Matrix Games Forums

Hello folks,
I would like to add my to cents to this topic, following ashtar's proposals:

1) Extend the -1 combat malus from the actual "stack composed of LS only" to "stack with more LS then HS (heavy ships)".

I would prefer a stronger malus, say - 2, to reflect the ineffectiveness of the light ships compared to the heavy ones.
-1 in case of Ls superiority and - 2 if the Ls are double of the Hs.

2) Give a +1 bonus to both evasion and interception to a side which as more then 1.5 times LS then his opponent
(it means reducing your chances of being intercepted/evaded if you have a LS advantage or increasing your chances
of intercept/evade if you have the LS advantage. Again, maximum bonus is going to be +1 (you cannot have a +2
thanks to Nelson).

Agreed

3) Fix piracy, it is probably bugged: it seems no gold is ever subtracted from your targets, no matter how hard
you try.

Agreed again.

4) Both fleet political point value in battle and maintenance cost should be reduced to 1/2 not 1,
or if you want to be more precise 2/3 for HS fleets and 1/3 for LS. Transport can cost 1 $ and be worth 1 pp when
loaded with troops (repelling an invasion is a sure political hit) and 1/2 if empty.

I do not dislike the current rules so I'm dubious.

5) Stack movement should be slowed down, as per classic EIA optional rule (balanced to account for more fleets in
EIANW). Movements should be: 7 space for 1-2 fleets, 6 spaces for 3-4 fleets, 5 spaces for 5-6 fleets
and 4 spaces for 7 or more fleets.

I would like to mantain the rule as it is now.

I don't want to go off topic but in my opinion there is another very important issue to resolve.

In the very first turn of a game I played, I saw spanish boats spreading all over the map, disembarking hispanic troops here and there.
The british player dowed Spain to punish those paella-eaters and in the following reinforcement phase Spain simply loaned all her fleets to a neutral MP, quietly returning to her harbours, untouched.
This is an easy trick that can ruin any additional rule that we could implement.
You expose your fleets going everywhere then you simply change the flag for a moment becoming invulnerable.
[:@]
Your opinion?
C.

In my opinion if England wanted to declare on Spain just to punish for the widespread (and no hope of a surrender) than England should be willing the next phase to also declare on whoever gained control of the ships to also explain the distaste in the act... Yes its another 3 points (yes I said 3 as it is in the newer system) which is not that much of a loss to catching one of those fleets out and sinking it... Or there are trade sanctions or supporting that nations enemies...

There are ways of making friends of your enemies pay for thier transgressions...

OD

What would happen if the borrower would be a country in a period of enforced peace with GB?
Furthermore while GB dow the loanee the spanish fleets are back to their safe ports...untouched.
[:-] something has to be done.
 

In my opinion if England wanted to declare on Spain just to punish for the widespread (and no hope of a surrender) than England should be willing the next phase to also declare on whoever gained control of the ships to also explain the distaste in the act... Yes its another 3 points (yes I said 3 as it is in the newer system) which is not that much of a loss to catching one of those fleets out and sinking it... Or there are trade sanctions or supporting that nations enemies...

[X(]
Please, obsidiandragon, lets try to be serious. The point is not about this example, it is just about surprise attacks in game which risk to disappear due to this bug.
This is a quite bad rule deviation, since it cannot happen in EIA and open the can of dubious strategy.
What about if Austria loan its Italian troops to a neutral ally to avoid a big mauling from a nearby approaching (double move) big French Army? And anyhow, in your example once GB declears war to the neutral borrowing ally one more turn will be passed (loan is in reinf phase) and Spanish fleet will be back in port.

Loaning ships and troops has been used as a proxy of the fundamental combined movement of EIA. Moreover, a Spanish corp - for instance - loaned to France cannot attack France enemies unless also Spain is at war with them.
I have seen this happen in an EIANW This should also obviously work for defence: loaned troops can be attaccked/not attacked as per original nationality, not as per borrower one. This should be corrected asap by Marshall.

In the mean time, I will adopt a house rule to simply forbid the loan tactic to a neutral to just avoid a fight.

I'm just saying that if you are willing to go to war just because someone took out a minor with no intention of ever finishing the war (just as a punishment) then you might as well declare on the helper as well if you are going to throw around declarations to show the distaste in the maneuver..  you act like there were never ships that changed the banner to aviod a fight...
 
OD

you act like there were never ships that changed the banner to aviod a fight...

As a matter of fact we are speaking of entire navies here. No, it never happened on this scale. And what would you think of a Prussian corp avoiding capture by Franch army suddenly declaring themself Turks?

I'm just saying that if you are willing to go to war just because someone took out a minor with no intention of ever finishing the war (just as a punishment) then you might as well declare on the helper as well if you are going to throw around declarations to show the distaste in the maneuver..

1. Much wars have been fought to defend a single minor nation from rival powers without escalating in full invasion/destruction wars. But this is irrelevant, since we are speaking of a general bug.
2. Surprise attack is a part of EIA. Loaning corps/sheep to avoid that is not and it is a clear bug.
3. Do you understand that this bug means the end of surprise attack for both France (at land) and GB (at sea)
plus a ridicolous way of extracting your corps or ships from unwanted battles?
4. Finally, since loaning corps/ships comes AFTER diplomacy, you cannot even counteract the loan bug declaring war on the nation to which corps are lonaed since it will be to late when you realize it.

Therefore this is a very bad bug which need to be corrected. Point.

Everybody remebers how Mac Arthur escaped from japanese grasp in the Philippines rising a Swiss flag on his small boat and passing through the jap naval blockade gallantly undisturbed.... [:D]
On the contrary I'm asking to myself the reason why Belgium during two world wars did not suddenly declare to be part of the USA to stop occupation by german armies.... it will always be a mistery to me....
Furthermore millions of russian soldiers during the first years of Barbarossa operation incredibly forgot to switch, when they were completely surronded and isolated, to Mongolian (until '45) or Turkish nationality to avoid their destruction and to assure their peaceful relocation in Ulan Bator or in Ankara.
History is really full of incredible mistakes and Zukov seemingly was, by far, less clever than Mac Arthur [8D]

You are mistaken about the game of EiA. It is not just a land conflict system. Per the original rules introduction "EMPIRES IN ARMS is a strategic and diplomatic game for up to 7 players that covers the Napoleonic wars from 1805 until 1815." There is no necessary prejudice for land over sea. The Eia naval shortcomings have been long recognized, please see the General's naval systems.

I have never played a single EiA game where the out come was decided by naval power. In each case the success of land campaigns on the continent decided the games. The ability to transport and naval supply were much more important than winning naval battles. Naval supperiority was needed to allow transport and supply in order to participate in the land campaigns. But it was still the land campaigns that mattered...and that was it.

Your comment "it makes naval power more important than it really was during that era" bespeaks that you might not have a profound grasp on the era. Naval power was as key in the Napoleonic Wars as it was in WW2, WWI, the Peloponnesian War, the 1st and 2nd Punic Wars, the Seven Years War, the War of American Independence, the American Civil War and most other wars. I am happy to suggest a few books for you to read if you want.

Sure...naval power was improtant...but not as important as the land campaigns...and not as important as EiANW now makes it. Naval power is not as much a "key" to victory as it is just another resource.

There is no reason not to improve the current naval system and offer a more fun and realistic combat system.

Sure...the key elements being "fun" and "realistic". The current EiANW system doesn't appear to be either.

Hello Tater:

Per your first point, you are correct that transporting troops and resupplying troops is an essential component of naval power. (witness: Wellington in Spain/Portugal) In fact, this is the end all and be all. Land troops do make the victory possible. But it is the naval firepower (Ships of the line) that make this transport possible and the enemy(ies)'s ability to make use of the seas non-viable.

Per your second point, for most nations, Naval Power is or could be key. Think of the options that would exist for Russia if it had full fleets. Or Spain or Turkey? Or, if we removed our blinders of EIA Dogma , if one allowed Austria or Prussia to build sizable fleets? What could they do then?

Per your third point, I would be the last person to support the current naval system. The prohibitively high costs of the naval builds and prohibitive time lengths eliminated this possibility from the original EiANW even more so than the EiA Board game. Marshall has fixed this issue but many more remain. Some examples: No chit choices. Light ships are improperly used. The privateer system is feckless and uses only Light Ships. Limited admiral choices. Fleet sizes should be reviewed. Limited evasion or interception. On the advanced angle: Limited chances to improve one's fleet performance through sea and gunnery practice; no North African privateers; it is far to easy to conduct an amphibious invasion and storm a port and sink a fleet.

best
Mardo