New Naval Combat System Model

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: 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 1 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?

Yo AresMars,
I'm with you all the way with this one, anything that improves the naval aspect of the game is vital. More Leaders,ship types,build costs & build times reduced, will improve the whole picture of the campaign. All we are asking for is an advanced option that is on a par with the land system![:)]

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Hello dodod,
I think the build costs & times are way to much, its also far to easy to have massive fleets in the game, fleets should be smaller allowing for more naval combat in the game. I should also point out that although France lost a great number of ships during the campaign, it still ended the war with a stronger navy than it begun due to it's ship building program.

[iamspamus]

ME,

I agree. Do up the "classic" EIA scenario and get those guys off your back. [;)] Then we have years of work for you... muhuhuhahahahahahahahahah...

Jason

ORIGINAL: 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.

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet



Hello dodod,
I think the build costs & times are way to much, its also far to easy to have massive fleets in the game, fleets should be smaller allowing for more naval combat in the game. I should also point out that although France lost a great number of ships during the campaign, it still ended the war with a stronger navy than it begun due to it's ship building program.

Please note HFJ's comments that France "still ended the war with a stronger navy than it begun due to it's ship building program". Ans this is a France who marched into Russia. Ship prices and build times must come down.
They are way too high to allow for all but minor builds.

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet



Hello dodod,
I think the build costs & times are way to much, its also far to easy to have massive fleets in the game, fleets should be smaller allowing for more naval combat in the game. I should also point out that although France lost a great number of ships during the campaign, it still ended the war with a stronger navy than it begun due to it's ship building program.

Please note HFJ's comments that France "still ended the war with a stronger navy than it begun due to it's ship building program". Ans this is a France who marched into Russia. Ship prices and build times must come down.
They are way too high to allow for all but minor builds.

Yo Mardonius,

Hi folks here is a piece of historical fact that proves that France was a major threat to Britains so called dominance of the seas.

In 1813 France had rebuilt her naval strength after Trafalgar and had 71 Heavies at her disposal and had a further 42 building, I would call that a challenge to Britains naval supremacy.

[Marshall Ellis]

What did they never press this and try to take Fr out?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet



Hello dodod,
I think the build costs & times are way to much, its also far to easy to have massive fleets in the game, fleets should be smaller allowing for more naval combat in the game. I should also point out that although France lost a great number of ships during the campaign, it still ended the war with a stronger navy than it begun due to it's ship building program.

Please note HFJ's comments that France "still ended the war with a stronger navy than it begun due to it's ship building program". Ans this is a France who marched into Russia. Ship prices and build times must come down.
They are way too high to allow for all but minor builds.

Yo Mardonius,

Hi folks here is a piece of historical fact that proves that France was a major threat to Britains so called dominance of the seas.

In 1813 France had rebuilt her naval strength after Trafalgar and had 71 Heavies at her disposal and had a further 42 building, I would call that a challenge to Britains naval supremacy.

Warspite1

Yes, and in WWII, many, many times the Italians out-numbered, out-gunned and out-ranged the British but did not have the mix of confidence/courage/experience - call it what you will - to take that advantage and deliver a good pummelling to their enemy. Having those weapons was clearly not enough........

I do not know too much about this period of history but suspect that the need for a huge land army to try and stem the advancing tide, meant that these ships could never be crewed. If true, this come back to my point from a while ago, that exploring alternatives in these strategic games is fun but care is needed to make things realistic.

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Yes, and in WWII, many, many times the Italians out-numbered, out-gunned and out-ranged the British but did not have the mix of confidence/courage/experience - call it what you will - to take that advantage and deliver a good pummelling to their enemy. Having those weapons was clearly not enough........

I do not know too much about this period of history but suspect that the need for a huge land army to try and stem the advancing tide, meant that these ships could never be crewed. If true, this come back to my point from a while ago, that exploring alternatives in these strategic games is fun but care is needed to make things realistic.

Warspite:

Your Italain example is not exactly appropriate. The Italain Navy did a markedly good job when they had enough fuel and technical parity with the British. Cape Matapan, and the GB victory, had little to do with "confidence/courage/experience" and more to due with British Radar. If you want to see gumption, see Prince Borghese and the Decima MAS. He was certainly as bold as Nelson. I can cite more examples if you wish.

In our Napoleonic era, the technology is close to parity, with the French and Spaninsh having a slight advantage in most instances. The French ships could be crewed... the problem was, as DC Whitworth hit on som time back, was training. Hard to get to sea if blockaded and without sea time it is hard to build up a proficient navy, all the more so if the revolution took your most expereinced leaders.

cordially,
Mardonius

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

What did they never press this and try to take Fr out?

One of the problems with EiA (the boardgame, so no hit on Matris and your efforts) is that ports are too easy to take out. Effective ampib invasions are a very hard thing to do. Trust me on this one (LtCol USMCR).

So unless you had access to a port, this landing and killing the fleet was very difficult to do. And remmeber, that Toulon was opened up by French Royalists.

Sieges in EiA, unless taken by a coup de main (surprise) are rarely as quick as in our game system. I'd probably halve the odds and limit the amount of assualters to twice the garrison capacity (not garrison total) due to spatial considerations.

Just walked the lines of Yorktown today... worth checking out.

best
Mardonius

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Yes, and in WWII, many, many times the Italians out-numbered, out-gunned and out-ranged the British but did not have the mix of confidence/courage/experience - call it what you will - to take that advantage and deliver a good pummelling to their enemy. Having those weapons was clearly not enough........

I do not know too much about this period of history but suspect that the need for a huge land army to try and stem the advancing tide, meant that these ships could never be crewed. If true, this come back to my point from a while ago, that exploring alternatives in these strategic games is fun but care is needed to make things realistic.

Warspite:

Your Italain example is not exactly appropriate. The Italain Navy did a markedly good job when they had enough fuel and technical parity with the British. Cape Matapan, and the GB victory, had little to do with "confidence/courage/experience" and more to due with British Radar. If you want to see gumption, see Prince Borghese and the Decima MAS. He was certainly as bold as Nelson. I can cite more examples if you wish.

In our Napoleonic era, the technology is close to parity, with the French and Spaninsh having a slight advantage in most instances. The French ships could be crewed... the problem was, as DC Whitworth hit on som time back, was training. Hard to get to sea if blockaded and without sea time it is hard to build up a proficient navy, all the more so if the revolution took your most expereinced leaders.

cordially,
Mardonius

Warspite1

I suspected you would pick up on the courage angle, which I purposely tried to show as just being one part within a bigger whole. I would not deride the heroic exploits of the Italian Navy - and as you say - there were some. Equally, to point to a British success and just say oh yes, they had radar, and to ignore men like Cunningham who had to make the decision whether or not to sail toward the enemy coast without air cover is very unfair.

The point is - courage by the few - or any one of those ingredients is not enough. FACT (and going back to the French) - Many good and experienced officers were removed and in addition I cannot believe that a large scale recruitment to the navy would not have seriously denunded the supply of desperately needed troops especially after the losses of 1812.

Summary - Not enough experienced officers, not enough experienced sailors (without hurting the land campaigns), not enough experience of winning and so a major psychological downer from from the start (the later just like the Italian vs RN in WWII).

Fact is I didn`t know about the number of ships - why didn`t they sail??

Rgds

Rob

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: warspite1


[

Warspite1

I suspected you would pick up on the courage angle, which I purposely tried to show as just being one part within a bigger whole. I would not deride the heroic exploits of the Italian Navy - and as you say - there were some. Equally, to point to a British success and just say oh yes, they had radar, and to ignore men like Cunningham who had to make the decision whether or not to sail toward the enemy coast without air cover is very unfair.

The point is - courage by the few - or any one of those ingredients is not enough. FACT (and going back to the French) - Many good and experienced officers were removed and in addition I cannot believe that a large scale recruitment to the navy would not have seriously denunded the supply of desperately needed troops especially after the losses of 1812.

Summary - Not enough experienced officers, not enough experienced sailors (without hurting the land campaigns), not enough experience of winning and so a major psychological downer from from the start (the later just like the Italian vs RN in WWII).

Fact is I didn`t know about the number of ships - why didn`t they sail??

Rgds

Rob

[/quote]

Here is the key (in my opinion) Rob:

GB did a splendid job of keeping the French Blockaded in port. So although the manpower was available, there was little opportunity to get them sea time. Yes, some did get time on fishing vessels, frigates,merchantmen and privateers, but this is very costly in that many French sailors ended up in GB custody. Others did manage gunnery practice and the like. But unlike on land, one has to go to sea to get any good at naval war. In my opinion, this is the foundation of GB's maritime superiorty. Had the French had a years of peace or not been blockaded, their rebuilt navy would have been -- with some training and leadership focus -- most formidable. See Battle of Virginia Capes for an example of French Naval Successes.
best
Varick/Mardonius

[iamspamus]

In comparison, how many did GB have? Spain?
Jason

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet



Hello dodod,
I think the build costs & times are way to much, its also far to easy to have massive fleets in the game, fleets should be smaller allowing for more naval combat in the game. I should also point out that although France lost a great number of ships during the campaign, it still ended the war with a stronger navy than it begun due to it's ship building program.

Please note HFJ's comments that France "still ended the war with a stronger navy than it begun due to it's ship building program". Ans this is a France who marched into Russia. Ship prices and build times must come down.
They are way too high to allow for all but minor builds.

Yo Mardonius,

Hi folks here is a piece of historical fact that proves that France was a major threat to Britains so called dominance of the seas.

In 1813 France had rebuilt her naval strength after Trafalgar and had 71 Heavies at her disposal and had a further 42 building, I would call that a challenge to Britains naval supremacy.

[Ashtar]

Guys, some comments:

1. If and how much GB has a further advantage has still to be shown. How many pbem EIANW games have you seen coming to an end have you seen Mardonius? Me 0, which is not a pretty good statistic you will reckon.

2. Theoretically, the lack of naval evasion combined with the foolish pp value of fleets in combat is probably the largest GB advantage so far: it basically forces other naval powers to NOT move their fleet out of ports. Suppose Spain moves some of his fleets in open waters. As GB I can easily declare war on next turn, move
first and attack these fleets with my full navy, inflicting heavy damage and immediately retaking the pp lost by declaring war by virtue of my Nelson commanded victory. This is also a very effective menace when treaties are being shaped. If Naval evasion would be in place this plan would work only 66% of the times, and GB would be less inclined to surprise attack, for the fear of ending up losing pp's and ending up in a war against Spain with his full naval forces...

3. The increased naval built cost and time for heavies probably favors GB, but keep in mind that other nations can also build lights: GB has a +1 by default, so no further penalties/advantages are given by fighting GB with heavy ship inferiority. Furthermore, at the start of the game GB has by far less forces then its combined potential enemies: with the increased cost it is more difficult for her to invest in the navy to reach global naval superiority.

4.As it has been pointed out, once your navy is gone is quite expensive to replace it, so if France looses all his navy GB will find himself with a slightly superiority towards the combined Spain/Russian fleet. However the argument works both ways, once GB looses part of its navy (like after an inconditional surrender)
it is basically game over. And France loosing all its fleet should be considered as a MAJOR mistake, compared to GB letting an invading force landing on its soil.

5. The fact is, GB has a very small army (both in terms of starting values and maximum corps) and the lowest manpower intake of all major powers. Its main strengths are navy and geographical position. A single mistake or a single battle lost in the channel and the France army will be in London, courtesy of the channel crossing arrow. Once that happens, it is basically game over for GB. On the other hand, IF GB manages to destroy the French or Spanish navy, then it can endure relative
security.

6. To compare: Russia enjoys too a good position thanks to geography, and the FOOLISH EIANW choice of having only Moscow as a capital put Russia in a far better position regarding homeland security then the increased ship build cost did with GB (St. Petersburg is relatively vulnerable, Moscow is not). How many EIANW pbem games have you seen with GB forced to unconditional surrender and how many with Russia?

7. If you want to restore game balance, the solution is a classic EIA scenario, with St. Petersburg & Moscow reinstalled as twin capitals and the full EIA naval rules in places.

8. Any new naval combat rules could lead to umpredictable results. They should be tested with this idea in mind: for France to win it is enough to win 3 out of 4 land battles, for GB to survive it is not enough to win 3 out of 4 naval battles: you loose the fourth and London ends up being occupied.

9. This is a grand strategy game played at the corp level, not a detailed simulation of Napoleonic warfare, keep it in mind. You cannot have both in the same set of rules. Put more micromanagement and the overall grand strategy structure will suffer.

[iamspamus]

No.

Regarding your points:
1. If no one has any experience with whether GB is/was full of advantage in EiANW, then further tweaking won't matter as there is no baseline.

2. I don't remember evasion in EIA. (Was it there?) Are you complaining about the "foolish pp" for naval battles in EiANW? Can you let us know the difference between EIA and EIANW, please? I really don't know.

2a. Tough baloney about your spanish example. THAT was EIA. Having played Spain a couple of times, you didn't move your fleet out of a fully stocked Cadiz unless you wanted it destroyed. I ususally used a single point fleet for supply and OCCASIONALLY would take one fleet out to move troops to a friendly Naples or something and usually if most of the British fleet was screwing around up in the Baltic at the time. Otherwise, if you left your fleet out, GB killed it. Period. So, what is the difference?

3. Um, in EIA "classic", GB is out numbered by Spain and France, if I remember correctly. Through in Russia and they minors and they are hosed. So what is your complaint here? This is the same case in EIANW. What gives the their advantage is that the navies don't start together and potentially can be defeated in detail. Once again accurately protrayed to me. So, yes all of their enemies collectively should be able to out build England, just like all of the enemies of France should be able to collectively out build France.

(Side note - once our GB player was a deeeeek and so FRA, RUS, SPA all started a war with him and with our complete navies in the London Blockade box...[:D] That was fun. Another time, FRA, SPA, RUS all stopped fighting for like 3 or 4 years and only built ships...[:'(] That was fun too!)

4 & 5. If France loses it's navy, it still has the land war. If GB loses its navy, it depends on how much it losses. There are two separate issues: 1. Butt whooped in battle or 2. Having to surrender. If the ships are destroyed, they have years to replace them. If facing an unconditional surrender, the standard tactic was to purchase all of your fleet counters and spread out your fleets, so that losing two won't matter as much.

Is it bad for the Brits if they lose their ships. Yep. Is it catastrophic? I haven't seen that. Also, while others are needing to build a lot of troops to survive, England can build some, but can put most of its massive economy into ships. You asked about experience before. I have seen England get smacked (by these huge coalitions) and still come back. This is a LONG game and diplomatically it should balance itself.

6. Russia's tough. Ok.

7. Your point 7 discounts your argument in point 1. How many games have you seen go to completion with EIANW. Zero? So, whether there is game balance (in your words) "has still to be shown". How can "returning the classic" restore balance...? Sounds like a quote from Star Wars or something. [8|]

I have no problem with them doing a classic scenario. That's what you want, but don't try to argue that it's sOOOOOOO much better. In every game of EIA I played (10ish), we added some house rules and variations. Sometimes a lot. It was a good base., but IMO so was EIH.

8. NNNNNNNNNNNNTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT. Sorry. The "new naval rules" that I discussed were from a. The General and b. EIH, both with YEARSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS of testing. Adding in schooners or magic flying balloons or something, well, we'll leave those sentiments to others.

9. I kind of agree here. As I've said before, there has to be a balance between chrome (ie. added extra stuff to make the game more fun and/or realistic) and playability (ie. the ability for the game to move along and be fun for those experiencing it). No doubt about it. Preachin' to the choir here.


So, here are my takeaways:
1. Add evasion and some of the other things suggested (ie. naval combat charts)
2. Reduce costs and build times.
3. Not having light ships be taken as full ship losss, (ie. if you have 6 losses then a ls = 1/2 or 1/3 a ship for losses - like the cav = 1, inf = 3, mil = 9 factors for pursuit).
4. Moscow AND St. Petersburg need to be capitals. (If they are not now.)
5. Design classic scenario

Well, enough for now.
Jason

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

Guys, some comments:

1. If and how much GB has a further advantage has still to be shown. How many pbem EIANW games have you seen coming to an end have you seen Mardonius? Me 0, which is not a pretty good statistic you will reckon.

2. Theoretically, the lack of naval evasion combined with the foolish pp value of fleets in combat is probably the largest GB advantage so far: it basically forces other naval powers to NOT move their fleet out of ports. Suppose Spain moves some of his fleets in open waters. As GB I can easily declare war on next turn, move
first and attack these fleets with my full navy, inflicting heavy damage and immediately retaking the pp lost by declaring war by virtue of my Nelson commanded victory. This is also a very effective menace when treaties are being shaped. If Naval evasion would be in place this plan would work only 66% of the times, and GB would be less inclined to surprise attack, for the fear of ending up losing pp's and ending up in a war against Spain with his full naval forces...

3. The increased naval built cost and time for heavies probably favors GB, but keep in mind that other nations can also build lights: GB has a +1 by default, so no further penalties/advantages are given by fighting GB with heavy ship inferiority. Furthermore, at the start of the game GB has by far less forces then its combined potential enemies: with the increased cost it is more difficult for her to invest in the navy to reach global naval superiority.

4.As it has been pointed out, once your navy is gone is quite expensive to replace it, so if France looses all his navy GB will find himself with a slightly superiority towards the combined Spain/Russian fleet. However the argument works both ways, once GB looses part of its navy (like after an inconditional surrender)
it is basically game over. And France loosing all its fleet should be considered as a MAJOR mistake, compared to GB letting an invading force landing on its soil.

5. The fact is, GB has a very small army (both in terms of starting values and maximum corps) and the lowest manpower intake of all major powers. Its main strengths are navy and geographical position. A single mistake or a single battle lost in the channel and the France army will be in London, courtesy of the channel crossing arrow. Once that happens, it is basically game over for GB. On the other hand, IF GB manages to destroy the French or Spanish navy, then it can endure relative
security.

6. To compare: Russia enjoys too a good position thanks to geography, and the FOOLISH EIANW choice of having only Moscow as a capital put Russia in a far better position regarding homeland security then the increased ship build cost did with GB (St. Petersburg is relatively vulnerable, Moscow is not). How many EIANW pbem games have you seen with GB forced to unconditional surrender and how many with Russia?

7. If you want to restore game balance, the solution is a classic EIA scenario, with St. Petersburg & Moscow reinstalled as twin capitals and the full EIA naval rules in places.

8. Any new naval combat rules could lead to umpredictable results. They should be tested with this idea in mind: for France to win it is enough to win 3 out of 4 land battles, for GB to survive it is not enough to win 3 out of 4 naval battles: you loose the fourth and London ends up being occupied.

9. This is a grand strategy game played at the corp level, not a detailed simulation of Napoleonic warfare, keep it in mind. You cannot have both in the same set of rules. Put more micromanagement and the overall grand strategy structure will suffer.

[Ashtar]

Proper place here [:D]

No.

?? To what?

2. I don't remember evasion in EIA. (Was it there?) Are you complaining about the "foolish pp" for naval battles in EiANW? Can you let us know the difference between EIA and EIANW, please? I really don't know.

Of course it was there, rule 6.3.2 (you can check it here http://eia.xnetz.com/rules/eiarules-with-errata.html).
For what regards pp, EIA fleet where 30 strong, while EIANW are 20H OR 10L strong. EIH fleets were 30 strong
(20h+10L). All are worth 1pp in EIA, EIH and EIANW. It is obvious that since old EIA and EIH fleet are basically composed by two EIANW fleet (1 heavy + 1 light), EIANW fleet should be awarder only 1/2pp, otherwise even minor
fights can give a lot of pp's.

2a. Tough baloney about your spanish example. THAT was EIA (...)

As I said, in EIA Spain has a 33% chance of evading. I do not know how you used to play Spain, but if GB is not at war with Spain it should better think twice about a surprise attack: 33% of the time you do not kill the Spanish fleet, you loose pp's and you are entangled in a double war against both Spain and France which is indeed the worse nightmare of GB (of course every reasonable EIA game starts with a preset war between France and GB).

3. Um, in EIA "classic", GB is out numbered by Spain and France, if I remember correctly. Through in Russia and they minors and they are hosed. So what is your complaint here? This is the same case in EIANW. What gives the their advantage is that the navies don't start together and potentially can be defeated in detail. Once again accurately protrayed to me. So, yes all of their enemies collectively should be able to out build England, just like all of the enemies of France should be able to collectively out build France.

No complain here, just noting that the "it is more difficult to build ships in EIANW" argument can be regarded both as in favor or against GB.

4 & 5. If France loses it's navy, it still has the land war. If GB loses its navy, it depends on how much it losses. There are two separate issues: 1. Butt whooped in battle or 2. Having to surrender. If the ships are destroyed, they have years to replace them. If facing an unconditional surrender, the standard tactic was to purchase all of your fleet counters and spread out your fleets, so that losing two won't matter as much.
Is it bad for the Brits if they lose their ships. Yep. Is it catastrophic? I haven't seen that. Also, while others are needing to build a lot of troops to survive, England can build some, but can put most of its massive economy into ships. You asked about experience before. I have seen England get smacked (by these huge coalitions) and still come back. This is a LONG game and diplomatically it should balance itself.

Problem is that, once you surrender unconditionally, France could take Scotland or Wales as conquered provinces.
Keep there around 50 factors and GB will think twice before organizing another anti-France coalition. Even better, move a few corps there just before the enforced peace ends and retake London...

6. Russia's tough. Ok.

Russia is much tougher in EIANW then in EIA without the St. Petersburg weak spot. For example, it is now virtually invulnerable to GB. Still, it needs the same VP as in EIA.

7. Your point 7 discounts your argument in point 1. How many games have you seen go to completion with EIANW. Zero? So, whether there is game balance (in your words) "has still to be shown". How can "returning the classic" restore balance...? Sounds like a quote from Star Wars or something.

EIA was balanced, EIANW we do not know --> if you are worried about balance easier thing would be restore EIA (starting from naval evasion)

For what regards naval rules from EIH and the general never used them. About the EIH ones, I have heard a lot of complaints, since the "capture the hull" things apparently largely favored a GB dominance. Concerning the General ones, I repeat my worries: land combat is fun but basically a hand-paper-scissors thing. You can maximize your chances but basically even France can loose a battle or two starting from a superior situation. That does not matter, since if you win 4 and lose 1 battle you would still win the war. Take naval now: my worry is that for GB is often enough to loose a single naval battle to see London occupied. So Gb plays well, starts a channel battle from a superior situation but gets outpicked in the paper-hand-scissors game --> war lost. How frequent is this outcome with the General rules?
The catch here is that naval and land operation are not symmetrical: by winning on the seas GB cannot force enemies to unconditional surrender, it just avoids being invaded (and gains some strategical advantages in some areas like Nord Africa).

[NeverMan]

I agree with Ashtar.



That is all. [:)]

[iamspamus]

OK, some is cleared up.

I forgot about evasion...so kill me. That's why I asked.

For a 66% chance to demolish the Spanish (or Russian or French) fleets, I may consider it as GB with a surprise declaration.

Uncond surrender of GB to FRA. Nap's taking ships, right? (Your fear) And Nelson? And two/three provinces OK. So, France takes Scotland and/or Wales (not a port). While at war, how are they getting more guys there? As opposed to EIANW, you have to trace a line of supply chains back to a non-blockaded home port with a fleet at the correct month that they have guys being built. And even if they could, you're only adding 20 guys or so. He could "load them" beforehand. Well, after an unconditional surrender of GB, it is his (GB's) failure to not get a coalition together against France.

So, while France is building tons of guys in England, he's not building guys for Europe. What are SPA, RUS, AUS, PRU doing? Not attacking France or gearing up to attack them, huh? Once again on land, 2 to 3 of these guys out build FRA. You have a neutered England, who is "content to just build up" and fund the next French war. Lastly, they can take away 1/3 VPs from FRA every Econ Phase. I mean you said that it was "game over" for him, so why not? Now FRA doesn't win. I don't know, but I've seen GB beaten uncond several times and it didn't end the world for them.

I think this goes back to something that "newbs" have trouble with in the game: the time to cut losses. This may be the AUS war against France with little or no allied help. You've lost most of your mil/inf, but still have a strong cav section and FRA is willing to talk conditional, cause Prussia is looming. (ie. 1809) If you don't do it, making the attacker expend extra energy (such as paying to fight through the winter), then the cost will be much higher like an unconditional, losing three provinces or whatever.

Similar here, if FRA slaughtered me as GB in the peace, then I would have many options to whack him.

Still have problem with #7. EIA was NOT balanced. Period. That's why there were bidding on countries. Optional rules. Variants. House rules. It was a good game. It was pretty balanced. It was fun to play, but come on FRA/GB/RUS are "more fun" to play than TUR. Don't get me wrong, I've played TUR and like it. Some may really like it, but diplomacy and good play were supposed to help balance the game.

Well, as I said, in EIA I've only seen London captured twice...both engineered by me. [:D] But it didn't end the game for them. It took alot of work (3 navies). It took two psycho English players (crazy in losing troops, not building enough ships and crap at diplomacy). And it took years of building. So, not the norm.

The last issue is that this will be AN OPTIONAL RULE, I think. What's the beef? You want classic. Ok. Great. I want optionals. Why bust my chops over it? [X(]

Nice chatting with you. (No sarcasm intended.)
Jason

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

Proper place here [:D]

No.

?? To what?

2. I don't remember evasion in EIA. (Was it there?) Are you complaining about the "foolish pp" for naval battles in EiANW? Can you let us know the difference between EIA and EIANW, please? I really don't know.

Of course it was there, rule 6.3.2 (you can check it here http://eia.xnetz.com/rules/eiarules-with-errata.html).
For what regards pp, EIA fleet where 30 strong, while EIANW are 20H OR 10L strong. EIH fleets were 30 strong
(20h+10L). All are worth 1pp in EIA, EIH and EIANW. It is obvious that since old EIA and EIH fleet are basically composed by two EIANW fleet (1 heavy + 1 light), EIANW fleet should be awarder only 1/2pp, otherwise even minor
fights can give a lot of pp's.

2a. Tough baloney about your spanish example. THAT was EIA (...)

As I said, in EIA Spain has a 33% chance of evading. I do not know how you used to play Spain, but if GB is not at war with Spain it should better think twice about a surprise attack: 33% of the time you do not kill the Spanish fleet, you loose pp's and you are entangled in a double war against both Spain and France which is indeed the worse nightmare of GB (of course every reasonable EIA game starts with a preset war between France and GB).

3. Um, in EIA "classic", GB is out numbered by Spain and France, if I remember correctly. Through in Russia and they minors and they are hosed. So what is your complaint here? This is the same case in EIANW. What gives the their advantage is that the navies don't start together and potentially can be defeated in detail. Once again accurately protrayed to me. So, yes all of their enemies collectively should be able to out build England, just like all of the enemies of France should be able to collectively out build France.

No complain here, just noting that the "it is more difficult to build ships in EIANW" argument can be regarded both as in favor or against GB.

4 & 5. If France loses it's navy, it still has the land war. If GB loses its navy, it depends on how much it losses. There are two separate issues: 1. Butt whooped in battle or 2. Having to surrender. If the ships are destroyed, they have years to replace them. If facing an unconditional surrender, the standard tactic was to purchase all of your fleet counters and spread out your fleets, so that losing two won't matter as much.
Is it bad for the Brits if they lose their ships. Yep. Is it catastrophic? I haven't seen that. Also, while others are needing to build a lot of troops to survive, England can build some, but can put most of its massive economy into ships. You asked about experience before. I have seen England get smacked (by these huge coalitions) and still come back. This is a LONG game and diplomatically it should balance itself.

Problem is that, once you surrender unconditionally, France could take Scotland or Wales as conquered provinces.
Keep there around 50 factors and GB will think twice before organizing another anti-France coalition. Even better, move a few corps there just before the enforced peace ends and retake London...

6. Russia's tough. Ok.

Russia is much tougher in EIANW then in EIA without the St. Petersburg weak spot. For example, it is now virtually invulnerable to GB. Still, it needs the same VP as in EIA.

7. Your point 7 discounts your argument in point 1. How many games have you seen go to completion with EIANW. Zero? So, whether there is game balance (in your words) "has still to be shown". How can "returning the classic" restore balance...? Sounds like a quote from Star Wars or something.

EIA was balanced, EIANW we do not know --> if you are worried about balance easier thing would be restore EIA (starting from naval evasion)

For what regards naval rules from EIH and the general never used them. About the EIH ones, I have heard a lot of complaints, since the "capture the hull" things apparently largely favored a GB dominance. Concerning the General ones, I repeat my worries: land combat is fun but basically a hand-paper-scissors thing. You can maximize your chances but basically even France can loose a battle or two starting from a superior situation. That does not matter, since if you win 4 and lose 1 battle you would still win the war. Take naval now: my worry is that for GB is often enough to loose a single naval battle to see London occupied. So Gb plays well, starts a channel battle from a superior situation but gets outpicked in the paper-hand-scissors game --> war lost. How frequent is this outcome with the General rules?
The catch here is that naval and land operation are not symmetrical: by winning on the seas GB cannot force enemies to unconditional surrender, it just avoids being invaded (and gains some strategical advantages in some areas like Nord Africa).

[iamspamus]

OfffffCOURse you do...[8D]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

I agree with Ashtar.



That is all. [:)]