Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM

Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (Full Version)

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

Message

WJPalmer1 -> Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/20/2008 5:17:24 PM)
My apologies if this has been answered elsewhere. In PBEM do human players have the ability to assign their own losses in naval combat? And, if not, what protocol does the program use in choosing which fleets & ship types take the hits? Thanks, Ron

Monadman -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/20/2008 9:05:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: exp101 My apologies if this has been answered elsewhere. In PBEM do human players have the ability to assign their own losses in naval combat? And, if not, what protocol does the program use in choosing which fleets & ship types take the hits? Thanks, Ron Ron, It is coded as: -Major light fleets -Minor light fleets -Major heavy fleets -Minor heavy fleets I know what is coming next and already sent an email to Marshall. [:)] Thanks Richard

WJPalmer1 -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/20/2008 9:38:35 PM)
Thanks, Richard. Your powers of extra-sensory perception seem to be honed to a fine point as a result of the EiANW experience.[;)]

bresh -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/20/2008 10:43:01 PM)
Ponder. If i was not empting the fleet, I would take my looses first, from my minors. Dont know how others feel about that ? Regards Bresh

WJPalmer1 -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/20/2008 10:51:27 PM)
It's certainly possible to envision scenarios both ways, but generally speaking, I agree. If there must be a default rule, take them from the minor's first. I support and appreciate the time savings involved in having the program resolve Naval combat in PBEM. But perhaps it would be possible to have players pre-select their priorities for taking losses in the same way intercept orders can be set?

zaquex -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/21/2008 12:38:44 AM)
I think the rule about propotional losses should be in place and enforced. It might not be what we as players want but its reasonably realistic and it means that minors cant be exploited. It will also provide a good base for when eventually combined Naval move is implemented, im sure that most players would agree that proportional losses in combined stacks is the only reasonable way to distribute losses.

Grognot -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/21/2008 1:56:05 AM)
Remove Austrian and Prussian ships first. :p

zaquex -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/21/2008 2:00:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grognot Remove Austrian and Prussian ships first. :p Would you say that if you played Austria or Prussia?

Grognot -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/21/2008 2:25:07 AM)
If I were Austria or Prussia, and had augmented my fleet with minors -- yes, I'd prefer to lose the Austrian ships than the Swedish or Danish -- at least if the minor fleet were not in imminent danger of being lost by change of control. That -1 means that it's not very useful to have them in combat unless the rest of the force is rather weak by comparison.

zaquex -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/21/2008 2:51:29 AM)
quote: If I were Austria or Prussia, and had augmented my fleet with minors -- yes, I'd prefer to lose the Austrian ships than the Swedish or Danish -- at least if the minor fleet were not in imminent danger of being lost by change of control. That -1 means that it's not very useful to have them in combat unless the rest of the force is rather weak by comparison. My point was if you play Austria and you combine stacks with say Russia vs Turkey would you prefer that Austria took the losses or that they where proportional between your fleets and the Russian players fleets? What you say enforces my beleif that an implementation where, if the major or the minor is assigned to take the bulk of the losses, you will encounter a number of situations where it will not be the preferred outcome of the player. Since its not viable to implement further exchanges of mails due to it slowing down the game, it would still in most cases be acceptable and in my oppinion a reasonable and arguable more realistic compromise with proportional losses.

oldtimer -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/21/2008 5:26:24 AM)
What we did was do a % of losses with multinational forces. This applied to Naval and Land forces. Basically if 10 FR and 10 SP were together attacking another nation(s) then the FR & SP would split losses 50-50. If 10 FR are stacked with 3 SP then % losses would be 77% FR and 23% SP. So if they took 5 casualties in RD 1 then 3.85 FR or 4 FR and 1 SP would be the proportional losses. This is a rather simple solution to the issues people are expressing here.

zaquex -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/21/2008 6:09:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldtimer What we did was do a % of losses with multinational forces. This applied to Naval and Land forces. Basically if 10 FR and 10 SP were together attacking another nation(s) then the FR & SP would split losses 50-50. If 10 FR are stacked with 3 SP then % losses would be 77% FR and 23% SP. So if they took 5 casualties in RD 1 then 3.85 FR or 4 FR and 1 SP would be the proportional losses. This is a rather simple solution to the issues people are expressing here. And it is an example of proportional losses .

zaquex -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/21/2008 6:38:08 AM)
I agree that proportional losses also should be applied for land forces with a reservation that the process might have to be modified. As an example: If power A provides 2 inf corps with 20 inf and power B provides 1 guard corp and 1 cav corp with 10 guard factors and 10 cavalry factors it might seems unreasonable that B should take 50% of the lossess. It might work as a deterant for cooperation especially between Russia and Prussia and/or Austria that might have implication to game balance especially in regards to the current Russian OOB. Have to give this some thought.

AresMars -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/21/2008 7:05:54 PM)
Zaquex, Why would the losses not be proportional in your example above? If MP B was willing to commit those type of troops to a battle, they still need to spill blood for the PP gain....they get to choose BEFORE the battle what troops they are going to send....why would they then get a pass on the CAS suffered in or during the battle?

AndrewV -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/21/2008 10:22:52 PM)
I also support the call for proportional losses, for both naval and land battles.

bresh -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/22/2008 12:19:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AndrewV I also support the call for proportional losses, for both naval and land battles. I wont mind it as an option to the game. But not forced upon you. So players can choose to use it or not. Regards Bresh

zaquex -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/22/2008 6:43:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AresMars Zaquex, Why would the losses not be proportional in your example above? If MP B was willing to commit those type of troops to a battle, they still need to spill blood for the PP gain....they get to choose BEFORE the battle what troops they are going to send....why would they then get a pass on the CAS suffered in or during the battle? I wouldn't like it to be implemented like a straight proportional division cause of game balance and because it would be unrealistic. Not that EiA is a 100% realistic game but I dont see why we should voluntarily make the game more unrealistic if there isnt strong reasons due to balance or playability. Some reasons include but are not necissarily limited to: If straight proportional losses was implemented purely based on the number of factors taking part in a the battle and you have strong expensive corps its an absolute necessity to screen them with cheaper militia or infantry anything else would be stupid. This has consequenses for how you realisticly can form a combined army primarily when facing Napoleon. This is especially true when Russia is involved due to weakness of Russias OOB in the current implementation, with generally small corps without cav in combination with 2 shift-able guards, relativly big cav corps and artillery. Unless the players are stupid you will not be able to create the most optimal army the OOB allows. Russia wont lend its high quality corps to a joint operation without a proper screen and Austria/Prussia dont want to use any of the Russian subpar units in the Army. Generally this would shift the balance to make an already strong France even stronger. Its also unrealistic in the sense that Guards and Cavalry was generally not keept at the front line, they where usually held in reserve or in the case of cavalry used to screen flanks, skirmish etc and commited as needed to break or reinforce positions. Also from the commanders and the players point of view it would seem unreasonable in a campaign of battles to sacrifice your best troops when other more easily replaceable troops are available. To win a war it should be a priority to keep the quality and integrity of your army as high as possible and what commander would put his Guards and Cav in the primary battle line? I would suggest that the losses would be proportional but with the restriction that available Militia and Infantry always should be taken first even if violating the principle of proportional losses.

gwheelock -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/22/2008 7:34:45 AM)
Maybe we should have a "proportional BY TYPE" option - ie 1) Militia elegible losses are taken based on the portion of milita in the force; then 2) Infentry elegible losses are taken based on the portion of Infentry in the force; then 3) Cav losses are taken proportional to the Cav in the force If there is a 2-level guard commitment; guard losses must come from either the French or Russians (again proportional if BOTH are available - [sm=00000023.gif]) If there is a 1-level guard losses come (proportionally) from all available guard corps

bresh -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/22/2008 12:30:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gwheelock Maybe we should have a "proportional BY TYPE" option - ie 1) Militia elegible losses are taken based on the portion of milita in the force; then 2) Infentry elegible losses are taken based on the portion of Infentry in the force; then 3) Cav losses are taken proportional to the Cav in the force If there is a 2-level guard commitment; guard losses must come from either the French or Russians (again proportional if BOTH are available - [sm=00000023.gif]) If there is a 1-level guard losses come (proportionally) from all available guard corps Thats now how a battle would work. But for simplicity its way easier to just chose. Its not like all the armies charge each other so that looses are divided equal. Useally green soldiers where put in the first rows and veterans way behind, as far as i recall battle stories. Thats also why im not especially for propotinal looses. Its all about how the commander commits his force. Some units useally take heavier fire than others. He could easy commit say a minors corps to take the middle of his battlelines, or divide the army up so the first lines deployed in the middle are militias. Who then take the heavier initlial looses. Regards Bresh

AresMars -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/22/2008 12:39:50 PM)
Quoting from the Orginal EiA Rules: 12.2.5 PROPORTIONAL NAVAL LOSSES: When a stack of fleets of mixed nationalities (including minor country nationalities) participates in a combat, the losses it takes should be as nearly proportional to the starting proportions as possible. Round ".5" and above up. When proportions do not "round out" precisely, an "odd" loss or losses should be assigned by mutual agreement or, if agreement cannot be reached, by competitive die rolls. For example, a stack of fleets totalling 68 ships contains 36 British (52.9%), 20 Swedish (29.4%) and 12 Portuguese (17.7%) ships and loses 10 ships in a naval combat. The losses should be 5.29 (5) British, 2.94 (3) Swedish and 1. 77 (2) Portuguese ships. 12.3.6 PROPORTIONAL LAND LOSSES: When army factors of mixed nationality (including minor country nationalities) participate in a combat, the losses suffered should be as nearly proportional to the starting proportions as possible. Round ". 5 " and above up. When proportions do not "round out" precisely, an "odd" loss or losses should be assigned by mutual agreement or, if agreement cannot be reached, by competitive die rolls. Once the number of army factors lost by each contingent are determined, the controlling players decide the types of factors to be lost by each contingent (within the normal limits for militia, cavalry, guard, etc. factors that must be lost by the whole army) by mutual agreement or, if impossible, by competitive die rolls. This keeps the play balance of the GAME in balance IMHO and also keeps the battle losses proportional to the size of Corps. When France stacks with anyone else they still suffer MORE of the CAS. OOB changes are much easier for Matirx to update in order to restore EIANW closer to the orginal.

gwheelock -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/22/2008 5:13:51 PM)
Yes; but both of those are OPTIONAL rules - good options & ones that we used in most of the games that I played - but still optionals.

AresMars -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/22/2008 5:31:04 PM)
gwheelock, is that a statement, comment, or is there a point you are trying to make? New Political Combinations; Ship Builiding Locations; Crossing Arrows; Cavalry Superiority; Cavalry Withdrawls, Guard Commintment; Artillery Corps; Economic Manipluation are also Optional Rules....So what?

gwheelock -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/22/2008 6:09:46 PM)
Well; the way you were stating them made them sound like a (missing) part of the original CORE requirements (remember; not everyone on the forum is familer with/has a copy of the original EIA)

Soapy Frog -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/22/2008 6:23:20 PM)
It would seem wise to implement the more important/more used optionals in the game. Proportional losses is a fairly important rule for games between strangers, especially.

AresMars -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/22/2008 6:31:02 PM)
I never stated that they where CORE requirements - I just mentioned that they were part of the orginial rules. When I think something is CORE I tend to identify that fact....and WHY. The third line of my comment stated that; IMHO these rules (optional or not) help with game play balance. I have already posted a source of the orginal rules and I'll do so again to make sure that it is a level playing field... http://www.boardgaming.info/EIA-archive/downloads/eiarules.zip I understand your point about optional rules - I just don't like the OPTIONAL RULES defense or comment when discussing subjects. It adds nothing of value. Clearly this subject is of interest to the game (EIANW) and its players as we are discussing it on the EIANW forum. And by the usual suspects (as always).... EIANW is a mishmash of EIA elements and EIH v3.0 elements, so how can non-EIA players really understand the differences - do they even really care? What they have is EIANW....and only that as an experience.

bresh -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/22/2008 8:36:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AresMars I never stated that they where CORE requirements - I just mentioned that they were part of the orginial rules. When I think something is CORE I tend to identify that fact....and WHY. The third line of my comment stated that; IMHO these rules (optional or not) help with game play balance. I have already posted a source of the orginal rules and I'll do so again to make sure that it is a level playing field... http://www.boardgaming.info/EIA-archive/downloads/eiarules.zip I understand your point about optional rules - I just don't like the OPTIONAL RULES defense or comment when discussing subjects. It adds nothing of value. Clearly this subject is of interest to the game (EIANW) and its players as we are discussing it on the EIANW forum. And by the usual suspects (as always).... EIANW is a mishmash of EIA elements and EIH v3.0 elements, so how can non-EIA players really understand the differences - do they even really care? What they have is EIANW....and only that as an experience. Would be smarter to note if a quoted rule is optional. Compared to to quoting every core rule. As "Core". Added optional rules I would say should come in under options in game settings, and not by default. But thats how i feel about it. Regards Bresh

zaquex -> RE: Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM (1/22/2008 11:08:20 PM)
This discussion started about naval losses, and due to how this game works mostly to try to make pbem viable and therefore cut down on the number of exchanges naval battles are automated. Therefore there is no possibility for the players to always decide how to distribute losses and that makes how the computer assign losses very important. And it will be even more important once the game cater for a way to combine naval fleets/moves. It is less critical for land battles where the losses are assigned by the player, but a pbem game is alot different from a FtF game. In FtF you usually know the other players at least nominaly there is also a better control of what is going on and the player group can always tweak the rules as it suits them, his is often not true in pbem. And a possible scenario where the controlling player take 100% of the losses in a field battle on his ally is most certainly game ruining. Therefore its possible that some sort of rules of how to distribute losses, if reasonable, would benefit the game.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.25