Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...???

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: bresh
About the only vs GB who has 1.5 heavies, no sorry that didnt show in your description.
I guess you then want -2 to Austria/Prussia Light fleets to ? And not cap at 1 as modifers, as Eske so good described.

Regards
Bresh

Absolutely. All of the rules should apply equally, unless they are specifically called-out as applying to only one power (French land movement, GB's bonus at sea, etc.)

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I can't believe ANYONE could put this game and the words "game balance" in the same sentence. THAT'S a joke.

Now THAT is an EXCELLENT point. The game is designed to be unbalanced. That's what makes it fun, in fact.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: sw30
Actually, the straw men isn't that, I'm just saying that it is the direction that you are trying to go in.

The definition of a straw argument is when one debater makes a point that his opponent holds a certain position when the opponent does not, in fact, hold that opinion.

While it may very well be the direction in which my argument points, it has nothing to do with making France or Spain get beat by GB, nor does it have anything to do with my happiness. It has to do with basic fairness of the rules.

[bresh]

Gosh, how hard headed can you guys be ? Its like talking to kids.
 
Your aguments are so flawed. Because GB dont get naval +1 Bonus for heavies superioty we need to adjust the system ? 
 
The game(EIA/EIANW) does not need new modifers.
 
My arguments are inlogic ? actually there are quite logic, following the combat system of EIA. .
 
Modifers range from -1 to +1. The "old" EIA's
And 2 new modifers has been added nothing else has changed +1 Heavy Superority, -1 Solely Light fleets.
The table is the same for EIA and EIANW Battledice range 0-7, both in Land and Naval. not -1-8.
Do we hear people whine they dont get +2 in land combat ? No, we are used to this.
Nor do we apply a -1 to forces who do not have a cav factor.
 
GB has his bonus in combat along side Au-PR so NO, he is not forgotten, does he use it alot no, but GB CAN USE IT the Heavy Superity modifer! . 
 
Im not alone on this, but apperently im the only one who cares enough, that you dont destroy the game.
 
Your theory are so flawed that GB NEEDS this to win ? He has +1(+2) wind gauge. He has +1 for battle rolls.
 
Ray Weak faulty logics ? Why dont you stick it ?
Can you please list whats so faulty ?
 
Your arguments are not strong Ray, there are several land combat special rules who apply to single nations. I can list them, if you find it to hard to read the manual.
 
Regards
Bresh
 

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: AresMars

Neverman, I am an EIA purists, so I use "Game Balance" more in _that_ context then in EIANW....

I would strongly agree that EIANW is much more off balance then normal, however, Rays suggestions (though perfectly sane) would upset my concept of the game balance even further.  I already had my battle with Richard M., and have resigned myself to living with what EIANW is.....the fact that classic EIA is now being discussed warms my heart....

You comment ignores the essence of my point - a balanced game should allow all players an equal chance at winning - EIANW is way off on that already (most people agree that the CURRENT naval rules and lack of EVASION favors GB already) and this is why I disagree with RayKinStL.  I never said that his position was wrong - I agreed it had logic, however, his suggestion would further affect the game in the wrong direction....

If it was put to a vote, I am afraid that both you and Ray would be in the minority.....lets try and stay on point.  (Hell, if only I could sometimes....)

While you are correct that it is unbalanced in favor of GB, that's nearly irrelevant to the calculations of who wins the game. The game is won on the political status display as translated to victory points over the course of the game.

If GB were to totally trash all of the other navies in the game in the first year, what would that do to her score? That's an easy one: It would raise her VP total by about 20. Will that cause her to win? Good luck with that argument; 20 merely cancels out what I would bid for her. In fact, when playing GB, I strongly prefer it if the battles are between forces that are more equal than unequal. It means that I don't win the naval war too quickly. Winning the naval wars too quickly means I can't get any more VPs out of the sea.

You have to have consistently good results on the battlefield, the high seas, and in diplomatic actions in order to win this game. Speeding up the demise of the rest of the world's navies is barely a blip on the radar screen in this game.

What IS unbalanced (and needs to be corrected) is that GB gets roughly twice as many VP out of her naval battles as she should. This is due to having two fleets (a heavy and a light) where one existed in EIA. There was a doubling of the number of fleets that could fight, but no corresponding reduction in the rewards for those fights.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: bresh
Ray, you ask for an example where you benefit from having the 1.5 bonus, beside the GB naval bonus.
GB is the only nation who can team up with a Austrian/Prussian fleet, and when outnumbering the enemies heavies, still come out with a +1 for the battle. (+1 GB, +1 (Heavy Supority), -1 Au/Pr fleets).
So no, the "+1" 1.5 heavy-Ship superiority bonus is not only for all the other MP's.

Regards
Bresh [/color]

You have a point. I'm not sure you helped your argument, but this is indeed a good point.

The reason it doesn't help is that you have now added a disclaimer to Ray's argument:

GB never gets the bonus for 1.5x UNLESS he is fighting alongside of the Prussians or Austrians.

[Jimmer]

Another idiot argument from me.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: bresh
And a GB with heavy superity vs a Au-PR-included solely Light fleet, why stop at +1/-1 ? It should be +2/-2.

Ideally, absolutely. Were you expecting anything different? But, I'm willing to accept the compromise. Actually, I would like to see both as options.

I would like an answer to the question I posed to you (and the others) that y'all never replied to: All other things being equal, what would have happened at Trafalgar, had the British come with 49 or more ships of the line? Would the results have been different than with the 27 she actually came with?

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: bresh
And a GB with heavy superity vs a Au-PR-included solely Light fleet, why stop at +1/-1 ? It should be +2/-2.

Ideally, absolutely. Were you expecting anything different? But, I'm willing to accept the compromise. Actually, I would like to see both as options.

I would like an answer to the question I posed to you (and the others) that y'all never replied to: All other things being equal, what would have happened at Trafalgar, had the British come with 49 or more ships of the line? Would the results have been different than with the 27 she actually came with?

If you could describe how the battle actually went ?
All i know is Nelson won, i never spend any time reading about his victory. Though i rember seeing some scematics about his tactics once.

Was it there he died ?

I seem to remember during the napoleonich wars. Gunboats(small boats with single gun) where also used heavily.

Regards
Bresh

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: bresh

Gosh, how hard headed can you guys be ? Its like talking to kids.

Answer either Ray's big question or mine before insulting us.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: bresh

Gosh, how hard headed can you guys be ? Its like talking to kids.

1. I don't have time for this.
2. If you can't see how your logic is flawed then I don't have time for you.
3. I apologize, it's hard to understand your posts sometimes because your English is so flawed.

[RayKinStL]

ORIGINAL: bresh

Gosh, how hard headed can you guys be ? Its like talking to kids.

Your aguments are so flawed. Because GB dont get naval +1 Bonus for heavies superioty we need to adjust the system ? 

The game(EIA/EIANW) does not need new modifers.

My arguments are inlogic ? actually there are quite logic, following the combat system of EIA. .

Modifers range from -1 to +1. The "old" EIA's
And 2 new modifers has been added nothing else has changed +1 Heavy Superority, -1 Solely Light fleets.
The table is the same for EIA and EIANW Battledice range 0-7, both in Land and Naval. not -1-8.
Do we hear people whine they dont get +2 in land combat ? No, we are used to this.
Nor do we apply a -1 to forces who do not have a cav factor.

GB has his bonus in combat along side Au-PR so NO, he is not forgotten, does he use it alot no, but GB CAN USE IT the Heavy Superity modifer! . 

Im not alone on this, but apperently im the only one who cares enough, that you dont destroy the game.

Your theory are so flawed that GB NEEDS this to win ? He has +1(+2) wind gauge. He has +1 for battle rolls.

Ray Weak faulty logics ? Why dont you stick it ?
Can you please list whats so faulty ?

Your arguments are not strong Ray, there are several land combat special rules who apply to single nations. I can list them, if you find it to hard to read the manual.

Regards
Bresh

Bresh,

Arguing with you is like banging my head against a wall. I will simply point out two statements that show why your logic is so faulty...

"Your arguments are not strong Ray, there are several land combat special rules who apply to single nations. I can list them, if you find it to hard to read the manual."

This is not land comabt. Naval combat is so different. Because of it's simplistic nature, the increase of "chance" is far more significant. Because everything is decided by ONE and ONLY ONE die roll, forces should be properly compensated for how they enter the battle. This is much more important in naval comabt because with one die roll, there is less chance for the law of averages to help you out. So you really are comparing apples and oranges when you say this. Further...

"Your aguments are so flawed. Because GB dont get naval +1 Bonus for heavies superioty we need to adjust the system ? "

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JESUS CHRIST. EITHER 1.5x's heavies means you have such an advantage that the side with said advantage deserves an additonal modifier to their roll or it doesnt. Christ, how can you not see the inconsistency in this??? I know you are not that stupid. You can honeslty say that if France attakcs Austria navally with 10 heavies agaisnt 3 Austrian heavies, he deserves a +1 for heavy superiority, but if Britain attacks France with 30 heavies against the same French 10 heavies, that advantage does not warrant a bonus??? What the hell sense does that make? This is not a two way street. Either heavy superiority warrants a modifier or it doesnt. Heavy superiority is a BLANKET RULE. It covers EVERY country. It even covers Britain as you can see by the screenshot showing I have it. But to say there is no way for Britain to ever take advantage of it, except for some cockamamey scenario you made up, is absolutely ridiculous.

Unfortuantely, I am with NeverMan. This battle simply is not worth it. I provide logic and numbers, and you debate with opinions and speculation. Marshall obviously has no interest in changing things so whats the point? Leave the game inconsistent. Who gives a f***? So much other stuff is wrong with it anyway, we might as well leave this inconsistency in it too. So congrats Bresh, you win, because I simply can not debate you anymore. You choose to consistently ignore all my points of logic. You have never addressed once the logic of the rule and why it should not apply to GB except to try to use some "game balance" arguement that simply does not apply. So I give up. I am done posting in this thread. I have repeated myself far too many times, I simply do not want to spend time retyping the same sh*t I have said over and over that all the detractors choose to ignore rather than address.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: bresh
If you could describe how the battle actually went ?
All i know is Nelson won, i never spend any time reading about his victory. Though i rember seeing some scematics about his tactics once.

Was it there he died ?

I seem to remember during the napoleonich wars. Gunboats(small boats with single gun) where also used heavily.

Regards
Bresh

As far as Nelson goes, it was a sad day (since he died -- although he hung on until he could be told that they had won). To be fair about it, though, if he weren't riding the lead ship, he probably wouldn't have died (the first ship takes a pummeling on its way in, since it's sailing in without all that black powder smoke hanging in the air).

As far as Great Britain goes, it was a HUGE success. She came in with 25-27 (depending on the source) ships of the line and 6-8 smaller ships (27 heavy ships and 8 light ships, in game terms). The combined French and Spanish forces was 33h and 7-8l,.

The end result: GB CAPTURED 21 ships and destroyed 1 more. 6 more ships made it back to port, but never sailed again.

GB lost zero ships. Both sides lost a lot of men, although this also was heavily weighted against the two allies.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL
Marshall obviously has no interest in changing things so whats the point?

Actually, didn't Marshall post a post that could be taken as favorable?

[RayKinStL]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL
Marshall obviously has no interest in changing things so whats the point?

Actually, didn't Marshall post a post that could be taken as favorable?

He aske if this would be covered by the classic EiA rules (which is still brings up with an "if" everytime it is mentioned), indicating to me that he either has no interest in amending what are essentially the EiH rules or simply does not understand the logic/arguement being presented. Either way, what is the point of arguing. This is by far the most popular thread going, reach 4 pages already, and I think he has made 1 post in it (maybe 2). I guess this is not a corcern to him, so I am wasting my time arguing the inconsistency. I guess I should just shut up and be happy with a flawed game.

[eske]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: bresh

Gosh, how hard headed can you guys be ? Its like talking to kids.

Answer either Ray's big question or mine before insulting us.

What is really sad is, that this insult is only one of a long list of insults in this thread.
Quite a few has been directed against bresh. (which is not an excuse, bresh!).

Guys, for the strength of your own argumentation plz. keep the focus on what's discussed.
If you start adding insults - even disguised ones - no one takes you seriously.

And if noone contradicts you, it's simply because they have left...

(... something I consider doing [:(] )

/eske

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: eske
If you start adding insults - even disguised ones - no one takes you seriously.

Unfortunately, it's worse than that. Most people DO take them seriously (the negative argument) because it's personal. It's hard to divorce oneself from the discussion. We humans tend to take things to heart.

I have very likely contributed to this mess, so I apologize to all for any piece which I made worse. I should know better.

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: eske
If you start adding insults - even disguised ones - no one takes you seriously.

Unfortunately, it's worse than that. Most people DO take them seriously (the negative argument) because it's personal. It's hard to divorce oneself from the discussion. We humans tend to take things to heart.

I have very likely contributed to this mess, so I apologize to all for any piece which I made worse. I should know better.

Thanks for your insight Eske.
And no apology needed Jimmer, i get stuborn myself. And im guessing part of this is about letting out steam brought by other bugs.

And this discussion has become a list of insults, removing some of the perspective.
That was part of why i refered to kids, they dont always accept bedtime to be a rule, but like to debate on it, sometimes by bring in insults as part of their arguments.

Im a rule nerd, i use rules as they are written at the best of my advantage, i dont like rules to be changed just on suggestions, when those have not been extensively tested.


Regards
Bresh

[RayKinStL]

The rules in the book do not state a max modifier but do state that 1.5x heavies warrant a +1 modifier.  So based on the rules written, GB should be a +2, and I quoted all apllicable rules earlier in this thread.  That's why this thread was started.  Accorsing to the rules, as written for this game, GB should be on the +2.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: bresh
And im guessing part of this is about letting out steam brought by other bugs.

No, no, you've got it all wrong. Napoleon was opposed to steamships. Thought they were nonsense (at least, according to Civilization IV and Leonard Nimoy's voice).