Matrix Games Forums

Marshall:

Why don't you program something like this? You could use much of the system already used for land combat. or so I would think. And yes, we'd have to playtest it.

Three Chit Options

Linear Attack, Linear Defense, Melee
1. Linear Attack (LA) seeks to close with the enemy and deliver coordinated fleet broadsides. Shoots at hull/guns/crew.

2. Linear Defense (LD) seeks to keep a distance from the enemy and deliver coordinated broadsides. Shoots at rigging/sails.

3. Melee seeks to cross the enemy’s line and break up the enemy’s Line of battle, delivering local, overwhelming superiority to the attacker. In closing, the attacker is subject to potentially devastating fire but if he can close the distance and break the enemy in of battle, he can cut off and destroy much of the enemy fleet in close actions.

Who ever has Wind Gage: +1 bonus to all withdraw rolls. No bonus to combat phasing
Britain: +1 Wind Gage
Side with more light ships have a +1 Wind Gage
200% light ships means +2 Wind Gage
LA: Brit +1 DR to combat rolls
LD: French/Dutch 50%+ +1 DR to combat rolls
M: Nelson +1 DR
British Morale: 4.0
Austrian/Prussian: 2.0
All others: 3.0


Tables:

LD vs LD
4-1, 5-1, 5-1 Losses halved; combat simultaneous. Either side may withdraw on a 1-2 between each round. For every point of morale damage done to the opposing fleet, this increases the withdraw roll by one. So if the one side takes 1.50 morale damage, the other can withdraw on a 1, 2 or 3. If both elect to withdraw, then automatic withdraw.

LA Vs LA
5-1, 5-2, 5-2 Losses halved; combat simultaneous

M vs M
R1: 4-1, R2 5-2, R3: 5-3 Full losses; combat simultaneous. Nelson +1 DR

LD Vs LA Losses halved; combat simultaneous
R1 LD: 5-1 (able to bring guns to full bear); LA: 4-1 (guns at an angle during approach)
The Linear Defender gets a withdraw roll option reflecting sail/rigging damage to the Linear Attacking fleet; must roll a 1 on d6 to succeed. For every point of morale damage done to the attacking fleet, this increases the withdraw roll by one. So if the Linear Attacker takes 1.50 morale damage, the defender can withdraw on a 1 or a 2.
R2 LD5-1; LA-5-1
Linear Defender gets a withdraw roll option; must roll a 1 on d6 to succeed. For every point of morale damage done to the attacking fleet reflecting sail/rigging damage to the attacking fleet, this increases the withdraw roll by one. So if the Linear Attacker has taken 2.50 morale damage, the Linear defender can withdraw on a 1 -3.
R3 LD5-1; LA-5-2
Linear Defender gets a withdraw roll option; must roll a 1 on d6 to succeed. For every point of morale damage done to the attacking fleet reflecting sail/rigging damage to the attacking fleet, this increases the withdraw roll by one. So if the attacker has taken 2.50 morale damage, the defender can withdraw on a 1 -3. Higher damage by Linear Attacker at this stage reflects firing into the hull, vice the sails that the Linear Defender is assumed to be firing at.

M vs LA/LD
Round 1
R1: LA/LD shoots first on 5-2 table; M shoots next on 2-1 Table
M then attempts to close. Must roll a 1-2 to close. Nelson can subtract 1 or 2 to this roll. If he does, then this number is subtracted from his casualty roll.
If close fails, Linear Attack/Defender gets a withdraw roll option; must roll a 1 on d6 to succeed. For every point of morale damage done to the attacking fleet reflecting sail/rigging damage to the attacking fleet, this increases the withdraw roll by one. So if the attacker has taken 2.50 morale damage, the defender can withdraw on a 1 -3.
Losses halved round 1

Round 2
No Close
R2: LA/LD shoots first 5-2 table; M: 3-1 Table
Losses halved round 2 if no close
M then attempts to close. Must roll a 1-3 to close. Nelson can subtract 1 or 2 to this roll. If he does, then this number is subtracted from his casualty roll. If close fails, Linear Attack/Defender gets a withdraw roll option; must roll a 1 on d6 to succeed. For every point of morale damage done to the attacking fleet reflecting sail/rigging damage to the attacking fleet, this increases the withdraw roll by one. So if the attacker has taken 2.50 morale damage, the defender can withdraw on a 1 -3.
Close:
R2: Full losses; combat simultaneous. Nelson +1 DR
LA/LD: 4-1 M: 5-2

Round 3
No Close
R3: LA/LD shoots first 5-2 table; M: 3-1 Table
Losses halved round 3 if no close
M then attempts to close. Must roll a 1-3 to close. Nelson can subtract 1 or 2 to this roll. If he does, then this number is subtracted from his casualty roll. If close fails, Linear Attack/Defender gets a withdraw roll option; must roll a 1 on d6 to succeed. For every point of morale damage done to the attacking fleet reflecting sail/rigging damage to the attacking fleet, this increases the withdraw roll by one. So if the attacker has taken 2.50 morale damage, the defender can withdraw on a 1 -3.
Close:
R3: Full losses; combat simultaneous. Nelson +1 DR
LA/LD: 4-1 M: 5-2


In all combat options after 3 rounds of combat where neither side breaks all unbroken fleets may retreat to nearest friendly port.

In all combats where one side breaks, the other side may pursue the losing fleet to the nearest friendly port and enter the Blockade Box.

½ of all casualties in inflicted on broken enemy fleets are prizes. These may be rebuilt to full strength by the capturing player at ½ cost.

½ of all casualties in unbroken fleets may be rebuilt in the nearest friendly port at half cost.

Light ships count as ½ ships for combat and loss calculations.

In the case of running a blockade, the escaping fleet tries to roll a 1-2 to get away. Side with more light ships have a +1 evasion; 200% light ships means +2 evasion.

If the evader loses, he must fight as the LA versus the Linear Defender, where the Linear Defender (the Blockader) gets to fire first in every round. If the evader does not win this combat, he must return to port. If the battle goes another day, new chits are drawn.


best
Mardonius

Well, I suppose Marshall needed something to do between 2 and 4AM, other than workingonthe things that are, you know, already broken...

Todd

Mardonius, you've posted something I agree with.  What's wrong?

Anyway, have you thought about:

* The reason British crews tended to win battles heavily against the French, and cause significantly higher crew casualties and sunk ships, was essentially LA vs LD when they had the wind gauge.  Wind gauge when you are firing down helps you because your ships are heeled towards the opponent's line and hence your guns aim down, towards hulls, etc.  Some kind of bonus there to the LA side when they have the wind gauge perhaps?

Agree with the Nelson modifiers for closing M vs LD -- he did so by making his captains hold their fire, which means they tended not to inflict many casualties until they broke the line but when they did break the line (and they did regularly) enemy losses were devastating.

There really is no escape for a ship or line that's been crossed by an enemy with a decent broadside, especially a square rigger, and worse when you're downwind (lost the wind gauge).  Once the enemy starts raking up your stern, you can't bear off or round up (come into the wind or turn away from it) easily without a change of sail configuration, and that means sending men aloft which means they can't man the guns at the same time, and the enemy probably has riflemen in their tops as well which means you're basically just sitting there under their guns.  You can have an entire line of ships suffering the same fate from a reasonably small number of enemy ships, provided their gunners are good enough, so in some of these situations the casualties in your fleet can be very high as a proportion of the enemy fleet (hence Trafalgar where the British netted nearly as many French/Spanish ships lost as the British took into the battle).  Not sure how you play that too but I think the casualty factors for M vs broken LD/LA need to be upped.


* If you're going to use Nelson as a modifier, his biggest advantage in battle was that his opponents had no idea about what he was about to do.  Hence Trafalgar which was essentially M vs LD.  His ability to pick the opponent's defence was what won him that battle as well as Aboukir Bay.  Not sure how you'd play that.

* Trafalgar was M vs LD with a successful close on the part of the British (OK it helped that the French/Spanish were on a lee shore and could do stuff all about that).  Not sure if Aboukir Bay was M or LA vs LD but anyway, it was a similar issue compounded even further by shallow water and ships being at anchor.  I'm not sure that the side in LD firing at a successfully closed M side should get as high as 4-1.  This is your classic 1-1 situation, you're stuffed and you know it (you could say the Spanish lost at Trafalgar partially because they knew they were going to lose, the French figured it out after a while but their stupidity carried them past that point).

* What about lee shores?  Blockade run battles?  Weather conditions?

Hi Del:

I suspect as we go along we will find that we agree on a lot more than we disagree on. Starting with, of course, that the current naval system is not a success. Of course, the EiA board game version was not a success either so no onus on anyone involved in the programming/design of the EiANW Version

I am not claiming that what I put below is anywhere near a 100% solution... but it is pretty close to an 80% solution. I appreciate your comments, as they would help close that last 20%, or so I reckon. The rest is politics, which is indeed the toughest part.

I'll make an effort to answer your perspectives below.

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
The reason British crews tended to win battles heavily against the French, and cause significantly higher crew casualties and sunk ships, was essentially LA vs LD when they had the wind gauge.  Wind gauge when you are firing down helps you because your ships are heeled towards the opponent's line and hence your guns aim down, towards hulls, etc.  Some kind of bonus there to the LA side when they have the wind gauge perhaps?
ORIGINAL: delatbabel

I left this out for the reason that the LD would have a complimentary advantage in shooting at the sails, thereby limiting the damage inflicted by the less maneuverable LA, at least until Round 3 when the still exisitng LA guns are close. The LA has an advantage then. One man's opinion.

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
Agree with the Nelson modifiers for closing M vs LD -- he did so by making his captains hold their fire, which means they tended not to inflict many casualties until they broke the line but when they did break the line (and they did regularly) enemy losses were devastating.
ORIGINAL: delatbabel

Concur. I have tried to capture this in the tables, but I'd like to see it war gamed out. May be doing so in my spare time by running some quick programs.

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
There really is no escape for a ship or line that's been crossed by an enemy with a decent broadside, especially a square rigger, and worse when you're downwind (lost the wind gauge).  Once the enemy starts raking up your stern, you can't bear off or round up (come into the wind or turn away from it) easily without a change of sail configuration, and that means sending men aloft which means they can't man the guns at the same time, and the enemy probably has riflemen in their tops as well which means you're basically just sitting there under their guns.  You can have an entire line of ships suffering the same fate from a reasonably small number of enemy ships, provided their gunners are good enough, so in some of these situations the casualties in your fleet can be very high as a proportion of the enemy fleet (hence Trafalgar where the British netted nearly as many French/Spanish ships lost as the British took into the battle).
ORIGINAL: delatbabel

Good points. Maybe strike the escape option after closing melee. Conversely, some did escape at both Aboukir and Trafalgar. So I guess it comes down to survive or escape. Maybe it should be kept in though as the chance (1 in 6 or 1 in 3) is not that high.

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
Not sure how you play that too but I think the casualty factors for M vs broken LD/LA need to be upped.
ORIGINAL: delatbabel

Check out some of the ship on ship battles within the general fleet action. The Redoubtable vs Victory is a good example They were very bloody on both sides. So I think the higher meele tables for the LD should hold. I reckon that the British superior morale and the Nelson +1 should carry them through. But a thought did occur to me that may capture what you are getting at here... I think that the French +1 for LD should be struck (removed) if the Melee attacker closes. The battle is now a meele with local superiority for the M over the LD/LA.

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
* If you're going to use Nelson as a modifier, his biggest advantage in battle was that his opponents had no idea about what he was about to do.  Hence Trafalgar which was essentially M vs LD.  His ability to pick the opponent's defence was what won him that battle as well as Aboukir Bay.  Not sure how you'd play that.
ORIGINAL: delatbabel

Aboukir Bay is a tough one due to the castle, the depths, the anchoring, the depleted French crews (if I remember correctly). Probably best to leave it as a M vs linear defense. Same for Trafalgar.

I'd war game some simulations to see what works best.

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
* What about lee shores?  Blockade run battles?  Weather conditions?
ORIGINAL: delatbabel

I tried to capture the blockade battle in my earlier note (see the bottom). Just an idea. I would probably abstract our the lee shores and the weather conditions into the die roll modifiers for the Brits.


best
Mardonius

What does everybody think of the EiH naval combat system?
(Don't read too much into this question because I plan NO major naval changes until we get PBEM moving quicker) BUT I am curious...
 

Hi Marshall:

My opinion is that it has a lot of good in it, but the five operational chits are excessive. Due to the nature of Naval Combat, one can see the enemy forming up at some distance. Three operational chits -- as per the General article -- should suffice. There are a few other aspects that make it unwieldy like the changing morales, galleys etc.

I would try and keep any replacement system simple. Combat option chits, evasion, blockades, morale based combat, transport, basing ranges but not a whole lott of fluff.

Thank you
Mardonius

I'm with Mardonius suggestions, but most important to keep it simple, fast and balanced.

Although i have only tiny idea of how your suggestion is balanced.
This is one of the options im alot more open to consider needing a change.
 
I would change more light ships to be 1.5* more.  having a couple more light ships should not have as much effect
And 2* more +2 might be ok still.
 
Regards
Bresh

ORIGINAL: bresh

Although i have only tiny idea of how your suggestion is balanced.
This is one of the options im alot more open to consider needing a change.

I would change more light ships to be 1.5* more.  having a couple more light ships should not have as much effect
And 2* more +2 might be ok still.

Regards
Bresh

You are correct here Bresh.

HEY, SLEEP IS FOR THE WEAK! Are you saying that M.E. is weak???

(Yes, I was yelling. That was done in my most drill sergeant-y voice.)
Jason

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Well, I suppose Marshall needed something to do between 2 and 4AM, other than workingonthe things that are, you know, already broken...

Todd

More chrome! More chrome!

As an option, I like the General's Naval Combat system, like Mardonius said.
I think that the EiH stuff was pretty good too, as an option.

Jason

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

What does everybody think of the EiH naval combat system?
(Don't read too much into this question because I plan NO major naval changes until we get PBEM moving quicker) BUT I am curious...

And yes, we'd have to playtest it.

Indeed, and extensively. So any Naval battle system should be only included AS AN OPTION and after other EIA issues
- NAVAL EVASION AND PURSUIT ANYONE ? - have been solved.

Here, I just want to point out an important asymmetry between naval and land operations:

1.
The game is built with two dominant powers, France and GB, which as a consequence have the highest VPs requirement.
France has, by far (morale, mobility, leaders and sheer numbers) the better land military and the highest
manpower influx. On money grounds it rivals GB.
GB enjoys a different kind of power: while it has almost no land forces to match France, it enjoys an almost impregnable position defended by its Naval superiority.

2.
The land combat system is of the scissor-rock-paper kind. That means that even France can occasionally lose a battle
by a bad chit pick. Still, winning a single battle against France it is not enough to win the war. Therefore France superiority is enforced as an average: it will win much wars since, on average, it wins much more battles.

3.
The EIA naval combat system does not have a similar scissor-rock-paper structure. It is indeed more deterministic,
so that GB can have a more scientific approach on the amount of ships needed to almost surely win a naval battle.
Now you are talking of implementing a similar scissor-rock-paper system for naval battles. But you have to keep in mind that, especially when the Lille crossing arrow is active, GB cannot win any war by winning much more naval battles then losing. It is indeed enough TO LOOSE A SINGLE BATTLE TO LOOSE THE ENTIRE WAR AND GAME: lose a battle in the channel while the Grand Armee waits in Lille and you will soon have to surrender unconditionally to France.
A careful France player will strip you either of Wales or Scotland. Then he will plant an army there to be sure you will never enjoy anymore your inland security -> game over for GB for just losing a single naval battle.

4.
You also propose to keep secret fleet strength as corps strength. Again, this is not going to work: GB needs to know
the strength of enemy fleets to blockade them: on setup, for instance, a careful British player can attain, by blockading France ships, a chance between 83% and 92% to keep French fleets bottled in ports. Make fleet strength secret, and a smart French player will spread his forces in many different ports. Should the British fail to guess real forces distribution, and a Franch fleet could force the blockade, take the channel and allow Nappy to cross the channel as early as march 1805...

5.
You see, the game balance is such that GB alone could never, never force France to surrender. You cannot win a war by naval dominance alone. It typically needs a three powers coalition (i.e. GB, Prussia, Austria) to give France a serious threat, and 4 powers (the 3 above + Russia) to clearly overpower it.
Symmetrically, France alone as a wafer thin chance to bring down a savvy GB player. It needs a superior coalition to bring down GB: France, Russia and Spain together can easily do it, while France plus only one between Spain and Russia can give a threat to GB. Unfortunately, adding more uncertainty on single naval battles is going to alter things in a pretty unpredictable way.

This balance is central and essential to EIA, and by NO WAY any new naval combat rules should alter it.

Hello Ashtar:

Your comments are clearly thought out and contain many cogent points. However, I think there are some assumptions behind them that, to a degree, undermine there validity to a degree. I'd like to point these out for further discussion, if I may.

Original Ashtar

And yes, we'd have to playtest it.

Indeed, and extensively. So any naval battle system should be only included AS AN OPTION and after other EIA issues
- NAVAL EVASION AND PURSUIT ANYONE? - have been solved.
Original Ashtar

I am planning on preparing a statistical matrix on battle results between potential opposing fleets. This should expedite the play test process. It should take me about two/three weeks as I have some professional commitments.

Indeed, as an option. I suspect that most players will find this option amenable once they know that it works. I am not sure that your comment on order precedence concerning Naval Evasion and Pursuit is relevant. If you read my proposed model, these are included in the model.

ORIGINAL: Ashtar
3. The EIA naval combat system does not have a similar scissor-rock-paper structure. It is indeed more deterministic, so that GB can have a more scientific approach on the amount of ships needed to almost surely win a naval battle.
Now you are talking of implementing a similar scissor-rock-paper system for naval battles. But you have to keep in mind that, especially when the Lille crossing arrow is active, GB cannot win any war by winning much more naval battles then losing. It is indeed enough TO LOOSE A SINGLE BATTLE TO LOOSE THE ENTIRE WAR AND GAME: lose a battle in the channel while the Grand Armee waits in Lille and you will soon have to surrender unconditionally to France.
A careful France player will strip you either of Wales or Scotland. Then he will plant an army there to be sure you will never enjoy anymore your inland security -> game over for GB for just losing a single naval battle."
ORIGINAL: Ashtar

There is an underlying assumption in your approach that the scientific approach of GB having a full knowledge of enemy fleets is ideal and realistic. I don't think this is true. Read the Keegan Book on Military Intelligence in War and you will have an idea how you might be mistaken. Moreover, I don't think the game designers had this intention, witness the general dissatisfaction with the naval rules from publication until the present day.

The three choices I put forward -- Linear Attack, Linear Defense, and Melee were, basically, the three real choices that fleets had at that time. Until Nelson, only the former two. Great Britain should win most battles of these types, and is set to do so based on the system I propose. Only play testing/modeling the play test parameters will prove it out. But there should be a chance for a French/Spanish etc victory over the British through luck or, as you point out, evasion. Nothing in war is certain. Therefore, the deterministic model you adhere too is not the best model.

ORIGINAL: Ashtar
4.
You also propose to keep secret fleet strength as corps strength. Again, this is not going to work: GB needs to know
the strength of enemy fleets to blockade them: on setup, for instance, a careful British player can attain, by blockading France ships, a chance between 83% and 92% to keep French fleets bottled in ports. Make fleet strength secret, and a smart French player will spread his forces in many different ports. Should the British fail to guess real forces distribution, and a Franch fleet could force the blockade, take the channel and allow Nappy to cross the channel as early as march 1805...
ORIGINAL: Ashtar

I would say that fleet strengths should be known at the start of the game but thereafter not known. Once again, I refer you to the Keegen book on Intelligence in War and to the fault of the mathematical certainty reasoning you propose. In war -- even when you can run multiple strikes on a target and conduct repeated BDAs (Battle Damage Assessments) -- there is no certainty that any plan will succeed. For no one in no era.


ORIGINAL: Ashtar
5.
You see, the game balance is such that GB alone could never, never force France to surrender. You cannot win a war by naval dominance alone. It typically needs a three powers coalition (i.e. GB, Prussia, Austria) to give France a serious threat, and 4 powers (the 3 above + Russia) to clearly overpower it.
Symmetrically, France alone as a wafer thin chance to bring down a savvy GB player. It needs a superior coalition to bring down GB: France, Russia and Spain together can easily do it, while France plus only one between Spain and Russia can give a threat to GB. Unfortunately, adding more uncertainty on single naval battles is going to alter things in a pretty unpredictable way.
ORIGINAL: Ashtar

I agree with all you write here except the word "Unfortunately". I think that the uncertainty of a single naval battle changing the course of the war reflects realism and, more importantly, a lot more fun to the game. Granted, the French/Spanish/Russia combined fleet or separate fleets should still have an uphill battle, but there should still be a small chance for the two and a good chance for the three combined. And don't forget the vital dynamic of GB choosing its move sequence at sea, which will enable it to beat its neighbors in detail, much like Napoleon does on land.


ORIGINAL: Ashtar
This balance is central and essential to EIA, and by NO WAY any new naval combat rules should alter it.

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

True. Balance is essential. I believe that balance can be obtained readily with all powers by the other powers combining their forces with the exception of Great Britain. Once France or Spain or Russia loses its Navy, it is nearly impossible for any power or set of powers to threaten GB. I know you know this from your experiences with Operation Agamemnon.

To establish balance, the new naval build costs need to be embraced ($7 or $8 a HS and $3 or $4 LS), naval build times need to be reduces to around 12 months for a HS and 6 months for a LS, and a more varied naval combat system with hidden fleet sizes needs to be established.

GB can not be impregnable. It was not historically. Read the contemporary writings of the time, particularly the reaction to the defeats at sea to the US frigate navy.

A good GB player will still be able to rise above his foes and achieve victory, but it should not be anything short of a near run thing. The naval system we have now is boring, staid, and -- yes – deterministic. Why would anyone want a system like that? It needs to be thrown out and replaced with a more fun and – yes, also – realistic system.

Best
Mardonius.

Ashtar, I agree with a lot of your issues, but having played both naval variants (original General version and EIH) they actually flavor the system rather than taking away from it.

Another system (may be EIH) involves getting hulks after a battle. It was interesting as GB needed a reason to keep Gib and Malta. Then people would fight over those locations to burn the hulks before they were completed, but after the money was spent to fix them.

Jason

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

And yes, we'd have to playtest it.

Indeed, and extensively. So any Naval battle system should be only included AS AN OPTION and after other EIA issues
- NAVAL EVASION AND PURSUIT ANYONE ? - have been solved.

Here, I just want to point out an important asymmetry between naval and land operations:

1.
The game is built with two dominant powers, France and GB, which as a consequence have the highest VPs requirement.
France has, by far (morale, mobility, leaders and sheer numbers) the better land military and the highest
manpower influx. On money grounds it rivals GB.
GB enjoys a different kind of power: while it has almost no land forces to match France, it enjoys an almost impregnable position defended by its Naval superiority.

2.
The land combat system is of the scissor-rock-paper kind. That means that even France can occasionally lose a battle
by a bad chit pick. Still, winning a single battle against France it is not enough to win the war. Therefore France superiority is enforced as an average: it will win much wars since, on average, it wins much more battles.

3.
The EIA naval combat system does not have a similar scissor-rock-paper structure. It is indeed more deterministic,
so that GB can have a more scientific approach on the amount of ships needed to almost surely win a naval battle.
Now you are talking of implementing a similar scissor-rock-paper system for naval battles. But you have to keep in mind that, especially when the Lille crossing arrow is active, GB cannot win any war by winning much more naval battles then losing. It is indeed enough TO LOOSE A SINGLE BATTLE TO LOOSE THE ENTIRE WAR AND GAME: lose a battle in the channel while the Grand Armee waits in Lille and you will soon have to surrender unconditionally to France.
A careful France player will strip you either of Wales or Scotland. Then he will plant an army there to be sure you will never enjoy anymore your inland security -> game over for GB for just losing a single naval battle.

4.
You also propose to keep secret fleet strength as corps strength. Again, this is not going to work: GB needs to know
the strength of enemy fleets to blockade them: on setup, for instance, a careful British player can attain, by blockading France ships, a chance between 83% and 92% to keep French fleets bottled in ports. Make fleet strength secret, and a smart French player will spread his forces in many different ports. Should the British fail to guess real forces distribution, and a Franch fleet could force the blockade, take the channel and allow Nappy to cross the channel as early as march 1805...

5.
You see, the game balance is such that GB alone could never, never force France to surrender. You cannot win a war by naval dominance alone. It typically needs a three powers coalition (i.e. GB, Prussia, Austria) to give France a serious threat, and 4 powers (the 3 above + Russia) to clearly overpower it.
Symmetrically, France alone as a wafer thin chance to bring down a savvy GB player. It needs a superior coalition to bring down GB: France, Russia and Spain together can easily do it, while France plus only one between Spain and Russia can give a threat to GB. Unfortunately, adding more uncertainty on single naval battles is going to alter things in a pretty unpredictable way.

This balance is central and essential to EIA, and by NO WAY any new naval combat rules should alter it.

Hallo Mardonius,

There is an underlying assumption in your approach that the scientific approach of GB having a full knowledge of enemy fleets is ideal and realistic. I don't think this is true. Read the Keegan Book on Military Intelligence in War and you will have an idea how you might be mistaken.

Let me give you my point of view. EIA is a GRAND STRATEGY game. This means a game where realism meets playability (i.e., you have to balance the twos whatever the Keegan says) to give us (a) an enjoyable game with (b) a pretty good flavor of the Napoleonic era. Therefore GB having "a full knowledge of enemy fleets" could not be realistic but it could indeed be ideal in a sense I will try to explain you in the next lines.

I agree with all you write here except the word "Unfortunately". I think that the uncertainty of a single naval battle changing the course of the war reflects realism and, more importantly, a lot more fun to the game. Granted, the French/Spanish/Russia combined fleet or separate fleets should still have an uphill battle, but there should still be a small chance for the two and a good chance for the three combined. And don't forget the vital dynamic of GB choosing its move sequence at sea, which will enable it to beat its neighbors in detail, much like Napoleon does on land.

I'll try to be clearer: with EIA rules GB alone cannot NEVER conquer France, while France alone is almost never able to conquer GB. IF your proposed changes shift the game to a situation in which France alone has a considerably greater chance to conquer GB, this will completely alter the game, at all levels, from military to diplomatic. This is what you should have to playtest, global effects. You think it will makes game funnier, but I strongly doubts, I am not sure that EIA games in which an incompetent GB players gets invaded by France in the first couple of years could be defined as "fun"...

I believe that balance can be obtained readily with all powers by the other powers combining their forces with the exception of Great Britain. Once France or Spain or Russia loses its Navy, it is nearly impossible for any power or set of powers to threaten GB. I know you know this from your experiences with Operation Agamemnon.

Actually this is the first time ever I am playing with GB (I usually prefer France). Let me give me a few comments based on this experience:
1. I think I could have wiped out the France fleet only thanks to a combination of (a) good political play by my side - which granted me a loyal Prussian ally - (b) bad strategical choices of the French player which placed ALL his fleets in Amsterdam. (c) The well know single
corp bug, so that his single Amsterdam guarding corp could not call for reinforce the entire Grand Armee sitting nearby.
2. Overall the French did a great mistake. Almost comparable to a GB player letting Napoleon cross the channel. It is only logical that as a consequence, I (GB) have been rewarded by a favored position. Also a French player would find in a much favorable position to win the game after he forces GB to unconditional surrender.
3. Again, Turkish fleet was almost wiped out by (a) Turkish mistakes and (b) lack of Naval evasion, which allowed me a sure surprise attack.
4. Operation Agamennon is only starting now, and I am not sure at all I will be able to ward off the combined Russian and Spanish fleets
from British shores. As a matter of fact I have to invest much of my resources to fight France and, by one game year from now, I will start to be slightly outnumbered.
[/quote]

To establish balance, the new naval build costs need to be embraced ($7 or $8 a HS and $3 or $4 LS), naval build times need to be reduces to around 12 months for a HS and 6 months for a LS, and a more varied naval combat system with hidden fleet sizes needs to be established.

I agree that increased build and money cost for HS, as much as the lack of naval evasion, to a certain extent (I still have to discover how much) tips the balance towards GB. But the solution is to restore old BALANCED EIA rules (with proper build costs and naval evasion), not to propose out of the blue changes without any testing. The extremely low building cost you propose would basically strip GB of his "almost equal to France" status.

GB can not be impregnable. It was not historically. Read the contemporary writings of the time, particularly the reaction to the defeats at sea to the US frigate navy.

This is questionable. (a) Indeed GB has been historically impregnable since the battle of Hastings. It could have been luck, it could have
been bad strategies by the French, but we cannot know for sure. As a matter of fact we have only an historical outcome. France (+ minors) alone was unable to invade GB. We just want a game which recreates that historical feeling. Thus it should be relatively rare to see a game where London is occupied. (b) In 1812 war against US, the royal navy was not fighting to defend its shores, but just fighting in some not so important backwaters. Moreover, the US navy is not the France, Russian or Spanish navy.

As a final note, I have (and I am still) played only once as GB, but I found that is a common attitude between EIA players to complain about GB supposed impregnability. Honestly, I found it a bit silly, it is just like a GB player would protest since he has not enough corps to invade France alone and would keep asking for more of them until he can field a 140 factor British army to face la Grand Armee. No, you cannot. GB cannot take Paris alone. Dot!
As I said, I am not a priori against new OPTIONAL naval rules, but I strongly oppose any shift in global power.
First of all, if you make GB more easily to invade you should recalibrate VP: lower GB and increase France. I have once read a statistics of
winning powers and it was reasonably balanced.
Secondly, once you recalibrate VP, you should extensively check and be sure that the complex political dynamics are still as fun as in original EIA when - lets say - 50% of games ends up with an occupied London early on.

best

Ashtar

Ashtar, I agree in general with the sentiment. Yes, we want a historical game. However, France never built up and utilized its navy. It never got Sweden or Denmark or Portugal or Naples on its side...well, some of them sort of, for a while. Basically, as you stated earlier a historical wargame takes a specific time period and then from that point on it becomes an alternate history game, though it should have some historical constraints and flavor.

The "England was impregnable after Hastings" is not quite true. The Dutch landed in the 1660's, but didn't bring alot of troops. Their bad. The French landed in 1797 at Fishguard, but once again, not in force. The point is that the Brits should have a HUGE advantage. They do. But, to use your argument, to make this a good and balanced game, they should not be invincible. Adding in some of the naval OPTIONS, shouldn't destroy this balance. If SP and FR still gang up on GB, there will be trouble. If you add in RU and/or TU (and they can get their navies together), then it becomes more trouble.

So, I agree with your sentiment, but I don't see the naval options to skew the game. I've played with both and one just adapts and overcomes to any changes needed.

Jason

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

Hallo Mardonius,

There is an underlying assumption in your approach that the scientific approach of GB having a full knowledge of enemy fleets is ideal and realistic. I don't think this is true. Read the Keegan Book on Military Intelligence in War and you will have an idea how you might be mistaken.

Let me give you my point of view. EIA is a GRAND STRATEGY game. This means a game where realism meets playability (i.e., you have to balance the twos whatever the Keegan says) to give us (a) an enjoyable game with (b) a pretty good flavor of the Napoleonic era. Therefore GB having "a full knowledge of enemy fleets" could not be realistic but it could indeed be ideal in a sense I will try to explain you in the next lines.

I agree with all you write here except the word "Unfortunately". I think that the uncertainty of a single naval battle changing the course of the war reflects realism and, more importantly, a lot more fun to the game. Granted, the French/Spanish/Russia combined fleet or separate fleets should still have an uphill battle, but there should still be a small chance for the two and a good chance for the three combined. And don't forget the vital dynamic of GB choosing its move sequence at sea, which will enable it to beat its neighbors in detail, much like Napoleon does on land.

I'll try to be clearer: with EIA rules GB alone cannot NEVER conquer France, while France alone is almost never able to conquer GB. IF your proposed changes shift the game to a situation in which France alone has a considerably greater chance to conquer GB, this will completely alter the game, at all levels, from military to diplomatic. This is what you should have to playtest, global effects. You think it will makes game funnier, but I strongly doubts, I am not sure that EIA games in which an incompetent GB players gets invaded by France in the first couple of years could be defined as "fun"...

I believe that balance can be obtained readily with all powers by the other powers combining their forces with the exception of Great Britain. Once France or Spain or Russia loses its Navy, it is nearly impossible for any power or set of powers to threaten GB. I know you know this from your experiences with Operation Agamemnon.

Actually this is the first time ever I am playing with GB (I usually prefer France). Let me give me a few comments based on this experience:
1. I think I could have wiped out the France fleet only thanks to a combination of (a) good political play by my side - which granted me a loyal Prussian ally - (b) bad strategical choices of the French player which placed ALL his fleets in Amsterdam. (c) The well know single
corp bug, so that his single Amsterdam guarding corp could not call for reinforce the entire Grand Armee sitting nearby.
2. Overall the French did a great mistake. Almost comparable to a GB player letting Napoleon cross the channel. It is only logical that as a consequence, I (GB) have been rewarded by a favored position. Also a French player would find in a much favorable position to win the game after he forces GB to unconditional surrender.
3. Again, Turkish fleet was almost wiped out by (a) Turkish mistakes and (b) lack of Naval evasion, which allowed me a sure surprise attack.
4. Operation Agamennon is only starting now, and I am not sure at all I will be able to ward off the combined Russian and Spanish fleets
from British shores. As a matter of fact I have to invest much of my resources to fight France and, by one game year from now, I will start to be slightly outnumbered.

To establish balance, the new naval build costs need to be embraced ($7 or $8 a HS and $3 or $4 LS), naval build times need to be reduces to around 12 months for a HS and 6 months for a LS, and a more varied naval combat system with hidden fleet sizes needs to be established.

I agree that increased build and money cost for HS, as much as the lack of naval evasion, to a certain extent (I still have to discover how much) tips the balance towards GB. But the solution is to restore old BALANCED EIA rules (with proper build costs and naval evasion), not to propose out of the blue changes without any testing. The extremely low building cost you propose would basically strip GB of his "almost equal to France" status.

GB can not be impregnable. It was not historically. Read the contemporary writings of the time, particularly the reaction to the defeats at sea to the US frigate navy.

This is questionable. (a) Indeed GB has been historically impregnable since the battle of Hastings. It could have been luck, it could have
been bad strategies by the French, but we cannot know for sure. As a matter of fact we have only an historical outcome. France (+ minors) alone was unable to invade GB. We just want a game which recreates that historical feeling. Thus it should be relatively rare to see a game where London is occupied. (b) In 1812 war against US, the royal navy was not fighting to defend its shores, but just fighting in some not so important backwaters. Moreover, the US navy is not the France, Russian or Spanish navy.

As a final note, I have (and I am still) played only once as GB, but I found that is a common attitude between EIA players to complain about GB supposed impregnability. Honestly, I found it a bit silly, it is just like a GB player would protest since he has not enough corps to invade France alone and would keep asking for more of them until he can field a 140 factor British army to face la Grand Armee. No, you cannot. GB cannot take Paris alone. Dot!
As I said, I am not a priori against new OPTIONAL naval rules, but I strongly oppose any shift in global power.
First of all, if you make GB more easily to invade you should recalibrate VP: lower GB and increase France. I have once read a statistics of
winning powers and it was reasonably balanced.
Secondly, once you recalibrate VP, you should extensively check and be sure that the complex political dynamics are still as fun as in original EIA when - lets say - 50% of games ends up with an occupied London early on.

best

Ashtar
[/quote]

Hello Ashtar:

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
page 130, see foot notes

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.

best
Mardonius

If anybody wants me to research build times, I will do so.

best
Mardonius

Im with Asthar.
Mardonious you can make as many arguments about realism as you want.
The game is not 100% realistic, however its supposed to be very balanced.
 
So no changes to costs of ships, for my part is NoNo. Just like upkeep costs.
And same goes for ship building times.
 
Regards
Bresh

Hello Bresh:

If I may point out, balance is missing now. Balance is restored with such a system and realism, although secondary, is enhanced. As it is now, if GB takes down any one other maritime power's fleet, it is nearly impossible to counter GB. And even that remote possibility (e.g. Operation Aganemnon) takes years, basically killing the game.

Once again, realism -- although a good thing -- is secondary to my effort here. Balance, as you point out, is the key.

I'd add, too, that any halfway capable GB player who uses a bit of diplomacy can keep one or more of the Naval powers on his side as most of the Balance mechanisms are found in the international relations arena.

The one area where this balance is missing is GB and its overwhelming maritime power. It should, indeed, have large advantages. But is must not be unassailable.

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…

Anyway, I’d love to hear other’s opinions. But if you could back them up with some data or facts, vice merely opining, I’d think they would be of greater value.

Best
Mardonius

If you want realism MP's wont need to DOW.
The British bombing of Copenhagen, GB never made any DOW.
The Danish King was actually down in Jutland with most of the Danish army, defending it against any possible French manuovers...

Also I remember from history lessons, Denmark could not afford building a new fleet, yet alone new ships. Instead they build a ton of gun boats.
They lacked among other things the resources like wood required for battleships. In 1805 only 2% of Denmark was covered by woods mostly scattered old useless trees.
In 1807 all oak trees got "protected" by the Danish law, and new trees just started to be planted.

Regards
Bresh