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

NeverMan -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 6:50:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bresh Gosh, how hard headed can you guys be ? Its like talking to kids. 1. I don't have time for this. 2. If you can't see how your logic is flawed then I don't have time for you. 3. I apologize, it's hard to understand your posts sometimes because your English is so flawed.

RayKinStL -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 7:17:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bresh 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 Bresh, Arguing with you is like banging my head against a wall. I will simply point out two statements that show why your logic is 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." This is not land comabt. Naval combat is so different. Because of it's simplistic nature, the increase of "chance" is far more significant. Because everything is decided by ONE and ONLY ONE die roll, forces should be properly compensated for how they enter the battle. This is much more important in naval comabt because with one die roll, there is less chance for the law of averages to help you out. So you really are comparing apples and oranges when you say this. Further... "Your aguments are so flawed. Because GB dont get naval +1 Bonus for heavies superioty we need to adjust the system ? " YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JESUS CHRIST. EITHER 1.5x's heavies means you have such an advantage that the side with said advantage deserves an additonal modifier to their roll or it doesnt. Christ, how can you not see the inconsistency in this??? I know you are not that stupid. You can honeslty say that if France attakcs Austria navally with 10 heavies agaisnt 3 Austrian heavies, he deserves a +1 for heavy superiority, but if Britain attacks France with 30 heavies against the same French 10 heavies, that advantage does not warrant a bonus??? What the hell sense does that make? This is not a two way street. Either heavy superiority warrants a modifier or it doesnt. Heavy superiority is a BLANKET RULE. It covers EVERY country. It even covers Britain as you can see by the screenshot showing I have it. But to say there is no way for Britain to ever take advantage of it, except for some cockamamey scenario you made up, is absolutely ridiculous. Unfortuantely, I am with NeverMan. This battle simply is not worth it. I provide logic and numbers, and you debate with opinions and speculation. Marshall obviously has no interest in changing things so whats the point? Leave the game inconsistent. Who gives a f**? So much other stuff is wrong with it anyway, we might as well leave this inconsistency in it too. So congrats Bresh, you win, because I simply can not debate you anymore. You choose to consistently ignore all my points of logic. You have never addressed once the logic of the rule and why it should not apply to GB except to try to use some "game balance" arguement that simply does not apply. So I give up. I am done posting in this thread. I have repeated myself far too many times, I simply do not want to spend time retyping the same sht I have said over and over that all the detractors choose to ignore rather than address.

Jimmer -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 7:53:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bresh 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 As far as Nelson goes, it was a sad day (since he died -- although he hung on until he could be told that they had won). To be fair about it, though, if he weren't riding the lead ship, he probably wouldn't have died (the first ship takes a pummeling on its way in, since it's sailing in without all that black powder smoke hanging in the air). As far as Great Britain goes, it was a HUGE success. She came in with 25-27 (depending on the source) ships of the line and 6-8 smaller ships (27 heavy ships and 8 light ships, in game terms). The combined French and Spanish forces was 33h and 7-8l,. The end result: GB CAPTURED 21 ships and destroyed 1 more. 6 more ships made it back to port, but never sailed again. GB lost zero ships. Both sides lost a lot of men, although this also was heavily weighted against the two allies.

Jimmer -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 7:56:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RayKinStL Marshall obviously has no interest in changing things so whats the point? Actually, didn't Marshall post a post that could be taken as favorable?

RayKinStL -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 8:26:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jimmer quote: ORIGINAL: RayKinStL Marshall obviously has no interest in changing things so whats the point? Actually, didn't Marshall post a post that could be taken as favorable? He aske if this would be covered by the classic EiA rules (which is still brings up with an "if" everytime it is mentioned), indicating to me that he either has no interest in amending what are essentially the EiH rules or simply does not understand the logic/arguement being presented. Either way, what is the point of arguing. This is by far the most popular thread going, reach 4 pages already, and I think he has made 1 post in it (maybe 2). I guess this is not a corcern to him, so I am wasting my time arguing the inconsistency. I guess I should just shut up and be happy with a flawed game.

eske -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 9:36:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jimmer 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. What is really sad is, that this insult is only one of a long list of insults in this thread. Quite a few has been directed against bresh. (which is not an excuse, bresh!). Guys, for the strength of your own argumentation plz. keep the focus on what's discussed. If you start adding insults - even disguised ones - no one takes you seriously. And if noone contradicts you, it's simply because they have left... (... something I consider doing [:(] ) /eske

Jimmer -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/29/2008 10:21:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eske If you start adding insults - even disguised ones - no one takes you seriously. Unfortunately, it's worse than that. Most people DO take them seriously (the negative argument) because it's personal. It's hard to divorce oneself from the discussion. We humans tend to take things to heart. I have very likely contributed to this mess, so I apologize to all for any piece which I made worse. I should know better.

bresh -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/30/2008 10:09:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jimmer quote: ORIGINAL: eske If you start adding insults - even disguised ones - no one takes you seriously. Unfortunately, it's worse than that. Most people DO take them seriously (the negative argument) because it's personal. It's hard to divorce oneself from the discussion. We humans tend to take things to heart. I have very likely contributed to this mess, so I apologize to all for any piece which I made worse. I should know better. Thanks for your insight Eske. And no apology needed Jimmer, i get stuborn myself. And im guessing part of this is about letting out steam brought by other bugs. And this discussion has become a list of insults, removing some of the perspective. That was part of why i refered to kids, they dont always accept bedtime to be a rule, but like to debate on it, sometimes by bring in insults as part of their arguments. Im a rule nerd, i use rules as they are written at the best of my advantage, i dont like rules to be changed just on suggestions, when those have not been extensively tested. Regards Bresh

RayKinStL -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/30/2008 7:42:24 PM)
The rules in the book do not state a max modifier but do state that 1.5x heavies warrant a +1 modifier. So based on the rules written, GB should be a +2, and I quoted all apllicable rules earlier in this thread. That's why this thread was started. Accorsing to the rules, as written for this game, GB should be on the +2.

Jimmer -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/31/2008 12:22:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bresh And im guessing part of this is about letting out steam brought by other bugs. No, no, you've got it all wrong. Napoleon was opposed to steamships. Thought they were nonsense (at least, according to Civilization IV and Leonard Nimoy's voice). :)

bresh -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/31/2008 3:10:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RayKinStL The rules in the book do not state a max modifier but do state that 1.5x heavies warrant a +1 modifier. So based on the rules written, GB should be a +2, and I quoted all apllicable rules earlier in this thread. That's why this thread was started. Accorsing to the rules, as written for this game, GB should be on the +2. Die rolls battletable range 0-7. Just like land combat, this gives +1/-1 as max modifers. If +2/-2 modifers where used, the table would go from -1 to 8, to avoid a confusion(and just using same results for -1 0%. and 8 25%.) Wind gauge is described that the modifer can be +2, but that the max roll is 6. Regards Bresh

fvianello -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (8/31/2008 9:45:52 PM)
Version 5.1 of official Empires In Harm rules states: 6.7.4.3 Step Three: Combat Resolution The side that has the wind gauge (or the side given the opportunity to fire first by the opponent choosing to “close to melee”) rolls a D6. Damage caused by the first roll (which is doubled if the other side chose to “close to melee”) is applied before the other side can roll. If neither side received the wind gauge, each side rolls simultaneously. Nationality and numbers modifiers to this roll are presented below. However, the cumulative modifiers to the NAVAL COMBAT TABLE may never exceed “-1/+1” .

bresh -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (9/1/2008 10:40:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jimmer quote: ORIGINAL: bresh 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 As far as Nelson goes, it was a sad day (since he died -- although he hung on until he could be told that they had won). To be fair about it, though, if he weren't riding the lead ship, he probably wouldn't have died (the first ship takes a pummeling on its way in, since it's sailing in without all that black powder smoke hanging in the air). As far as Great Britain goes, it was a HUGE success. She came in with 25-27 (depending on the source) ships of the line and 6-8 smaller ships (27 heavy ships and 8 light ships, in game terms). The combined French and Spanish forces was 33h and 7-8l,. The end result: GB CAPTURED 21 ships and destroyed 1 more. 6 more ships made it back to port, but never sailed again. GB lost zero ships. Both sides lost a lot of men, although this also was heavily weighted against the two allies. Thanks for the history lesson Jimmer. Well EIA and EIAH dont have capture ships as a option. Though not many where destroyed :) I do remember seeing some play EIA with some special rule about capturing ships, im guessing this had come from some issue of General magazine. Though in that game, this meant GB had some 200+ ships(alot from captures), so dont know if they ever used it after. Regards Bresh

Jimmer -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (9/2/2008 5:57:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bresh Well EIA and EIAH dont have capture ships as a option. Though not many where destroyed :) I think I read in a General article that they considered captured ships to be destroyed when they designed the game. Something about not being considered worthy of a nation's "own" ships.

NeverMan -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (9/2/2008 4:36:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HanBarca Version 5.1 of official Empires In Harm rules states: 6.7.4.3 Step Three: Combat Resolution The side that has the wind gauge (or the side given the opportunity to fire first by the opponent choosing to “close to melee”) rolls a D6. Damage caused by the first roll (which is doubled if the other side chose to “close to melee”) is applied before the other side can roll. If neither side received the wind gauge, each side rolls simultaneously. Nationality and numbers modifiers to this roll are presented below. However, the cumulative modifiers to the NAVAL COMBAT TABLE may never exceed “-1/+1” . Seeing as how: 1. EiH sucks 2. EiANW doesn't follow all EiH rules 3. EiANW doesn't follow all EiA rules 4. EiANW is pretty much some bastard hybrid devil child I think quoting rules from silly mods makes no sense whatsoever. JMO.

bresh -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (9/2/2008 4:43:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan quote: ORIGINAL: HanBarca Version 5.1 of official Empires In Harm rules states: 6.7.4.3 Step Three: Combat Resolution The side that has the wind gauge (or the side given the opportunity to fire first by the opponent choosing to “close to melee”) rolls a D6. Damage caused by the first roll (which is doubled if the other side chose to “close to melee”) is applied before the other side can roll. If neither side received the wind gauge, each side rolls simultaneously. Nationality and numbers modifiers to this roll are presented below. However, the cumulative modifiers to the NAVAL COMBAT TABLE may never exceed “-1/+1” . Seeing as how: 1. EiH sucks 2. EiANW doesn't follow all EiH rules 3. EiANW doesn't follow all EiA rules 4. EiANW is pretty much some bastard hybrid devil child I think quoting rules from silly mods makes no sense whatsoever. JMO. Well all i can say i agree on 1, atleast it seems to, and that EIANW is a combo of EIA and EIH, and might not be the greatest solution. But we need to keep in mind EIANW is based on those rules. So offcourse HanBarca, and anyone else can quote them. Im sure we can agree, some like following rules, while others prefer questioning them with however good thoughts, atleast those rules have been tested. While suggesting changes is something, where you can risk changing the gamebalance. And its to noones advantage to try fix a fix later, in my view. Regards Bresh

NeverMan -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (9/2/2008 5:05:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bresh Well all i can say i agree on 1, atleast it seems to, and that EIANW is a combo of EIA and EIH, and might not be the greatest solution. But we need to keep in mind EIANW is based on those rules. So offcourse HanBarca, and anyone else can quote them. Im sure we can agree, some like following rules, while others prefer questioning them with however good thoughts, atleast those rules have been tested. While suggesting changes is something, where you can risk changing the gamebalance. And its to noones advantage to try fix a fix later, in my view. Regards Bresh 1. I don't think most of the EiH rules HAVE been tested, at least not extensively anyways. So I'm not sure this assumption is a good one. 2. You can't quote rules from EiH when EiH has mutliple versions AND EiANW is NOT solely based off of 1 EiH version (meaning not all the EiH 3.0 rules are in EiANW and vice versa). 3. If it didn't get fixed right the first time then we should just let it stay broken?

bresh -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (9/2/2008 5:19:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan quote: ORIGINAL: bresh Well all i can say i agree on 1, atleast it seems to, and that EIANW is a combo of EIA and EIH, and might not be the greatest solution. But we need to keep in mind EIANW is based on those rules. So offcourse HanBarca, and anyone else can quote them. Im sure we can agree, some like following rules, while others prefer questioning them with however good thoughts, atleast those rules have been tested. While suggesting changes is something, where you can risk changing the gamebalance. And its to noones advantage to try fix a fix later, in my view. Regards Bresh 1. I don't think most of the EiH rules HAVE been tested, at least not extensively anyways. So I'm not sure this assumption is a good one. 2. You can't quote rules from EiH when EiH has mutliple versions AND EiANW is NOT solely based off of 1 EiH version (meaning not all the EiH 3.0 rules are in EiANW and vice versa). 3. If it didn't get fixed right the first time then we should just let it stay broken? I think EIH has been tested to some extend, how extend only the involved know. So i can not asume its bad or good. Only that is has been tested. I dont think the naval combat rules are broken, i think its +1/-1 as in EIA and EIH is the right way for naval combat. If a rule is broken, offcourse a fix might help, but this has to be not something, just based on feelings, about fairness. Regards Bresh

NeverMan -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (9/2/2008 7:05:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bresh I think EIH has been tested to some extend, how extend only the involved know. So i can not asume its bad or good. Only that is has been tested. I dont think the naval combat rules are broken, i think its +1/-1 as in EIA and EIH is the right way for naval combat. If a rule is broken, offcourse a fix might help, but this has to be not something, just based on feelings, about fairness. Regards Bresh We can certainly agree to disagree, there's no problem with that. :) I just don't see how having a naval rule that benefits everyone except the major naval power is good. Of course, this problem didn't exist in EiA but only in EiH. As I have stated, I don't think much testing or even thought went into EiH.

fvianello -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (9/2/2008 9:34:05 PM)
You're so predictable [:D]

sw30 -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (9/2/2008 10:28:45 PM)
I guess I'm the closest thing to "being in the know" about EIH that's left, having partially re-written both 3.0 and 4.0. 3.0 was playtested in ~10-15 games. 4.x slightly more than that (surprising, considering that 4.x is a lot more complicated.) 5.x is barely playtested, being more complicated than 4.x, and coming in at a whoping 87 pages (or something like that) of rules. All I can say is that there's been a limit of max +1/-1 for as long as I remember. The additional +1s just give the "superior" side more flexibility. As I mentioned above, giving UK a +2 in naval combats is like giving the Nappy/Murat stack a +2. It can get real ugly real fast.

NeverMan -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (9/3/2008 3:57:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sw30 I guess I'm the closest thing to "being in the know" about EIH that's left, having partially re-written both 3.0 and 4.0. 3.0 was playtested in ~10-15 games. 4.x slightly more than that (surprising, considering that 4.x is a lot more complicated.) 5.x is barely playtested, being more complicated than 4.x, and coming in at a whoping 87 pages (or something like that) of rules. All I can say is that there's been a limit of max +1/-1 for as long as I remember. The additional +1s just give the "superior" side more flexibility. As I mentioned above, giving UK a +2 in naval combats is like giving the Nappy/Murat stack a +2. It can get real ugly real fast. I don't believe anyone is looking for +/- 2 anymore, just a +1/-1 max. This doesn't look like it's going to change, so whatever. HanBarca: Um, let's see, you brought nothing constructive or productive with that post.......who's predictable?? [X(]

RayKinStL -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (9/3/2008 1:33:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan quote: ORIGINAL: sw30 I guess I'm the closest thing to "being in the know" about EIH that's left, having partially re-written both 3.0 and 4.0. 3.0 was playtested in ~10-15 games. 4.x slightly more than that (surprising, considering that 4.x is a lot more complicated.) 5.x is barely playtested, being more complicated than 4.x, and coming in at a whoping 87 pages (or something like that) of rules. All I can say is that there's been a limit of max +1/-1 for as long as I remember. The additional +1s just give the "superior" side more flexibility. As I mentioned above, giving UK a +2 in naval combats is like giving the Nappy/Murat stack a +2. It can get real ugly real fast. I don't believe anyone is looking for +/- 2 anymore, just a +1/-1 max. This doesn't look like it's going to change, so whatever. HanBarca: Um, let's see, you brought nothing constructive or productive with that post.......who's predictable?? [X(] Join the group NeverMan. I gave up a few days ago. Point out inconsistencies with logic and reasoning and half of these hard headed idiots simply refuse to admit a problem may exist. Why they are so married to the rules exactly the way they are is beyond me. If Marshall wants to cling to this horrible inconsistency, then so be it, that is his choice. ALl it means is that I will have little to no interestin this game (hooray for wasting 70$!) until the classic EiA sceanrio is released. I really wish I had read these forums before buying the game. I had never heard of EiH, but had I known that I was buying EiH in an EiA box, I would have definitely stopped myself on the spot.

bresh -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (9/3/2008 1:54:00 PM)
Ray, if you cant comment without insulting ppl. Dont ! Regards Bresh quote: ORIGINAL: RayKinStL Join the group NeverMan. I gave up a few days ago. Point out inconsistencies with logic and reasoning and half of these hard headed idiots simply refuse to admit a problem may exist. Why they are so married to the rules exactly the way they are is beyond me. If Marshall wants to cling to this horrible inconsistency, then so be it, that is his choice. ALl it means is that I will have little to no interestin this game (hooray for wasting 70$!) until the classic EiA sceanrio is released. I really wish I had read these forums before buying the game. I had never heard of EiH, but had I known that I was buying EiH in an EiA box, I would have definitely stopped myself on the spot.

NeverMan -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (9/3/2008 2:26:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bresh Ray, if you cant comment without insulting ppl. Dont ! Regards Bresh Yes, I agree.........."ah um, HanBarca, ah um"

NeverMan -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (9/3/2008 2:29:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RayKinStL Join the group NeverMan. I gave up a few days ago. Point out inconsistencies with logic and reasoning and half of these hard headed idiots simply refuse to admit a problem may exist. Why they are so married to the rules exactly the way they are is beyond me. If Marshall wants to cling to this horrible inconsistency, then so be it, that is his choice. ALl it means is that I will have little to no interestin this game (hooray for wasting 70$!) until the classic EiA sceanrio is released. I really wish I had read these forums before buying the game. I had never heard of EiH, but had I known that I was buying EiH in an EiA box, I would have definitely stopped myself on the spot. Ray, I agree with you that Matrix games really deceived people when they called this game Empires in Arms. I think they knew that there product was not EiA but feared that if they called it EiH not as many people would get conned into buying it. Unfortunately, it's a underhanded marketing trick that many companies use these days (claiming a product something that it is not in order to gain more business). Also, many companies get the license to make a great product but then feel the need to put their "stamp" on it and usually (like in this case) just end up f'ing it up. In the future I honestly hope that Matrix calls a skunk a skunk and doesn't try to make it sound pretty by giving it a prettier name. From reading these forums, don't worry, you are not alone by feeling like you wasting $70 there are plenty of others out there who are still probably waiting from someone to make Emipres in Arms.

Jimmer -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (9/3/2008 4:48:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan I don't believe anyone is looking for +/- 2 anymore, just a +1/-1 max. The people who championed +/-2 just quit arguing. We're still looking for it; our opposition simply became unworthy of further debate.

Jimmer -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (9/3/2008 4:52:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RayKinStL Why they are so married to the rules exactly the way they are is beyond me. Not really. The rules pretty clearly show that +2 (with a maximum roll of 7) is the way it should be. That was my argument originally, and nobody defeated it. As in this thread, once the opposition made it clear that they weren't giving up no matter how wrong they were, I gave up trying to convince them of their error.

Jimmer -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (9/3/2008 5:07:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan Ray, I agree with you that Matrix games really deceived people when they called this game Empires in Arms. I think they knew that there product was not EiA but feared that if they called it EiH not as many people would get conned into buying it. Unfortunately, it's a underhanded marketing trick that many companies use these days (claiming a product something that it is not in order to gain more business). Also, many companies get the license to make a great product but then feel the need to put their "stamp" on it and usually (like in this case) just end up f'ing it up. In the future I honestly hope that Matrix calls a skunk a skunk and doesn't try to make it sound pretty by giving it a prettier name. From reading these forums, don't worry, you are not alone by feeling like you wasting $70 there are plenty of others out there who are still probably waiting from someone to make Emipres in Arms. I think you may be putting too much emphasis on something that may not be malicious. "Big" games from AH tended to evolve over time. The General was "official" stuff. People who played the "big" games were used to having a morphing set of rules (errata, expansions, etc.) I think Matrix simply thought that EIH was the logical extension of EIA that most players were then playing. In fact, they may be correct in this assessment. I know I gave up playing EIA many years ago, not because I didn't like it, but because I had run out of players to play with. But, since EIA was "newer", I would imagine that those who played it thought of it as a "new" game (something gamers sometimes tend to like). I don't see any malicious intent on the part of Matrix or ADG in all this. I think, though, they DID overestimate the level of commitment EIH players would have to "their game". As with all players who like newer games over old, it should have been clear that that contingent of people wouldn't last long with EIANW. Staying power could only be had through EIA, but nobody could see that at the time (because many of the active players were the vocal ones). This is why I didn't want this thread to appear as if the opposition had won us over. Just because the vocal minority finishes a debate or gets the last word in does means neither that they won the debate nor that they were correct.

NeverMan -> RE: Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...??? (9/3/2008 5:31:59 PM)
Jimmer, All I can really say is that I disagree with you.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.65625