on the side
+1: For having 1.5 times more heavy ships than the other
-1: If a side consists solely of light ships
-1: Austrian/Prussian fleet on the side


In a tip for Great Britain, I reference combat where GB can get +2, +1 for her own ships and another +1 for having 1.5 times the number of heavy ships the other side has.

Someone wrote a note to me saying that the maximum modifier is +1.

However, in reading the rule, and looking at the chart, I don't see that there is a cap. There is a maximum on the table of 7, though, so this hints at it. Also, in the original boardgame rules, I believe there indeed was a cap at +1. However, since one could only have a single positive modifier (there were no "heavy" vs. "light" issues then), it didn't matter.

It may have mattered for EiH, though, but I can't speak to that, having never played it.

Can anybody confirm or deny whether there is a maximum modifier for the ship combat roll?

NOTE: This is NOT about Wind Guage. This is strictly about the roll for kills.

Thanks much!



bresh -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/10/2008 12:10:33 AM)

I think +1 is max bonus on die rolls. No casulty tables go past 7.


Regards
Bresh



Jimmer -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/10/2008 12:12:02 AM)

I agree that the table stops there. But, I can't find an actual entry that says it does.

I'm going to try a couple of naval battles tonight and see what I can find out.



Monadman -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/10/2008 2:33:25 AM)

Jimmer,

They are cumulative but the net modifier may never be more than +1 or less than -1. Noted for addendum - thanks.

Richard



Jimmer -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/10/2008 10:01:27 AM)

I've fought a couple of battles, and this is correct. Except, I haven't been able to test whether getting both negative bonuses still only drop the roll by 1. I haven't played as Austria yet.

Thanks, guys!



Ashtar -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/10/2008 1:29:47 PM)

I am not sure it is a good idea to limit the maximum naval combat bonus between +1 and -1.

While this may slightly limit the British power on the seas, it strongly reduces the incentive in building Heavy ships:

a) Much of the naval battles will see the British involved

b) I am British, and this gives me an automatic +1, so I do not need to have 1.5 more Heavy ships then my opponents. I just need to be sure he has not 1.5 more then me, pretty easy given my initial huge number of them (76). So why should I buy more Heavy fleets?

c) I plan to bring Naval war to the Britain. Getting this 1.5 advantage is terribly expensive, but I do not have to worry about him getting it, since it is no use to him? So why buy Heavy ships? It is enough to have one of them in every stack just to avoid the -1 penalty on my side.

d) I am a folly Prussian or Austrian looking for a Navy. Why I should bother to buy Heavy ships at all if I have -1 by default?

In particular, the bonus in any British vs. Austria/Prussia naval battle does not depend at all on Heavy ships...

Could you please consider deleting this limit in some future patch?

Thanks



zaquex -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/10/2008 3:28:57 PM)

Heavy ships have the slight advantage that they can provide sea supply and reasonably transport troops. Im also not 100% sure if the maximum negative modifier is -1.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/10/2008 4:00:12 PM)

You should be maxed at -1. Let me know if you see otherwise...



Ashtar -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/10/2008 4:05:39 PM)

Even more important: too much political points are gained/loss in naval combat!

Original EIA had single type fleets of 30 factors capacity, and naval combat was rewarded with 1 pp per fleet.

EIANW has light and heavy fleets, respectively with 10 and 20 factors capacity, so approximately 2 EIANW fleets makes up for 1 EIA fleet.
But naval combat it is still worth 1pp per fleet.
For consistency reasons, I think you should change it to 1/2 pp per fleet (if I remember correcvtly, EIH had light and heavy ships too, but regrouped in single fleet withs 10 light and 20 heavy factors capacity for a 30 maximum total factors).





j-s -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/10/2008 7:19:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

Even more important: too much political points are gained/loss in naval combat!

Original EIA had single type fleets of 30 factors capacity, and naval combat was rewarded with 1 pp per fleet.

EIANW has light and heavy fleets, respectively with 10 and 20 factors capacity, so approximately 2 EIANW fleets makes up for 1 EIA fleet.
But naval combat it is still worth 1pp per fleet.
For consistency reasons, I think you should change it to 1/2 pp per fleet (if I remember correcvtly, EIH had light and heavy ships too, but regrouped in single fleet withs 10 light and 20 heavy factors capacity for a 30 maximum total factors).



This is one problem that has come up after totally new naval system. In original game PP:s were good, but now I'm not sure. Light ships and transporters (or original naval system) should be a optional rule.





carnifex -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/10/2008 8:40:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

...Prussian or Austrian looking for a Navy.



thanks for the laugh [:D]




zaquex -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/10/2008 10:14:09 PM)

about political points i think heavy fleets should be 1 pp, in the original rule there is no distinction made between a one strenght fleet or a 30 strenght fleet but a 1/2 pp value on light fleets would feel reasonable. The transport fleet should in my oppinion be 1 pt.



Grognot -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/10/2008 10:37:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashtar
b) I am British, and this gives me an automatic +1, so I do not need to have 1.5 more Heavy ships then my opponents. I just need to be sure he has not 1.5 more then me, pretty easy given my initial huge number of them (76). So why should I buy more Heavy fleets?

[etc]


You're not going to have all those heavy ships in the same place, at least not early in the game when France has split its fleets across many garrisoned ports, with corps sitting behind them. And when you're spread thin, it's much easier for any additional actor -- like Spain, or the Swedish fleet -- to target you with local superiority.



Murat -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/10/2008 10:41:05 PM)

Again heavy fleets, light fleets and pp losses were EiH rules. You need to have a limit or else it would never be practical to attack British ships and game balance would be lost. Letting them get a +2 on a d6 is a HUGE advantage. Trafalgar could never be attempted and Britain would be safe for the entire game, something no other nation could claim.



Jimmer -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/10/2008 11:07:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

I am not sure it is a good idea to limit the maximum naval combat bonus between +1 and -1.

While this may slightly limit the British power on the seas, it strongly reduces the incentive in building Heavy ships:

a) Much of the naval battles will see the British involved

b) I am British, and this gives me an automatic +1, so I do not need to have 1.5 more Heavy ships then my opponents. I just need to be sure he has not 1.5 more then me, pretty easy given my initial huge number of them (76). So why should I buy more Heavy fleets?

c) I plan to bring Naval war to the Britain. Getting this 1.5 advantage is terribly expensive, but I do not have to worry about him getting it, since it is no use to him? So why buy Heavy ships? It is enough to have one of them in every stack just to avoid the -1 penalty on my side.

d) I am a folly Prussian or Austrian looking for a Navy. Why I should bother to buy Heavy ships at all if I have -1 by default?

In particular, the bonus in any British vs. Austria/Prussia naval battle does not depend at all on Heavy ships...

Could you please consider deleting this limit in some future patch?

Thanks

I would agree with this idea. However, I think it would still be OK to cap the kills at 25%, and not let them go below 5% (as per the current table -- I believe). In other word, change the wording to "1 or lower" and "6 or higher", rather than "0-1" and "6-7" as it is now.



Soapy Frog -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/10/2008 11:08:45 PM)

It's a pity something akin to the advanced naval rules published in the General magazine was not attempted. Those rules were much nicer, although obviously with some balance issues of their own (lack of "real" rock-paper-scissors effect in the naval chits); however the addition of hulks was very satisfying, and the chit choosing and morale for naval combat made it thematically consistent with land combat.

That however is well beyond the scope of additon to the game at this point one imagines.

The original naval system of EiA, and by inheritance the naval system of EiANW is really painful to anyone who knows anything about period naval warfare. It has always been a terrible weak point of the game.



Jimmer -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/10/2008 11:10:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

Even more important: too much political points are gained/loss in naval combat!

Original EIA had single type fleets of 30 factors capacity, and naval combat was rewarded with 1 pp per fleet.

EIANW has light and heavy fleets, respectively with 10 and 20 factors capacity, so approximately 2 EIANW fleets makes up for 1 EIA fleet.
But naval combat it is still worth 1pp per fleet.
For consistency reasons, I think you should change it to 1/2 pp per fleet (if I remember correcvtly, EIH had light and heavy ships too, but regrouped in single fleet withs 10 light and 20 heavy factors capacity for a 30 maximum total factors).


Or, perhaps, 1 PP per fleet "pair", where a "pair" is a heavy fleet counter and a light fleet counter (transports don't count as either). If you have just one heavy, it's 1 PP. If you have one heavy and one light, it's still 1 PP. If you have one heavy and two lights, 2 PPs.

This would give another reason to have fleets with both kinds of ships in them.



zaquex -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/10/2008 11:17:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

It's a pity something akin to the advanced naval rules published in the General magazine was not attempted. Those rules were much nicer, although obviously with some balance issues of their own (lack of "real" rock-paper-scissors effect in the naval chits); however the addition of hulks was very satisfying, and the chit choosing and morale for naval combat made it thematically consistent with land combat.

That however is well beyond the scope of additon to the game at this point one imagines.

The original naval system of EiA, and by inheritance the naval system of EiANW is really painful to anyone who knows anything about period naval warfare. It has always been a terrible weak point of the game.


I have personally never playd with the naval addon but i must admit it looks interesting, the current system as you say is a weak part of the game.



Jimmer -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/10/2008 11:37:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

Again heavy fleets, light fleets and pp losses were EiH rules. You need to have a limit or else it would never be practical to attack British ships and game balance would be lost. Letting them get a +2 on a d6 is a HUGE advantage. Trafalgar could never be attempted and Britain would be safe for the entire game, something no other nation could claim.

Trafalgar cannot be attempted anyhow, because fleets of different majors cannot work together. GB could attack the French and Spanish, but not the other way around. At Trafalgar, the French and Spanish were the "phasing" players.

Besides, the game doesn't allow for the possibility of kill ratios close to 100% (which is the end result: 22 sunk allied ships, sunk by 27 British: 81%, in game terms).



Soapy Frog -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/11/2008 5:00:42 AM)

The Advanced Naval rules allowed for Trafalgar-style victories. The Hulk rules also eliminated the problem that ships of the line were rarely actually sunk.

In those rules, the Victory (Nelson's flagship) would have been considered a casualty and reduced to a hulk that made it successfully back to Gibraltar, and was then rebuilt (AFAIK Victory had no masts intact after the battle and very nearly foundered in the ensuing storm).



Ashtar -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/11/2008 2:24:34 PM)

quote:


Murat:
Again heavy fleets, light fleets and pp losses were EiH rules.

Indeed, but in EIH ligh and heavy fleets where packed together. So a "standard" fleet with some light and some heavy was worth 1pp, in EIANW it is 2pp. This creates unbalance.

quote:


Murat:
You need to have a limit or else it would never be practical to attack British ships and game balance would be lost. Letting them get a +2 on a d6 is a HUGE advantage. Trafalgar could never be attempted and Britain would be safe for the entire game, something no other nation could claim.

It could be, but as mluch as you need Austria, Prussia and Russia to bring down France, you can safely bring down GB by a France+Spain+Russia coalition.
And GB will probably NOT get a Heavy fleet superiority bonus even against a single France-Spain coalition. Plus, France recovers faster then GB from a loss.

quote:


Jimmer:
I would agree with this idea. However, I think it would still be OK to cap the kills at 25%, and not let them go below 5% (as per the current table -- I believe). In other word, change the wording to "1 or lower" and "6 or higher", rather than "0-1" and "6-7" as it is now.

Indeed, this was the spirit of the proposal.





megalomania2003 -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/11/2008 7:18:55 PM)

I found the advanced naval rules boring. I could not se a point in any other than GB (without Nelson) choosing linear attack (for the +1), so it did not hava paper - scissor - rock effect.




Soapy Frog -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/11/2008 9:33:22 PM)

Yes and a single die roll with a single modifier is much more interesting ;)

Forgive the snark! I agree with the lack of rock-paper-scissors as previously stated, but it certainly less boring than the base rules!!



AresMars -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/11/2008 9:57:28 PM)

Lets face the fact that the Naval rules could always have used a little more work in both EiA, EiH and in EIANW....

I'll have to review EiH v5.2 to see if anything had changed that I had not seen before....mind you, the Napoleonic period is not about the French sea war.

Villeneuve checked out around 1805 if my memory is correct.

But, the rules are what they are.....unless we get Marshall to agree to make changes, we are not going to see a significant change of anything in this area.

Marshall? [&:]



Jimmer -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/11/2008 11:11:41 PM)

Actually, I doubt that it is Marshall's decision to make. At best, he's one of a team that would decide. However, he could be the one to say "No, that's not technically feasible", or something like that.



KenClark -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/11/2008 11:29:35 PM)

I had a whole series of games with a home-brew set of advanced naval rules similar to the General but about 5x more complicated.  It used hulks but the standard outflank/echelon etc. chit-picking system and morale.  It wasn't realistic but it certainly was fun.

The current system should easily doom GB when everyone gangs up on it and lends all their fleets to Russia, who will go pound on the channel fleet with a superstack.  I'd hate to be the GB player now.



AresMars -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/11/2008 11:43:04 PM)

Oh, I am pretty sure that Marshall is the one who needs to make the HARD decisions.

Certain responses made by Monadman and his reaction to my criticism of the playtesters, as well as his comment about people riding a certain persons' private body part ..... See http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1672204&mpage=1&key=&#1673934 Monadman comment at 1/11/2008 8:54:28 PM  add to my confidence in my statement.

Could I be wrong?  Yes.

However, the Programming Credit lists _only_ Marshall; the Additonal Game Design credit lists others (including Richard and the elusive Michael Treasure)






Marshall Ellis -> RE: Need confirmation on a rule (1/13/2008 5:53:36 PM)

AresMars:

I may make some hard decisions BUT they come with a lot of facts and information from Richard (Monadman). He and I constantly argue over what can and should be done. We don't always see eye-to-eye but I will say that he is an advocate for the player and he challenges my code every step of the way. He has a keen insight as to how things should be transfered from the board game to the PC. At the end of the day, Richard and I will hug and goto bed :-) I guess what I am trying to say is that we all have different bed-side manners but still manage to get the job done for the customer! Richard will remain on my Christmas card list for along time! I cannot tell you how much he has helped us ALL!





Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.9375