Proportional Naval losses

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Proportional Naval loss

Example.

British & French combat.

9.2.4 Naval Combat Example
Great Britain and France are at war. It is Great Britain's Naval Phase. Great Britain moves NELSON and 3 fleets with 60 ships total into a sea area containing 3 French fleets with 31 total ships. First, wind gauge is determined: Great Britain gets a "2", which becomes a "4" after adding modifiers for NELSON and British fleets. France gets an unmodified "5". France wins the wind gauge and fights first. France gets a "5" on the NAVAL COMBAT TABLE. This means 20 % of the number of French ships is inflicted as ship losses on the British. 20% of 31 is 6 ships. Great Britain gets a "2", which becomes a "3" after adding the modifier for British fleets. This results in 8 French ship losses (60 British ships minus 6 ships lost = 54 then 15% of 54 = "8").

According to the above example Britain losses = 6 ships & France losses = 8 ships.

As it stands now 99% of the time players allocate all there ship losses to the Light fleets,what I propose is that players allocate the losses evenly between the two ship types,Britain would have 3 Heavies lost and 3 Lights lost,while France would have 4 Heavies lost and 4 Lights!

Also for any combat involving more than 2 Countrys,then the same principle applys,but is now sub divided between the combined forces.

Example.

France & Spain combined lose 8 ships,then the losses would be split evenly between them.

France = 2 Heavies lost & 2 Light ships.
Spain = 2 Heavies lost & 2 Light ships.

[Yearworld]

Proportional Naval losses would be a great idea. But if France had 10 Heavy Ships and 20 Light ships in a battle wouldn't it be best if 1/3 of the losses were Heavies and 2/3 Lights?

Yearworld

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Any split % is better than what happens now, which is by allocating any loss to the light ships only,my above suggestion was an example only,the same formula could also be applied to the land forces,as far as I see it allocating all your losses to the cheapest and quickest item to replace is a form of cheating.

[Yearworld]

I agree with you 100% hellfirejet. Taking only light ships as losses is wrong. Also, as you said in your earlier post proportaional losses are also needed when 2 different naval forces are on the same side and especially when 1 of those forces is a minor state fleet.

Yearworld

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

I'm sure pzgndr is also hoping proportional losses could be addressed soon,as I feel it being implemented would enhance the game.[:)]

[pzgndr]

Well I posted this as a Mantis issue a year ago since there seemed to be agreement this needs to get fixed and it wasn't in Mantis.  IMHO a few adjustments here would go a long way to improving the basic naval game, for either classic EiA and EiH OOBs, and resolving a lot of the ongoing complaints.  Maybe for v1.09?  Advanced naval combat option is another issue but that one can wait a while.   

[Yearworld]

I agree pzgndr, proportional losses would go a long way to fixing the naval problems of the game and I know you have pushed hard for getting them implemented. One extra concern I would have is Britain having a British +1 and not needing the Heavy Ships +1 modifier(except to prevent enemies from having a +1). IMO this could be solved by having the side with 1.5 times less ships taking a -1. What do you think?

Yearworld

[pzgndr]

Per 9.2.2, the net modifier may never be more than +1 or less than -1? So Britain with 1.5 heavies should only be getting +1 and not +2. Unless there's a bug, I don't understand the concern?

[Dancing Bear]

Hi Pzgndr
actually, rule 9.2.2 does not have a upper limit on bonuses. According to 9.2.2, the +1 for being GB is added to the +1 for 1.5 heavies. There never was a maximum limit of +1 in the original EIA, as there was only ever one bonus to get (+1 for GB). As far as I know, there is no upper limit here (and I can not think of any reason why there should be).

[Yearworld]

You are right pzgndr there is only ever a +1 never a +2. The concern I have(not that it is a huge deal or anything) is that GB doesn't need to fight with any Heavy ships at all because it always has +1 on the roll. Therefore, it makes sense for Britain to buy light ships first until it fills up all its light fleets. If only light ships were on Britain's side then there would be no proportional loses for Britain as they would only have to take light ships as casualties. Does this make some sense? You could argue that the +1 for the other side would be enough to have GB buy heavies but I would just like a -1 penalty instead because it feels wrong to have a fleet of all light ships have a +1 just because they are GB ships.

DB I agree with your reading of the rule. Of course in the EIANW Britain does not get the +2. The "reason" for this is that in EIA no bonus ever was over +1 like you say.

Yearworld

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Well I posted this as a Mantis issue a year ago since there seemed to be agreement this needs to get fixed and it wasn't in Mantis.  IMHO a few adjustments here would go a long way to improving the basic naval game, for either classic EiA and EiH OOBs, and resolving a lot of the ongoing complaints.  Maybe for v1.09?  Advanced naval combat option is another issue but that one can wait a while.   

Hi pzgndr,I have posted an note on your mantis issue, to highlight the proportional loss request to be looked at again by Marshall, if he can spare some time I feel as you do that this could help the naval aspect of the game ,as you say it was a year ago you first brought the subject up on mantis,and it has been swept under the carpet so to speak.

[bresh]

Since its a optional in EIA, just remember that is also should be so in this game.


Regards
Bresh

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Yes Bresh I know it's an optional rule for EIA,what I'm wanting to know is when will more of the official optional rules be included as actual options, that gamers can choose to use for this COMPUTER VERSION of Empire in Arms,by the way last time I checked the holly grail board game version, is not even available yet as a scenario for this the computer version of Empire in Arms.Maybe that should be included too but remember only as an option!!!!![;)]

[pzgndr]

Since its a optional in EIA, just remember that is also should be so in this game.

True but realistically how many players would NOT play with proportional losses? If not these rules, how should players be restricted from taking disproportional losses to their advantage??

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

I completely agree,allocating any loss to the cheapest and quickest to replace is wrong,losses must be taken as a percentage,be that for the different combined Countries or unit types.

[Sorta]

If it takes the same amount of time to have it coded as an option then it should be an option. If it takes significantly more time to code an option then I'd suggest it is a standard rule - its like playing a land battle and only losing militia. who wouldn't use it?

For the game I'm in its academic because the royal navy sunk the French and Spanish fleets in their ports. Nice one Bresh!

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: Sorta

If it takes the same amount of time to have it coded as an option then it should be an option. If it takes significantly more time to code an option then I'd suggest it is a standard rule - its like playing a land battle and only losing militia. who wouldn't use it?

For the game I'm in its academic because the royal navy sunk the French and Spanish fleets in their ports. Nice one Bresh!

That just further proves, how totally unrealalistic the combat is with this game, especially the naval side of it,it is a normal result and taken for granted,that a port raid will be successful,while in the real world a port raid, usually resulted with the attacker being blootered by the port defence,and running away with their tails between their legs, before they could get near the ships in the harbour,does that not give you a clue that something is wrong with the rules mmmmmh[:(]

As for the land combat and allocating losses to the militia,well that also would not happen with any land combat in the real world,the loses should be taken as a % between all countries involved and their forces,not just from the cheapest and quickest item to replace,this practice should be stamped out it's cheating!!!!!!!

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

ORIGINAL: Sorta

If it takes the same amount of time to have it coded as an option then it should be an option. If it takes significantly more time to code an option then I'd suggest it is a standard rule - its like playing a land battle and only losing militia. who wouldn't use it?

For the game I'm in its academic because the royal navy sunk the French and Spanish fleets in their ports. Nice one Bresh!

That just further proves, how totally unrealalistic the combat is with this game, especially the naval side of it,it is a normal result and taken for granted,that a port raid will be successful,while in the real world a port raid, usually resulted with the attacker being blootered by the port defence,and running away with their tails between their legs, before they could get near the ships in the harbour,does that not give you a clue that something is wrong with the rules mmmmmh[:(]

As for the land combat and allocating losses to the militia,well that also would not happen with any land combat in the real world,the loses should be taken as a % between all countries involved and their forces,not just from the cheapest and quickest item to replace,this practice should be stamped out it's cheating!!!!!!!

That example Sorta posted, is actually not even relevant, in that game both French and Spanish navies got annihilated, after of GB took the port, so that those fleets had to try run the massive blockades.

Im all against changing game rules for ongoing games as some people see fit.

So proportional if implemented should only come as a option, never forced, or you loose players.


Hellfirejet, wow cheating, when following game rules ? Now thats new,

Try look at Napoleons campaign into Russia, there where many nations involved, but they did never suffer equal % loss in the battles where they combined. Some forces where deliberatly used as bait.

The old tactics in lines where also quite often, the vets at the back, the greens at the front.


Basicly as in original EIA you have players who prefered to use the option, but also players who would not.
Its even following the logic, that a change should not change/stop ongoing games. As Marshall E, and matrix so far has managed.



Regards
Bresh

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: bresh

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

ORIGINAL: Sorta

If it takes the same amount of time to have it coded as an option then it should be an option. If it takes significantly more time to code an option then I'd suggest it is a standard rule - its like playing a land battle and only losing militia. who wouldn't use it?

For the game I'm in its academic because the royal navy sunk the French and Spanish fleets in their ports. Nice one Bresh!

That just further proves, how totally unrealalistic the combat is with this game, especially the naval side of it,it is a normal result and taken for granted,that a port raid will be successful,while in the real world a port raid, usually resulted with the attacker being blootered by the port defence,and running away with their tails between their legs, before they could get near the ships in the harbour,does that not give you a clue that something is wrong with the rules mmmmmh[:(]

As for the land combat and allocating losses to the militia,well that also would not happen with any land combat in the real world,the loses should be taken as a % between all countries involved and their forces,not just from the cheapest and quickest item to replace,this practice should be stamped out it's cheating!!!!!!!

That example Sorta posted, is actually not even relevant, in that game both French and Spanish navies got annihilated, after of GB took the port, so that those fleets had to try run the massive blockades.

Im all against changing game rules for ongoing games as some people see fit.

So proportional if implemented should only come as a option, never forced, or you loose players.


Hellfirejet, wow cheating, when following game rules ? Now thats new,

Try look at Napoleons campaign into Russia, there where many nations involved, but they did never suffer equal % loss in the battles where they combined. Some forces where deliberatly used as bait.

The old tactics in lines where also quite often, the vets at the back, the greens at the front.


Basicly as in original EIA you have players who prefered to use the option, but also players who would not.
Its even following the logic, that a change should not change/stop ongoing games. As Marshall E, and matrix so far has managed.



Regards
Bresh

Hi Bresh, I don't want any new possible rule tweaks,to interfere with games that are all ready in progress,proportional loss is for gamers who would like to be able to use it as an new option from the games menu![;)]

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Hi Bresh, I don't want any new possible rule tweaks,to interfere with games that are all ready in progress,proportional loss is for gamers who would like to be able to use it as an new option from the games menu!