Port raids? (Full Version)

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



Message

hellfirejet -> Port raids? (1/27/2010 4:35:49 PM)

I have done alot of port raids using Nelson, and I'm amazed at how successful they usually are,this tactic is perfectly ok if the port is not garrisoned,but for ships attempting this while the port is garrisoned,should really be classed as a suicide run for the attacking ships,as they would be attacked from a elavated position in most cases,and these guns would more than likely be using heated shot, worst still these attacking ships would have to do all this in a confined space with narrow entrance /exit channel,does any one else feel that these attacks on garrisoned ports should be classified as lunacy with all officers lined up and shot for gross stupidity![;)]



DCWhitworth -> RE: Port raids? (1/27/2010 4:52:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet
I have done alot of port raids using Nelson, and I'm amazed at how successful they usually are,this tactic is perfectly ok if the port is not garrisoned,but for ships attempting this while the port is garrisoned,should really be classed as a suicide run for the attacking ships,as they would be attacked from a elavated position in most cases,and these guns would more than likely be using heated shot, worst still these attacking ships would have to do all this in a confined space with narrow entrance /exit channel,does any one else feel that these attacks on garrisoned ports should be classified as lunacy with all officers lined up and shot for gross stupidity![;)]


It's one of the worst aspects of the game I think. That and the ability to land unrealistically huge numbers of troops to storm ports and force fleets out to unavoidable destruction. Happens all the time in EiA and there are virtually no corresponding instances in history (Copenhagen 1801 and 1807 spring to mind but that's about it)



hellfirejet -> RE: Port raids? (1/27/2010 5:25:48 PM)

Hi David, I'm with you it's one of the worst and most stupid aspects of the game,here we have a game that has very little naval action,and the action that the game does allow is bonkers regarding port raids unbeilevable[;)]



DCWhitworth -> RE: Port raids? (1/27/2010 9:37:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet
Hi David, I'm with you it's one of the worst and most stupid aspects of the game,here we have a game that has very little naval action,and the action that the game does allow is bonkers regarding port raids unbeilevable[;)]


In my opinion the entire naval system could do with scrapping and redoing. Unfortunately that is one of the problems, since this is a recreation of a board game changes to the board game are not well received.



hellfirejet -> RE: Port raids? (1/28/2010 12:07:41 AM)

Well it is meant to be a recreation of the board game,but there are quite a few gamers still waiting for the holy grail scenario,that faithfully duplicates the board game,and I would like them to get there wish,but at the same time this is the computer version,and the possabilities are nearly limitless for gamers option's,which is only limited by the computer programmers ability,and I believe given time Marshall has the knowledge and ability to do this.[:)]



ndrose -> RE: Port raids? (1/28/2010 2:33:03 AM)

I think even purists would admit that the original naval rules are pretty thin and not a very good match to the complexity of the land game.



Mardonius -> RE: Port raids? (1/28/2010 4:45:17 AM)

I'd love to help rewrite them in toto



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Port raids? (1/28/2010 1:18:53 PM)

This was never meant to be a naval game for sure! BUT there is always that way-off chance that a strong France and Spain could gaing up and sieze control of the seas BUT IMO it was such a low chance that little time was spent in the naval detail.



Mardonius -> RE: Port raids? (1/28/2010 4:07:53 PM)

True, Marshall, it is not a naval game. Nor is it a military (army) game. It is a game of diplomacy and politics with military and naval aspects. From the first line of the original rules "EMPIRES IN ARMS is a strategic and diplomatic game for up to 7 players that covers the Napoleonic wars from 1805 until 1815."

The land combat is a very good system, indeed. Why not fix the naval aspects? You could export the same combat engine to sea battles, with some changes. So much (say 50%) of the work has already been done and you have resident experts to provide you with much of the rest. For those who prefer not to use such a system, they can simply elect not to use this option.

I think you'd be nuts to not adopt such a chance. Certainly France and the rest of Europe did not catch up with GB at Sea. But that does not mean it was impossible and, indeed, it has been done before in other wars (Sparta gaining ascendancy over Athens at Sea in the Peloponnesian War) given enough time and money expended.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

This was never meant to be a naval game for sure! BUT there is always that way-off chance that a strong France and Spain could gaing up and sieze control of the seas BUT IMO it was such a low chance that little time was spent in the naval detail.




hellfirejet -> RE: Port raids? (1/28/2010 4:51:40 PM)

The land combat is very good in game with the chit pick system,which works well and is very interesting, and as Mardonius says 50% of the system could be used to improve the naval area of the game as well,and there are gamers here including myself, who would be delighted to input our knowlege to help improve the game,if only given the chance![:)]



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Port raids? (1/29/2010 2:39:43 PM)

What do you guys think of the naval combat foir EiH?



hellfirejet -> RE: Port raids? (1/29/2010 2:53:48 PM)

EIH naval is far better than whats on offer just now, but then again even it could be tweaked a little to improve it further.[;)]



Mardonius -> RE: Port raids? (1/29/2010 3:33:02 PM)

I have not looked at it a bit but as I recall it is a very good start. I think that there may be too many chit choices... On land the variable chit choices make sense as the battlefield has concealing terrain but there are only many so options that one canhave in a naval fight.

I would, however, also change the naval amphib assault and transport rules. Glad to help anytime.



hellfirejet -> RE: Port raids? (1/29/2010 3:39:15 PM)

I would think a system with Linear attack /Defence and Melee with 3 chit picks like the land system is a favourite to start with,I also want to reduce the % loss in combat as 25% is excessive,also the light fleets need to be - 2 or -3 CRT, in any combat with heavies.



pzgndr -> RE: Port raids? (1/29/2010 4:13:17 PM)

quote:

What do you guys think of the naval combat foir EiH?


Step #1 should be to work on the optional AH advanced naval combat rules and the proportional losses rule? Those were fairly well established and playtested.

Down the road, additional enhancements using the EiH rules and other ideas like hellfirejet is proposing. One step at a time?



Dancing Bear -> RE: Port raids? (1/30/2010 2:20:29 AM)

I'm very much in support of the Advanced naval rules and proportional losses (between types and nationalities).

I consider propoortional losses to be a high priority, because too many time players treat minor natino fleets gained after a DOW on a minor as disposible fleets. Very unrealistic, and can upset the balance of power in the game considerably for those few months while this minors are around. This has to be easy to program.



ereiser -> RE: Port raids? (1/30/2010 7:30:58 AM)

I also support using the AH advanced naval rules (except the port raid system which is actually worse than what we have now).  I am unfamiliar with EiH rules differences so cannot comment there.

Should also have proportional losses.  And lower percentage losses.

Should also reduce naval PP gain/loss to 1/2 point per fleet.  We have many more fleet counters than the original game.

ER



Skanvak -> RE: Port raids? (1/30/2010 1:43:48 PM)

To save Marshall time and effort. I strongly suggest that any rule change should be playtested on the board game first by two different group.



DCWhitworth -> RE: Port raids? (2/1/2010 1:16:33 PM)

A major problem that needs to be addressed is the naval lift capacity issue. Currently the sheer volume of troops that can easily be moved by sea for an amphibious invasion is silly and unhistorical.

This completely inhibits attempts to make the current naval system more interesting and less GB-centric because if GB does not have naval pre-eminence they risk having an overwhelming army landing on their doorstep at the drop of a hat.

The real danger is that if you tinker with the current naval system you risk *totally* changing the game balance by making GB highly vulnerable unless you revise the naval transport rules first.



Mardonius -> RE: Port raids? (2/1/2010 1:57:59 PM)

I am certain that introducing an an option that changes both naval transport and landings aspect alongside a new naval combat system would be a very good thing indeed. Dave is right, amphibious invasions are far too easy and common. I know folks will be concerned with game balance, and rightly so, but if so changes are done incrementally and in line with historical possibilities we should be just fine.

Moreover, I offer to any naysayers, is it not so that many of the rules in EIANW were adopted as part of this game with little or no playtesting? Surely some of these really changed the game from what it was on the board. And are we not continuously revising it now anyway and getting much better as we go?

What is more, no game can ever be created, let alone evolve, unless some ideas are put forward for gamesmanship.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.578125