Advanced Naval Rules (Full Version)

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



Message

Camile Desmoulins -> Advanced Naval Rules (5/28/2004 8:34:13 AM)

Hello

I want to know if you will use the Naval Advanced Rules (official, of course). I think that it is a good idea, whenever there are some changes in them. The original system of the game is, perhaps, the simplest phase to play, and itīs very important. Too much important to be simplest

Thanks



ardilla -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (5/28/2004 10:50:52 AM)

I agree with my countryman [:)]

The biggest "left over" in the original EiA rules is the naval phase combat rules.

It should be at least as important as the corps combat table, with less possibilities, of course. I like the advanced rules, with morale and could be great to have some other countries admirals, Nelson was not the only one!!! Is like there were only Napy and Welly in the hole game!!

What about Gravina a Villenueve, there were not as bad to do not appeare in the game.

JMO.



Black Hat -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (5/29/2004 6:46:11 AM)

Like GB needs more advantages. When ever the groups I've played with used those things, GB was imposible to beat.[:'(]



Camile Desmoulins -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (5/29/2004 7:31:43 AM)

For me, the problem of the Naval Advanced Rules is that Great Britain is invincible (it's not far from the reality, but it subtracts him balance to the game. It's the eternal debat: faithful reflection of the reality, but boring, or the reality used only like inspiration and amusing game), and other questions. Would I alter it allowing France, Denmark and Sweden a morals something higher (3,25?) and maintaining that of Holland in 4. The other question that would apply is to limit the troops/fleet that moves to 10 factors/fleet and that the cavalry and artillery were worth twice as much (v.g.: máx. troops in corps/fleet: 8I and 1C, or 6I and 2C, etc.)

Also, I have seen that in screenshots Privateers appears. I don't like the idea, I believe that there are other priorities. It sounds EIH[:-]



Pippin -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (5/29/2004 7:56:56 AM)

I am not sure why so many people argue about fairness. War is not fair. But besdies that point, many players use the bid system to balance out the game. If you think Britain is impossible to beat, then just bid low enough for her and you will get her.



Camile Desmoulins -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (5/29/2004 8:11:03 AM)

I speak about balance, not about fair. For me, the problem that Great Britain disappears for the defeat it is not question of fair, but rather it breaks the balance of the game. On the other hand, if Great Britain is sure of its naval victory in any situation, the balance of the game also feels the effect. The weapons of Great Britain should be the diplomacy (mainly this), the money and the fleet, not a very little balanced rule that makes him invincible. Great Britain should almost always to be victorios in the sea, but should always fear the defeat [:)]



DoomedMantis -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (5/29/2004 1:19:14 PM)

Just because GB won those Naval battles doesnt mean they should always win them

Different wind conditions, Commander having a bad day, changing tide, mistakes, magazine explosion, all these things and more would mean that a battle could be won and lost.

Think of the consequences if Trafalga and the Nile were won by France. Quite conceivable both.



Le Tondu -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (5/30/2004 3:42:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DoomedMantis

Just because GB won those Naval battles doesnt mean they should always win them

Different wind conditions, Commander having a bad day, changing tide, mistakes, magazine explosion, all these things and more would mean that a battle could be won and lost.

Think of the consequences if Trafalga and the Nile were won by France. Quite conceivable both.


Don't you know that the Brits are Supermen? (That is, until they came to this side of the Atlantic.)

In my opinion, wargame rules should depict each side at their best and not necessarily depict the results of history. The point is, why even play the game if the conclusion is already decided before you start? That's no fun at all.



Nordiska -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (5/31/2004 5:29:48 AM)

I hope when this game comes out, that "Advanced Naval rules" are an option to click on (among others) when you start a campagin.



Le Tondu -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (5/31/2004 5:49:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nordiska

I hope when this game comes out, that "Advanced Naval rules" are an option to click on (among others) when you start a campagin.


Blaspemy, blasphemy!

Yet, I'm with you on that. [:)]

Still, that is the crux of the matter. Isn't it? There are those who would not ever allow you to have any options. They want EiA to stay as the original boardgame on computer.

Good luck to you Nordiska. I hope you get your wish.



ardilla -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (5/31/2004 7:58:29 PM)

I agree with your Nordiska, as well other rules, it should be nice to have an option screen to fill in by all the players, at the same time as the bidding, at the start of the game, so the game could make a counting of the different options as well as the bidding, giving back to all the players the final bididing result and options for the game and start it.

I dont know if I am asking for too much [:'(]

Regards.



Nordiska -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (5/31/2004 9:22:36 PM)

Now that would be nice, if all seven players could click on the options avaliable; If an option gets a majority then it is a rule for that game.[8|]



Camile Desmoulins -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (5/31/2004 11:08:11 PM)

I also hope that there are options and that we can play like the original game. I don't hope that this work as mere computer support (for that this ADC and similar), but yes that comes closer the maximum to the original game. [sm=00000436.gif]

But let us remember that the original made several new official rules, it modified things, and develop very complicated forums, because the game it is very complicated itself. [>:]

The Naval Advanced Rules are a problem, although you can play and fun without them. But I'm woerried more about the question of the diplomacy, that I see the center of the mechanic of the game. The war is the continuation of the diplomacy for other means, remember



gazfun -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (7/9/2004 1:46:16 AM)

hi doomed mantis
If you like playing Empires at Arms maybe we could get together electronically Im with a few guys in Brissy who play it my email at the moment
GArry



ardilla -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (7/9/2004 10:49:10 AM)

Yes, but before the bidding screen, so p.e. you will have to do this to start a game:

1) Each player checks the optional rules he wishes.

2) Each player bid for the countries (p.e. all the players have a total bidding amount that distributes among all the countries, AND, every country has a maximum bidding)

3) After each player had sumited his bidding and optional rules the main computer returns the results of the biddings to all players and the rules with the final countries and rules result (As clear as possible with all the players votes so everyone is happy and doesnt complain or think about cheating :)

That is my "dream", and I think is not too difficult to implement, at least for patch 1.
Regards.



eg0master -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (7/9/2004 12:28:44 PM)

Doesn't the options affect the bidding?
So you have to resolve the options before bidding. Probably someone wnat to play some country with some options but not if the options are not used.



ardilla -> Bidding and voting for optional rules (7/9/2004 4:17:23 PM)

Ok, you maybe right, but I always played that before choosing, drawing or bidding for a nation we had discussed the optional rules.

Another problem to be done separatly will be that it will take 2 emails from everybody, and that you will not be able to bid till everybody had voted the optional rules and that the main computer of the game had resolved and answered the results of voting.

Anyway, for bidding (doesnt matter if it is at the same time or not) I will do it like this.
Of course, allowing Economic Manipulation (this should be voted I guess or by default choosen by the player with the main computer if all other players agree!!)

Country VP Maximum bid allowed (10% p.e.)
Austria 330 33
France 400 40
GB 370 37
Prussia 320 32
Spain 325 33
Russia 335 34
Turkey 315 32

So, I will give to every player a total of 61 VP to bid for all countries.
Why?
The highest value to bid is FR (40) so 40+6+5+4+3+2+1 = 61
Because:
No one can repeat a bid ammount in each country and you have to bid at least 1 point for each country.

This will help that if 2 players go crazy for FR and bid like that (40, 6, 5, ...) the looser will probably take the less bid country, so I guess they will think twice to bid like that.
And of course, FR, from my own experience is the most wanted country to play.

Of course, the other problem is if he doesnt want to play, but there is nothing we can do about it....



Ozie -> RE: Bidding and voting for optional rules (7/9/2004 4:49:36 PM)

Ardilla

I think your system is TOO restrictive in the sum of bids and too lenient for individual countries. What if I want to bid:

France 32
England 26
Russia 21
Austria 13
Prussia 8
Spain 3
Turkey 1

This equals 104 points in my bids but none of my bids is unreasonable. Infact they are realistic bids for games I've played/read about.

I agree there should be a cap for highest bid for every country. But as the results are counted in specific order they dont have to be as high as the 10% of VPs for the last countries. Because last player always gets Turkey there is no point bidding more than 7 seven in any case for Turkey. You'll always get it for 7. Why 7? Because if you really want to make sure you get Turkey you have to use every other low number for some other nation not to get them.

It doens't work like that for Spain but I think around 15 for maximum bib for Spain could be reasonable. And about 20 for Prussia.

For the other MPs your highest bid systems seem good to me.

But your total amount is too low.



pfnognoff -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (7/9/2004 7:24:13 PM)

Returning back to Advanced naval rules discusion. I think we still need to see how things play out with the automated handling of the Naval interception phase. It could prove that GB would not be unbeatable, but very easy to defeat if the SP/FR alliance moves their fleet counters correctly...

2 cents



ardilla -> RE: Bidding and voting for optional rules (7/9/2004 7:57:36 PM)

Thanks Ozie, about the total amount (61) and the maximum for each country (10%) it was just an example to balance the bidding, of course it is not perfect, I figure out in 10 min, but overall it is the way I WOULD like it to BE.

Thats all, just my 3 cents and hopping that with your ideas and experience as well as everybody else in this forum we can get a realistic and good bidding system, so MG just have to implement a little program and dont loose time thinking how to do it [;)]

Regards and have a nice weekend everybody.



DoomedMantis -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (7/10/2004 7:11:40 AM)

Sure, but I gather your talking about when the game comes out?


quote:

ORIGINAL: gazfun

hi doomed mantis
If you like playing Empires at Arms maybe we could get together electronically Im with a few guys in Brissy who play it my email at the moment
GArry



fjbn -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (8/27/2004 2:53:02 PM)

I agree with you. EiA reflects better French army strenght than Royal Navy superiority, specially in campain games. It's easy for Spain and France to make an alliance in Febreuary, but in january the whole Spanish navy joins French Navy in Amsterdam or Brest and makes a sortie in February (121 ships against 100) just before Russian Navy could do anything to help the brittish. +1 roll dice doesn't reflect Royal Navy superiority, and more important, In fact, if Spain and France are both good players can invade England in February and maybe force a surrender in a few months.

I think maybe there will be some rules about naval deployment. For example, Holland fleet always in Amsterdam (I force the players to do it), 30/35 french ships in Brest and the rest in Tolon. Spanish fleets must be deployed in Cadiz (the bigger fleet), Coruņa and Cartagena, and British between the Channel, part in Gibraltar and other places.



Murat -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (8/27/2004 9:28:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fjbn

I think maybe there will be some rules about naval deployment. For example, Holland fleet always in Amsterdam (I force the players to do it), 30/35 french ships in Brest and the rest in Tolon. Spanish fleets must be deployed in Cadiz (the bigger fleet), Coruņa and Cartagena, and British between the Channel, part in Gibraltar and other places.


The idea of the Grand Campaign Game is freedom of action, such restrictions to represent a historical set up at the start of a scenarion (as already printed in all versions of the rules) is preferable, but if you suddenly start restricting where the Spanish should put their fleets (for example) then you will be arguing over where every nation must put their units and that goes against the spirit of the Grand Campaign Game (not to mention the idea of taking over the direction of your country - we have even started games in Econ Phase of December 1804 to put some builds into the game for realism). The British would have a hard time arguing against the scattering of their fleet across the board at the start of the game (they had a LOT of trade routes to protect and sacrificed much of their patrol ability to be at Trafalgar) and in a race to consolidate the fleets at a central point in power, the French have the interior lines.



9thlegere -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (8/27/2004 10:03:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DoomedMantis

Think of the consequences if Trafalga and the Nile were won by France. Quite conceivable both.


What? Highly unlikely.

The French Navy was in a very poor state compared the Royal Navy for this period. The Royal Navy were much better seamen, could fire approx twice as fast, better led and more experienced. They also were far more confident and morale was high.

Trafalgar and the Nile were not flukes. These two engagements were won by a culmination of factors which stacked the odds heavily in favour of the Royal Navy.

A commander having a bad day or a magazine explosion would not have altered these two battles outcomes much.

For a game like EIA, I do prefer to see game, so water down the RN a bit or improve the opposing fleets by all means.

However, lets not kid ourselfs here. The Royal Navy was VASTLY superior to its French and Spanish opponents during this period. To put this kind of realism in the game would mean a lot of Trafalgars.



Murat -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (8/28/2004 12:02:06 AM)

Not to open a can of worms but.......

The biggest change in the Royal Navy was one of leadership, not resources. To say the Royal Navy was vastly superior is something we can do now since we see what that training did, but if Lord Admiral Howe (Nelson's mentor) and Lord Admiral Nelson had not implimented changes in the Royal Navy it would have faced a foe who outnumbered it, and may have out led it. Do not forget that in the American Revolution, Britain lost control of it's entire home coastline to what can best be called a band of privateers under the command of a diplomat (John Paul Jones, 3 "major" ships, under command of Benjamin Franklin) and failed (even with better ship design) to stop Yorktown, and was held in check during the West Indies Campaigns.

The Britsh had better designed ships that were smaller and less numerous than the French alone, not to mention a combined French-Spanish Fleet. British naval command and drill made the difference (just as lack of it allowed the Americans to defeat the British Army "ready, level weapons, fire" ever hear of aiming?) in these battles. Nile started with the British attacking a French fleet at anchor [X(] and they were outnumbered, but still pulled off the victory. Nelson gave his life making Trafalgar a victory by using agressive tactics against a force superior in guns and numbers but not SKILL. The right deaths at the right time, different outcomes in history can make ANY battle go a different direction (which is why we all play these games [:D])



fjbn -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (8/28/2004 12:37:31 AM)

I think difference was training. Royal Navy average gunfire sequence was 1 shot every two minutes or less. French and Spanish navy lasted more, and their shots were less acurate. That makes the difference and explains how Trafalgar and other battles (Camperdown, St Vincent...)ended in British victory. French guncrew acuracy decreased in an incredible way after the Revolution. This is the main reason to explain Nelson tactic in Trafalgar. A direct aproach against a French navy in 1780 could have ended in a very diferent way. Maybe British still could have won the day, but the cost would have been much higher. French Admirals and specially the crew were much better too.



fjbn -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (8/28/2004 12:41:06 AM)

And by the way, you say that British designed better ships. Of course not. French and specially Spanish designed much better ships. but the difference was the crew. Read O'Brian books or many others about that theme and you will see Brit officers point of view.



Murat -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (8/28/2004 8:40:08 AM)

French and Spanish did not use copper hulls and had shorter ranged cannons, thus were slower and though more guns, it took longer to get them to bear.



fjbn -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (8/28/2004 11:19:24 AM)

They used copper hulls, at least Spanish. In Nelson's opinion, Spanish ships were by far the best designed, much better than British. About short range, it depends more of caliber than other questions, and Royal Navy used to fight at short range, so this is not important. It's more important that Royal Navy was the only one who introduced carronades, lethals at short range. And the same ships sailed with a English well trained crew increased its eficience.



YohanTM2 -> RE: Advanced Naval Rules (8/28/2004 7:26:58 PM)

Captured French and Spanish ships were almost always "bought in" to the Royal Navy due to their excellent design.

British crews and the fact they always closed to arms length as fast as possbile usually won the day.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.203125