Matrix Games Forums

The change is a good change Marshal. Ashar has not disclosed that he playing GB in a game pitted against Continental Europe's Naval Powers and is militating for his game position vice realism or balance in the game.

Ashtar: These numbers are founded in historical data. If you want to see the threads, go back through these forums. As far as balance goes, they are in balance and restore a measure of realistic vulnerability to the GB position.

Marshall
Hey guys:

The build costs are changing in 1.06 and it is too late to change now. Guys, I'm sorry but I must quit circling back to change things that many wanted changed.

Marshall, many who? Do you really think it is wise to change game mechanisms without any PLAYTESTING only since a few but very vocal people ask for them?

Moreover, did you bothered to read my post to the end?
I am not asking you to cancel the change - since I know it will be hard - but just to realize that now you have light ship much cheaper but almost as effective as Heavy ones, which is both unrealistic and game unbalancing. I just proposed a quick solution, which is (can you please read it to the end? otherwise I do not understand why one should bother to post anymore here around)

Change the combat rule so that you get -1 to die roll whenever your fleets have more LS then HS, or even better, if LS are more then half of HS (LS are not done for the first line of combat, and they should
appear in the EIH ratio of 10 LS for 20 HS).
With current rules is OK to have a fight with a single HS plus 40 LS and this is obviously absurd...

thanks

The change is a good change Marshal. Ashar has not disclosed that he playing GB in a game pitted against Continental Europe's Naval Powers and is militating for his game position vice realism or balance in the game.

Ashtar: These numbers are founded in historical data. If you want to see the threads, go back through these forums. As far as balance goes, they are in balance and restore a measure of realistic vulnerability to the GB position.

Mardonius, I am frankly sick of your attitude and your total lack of understanding of what game mechanics more complex then monopoly are. In short:

1) I do not care a damn about my GB game, I have been asking for naval evasion since months, and you could easily realize that the lack of naval evasion strongly favors GB. Moreover, usually I like to play as France.
Insinuation like yours just reveal your character.

2) According to you the change is good since numbers are found in historical data. Do you understand the word PLAYTESTING? Did you ever stopped to think (or just bothered to read my posts, just read the above were I am repeating my self for people like you) that WITH CURRENT RULES
LIGHT SHIP ARE ALMOST EQUAL TO HEAVY SHIPS? It is not only me saying this, but also hellfire, which is asking in vain for light ship combat capabilities to be toned down. I just proposed a quick way to do it.

3) This is grand strategy game which abstracts the Napoleonic period. Not Wooden ships and Iron Men. You proposed some historical data on shipbuilding and compared it to levy cost (contrary to you I read other people posts with care). Do you think it is enough? Do you know if current major power income and trade digits are historical? Do you know if maintenance and supply costs are correct? Did you ever checked the effect on game balance? Did you ever realized that - thanks to current rules - the entity called "light ship" in this game is not a real light ship, but just some kind of II class heavy? I think not

You just pick some side of a wonderfully working classic game and start to mess it to suit your personal historical interest without understanding what you are really doing to the game

I have to agree with ashtar here regarding light fleets, why no one will listen to the facts about these ships, please read all your history books, they are not designed to fight anything but other lights, they are not cheap ships of the line, they have no place fighting any battles in fleet actions, and must be treated as transports via the current combat rules.
Or they will be built as a cheaper option to heavies and used as miniature heavies, the new costs and build times are correct, it is there roll they play in battles that is totally wrong!
If they must play a combat roll in fleet battles then they must be handicaped as follows : Heavies should count as say 4 factors and lights as 1 (for combat and losses)

Lets put this idea of lights v heavies to bed it is a bad option,as per this example from history.

FRIGATE V SHIP OF THE LINE.
A frigate captain who avoided battle with a ship of the line would certainly not be accused of cowardice,as the force of the larger ship was totally overwhelming . In fleet actions ships-of-the-line did not normally fire on frigates,unless the latter fired first.For example,at the battle of the Nile the 74 gun Goliath was manoevering into postion alongside the french line when the frigate Serieuse opened fire on her ; the Goliath fired back ,and with a single broadside dismasted her,shattered her hull,and caused her to drift away and sink.Even several frigates were not normally expected to take on a ship of the line.

So please stop saying that it is ok for a frigate to take on a heavy,because in planet real it is not.They are not designed to combat heavies and the rules need to take this into account.On land you would not expect an Infantry soldier armed with a riffle,to take on an artillery cannon because that is the same comparison.

This games whole naval system is based on fantasy, fiction in the extreme. Heavies never ever fought lights unless in very rare circumstances the light attacked the heavy, in which case it was doomed. Lights in fleet actions were there to fight there opposite numbers ie other lights, but there main purpose was as an early warning system for the fleet, and to assist crippled heavys by means of towing them when dismasted.

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

Marshall
Hey guys:

The build costs are changing in 1.06 and it is too late to change now. Guys, I'm sorry but I must quit circling back to change things that many wanted changed.

Marshall, many who? Do you really think it is wise to change game mechanisms without any PLAYTESTING only since a few but very vocal people ask for them?

EiANW is built on EiH so this is a silly question....... of course he's ok with it!

Actually, the original EIA naval rules would have been superior in this discussion. Fleet counters contained up to 30 ships, with no distinction between ship types. Also, all nations had significantly fewer fleet counters (GB had 7, France and Spain had 4, Russia 3, Turkey 2 and Austria and Prussia 1 each).

Cheers,

Ted

Actually, the original EIA naval rules would have been superior in this discussion. Fleet counters contained up to 30 ships, with no distinction between ship types. Also, all nations had significantly fewer fleet counters (GB had 7, France and Spain had 4, Russia 3, Turkey 2 and Austria and Prussia 1 each).

Of course, but try to explain here around...

They wanted light ships to implement the piracy option (which by the way seems to be bugged, in a game I am running we had to start to manually roll for piracy each eco phase, since nothing ever happened notwithstanding a huge number of light fleets on piracy constantly trying to hit GB).
As a consequence the number of fleets are doubled, while the maintenance cost and political point value of a fleet stayed the same. I have been asking to halve them, but up to date I think they have not been changed yet.
When pressed Marshall answered that he does not feel like changing game mechanics.

Moreover, with present rules the "light ships" are doing much better in combat then they did in real life, but again none seems to care/realize. No they just wanted to change their build cost to be "historical" so that now we are supposed to pay the "right" cost for light ships, which are never the less not historical at all, being too strong in battle...

The old build costs (10 LS, 12 HS) partially reflected LS being almost as good as HS, since their cost ratio was only 5/6.
Now, only gods know why, the cost are 6 LS and 9 HS, for a ratio of 2/3. Thank god Marshall did not like to touch game mechanics.

Results of the change:
1. LS are now performing the same (actually too good to be historical)
but they are more convenient then before...
2. The ship starting advantage of GB setup has been drastically devalued, but GB required victory points are the same.

Do you think anyone stopped to think and comment on this? Anyone tried to foresee what change we would have with respect to the well working classic EIA mechanics? It seems not to me...

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

[Mardonius, I am frankly sick of your attitude and your total lack of understanding of what game mechanics more complex then monopoly are.

Thank you for the personal attack Ashtar. For the record I do understand mechanics pretty well. As a commanding and commissioned officer in the USMC, I have led real men in real combat and hold Masters degrees from two nation's foremost colleges: Yale (with a focus on operations) and Trinity in Dublin, Ireland. Glad to send you my resume.

What have you ever done? Are you an academic?

Do you think anyone stopped to think and comment on this? Anyone tried to foresee what change we would have with respect to the well working classic EIA mechanics? It seems not to me...

Honestly I'd much rather play it first and see if its broken, rather than just declare it broken without any gameplay evidence.

YMMV,
Todd

Honestly I'd much rather play it first and see if its broken, rather than just declare it broken without any gameplay evidence.

== you do not know, but you are willing to playtest it and to oblige everyone else to playtest too.

Considered that a pbem game lasts around 3 years, I would rather prefer to play with tested rules and keep the untested with option then to waste my time with untested rules.

Thank you for the personal attack Ashtar.

Wait, do you remember who first implied my "undisclosed personal interest" as GB player?

For the record I do understand mechanics pretty well.

Do you think so? Then why you do not bother to enter into any of the game mechanics detail I keep pointing out? Like LS being wrongly almost as effective as HS in combat?

As a commanding and commissioned officer in the USMC, I have led real men in real combat and hold Masters degrees from two nation's foremost colleges: Yale (with a focus on operations) and Trinity in Dublin, Ireland. Glad to send you my resume.
What have you ever done? Are you an academic?

Yes, I am an academic, which is rather irrelevant for the present discussion. Your impressive CV will be probably of use when we will have to fight a war (but unfortunately I am a pacifist [:'(]), and I would be surely interested in hearing about your field experience. However, I do not see why it should be relevant if the subject here is game design.

Bottom line: either you are willing to discuss the specific points I raised - possibly without implying I am trying to support my position in a GB game - or I do not see why we should keep on this exchange

Cheers

Ashtar,

I've been playtesting EiA for Matrix since shortly after the game was released.

Now, is this a subject you want to continue to talk about?

Todd

I've been playtesting EiA for Matrix since shortly after the game was released.

I still do not see why you should force other people to playtest too. Keep untested changes as options,
please. It is just common sense.

Now, is this a subject you want to continue to talk about?

The way playtesting is done? Considering some evident major failures I would indeed like to discuss it, but this will take us too far from this thread...

Whats makes you think when 1.06 is released it will be the first time anyone has played with these changes?

Common Sense?

Todd

the origional question is still out there How much playtesting went into the change, and what impat was this found to have on the game?

Ashtar:

Let me speak plainly to you and offer you some friendly advice. You will find your comments to be better accepted if you refrain from personal attacks. You will just make enemies if you attack people and any idea you proffer, no matter how meritorious, will be more likely to be met with resistance.

Perhaps you should be less sensitive to perceived insults. I have been guilty of this in the past as well. So no big deal. I was building on our numerous previous discussions and assumed you would see the humor. Seeking clarification (Maybe a PM?) may be wiser as you are likely to invite problems. Moreover, you began your comments with that you were sick of something I had done. I was not aware we had ever had any confrontation. Maybe you should bring up small matters rather than a full assault out of nowhere.


As far as my input to naval mechanics, please review my comments on the LS. I have not been in favor of them from the start, unless their use is redefined considerably into a 1/2 combat value, perhaps with piracy/anti piracy/scouting/interception mechanics. I have not iterated this argument as it was almost comprehensive previously.
See tm.asp?m=1995114&mpage=1&key=&#1995329

If you review the threads you will remember that we both partook of more of this naval game mechanics discussion previously.

tm.asp?m=1967744&mpage=1&key=naval&#1984226
tm.asp?m=1888137&mpage=2&key=naval&#1893600
tm.asp?m=1999983&mpage=1&key=naval&#2003746

Perhaps this will refresh your memory as I believe that I have already provided you with some perspectives on game mechanics. I have other comments out there on mechanics as well, naval and land and political. I would, in your position, welcome the exchange of ideas and refrain from any sudden sophomoric tactics.

My question about your being an academic was based on your tactics. You shouted me down and assumed I was an imbecile without doing the research to bother to check and see that we had both had these discussions before. I have only ever seen this sort of bullying in academia and mostly from people who have all kinds of theories but who can not do anything outside of an framed in little world of petty meanness and self centeredness. Not saying you are this way, but it is an ugly little sphere of Liliputian tyrants. So I encourage you to emerge from such tactics and enter into a more collegial discussion lest I become more convinced that those who can, do and those who can't teach.

As far as resume goes, mine and others should mean nothing. We should all treat each other with congeniality and cordiality. I assure you that I endeavor to do so, though clearly not with 100% success. But as you seem to be the type who prides himself on credentials, I also own and operate a multi-million dollar firm that I built from nothing. Still a long way to go, yet.

Pacifism? I am surprised. Truly. I always thought that pacifists were oriented by peaceable relations with their neighbors. You don't seem to be. So if you invoke pacifism after exhibiting bellicose tendencies -- and words can be bellicose, ask Ahmadinejad -- then I would think you a coward and not a pacifist. So I suggest you parse you words more carefully as if you spoke the way to me that you write I would demand satisfaction. That is a nice way of saying that I would give you a chance to apologize forthrightly.

I am glad to continue any discussion with you in a friendly and collegial fashion. If I somehow write something that is somewhat rude or inconsiderate, please reach out to me and I am certain we can reach an understanding. Positive.

best
Mardonius

Whats makes you think when 1.06 is released it will be the first time anyone has played with these changes?

Perhaps that I doubt playtesters have been able to play several campaign games to check the extent of the impact of the changes. Or - as borner said - that none bothered to post any comment on that or too answer my comments on LS excessive combat capabilities. Not to forget your recent comment:

Honestly I'd much rather play it first and see if its broken, rather than just declare it broken without any gameplay evidence.

As far as my input to naval mechanics, please review my comments on the LS. I have not been in favor of them from the start

Ok, then you agree with me that LS are too combat effective. You will also agree that with present changes they are considerably less expensive then HS. Therefore 1.06 is going in the wrong direction, even more unbalancing sea rules towards LS.
Now please read again my first post: I was proposing a QUICK way to downplay LS combat capabilities that can be very easily implemented from 1.06 to keep this game realistic and balanced.

You will agree that this is a DUABLE proposal. A completely new sea combat system, on the other hand, cannot see the light before a looong time and should anyhow be extensively playtested to check it works smoothly since it will basically be terra incognita (as an example, many believe the old naval rules published by the General were not working well)

Ok, then you agree with me that LS are too combat effective. You will also agree that with present changes they are considerably less expensive then HS. Therefore 1.06 is going in the wrong direction, even more unbalancing sea rules towards LS.

I would suggest that the naval combat resolution for battles involving heavies and lights is more important to resolve than the ship costs. The ship costs are generic and affect all MPs equally, so for an abstract naval game that is supposedly insignificant to the overall 132-turn land campiagn this cost change is not a big deal. And Marshall can readjust later if needed.

As for "playtesting" it is also more important to get to an endpoint in this game's development before bickering too much about play balance in these interim versions. In other words, the remaining bugs and issues need to be resolved and fixes implemented, THEN get some games completed to assess actual play balance with THIS computer game adaptation, which is NOT the exact same as the board game version and never will be. v1.06 has evasion and pursuit implemented, which is good, but proportional naval losses and pp costs should be considered where heavies and lights are involved. (Moot issue for classic EIA scenario.) "Advanced" naval combat with tactical chits and such is something to think about later, not critical right now. Fix the light ship combat effectiveness issue first. I think that is Ashtar's primary concern, and I agree.

All right,
 
I will try and shed some more light on the length of play testing that has gone into the naval cost update.  I have been playtesting the 1.06 with modified naval costs since around the first release of 1.05.00.  Through the entire upgrades of 1.05 to the current 1.05.05 I have been working with 1.06 helping to check the balance as well as the editor and a slew of other things that are being upgraded in this HUGE change that is comming on pretty soon now. 
 
The cost being across the board does not take away from the England naval advantage as they still have more counters than anyone else and way more money to throw at them then thier opponents.  Yes this gives France a little more play with building ships as lights cost about the same as artillery and can be built in many areas with multiple fleet markers rather than 1 artillery corps.  If anything, it actually brings more naval actions INTO the game.  To many games I have seen the British fleet blockade all enemies and sit there for the entire war...  No naval action as no one will sail against them (mostly because replacing thier fleet is too expensive and takes too long) but now it doesn't so France can test the blockade a few times to see if it can get out. Spain can stand a chance if England doesn't watch the naval buildup of other nations as well as diplomatic actions.  I have heard from many the playing England is BORING as you blockade the French and sit there while trying to build an army and use the extra cash to finance someone elses war...  Now you will have a challenge and be forced to actually pay attention to other nations and not be able to just sit back and watch.  If you see a fleet building icon light up in Russia you might want to check it out because they might have saved $90 to put with 10MP and will have 10 more heavies soon... 
 
The biggest advantage I still see with buying heavies over lights is that lights can only be a neusance, Heavies can actually carry troops long distances and prove to be a multitasker with supply, invasion, as well as fleet action - Transports can carry and supply but limit move, lights can fight but thats it for thier usefullness.
 
I will continue checking it and working with the mechanics but it seems pretty sound as it does not take away from any advantage but creates more options across the board.
 

obsidiandragon (..)

Thanks a lot obsidiandragon! Finally a centered answer on the issues here at hands!

The biggest advantage I still see with buying heavies over lights is that lights can only be a neusance, Heavies can actually carry troops long distances and prove to be a multitasker with supply, invasion, as well as fleet action - Transports can carry and supply but limit move, lights can fight but thats it for thier usefullness.

My main objection here is that as long as a war vs. GB is concerned, heavies does not really matter if Lille crossing is on: any anti GB alliance involving France does not need to transport troops, but just to open the channel for one month to have La Grand Armee going through. This is typically enough to force GB to unconditional.
Now, with present rules when GB is involved heavies does not matter: GB has a natural +1, so no need to build HS superiority. On the other hand, other powers do not have to worry about GB having HS superiority, so they will naturally be inclined to build LS. Moreover, LS should not be as combat effective as they are, this is unrealistic.
I repeat my proposal: extend the -1 malus from the actual "LS only" to "LS more the HS". This will rule out absurd fleet combinations as 2HS and 30LS and encourage HS building over LS.

To many games I have seen the British fleet blockade all enemies and sit there for the entire war... No naval action as no one will sail against them (mostly because replacing thier fleet is too expensive and takes too long) but now it doesn't so France can test the blockade a few times to see if it can get out. Spain can stand a chance if England doesn't watch the naval buildup of other nations as well as diplomatic actions.

This is an interesting point. Some more naval action could be welcomed, but have you checked that a competent GB player (correctly executing blockades and avoiding Spanish backstabbing) has a quite high chance of NOT being invaded? I am always worried by the fact that while France can lose some land battles without consequences, a single GB loss at sea can result in a catastrophic invasion and an unconditional peace. Now, if single battles have less at stakes (fleet are less precious) France could try more often for that single lucky sea victory. The overall result could be a higher rate of London ending up occupied. Have you checked this is not the case?