Matrix Games Forums

I agree with Ashtar's analysis of my idea. It wasn't a good idea.

Oh, yeah, and even if it were implemented, I would have a time limit on the number of turns that could be spent at sea. Probably 2 turns would be the max allowable, maybe even only one. Otherwise, they would start to get rickets or whatever that disease was that the British used limes to prevent.

I don't think allowing troops to continue to live on transport fleets to be a game unbalancer.
This would allow Russia to ship an army from St. Pete down the Africa - it would just take time...

Indeed a very realistic option in Napoleonic times ...

If the Russian wants to go to Africa, it should better keep Corfu and ask the Turks Dardanelles passage

The naval system was completely EiH at first but I don't think we backed out enough of the EiH-ness. We left just enough in the tick off the EiA-ers and took just enough out to tick off the EiH-ers :-0. The programmer's life is a lonely life guys
 
Oh well, more work and job security, right?
 
 

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

A big NO NO!!!

It would indeed change balance, but I don't know by how much (I never played EiH). (..)

Allowing them to supply the local sea zone's troops for free could prove useful. This would require the corollary rule change that troops can be left on board ships in general or transports, without dying. And, I don't think it would unbalance things to much (...)

Jimmer, as I wrote three posts ago, this would change things A LOT. Do you see those little minors with 0$ 0 manpower
so utterly important to GB (Gibraltar and Malta)? They are important since without them GB cannot operate reasonably
in the Mediterranean sea. Implement your rule and they will be useless.
And the fine complex strategies major powers currently need to project their military power far away will disappear
thanks to your "near teleport" rule. This is Napoleonic era, not WWII

A big YES YES!!!

I do not consider allowing troops to live on a transport from turn to turn to be a big
game unbalancer. The whole idea of "TRANSPORT" is that it contains billets; mess
areas & some sort of exercise area that could sustain the troops instead of having
to have them put ashore every turn.

And I do not consider 3 (or even 4) movement to be "near teleport". All I am suggesting
is that they get their FULL 3 instead of having to use 1 movement point just to leave
port each month.

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

I don't think allowing troops to continue to live on transport fleets to be a game unbalancer.
This would allow Russia to ship an army from St. Pete down the Africa - it would just take time...

Indeed a very realistic option in Napoleonic times ...

If the Russian wants to go to Africa, it should better keep Corfu and ask the Turks Dardanelles passage

Except for the case where the reason that the Russians would WANT to go to
N. Africa is bacause he is at WAR with the Turks (& they have captured Corfu).

Having troops be able to live on transport ships for several months is QUITE
realistic - England in particular shipped troops to both India & Australia on
voyages taking several months.

(Remember - "The sun never sets on the British Empire" ... The Brits were
ALWAYS getting into scuffles & putting down rebellions of one sort or
another during this era.)

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Oh, yeah, and even if it were implemented, I would have a time limit on the number of turns that could be spent at sea. Probably 2 turns would be the max allowable, maybe even only one. Otherwise, they would start to get rickets or whatever that disease was that the British used limes to prevent.

I would put a max of 1-3 turns (they MUST land during the econ phase ... makes it easier to account for for one thing). As to the reasoning : "its PAYDAY & the troops want to
hit a bar or brothel or whatever")

The naval system was completely EiH at first but I don't think we backed out enough of the EiH-ness. We left just enough in the tick off the EiA-ers and took just enough out to tick off the EiH-ers :-0. The programmer's life is a lonely life guys

Being relatively new to the game and not particularly beholden to either EiA or EiH, I question whether these need to be either/or debates. If parameters are hardwired, then certain compromises are necessary. But if things like OOBs and unit values are going to be editable in the editor, then customized campaigns for pure EiA or EiH or whatever should be possible. Yes? So what really needs to be "fixed" versus what could wait until the editor is released??

Sigh!

The whole idea of "TRANSPORT" is that it contains billets; mess
areas & some sort of exercise area that could sustain the troops instead of having
to have them put ashore every turn (..)

Having troops be able to live on transport ships for several months is QUITE
realistic - England in particular shipped troops to both India & Australia on
voyages taking several months.

I see that you have a very realistic grasp of sea travel conditions in early nineteen century.
An infantry factor in EIA represent between 1000 and 2000 men, you really think that in 1815 you can safely ship 30.000 Russian infantry (and maybe some cavalry too) from St. Petersburg ready for an amphibious landing in Alexandria?
[Even in WWWII the Sicily and Normandy disembarks have been launched from (respectively) North Africa and UK, certainly not from US coast. And why do you think after Midway US painfully fought their way island by island towards Japan in the Pacific instead of shipping their troops directly from Los Angeles?]

Back to Napoleonic era, colonial armies were much smaller then European ones and largely composed of local soldiers. Moreover, the shipping of Indian troops to Europe has never been even a remote option in Napoleonic Era. Finally, while one month of sea travel is a reasonable approximation for Europe-America travel, it should be noted that - midway between UK and India - the British Empire always put great emphasis on the control of a colony in South Africa. Guess why? And remind, the game lets you place garrisons in controlled minors at arbitrary distance but do not let you ship corps ready for landings too far away. I found it very reasonable...

I do not consider allowing troops to live on a transport from turn to turn to be a big
game unbalancer (...)

Except for the case where the reason that the Russians would WANT to go to
N. Africa is because he is at WAR with the Turks (& they have captured Corfu).

I say it again: this rule is not only realistic, but also increases the strategical depth of the game.
Thanks to it, places like Gibraltar, Malta and Corfu have a great strategic importance (as it was in the Napoleonic Era), and careful strategical planning is rewarded. I understand that Russia would like to be able invading North Africa from Baltic sea, but it cannot, as much as the Grand Vizier cannot have Artillery or more infantry corps.

Empires in Arms is one of the best and most successful grand strategic game ever, and in its 25 years of existence it has been extensively play tested, even giving rise to an unofficial advanced version. No serious gaming group ever proposed to alter this basic sea transport rule. Don't you think a bit bold to think, without a single play testing day, that it would be better to alter some basic game mechanics?

(...) consider reducing other fleets movement with corps onboard to 5 or 6 (maybe 6 if <= 5 factors onboard and 5 if more then that).

By the way Marshall, I realize then even my moderate proposal to reduce fleets travel distance when loaded with corps is not working well.
Corfu is 7 sea areas away from closest Russian ports, so Russia should better keep a way to move troops back and forth (if Turks should allow it).

If one wants to touch it (it was an optional rule in EIA), better something like 7 points if <=10 factors and 6 points if more then 10 factors are
transported. This way Russia could still move small armies to Corfu (in the original setup Russia can only place a small force on the island).