Light Fleets

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

4th Rates ships I suppose are not represented in the game, since they are neither heavy or light.

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

New question in the naval combat phase is it heavies v heavies & light v light.
I ask this question because heavies never attacked frigates unless the frigates attacked the heavy.

[Mardonius]

Hello Hellfire:

There is no difference in the current game system in Lt Versus heavies combat other than die roll modifiers up to, I believe, +1 or perhaps +2. I'd have to check.
In any event, it is a wholely unsatisfactory design, lending to Lt Ships being used predominantly to absorb casualties and that is about it.

I have suggested that:

(1) Lt Ships give a bonus to interception and evasion, when these become real options, perhaps with some sort of "Fog of War" screening/recon (Where is that French fleet?) mechanic
(2) Lt Ships count as 1/2 a HS for combat and loss factors.
(3) Lt ship counters may move a full seven movement even if stacked together and do not reduce the movement of a fleet, as the optional rule in EiA did for Fleet Counters (there were no light or heavies inthe old system)
(4) Lt Ships may be used as privateers and some of this money is remitted to the controlling party as privateers were commissioned state agents, not pirates per se
(5) Lt Ships (or a high ratio thereof) give a blockade or running blockade bonus
(6) Lt Ships construction costs be reduced to $6. I have done some research to show this as an accurate figure. (see forums) Note, I also recommend that construction times be reduced from the current 13 months (the book says 12, but it is actually 13 months and 19 vice 18 months for heavies) to 9 months. I was unable to find conclusive evidence to say that this is the average time but did find quite a few cases where the time was markedly less than this 9 months. In many cases where the construction took longer than this 9 months it was do to no immediate need, akin to keeping ships in ordinary (dry storage).
(7) Reduced LS Fleet at sea maintenance Cost from $5 to $2 (and increase Blockade Box Maintenace from $1 to $2)

Anyway, just some thoughts and observations.

best,

Mardonius

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Thanks for that information Mardonius, I find it hard to believe that the present combat phase is just decided by die modifiers.

Heavy v heavy and light v light must be calculated seperately in any future combat resoloutions, who ever programmed the naval combat has appears to be completely out of touch of what happens in a naval battle.

All the best,
Hellfire

[Mardonius]

In truth, the problem with the naval system antedates any programming issues. The original box game (although it did not complicate the issue with the "light" fleets) had only a single die roll for naval engagements. So Marshall gets a pass here in my book.

There were, however, interceptions and evasions. Not exactly perfect, but slightly better than we have today. They should be added ASAP.

In the later 1980's, Avalon Hill (pubisher of EiA board game, now absorbed by Hasbro) had a magazine called "The General" that had a chit choice combat system based on Linear Offense-Linear Defense - Melee Chit choices and a morale for each of the navies.
The Empires in Harm expansion/evolution of the original EiA built on this and added some options (galleys) that have some value. (You will note a common thread to bash Empires in Harm throughout these forums, but in truth there are a lot of good improvements therein, particularly in regards to options. But I think there are some major problems too).

I would love to see the adoption of revised naval system. For those who don't want to adopt this system, I recommend not using the options.

best
Mardonius

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Hello Mardonius,
I believe that since we have the ability to improve games via this wonderful invention the computer, we should do all we can to make playing these games as enjoyable an experience as possible.
If that means tweeking the rules of the original game so much the better, Just because someone wrote rules in the past don't mean they can't be improved upon in the future.

regards, hellfirejet.

[iamspamus]

Howdy HFJ,

There is a problems with tweaking the rules. The "purists" want it just like it was. Then folks like Mardonius and me want all of the add-ons, AT LEAST as an option. So, this presents a conundrum. EiANW is really a hybrid of Empires in Arms and Empires in Harms 3.0. EIA was the board game and EIH came along and added alot of chrome while trying to "fix" EIA. Some of it was good and some was ok. Also, they are on EIH 5.0 or 6 or something like that.

So, it'll be a slow process.

Jason

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

Hello Mardonius,
I believe that since we have the ability to improve games via this wonderful invention the computer, we should do all we can to make playing these games as enjoyable an experience as possible.
If that means tweeking the rules of the original game so much the better, Just because someone wrote rules in the past don't mean they can't be improved upon in the future.

regards, hellfirejet.

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Hi Iamspamus,
I posted this before I think it could solve a few problems between what us gamers want .
The answer is simple to this problem, there are those gamers who want a faithful reproduction of the board game with no exceptions to the rules not broke don't fix it.

There are also gamers who want to play it with improved rules having found faults through play testing the game.


There are also gamers who want to upgrade the game using the full range of possibility the computer brings to the game, more in depth game play,more realistic combat simulation on land and at sea.
There are other games on here that are doing just that by adding Improved versions Admirals edition War in the pacific is a perfect example.


So the answer is allow options in the programming for basic level,intermediate level and advanced level game play use the power of the computer and let the programmers make this game outstanding.

[iamspamus]

Oh, I'm with you. It'll just take a while. No biggie.
Jason

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

Hi Iamspamus,
I posted this before I think it could solve a few problems between what us gamers want .
The answer is simple to this problem, there are those gamers who want a faithful reproduction of the board game with no exceptions to the rules not broke don't fix it.

There are also gamers who want to play it with improved rules having found faults through play testing the game.


There are also gamers who want to upgrade the game using the full range of possibility the computer brings to the game, more in depth game play,more realistic combat simulation on land and at sea.
There are other games on here that are doing just that by adding Improved versions Admirals edition War in the pacific is a perfect example.


So the answer is allow options in the programming for basic level,intermediate level and advanced level game play use the power of the computer and let the programmers make this game outstanding.

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Hey Marshall,
 
                 If you see this message is it possible to treat Light fleets ( Frigates ) as a seperate force in any combat resolution, and stop just using them as cannon fodder for the sake of alocating casualties. [:)]

[MarshallEllis]

The engine would not allow this in its current state. This might follow some advanced naval rules IF we were to introduce them.
 

[iamspamus]

Yeah, this is actually a good idea. A "better" way to implement it would be to have a light ship = 1/2 or 1/3 of a heavy ship. Then you'll start to see real navy damage.

Jason

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

Hey Marshall,

                If you see this message is it possible to treat Light fleets ( Frigates ) as a seperate force in any combat resolution, and stop just using them as cannon fodder for the sake of alocating casualties. [:)]

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

Hey Marshall,

                If you see this message is it possible to treat Light fleets ( Frigates ) as a separate force in any combat resolution, and stop just using them as cannon fodder for the sake of allocating casualties. [:)]

Yo Marshall,
If we treat Light fleets as 2Deckers 74s then they are correctly treated as casualties, unlike as is now Light fleets = Frigates.[;)]

[MarshallEllis]

Got it!
 
 

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

Hey Marshall,

                If you see this message is it possible to treat Light fleets ( Frigates ) as a separate force in any combat resolution, and stop just using them as cannon fodder for the sake of allocating casualties. [:)]

Yo Marshall,
If we treat Light fleets as 2Deckers 74s then they are correctly treated as casualties, unlike as is now Light fleets = Frigates.[;)]

Careful about treating 74s at light fleets... the 74 3rd Rate was the main (majority of variants) SOL of this period.

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Hiya Mardonius,

I realise the 3rd Rate 74s are the main ship of the line in this era,please take a look at my wacky idea post and you will understand what I'm getting at.

[Mardonius]

Roger.... will do.