Matrix Games Forums

Ray belive me, GB does not need that bonus, currently there are no evasion rules.
So GB is the still the favorite naval nation with or without Heavy ship bonus.
This is why i dont see this as a big issue, not even when i played GB in a pbm game.
 
 
Regards
Bresh

Because it is not consistent Bresh.  I don't know how many times I have to say this.  It is not consistent.  Either it goes or everyone takes advantage.  That simple.  Either bringing extra heavies means you get a +1 or it doesn't.  Make it consistent!

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL

Because it is not consistent Bresh.  I don't know how many times I have to say this.  It is not consistent.  Either it goes or everyone takes advantage.  That simple.  Either bringing extra heavies means you get a +1 or it doesn't.  Make it consistent!

To repeat myself...
Ray GB doesnt need it. GB is overfavored on the naval side compared to EIA.
Bring in naval evasion and we can talk about it.

So we dont count minors ok,
Then its 76 Heavy British ships, vs 114 total for all other MPs, so noone should expect to be able to get a +1 dice vs GB. Unless all fleets join up ?

The +1 heavy shíp bonus can mostly just be used for all the other MP's vs each other, or vs minors.

Regards
Bresh

ORIGINAL: bresh

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL

Because it is not consistent Bresh.  I don't know how many times I have to say this.  It is not consistent.  Either it goes or everyone takes advantage.  That simple.  Either bringing extra heavies means you get a +1 or it doesn't.  Make it consistent!

To repeat myself...
Ray GB doesnt need it. GB is overfavored on the naval side compared to EIA.
Bring in naval evasion and we can talk about it.

So we dont count minors ok,
Then its 76 Heavy British ships, vs 114 total for all other MPs, so noone should expect to be able to get a +1 dice vs GB. Unless all fleets join up ?

The +1 heavy shíp bonus can mostly just be used for all the other MP's vs each other, or vs minors.

Regards
Bresh

Yea, in your fairy tale world, those 76 ships just get to sail around free. In the real world, over 75% of the British fleet is already spoken for before the game starts. Britain getting the heavy bonus would have huge implications on strategy for how he blockades each French port (something he MUST do), and with what forces. There is no point in continuing this arguement because you don't agree with me and I don't agree with you. I understand your point, but I believe that logically it makes no sense. SO while I will agree to disagree with you, I still say to you, Marhsall, that I am of the opinion that either a 1.5 heavy rule benefits ALL countries, or it benefits none. It really should be that simple and consistent.

Ray:
 
I hear ya. I would like to see the classic scenario address this. Most of the threats I receive are about all of the non-EiA changes that we introduced
 
 
 

Marshall, the classic scenario wouldn't have to address this since there is no heavy/light distinction.  This is peculiar to the EiANW rules.

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL
Well GB's natural +1 modifier for being British would cancel out his oppoent's +1 for a heavy superiority, but this begs the question once again as to why every country get's a bonus for heavy superiority EXCEPT the British who are the naval power. Seems wrong and stupid to me.

The way you are phrasing this was not tried in the earlier go-around on this. It's possible your argument may carry the day after all.

(IMO, it SHOULD win, but I've given up this fight. What I do is make sure I have enough heavies so that the enemy does not get the +1, and then blast them into toothpicks. )

ORIGINAL: bresh

I really dont see this as a big issue.

GB has default +1. 
Yes he can not gain +1 from heavy ships, but he can easy prevent anyone from gaining +1 against him, who are fighting GB navies, all it takes is some planning, he has change moveorder ability also.

So what you want is really GB, having possible +2 in his battles, while his opponents seldom gets +1 unless GB is making mistakes.
There is no naval evasion, GB is having a blast on the sea atm. Even without +2.

Regards
Bresh

You're missing his point. The main point is that there is a single rule that benefits all naval forces EXCEPT the British navy. Seeing as GB was THE dominant naval power of the era, it doesn't make sense that a rule would exist that would give a benefit to all powers EXCEPT GB. The rule still APPLIES to GB, but she can never benefit from it. Only other major powers can benefit from it.

ORIGINAL: AresMars

Yes, lets take the 1.5x Heavies rules out, and the Lights ships and return to Classic EiA; the British getting +1 and the Autrian/Prussians getting -1 in Naval battles....

The only problem with this is that nobody should every buy heavy ships under it. The EiH people saw this problem, and thus created a rule to give players a reason to buy heavy ships. At least, that's my guess as to how it played out.

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Ray,

In all fairness this is the case for a land combat where one party has the better leader (getting a +1) and also has Cav Superiority, correct?

Personally, I don't really see this as a big issue, but I understand what you're saying.

And, if they have both, they get both (to a maximum of +1). You need to think of leaders who have a 0/-1 advantage over their foes. They still have a "+1" (0 is one greater than -1). Then, cav superiority makes it +1/-1.

The rules, however are quite different. In Naval, the bonus is a bonus or penalty to ones own forces only. In land battles, the bonus or penalty for leadership changes things for both players. The only way to make them similar would be to have (say) 6 attacker tactical ratings and 6 defender, and THEN apply the GB +1 bonus.

(NO! I'm NOT lobbying for that. I just want to point it out.)

ORIGINAL: bresh

Ray belive me, GB does not need that bonus, currently there are no evasion rules.
So GB is the still the favorite naval nation with or without Heavy ship bonus.
This is why i dont see this as a big issue, not even when i played GB in a pbm game.


Regards
Bresh

So, the answer is that one bad rule cancels out the other one?

I can go for that, but then that requires that when the one is fixed, the other should be, too. At the same time, since they are balancing things now.

Thank you for the support Jimmer.  I was starting to feel like I was the only one that saw the stupidity in how conflicting this set of rules are and how inconsistent it is.  Hopefully Marshall keeps reading this thread and realizes that it is not right and chooses to do something about it.  I simply don't see the problem in giving GB a +2 if he earned it, and just having a modified 6 be the highest roll he can get.  They do this with the wind gauge already.  Despite the fact that GB can get higher than a 6, it modifies to a 6 regardless.  Just treat the combat the same may, but make the max modified a 6 or 7.  Technically 6 and 7 are the same, since both create 25% damage, so in a sense, a post-modified 6 is really the highest you can get, so what difference does it make it GB could potentially roll an 8.  An 8 or a 7 would still be treated the same as 6.  Makes no sense.  Guess people just like inconsistency in their games.

The important difference is not if GB's max. roll is 7 or 8. The important difference is if GB's min. roll is 1,2 or 3. That decides the size of GB's minimum effective blocking fleet, and thus how many ships he needs to contain France.
 
The question is not if a max of +2 is consistent or "earned". It is more if it keeps the game balanced or not. Maybe it should be +3 ??
 
/eske

for a blockade...if GB is willing to commit enough ships to maintain a heavy adavantage of 1.5, then I say she deserves the multiplier.  Think about it.  Against France, she would have to dedicate 59 of her 76 ships to get that advantage.  That leaves her with 17 heavies AND she still would need to blockade the Holland fleets and maintain channel preseence!  So while I appreicate your sarcasm about the "+3", my answer would be yes, GB does deserve the modifier if she is willing to committ the forces necessary to gain that advantage.  But I'll make the debate even easier for you eske....answer 1 question...

If it is considered to be such a naval advantage to have heavy superiority that Matrix deems such an advantage deserves a +1 modifier on the combat resolution table, why should every country get that advantage but GB? What is your justification that GB does not get to take advantage of this rule? Answer this will a reasonable, logical response, and I will drop the debate!

Plus remember, the more heavies GB dedicates to blockading to have the 1.5 advantage, the less she has for transporting troops to gobble up minors.  This is a MAJOR trade off.  So, yes, if you ask me, giving GB a +2 modifier if she shifts her forces such that she has a heavy superiority, still maintains the balance, as there is always a trade off for doing this...in this case, the trade off being the inability to transport more troops/corps around the map! And given the long build time, and the limited resources if GB is unable to gobble up coastal minors, this would be a major consideration. The balance would definitely still exist. If anything, it adds more skill to GB, in figuring out the exact best way to delve out her ships, expecially if France chooses a multi-port set up.

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL
for a blockade...if GB is willing to commit enough ships to maintain a heavy adavantage of 1.5, then I say she deserves the multiplier.  Think about it.  Against France, she would have to dedicate 59 of her 76 ships to get that advantage.  That leaves her with 17 heavies AND she still would need to blockade the Holland fleets and maintain channel preseence!  So while I appreicate your sarcasm about the "+3", my answer would be yes, GB does deserve the modifier if she is willing to committ the forces necessary to gain that advantage. 

I do not see why a players decision to use his nations forces in a certain way should earn him an extra rules bonus.

But I'll make the debate even easier for you eske....answer 1 question...

If it is considered to be such a naval advantage to have heavy superiority that Matrix deems such an advantage deserves a +1 modifier on the combat resolution table, why should every country get that advantage but GB? What is your justification that GB does not get to take advantage of this rule? Answer this will a reasonable, logical response, and I will drop the debate!

I'll ask a perfectly logical counterquestion: Why does a single rule has to give the same advantage to every nation, when there are lots of rules in EiA(NW) that does not? In my view this rule is made explicitely to make the life of GB harder, making it possible for GB to lose his general +1 advantage.

Plus remember, the more heavies GB dedicates to blockading to have the 1.5 advantage, the less she has for transporting troops to gobble up minors.  This is a MAJOR trade off.  So, yes, if you ask me, giving GB a +2 modifier if she shifts her forces such that she has a heavy superiority, still maintains the balance, as there is always a trade off for doing this...in this case, the trade off being the inability to transport more troops/corps around the map! And given the long build time, and the limited resources if GB is unable to gobble up coastal minors, this would be a major consideration. The balance would definitely still exist. If anything, it adds more skill to GB, in figuring out the exact best way to delve out her ships, expecially if France chooses a multi-port set up.

I agree with you. It is very hard to decide how to blockade the french fleets. But needing more skill to play a nation is not an argument for giving that nation advantages. As I recall it, GB more or less has to give France a 1 in 6 chance to break out in average. Specially if he wants to be able to transport troops with more than his transport fleet (which is ok for invading France). Except of course if France does GB the favor of puttting all ships in one port.

But to get back to the point, where is the game balance in this. At the risque of being regarded a EiA purist (I'm not - really) I would say EiA is the only possible comparison there is. The overall picture goes something like this (without going to deep into the math):

In EiA GB has 7 fleets to block 4 franch + holland leaving him 2 propably very small fleets for transporting purposes. Using 10 factors pr fleet optional gives a transport capacity of 20inf/cav. (Using 1 factor pr. fleet factor gives less). If one of the fleet minors goes to France GB can almost hold the fort. If anything more goes to France GB cannot expect to maintain his blockades.

In EiANW - using max. +1 math - GB has 8 (I think) LtS fleets in addition to the 7 HS fleets. That is so many there is no point in counting anything but ships. To aviod France getting HS bonus GB only needs 2/3 times the number of french HS, 26 plus 1 for each blockaded french HS fleet. Counting Holland say 32. But to get the total "Anything but a GB roll of 1 holds the blockade" situation you need the number of blockaded ships plus a third. France plus Holland is 79. GB needs 104, leaving 29, which can all be HS, since you anly need 32 of those. GB transport capacity now is 42 factors, when you add 10 for the transport. Way more than in EiA. AND you got sufficient ships to fully control any one minor France may get. Also better than EiA even though yet a minor fleet controlled by France does present a problem.

So why is it GB deserves a +2 ??

/eske

Eske, sorry to jump into the discussion but both points are good to a prophane eye like mine.

How do the EiA rules treat this issue?

ORIGINAL: GShock

Eske, sorry to jump into the discussion but both points are good to a prophane eye like mine.

How do the EiA rules treat this issue?

Heavy/Light ships are from EIH, not EIA.
I have never read the EIH rules, so cant say how they dealt with it.
So EIA does not have this issue.

Regards
Bresh

Well, we are definitely in some fuzzy territory.
 
Original EiA does not address this simply because they do not have heavies and lights so there are no heavy bonuses. Std EiA would only have a +1 if your side had a British fleet. It does not address this because it did not need to.
 
HOWEVER:
 
EiH V3.0 clearly allows more than a +1 mod BUT this is not quite apples to apples since their combat system is much different (Chits are selected, etc) so these mods could be a lot less destructive.
 
I could conclude from reading this thread that a +2 mod would be in line IMO. I would still obviously only allow a max net roll of "7".
 
Does this sound acceptable?
 
 
 
 

Just because people scream loudly doesn't make it balanced. Does Britain really need a +2 in every naval battle it's going to fight? I don't think it does. Since Britain could have an all-light fleet and still get a +1 against a foreign fleet that is a very big advantage. If Britain wants to deny the other side a +1 it sends in the heavies. Given that in a 1-on-1 fight Britain is likely to have a significant heavy advantage anyway, I don't think it's a good idea.

Please tell me you guys are kidding.  It's already bad enough with the permanent +1 and no evasion, you're proposing a possible +2? and free up more?  When you can get to a point where GB can blockade FR and SP at the same time, are you finally going to be happy?

Giving a net +2 is like giving Nappy the +1 for tactical bonus, his opponent a -1 for beign a sucky general, and another +1 (net +2) for cav superiority.  It's bad enough for the first two, and you want to pile on the third?  I mean, why even bother rolling the die?