New Naval Combat System Model

[Soapy Frog]

Ignore EiH, try and stick to the original rules and the General-sanctioned optionals. EiH is responsible for a lot of problems and discontent with the game currently.
 
We used the Advanced Naval rules form the General for many years with great success. If you are going to make changes or add optionals for naval combat this is the way to go.

[pzgndr]

Ignore EiH

No. Provide options to accomodate both and allow players to decide what they want to use. It shouldn't be too difficult between OOB setups (EiA or EiH) and game option toggles.

[AresMars]

I miss the old EIA days when the NUMBER OF FLEET counters was one of the balancing factors in the Naval Game....

Fleet counters where the TRUE measure of GAME naval power and not types and mix of ships.....

What the Advanced Naval Rules added to the above was a less linear numbers game when it came to battle results...

This abstracted system worked very well IMHO....

[easterner]

Marshal
 
I dislike it, and even more so than the original. Lt & Hvy ships are OK, the mechanics I dislike.
 
Also during the redesign with Somali pirates in the news. WHERE ARE THE BARBARY PIRATES?  Each No. Afr nation from Morocco to Cyr. should have a light fleet.

[Marshall Ellis]

Thanks for the input guys!
We will do a more pure naval model in the classic scenario.

[AresMars]

For the record, I am prefer the orginal EIA naval system.....
 
Nice to hear it will become an option Marshall.....

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Thanks for the input guys!
We will do a more pure naval model in the classic scenario.

Any chance to see a morale and chit pick system for naval combat like the one published in the Avalon Hill General Magazine? There has been, from day one of the Board game, a level of general disfatisfaction with the Naval Combat System and it would be nice to have something akin to the General's model here.

Thank you,
Mardonius

[ndrose]

I'd certainly like to see something more interesting on the naval side. Arguments about what will work could go on forever; my view is that a new naval system will react with the rest of the game (some of which, as we know, is substantially different from the boardgame) in ways that are very difficult to predict. So my vote would be, put something in as an option, based on any of the suggestions above, and let us try it out for balance. Then we can make Marshall change it.

[ndrose]

GB can not be impregnable. It was not historically. Read the contemporary writings of the time

That's right. There were several times before Trafalgar when people thought a French army could be in England at any moment. E.g., Coleridge, 1798:

It weighs upon the heart, that he must think
What uproar and what strife may now be stirring
This way or that way o'er these silent hills--
Invasion, and the thunder and the shout,
And all the crash of onset ; fear and rage,
And undetermined conflict--even now,
Even now, perchance, and in his native isle :
Carnage and groans beneath this blessed sun !

[ndrose]

On Britain not being successfully invaded after Hastings: that oft-repeated claim relies on somewhat dodgy bookkeeping, if you ask me. There was the invasion of Henry Tudor, for instance, which knocked Richard III off the throne. He landed from France and the soldiers who landed with him were mainly French, I think (though he gathered English supporters as he marched). That traditionally doesn't get counted on the ground that Henry became king, so it was really a civil war. But it was still an invasion; and by that standard one could argue for not counting Hastings either, since William became king.

[pzgndr]

Arguments about what will work could go on forever; my view is that a new naval system will react with the rest of the game (some of which, as we know, is substantially different from the boardgame) in ways that are very difficult to predict. So my vote would be, put something in as an option, based on any of the suggestions above, and let us try it out for balance. Then we can make Marshall change it.

This is a very important point. EiANW is not and cannot be an exact port of the classic board game. Until the remaining bugs are fixed and some actual games are played to completion, nobody really knows what the balance is with the "new" game. Options are good; allow players to decide for themselves which ones to use. What's really annoying are the my-way-or-the-highway comments about this or that, as if there's only one way to play this or any game. Whatever. [8|]

Once all of the planned game features are implemented and the bugs are all resolved and some full games are completed and balance can be realistically assessed, THEN a few tweaks and adjustments to the various systems should be considered. Until then, Marshall should strive to implement both the classic rules and options along with the optional EiH rules as well as possible and let's see how those ultimately work?

[iamspamus]

Two points. I think that the Brits were "better" than the French, especially later in the period, because they were sailing (ie. gaining experience) while the French were locked up in port rotting away. This is a part of the equation.

I just read something that said that the French admiral Villeneuve, DID know what Nelson was going to do (having done it before), but he was just resigned to defeat. Don't know how much water that theory holds, but interesting, none-the-less.

Jason

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

Mardonius, you've posted something I agree with.  What's wrong?

Anyway, have you thought about:

* The reason British crews tended to win battles heavily against the French, and cause significantly higher crew casualties and sunk ships, was essentially LA vs LD when they had the wind gauge.  Wind gauge when you are firing down helps you because your ships are heeled towards the opponent's line and hence your guns aim down, towards hulls, etc.  Some kind of bonus there to the LA side when they have the wind gauge perhaps?

Agree with the Nelson modifiers for closing M vs LD -- he did so by making his captains hold their fire, which means they tended not to inflict many casualties until they broke the line but when they did break the line (and they did regularly) enemy losses were devastating.

There really is no escape for a ship or line that's been crossed by an enemy with a decent broadside, especially a square rigger, and worse when you're downwind (lost the wind gauge).  Once the enemy starts raking up your stern, you can't bear off or round up (come into the wind or turn away from it) easily without a change of sail configuration, and that means sending men aloft which means they can't man the guns at the same time, and the enemy probably has riflemen in their tops as well which means you're basically just sitting there under their guns.  You can have an entire line of ships suffering the same fate from a reasonably small number of enemy ships, provided their gunners are good enough, so in some of these situations the casualties in your fleet can be very high as a proportion of the enemy fleet (hence Trafalgar where the British netted nearly as many French/Spanish ships lost as the British took into the battle).  Not sure how you play that too but I think the casualty factors for M vs broken LD/LA need to be upped.


* If you're going to use Nelson as a modifier, his biggest advantage in battle was that his opponents had no idea about what he was about to do.  Hence Trafalgar which was essentially M vs LD.  His ability to pick the opponent's defence was what won him that battle as well as Aboukir Bay.  Not sure how you'd play that.

* Trafalgar was M vs LD with a successful close on the part of the British (OK it helped that the French/Spanish were on a lee shore and could do stuff all about that).  Not sure if Aboukir Bay was M or LA vs LD but anyway, it was a similar issue compounded even further by shallow water and ships being at anchor.  I'm not sure that the side in LD firing at a successfully closed M side should get as high as 4-1.  This is your classic 1-1 situation, you're stuffed and you know it (you could say the Spanish lost at Trafalgar partially because they knew they were going to lose, the French figured it out after a while but their stupidity carried them past that point).

* What about lee shores?  Blockade run battles?  Weather conditions?

[Mardonius]

There is a school of naval historians (notably Theodore Roosevelt) who argue that the British Navy actually degraded after 1805 as they spent less time practicing gunnery and seamanship as their potential major aggressor (France) had been decisively humbled. See Roosevelt's Naval War of 1812.

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

Two points. I think that the Brits were "better" than the French, especially later in the period, because they were sailing (ie. gaining experience) while the French were locked up in port rotting away. This is a part of the equation.

I just read something that said that the French admiral Villeneuve, DID know what Nelson was going to do (having done it before), but he was just resigned to defeat. Don't know how much water that theory holds, but interesting, none-the-less.

Jason

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

Mardonius, you've posted something I agree with.  What's wrong?

Anyway, have you thought about:

* The reason British crews tended to win battles heavily against the French, and cause significantly higher crew casualties and sunk ships, was essentially LA vs LD when they had the wind gauge.  Wind gauge when you are firing down helps you because your ships are heeled towards the opponent's line and hence your guns aim down, towards hulls, etc.  Some kind of bonus there to the LA side when they have the wind gauge perhaps?

Agree with the Nelson modifiers for closing M vs LD -- he did so by making his captains hold their fire, which means they tended not to inflict many casualties until they broke the line but when they did break the line (and they did regularly) enemy losses were devastating.

There really is no escape for a ship or line that's been crossed by an enemy with a decent broadside, especially a square rigger, and worse when you're downwind (lost the wind gauge).  Once the enemy starts raking up your stern, you can't bear off or round up (come into the wind or turn away from it) easily without a change of sail configuration, and that means sending men aloft which means they can't man the guns at the same time, and the enemy probably has riflemen in their tops as well which means you're basically just sitting there under their guns.  You can have an entire line of ships suffering the same fate from a reasonably small number of enemy ships, provided their gunners are good enough, so in some of these situations the casualties in your fleet can be very high as a proportion of the enemy fleet (hence Trafalgar where the British netted nearly as many French/Spanish ships lost as the British took into the battle).  Not sure how you play that too but I think the casualty factors for M vs broken LD/LA need to be upped.


* If you're going to use Nelson as a modifier, his biggest advantage in battle was that his opponents had no idea about what he was about to do.  Hence Trafalgar which was essentially M vs LD.  His ability to pick the opponent's defence was what won him that battle as well as Aboukir Bay.  Not sure how you'd play that.

* Trafalgar was M vs LD with a successful close on the part of the British (OK it helped that the French/Spanish were on a lee shore and could do stuff all about that).  Not sure if Aboukir Bay was M or LA vs LD but anyway, it was a similar issue compounded even further by shallow water and ships being at anchor.  I'm not sure that the side in LD firing at a successfully closed M side should get as high as 4-1.  This is your classic 1-1 situation, you're stuffed and you know it (you could say the Spanish lost at Trafalgar partially because they knew they were going to lose, the French figured it out after a while but their stupidity carried them past that point).

* What about lee shores?  Blockade run battles?  Weather conditions?

[iamspamus]

I actually think that my original bit was post revolution (1792+) where most of the guys associated with the navy were considered aristo's. Also, Napoleon, as a land animal, definitely didn't pay attention to the water.

Jason

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

There is a school of naval historians (notably Theodore Roosevelt) who argue that the British Navy actually degraded after 1805 as they spent less time practicing gunnery and seamanship as their potential major aggressor (France) had been decisively humbled. See Roosevelt's Naval War of 1812.

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Mardonius, I do hope that we see some tangiable improvements to the naval aspect of the game your improved LA V LD & M v LD etc would be a excellent upgrade to the combat system, also the time it talkes to built heavies are far to long 12 months sounds about right, also while I'm here your post about Toulon defence is spot on should be 90.

[Mardonius]

Great to hear Hellfirejet. Keep up the postings as I am sure with enough educated comments pointing out the advisability of a Linear Offense/Linear Defense/Melee chit and morale system, among other improvement options, we may yet induce Matrix and Marshall to enhance EiA's Naval System. Note that this was the improvement system published in Avalon Hill's General Magazine.

By the way, the heavies taking about a year was what was in the original board game. Note that I do think the costs are a bit high (please see some of my other postings on the ship cost reseach). And Toulon is changing back to 90 guns in one of the future patches (1.06?) so we are making progress.

best
Mardonius

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Glad to here improvements will be implemented, don't get me wrong I do like the game alot it's just that I feel the naval bit of the programming is an after thought and any thing will do, the ships played a major part in the conflict, and are not there just for the army of the day to hop on a ship and get a cruise to europe.

[bresh]

Just remember balance in the game.

IF you want realism most ships where captured or damaged and not destroyed.


Regards
Bresh

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Yo Bresh,
Spot on thats what we want to see in the game, ship damaged and returning to port not as the game works just now listing them as lost sunk ? rubbish must be altered as soon as possible.
What is the point off a Nations like France and Spain building any ships which take 18 months to built,being lost in a single swipe of the combat phase,that in itself leads to an unbalanced game.

Regards,
Hellfirejet

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

Yo Bresh,
Spot on thats what we want to see in the game, ship damaged and returning to port not as the game works just now listing them as lost sunk ? rubbish must be altered as soon as possible.
What is the point off a Nations like France and Spain building any ships which take 18 months to built,being lost in a single swipe of the combat phase.

Well, remembering that was EIH tried to do.
I dont think they did a good job.
And for capturing... i seen this gone bad "think general magazine tried this as optional rule".

Regards
Bresh