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

[sw30]

For some history here:

ADG had a version published from Australia, (they're the AUSTRALIAN Design Group, ya'know.) It didn't get wide play because of distribution issues.
AH signed a deal with ADG, sold EiA in a box, and it was relatively popular. But ADG made some rules changes for simplicity.
The General (an AH publication) posted some optional rules, some errata. Mostly common houserules that people play. AVP was introduced in a General article, I think. It was very unbalanced.
AH started going downhill. (Essentially switched from strategic games to beer & pretzel games.)
EiH started, 1.0 was essentially a re-write of EiA with holes filled. (such as retreat paths and stuff.) Some limited new ideas were introduced here, such as depot limits.
EiH 2.0 came out, with lots of new rules, lots of complexity, and totally unbalanced. (British Homeguard, etc.) 1792 scenario.
AH went belly up and sold to Hasbro.
EiH 3.0 came out, which is a simplification of 2.0, still somewhat unbalanced IMO. Concept of changing OOBs was started. I think ship-building locations were introduced here.
EiH 4.0 came out, which is essentially 2.0 on steroids. French revolutionary track, different unit types (Islamic Infantry, galleys), etc. I think it ended at ~70-80 pages.
EiANW started development.
EiH 5.x came out, with more complexity, and more of a focus on the 1788-1815 GRAND-GRAND campaign. OOB Morphing (actually started in 4.0) is carried on to a bigger extent. French Revolutionary track got more complicated.

Lives change, games change. EiANW should have picked either ADG-EiA, EiH-1.0 or EiH-3.0 to develop, but I would have liked a possibility for the 1788 uber campaigns. But hey, you can't get everything. The argument for the later versions of EiH is that we don't need a huge space for all the tracks and OOBs and such, we've got the spreadsheet. The argument for developing EiANW using EiH-3 was that there are a lot more things the computer can simply keep track of for the player, so the complexity issue isn't there all that much, and EiH 3.0 simply plays better than the AH version.

Light and Heavy ships have been in EiH 2.0, and I'm certainly satisfied that they work. Balance is a different issue, and ship counters have changed over time. (For example, EiH 5.2 have size 10 fleets, which can often be a mix of H and L, and multiple fleets can be used to transport a corps.) Realism is also a different issue, but I have never approached EiA with an eye towards realism. Instead of individual ships, it may be better to model factors instead. But everytime I proposed that, I got shouted down.

[sw30]

Oh yeah, with regard to the +/- 2 thing, again, I approach it from a balance perspective. I don't actually care whether 3.0 included a cap or not, I think there SHOULD be a cap. (Certainly, there was a cap in original EiA for Land, and in the 4.x versions for Land and Naval. It might have been removed in 5.2, I'm not sure.) Like I said before, giving GB a +2 is like giving the wolves a free shot at the sheep. Not a good idea, IMO. Jimmer, I agree that nobody has disproved your contention that it is what the rules say, I haven't checked and I'm sure you have. That's not my point. My point is that IF there isn't such a cap, it is wrong, and should be errata'ed.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: sw30

For some history here:

ADG had a version published from Australia, (they're the AUSTRALIAN Design Group, ya'know.) It didn't get wide play because of distribution issues.
AH signed a deal with ADG, sold EiA in a box, and it was relatively popular. But ADG made some rules changes for simplicity.
The General (an AH publication) posted some optional rules, some errata. Mostly common houserules that people play. AVP was introduced in a General article, I think. It was very unbalanced.
AH started going downhill. (Essentially switched from strategic games to beer & pretzel games.)
EiH started, 1.0 was essentially a re-write of EiA with holes filled. (such as retreat paths and stuff.) Some limited new ideas were introduced here, such as depot limits.
EiH 2.0 came out, with lots of new rules, lots of complexity, and totally unbalanced. (British Homeguard, etc.) 1792 scenario.
AH went belly up and sold to Hasbro.
EiH 3.0 came out, which is a simplification of 2.0, still somewhat unbalanced IMO. Concept of changing OOBs was started. I think ship-building locations were introduced here.
EiH 4.0 came out, which is essentially 2.0 on steroids. French revolutionary track, different unit types (Islamic Infantry, galleys), etc. I think it ended at ~70-80 pages.
EiANW started development.
EiH 5.x came out, with more complexity, and more of a focus on the 1788-1815 GRAND-GRAND campaign. OOB Morphing (actually started in 4.0) is carried on to a bigger extent. French Revolutionary track got more complicated.

Lives change, games change. EiANW should have picked either ADG-EiA, EiH-1.0 or EiH-3.0 to develop, but I would have liked a possibility for the 1788 uber campaigns. But hey, you can't get everything. The argument for the later versions of EiH is that we don't need a huge space for all the tracks and OOBs and such, we've got the spreadsheet. The argument for developing EiANW using EiH-3 was that there are a lot more things the computer can simply keep track of for the player, so the complexity issue isn't there all that much, and EiH 3.0 simply plays better than the AH version.

Light and Heavy ships have been in EiH 2.0, and I'm certainly satisfied that they work. Balance is a different issue, and ship counters have changed over time. (For example, EiH 5.2 have size 10 fleets, which can often be a mix of H and L, and multiple fleets can be used to transport a corps.) Realism is also a different issue, but I have never approached EiA with an eye towards realism. Instead of individual ships, it may be better to model factors instead. But everytime I proposed that, I got shouted down.

The bottom line that your post is missing is this:

IT'S ALL BASED ON EMPIRES IN ARMS.

With that in mind anyone with common sense would have developed the standard EiA and THEN built all these optional stuff on TOP of that. Common sense was missing from Matrix that day apparently.

EDIT: As per the cap issue I don't see why people are using this as an argument, most everyone who is for the change (basically me and Ray) already agress that putting a cap is fine. If it caps out, it caps out, that's fine.

[Jimmer]

For the record, I want to point out that I don't have a problem with a cap on the final modified die roll. The effective cap can remain 6 (25%) as it is now.
 
What I have a problem with is not allowing +2 to GB at all, limiting her to +1 (and, correspondingly, limiting Austria and Prussia to -1) when the other powers receive an advantage. GB already has a +2 (capped at 6) when it comes to wind guage.

[fvianello]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

The bottom line that your post is missing is this:

IT'S ALL BASED ON EMPIRES IN ARMS.

With that in mind anyone with common sense would have developed the standard EiA and THEN built all these optional stuff on TOP of that. Common sense was missing from Matrix that day apparently.

EDIT: As per the cap issue I don't see why people are using this as an argument, most everyone who is for the change (basically me and Ray) already agress that putting a cap is fine. If it caps out, it caps out, that's fine.

actually, EIANW implementation takes the map, diplomatic and most of the naval rules from EiH. That's why I posted the naval roll cap rules from EiH.

Before starting another useless argument, the thread from Marshall Ellis is here:

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

actually, EIANW implementation takes the map, diplomatic and most of the naval rules from EiH. That's why I posted the naval roll cap rules from EiH.

Before starting another useless argument, the thread from Marshall Ellis is here:

From your thread link, written by Marshall:

"Hey guys:

A little of both! We added different naval units (EiH) and allow economic manipulation (EiA). We also have Privateers (EiH) and are using a variant of the latest EiH map. Combat is pure EiA!

Just a few things to note! Hope this helps!

Thank you "

That's funny HanBarca because I don't remember EiA's naval combat being anything like what it is right now. It also sounds like this game is a hybrid (like I've said before) of EiA and EiH from the above statement.

I'm not even sure what your point was..........if you had one.

[bresh]

Neverman, i cant be sure.
But those messages where written in 2004, if we had followed the forum back then, we would had known the changes, and could had saved the money if disliking it.
 
It should have been good to make sticky. So new players/possible buyers would be aware at the launch.
 
Regards
Bresh

[Marshall Ellis]

Hey guys:
 
FYI: This thing changed identities a few times guys. I started this as the Wars of Napoleon in 2002ish which was the original engine design result (Simultaneous move) but then Matrix secured the rights to EiA from ADG and I scratched my head a bit then proceeded to change the code!
 
For the record: I will probably NEVER port another board game (Maybe Tic-Tac-Toe)! How bout TTTNW? LOL!
 
 
 

[RayKinStL]

ORIGINAL: sw30

Oh yeah, with regard to the +/- 2 thing, again, I approach it from a balance perspective. I don't actually care whether 3.0 included a cap or not, I think there SHOULD be a cap. (Certainly, there was a cap in original EiA for Land, and in the 4.x versions for Land and Naval. It might have been removed in 5.2, I'm not sure.) Like I said before, giving GB a +2 is like giving the wolves a free shot at the sheep. Not a good idea, IMO. Jimmer, I agree that nobody has disproved your contention that it is what the rules say, I haven't checked and I'm sure you have. That's not my point. My point is that IF there isn't such a cap, it is wrong, and should be errata'ed.

Although I really am done with this thread, I just want to ask sw30 a question. Picture a scenario for me. 1805. The british fleet is sailing with 20 heavies and 15 lights. It happens upon a French fleet of 16 heavies and 8 lights. By EiA rules, GB would be a +1 and this would seem appropriate since the British fleet was better-trained. Now, just like the chance inherent in die rolls, there would be a chance that France would win this battle.

Now, take the same scenario above, but have that 20/15 British fleet happen upon a French fleet of 12 heavies and 10 light ships. Think about the massive gunpower advantage the British fleet has having 50% more heavies than the opposing French navy. Now in EiA rules, if GB got a +2 modifier (for both their excellent training and discipline as well as their heavy gun advantage), this would be "giving the wolves a free shot shot at the sheep" as you stated earlier. Now I ask, if this scenario really did happen, and the British has this kind of manpower advantage in a naval battle, wouldn't the result of this battle have been similar to letting those wolves get that free shot? In other words, is a +2 really so inaccurate or unbalanced? I mean a British fleet rolling up on you was scary enough (represented through a +1 natural GB modifier), but now imagine that British fleet rolling up on you had 50% more heavy ships than you! I would think a blood bath would have ensued for whomever stood in that British fleets way. So, no, I don't think letting GB have a +2 modifier unbalances the game at all, because if this was 1805 and GB rolled up on you with 50% more heavy ships, you were probably at a bigger disadvantage than even a +2 modifier to the combat resolution chart would indicate. I would venture to say a naval battle against the British where you were that outgunned would be virtually unwinnable, in the particular period of time this game covers.

Plus, you gotta remember, in order to get on the +2 modifier (which still only modifies to a 6 and 25% damage) GB still has to committ the appropriate number of ships to gain that advantage.

So please sw30, please take a second and really consider that scenario I just put forth. Imagine those 2 navies clashing with GB holding that advantage. Is a +2 modifier really unrealistic? Should this not be a blood bath, or a "free shot at the sheep" for GB if she positions her forces appropriately to gain this sort of advantage? I'd love to hear your response to that question, and please be logical and consistent in any answer you may provide.

[bresh]

Ray, my 2 cent.

As i said so many times now.

You can gain a +1 on the battleroll for naval advantage.
-1 For naval disavantage.
(each cap at 1, but you can have "in theory" have +2-1=+1)

You can achieve this by having superior number of heavies(1.5 rule), or when you can muster a british fleet as part of the force.

(Keep in mind you get +1 on the die, even though you only had 1 British light ship and rest of the naval force was minors/allies etc.
This fleet would even gets GB's+1 wind gauge bonus, in this situation, where his part of the fleet is inferior.

The same applies for 1 Au/Pr ship in a large fleet, it always gives -1 culomative with cap -1, even though its inferior part of the naval force.

Basicly we can conclude naval combat for both and EIA/EIH does not deal with logic.

Or we should need to apply GB needs to outnumber his allies/minor ships to gain the +1 GB fleet bonus(s)(combat&windgauge). Maybe even only get the bonus when the naval force is exclusive GB Fleets only ?

Regards
Bresh

[sw30]

Ray, you said:

Picture a scenario for me....
Now I ask, if this scenario really did happen,
Is a +2 modifier really unrealistic?

And my response:
Like I said, I don't do realism arguments, for every realism argument, there is an equal and opposite requirement.  My stance is that EiA is rather pro-French, and the first 3 versions of EiH slowly moved it pro-British.  Allowing +2s break balance, and in my opinion, that's all there is to the discussion.  I could care less that in real life, the battle is impossible to win for a side, that comes from imagining each factor as a ship, which was a mistake in the first place.  Game play wise, an impossible strategic solution is never good for balance.  Again, Napoleon with Corps 1-5 and CI often have cav superiority.  Are you proposing to remove the +1 for them also?  so that he'll be fighting at a +2/0 or +2/-1 advantage virtually ALL the time?  Think what that would do to land combat balance, and tell me the same thing does not apply at sea.  I don't buy that at all.

[RayKinStL]

The same thing does not apply at sea because of the simplistic nature of sea battle.  Yea the wind gauge is important, but with only one roll for combat resolution, there is no law of averages like there is in land battle.  In land battle there are two factors to consider...troop forces and morale.  Even after this, there are 3 rolls based on different charts for different attack/defend scenarios.  In naval combat, you get one roll and that is it.  Because of this, I think we should do more to reflect the scenario in modifiers than we would do in land combat.  Not to go over the point again, but this comes around to my original statement that the current rules do not make sense and are inconsistent.  I would say that, yes, GB rolling into a naval battle with 50% more heavies was a bigger advantage than Napoleon with a cavalry advantage.  That, however, is neither here nor there.  The point is that I believe GB rolling in on you with 50% more heavies would have been a blood bath, and such does not unbalance the game by allowing GB to have this advantage.  I would say that it is somewhat historically accurate.  I certainly do not use historically accurate as the crutch my arguement stands on, but I think my point has been made numerous times.
 
Bresh, I have always said that I am open to any ideas.  If you want to say the entire force mus be 100% GB for the modifier (if I am understanding you correctly), then I am open to that suggestion.  My simple point is that GB rolling in on France with a fleet of 20/10 versus 11/8 would have been a slaughter and as a result, there is nothing wrong with reflecting this advantage on the Combat resolution chart with the +2 modifier.
 
I am open to all suggestions.  As I originally stated, my problem is that the rules, as stated (which some of this isn't even stated!), provide a naval advantage rule that GB can never take advantage of, and this is definitely not fair for the naval power.  I think some excellent suggestions have been made and I am open to all ideas.  If you ask me though, I would say that this inconsistency makes naval combat unbalanced RIGHT NOW!  There are certain two ways to look at every situation.  You say it WILL be unbalanced and I say it IS unbalanced. 
 
Bresh, let me know if I am understanding you correctly.  As for you SW30, you never answered my question.  You provided some circular answer that danced around the issue.  Stop comparing land and naval combat.  They are not the same...not even close.  Go back, reread my post, and gibve me a simple answer with reasoning/logic backing it up.  You said "Picture a scenario for me..." and then gave me no scenario???  Not thatI want one anyway.  I have put the ball in your court.  I have provided a very probable game scenario and given my reasoning for why I think this change is important.  You prove to me why my reasoning is incorrect, and you will have won me over.  Trying to prove apples and oranges by bringing land combat into the arguement is not applicable.  In naval combat we don't roll 3 times, we don't count morale, and we don't select attacking chits.  They are two completely different beasts and to compare them in plain silly.  Please objectively look at the scenario I proposed and explain to me why GB does not deserve a +2 in that scenario.  I say that in this case, it BALANCES the game (not UNbalances!).  Please, prove me wrong.

[sw30]

No, YOU said "Picture a scenario for me."  and I said I don't do realism arguments.

It is all about balance with me.  and a +2 (even with a 6 cap) is not balance no matter how you spin it.  Balance is not GB being able to ignore Spain because he has enough ships to blockade even if Spain is hostile.  Balance is not having a dominant naval power not playing by the same rules with the dominant land power.  And balance is certainly not being able to inflict 25% of losses and an auto-win 50% of the time.

You claimed that having a +1 cap is unbalanced, I claim that a +2 is unbalanced.  I don't accept your realism arguments, you don't accept my balance arguments.  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[RayKinStL]

And yet, you provide no reasoning for why every MP but GB gets a +1 for heavy superiority.  I await the reasoning from.  And no, game balance is not an arguement, because I say the game is unbalanced right now.  Game balance is a matter of subjectivity.

[sw30]

And there you go, I have no argument, because my argument is not acceptable for you.  I have no other arguments.

[eske]

First sw, very happy to have someone with hands-on experience on both EiA and EiH. The latter have been lacking in this forum for a while.
 
Then I regret to have to correct you on the the EiH 4.0 naval tabels. (I got hold of them and version 5.2)
6.7.3.2 Naval Combat Table modifiers has these modifiers:
[blockquote]
Modifiers to 6.7.3.2
-1 if ships of more than one Major Power on the same side
-1 for each additional Fleet, beyond the first
-1 if a side consists solely of Light ships
+1 if possess 1.5 times the number of Heavy ships of opponent
Odds in numbers          2 to 1   3 to 1  4 to 1
Modifier for larger force +1       +2       +3
Maximum of all modifiers can be +2 or -2[/blockquote]
Now, before anybody believes this decides this discussion, let me explain that EiH4.0 naval combat cannot bear direct comparison to EiA or EiANW. Naval combat EiH4.0 is an adaption of the land combat system with chits, morale and 3 rounds of combat. AND in EiH5.2 max naval modifiers are back to +1. So this is just for accuracy of rules history, and by no means valid as argument for the +2 cap.
 
(Unfortunately the EiH3.0 rules still are untraceable to me.)
 
/eske
 

[RayKinStL]

I think just reworking the wording so that heavy superiority puts your oppoent at a -1 is the best option.  Then you can maintain the combat resolution table, GB can benefit from the heavy superiority rule like every other major power, and you can still maintain the +/11 max modifier, by maintaining what I believe to be proper balance since GB with heavy superiority should be a battle heavily favored for GB!  Just change the rule that heavy superiority makes your opponent -1, instead of making you +1, and everything else can stay the same.  I find it interesting that the rule changed in 4.0 eske.  I guess that means I am not the only one to take up this inconsistency/unbalanced fight.

[eske]

The naval rules I believe is the most frequently 'mod'ed rule of EiA (EiH). There even was the 'official' AH naval rules. My guess is players have found the original naval rules a little too abstract and simple compared to the land combat rules. And the importance to the game of one(!) dieroll too large, which is frustrating, when there is very few ways to influence the odds. Particullar to GB, where this die-roll litterally can decide the outcome of a war.
(This also includes the interception rolls, but they are somehow easier to accept.)


So what is needed for naval rules to be accepted by players of EiANW ?
1) They need to represent the historical situation convincingly.
2) They must be compatible with all other rules in the game in complexity and interaction.
3) They must 'add' to the game-experience. This includes providing players with a feel their decisions matter.

These are the pillars that support the 'Game-balance'.

(Finally got to what this is about. Are you still with me ? )

The way I see it, this discussion mostly concerns 1 and 3.
One argument being: "maintaining what I believe to be proper balance since GB with heavy superiority should be a battle heavily favored for GB!" (Quote Ray). Which I interpret as a feeling the historical accuracy is lacking.
The other: "balance is certainly not being able to ... auto-win 50% of the time." (Quote sw) A statement that players are unable to truely influence the outcome of naval battles.

To refrase matters: What odds are historical accurate and what odds makes an interesting game?

If no compromise can be found, naval combat should not be a part of this game. It should be replaced by an abstraction.
(Like spanish gold is).

Now I can come up with a working abstraction for this, but before I do that maybe we should start calculate the odds.
(To my knowledge surprisingly noone has actually done the math.)

The name of the game in this question must be GB port blockades, so here we go:
To blockade a french fleet of say 10HS and 10LS what does GB need to win blockade battles with chances respectively 5 out of 6, and 11 out 12 ?
We need these odds under the current EiANW rules (+1/-1), the "consistent" interpretation (+2/-2) and the variation to that, where GB induces a -1 modifier to the opponent. (They are not the same).
For illustration it might be interesting to calculate what it takes to get 50-50 odds versus a GB fleet of 10HS and 10LS in open sea battle.

Finally a very hard question to answer is, what odds reflect the history? Has anybody done statistics on napolenic naval battles invloving GB ??

/eske

[RayKinStL]

Eske, this is why this issue is so important and is why I brought it up.  You mention two things I will discuss.  The first was the statment "Particullar to GB, where this die-roll litterally can decide the outcome of a war."  A bad die roll can decide the outcome of the game!  All GB really has is her navy.  Let people talk all they want about the high British morale, but the simple fact is that without a navy, GB is utterly useless, except for forking money over to other countries (that sounds fun doesn't it).  That is the only point I wanted to make there.

The real crux of it is the math you got into.  So much of GB's set up is dependent on France.  And should France do a multi-port set up, GB's set up becomes much tougher.  As an example, in the PBEM game i am in now, NeverMan is France (I think) and he set up France in like 6 different ports.  My GB set up took like an hour, but I literally arranged my ships in each blockade box that I was ensured victory if France attempted to run the blockade.  This set up was done with the assumption that I was on a +2 modifier for heavy superiority in certain ports!  The key to the +2 modifier meant that I could assign a few extra heavies, putting me on a guaranteed 15% damage roll, and allowing me to change set ups in other ports.  Now this was all on the assumption that GB was guaranteed 15% damages, and France could hit back with 25% at the most.  If we use Neverman's suggestion and give heavy superiority a -1 to the undergunned side, I am not sure how much, if at all, it changes the math in my set up.  This change would mean a die roll of 1 could potentially give me only 10% casualities, but France on the -1 could only do 20% casualities.  I would think the difference would be negligible, but I would have to run numbers on each port.  The result of not getting heavy superioirty bonus (in the form of +2) means that France now has an 11% of running the blockade if he attempts to do so (if I did my math right, which I am pertty sure I did).  Now this might not seem like a lot, but consider that one corps of 14 French infantry with a leader, in London, early on can potentially wreck GB, forcing him into a unconditional surrender.  This set up left me with only 19 heavies but a guaranteed blockade of all French ships (a solid trade off)  Now consider that I have to use those remaining 19 for the rest of my intetnions, including coastal minors, blocking the channel, and worrying about the French gaining temporary access of another minor's fleet.  Now that my +2 is non-existent, I technically am undermanned in some ports for ensuring victory, and every ship I reallocate either takes ships away from the small fleet I have for other wordly endeavors, or increses France's probability of a blockade run should he attempt such a thing.

This is why I was so upset and why I made this thread.  I spent so much time doing all the math, and it was all based on a rule that the rule book fails to state is not applicable.  Further, upon finding this out, to learn that the only purpose British heavies serve is to keep the OTHER guy from having heavy superioirty, I felt there was a major inconsistency.  Heavy ships are bad mother f***ers.  If someone rolls up on you with 50% more, you should get your ass handed to you...plain and simple.  I wish I had the stats you request, but I am no history guru.  Hopefully though this gives you an idea of some of the math that went into my GB set up in the PBEM game I am currently in and how this rule changes the game.

And for the record, although I argue this from the GB perspective beacuase I am GB in a game right now, I would still feel the exact same if I was France, or any other country.  I truly believe a heavy superioirity should be something every country can take advantage of.  If the roles were reversed and I was France, I would still feel the current rules are an injustice simply because I believe it to be a major inconsistency.  I don't want anyone thinking I am biased simply because I am GB in the current PBEM game I am in now.  I truly believe a heavy superiority is a heavy superioirty and should warrant some sort of additional bonus for whomever holds such an advantage going into a naval battle...whether they be the dominant naval power or a lowly free state.

[fvianello]

ORIGINAL: eske

(Unfortunately the EiH3.0 rules still are untraceable to me.)

/eske

I found them in EiH Yahoo group, but you have to request membership and wait for admin's answer