Playing GB

[Mardonius]

Ashatar:

Minor point... but it may matter some day . Actually, under the EiA Dominance Rules (as they are currently written) no power can gain naval bonuses. Great Britain can lose some or all of its seaward bonus but no power (even Spain) gains any naval advantage from gaining dominant status. I would think that this is a nice to tinker with rule, perhaps giveing the player the option if he wants naval or landward dominance.

Secondly, one does not need the time span of "Civilization" to improve one's navy. Certainly multiple years and probably 10 to 15 plus years, but basically enough to train a naval officer corps/warrant officer corps. It has been done before and within a generation's time. (See Sparta and Rome.) Probably could be accelerated by bringing in sailors from the Merchant Fleets (which, for France at least) were abundant at the start of hostilities. Sea access is, indeed, a problem though. Of course, no blockade is fool proof, but there is only a certain amount (perhaps the majority) of seamanship and gunnery that can be learned in harbor or on land.

Anyway, just some thoughts and observations.


best
Mardonius

[Dancing Bear]

Unfortunately deviating too far from the original rules draws fire from many quarters. I'd just like proportional losses (both between ship types and nationalities) to fix the politically unrealistic actions that often happen). The later was an optional rules in the original game, but almost everyone I played with used them, so should be widely acceptable.

[Mardonius]

True, DB, the dominant powers were an optional rule and true most times they were played with in at least my games. But we did amend them slightly here and there; the required peace rule was readily omitted.

Couple of points as to sticking to the original EIA rules: I know of no one who ever played the rules without some interpretation or house rule. Therefore, I am confident that optional rules will be accepted by this game playing community. Moreover, some rules are more equal than others. Although there has been a lasting discussion on the inadequacies of the naval combat system, for example, I have yet to hear one person -- including me -- complain that the price of cavalry was reduced from $15 in the board game to $12 in the PC game.

Moreover, in several discussions I have had with Harry Rowland (co-author) he readily favors the chance to play with some optional or variant rules to spice the game up. The game was (and is) a creative endeavor. It is not some immutable scripture.

So long as these are agreed to before hand and do not disrupt the ability for another group to go back to the core rules, I see no reason why one would not accept options to the original rules, particularly if the original rules are ill conceived, as the dominant power rules are at least in part, in my opinion.

regards
Mardonius

[pzgndr]

Moreover, in several discussions I have had with Harry Rowland (co-author) he readily favors the chance to play with some optional or variant rules to spice the game up. The game was (and is) a creative endeavor. It is not some immutable scripture.

Roger that! I fully support providing classic EiA map and OOB, but there has to be more in a computer wargame able to handle multiple game options.

As usual, this discussion has gone off on a tangent arguing about advanced naval rules as an OPTION, an OPTION some are not likely to ever use but they'll argue against them anyways to spite others. And implementation of an advanced naval combat OPTION is not a priority right now regardless. Proportional losses is much more important to implement. A few modest naval fixes will go a long way for the time being.

[AresMars]

I echo Dancing Bears comments - More then the 3 options outlines in the General are not needed...

I also agree that a breakout of the ships are not relevant (sorry Naval boys) - reducing the number of fleets ot the orginal number and assigning "ship equalivants" makes more sense....

What I would also like to see are the following;

[My personal likes] increased costs for creating fleets (ie. from 1 to 5), same with CORPS (from 1 to 3), establishing depots (1 to 3), playtesting of these ideas and the COSTS of ships factors for balance
[Existing Optional Rules in Game] naval transport limited to 10 Factors PER FLEET counter, reduced naval range when stacking and transporting, naval evasion

[delatbabel]

Increasing the cost of creating corps hands the game to France.  We tried this in a playtest once.  France has the largest corps and therefore can afford to build fewer of them and still have a large army.