Transport Fleets

[Mardonius]

Hello Ted:

EiH can be a lot of fun. But you need to be able to have a forum before the game to figure out which rules to use and which not to. I am a fan of it, so long as one keeps a watchful eye on potential abuses/unintended consequnces. But a fan means I accpet about 95% and throw out the last problematic 5%. It is this remainder 5% (e.g. transports) that the EIANW program has not been able to sort out. This -- combined with a slew of slews of bugs -- has been the undoing of this game to date.

Just some thoughts or "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater"

best
Mardonius

[j-s]

ORIGINAL: Mardonius


So, I would scrap the transports and allow the HS fleets (only... no Lt Ship transporting) to each carry a corps.

best
Mardonius

I agree with you here. I hope that this can be done at least in classic scenario (hope they are doing that).
In the original game, there was only one kind of ships (30 ships in one fleet) and that was good. So light ships and transport can be left out.

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: Ted1066

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I will not remove these units in the EiANW but you could yourselves in the editor. I will not have these in the classic scenarios.

This I am looking forward to - Classic EiA.

I still don't see the charm in EiH - they're a bunch of untested (or poorly tested) add-ons trying to make EiA more of a simulation game, something Harry R. never intended in the first place. This game is an abstraction based on a historical period as a framework. Okay, the original EiA rules were not perfect (I know I've had more than a few disputes over rule interpretations), but they still are a damn sight better than any of the EiH rules.

Cheers,

Ted

This is what I think most folks think! We planned to release a mix of the two (And we did) but in hind-sight probably should have done the classic scenario first because I'm finding that most believe as you Ted. Live and learn...

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
This is what I think most folks think! We planned to release a mix of the two (And we did) but in hind-sight probably should have done the classic scenario first because I'm finding that most believe as you Ted. Live and learn...

Yeah, but at the time, there were more people who wanted EiH rules. I could have predicted they would leave and mostly there would be "EIA to the core" people around a year after release. The reason is because EiH was founded upon direct interaction with the game system by the players playing the then-current game. In other words, players got to tweak the rules so they would actually work.

However, EIANW is much more rigid. The rules were implemented mostly correctly (i.e. matching EiH), but that meant the players were locked into a single interpretation of the rules. Given they abandoned the original EiA for not allowing them to change the rules, it was obvious (or, should have been) that they would abandon EIANW once they realized the lockdown problem (for them) existed.

(NOTE: This is a gross generalization, but illustrates what I'm trying to get at.)

On the other hand, EiA purists have a longer-term commitment to the "age-old" game. Anybody who plays a game for anything approaching 25 years, without making significant modifications to it, is more or less married to that game. Those people will tend to stick around, hoping the game they really love will eventually emerge. (Again, gross generalizations here.)

Once the pile of options you are looking into, and the game editor, too, appears, the EiH players may return. Further, the EiA purists who left because it was EiH will also return.

IF, that is, they get the message somehow. Many may have left for good and written off their investment.

I recommend Matrix do all it can to gather up the email addresses of the people on this forum (whether they still post or not) and post an email to them describing the changes. AFTER the editor is stable and the host of options has appeared. Both camps, I predict, will swell their numbers if the knowledge of such changes reaches them.

[DodgyDave]

well being one, who have never played EIH, but i like what was done with it, i dont have any real problems with it, the bit that annoy me, is perhaps more that the game is pbem, instead of possible a server of a table, where you see moves, much like you would around a real table, so play in real time... proper setup kingdoms... the Turkey blocade thingy, dont remember name, but the one where they can prevent people from moving back and forth... and alot of other things...

they should make changes into the game, but leave all changes, that is not Core EIA, as options, give the players the options of choising what they want...

please fix the AI, because i find the email gaming too slow, i prefer to find 6 players around my time zone, that i can play 3 to 6 turns with each time we meet online, as you would normally around then table... not 1 game month per week or two...

all in all, i do like the game, but it still lacks alot of things, nothing i can do about that, so i keep track of the game and hope it will eventually be fixed...

also please add in nation sheets as in the EIA game, so you can have a better overview and especially be sure to see what you have built and who got it, as its annoying clicking all around for this info each time...

as i say, i hope it will all by fixed eventually... would hate to put my game away...

[Ted1066]

Well, I played a lot of EiA in the late 80s and 90s and our group decided to try EiH in the late 90s, when the addendum rules were added (EiH v1.5 or maybe v2). None of us liked EiH much. The problem I have with a la carte rules sets is how unbalancing they are to the game you try to play. Of the 4-5 attempts at EiH games, NONE of them finished (and we're not even talking Grand Campaigns either). With EiA, the core rules and options in section 10 and 11 were thoroughly, and properly, tested. I don't believe this to be true for the EiH rules and you see that with the numerous editions added later on. As I'm sure Matrix is learning with this game, if your test group is small it is very difficult to catch all the bugs AND to catch the unbalancing elements of your new rules (with regards to EiH testing, not EIANW testing - that is a different matter for a separate topic).

So I don't agree with what you say, Jimmer, as far as "players got to tweak the rules so they would actually work". I acknowledge that the original EiA rules needed tweaking, but the addendums that came out in The General were sufficient to plug the holes (most of them were written by Harry R.) What I mostly took out of EiH was map changes, the addition of diplomacy rules, and huge naval rules changes and none of these added real value to the game.

Honestly, I would have been fine with Matrix developing Empires in Harm: Napoleonic Wars (which they did) and I would have accepted this from day one. Instead, they gave it the current name and created an expectation. Yes, they mentioned that there would be a blending of EiA and EiH rules, but there was emphasis placed on developing Empires in Arms that got me hooked and got me wanting to see my favourite game brought to the PC. To be fair, I am biased: I like EiA - the original map, the original rules and the original counters. Its a fantastic game. Thus, I am looking forward to the editor coming out in v1.06 and being able to play the game I really enjoy. I just hope that Matrix tests the crap out of v1.06 because with this editor and the changes made in 1.06 there is a huge opportunity to mess up current games.

Cheers,

Ted

PS Thanks for listening to me prattle on about the good ol' days [:)]

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Ted1066
So I don't agree with what you say, Jimmer, as far as "players got to tweak the rules so they would actually work". I acknowledge that the original EiA rules needed tweaking, but the addendums that came out in The General were sufficient to plug the holes (most of them were written by Harry R.) What I mostly took out of EiH was map changes, the addition of diplomacy rules, and huge naval rules changes and none of these added real value to the game.

Actually, I meant that Harms players could tweak things, and that's why they liked it. EIA players didn't tweak so much, but rather played mostly by the rules (with some "house rules", but those didn't change much).

Sorry for not being clear.

[Ted1066]

ahh, noted. I'd pretty much totally agree with this then.

Ted

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: Ted1066

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I will not remove these units in the EiANW but you could yourselves in the editor. I will not have these in the classic scenarios.

This I am looking forward to - Classic EiA.

I still don't see the charm in EiH - they're a bunch of untested (or poorly tested) add-ons trying to make EiA more of a simulation game, something Harry R. never intended in the first place. This game is an abstraction based on a historical period as a framework. Okay, the original EiA rules were not perfect (I know I've had more than a few disputes over rule interpretations), but they still are a damn sight better than any of the EiH rules.

Cheers,

Ted

This is what I think most folks think! We planned to release a mix of the two (And we did) but in hind-sight probably should have done the classic scenario first because I'm finding that most believe as you Ted. Live and learn...

Just like to say I'm not in the above group. I like the rules content as chosen. The only problem I had with the release were the amount of bugs, but then the original EiA was released in as buggy a condition.

[Marshall Ellis]

I cannot argue with that :-0
 
 

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Hi Guys,
           This information is based on Admiralty facts from Britains point of view about Transports, approx 980 merchant ships total tonnage 250,000 this represents about 12% Britains merchant ships, were used by Britain for the soul purpose of troop,horses,supplies.These merchant ships averaged between 250 tons troop ships were approx 350 tons and Britain had between 214 - 234 TROOP SHIPS DURING 1805-1815 each troop ship carried 150 men, total capacity all troop ships max 35,100 men.

[easterner]

Isn't that a whopping 17 INF factors?

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Yep 17 Infantry factors in game terms, thats the max Britain could move with Merchant transports for this period in history based on historical data. Until the early years of the French Revolutionary war,the NAVY BOARD had been responsible for such ships,but the TRANSPORT BOARD was formed in 1794, to organise the hire of merchant ships for naval and military purposes.Also there was the ORDANCE BOARD whose merchant ships were used to resupply the combat fleets with new cannons,shot,grappe cannisters etc.