Map area 12 compulsory fleet placement ?

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Map area 12 compulsory fleet placement, Britain's Heavy fleet 1 and light fleet 1 as a minimum protection, must remain in map area 12 for the duration off any game, for they represent the Channel fleet that remained in this area,and acted as Britain's goalkeeper against the French,the Channel fleets primary duty was to protect Britain from invasion,the Channel fleet also blockaded the French ports of Saint-Malo,Cherbourg, Le Harve plus the port of Antwerp, this should be a requirement of player Great Britain,and must be complied with for both these fleets.

If for any reason these ships are moved from this area,then Britain must be deducted severe losses to it's VP & PP'S as a penalty, these 2 fleets should have a movement allowance of ( 1 ) for retreat purposes only, as map area 12 should be treated as a major city, that must be garrisoned at all times, plus both fleets must be maintained at full strength for the game's duration,any available reinforcements must be placed within these 2 fleets first,if due to combat these fleets suffer losses,then ships must be transferred to both fleets at the earliest opportunity.If this fleet is retreated in battle,then it must return to Portsmouth.

I want to explain my reason for the above more fully,1 fleet of heavies 20 ships, plus 1 fleet of lights 10 ships in total only 30 ships in game terms, in history this amount of ships is far to small for this vital area of Britains defence,the Channel fleet was Britain's main naval force during the Napoleonic wars,and was made up with between 40 - 50 heavies approx during this period in time,plus approx 20 Frigates and smaller vessels,so for the British player only to be asked to use a minimum of 1 fleet of each type,is not a major concern for the British player in the game.

[bresh]

Sorry, while this is likely true.
There is no place for this in EIA/EIANW.

Regards
Bresh

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Hi Bresh,
Yes it is true that is what happened in history,why is this game's naval aspect so terrible in design,that there is nothing or very little in it based on fact,Why can't the British player be forced to maintain at least one of his or her heavy and light fleets in the English channel at all times, just like the land campaign to protect a Nation's capital city or suffer a VP + PP penalty?[&:]

At the very least we should be able to do something like this as an option,or are most of the Empire in arms gamers so blinkered to change that they are affaid and scared that it will spoil there sacred game,for it is a game remember nothing more none of the rules are written in stone, Moses did not destroy the 11th commandment tho shalt not alter Empires in arms rules,or man will suffer.Why can't the game be improved regarding the naval aspect,this game is very good, but it is crying out for a more multi dimensional approach.

[bresh]

Actually, we cant.
The game is not as locked to history.
So high expected VP for GB is based on GB beeing able to use all fleets on the entire map.


Its not like we introuduce that each MP should garrison every city, or that Capitals pop X-factors militia to protect it, while these things would be realistic, they are not included into EIA-system since the entire VP expected scores would need to be reviewed.

However in EIA there was a option, that would cost GB income, if enemy fleets where adjant to GB.
12.2.2 NAVAL RAIDING: For each sea area adjacent to Great Britain that contains an enemy fleet(s), British colonial trade is reduced by 5 money points (maximum reduction to "0").

Regards
Bresh

[Skanvak]

Nice option.

Hellfirejet, play with the channel crossing arrow and England have a very good incentive to protect the Channel. With the Channel sea crossing the French does not need a fleet to land in England with all its corps. I think that this is incentive ENOUGH.

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: bresh

Actually, we cant.
The game is not as locked to history.
So high expected VP for GB is based on GB beeing able to use all fleets on the entire map.


Its not like we introuduce that each MP should garrison every city, or that Capitals pop X-factors militia to protect it, while these things would be realistic, they are not included into EIA-system since the entire VP expected scores would need to be reviewed.

However in EIA there was a option, that would cost GB income, if enemy fleets where adjant to GB.
12.2.2 NAVAL RAIDING: For each sea area adjacent to Great Britain that contains an enemy fleet(s), British colonial trade is reduced by 5 money points (maximum reduction to "0").

Regards
Bresh

Hi Bresh,
I thought that GB now has more fleets available to her than was in original Empires in arms, surely leaving 1 heavy and 1 light fleet protecting the channel for the duration of the game ain't going to sway the odds that much,Britain has more than enough fleets to take care of the other Nations without one heavy fleet needing to move from it's defensive roll of defending Britain from invasion. This fleet is just an insurance policy against Britain being an easy target,she never ever left herself vunerable like this game allows to happen,a simple mistaken error of moving all fleets from the channel in the heat of battle,can be fatal for Britain.

So I ask why is the optional rule 12.2.2 NAVAL RAIDING: not being implemented as an option in the computer game,this game needs more naval action,and for Britain not needing to protect each adjacent sea area,which would deprive her of much needed Colonial trade,is an incredable over sight,this alone would force her to split fleets to cover more sea area's,which would reduce these massive fleets from forming in the first place as happens now. Do you all realize that it is so easy for Britain just now to contain France,if the French player sticks all her fleet's in one port,which is the route cause of the Naval stagnation within the game.

Ok I'm going to track down all the original rules + option rules to see what else is being swept under the carpet so to speak.[;)]