Piracy rules

[Jimmer]

The rules on privateers need to have some work done on them. They are significantly ambiguous, and they are missing key pieces of information. Last night, I did a few tests, just to see what would happen, and came to the following conclusions. Players can take or leave this information, as desired, but Matrix might want to look at it with the view of tweaking either the manual, the interface, the rules, or any combination:

1)
When you set a fleet on piracy action, it disappears from its current location. One effect of this is that this action cannot be undone.

2)
I can't tell what the algorithms do, but the rulebook is explicit that anti-piracy operations choose the random number, and then compare this number to the number of ships doing anti-piracy. It requires a "roll" less than the number of ships.

Whether intentional or not, this has the effect of making the first factor doing anti-piracy operations completely ineffective, since the roll must be "less than", not "less than or equal to".

3)
The rules are not specific as to whether a power can have both killed ships (number less than the number of ships) and anti-pirate kills (number greater than 90) in the same action. Obviously, this is an end-case, but what if a nation puts 95 ships on anti-piracy duty? Can he both kill some of his opponents ships and lose some of his own on the same roll of the dice? Say he rolls a 92, with 95 ships doing anti-pirate work. Will he both kill 1-3 of his opponent's ships AND lose 1-3 of his own? Or, does the "over 90" entry overrule the number of ships?

Essentially, is the logic in this area a pair of IF...THEN statements, or one IF...THEN...ELSE...THEN?

4) Apparently, having ships on anti-pirate duty works against ALL fleets taking part in piracy against that major power that turn. I did an experiment where France had two fleets operating against GB, and Spain had one. GB had 50+ ships on anti- duty. GB killed one French ship in one fleet, three Frenchies in another fleet, and zero Spanish ships. This is correctly being played according to a careful reading of the rules, but some people might get tripped up on this one.

5)
When ships come off of piracy duty, they come back to a random port. This can be a real problem, because they could have been blockaded prior to being on pirate duty, but now are not. Personally, I don't see how a power can use ANY ships that are currently blockaded for ANY operations except breaking out of port. But, this loophole appears to be part of the rules, so players really need to pay attention to it.

6)
Now, having a fleet show up in another port may or may not cause problems. After all, at most, it can carry 5 factors. However, it is now free for action, but the opponent cannot yet react to its presence (since this happens during naval movement).

I would suggest that ships returning from piracy duty would have to be declared in the previous month, including placement. The realism factor is that they have to refit themselves back into wartime configuration. The game factor is that this gives the opponent an opportunity to react.

I mean, think about it: France is being blockaded by GB, in the usual default setup. This has France with all 61 factors in one port (except Holland). So, France, being bored, puts all 22 ships on pirate duty.

GB, in reaction to this threat, puts the same number of ships on anti-pirate duty.

The next turn, France pulls all 22 ships back. Let's say that one of the fleets (a 10 factor one) just happens to be placed in that same port again. Well, now, he outnumbers the British, and can take a stab at getting out of port. This all happens because some pirates joined the French Navy. Furthermore, Great Britain, with "eyes" everywhere on the ocean, never gets a clue that this is happening until after it occurs. Doesn't this seem kind of fishy to you (no pun intended)?

7)
The rules seem to be highly lopsidedly on the side of "All piracy occurs only in the months when economics will occur later". There may have been an intent on the part of the authors of the rules that pirates had to be operating for a whole quarter, but the rules are laid out in such a way that there is very little benefit to spending all three months on piracy duty. There's a +2 bonus to the roll for each five factors in a fleet that's involved in piracy. However, spending more than just one month on piracy duty (and it has to be BOTH other months to get this) nets only a +1 bonus, and then only if there were at least five ships on duty.

When I did the testing, the game really does implement the rules this way. So, the net effect is that players will (always) place their ships on pirate duty in March, June, September, and December ONLY. And, Great Britain (the most likely target, except, see below) will react by moving last (it's an absolute requirement) and declaring a roughly equal number of ships running anti-piracy operations. Both sides will bring their ships back from these duties on the very next month (unless they forget).

It does absolutely no good at all to put a fleet on piracy or anti-piracy duty during the other months, unless one puts them there for all three months (and this is valuable for piracy only, not anti-piracy).

This part of the rules needs to be reworked. I recommend requiring that ships on piracy duty be doing so for the whole quarter before they "count" as pirates.

I further recommend that anti-piracy rules be changed such that each "ship-month" on anti-piracy duty adds to the target number. For example, right now, 31 ships on anti-piracy duty will yield a 30% chance of killing some enemy ships, and a 10% chance of losing some of one's own ships. Change the rules so that each MONTH spent on duty counts, but the target number is higher. I'm not sure where the break-even point should be, but let's say we split the difference:

If 30 ships were on duty for all three months, then it would yield 50% more kills.

If for only one month, then half as many.

Two months of duty yields the "normal" number.

A simple way to change the algorithm is to require 2 "factor months" for each percent chance of a kill zone, and count the months on duty for each factor. This way, there would be a reward for leaving ships on duty for more time. This would be both more realistic and more playable.

[Jimmer]

Another problem is that some powers are completely defenseless against piracy, as they have no fleets, or none to speak of. Austria and Prussia fall into this category. France can basically force down their income by 0-5 per turn, with no downside other than that he cannot break out of port with them. Of course, if he returns them, they come to potentially open ports anyhow, but that's another issue.

It should be possible for a nation to "buy" or "request/receive" anti-piracy actions by another major power. If France is spending his fleets doing piracy against Prussia, for instance, Prussia loses money, and can't do anything about it. Historically the British would cut down on privateering by other powers (except their own, of course ). It would make sense that GB could do anti-pirate actions against pirates, no matter who they were targetting.

[Jimmer]

Another way to implement a change per #7 above would be to calculate $ losses each month, but only apply them quarterly. Of course, the amount of money taken would have to be adjusted downward for this to work (by either 1/2 or 2/3, depending on designer intent).

[zaquex]

good analysis jimmer, thanks, ill reread it once i got a bit more time but from a first glance I totally agree with you.
 
 #5 is clearly a concern and imo blockaded fleets should obviously not be allowed to go on piracy/antipiracy duty.
 
i guess from a realism perspective it would be possible to sneak out a ship or two but its equally possible these ships would be forced back to port or sunk/captured.