Naval Loss Allocation in PBEM

[gwheelock]

Yes; but both of those are OPTIONAL rules - good options & ones that we
used in most of the games that I played - but still optionals.

[AresMars]

[font=verdana]gwheelock, is that a statement, comment, or is there a point you are trying to make?


New Political Combinations; Ship Builiding Locations; Crossing Arrows; Cavalry Superiority; Cavalry Withdrawls, Guard Commintment; Artillery Corps; Economic Manipluation are also Optional Rules....So what? [/font]

[gwheelock]

Well; the way you were stating them made them sound like a (missing)
part of the original CORE requirements (remember; not everyone on the
forum is familer with/has a copy of the original EIA)

[Soapy Frog]

It would seem wise to implement the more important/more used optionals in the game. Proportional losses is a fairly important rule for games between strangers, especially.

[AresMars]

I never stated that they where CORE requirements - I just mentioned that they were part of the orginial rules.
 
When I think something is CORE I tend to identify that fact....and WHY.
 
The third line of my comment stated that; IMHO these rules (optional or not) help with game play balance.
 
I have already posted a source of the orginal rules and I'll do so again to make sure that it is a level playing field...
 
http://www.boardgaming.info/EIA-archive/downloads/eiarules.zip
 
I understand your point about optional rules - I just don't like the OPTIONAL RULES defense or comment when discussing subjects.  It adds nothing of value.
 
Clearly this subject is of interest to the game (EIANW) and its players as we are discussing it on the EIANW forum.
 
And by the usual suspects (as always)....
 
EIANW is a mishmash of EIA elements and EIH v3.0 elements, so how can non-EIA players really understand the differences - do they even really care?
 
What they have is EIANW....and only that as an experience.
 
 

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: AresMars

I never stated that they where CORE requirements - I just mentioned that they were part of the orginial rules.

When I think something is CORE I tend to identify that fact....and WHY.

The third line of my comment stated that; IMHO these rules (optional or not) help with game play balance.

I have already posted a source of the orginal rules and I'll do so again to make sure that it is a level playing field...

http://www.boardgaming.info/EIA-archive/downloads/eiarules.zip

I understand your point about optional rules - I just don't like the OPTIONAL RULES defense or comment when discussing subjects.  It adds nothing of value.

Clearly this subject is of interest to the game (EIANW) and its players as we are discussing it on the EIANW forum.

And by the usual suspects (as always)....

EIANW is a mishmash of EIA elements and EIH v3.0 elements, so how can non-EIA players really understand the differences - do they even really care?

What they have is EIANW....and only that as an experience.

Would be smarter to note if a quoted rule is optional.
Compared to to quoting every core rule. As "Core".

Added optional rules I would say should come in under options in game settings, and not by default.

But thats how i feel about it.

Regards
Bresh

[zaquex]

This discussion started about naval losses, and due to how this game works mostly to try to make pbem viable and therefore cut down on the number of exchanges naval battles are automated. Therefore there is no possibility for the players to always decide how to distribute losses and that makes how the computer assign losses very important. And it will be even more important once the game cater for a way to combine naval fleets/moves.
 
It is less critical for land battles where the losses are assigned by the player, but a pbem game is alot different from a FtF game. In FtF you usually know the other players at least nominaly there is also a better control of what is going on and the player group can always tweak the rules as it suits them, his is often not true in pbem. And a possible scenario where the controlling player take 100% of the losses in a field battle on his ally is most certainly game ruining. Therefore its possible that some sort of rules of how to distribute losses, if reasonable, would benefit the game.