Can anyone who knows the naval rules explain this...???

[KenClark]

Listen, the game is already highly imbalanced in favour of GB on the seas. Until someone shows me some math about how a +2 is needed to prevent some sort of disadvantage that GB gets I think giving GB any more bonuses is stupid.

[RayKinStL]

ORIGINAL: KenClark

Listen, the game is already highly imbalanced in favour of GB on the seas. Until someone shows me some math about how a +2 is needed to prevent some sort of disadvantage that GB gets I think giving GB any more bonuses is stupid.

First of all, the balance is towards GB because Britain was the major naval power. I don't know if I would say "highly" imbalance. She gets a +1 for being GB, so on a 6-sided die, I guess this means she has a 1/6 advantage over other powers. Even then, the die roll still matters and it is still very very very possible for her to lose. Although I am tired of restating this point, the fact is that there is no logical explaination Ken that can validate why having 1.5x heavies is worthy of a +1 modifier to every country but GB. Britain should have an incentive to commit ships in such a way, whether it be a possible +2, or even NeverMan's idea of a -1 to the opponent's roll is the advantage exists.

Plus, remember, the naval advantage is all Britain really has as a MP. Her army is a joke (except for a good morale) and in order to even take advantage of the whole thing would require more heavies than she starts with, while still maintaining a blockade on the French fleets!!! I don't see an imbalance in giving GB a little more boost if she plays by the same rules that gives everyone else a boost. If France manages to somehow decimate the British navy, whether through die rolls or surrender conditions, almost all hope is lost. At that point, all she is good for is feeding money to other countries, and that wouldn't be fun for anyone.

I feel good having convinced NeverMan. At least I know my logic is sound!!! I am just suprised how many people accept this inconsistency for the sake of what they perceive as "balance". It's quite sad actually.

[AresMars]

The British Army a joke?
  I assume you have never stacked a couple Brit CORPS with an Allied Army and see the morale impacts. Even one has effect!
  Every hear of a leader called Wellington 553B?  There was this place called Waterloo....look it up!
  The Small Army is the most MOBILE in the game, as the Naval can move it just about anywhere....
 
The British's only advantage as a MP is their Navy?
  Have you forgotten that GB wins the game if no one else does?
  It can remove VP from any opponent....just a FYI...you need VP to WIN the game.....
  There is this guy called NELSON that gives the BRITS +1 on WIND GUAGE.  Winning that allows to you hurt your enemies first....
  It is a freaking ISLAND and has the Wooden walls to keep people away....
 
This is a game and there has to be GAME BALANCE so that every player (and country) has an fair chance of winning.....
 
Your arguement (though logical) does seem to upset that little point about a "fair chance of winning"....
 
This is why you are finding very little support, as the rest of us understand the concept.....even a small imbalance is a poor decision over FAIR and PLAYABLE.
 
 

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: AresMars

The British Army a joke?
I assume you have never stacked a couple Brit CORPS with an Allied Army and see the morale impacts. Even one has effect!
Every hear of a leader called Wellington 553B?  There was this place called Waterloo....look it up!
The Small Army is the most MOBILE in the game, as the Naval can move it just about anywhere....

The British's only advantage as a MP is their Navy?
 Have you forgotten that GB wins the game if no one else does?
It can remove VP from any opponent....just a FYI...you need VP to WIN the game.....
There is this guy called NELSON that gives the BRITS +1 on WIND GUAGE.  Winning that allows to you hurt your enemies first....
It is a freaking ISLAND and has the Wooden walls to keep people away....

This is a game and there has to be GAME BALANCE so that every player (and country) has an fair chance of winning.....

Your arguement (though logical) does seem to upset that little point about a "fair chance of winning"....

This is why you are finding very little support, as the rest of us understand the concept.....even a small imbalance is a poor decision over FAIR and PLAYABLE.

One could make a VERY STRONG POINT that the game is already imbalanced, very much so. The game was imbalanced ever since it was produced and in fact, the day Matrix decided to go with EiH the game became imbalanced. Also, little things like "no combined movement" don't help either.

There is no evasion. Ray would have a stronger case if evasion was in play.

I can't believe ANYONE could put this game and the words "game balance" in the same sentence. THAT'S a joke.

[sw30]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: sw30
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?

That WOULD be more historical, but no, I'm not arguing for that. Straw arguments are easily defeated. Try better ones next time.

Actually, the straw men isn't that, I'm just saying that it is the direction that you are trying to go in. And I disagree about the historicalness of your claim, btw.

The real straw men is about the Nappy stack with the correct units to give you a +1 cav superiority vs virtually anyone except the Russians and the Turks. Surely you're not suggesting to give that stack a +2 in addition to the -1? You'd think +1 -1 was bad enough. On a +2 -1, you might as well not fight.

[AresMars]

Neverman, I am an EIA purists, so I use "Game Balance" more in _that_ context then in EIANW....
 
I would strongly agree that EIANW is much more off balance then normal, however, Rays suggestions (though perfectly sane) would upset my concept of the game balance even further.  I already had my battle with Richard M., and have resigned myself to living with what EIANW is.....the fact that classic EIA is now being discussed warms my heart....
 
You comment ignores the essence of my point - a balanced game should allow all players an equal chance at winning - EIANW is way off on that already (most people agree that the CURRENT naval rules and lack of EVASION favors GB already) and this is why I disagree with RayKinStL.  I never said that his position was wrong - I agreed it had logic, however, his suggestion would further affect the game in the wrong direction....
 
If it was put to a vote, I am afraid that both you and Ray would be in the minority.....lets try and stay on point.  (Hell, if only I could sometimes....)
 
 
 
 

[bresh]

Here is how i view it. Hope im able to describe it right, at 4 am in the morning.

Cap is +1/-1, as Eske pointed out, you get +1 if GB fleets, or if you outnumber your enemies heavies by a factor of 1.5 or more.

Austria and Prussia both give a naval force -1, as does a naval force contaning only light fleets gives -1.

Now, if we take Nevermans suggestion that when GB fights a naval force and outnumbers their heavies, GB will be fighting +1 while his enemies fight at -1. To adjust for no "+2" modifer.

Then we take a naval force containing only light fleets, including Prussian or Austrian light fleet (but not any GB ships) Fleet-Au, this fleet has default -1 and -1, lets say they fight a enemy force also containing only light fleets and no GB ships, so a -1 modifer for this Fleet-Ty.

Now if we follow Nevermans suggestion of how GB's +2 adjustment could be fixed and we keep 1 as Cap modifer, we adjust again Fleet-Au is -1(instead of -2), while Fleet-Y is 0(instead of -1).

Next we consider what if Fleet-Ty, had 1 heavy Ship +1(1.5 more heavies), vs Fleet-Au (-1 Solely Light ships &-1 Containing Austria/Prussia fleet),
this would normally be a +1 Fleet-Ty, -1 Fleet-Au, but now owner of Fleet-Ty demands further adjustment, since Fleet-Au should have a extra malus.
How to solve this ?

Next we take a GB fleet with heavies, fighting Fleet-Au (Solely light fleets, including Austrian/Prussian ships), modifers in theory would be GB +2, Defender -2.
How do we then solve Cap 1, in this fight ?

Cap has, and always been 1 in battles, land & Naval, figuring out some ways to adjust is hardly worth the pain, and it seems easy to create a new problem when trying to adjust the rules.

Ray, you ask for an example where you benefit from having the 1.5 bonus, beside the GB naval bonus.
GB is the only nation who can team up with a Austrian/Prussian fleet, and when outnumbering the enemies heavies, still come out with a +1 for the battle. (+1 GB, +1 (Heavy Supority), -1 Au/Pr fleets).
So no, the "+1" 1.5 heavy-Ship superiority bonus is not only for all the other MP's.

Regards
Bresh

[RayKinStL]

OK Bresh, set the cap at +/- 1, but when Britain has a heavy superiority, have it put their opponent on the -1 modifier.  It could stay the same for everyone else, with heavy superiority on the +1 modifier.  This way, should GB fight the Prussians or Austrians in a naval battle, which is unlikely to happen, they can't go more than -1 to their opponent.  This way everyone is still happy with modifier being no more than +/-1 and GB can still be properly compensated for committing enough of her forces to create the advantage necessary to gain the modifier.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL

OK Bresh, set the cap at +/- 1, but when Britain has a heavy superiority, have it put their opponent on the -1 modifier.  It could stay the same for everyone else, with heavy superiority on the +1 modifier.  This way, should GB fight the Prussians or Austrians in a naval battle, which is unlikely to happen, they can't go more than -1 to their opponent.  This way everyone is still happy with modifier being no more than +/-1 and GB can still be properly compensated for committing enough of her forces to create the advantage necessary to gain the modifier.

How is this different than what I suggested?

[eske]

Guys
 
The result of that die-roll is the damage you do, so it reflects your fleets efficiency using guns. GB crew were the best there was, both in speed and accuracy due to better trainig and more experience, hence the +1, right.
 
Now you are suggesting GB's naval opponents shall have their efficiency reduced when GB has +50% HS?
 
How would you justify that ??
 
/eske

[GShock]

Logics has it that if you add a +1 somewhere and add a -1 somewhere else, these factors neutralize each other. All in all, it's about balance but not playing the game (currently) i can't know.
What i find amusing is the fact that a very complex game with 20 years of experience has been ported to the PC with changes in the rules. God knows how many players patched the EiA rules and i can't find a single good reason to change them for EiANW.

As a prophane so, i insist: There shouldnt be any rule change at all from EiA, unless in separate scenarios where all players may agree and join...it's a matter of "moddability" to my eyes.

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL

OK Bresh, set the cap at +/- 1, but when Britain has a heavy superiority, have it put their opponent on the -1 modifier.  It could stay the same for everyone else, with heavy superiority on the +1 modifier.  This way, should GB fight the Prussians or Austrians in a naval battle, which is unlikely to happen, they can't go more than -1 to their opponent.  This way everyone is still happy with modifier being no more than +/-1 and GB can still be properly compensated for committing enough of her forces to create the advantage necessary to gain the modifier.

Im saýing NO special adjustment vs GB heavy superiorty !
You miss the point, if we have to "adjust" to this would start creating special rules for the rest, why should we not have to adjust each and every other battle ? My examples where to show how confusing those rules would be.

And a GB with heavy superity vs a Au-PR-included solely Light fleet, why stop at +1/-1 ? It should be +2/-2. Next you want 25 extra heavy ships to adjust this.

CAP is +1/-1, you can only have total -1 if you have solely light ships, or if you do not have AU-PR light fleets and do not have heavy superioty.

You can not create new modifers to fit your needs !

Your agument was the 1.5 heavy advantage only was for all others beside GB, i showed you the example where its not.
Another argument was to keep it equal for all, then you will need to add special adjustments to all other nations, when fighting Au/Pr.
And in effect give AU/PR nations aditional maluses beside that they are limited to Light fleets ?

How hard can it be, to understand.


Regards
Bresh

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: bresh

Im saýing NO special adjustment vs GB heavy superiorty !
You miss the point, if we have to "adjust" to this would start creating special rules for the rest, why should we not have to adjust each and every other battle ? My examples where to show how confusing those rules would be.

And a GB with heavy superity vs a Au-PR-included solely Light fleet, why stop at +1/-1 ? It should be +2/-2. Next you want 25 extra heavy ships to adjust this.

CAP is +1/-1, you can only have total -1 if you have solely light ships, or if you do not have AU-PR light fleets and do not have heavy superioty.

You can not create new modifers to fit your needs !

Your agument was the 1.5 heavy advantage only was for all others beside GB, i showed you the example where its not.
Another argument was to keep it equal for all, then you will need to add special adjustments to all other nations, when fighting Au/Pr.
And in effect give AU/PR nations aditional maluses beside that they are limited to Light fleets ?

How hard can it be, to understand.


Regards
Bresh

I don't think anyone is missing the point or misunderstanding what you are saying it's just that your examples are not that good.

WHEN was the last time GB had a nav engagement with Pr/Au???? Yes, it COULD happen, but will it??? NO.

So, your whole argument is really just based on that one VERY POOR example, and it's weak, at best.

Other than GB going against Pr/Au there will never be more than a +1/-1 in a naval battle AND AND AND even if GB does go against Pr/Au (EXTREMELY UNLIKELY) then we already said it should be saturated at +1/-1.

Why is THAT so hard to understand???

[bresh]

Neverman, you can not start creating your own set of rules.

Are my examples bad, all they do is refer to how the rules documented ?  So be it if poor,  they are STILL plausible.

Your ohh, lets give those who opose GB heavies a -1 modifer, are not from any EIA or EIH rules i ever heard of. Try to document it ?

While yours is just a juniors way of fumbling to undo the standard rules. 

EIA been playtested for many many years. (And im sure most here would favor the naval rules from EIA not EIH)
EIH has alot of playtesting to, but we can not start fixing that in this game.


Regards
Bresh

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: bresh

Neverman, you can not start creating your own set of rules.

Are my examples bad, all they do is refer to how the rules documented ?  So be it if poor,  they are STILL plausible.

Your ohh, lets give those who opose GB heavies a -1 modifer, are not from any EIA or EIH rules i ever heard of. Try to document it ?

While yours is just a juniors way of fumbling to undo the standard rules. 


Regards
Bresh

1. Rules aren't rules until they become so.
2. Rules should make SENSE and these current rules DO NOT.
3. EiH is just a mod of EiA, NOTHING MORE so to pretend it's some Bible is ridiculous.
4. I don't have "current" documentation to back up my argument. It was a SUGGESTION.
5. I guess you are one of those people who don't like to think outside the box?
6. EiH were never "standard" rules and EiANW is full of them. The only thing I want to "undo" is how Matrix has messed up this game.

[RayKinStL]

ORIGINAL: bresh

Neverman, you can not start creating your own set of rules.

Are my examples bad, all they do is refer to how the rules documented ?  So be it if poor,  they are STILL plausible.

Your ohh, lets give those who opose GB heavies a -1 modifer, are not from any EIA or EIH rules i ever heard of. Try to document it ?

While yours is just a juniors way of fumbling to undo the standard rules. 

EIA been playtested for many many years. (And im sure most here would favor the naval rules from EIA not EIH)
EIH has alot of playtesting to, but we can not start fixing that in this game.


Regards
Bresh

If I really need to debate the logic behind "we shouldn't change the rules because we can not start fixing that in this game" then I simply give up with you. It has become obvious to everyone that we payed 70$ for a Beta. We have been used to tweak things and get the game set up the way it needs to be played. People have made multiple threads about rule variations because something is not right. Many have resulted in changes. That is all this thread is about. If you don't like the idea, then fine your opinion has been noted. However, to this opinted, you have presented nothing but weak faulty logic, while I have provided all my points with solid data and numerous ideas for revision. There is nothing wrong with questioning the rules of a game and then questioning whether there is a better, more efficient, or more consistent way things can be handled. NeverMan's suggestion is great because GB can still be properly compensated for a heavy superiority (which is should be) and we can still maintain the max +/-1 modifier that you were clinging to earlier.

I would love to get back to Classic EiA. I can't wait till Marshall implements this. But if we see an inconsistency now, and we have viable way to fix it that do not upset the balance of the game (and in my opinion make it more fair), is it really wrong to suggest it? Especially since modifying a die roll before going to the combat resolution chart would be a relatively simple fix for Marshall.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: bresh
Im 100% against -1 to all vs GB thats a big game destroying rule.

I don't agree with adding the -1 rule for GB, so this should not be taken as an argument for that.

What I want to know here is why you would call this a "big game-destroying rule", when exactly the same thing has been done AGAINST GB, and that doesn't seem to be a problem. The rule, as it currently stands, could be stated just as accurately (using reverse terminology):

All powers get a +1 unless either they do not have 50% more heavies than their opponent, or if they are Great Britain.

This is a reversely-stated version of the same rule as it is applied today. So, why does GB get a penalty that nobody else does, and yet you do not call that "game-destroying"?

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: eske
In forums like this, whats logical and consistent becomes subjective.

Not with me.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: eske

Ray

Praise to you for fighting the battles you believe in.

I'm sorry to tell you that I disagree with you - well almost sorry that is [;)].
In forums like this, whats logical and consistent becomes subjective.

Here is my version:

Naval battle is a game, where you either have advantage (+1), disadvantage (-1) or none of those (+0).

If you have more benefits than drawbacks you get advantage.
If you have more drawsbacks than benefits you get disadvantage.

Benefits: Outnumber opposing HS 1.5 to 1, have british ships.
Drawbacks: Have only LS, have preussian or austrian ships.

The british are lucky, they can get advantage with only 1 HS. But so are Preussia and Austria, they don't get disadvantage for using only LS.

Logic and consistent to me [:)].
But that is when you look at it isolated. I still believe you have to view it in the game context. If it works here, my feeling of logic and consistancy comes second.

/eske

By this logic, then, I assume you want to take away the +2 that Nelson and GB get when attacking together? Can't have someone getting anything beyond +1, can we?

[Jimmer]

Deleted because I wasn't paying attention.