Matrix Games Forums

What other admirals are there to add, other than Villeneuve?

As for 25% being a heavy price, sure, it can be.  But that's the risk you run IMO.  Lowering the casualty percentage is essentially rearranging the chairs.

Todd

ORIGINAL: Thresh

What other admirals are there to add, other than Villeneuve?




As for 25% being a heavy price, sure, it can be.  But that's the risk you run IMO.  Lowering the casualty percentage is essentially rearranging the chairs.

Todd

Sir John Jervis (Earl St Vincent ) Gardner,Lord Keith,Sir Peter Parker (Admiral of the fleet) and thats just for Britian.


As for your second question it might be rearranging the chairs, but reducing the losses on 1 die roll could be the difference of having to build 2 or 3 Heavies instead of 7 as the present odds would have you do IMO 25 % is to high.

Great, so the rich get richer.

Currently losing 7 ships means your out $126

With 1.06 your out $63.

I'll not dispute there are ways of making the naval part of the game better and/or more historical, but recreating the naval aspect of the era in a game not really designed for it is a tall task. At what point do you draw the line between game play and historical accuracy?

Todd

I don't want to change EIA as a player who plays against the AI, all I want is options, simple options or failing that alter the settings via the editor.

In answer to your questions, no... I have not tried adding another sea admiral - and no... I have not altered the casualty levels

For both of these, they were not too high on my list of things to play with the editor.. manipulating force strengths, creating scenarios, giving bonuses that do not contain pp and vp were the top issues I looked into.

Allong with chasing more bugs and issues that the AI introtroduced...

I will be getting back into the editor soon though to check out some of these issues.

OD

Was just curious to see what difference giving other countrys the same advantage as Britain by allowing them to have an Admiral + if the editor allows would like to experiment with reduced combat losses as I feel 25% is too much, was thinking of maybe 2% - 12% losses ?

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

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.

THIS!
Any chance to see this implemented?

ORIGINAL: Taijian

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

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.

THIS!
Any chance to see this implemented?

Could be as option, im not sure I would use it

Also many dont enjoy forced changes.

Regards
Bresh

Thank you for the personal attack Ashtar.

Well, insinuating that Ashtar was only arguing his point out of self-interest was pretty much a personal attack. So, in fact, you started the personal stuff first in this thread.

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.

Have you ever stood on the deck of an 1800's era fighting ship while in combat? [8|]

What have you ever done? Are you an academic?

Oh yeah, you are such a big time academian that you spend you time playing electronic "toy soldiers"...puhlease! [:D]

I don't like much of anything about the current naval rules. The LS, TS and piracy bring very little additional "fun" factor to the game while adding more burden for planning workload. Now, with the cost change the balance looks to be skewed. I don't see much reason to even buy HS at this point (EXC: LS fleets are full).

Tater:

You have issued a message to me for some reason and I will do my best to address you points.

As I tried to diplomatically explain to Ashtar in previous conversations, I was making a jest. We have had conversations on naval matters for about 7 months now. He must have forgot about our dialogues. I thought he would know I was joking at first glance. Now I don't know you at all, but if you would like to discuss any matter I would be glad to do so at any time with mutual respect.

Being shot at is being shot at. Killing is killing. Have you been in combat Tater? If not, then please do not reproach me. If you have, then you will know there is not any real difference.

I don't claim to be an academic Tater. I do use electronic simulations, particularly those that involve real humans, as they can accurately duplicate human decisions.

Thank you
Mardonius