A simple and cheap way to quick fix Naval rules

Empires in Arms is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. Empires in Arms is a seven player game of grand strategy set during the Napoleonic period of 1805-1815. The unit scale is corps level with full diplomatic options

Moderator: MOD_EIA

Ashtar
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:22 pm

A simple and cheap way to quick fix Naval rules

Post by Ashtar »

Hi everyone, I am happy to see that the shipwise people here around all agree that light ships are currently too combat effective.

Since a completely revamped rock-paper-scissors sea combat system could need ages to be created, implemented and
properly tested (properly tested means running several pbem games and checking that the overall game balance
and alchemy is not lost), I reiterate my proposal of a few simple adjustment to tone down LS (light ships)
and correct some mistakes with respect to EIA. They can be implemented very quickly (as optional rules if you wish)
and many of them are just old EIA rules, so they should not need extended playtesting

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

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

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

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

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

Some explanations for the above proposals:

1-2) As I said, LS are too effective for their cost and their historical relevance.I would slightly tuning them down,
penalizing inconsistent combat formations with more LS then HS. Furthermore, I do not want to reduce their damage
capability (both as inflicting and taking losses) to 1/2 as someone suggested for two reasons: a) I am trying to
change as little as possible in order to minimize risks of ruining overall alchemy and balance. b) As stated in
EIA classic rules:
EMPIRES IN ARMS is a strategic and diplomatic game for upto 7 players that covers the Napoleonic wars from 1805 until 1815.The military counters in the game generally represent corps andfleets, with each army factor being equivalent to roughly 1000 to 2000 men and each "ship" equivalent to 1 ship of the line or a number of smaller ships of approximately equal force.

Therfore one should not think a single LS factor as a single frigate or whatsoever, but as a more effective group
of ships roughly equivalent to a ship of the line (slightly less effective in combat, more in scouting).

3) Has anyone ever witnessed an income damage to some nation targeted by piracy? I never, so I presume
something is bugged.

4) I said this a million of times: an EIA fleet is roughly composed by 1 heavy plus 1 light fleet in EIANW.
Therefore pp values and maintenance costs should be adjusted accordingly to restore the spirit of EIA rules

5) This was an optional rule in EIA. The rationale is that - as noted in this thread - EIANW suffers from a big stack
syndrome, historical naval battles tended to be much smaller then the ones taking place in EIANW. Moreover, moving
a large fleet together by sailing was not easy, to be sure everyone was with you you had to wait lost ships
effectively reducing your overall speed. A little example of how this rule could affect gameplay:
GB is at war with Spain, which keeps its fleet in Cadiz: Currently GB can safely move troops back and
forth from UK to the Mediterranean just passing with a large enough stack in front of Cadiz: the Spaniard will
never dare to attack superior GB forces. With this option in place, a huge stack with troops cannot sail anymore
between Mediterranean sea and UK (or viceversa). Moving fleets one by one, on the other hand, exposes GB to
the risk of interceptions by the Spanish forces sitting in Cadiz, so that GB has to be slightly more cunning (like
blockading Cadiz with some fleets and using the rest to move troops - but this limits the size of the army you can
transport) --> Overall a more interesting game

I hope this changes are simple enough that they could be easily included in 1.07 or 1.08 patches. Discussion on these proposals are welcomed in this thread, as much as new proposals, as long as they are extremely simple to implement, cheap and with a low impact on overall game mechanics. If you have more complex proposal, just go to the EiANW Naval Rules Redesign Working Group (NRRWG) or the Napoleonic Naval threads, they are meant for a more radical restiling

User avatar
kirk23_MatrixForum
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: A simple and cheap way to quick fix Naval rules

Post by kirk23_MatrixForum »

I agree with your proposal, the light fleets should give an increased chance of evasion and interception, plus I feel that any combat involving lights / heavies, the Lights should be -2 on the CRT.
Plus some stacking limits need to be introduced, super fleets of 70 + is not helping the game have more naval action,in fact the opposite effect is taking place because of this.
Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller
DodgyDave
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 1:31 am

RE: A simple and cheap way to quick fix Naval rules

Post by DodgyDave »

where there any fleet battles in those times, before and during EIA time frame, where more then 20 ships was used on each side? if so how big? if 20 was never used on each side, then perhaps a max that can contribute in a fleet battle should be 20 on each side, then it will not matter if GB brings 80 heavy to the battle vs 20 French heavy...
Taijian
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:18 am

RE: A simple and cheap way to quick fix Naval rules

Post by Taijian »

ORIGINAL: Ashtar


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

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

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

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

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


I like this [:)]
User avatar
kirk23_MatrixForum
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: A simple and cheap way to quick fix Naval rules

Post by kirk23_MatrixForum »

ORIGINAL: DodgyDave

where there any fleet battles in those times, before and during EIA time frame, where more then 20 ships was used on each side? if so how big? if 20 was never used on each side, then perhaps a max that can contribute in a fleet battle should be 20 on each side, then it will not matter if GB brings 80 heavy to the battle vs 20 French heavy...

During the period 1792 - 1815 Britain who as you know had the most ships of any Nation, she had two main fleets, The Channel fleet was the biggest fleet and had a maximum of 47 Heavies, (14) 3 deckers 1st & 2nd rates with a further ( 33 ) 2 decker 3rd rates, the Mediterranean fleet was Nelsons domain and his fleet varied between 15 & 35 heavies during the Napoleonic wars. So a stacking limit of 60 ships or 3 fleets per side is being very generous.That been said I don't want to detract from Ashtar's excellent quick fix sugestions.
Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller
User avatar
obsidiandrag
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:02 am
Location: Florida, USA

RE: A simple and cheap way to quick fix Naval rules

Post by obsidiandrag »

I like the stack movement but its not as easy gamewise to implement.. Like the foraging on land, if you bring them one counter at a time there is no restriction for the first marker..

ie the first moved corps can forage without the penalties of the other corps if you forage it before you move in the rest..

If you only move one fleet at a time, they will not have the movement penalty as there will only be one moving at a time. This could come into play a little with interception as you don't want one fleet moving at a time while next to an enemy fleet but other than that I'm not seeing it...

OD
User avatar
Mardonius
Posts: 654
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:04 pm
Location: East Coast

RE: A simple and cheap way to quick fix Naval rules

Post by Mardonius »

Hi Ashtar:

Per Marshall, there will be no further naval changes as of yet. I encourage you, nonetheless, to keep firing out ideas to keep the momentum up.

I would also like to extend a personal invitation to be part of a Naval Rules Redesign Working Group once we get the green light from Marshall (I know hope springs eternal). I think we could find some common ground therein.

best
Mardonius
"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan
User avatar
Marshall Ellis
Posts: 5630
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 3:00 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: A simple and cheap way to quick fix Naval rules

Post by Marshall Ellis »

YES indeed! Do not stop the thought process! When/if we get over the hump, I will start looking at fun things such as the naval combat option.
Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games


Ashtar
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:22 pm

RE: A simple and cheap way to quick fix Naval rules

Post by Ashtar »

Hi Mardonius
Per Marshall, there will be no further naval changes as of yet. I encourage you, nonetheless, to keep firing out ideas to keep the momentum up.
Oh well, I was keeping the changes minimalistic exactly to make them immediately applicable. I still think current LS cost/efficiency unbalances the game and that naval rules should be revised in two steps: a needed minimalistic change asap, and some optional and more complex rules later on.
I would also like to extend a personal invitation to be part of a Naval Rules Redesign Working Group once we get the green light from Marshall (I know hope springs eternal). I think we could find some common ground therein.

Thank you, but if you want I can act as a critical voice, as I explained before I have some basic reservation about a naval combat rock-paper-scissor approach. But maybe I am wrong [:)]
Ashtar
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:22 pm

RE: A simple and cheap way to quick fix Naval rules

Post by Ashtar »

If you only move one fleet at a time, they will not have the movement penalty as there will only be one moving at a time. This could come into play a little with interception as you don't want one fleet moving at a time while next to an enemy fleet but other than that I'm not seeing it...

Well interception is not a small thing. As I said, if you want to move troops interception is risky. But also if you want to attack an enemy stack moving one fleet at the time to the sea area where the enemy lies, this is not going to work: he could intercept and maul your fleet one at the time when they reach its sea area. So this rule would limit the maximum distance at which a big stack can attack enemies, which is not a small thing at all...
During the period 1792 - 1815 Britain who as you know had the most ships of any Nation, she had two main fleets, The Channel fleet was the biggest fleet and had a maximum of 47 Heavies, (14) 3 deckers 1st & 2nd rates with a further ( 33 ) 2 decker 3rd rates, the Mediterranean fleet was Nelsons domain and his fleet varied between 15 & 35 heavies during the Napoleonic wars. So a stacking limit of 60 ships or 3 fleets per side is being very generous.That been said I don't want to detract from Ashtar's excellent quick fix sugestions.

Well, first of all let me say that I do not think hard stacking limits are in the spirit of EIA rules, limits rather tend to be soft, see for instance the tactical maximum rating and the 4 corps max supply limit per depot (optional) rules of EIA, the latter unfortunately not implemented in EIANW (can we have it Marshall? I am tired of BIG stacks).

Therefore I would more like to see subtle mechanisms that makes big sea stacks unpractical. According to hellfire post, the total strength of the channel and Mediterranean fleets is around 70-80 HS, which is exactly what GB starts with. So the point is just to make it convenient for GB to have two fleets instead of just a big one sitting in the channel.
One thing is to make less easy for GB to move the entire stack back and forth across Gibraltar, which is achieved by the stack movement rule.

Second, the channel fleet is often oversized since GB is very nervous about the entire Grand Armee crossing from Lille: although the Lille crossing arrow could even be a GB advantage (it allows troops to quickly move back and forth with France, forcing Nappy to be careful not to venture too far in German states without watching his back), it surely also allows an unrealistic amount of troops to cross it if unguarded for only a month.
As a matter of fact I am getting convinced that the Lille crossing arrow is in contradiction with the introduction of a transport fleet: the latter has been introduced to simulate the non-warship fleet assembled by France to invade GB. Which would not be needed if the crossing arrow option is on. So there is a contradiction and it is probably better to play without the Lille arrow.

Third, the GB Mediterranean fleet was needed to protect trade routes (and communications with India, but that's another story). This is not reflected in the game. An interesting possible change would be to allow GB to trade only with ports which are not farther then 7 sea areas away from a port it controls. This would make
Gibraltar and Malta essential possessions for GB (loose them and you loose a big chunk of trade), thus forcing it to keep an active force in the Mediterranean sea...


User avatar
Mardonius
Posts: 654
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:04 pm
Location: East Coast

RE: A simple and cheap way to quick fix Naval rules

Post by Mardonius »

Hi Ashtar:

You are probaly right that there is no need for 5 choices in a naval battle... Hard to sneak up from behind some big waves... but there are nonetheless some variations that might work. Maybe the Linear Offense/Defense/Melee of the General Magazine system with PERHAPS something tricky near crossing arrows to simulate hiding a near a spit of land/bay. I don't know. These are things that could be worked out through repeated simulations.

Lets keep pressing the subject of naval rules and someday maybe our EIANW diety (akak MArshall) will be able to address these matters... Best to give him something somewhat insulated from slings and arrows though. Thus, the working group concept.

best,
Mardonius
"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan
User avatar
kirk23_MatrixForum
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: A simple and cheap way to quick fix Naval rules

Post by kirk23_MatrixForum »

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

Third, the GB Mediterranean fleet was needed to protect trade routes (and communications with India, but that's another story). This is not reflected in the game. An interesting possible change would be to allow GB to trade only with ports which are not farther then 7 sea areas away from a port it controls. This would make
Gibraltar and Malta essential possessions for GB (loose them and you loose a big chunk of trade), thus forcing it to keep an active force in the Mediterranean sea...


Hi Ashtar,
I really like the idea of protecting Gibraltar and Malta for trade, which as you say would force GB to keep an active force in the Mediterranean.
Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: A simple and cheap way to quick fix Naval rules

Post by anarchyintheuk »

ORIGINAL: DodgyDave

where there any fleet battles in those times, before and during EIA time frame, where more then 20 ships was used on each side? if so how big? if 20 was never used on each side, then perhaps a max that can contribute in a fleet battle should be 20 on each side, then it will not matter if GB brings 80 heavy to the battle vs 20 French heavy...

Quiberon (was at least 30 years before EiA time frame) Saintes, Glorius First of June, Camperdown, Trafalgar. Others as well.
bresh
Posts: 936
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:10 am

RE: A simple and cheap way to quick fix Naval rules

Post by bresh »

I think, its bit narrow minded, to say that big fleets can not happen.
Just because how things went, British did not need a big fleet to protect the channel, like the early British wins, what if they had lost those battles?

We are not bound by history.
The game is What if..

If French&Spain had won+Captured the British fleet at Trafalgar and could join up with other fleets, im sure they would had tried.

The GB historical dominance, eg Copenhagen/Trafalgar has yet to happen.

British attacked Denmark in 1801, to avoid Danish+Swedish+Russian fleets to team up, similiar joining with nations could happen in this EIANW-period.

Also, we need to be carefull, 1.06 has 2 changes witch we yet has to explore to know the effect.
Cheaper & shorter ship build, and naval evasion.

5. I think seems ok.
I dont agree on the idea about ports-trade cap, as suggested, to make GB keep a naval force in the Mediterian.
We still lack the loss of Dominance for Fr/GB. (Witch could make GB have a naval force down there to, EG Malta/Gibraltar as need).
So a change now, would be obsoulete later, when those rules are implemented.

Regards
Bresh

Tater
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 7:06 pm

RE: A simple and cheap way to quick fix Naval rules

Post by Tater »

In EiA a "ship" factor represented a naval capability and not a specific type ship. A fleet could fight, transport, evade and pursue. Why? Because a fleet was a combination of several type ships that added together had a certain capability.

The EiANW has added, in my opinion, needless complexity to what was a simple yet elegant system. I think a system that more closely mirrors the original EiA method would be much better. The piracy is useless while TS & LS add complexity not worth the effort.
Later-

Tater
AresMars
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:30 pm

RE: A simple and cheap way to quick fix Naval rules

Post by AresMars »

Here here Tater!
 
I agree that the "ship factor" makes more sense.......
Dancing Bear
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:16 pm

RE: A simple and cheap way to quick fix Naval rules

Post by Dancing Bear »

I agree with Tater on this one, and going back to the original rules would be best (maybe at a much later date, we can try the rules with chits). Light fleets and transports are a real pain. This is mostly a strategy game, and the original rules captured the strategic value of fleets quite well, even if there is little in the way of tactics.

Some have put forward well researched and elegant ideas for increasing the complexity of the naval phase, but in a game where there are maybe one to three major naval battles in the entire 10 year period, I can't see how it is worth the effort.

There's also the play test issues others mentioned. Imagine having to abondon a PBEM game after of months of play, because it was found some new naval rules, let one power run away with the game. More very mad players.
pzgndr
Posts: 3704
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Delaware

RE: A simple and cheap way to quick fix Naval rules

Post by pzgndr »

The EiANW has added, in my opinion, needless complexity to what was a simple yet elegant system. I think a system that more closely mirrors the original EiA method would be much better. The piracy is useless while TS & LS add complexity not worth the effort.

Youse guys can handle mixed corps with infantry, militia and cavalry, plus combined arms with guard, cavalry and artillery corps, and an associated complex land combat system with leaders and tactical chits, but... a similar naval game adds "needless" complexity? Too funny. I guess all the COG:EE players out there don't know how to appreciate the more "elegant" system offered by the original EiA. [8|]
Some have put forward well researched and elegant ideas for increasing the complexity of the naval phase, but in a game where there are maybe one to three major naval battles in the entire 10 year period, I can't see how it is worth the effort.

Explain then if there are only 1-3 naval battles how a few modest changes could possibly upset an otherwise dull and boring naval abstraction game? Youse guys worried there might possibly be a grand 100-200% increase in naval activitiy and you might have to consider a game with 3-9 naval battles? Whoopee. Maybe you're really worried about a Prussian Sealion invasion of England, about 130 years too soon. [:D]
maybe at a much later date, we can try the rules with chits

Marshall already indicated any naval rules enhancement OPTION is on the back burner and many other things have priority now. If and when implemented, players will have the OPTION to use them or not. It's interesting how the folks interested in OPTIONS also fully support providing the die-hard EiA grogs with the classic EiA board game map, OOB and campaign so you can play a less-complex game to your heart's content. In contrast, youse guys appear much more selfish and unreasonable towards supporting development of a computer game to accomodate ALL customers. Why is that?? Regardless, at least Marshall and Matrix do recognize the broader customer base and eventually we should all find some satisfaction, however one defines it for himself. [8D]
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
Tater
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 7:06 pm

RE: A simple and cheap way to quick fix Naval rules

Post by Tater »

Youse guys can handle mixed corps with infantry, militia and cavalry, plus combined arms with guard, cavalry and artillery corps, and an associated complex land combat system with leaders and tactical chits, but... a similar naval game adds "needless" complexity? Too funny. I guess all the COG:EE players out there don't know how to appreciate the more "elegant" system offered by the original EiA. [8|]

Complexity is OK when it brings value to the table. I am an ASL player, I know about complexity...but complexity for nothing other than complexity sake is worthless. The main purpose of fleets in EiA was to transport corp...and occasionally provide supply source...naval battles were a side issue. Why? Because the game is never decided by naval power...it is decided by politics and land campaigns. And really, that reflects how things were in the Napoleonic era.

This need to account for each and every ship built during the era makes no sense and it adds not one iota of fun to the game.
Explain then if there are only 1-3 naval battles how a few modest changes could possibly upset an otherwise dull and boring naval abstraction game? Youse guys worried there might possibly be a grand 100-200% increase in naval activitiy and you might have to consider a game with 3-9 naval battles? Whoopee. Maybe you're really worried about a Prussian Sealion invasion of England, about 130 years too soon. [:D]

The current naval system makes the game less fun...and it makes naval power more important than it really was during that era.
Later-

Tater
User avatar
Mardonius
Posts: 654
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:04 pm
Location: East Coast

RE: A simple and cheap way to quick fix Naval rules

Post by Mardonius »

Tater:

As you have addressed me in another forum, I will addresss you here.

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

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

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

best
Mardonius
"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan
Post Reply

Return to “Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815”