RE: New Naval Combat System Model

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: New Naval Combat System Model

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> RE: New Naval Combat System Model

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: New Naval Combat System Model - 1/22/2009 1:01:02 AM

Mardonius

Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: East Coast
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

[

Warspite1

I suspected you would pick up on the courage angle, which I purposely tried to show as just being one part within a bigger whole. I would not deride the heroic exploits of the Italian Navy - and as you say - there were some. Equally, to point to a British success and just say oh yes, they had radar, and to ignore men like Cunningham who had to make the decision whether or not to sail toward the enemy coast without air cover is very unfair.

The point is - courage by the few - or any one of those ingredients is not enough. FACT (and going back to the French) - Many good and experienced officers were removed and in addition I cannot believe that a large scale recruitment to the navy would not have seriously denunded the supply of desperately needed troops especially after the losses of 1812.

Summary - Not enough experienced officers, not enough experienced sailors (without hurting the land campaigns), not enough experience of winning and so a major psychological downer from from the start (the later just like the Italian vs RN in WWII).

Fact is I didn`t know about the number of ships - why didn`t they sail??

Rgds

Rob

Here is the key (in my opinion) Rob:

GB did a splendid job of keeping the French Blockaded in port. So although the manpower was available, there was little opportunity to get them sea time. Yes, some did get time on fishing vessels, frigates,merchantmen and privateers, but this is very costly in that many French sailors ended up in GB custody. Others did manage gunnery practice and the like. But unlike on land, one has to go to sea to get any good at naval war. In my opinion, this is the foundation of GB's maritime superiorty. Had the French had a years of peace or not been blockaded, their rebuilt navy would have been -- with some training and leadership focus -- most formidable. See Battle of Virginia Capes for an example of French Naval Successes.
best
Varick/Mardonius

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 91

RE: New Naval Combat System Model - 1/22/2009 6:52:13 PM

iamspamus

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline

In comparison, how many did GB have? Spain?
Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

Hello dodod,
I think the build costs & times are way to much, its also far to easy to have massive fleets in the game, fleets should be smaller allowing for more naval combat in the game. I should also point out that although France lost a great number of ships during the campaign, it still ended the war with a stronger navy than it begun due to it's ship building program.

Please note HFJ's comments that France "still ended the war with a stronger navy than it begun due to it's ship building program". Ans this is a France who marched into Russia. Ship prices and build times must come down.
They are way too high to allow for all but minor builds.

Yo Mardonius,

Hi folks here is a piece of historical fact that proves that France was a major threat to Britains so called dominance of the seas.

In 1813 France had rebuilt her naval strength after Trafalgar and had 71 Heavies at her disposal and had a further 42 building, I would call that a challenge to Britains naval supremacy.

(in reply to hellfirejet)

Post #: 92

RE: New Naval Combat System Model - 1/23/2009 9:11:36 AM

Ashtar

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline

Guys, some comments:

1. If and how much GB has a further advantage has still to be shown. How many pbem EIANW games have you seen coming to an end have you seen Mardonius? Me 0, which is not a pretty good statistic you will reckon.

2. Theoretically, the lack of naval evasion combined with the foolish pp value of fleets in combat is probably the largest GB advantage so far: it basically forces other naval powers to NOT move their fleet out of ports. Suppose Spain moves some of his fleets in open waters. As GB I can easily declare war on next turn, move
first and attack these fleets with my full navy, inflicting heavy damage and immediately retaking the pp lost by declaring war by virtue of my Nelson commanded victory. This is also a very effective menace when treaties are being shaped. If Naval evasion would be in place this plan would work only 66% of the times, and GB would be less inclined to surprise attack, for the fear of ending up losing pp's and ending up in a war against Spain with his full naval forces...

3. The increased naval built cost and time for heavies probably favors GB, but keep in mind that other nations can also build lights: GB has a +1 by default, so no further penalties/advantages are given by fighting GB with heavy ship inferiority. Furthermore, at the start of the game GB has by far less forces then its combined potential enemies: with the increased cost it is more difficult for her to invest in the navy to reach global naval superiority.

4.As it has been pointed out, once your navy is gone is quite expensive to replace it, so if France looses all his navy GB will find himself with a slightly superiority towards the combined Spain/Russian fleet. However the argument works both ways, once GB looses part of its navy (like after an inconditional surrender)
it is basically game over. And France loosing all its fleet should be considered as a MAJOR mistake, compared to GB letting an invading force landing on its soil.

5. The fact is, GB has a very small army (both in terms of starting values and maximum corps) and the lowest manpower intake of all major powers. Its main strengths are navy and geographical position. A single mistake or a single battle lost in the channel and the France army will be in London, courtesy of the channel crossing arrow. Once that happens, it is basically game over for GB. On the other hand, IF GB manages to destroy the French or Spanish navy, then it can endure relative
security.

6. To compare: Russia enjoys too a good position thanks to geography, and the FOOLISH EIANW choice of having only Moscow as a capital put Russia in a far better position regarding homeland security then the increased ship build cost did with GB (St. Petersburg is relatively vulnerable, Moscow is not). How many EIANW pbem games have you seen with GB forced to unconditional surrender and how many with Russia?

7. If you want to restore game balance, the solution is a classic EIA scenario, with St. Petersburg & Moscow reinstalled as twin capitals and the full EIA naval rules in places.

8. Any new naval combat rules could lead to umpredictable results. They should be tested with this idea in mind: for France to win it is enough to win 3 out of 4 land battles, for GB to survive it is not enough to win 3 out of 4 naval battles: you loose the fourth and London ends up being occupied.

9. This is a grand strategy game played at the corp level, not a detailed simulation of Napoleonic warfare, keep it in mind. You cannot have both in the same set of rules. Put more micromanagement and the overall grand strategy structure will suffer.

(in reply to iamspamus)

Post #: 93

RE: New Naval Combat System Model - 1/23/2009 10:30:07 AM

iamspamus

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline

No.

Regarding your points:
1. If no one has any experience with whether GB is/was full of advantage in EiANW, then further tweaking won't matter as there is no baseline.

2. I don't remember evasion in EIA. (Was it there?) Are you complaining about the "foolish pp" for naval battles in EiANW? Can you let us know the difference between EIA and EIANW, please? I really don't know.

2a. Tough baloney about your spanish example. THAT was EIA. Having played Spain a couple of times, you didn't move your fleet out of a fully stocked Cadiz unless you wanted it destroyed. I ususally used a single point fleet for supply and OCCASIONALLY would take one fleet out to move troops to a friendly Naples or something and usually if most of the British fleet was screwing around up in the Baltic at the time. Otherwise, if you left your fleet out, GB killed it. Period. So, what is the difference?

3. Um, in EIA "classic", GB is out numbered by Spain and France, if I remember correctly. Through in Russia and they minors and they are hosed. So what is your complaint here? This is the same case in EIANW. What gives the their advantage is that the navies don't start together and potentially can be defeated in detail. Once again accurately protrayed to me. So, yes all of their enemies collectively should be able to out build England, just like all of the enemies of France should be able to collectively out build France.

(Side note - once our GB player was a deeeeek and so FRA, RUS, SPA all started a war with him and with our complete navies in the London Blockade box...

That was fun. Another time, FRA, SPA, RUS all stopped fighting for like 3 or 4 years and only built ships...

That was fun too!)

4 & 5. If France loses it's navy, it still has the land war. If GB loses its navy, it depends on how much it losses. There are two separate issues: 1. Butt whooped in battle or 2. Having to surrender. If the ships are destroyed, they have years to replace them. If facing an unconditional surrender, the standard tactic was to purchase all of your fleet counters and spread out your fleets, so that losing two won't matter as much.

Is it bad for the Brits if they lose their ships. Yep. Is it catastrophic? I haven't seen that. Also, while others are needing to build a lot of troops to survive, England can build some, but can put most of its massive economy into ships. You asked about experience before. I have seen England get smacked (by these huge coalitions) and still come back. This is a LONG game and diplomatically it should balance itself.

6. Russia's tough. Ok.

7. Your point 7 discounts your argument in point 1. How many games have you seen go to completion with EIANW. Zero? So, whether there is game balance (in your words) "has still to be shown". How can "returning the classic" restore balance...? Sounds like a quote from Star Wars or something.

I have no problem with them doing a classic scenario. That's what you want, but don't try to argue that it's sOOOOOOO much better. In every game of EIA I played (10ish), we added some house rules and variations. Sometimes a lot. It was a good base., but IMO so was EIH.

8. NNNNNNNNNNNNTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT. Sorry. The "new naval rules" that I discussed were from a. The General and b. EIH, both with YEARSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS of testing. Adding in schooners or magic flying balloons or something, well, we'll leave those sentiments to others.

9. I kind of agree here. As I've said before, there has to be a balance between chrome (ie. added extra stuff to make the game more fun and/or realistic) and playability (ie. the ability for the game to move along and be fun for those experiencing it). No doubt about it. Preachin' to the choir here.

So, here are my takeaways:
1. Add evasion and some of the other things suggested (ie. naval combat charts)
2. Reduce costs and build times.
3. Not having light ships be taken as full ship losss, (ie. if you have 6 losses then a ls = 1/2 or 1/3 a ship for losses - like the cav = 1, inf = 3, mil = 9 factors for pursuit).
4. Moscow AND St. Petersburg need to be capitals. (If they are not now.)
5. Design classic scenario

Well, enough for now.
Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

Guys, some comments:

1. If and how much GB has a further advantage has still to be shown. How many pbem EIANW games have you seen coming to an end have you seen Mardonius? Me 0, which is not a pretty good statistic you will reckon.

2. Theoretically, the lack of naval evasion combined with the foolish pp value of fleets in combat is probably the largest GB advantage so far: it basically forces other naval powers to NOT move their fleet out of ports. Suppose Spain moves some of his fleets in open waters. As GB I can easily declare war on next turn, move
first and attack these fleets with my full navy, inflicting heavy damage and immediately retaking the pp lost by declaring war by virtue of my Nelson commanded victory. This is also a very effective menace when treaties are being shaped. If Naval evasion would be in place this plan would work only 66% of the times, and GB would be less inclined to surprise attack, for the fear of ending up losing pp's and ending up in a war against Spain with his full naval forces...

3. The increased naval built cost and time for heavies probably favors GB, but keep in mind that other nations can also build lights: GB has a +1 by default, so no further penalties/advantages are given by fighting GB with heavy ship inferiority. Furthermore, at the start of the game GB has by far less forces then its combined potential enemies: with the increased cost it is more difficult for her to invest in the navy to reach global naval superiority.

4.As it has been pointed out, once your navy is gone is quite expensive to replace it, so if France looses all his navy GB will find himself with a slightly superiority towards the combined Spain/Russian fleet. However the argument works both ways, once GB looses part of its navy (like after an inconditional surrender)
it is basically game over. And France loosing all its fleet should be considered as a MAJOR mistake, compared to GB letting an invading force landing on its soil.

5. The fact is, GB has a very small army (both in terms of starting values and maximum corps) and the lowest manpower intake of all major powers. Its main strengths are navy and geographical position. A single mistake or a single battle lost in the channel and the France army will be in London, courtesy of the channel crossing arrow. Once that happens, it is basically game over for GB. On the other hand, IF GB manages to destroy the French or Spanish navy, then it can endure relative
security.

6. To compare: Russia enjoys too a good position thanks to geography, and the FOOLISH EIANW choice of having only Moscow as a capital put Russia in a far better position regarding homeland security then the increased ship build cost did with GB (St. Petersburg is relatively vulnerable, Moscow is not). How many EIANW pbem games have you seen with GB forced to unconditional surrender and how many with Russia?

7. If you want to restore game balance, the solution is a classic EIA scenario, with St. Petersburg & Moscow reinstalled as twin capitals and the full EIA naval rules in places.

8. Any new naval combat rules could lead to umpredictable results. They should be tested with this idea in mind: for France to win it is enough to win 3 out of 4 land battles, for GB to survive it is not enough to win 3 out of 4 naval battles: you loose the fourth and London ends up being occupied.

9. This is a grand strategy game played at the corp level, not a detailed simulation of Napoleonic warfare, keep it in mind. You cannot have both in the same set of rules. Put more micromanagement and the overall grand strategy structure will suffer.

(in reply to Ashtar)

Post #: 94

RE: New Naval Combat System Model - 1/23/2009 11:27:36 AM

Ashtar

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline

Proper place here

quote:

No.

?? To what?

quote:

2. I don't remember evasion in EIA. (Was it there?) Are you complaining about the "foolish pp" for naval battles in EiANW? Can you let us know the difference between EIA and EIANW, please? I really don't know.

Of course it was there, rule 6.3.2 (you can check it here http://eia.xnetz.com/rules/eiarules-with-errata.html).
For what regards pp, EIA fleet where 30 strong, while EIANW are 20H OR 10L strong. EIH fleets were 30 strong
(20h+10L). All are worth 1pp in EIA, EIH and EIANW. It is obvious that since old EIA and EIH fleet are basically composed by two EIANW fleet (1 heavy + 1 light), EIANW fleet should be awarder only 1/2pp, otherwise even minor
fights can give a lot of pp's.

quote:

2a. Tough baloney about your spanish example. THAT was EIA (...)

As I said, in EIA Spain has a 33% chance of evading. I do not know how you used to play Spain, but if GB is not at war with Spain it should better think twice about a surprise attack: 33% of the time you do not kill the Spanish fleet, you loose pp's and you are entangled in a double war against both Spain and France which is indeed the worse nightmare of GB (of course every reasonable EIA game starts with a preset war between France and GB).

quote:

3. Um, in EIA "classic", GB is out numbered by Spain and France, if I remember correctly. Through in Russia and they minors and they are hosed. So what is your complaint here? This is the same case in EIANW. What gives the their advantage is that the navies don't start together and potentially can be defeated in detail. Once again accurately protrayed to me. So, yes all of their enemies collectively should be able to out build England, just like all of the enemies of France should be able to collectively out build France.

No complain here, just noting that the "it is more difficult to build ships in EIANW" argument can be regarded both as in favor or against GB.

quote:

4 & 5. If France loses it's navy, it still has the land war. If GB loses its navy, it depends on how much it losses. There are two separate issues: 1. Butt whooped in battle or 2. Having to surrender. If the ships are destroyed, they have years to replace them. If facing an unconditional surrender, the standard tactic was to purchase all of your fleet counters and spread out your fleets, so that losing two won't matter as much.
Is it bad for the Brits if they lose their ships. Yep. Is it catastrophic? I haven't seen that. Also, while others are needing to build a lot of troops to survive, England can build some, but can put most of its massive economy into ships. You asked about experience before. I have seen England get smacked (by these huge coalitions) and still come back. This is a LONG game and diplomatically it should balance itself.

Problem is that, once you surrender unconditionally, France could take Scotland or Wales as conquered provinces.
Keep there around 50 factors and GB will think twice before organizing another anti-France coalition. Even better, move a few corps there just before the enforced peace ends and retake London...

quote:

6. Russia's tough. Ok.

Russia is much tougher in EIANW then in EIA without the St. Petersburg weak spot. For example, it is now virtually invulnerable to GB. Still, it needs the same VP as in EIA.

quote:

7. Your point 7 discounts your argument in point 1. How many games have you seen go to completion with EIANW. Zero? So, whether there is game balance (in your words) "has still to be shown". How can "returning the classic" restore balance...? Sounds like a quote from Star Wars or something.

EIA was balanced, EIANW we do not know --> if you are worried about balance easier thing would be restore EIA (starting from naval evasion)

For what regards naval rules from EIH and the general never used them. About the EIH ones, I have heard a lot of complaints, since the "capture the hull" things apparently largely favored a GB dominance. Concerning the General ones, I repeat my worries: land combat is fun but basically a hand-paper-scissors thing. You can maximize your chances but basically even France can loose a battle or two starting from a superior situation. That does not matter, since if you win 4 and lose 1 battle you would still win the war. Take naval now: my worry is that for GB is often enough to loose a single naval battle to see London occupied. So Gb plays well, starts a channel battle from a superior situation but gets outpicked in the paper-hand-scissors game --> war lost. How frequent is this outcome with the General rules?
The catch here is that naval and land operation are not symmetrical: by winning on the seas GB cannot force enemies to unconditional surrender, it just avoids being invaded (and gains some strategical advantages in some areas like Nord Africa).

(in reply to iamspamus)

Post #: 95

RE: New Naval Combat System Model - 1/23/2009 1:59:28 PM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

I agree with Ashtar.

That is all.

(in reply to Ashtar)

Post #: 96

RE: New Naval Combat System Model - 1/23/2009 5:49:41 PM

iamspamus

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline

OK, some is cleared up.

I forgot about evasion...so kill me. That's why I asked.

For a 66% chance to demolish the Spanish (or Russian or French) fleets, I may consider it as GB with a surprise declaration.

Uncond surrender of GB to FRA. Nap's taking ships, right? (Your fear) And Nelson? And two/three provinces OK. So, France takes Scotland and/or Wales (not a port). While at war, how are they getting more guys there? As opposed to EIANW, you have to trace a line of supply chains back to a non-blockaded home port with a fleet at the correct month that they have guys being built. And even if they could, you're only adding 20 guys or so. He could "load them" beforehand. Well, after an unconditional surrender of GB, it is his (GB's) failure to not get a coalition together against France.

So, while France is building tons of guys in England, he's not building guys for Europe. What are SPA, RUS, AUS, PRU doing? Not attacking France or gearing up to attack them, huh? Once again on land, 2 to 3 of these guys out build FRA. You have a neutered England, who is "content to just build up" and fund the next French war. Lastly, they can take away 1/3 VPs from FRA every Econ Phase. I mean you said that it was "game over" for him, so why not? Now FRA doesn't win. I don't know, but I've seen GB beaten uncond several times and it didn't end the world for them.

I think this goes back to something that "newbs" have trouble with in the game: the time to cut losses. This may be the AUS war against France with little or no allied help. You've lost most of your mil/inf, but still have a strong cav section and FRA is willing to talk conditional, cause Prussia is looming. (ie. 1809) If you don't do it, making the attacker expend extra energy (such as paying to fight through the winter), then the cost will be much higher like an unconditional, losing three provinces or whatever.

Similar here, if FRA slaughtered me as GB in the peace, then I would have many options to whack him.

Still have problem with #7. EIA was NOT balanced. Period. That's why there were bidding on countries. Optional rules. Variants. House rules. It was a good game. It was pretty balanced. It was fun to play, but come on FRA/GB/RUS are "more fun" to play than TUR. Don't get me wrong, I've played TUR and like it. Some may really like it, but diplomacy and good play were supposed to help balance the game.

Well, as I said, in EIA I've only seen London captured twice...both engineered by me.

But it didn't end the game for them. It took alot of work (3 navies). It took two psycho English players (crazy in losing troops, not building enough ships and crap at diplomacy). And it took years of building. So, not the norm.

The last issue is that this will be AN OPTIONAL RULE, I think. What's the beef? You want classic. Ok. Great. I want optionals. Why bust my chops over it?

Nice chatting with you. (No sarcasm intended.)
Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

Proper place here

quote:

No.

?? To what?

quote:

2. I don't remember evasion in EIA. (Was it there?) Are you complaining about the "foolish pp" for naval battles in EiANW? Can you let us know the difference between EIA and EIANW, please? I really don't know.

Of course it was there, rule 6.3.2 (you can check it here http://eia.xnetz.com/rules/eiarules-with-errata.html).
For what regards pp, EIA fleet where 30 strong, while EIANW are 20H OR 10L strong. EIH fleets were 30 strong
(20h+10L). All are worth 1pp in EIA, EIH and EIANW. It is obvious that since old EIA and EIH fleet are basically composed by two EIANW fleet (1 heavy + 1 light), EIANW fleet should be awarder only 1/2pp, otherwise even minor
fights can give a lot of pp's.

quote:

2a. Tough baloney about your spanish example. THAT was EIA (...)

As I said, in EIA Spain has a 33% chance of evading. I do not know how you used to play Spain, but if GB is not at war with Spain it should better think twice about a surprise attack: 33% of the time you do not kill the Spanish fleet, you loose pp's and you are entangled in a double war against both Spain and France which is indeed the worse nightmare of GB (of course every reasonable EIA game starts with a preset war between France and GB).

quote:

3. Um, in EIA "classic", GB is out numbered by Spain and France, if I remember correctly. Through in Russia and they minors and they are hosed. So what is your complaint here? This is the same case in EIANW. What gives the their advantage is that the navies don't start together and potentially can be defeated in detail. Once again accurately protrayed to me. So, yes all of their enemies collectively should be able to out build England, just like all of the enemies of France should be able to collectively out build France.

No complain here, just noting that the "it is more difficult to build ships in EIANW" argument can be regarded both as in favor or against GB.

quote:

4 & 5. If France loses it's navy, it still has the land war. If GB loses its navy, it depends on how much it losses. There are two separate issues: 1. Butt whooped in battle or 2. Having to surrender. If the ships are destroyed, they have years to replace them. If facing an unconditional surrender, the standard tactic was to purchase all of your fleet counters and spread out your fleets, so that losing two won't matter as much.
Is it bad for the Brits if they lose their ships. Yep. Is it catastrophic? I haven't seen that. Also, while others are needing to build a lot of troops to survive, England can build some, but can put most of its massive economy into ships. You asked about experience before. I have seen England get smacked (by these huge coalitions) and still come back. This is a LONG game and diplomatically it should balance itself.

Problem is that, once you surrender unconditionally, France could take Scotland or Wales as conquered provinces.
Keep there around 50 factors and GB will think twice before organizing another anti-France coalition. Even better, move a few corps there just before the enforced peace ends and retake London...

quote:

6. Russia's tough. Ok.
Russia is much tougher in EIANW then in EIA without the St. Petersburg weak spot. For example, it is now virtually invulnerable to GB. Still, it needs the same VP as in EIA.

quote:

7. Your point 7 discounts your argument in point 1. How many games have you seen go to completion with EIANW. Zero? So, whether there is game balance (in your words) "has still to be shown". How can "returning the classic" restore balance...? Sounds like a quote from Star Wars or something.

EIA was balanced, EIANW we do not know --> if you are worried about balance easier thing would be restore EIA (starting from naval evasion)

For what regards naval rules from EIH and the general never used them. About the EIH ones, I have heard a lot of complaints, since the "capture the hull" things apparently largely favored a GB dominance. Concerning the General ones, I repeat my worries: land combat is fun but basically a hand-paper-scissors thing. You can maximize your chances but basically even France can loose a battle or two starting from a superior situation. That does not matter, since if you win 4 and lose 1 battle you would still win the war. Take naval now: my worry is that for GB is often enough to loose a single naval battle to see London occupied. So Gb plays well, starts a channel battle from a superior situation but gets outpicked in the paper-hand-scissors game --> war lost. How frequent is this outcome with the General rules?
The catch here is that naval and land operation are not symmetrical: by winning on the seas GB cannot force enemies to unconditional surrender, it just avoids being invaded (and gains some strategical advantages in some areas like Nord Africa).