Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: obsidiandragon

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.

Very good points and feedback!
1.06 is coming soon! (Probably Monday).

Actually still working the issue from both sides...

For the French testing the blockades, in order to make a critical strike you have to still move last (which is not in your control) and you have to tie down corps to each fleet possible of breaking the blockade and making the run for it. That way if they do get free you can try to make a landing in England but be prepared to lose you supply and forage for it.. but it will force England to keep someone at home also.. Or you can try several places and if freed try a combined strike to the channel or to get the british fleet to try and intercept to get them out of where you want to go.

For the English, you have to play the odds and ensure they are in your favor to where the corps are, as well as managing your turn order. It is nice to go first, but going last at sea I have found is better to counter what ever attempt is made, and then again for the abillity to follow first if your counters were not successful enough. You may have to rotate some fleets in and out of different blockades to ensure the enemies are at bay, all the while maintaining a "SPARE" fleet as it were to quell any sudden suprises such as minor control, blockade breech, or even the occasional stab in the back - and to this fleet goes Nelson... But it forces the English to maintain vigilance over the fleet building of other nations, as France can easily fund the Turkish naval build since they will always have extra manpower and france CAN use its extra for militia... so you have to be ready just in case Turkey shows up with 40 heavy ships to break a blockade...

But given the fairness of the exchange, I see it as a good implementation for all, just wish Austria could build its own as they seem to definately have the cash durring peace time, they have to resort to Naples and Venetia fleets and building for them.

OD

Obsidian covers it pretty well, his findings match what I have encountered in my games.  The lower cost of the ships allows some countries, Russia and Spain in particular, to build up at a reasonable level without hindering other economic efforts, and the same can be said for England as well, the lower cost lets them maintain while still loaning out money.

As for testing blockades, it depends on who your playing, human or AI. 

Todd

my bids for GB just went down 5 points. I understand the reasoning about making things more interesting and able to go after GB. I can see less aid being sent to Prussia/Austria and a few extra lights being built from the start of the game. that could balance things at sea, but hurts the Germans

Borner,

How is this hurting the Germans IYO? If anything, cheaper ship costs should mean more.

Besides, any money Austria and Prussia spends on ships means one of two things IMO:

1. They've won the ground war with France and have money to spare.
2. They are building ships when they should be building infantry factors....

Todd

Gents:

If anyone wants to throw barbs or spears or sticks and stones or pacifistic words [;)] at anyone for advocating the change in naval costs, I should be your target. Please throw way.

Here is a post a produced at Ashtar's personal request on 4 Deember of 2008

Here is where I came up with the build costs for the LS/HS.

1799 to 1804 period

Frigate: Large US one around $300k. Small US 200k
SOL 400 to 500K. Say 500 K including crew bounties etc.
Gunboat: $10,500
Source: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:C4 ... cd=4&gl=us

Do a search on costs or ships and you’ll see the numbers

Each British man cost £26 to train as a infantry soldier in 1795 or so. Assuming each factor equals 1500 men, then each infantry facots cost £39k pounds.
Source:
http://books.google.com/books?id=xiV5Q7 ... #PPA131,M1

And to Bresh's inquiries shortly afterwards:

Here are some more independent sources that confirm that my original research is accurate and conservative.

HMS Victory's total cost was £63,176 and 3 shillings in 1765. At a 5-1 $ to £ ratio, this equals around $320,000.
Source: http://www.ahrtp.com/ShipsPortsOnLine/pages/VICTR1.htm

Note that she was rebuilt around 1797 for a slightly larger sum of £70,933, or approximately the same amount allowing for inflation. Or around $355,000 in our period.

A 74 Gun SOL cost £43,820. Or around $215,000

Source:
http://books.google.com/books?id=uH--Df ... &ct=result

A 36 Gun Frigate cost around $100,000 (Same source, see above) page 43.

An 80 Gunner SOL cost 53,120 pounds or around $265,000 in 1789
A 98 Gunner SOL cost 57,120 pounds in 1789. or around $285,000. Page 46 same source.

I’d add some monies to these build costs for crew bounties. Probably 25%.

Costs of Infantry:

“Almost all soldiers at the time signed on for life in exchange for a "bounty" of £23 17s 6d, most of which was absorbed by the cost of outfitting "necessities".”
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Ar ... eonic_Wars

So for a unit of 1500 men (halfway between the 1 to 2 thousand figure per factor of our game) will cost £40,000 just to muster and equip. Or almost as much as a 74 Gun Ship of the line to Build.

Given that we charge $3 for an infantry unit of approx 1500 persons, which in reality cost £40,000 to muster and equip and given that the comparable cost for a 74 Gun ship of the lines constructions is £43,820, it is not at all radical to suggest the current 4-1 ratio of ship of the line to infantry costs be reduced. Therefore, the figures of $8 or $7 are again found to be conservative.

For those of you who consider balance, which is wise indeed, ask yourselves what happens when France gets too strong? Or Russia? Or Turkey, Spain, or Austria etc.

The key to this game is that it is a diplomatic engagement where every power has countervailing strengths and weaknesses. Any power – save GB under the current rules -- can be checked. The realistic reduction in ship costs I note do not rob GB of the ability to build ships herself. As she has more money, she can build the most ships. And if we introduce a 4.0/3.0 morale system for Naval combat with appropriate die modifiers, those ships will be the best ships. Such a game would be more fun and I would not hesitate to jump at the chance to take on the role of GB. Fleet counters in Portugal and Denmark would matter. You’d have a real stake in the game…

Exchange of US Dollars to British Pounds during this period is roughly rate 5 to 1
http://www.likesbooks.com/money.html
(OK, not the most scholary source, but it will do for rough numbers as those love novels are a huge genre and well researched. )

Therefore, a regiment of 1500 men costs about 190, 000 dollars or just under half of a cost ship of the line, minus the ship’s crew.

In our EiA World, an infantry regiment costs $3. Based on our rations, a ship of the line (heavy Ship) should cost around $7 or 8 at most.

A frigate (light ship) should cost $3 or $4.

Note that these numbers discount maintenance costs, but these are mostly ignored in EiA for both Land and Sea forces.

Therefore, it is not unrealistic to significantly lower the costs of building a navy. Rather, it is unrealistic to keep them at the current high levels.

Production times do vary. So I woudl go with the original 12 months for a HS and 6 months for LS. If it were programmable and people were desiring it, perhaps a premium for quicker builds.

Prizes to be rebuilt at half cost/time. Still need MP.

As far as balance goes, spending $8 for a single ship is still quite a bit of money. I would adjust LSs to be equal to 1/2 HS with some slight evasion/interception bonuses. GB could be outspent, but it woudl take a concerted effort to do so. Much like it takes to take down France.

See tm.asp?m=1967744&mpage=1&key=ship&#1970276

But in fairness to Ashtar and others, play testing is important. So Obsidiandragon et alias efforts are valuable. And let's keep the original EiA as an option... preferably with lots of modular options built into the system.

The LS costs seem to have been kept higher ($6 rather than the 3 or 4 from historical research) as they are counting as full combat factors. Maybe we should think of them as 64 gun SOLs (HFJ: your thoughts?)


I would be in favor of redesigning the whole naval system and play testing it with a working group but in the meantime, this seems to be a good start. Let us see how the play testing proceeds. I think it will make the game a lot more fun.
Best
Mardonius

(...) Therefore, it is not unrealistic to significantly lower the costs of building a navy. Rather, it is unrealistic to keep them at the current high levels. (...) I would be in favor of redesigning the whole naval system and play testing it with a working group but in the meantime, this seems to be a good start. Let us see how the play testing proceeds. I think it will make the game a lot more fun.

 
Mardonius, I perfectly remember this post, as I already told you I use to read carefully other people posts. What you keep on missing of my argument is my request to reduce LS combat capabilities in a very simple and immediatly applicable way, which was the main issue of my original post.
 
This cost change is not a good start, since it meakes something cheaper (LS) without making it less effective as it should be.  
When LS will finally not be almost as good as HS, then and only then their 6$ and 6 month build cost could be realistic. Is the concept clear or I should keep writing it over and over again to my digits final consumption?
 
Then to me you can go on designing and testing your byzantine combat systems as long as you like, obviously as long as you keep them optional. Thanks.
 

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

(...) Therefore, it is not unrealistic to significantly lower the costs of building a navy. Rather, it is unrealistic to keep them at the current high levels. (...) I would be in favor of redesigning the whole naval system and play testing it with a working group but in the meantime, this seems to be a good start. Let us see how the play testing proceeds. I think it will make the game a lot more fun.

Mardonius, I perfectly remember this post, as I already told you I use to read carefully other people posts. What you keep on missing of my argument is my request to reduce LS combat capabilities in a very simple and immediatly applicable way, which was the main issue of my original post.

This cost change is not a good start, since it meakes something cheaper (LS) without making it less effective as it should be.  
When LS will finally not be almost as good as HS, then and only then their 6$ and 6 month build cost could be realistic. Is the concept clear or I should keep writing it over and over again to my digits final consumption?

Then to me you can go on designing and testing your byzantine combat systems as long as you like, obviously as long as you keep them optional. Thanks.

Hi Ashtar:

I would get rid of LS with some sort of pro rate replacement until they can be rescoped in use. As they are now they are somehat problematic for reasons you and others point out. I am sure you noted my opinion and agreement here. So we are not arguing at all. Let us see what the playtesting brings forward. It seems that they are, as now, small SOLs.

So I am with you here on LS. I may differ in LS's end return as 1/2 power combatants with some bonuses on evasion/interception/pursuit/anti-piracy/piracy (guerre de course) though.

A naval system redesign would not, if done properly, be Byzantine. Keep it simple. If you build on the land model with weather variables and previously published naval variants you will be fine. I would limit chit choice to three though. This whole thing is already a bit more complicated than Monopoly, no?

best,
Mardonius

And yes, I would keep this change an option.

I would be in favor of redesigning the whole naval system and play testing it with a working group but in the meantime, this seems to be a good start.

Alternative naval systems have already been designed and playtested over the years, yes? So no need to reinvent the wheel. Question is when should Marshall implement some changes. IMHO, proportional losses and changes to pp's could be made relatively easily for v1.07. This alone should resolve the LS effectiveness issues, ie make them less effective versus HS and restore some balance. Later, advanced naval combat with tactical chits could be introduced.

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

I would be in favor of redesigning the whole naval system and play testing it with a working group but in the meantime, this seems to be a good start.

Alternative naval systems have already been designed and playtested over the years, yes? So no need to reinvent the wheel. Question is when should Marshall implement some changes. IMHO, proportional losses and changes to pp's could be made relatively easily for v1.07. This alone should resolve the LS effectiveness issues, ie make them less effective versus HS and restore some balance. Later, advanced naval combat with tactical chits could be introduced.

I'd use the naval systems that have been designed as a start, but I am certain that there are some issues with them. I have some. I reckon three tactical chits is enough. Hard to do anything too sneaky as there si not too much terrain out there to hide behind, unless you have a Salamis type scenario. But these can be worked out by playtesting even before any programing burden is embraced.

Proportional losses seem a good interim fix for LS.
best
Mardonius

Hi Mardonius,
My feelings on the light ships is this, there cost and build time are fine, but they appear to be acting as if they were 2 deckers in combat,if they are frigates then historically speaking they have no business fighting heavies, there main roll within the fleet is to be the eyes and ears of the fleet,but since everybody playing the game seems to think it is all right for them to engage heavies,in my minds eye I will look upon them as medium fleets ie 3rd and 4th rate 2 deckers.

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

I would be in favor of redesigning the whole naval system and play testing it with a working group but in the meantime, this seems to be a good start.

Alternative naval systems have already been designed and playtested over the years, yes? So no need to reinvent the wheel. Question is when should Marshall implement some changes. IMHO, proportional losses and changes to pp's could be made relatively easily for v1.07. This alone should resolve the LS effectiveness issues, ie make them less effective versus HS and restore some balance. Later, advanced naval combat with tactical chits could be introduced.

I AGREE 100% the lights/frigates must have there effectivness reduced compared with heavies in any kind of combat.

HFJ:

Exactly my thoughts regarding LSs.

I understand Ashtar's frustration (truly... let us get on the same team here; please [:)]) as they should either be much less combat effective in fleet actions or more expensive. I think Panzergrenadier's interim (before any naval redesign, knock on oak) idea of proportional losses is a sound solution.

Let us see if we can work on Marshall to try and get a naval redesign. There we can find lots of better/more historical uses for LSs. I would love to form a Naval Rules workign group and have the keeners sign on for desing and playtest.

best
Mardonius

The light/frigate roll is evasion/interception/pursuit/anti-piracy/piracy (guerre de course) lights v lights. In the game they have turned into pocket battleships.(Admiral Graf Spee,Admiral Scheer & Lutzow)

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.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.

I would love to help improve the game in anyway I could.

Spot on, HFJ.

Let us keep politely working on Marshall. (Drop and give me 20, Marshall, What kind of name is that anyway, you think you are a Field Marshal or something!!!!! [:)])

I don't want to invest the time and effort to design somehting until we have a commitment from him that any Naval redesign can be worked into the game. Moreover, it is essential that we get input from all the naval keeners on this and related forums so we don't launch an Edsel/introduce a new product fit only for the Island of the Misfit Toys.

best
Mardonius

I'm still in the dark as to what is possible via the editor, to improve the naval side of the game,I want to add more admirals,plus I want to reduce the % losses sustained as 25% is to high, I was hoping to edit the losses like 2% - 12% and see what difference it makes to play testing,trial and error untill I'm happy with it.

Most of us are in the dark.

Just learn to accept that we are the playtesters and if we do our job and do a little game design along the way, EIA NW verision 2.0 will be a darn good game.

I am certain that your naval input on will be extremly valuable, should we get the Green Light from Marshall.

Well since I'm 52 years old, and I have been interested in the Napoleonic era navys for over 40 years,plus I have a great many reference books on the subject,I feel I can contribute to helping improve this game for the better good of all concerned,I'm here to be of assistance.[:)]

IMO its going to be awhile before some of this is implemented, but the lower naval costs don't seem to be having an adverse affect on any of the games I've played.

As for LS effectiveness in Combat, I haven't seen that as much either, but then again if I wanted a historically accurate Napoleonic Naval wargame, I wouldn't be playing EiA.

Todd

ORIGINAL: obsidiandragon

Actually still working the issue from both sides...

For the French testing the blockades, in order to make a critical strike you have to still move last (which is not in your control) and you have to tie down corps to each fleet possible of breaking the blockade and making the run for it. That way if they do get free you can try to make a landing in England but be prepared to lose you supply and forage for it.. but it will force England to keep someone at home also.. Or you can try several places and if freed try a combined strike to the channel or to get the british fleet to try and intercept to get them out of where you want to go.

For the English, you have to play the odds and ensure they are in your favor to where the corps are, as well as managing your turn order. It is nice to go first, but going last at sea I have found is better to counter what ever attempt is made, and then again for the abillity to follow first if your counters were not successful enough. You may have to rotate some fleets in and out of different blockades to ensure the enemies are at bay, all the while maintaining a "SPARE" fleet as it were to quell any sudden suprises such as minor control, blockade breech, or even the occasional stab in the back - and to this fleet goes Nelson... But it forces the English to maintain vigilance over the fleet building of other nations, as France can easily fund the Turkish naval build since they will always have extra manpower and france CAN use its extra for militia... so you have to be ready just in case Turkey shows up with 40 heavy ships to break a blockade...

But given the fairness of the exchange, I see it as a good implementation for all, just wish Austria could build its own as they seem to definately have the cash durring peace time, they have to resort to Naples and Venetia fleets and building for them.

OD

Just a few quick points regarding playtesting,are you playtesting using any alteration via the editor, IE have you given any other nations an Admiral to control there fleets and gain die roll bonuses.

Plus have you altered the combat % loss to see how this affects the game play,as I would like to see this reduced to between 2% & 12% .As 25% is a heavy price to pay for 1 combat die roll ?