New Naval Combat System Model

[Marshall Ellis]

Oh, I missed that you were asking about EiH Egyptian fleets.
My bad...

[Mardonius]

No worries Marshall. It just seemed a bit of an anonaly that some things (order of battle) come from EiH 3.0 and others don't.

Please keep up your good work! DiD I mention that if there is any way to adopt a naval combat system similar to EiH 3.0 (for playtesting) and reduced build costs amd times, I would be indebted? [:)]

best
Mardonius

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Hey Maradonius,

I would love to have a better naval simulation like EIH 3 fingers crossed.

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

No worries Marshall. It just seemed a bit of an anonaly that some things (order of battle) come from EiH 3.0 and others don't.

Please keep up your good work! DiD I mention that if there is any way to adopt a naval combat system similar to EiH 3.0 (for playtesting) and reduced build costs amd times, I would be indebted? [:)]

best
Mardonius

A few things I would like to add, are the reduced build times/cost and evasion/pursuit.
Can you refresh me on recommended build times/cost or is this in Mantis already???

[Mardonius]

I have posted on Mantis. If you ever want a redesigned naval system outlined, citing historical, EiA General revision and EiH improvements, I would be honored to provide you with an improved and historically viable FUN system.

I am sure HFJ and others would love to input as well.

best
Mardonius/Varick

[bresh]

Just remember any such changes to stay optional.
So that those not wishing it dont get it forced upon them.
 
Regards
Bresh

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: bresh

Just remember any such changes to stay optional.
So that those not wishing it dont get it forced upon them.

Regards
Bresh

I won't discount Bresh's suggestion that such changes remain options, as we should try to keep some player preference flexibility here. I will, however, point out that the original game had a charge of $10 per ship and 12 months, significantly lower than the current charges for line of battle ships. So there should be no suggestion that today's curretn EiAnW system is more orthodox than the system I and others have advanced.

best
Mardnonius

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Hey Guys,
              If we can get to use the editor to upgrade our enjoyment of the game I see no down side, if it's optional it should please everyone to suit there own preferences.[:)]

[pzgndr]

If you ever want a redesigned naval system outlined, citing historical, EiA General revision and EiH improvements, I would be honored to provide you with an improved and historically viable FUN system.

I am all for this. An optional advanced naval combat system would be great. The plain vanilla EiA system is not very interesting. The EiH rules offer some worthwhile improvements for more historical gameplay.

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

ORIGINAL: bresh

Just remember any such changes to stay optional.
So that those not wishing it dont get it forced upon them.

Regards
Bresh

I won't discount Bresh's suggestion that such changes remain options, as we should try to keep some player preference flexibility here. I will, however, point out that the original game had a charge of $10 per ship and 12 months, significantly lower than the current charges for line of battle ships. So there should be no suggestion that today's curretn EiAnW system is more orthodox than the system I and others have advanced.

best
Mardnonius

Mardonius the threat is about naval combat system, witch is what i write about.
And i do keep my opinion dont force changes into games, but set them as options, each game-group themself can decide on/off.

I concour that the cost/build could use a fix.

Regards
Bresh

[borner]

It must be remembered that any change to the naval system is going to have a huge impact on game balance. As it is now, much of GB's strength is that the advanvantages for the Royal navy are automatic. This is important as GB has next to no army, and no way to defend herself if invaded. As I posted before, given the huge advantage the Royal navy had at this time, I think any changes need to be made to at least slightly favor GB. Otherwise, you are not just making naval battles more interesting and challenging, (which coul dbe a very good thing), but causing a very basic shift in the balance of the game.
 
 

[Marshall Ellis]

Well said Borner. I am very nervous about such drastic changes and must make sure that they do not sway the game horribly in one direction.
 

[pzgndr]

any change to the naval system is going to have a huge impact on game balance.

Any change?? Surely there must be some feedback from players who have used the advanced naval combat rules from The General or the various EiH rules over these many years. This stuff is not new. Did GB lose its automatic advantages and did the balance of naval combat shift decisively away from GB?? I doubt that the impact was "huge". I agree we do not want to disrupt GB's historical advantages. But what's being advocated is the implementation of an optional naval combat system to build upon these previously introduced optional rules, which I assume retain some sense of game balance unless proven otherwise. Let's try it out and see for ourselves, and make adjustments as needed, yes? I'll also add that while this would be interesting, it is not exactly a priority and can wait until other things settle down. Work on evasion and pursuit rules for sure, and the other classic EiA stuff, and then begin experimenting with optional systems.

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Well said Borner. I am very nervous about such drastic changes and must make sure that they do not sway the game horribly in one direction.

Respectfully, Marshall, the current naval system is not a success. Due to the increased costs of ships and build times and the non-incorporation of some of the board game optional rules pertaining to stacked movement, GB has even a stronger advantage than it did in the board game.

I earnestly suggest you pursue a dual course fo action that (a) allows you to keep the current system for those who wish to continue to use this system and (b) allows those of us who are disatisfied with the current naval system to adopt a better, more fun, and more historical system that still gives GB advantages but does not make it invulnerable.

Once again, I -- with other's input -- would be honored to provide you with a proposed framework for an improved naval system.

Thank you
Mardonius

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Hello Guys,
I have been play testing a naval battle scenario using the EMPIRE IN ARMS ship type system of Heavy & Light fleets.

The 2 opposing fleets were as follows =

Britain have 3 HEAVY FLEETS = ( 60 ) HEAVIES + 1 LIGHT FLEET = ( 10 ) LIGHT.
With a grand total of 70 ships.

France & Spain have 3 HEAVY FLEETS = ( 52 ) HEAVIES note 1 Fleet is 8 heavy ships short of a full compliment, + 2 LIGHT FLEETS = ( 20 ) LIGHTS.
With a total of 72 ships.

NB. Each ship is represented by 1 die roll. Thats 142 die rolls.

You could have 1 die roll per 4 ships whatever to reduce the number off dice rolled.

Note also that the 3Deckers & 2Deckers are heavies in the game!

Ship options.
1st & 2nd Rates ( 3 Decker ) = 1 1/2 die rolls per ship.
3rd & 4th Rates ( 2 Decker ) = 1 die roll per ship.
5th & 6th Rates ( 1 Decker ) = 1/2 die roll per ship.

There are numerous permitations for die roll options for ship types, to reduce the number of dice rolled, but the table below always applies for combat resolution.

The combat is using my system of damage effects, and represents possible ship v ship results.

COMBAT TABLE.

DIE ROLL = RESULT

1 = NO EFFECT

2 = DAMAGED

3 = DAMAGED

4 = DAMAGED

5 = CAPTURED

6 = SUNK


As you can see all die rolls off 1 = No Effect.

All die rolls off 2,3 or 4 = 1 Ship Damaged.

All die rolls off 5 = 1 Ship Captured.

All die rolls off 6 = 1 Ship Sunk. ( Advanced rule option re-roll all 6 results)

This is a combat system in it's simplest form.

At the end of combat all Damaged ships must return to a friendly port, and all Captured ships are added to the opposing fleets, and all ships Sunk are removed from the game.

Also I use an advanced option on the above table by re-rolling any die roll of 6 result, as during this period of history very few ships actually sink, apply any re-roll result as per the table above.[:)]

As a footnote: The above battle ended with the following result after implementing the advanced rule for die rolls off 6.

69 ships damaged, 26 captured and 5 sunk!

[iamspamus]

Me. Feedback. Once we implemented this variant, we never went back. It was good. We played 3 or 4 games with it.

Now, I do like chrome, though not as much as Hellfirejet. I think he wants individual life-boats accounted for...[:-] (Just a friendly poke here...)

Jason

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

any change to the naval system is going to have a huge impact on game balance.

Any change?? Surely there must be some feedback from players who have used the advanced naval combat rules from The General or the various EiH rules over these many years. This stuff is not new. Did GB lose its automatic advantages and did the balance of naval combat shift decisively away from GB?? I doubt that the impact was "huge". I agree we do not want to disrupt GB's historical advantages. But what's being advocated is the implementation of an optional naval combat system to build upon these previously introduced optional rules, which I assume retain some sense of game balance unless proven otherwise. Let's try it out and see for ourselves, and make adjustments as needed, yes? I'll also add that while this would be interesting, it is not exactly a priority and can wait until other things settle down. Work on evasion and pursuit rules for sure, and the other classic EiA stuff, and then begin experimenting with optional systems.

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Well said Borner. I am very nervous about such drastic changes and must make sure that they do not sway the game horribly in one direction.

Respectfully, Marshall, the current naval system is not a success. Due to the increased costs of ships and build times and the non-incorporation of some of the board game optional rules pertaining to stacked movement, GB has even a stronger advantage than it did in the board game.

I earnestly suggest you pursue a dual course fo action that (a) allows you to keep the current system for those who wish to continue to use this system and (b) allows those of us who are disatisfied with the current naval system to adopt a better, more fun, and more historical system that still gives GB advantages but does not make it invulnerable.

Once again, I -- with other's input -- would be honored to provide you with a proposed framework for an improved naval system.

Thank you
Mardonius

I'm not opposed to an advanced combat system for the naval side. It's simply a time thing at this point. I would like to do a classic EiA scenario before I add any naval combat options though.

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Now, I do like chrome, though not as much as Hellfirejet. I think he wants individual life-boats accounted for... (Just a friendly poke here...)

Jason

Yo Jason,

( Friendly banter poke return to sender )

I was not interested in the land campaign of this period my interest lay with the navy, but having played the game I came to realise that I enjoyed playing the Land stuff, I'm willing to learn, with all the chit picks and options.

I also like diplomacy and debates which the game also keeps me interested in, but I'm sure like me there are plenty players fed up with the naval aspect of the game, and this is the reason why I'm trying to improve this side of the game, historical or not it should give you more options similar to the land campaign![:)]

[dodod]

I think the biggest GB advantage is that it is impossible to build ships...this allows gb to wipe out navies rather easily, without fear of a  rebuilding by others since gb is by far the richest...
 
I also think that Austria should be given something like 10 heavies, and prussia 10 transports to begin with....it is utterly ridiculous that no troops can  be sailed by these countries.

[AresMars]

dodo,
 
Austria and Prussia have no real Naval tradition - thus NO fleets.
 
However, their control of a Minor with a Fleet solves that issue pretty quick....
 
Some of the points raised by hellfirejet and Mardonius (build times, ship costs, a little more variable in combat results) have serious merit.
 
I would like to see a return to the EIA limited number of fleets for balance.  (ie GB 7, FR 4, SP and RS 3, TU 2, AS and PS 1, plus the Minors) There are a limited amount of sea areas and limiting the game to a total number of FLEETs makes the importance of DIPLOMACY more important, raises the value of MINORS with FLEETS. 
 
(I am just typing off he top of my head....)
 
Now, with the incorporation of the different classes of ships (3, 2, 1 Deckers and Tranports) you could have a fleet composed of 30 combat ships (plus transports ignored in combat) where the different classes of ships would have various morale levels (ie. 3 Deckers are 4, 2 Deckers are 3 and 2 Deckers are 2) [British would be .5 higher] and the fleet counter would look more like a LAND CORPS  (ie. [5/25/25/*]
 
A fleet of just transports would just be treated like a naval prusuit by the opponent based on the number of 1Decker ships in the fleet.
 
Thus if I have a fleet of; 2 x 3Deckers (2*4), 18 x 2Deckers (18*3) and 7 x 1Deckers (7*2) and 15 x Transports the BATTLE MORALE of the that fleet would be...2.53 and then would be used on something like the ADVANCED NAVAL CHART proposed in the old GENERAL or Mardonius's suggestions. 3 rounds, etc....
 
A British Fleet of the same type would have a BATTLE MORALE of 2.73 -- so not an enormous advantage.... but the chart is not about DAMAGE EFFECTS
 
Casualties from a chart would represent a certain amount of DAMAGE EFFECTs that would then be translated to the OPPOSING fleet each round in STEPS....ie. 6 = CAPTURED, 4=SUNK, 3-2-1 Damaged
 
Perhaps even a forced to withdraw from combat....
 
Naval leaders could then be used in a variety of ways.  Improve Morale, Raise/Lower DAMAGE EFFECTS, others....
 
What do people think of this approach?