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

RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (Full Version)

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

Message

KenClark -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/28/2008 6:15:21 PM)
Listen, the game is already highly imbalanced in favour of GB on the seas. Until someone shows me some math about how a +2 is needed to prevent some sort of disadvantage that GB gets I think giving GB any more bonuses is stupid.

RayKinStL -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/28/2008 7:42:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenClark Listen, the game is already highly imbalanced in favour of GB on the seas. Until someone shows me some math about how a +2 is needed to prevent some sort of disadvantage that GB gets I think giving GB any more bonuses is stupid. First of all, the balance is towards GB because Britain was the major naval power. I don't know if I would say "highly" imbalance. She gets a +1 for being GB, so on a 6-sided die, I guess this means she has a 1/6 advantage over other powers. Even then, the die roll still matters and it is still very very very possible for her to lose. Although I am tired of restating this point, the fact is that there is no logical explaination Ken that can validate why having 1.5x heavies is worthy of a +1 modifier to every country but GB. Britain should have an incentive to commit ships in such a way, whether it be a possible +2, or even NeverMan's idea of a -1 to the opponent's roll is the advantage exists. Plus, remember, the naval advantage is all Britain really has as a MP. Her army is a joke (except for a good morale) and in order to even take advantage of the whole thing would require more heavies than she starts with, while still maintaining a blockade on the French fleets!!! I don't see an imbalance in giving GB a little more boost if she plays by the same rules that gives everyone else a boost. If France manages to somehow decimate the British navy, whether through die rolls or surrender conditions, almost all hope is lost. At that point, all she is good for is feeding money to other countries, and that wouldn't be fun for anyone. I feel good having convinced NeverMan. At least I know my logic is sound!!! I am just suprised how many people accept this inconsistency for the sake of what they perceive as "balance". It's quite sad actually.

AresMars -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/28/2008 9:43:31 PM)
The British Army a joke? I assume you have never stacked a couple Brit CORPS with an Allied Army and see the morale impacts. Even one has effect! Every hear of a leader called Wellington 553B? There was this place called Waterloo....look it up! The Small Army is the most MOBILE in the game, as the Naval can move it just about anywhere.... The British's only advantage as a MP is their Navy? Have you forgotten that GB wins the game if no one else does? It can remove VP from any opponent....just a FYI...you need VP to WIN the game..... There is this guy called NELSON that gives the BRITS +1 on WIND GUAGE. Winning that allows to you hurt your enemies first.... It is a freaking ISLAND and has the Wooden walls to keep people away.... This is a game and there has to be GAME BALANCE so that every player (and country) has an fair chance of winning..... Your arguement (though logical) does seem to upset that little point about a "fair chance of winning".... This is why you are finding very little support, as the rest of us understand the concept.....even a small imbalance is a poor decision over FAIR and PLAYABLE.

NeverMan -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/28/2008 9:49:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AresMars The British Army a joke? I assume you have never stacked a couple Brit CORPS with an Allied Army and see the morale impacts. Even one has effect! Every hear of a leader called Wellington 553B? There was this place called Waterloo....look it up! The Small Army is the most MOBILE in the game, as the Naval can move it just about anywhere.... The British's only advantage as a MP is their Navy? Have you forgotten that GB wins the game if no one else does? It can remove VP from any opponent....just a FYI...you need VP to WIN the game..... There is this guy called NELSON that gives the BRITS +1 on WIND GUAGE. Winning that allows to you hurt your enemies first.... It is a freaking ISLAND and has the Wooden walls to keep people away.... This is a game and there has to be GAME BALANCE so that every player (and country) has an fair chance of winning..... Your arguement (though logical) does seem to upset that little point about a "fair chance of winning".... This is why you are finding very little support, as the rest of us understand the concept.....even a small imbalance is a poor decision over FAIR and PLAYABLE. One could make a VERY STRONG POINT that the game is already imbalanced, very much so. The game was imbalanced ever since it was produced and in fact, the day Matrix decided to go with EiH the game became imbalanced. Also, little things like "no combined movement" don't help either. There is no evasion. Ray would have a stronger case if evasion was in play. I can't believe ANYONE could put this game and the words "game balance" in the same sentence. THAT'S a joke.

sw30 -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/28/2008 10:11:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jimmer 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. Actually, the straw men isn't that, I'm just saying that it is the direction that you are trying to go in. And I disagree about the historicalness of your claim, btw. The real straw men is about the Nappy stack with the correct units to give you a +1 cav superiority vs virtually anyone except the Russians and the Turks. Surely you're not suggesting to give that stack a +2 in addition to the -1? You'd think +1 -1 was bad enough. On a +2 -1, you might as well not fight.

AresMars -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/28/2008 11:11:05 PM)
Neverman, I am an EIA purists, so I use "Game Balance" more in _that_ context then in EIANW.... I would strongly agree that EIANW is much more off balance then normal, however, Rays suggestions (though perfectly sane) would upset my concept of the game balance even further. I already had my battle with Richard M., and have resigned myself to living with what EIANW is.....the fact that classic EIA is now being discussed warms my heart.... You comment ignores the essence of my point - a balanced game should allow all players an equal chance at winning - EIANW is way off on that already (most people agree that the CURRENT naval rules and lack of EVASION favors GB already) and this is why I disagree with RayKinStL. I never said that his position was wrong - I agreed it had logic, however, his suggestion would further affect the game in the wrong direction.... If it was put to a vote, I am afraid that both you and Ray would be in the minority.....lets try and stay on point. (Hell, if only I could sometimes....)

bresh -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 3:11:47 AM)
Here is how i view it. Hope im able to describe it right, at 4 am in the morning. Cap is +1/-1, as Eske pointed out, you get +1 if GB fleets, or if you outnumber your enemies heavies by a factor of 1.5 or more. Austria and Prussia both give a naval force -1, as does a naval force contaning only light fleets gives -1. Now, if we take Nevermans suggestion that when GB fights a naval force and outnumbers their heavies, GB will be fighting +1 while his enemies fight at -1. To adjust for no "+2" modifer. Then we take a naval force containing only light fleets, including Prussian or Austrian light fleet (but not any GB ships) Fleet-Au, this fleet has default -1 and -1, lets say they fight a enemy force also containing only light fleets and no GB ships, so a -1 modifer for this Fleet-Ty. Now if we follow Nevermans suggestion of how GB's +2 adjustment could be fixed and we keep 1 as Cap modifer, we adjust again Fleet-Au is -1(instead of -2), while Fleet-Y is 0(instead of -1). Next we consider what if Fleet-Ty, had 1 heavy Ship +1(1.5 more heavies), vs Fleet-Au (-1 Solely Light ships &-1 Containing Austria/Prussia fleet), this would normally be a +1 Fleet-Ty, -1 Fleet-Au, but now owner of Fleet-Ty demands further adjustment, since Fleet-Au should have a extra malus. How to solve this ? Next we take a GB fleet with heavies, fighting Fleet-Au (Solely light fleets, including Austrian/Prussian ships), modifers in theory would be GB +2, Defender -2. How do we then solve Cap 1, in this fight ? Cap has, and always been 1 in battles, land & Naval, figuring out some ways to adjust is hardly worth the pain, and it seems easy to create a new problem when trying to adjust the rules. Ray, you ask for an example where you benefit from having the 1.5 bonus, beside the GB naval bonus. GB is the only nation who can team up with a Austrian/Prussian fleet, and when outnumbering the enemies heavies, still come out with a +1 for the battle. (+1 GB, +1 (Heavy Supority), -1 Au/Pr fleets). So no, the "+1" 1.5 heavy-Ship superiority bonus is not only for all the other MP's. Regards Bresh

RayKinStL -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 3:40:34 AM)
OK Bresh, set the cap at +/- 1, but when Britain has a heavy superiority, have it put their opponent on the -1 modifier. It could stay the same for everyone else, with heavy superiority on the +1 modifier. This way, should GB fight the Prussians or Austrians in a naval battle, which is unlikely to happen, they can't go more than -1 to their opponent. This way everyone is still happy with modifier being no more than +/-1 and GB can still be properly compensated for committing enough of her forces to create the advantage necessary to gain the modifier.

NeverMan -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 4:01:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RayKinStL OK Bresh, set the cap at +/- 1, but when Britain has a heavy superiority, have it put their opponent on the -1 modifier. It could stay the same for everyone else, with heavy superiority on the +1 modifier. This way, should GB fight the Prussians or Austrians in a naval battle, which is unlikely to happen, they can't go more than -1 to their opponent. This way everyone is still happy with modifier being no more than +/-1 and GB can still be properly compensated for committing enough of her forces to create the advantage necessary to gain the modifier. How is this different than what I suggested?

eske -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 8:26:24 AM)
Guys The result of that die-roll is the damage you do, so it reflects your fleets efficiency using guns. GB crew were the best there was, both in speed and accuracy due to better trainig and more experience, hence the +1, right. Now you are suggesting GB's naval opponents shall have their efficiency reduced when GB has +50% HS? How would you justify that ?? /eske

GShock -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 10:25:01 AM)
Logics has it that if you add a +1 somewhere and add a -1 somewhere else, these factors neutralize each other. All in all, it's about balance but not playing the game (currently) i can't know. What i find amusing is the fact that a very complex game with 20 years of experience has been ported to the PC with changes in the rules. God knows how many players patched the EiA rules and i can't find a single good reason to change them for EiANW. As a prophane so, i insist: There shouldnt be any rule change at all from EiA, unless in separate scenarios where all players may agree and join...it's a matter of "moddability" to my eyes.

bresh -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 11:01:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RayKinStL OK Bresh, set the cap at +/- 1, but when Britain has a heavy superiority, have it put their opponent on the -1 modifier. It could stay the same for everyone else, with heavy superiority on the +1 modifier. This way, should GB fight the Prussians or Austrians in a naval battle, which is unlikely to happen, they can't go more than -1 to their opponent. This way everyone is still happy with modifier being no more than +/-1 and GB can still be properly compensated for committing enough of her forces to create the advantage necessary to gain the modifier. Im saýing NO special adjustment vs GB heavy superiorty ! You miss the point, if we have to "adjust" to this would start creating special rules for the rest, why should we not have to adjust each and every other battle ? My examples where to show how confusing those rules would be. And a GB with heavy superity vs a Au-PR-included solely Light fleet, why stop at +1/-1 ? It should be +2/-2. Next you want 25 extra heavy ships to adjust this. CAP is +1/-1, you can only have total -1 if you have solely light ships, or if you do not have AU-PR light fleets and do not have heavy superioty. You can not create new modifers to fit your needs ! Your agument was the 1.5 heavy advantage only was for all others beside GB, i showed you the example where its not. Another argument was to keep it equal for all, then you will need to add special adjustments to all other nations, when fighting Au/Pr. And in effect give AU/PR nations aditional maluses beside that they are limited to Light fleets ? How hard can it be, to understand. Regards Bresh

NeverMan -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 3:09:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bresh Im saýing NO special adjustment vs GB heavy superiorty ! You miss the point, if we have to "adjust" to this would start creating special rules for the rest, why should we not have to adjust each and every other battle ? My examples where to show how confusing those rules would be. And a GB with heavy superity vs a Au-PR-included solely Light fleet, why stop at +1/-1 ? It should be +2/-2. Next you want 25 extra heavy ships to adjust this. CAP is +1/-1, you can only have total -1 if you have solely light ships, or if you do not have AU-PR light fleets and do not have heavy superioty. You can not create new modifers to fit your needs ! Your agument was the 1.5 heavy advantage only was for all others beside GB, i showed you the example where its not. Another argument was to keep it equal for all, then you will need to add special adjustments to all other nations, when fighting Au/Pr. And in effect give AU/PR nations aditional maluses beside that they are limited to Light fleets ? How hard can it be, to understand. Regards Bresh I don't think anyone is missing the point or misunderstanding what you are saying it's just that your examples are not that good. WHEN was the last time GB had a nav engagement with Pr/Au???? Yes, it COULD happen, but will it??? NO. So, your whole argument is really just based on that one VERY POOR example, and it's weak, at best. Other than GB going against Pr/Au there will never be more than a +1/-1 in a naval battle AND AND AND even if GB does go against Pr/Au (EXTREMELY UNLIKELY) then we already said it should be saturated at +1/-1. Why is THAT so hard to understand???

bresh -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 3:15:50 PM)
Neverman, you can not start creating your own set of rules. Are my examples bad, all they do is refer to how the rules documented ? So be it if poor, they are STILL plausible. Your ohh, lets give those who opose GB heavies a -1 modifer, are not from any EIA or EIH rules i ever heard of. Try to document it ? While yours is just a juniors way of fumbling to undo the standard rules. EIA been playtested for many many years. (And im sure most here would favor the naval rules from EIA not EIH) EIH has alot of playtesting to, but we can not start fixing that in this game. Regards Bresh

NeverMan -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 3:23:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bresh Neverman, you can not start creating your own set of rules. Are my examples bad, all they do is refer to how the rules documented ? So be it if poor, they are STILL plausible. Your ohh, lets give those who opose GB heavies a -1 modifer, are not from any EIA or EIH rules i ever heard of. Try to document it ? While yours is just a juniors way of fumbling to undo the standard rules. Regards Bresh 1. Rules aren't rules until they become so. 2. Rules should make SENSE and these current rules DO NOT. 3. EiH is just a mod of EiA, NOTHING MORE so to pretend it's some Bible is ridiculous. 4. I don't have "current" documentation to back up my argument. It was a SUGGESTION. 5. I guess you are one of those people who don't like to think outside the box? 6. EiH were never "standard" rules and EiANW is full of them. The only thing I want to "undo" is how Matrix has messed up this game.

RayKinStL -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 5:27:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bresh Neverman, you can not start creating your own set of rules. Are my examples bad, all they do is refer to how the rules documented ? So be it if poor, they are STILL plausible. Your ohh, lets give those who opose GB heavies a -1 modifer, are not from any EIA or EIH rules i ever heard of. Try to document it ? While yours is just a juniors way of fumbling to undo the standard rules. EIA been playtested for many many years. (And im sure most here would favor the naval rules from EIA not EIH) EIH has alot of playtesting to, but we can not start fixing that in this game. Regards Bresh If I really need to debate the logic behind "we shouldn't change the rules because we can not start fixing that in this game" then I simply give up with you. It has become obvious to everyone that we payed 70$ for a Beta. We have been used to tweak things and get the game set up the way it needs to be played. People have made multiple threads about rule variations because something is not right. Many have resulted in changes. That is all this thread is about. If you don't like the idea, then fine your opinion has been noted. However, to this opinted, you have presented nothing but weak faulty logic, while I have provided all my points with solid data and numerous ideas for revision. There is nothing wrong with questioning the rules of a game and then questioning whether there is a better, more efficient, or more consistent way things can be handled. NeverMan's suggestion is great because GB can still be properly compensated for a heavy superiority (which is should be) and we can still maintain the max +/-1 modifier that you were clinging to earlier. I would love to get back to Classic EiA. I can't wait till Marshall implements this. But if we see an inconsistency now, and we have viable way to fix it that do not upset the balance of the game (and in my opinion make it more fair), is it really wrong to suggest it? Especially since modifying a die roll before going to the combat resolution chart would be a relatively simple fix for Marshall.

Jimmer -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 5:43:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bresh Im 100% against -1 to all vs GB thats a big game destroying rule. I don't agree with adding the -1 rule for GB, so this should not be taken as an argument for that. What I want to know here is why you would call this a "big game-destroying rule", when exactly the same thing has been done AGAINST GB, and that doesn't seem to be a problem. The rule, as it currently stands, could be stated just as accurately (using reverse terminology): All powers get a +1 unless either they do not have 50% more heavies than their opponent, or if they are Great Britain. This is a reversely-stated version of the same rule as it is applied today. So, why does GB get a penalty that nobody else does, and yet you do not call that "game-destroying"?

Jimmer -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 5:48:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eske In forums like this, whats logical and consistent becomes subjective. Not with me.

Jimmer -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 5:50:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eske 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 By this logic, then, I assume you want to take away the +2 that Nelson and GB get when attacking together? Can't have someone getting anything beyond +1, can we?

Jimmer -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 5:53:55 PM)
Deleted because I wasn't paying attention.

Jimmer -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 5:55:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bresh 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 Absolutely. All of the rules should apply equally, unless they are specifically called-out as applying to only one power (French land movement, GB's bonus at sea, etc.)

Jimmer -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 6:02:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan I can't believe ANYONE could put this game and the words "game balance" in the same sentence. THAT'S a joke. Now THAT is an EXCELLENT point. The game is designed to be unbalanced. That's what makes it fun, in fact.

Jimmer -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 6:07:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sw30 Actually, the straw men isn't that, I'm just saying that it is the direction that you are trying to go in. The definition of a straw argument is when one debater makes a point that his opponent holds a certain position when the opponent does not, in fact, hold that opinion. While it may very well be the direction in which my argument points, it has nothing to do with making France or Spain get beat by GB, nor does it have anything to do with my happiness. It has to do with basic fairness of the rules.

bresh -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 6:11:04 PM)
Gosh, how hard headed can you guys be ? Its like talking to kids. Your aguments are so flawed. Because GB dont get naval +1 Bonus for heavies superioty we need to adjust the system ? The game(EIA/EIANW) does not need new modifers. My arguments are inlogic ? actually there are quite logic, following the combat system of EIA. . Modifers range from -1 to +1. The "old" EIA's And 2 new modifers has been added nothing else has changed +1 Heavy Superority, -1 Solely Light fleets. The table is the same for EIA and EIANW Battledice range 0-7, both in Land and Naval. not -1-8. Do we hear people whine they dont get +2 in land combat ? No, we are used to this. Nor do we apply a -1 to forces who do not have a cav factor. GB has his bonus in combat along side Au-PR so NO, he is not forgotten, does he use it alot no, but GB CAN USE IT the Heavy Superity modifer! . Im not alone on this, but apperently im the only one who cares enough, that you dont destroy the game. Your theory are so flawed that GB NEEDS this to win ? He has +1(+2) wind gauge. He has +1 for battle rolls. Ray Weak faulty logics ? Why dont you stick it ? Can you please list whats so faulty ? Your arguments are not strong Ray, there are several land combat special rules who apply to single nations. I can list them, if you find it to hard to read the manual. Regards Bresh

Jimmer -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 6:18:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AresMars Neverman, I am an EIA purists, so I use "Game Balance" more in _that_ context then in EIANW.... I would strongly agree that EIANW is much more off balance then normal, however, Rays suggestions (though perfectly sane) would upset my concept of the game balance even further. I already had my battle with Richard M., and have resigned myself to living with what EIANW is.....the fact that classic EIA is now being discussed warms my heart.... You comment ignores the essence of my point - a balanced game should allow all players an equal chance at winning - EIANW is way off on that already (most people agree that the CURRENT naval rules and lack of EVASION favors GB already) and this is why I disagree with RayKinStL. I never said that his position was wrong - I agreed it had logic, however, his suggestion would further affect the game in the wrong direction.... If it was put to a vote, I am afraid that both you and Ray would be in the minority.....lets try and stay on point. (Hell, if only I could sometimes....) While you are correct that it is unbalanced in favor of GB, that's nearly irrelevant to the calculations of who wins the game. The game is won on the political status display as translated to victory points over the course of the game. If GB were to totally trash all of the other navies in the game in the first year, what would that do to her score? That's an easy one: It would raise her VP total by about 20. Will that cause her to win? Good luck with that argument; 20 merely cancels out what I would bid for her. In fact, when playing GB, I strongly prefer it if the battles are between forces that are more equal than unequal. It means that I don't win the naval war too quickly. Winning the naval wars too quickly means I can't get any more VPs out of the sea. You have to have consistently good results on the battlefield, the high seas, and in diplomatic actions in order to win this game. Speeding up the demise of the rest of the world's navies is barely a blip on the radar screen in this game. What IS unbalanced (and needs to be corrected) is that GB gets roughly twice as many VP out of her naval battles as she should. This is due to having two fleets (a heavy and a light) where one existed in EIA. There was a doubling of the number of fleets that could fight, but no corresponding reduction in the rewards for those fights.

Jimmer -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 6:22:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bresh Ray, you ask for an example where you benefit from having the 1.5 bonus, beside the GB naval bonus. GB is the only nation who can team up with a Austrian/Prussian fleet, and when outnumbering the enemies heavies, still come out with a +1 for the battle. (+1 GB, +1 (Heavy Supority), -1 Au/Pr fleets). So no, the "+1" 1.5 heavy-Ship superiority bonus is not only for all the other MP's. Regards Bresh [/color] You have a point. I'm not sure you helped your argument, but this is indeed a good point. The reason it doesn't help is that you have now added a disclaimer to Ray's argument: GB never gets the bonus for 1.5x UNLESS he is fighting alongside of the Prussians or Austrians.

Jimmer -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 6:25:34 PM)
Another idiot argument from me.

Jimmer -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 6:31:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bresh And a GB with heavy superity vs a Au-PR-included solely Light fleet, why stop at +1/-1 ? It should be +2/-2. Ideally, absolutely. Were you expecting anything different? But, I'm willing to accept the compromise. Actually, I would like to see both as options. I would like an answer to the question I posed to you (and the others) that y'all never replied to: All other things being equal, what would have happened at Trafalgar, had the British come with 49 or more ships of the line? Would the results have been different than with the 27 she actually came with?

bresh -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 6:40:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jimmer quote: ORIGINAL: bresh And a GB with heavy superity vs a Au-PR-included solely Light fleet, why stop at +1/-1 ? It should be +2/-2. Ideally, absolutely. Were you expecting anything different? But, I'm willing to accept the compromise. Actually, I would like to see both as options. I would like an answer to the question I posed to you (and the others) that y'all never replied to: All other things being equal, what would have happened at Trafalgar, had the British come with 49 or more ships of the line? Would the results have been different than with the 27 she actually came with? If you could describe how the battle actually went ? All i know is Nelson won, i never spend any time reading about his victory. Though i rember seeing some scematics about his tactics once. Was it there he died ? I seem to remember during the napoleonich wars. Gunboats(small boats with single gun) where also used heavily. Regards Bresh

Jimmer -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 6:41:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bresh Gosh, how hard headed can you guys be ? Its like talking to kids. Answer either Ray's big question or mine before insulting us.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.546875