Harbour Build Limits

[fvianello]

In our PBEM game (1.03k now upgraded to 1.04.06 beta) Russia and Spain started a mass production of ships; as Russia I'm buildind 23 heavy ships at St. Petersburg.
During the current eco phase the game didn't allow me to build any more ship at St Petersburg telling that "no more ships can be built there" or something like that. Spain had similar problems at Cadiz.

It looks like an optional EiH rule called "Harbour Build Limits" has been implemented in the game, but not documented anywhere.

Marshall, can you confirm that and tell us what the limits are for the different ports?

[Jimmer]

I agree: It happens, and to any power (I've seen it with all of the naval powers except Turkey). The odd thing is that the number seems to change.

[Marshall Ellis]

Well, I just took a look and there are limits BUT these limits are only checked right before you start to build.
 
The Red ports (large port) can build 15 ships at one time.
The Green ports (med port) can build 10 ships at one time.
The Yellow ports (small port) can build 5 ships at one time.
 
This is older code that I could certainly eliminate. It is not EiA but an EiH feature. I don't believe this was an option in EiH. What do you guys think?
 
 

[Jimmer]

Get rid of it. The naval shipyards of this period didn't have limits, as they were huge. The limit came from the government's willingness to pay for them.
 
Plus, you can just build them elsewhere.
 
By the way, part of the problem here is that the EiH prices and build times were not properly playtested, with balance in mind. The EiH designers apparently didn't like ships in the game, because the current rules essentially rule out building ships in a competitive game. You simply cannot afford it. The prices are too high (should be $11 and $9 or $10 and $8) and the build times should be ~15 and ~9 months (for heavy ships and light ships, respectively). As the game sits, it gives a HUGE advantage to GB over her enemies at sea (as opposed to the EiA board game), because she starts the game with more ships (even as a ratio), and the game effectively prohibits anybody except GB building ships after losing some.

[fvianello]

I agree with Jimmer, get rid of it.

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Get rid of it. The naval shipyards of this period didn't have limits, as they were huge. The limit came from the government's willingness to pay for them.

Plus, you can just build them elsewhere.

By the way, part of the problem here is that the EiH prices and build times were not properly playtested, with balance in mind. The EiH designers apparently didn't like ships in the game, because the current rules essentially rule out building ships in a competitive game. You simply cannot afford it. The prices are too high (should be $11 and $9 or $10 and $8) and the build times should be ~15 and ~9 months (for heavy ships and light ships, respectively). As the game sits, it gives a HUGE advantage to GB over her enemies at sea (as opposed to the EiA board game), because she starts the game with more ships (even as a ratio), and the game effectively prohibits anybody except GB building ships after losing some.

Excellent points Jimmer! I'd say dropping the construction times and prices is a must. The way things are set up now, play balance is markedly in favor of those who have fleets extant in the begining. This causes the games to almost certainly devolve to a rather prescripted scenario.

[JodiSP]

Excellent points Jimmer! I'd say dropping the construction times and prices is a must. The way things are set up now, play balance is markedly in favor of those who have fleets extant in the begining. This causes the games to almost certainly devolve to a rather prescripted scenario.

I would agree with this, the time it takes to build ships is far too long and can be very frustrating especially for nations trying to equal the English fleet.

It also means a nation like Turkey that would like to play some part in naval battles never has a chance as cost and time are against it

[fvianello]

All true, but remember that EiA is not a game aimed at giving each nation equal chances.

In XIX century GB ruled the sea, and anyone trying to challenge her had to make an enormous effort (for example, France), by the way always failing. And when a fleet was sunk, there was usually no attempt to build another one at least for a generation.

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

All true, but remember that EiA is not a game aimed at giving each nation equal chances.

In XIX century GB ruled the sea, and anyone trying to challenge her had to make an enormous effort (for example, France), by the way always failing. And when a fleet was sunk, there was usually no attempt to build another one at least for a generation.

No doubt this is correct, HanBarca! The real question should be "Historical or Balanced"?

You guys ought to be able to change fleet build ups with the Editor. You could for example, make a Turkish navy with 100 heavies and 100 lights. I know this sounds comical but never-the-less doable.

[fvianello]

I think that EiA focus is to give each nation historical possibilities.
The balance is obtained by assigning each nation different victory levels; Prussia can win simply by staying more or less alive, while France or GB have to dominate their own fields.

[Jimmer]

I like "historically acceptable, at least moderately" and "playable". Heck, the whole game is a-historical. Napoleon didn't draw chits against his enemy. He knew EXACTLY what they were planning, and even helped them do their planning! (By strategic and tactical misinformation.) At least in the early days.

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

I think that EiA focus is to give each nation historical possibilities.
The balance is obtained by assigning each nation different victory levels; Prussia can win simply by staying more or less alive, while France or GB have to dominate their own fields.

Good point. The balance is achieved through the VP system as opposed to force build up. Nothing is linear in this game. It will drive a man to drinking (more)!

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

I think that EiA focus is to give each nation historical possibilities.
The balance is obtained by assigning each nation different victory levels; Prussia can win simply by staying more or less alive, while France or GB have to dominate their own fields.

Good point. The balance is achieved through the VP system as opposed to force build up. Nothing is linear in this game. It will drive a man to drinking (more)!

Hanbarca has some good points. Still, I would like to add some additonal information that indicate that a modified building program does indeed have merit.

The EiH version we have adopted into the computer game increases the British Hegemony at sea by increasing the build times and cost of a new ship. In the old EiA it was $10 and 1 year. Now the cost of a light remains that cost but a heavy (with their advantages) has increased to $12 and 18 months (per the rules, but it seems that all ships actually take an extra month to place). One can not have a new heavy sail out of a slip until October of 1806.

And true, Britian did rule the waves. But it should be possible for a landward power who spends enough money and time to build up a fleet to have a chance of taking on the naval hegemon. Germany nearly did unseat Britain in WWI. Sparta and the Peloponnesian League -- facing the Athenian Naval hegemon -- eventually did unseat the far superior Athenian navy through a continuous building program and lots of Persion money to back up their efforts. Had France made such an effort she might have been succesful, as she was against Britain at the Cattle of the Virginia Capes (off Yorktown) only 24 years before our game begins.

Please include in the editor the option of reducing these build costs and times.

Thank you
Mardonius

[sw30]

Remember, the key for most countries is not to match the Brits in Heavies.  You're not going to be able to out-heavy the British, just avoid the -1, from the light ships.  It's the Brits that have to take special care to build Heavies, so that as it acquires more enemies, it doesn't give the other side a +1 from local superiority.

The new costs are actually slightly anti-British.  90%+ of the time, none British builds should be LS, while the British needs to build ~50% HS at longer time and higher cost.  Individual games may vary, of course.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: sw30

Remember, the key for most countries is not to match the Brits in Heavies.  You're not going to be able to out-heavy the British, just avoid the -1, from the light ships.  It's the Brits that have to take special care to build Heavies, so that as it acquires more enemies, it doesn't give the other side a +1 from local superiority.

The new costs are actually slightly anti-British.  90%+ of the time, none British builds should be LS, while the British needs to build ~50% HS at longer time and higher cost.  Individual games may vary, of course.

Actually, there still is a good reason for GB to build light ships: Piracy. If the piracy rules are not in force, or are IN force, but using the current (broken) implementation, you are mostly correct. However, if the game was fixed so that GB could actually interdict French American trade, then building light ships makes a lot of sense. In fact, just having piracy turned on allows GB some use of those light ships (once the French navy goes glub-glub): She can target non-allies' regular trade.

NOTE: Technically, she can target even allies' trade, but since nobody else in the game can do it, everybody will know who it was. Not a good way to get on the good side of your ally.

[Marshall Ellis]

So I take it that everybody agrees that we are we negating the harbour build limits?
 

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

So I take it that everybody agrees that we are we negating the harbour build limits?

I think so. The argument is only around the cost and times for ship building.

[Marshall Ellis]

That's what I thought.
What are we deciding on the build times / cost.
 
BTW: That is not in the editor as of today.
 
 

[Mardonius]

It would be great to include this option in the editor.

I can't say what everybody else was thinking, but I woudl like to see the editor allow ship costs and builds to be reduced.
Perhaps a sliding scale with LS running down to $6 and 6 months and HS down to $9 and 9 months. (Plus, please ensure that the extra month of delivery time is removed.... A light ship started in December shows up in the January after the next Dec)

I can certainly quickly get you historical build times if you want. Will take some time to get the costs, but these could be gained by doing relative costs compared to the cost of outfitting a regiment of infantry or cavalry.


Another minor thing you might want to include in the editor... we used to allow a December 1804 build at the start of a Jan 1805 campaign to keep the flow of forces and money moving.


best
Mardonius

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

It would be great to include this option in the editor.

I can't say what everybody else was thinking, but I woudl like to see the editor allow ship costs and builds to be reduced.
Perhaps a sliding scale with LS running down to $6 and 6 months and HS down to $9 and 9 months. (Plus, please ensure that the extra month of delivery time is removed.... A light ship started in December shows up in the January after the next Dec)

I can certainly quickly get you historical build times if you want. Will take some time to get the costs, but these could be gained by doing relative costs compared to the cost of outfitting a regiment of infantry or cavalry.


Another minor thing you might want to include in the editor... we used to allow a December 1804 build at the start of a Jan 1805 campaign to keep the flow of forces and money moving.


best
Mardonius

I don't know about the cost / time editing yet. I'm not ready to do that yet (There is a lot more code before this can be added).

December 1804 build? Wheeeeew! Now you're really scaring me since I would have to part the Red Sea to make that one happen. I've never heard that one before???