Advanced Naval Rules

[Camile Desmoulins]

Hello

I want to know if you will use the Naval Advanced Rules (official, of course). I think that it is a good idea, whenever there are some changes in them. The original system of the game is, perhaps, the simplest phase to play, and it´s very important. Too much important to be simplest

Thanks

[ardilla]

I agree with my countryman [:)]

The biggest "left over" in the original EiA rules is the naval phase combat rules.

It should be at least as important as the corps combat table, with less possibilities, of course. I like the advanced rules, with morale and could be great to have some other countries admirals, Nelson was not the only one!!! Is like there were only Napy and Welly in the hole game!!

What about Gravina a Villenueve, there were not as bad to do not appeare in the game.

JMO.

[Black Hat]

Like GB needs more advantages. When ever the groups I've played with used those things, GB was imposible to beat.[:'(]

[Camile Desmoulins]

For me, the problem of the Naval Advanced Rules is that Great Britain is invincible (it's not far from the reality, but it subtracts him balance to the game. It's the eternal debat: faithful reflection of the reality, but boring, or the reality used only like inspiration and amusing game), and other questions. Would I alter it allowing France, Denmark and Sweden a morals something higher (3,25?) and maintaining that of Holland in 4. The other question that would apply is to limit the troops/fleet that moves to 10 factors/fleet and that the cavalry and artillery were worth twice as much (v.g.: máx. troops in corps/fleet: 8I and 1C, or 6I and 2C, etc.)

Also, I have seen that in screenshots Privateers appears. I don't like the idea, I believe that there are other priorities. It sounds EIH[:-]

[Pippin]

I am not sure why so many people argue about fairness. War is not fair. But besdies that point, many players use the bid system to balance out the game. If you think Britain is impossible to beat, then just bid low enough for her and you will get her.

[Camile Desmoulins]

I speak about balance, not about fair. For me, the problem that Great Britain disappears for the defeat it is not question of fair, but rather it breaks the balance of the game. On the other hand, if Great Britain is sure of its naval victory in any situation, the balance of the game also feels the effect. The weapons of Great Britain should be the diplomacy (mainly this), the money and the fleet, not a very little balanced rule that makes him invincible. Great Britain should almost always to be victorios in the sea, but should always fear the defeat [:)]

[DoomedMantis]

Just because GB won those Naval battles doesnt mean they should always win them

Different wind conditions, Commander having a bad day, changing tide, mistakes, magazine explosion, all these things and more would mean that a battle could be won and lost.

Think of the consequences if Trafalga and the Nile were won by France. Quite conceivable both.

[Le Tondu]

ORIGINAL: DoomedMantis

Just because GB won those Naval battles doesnt mean they should always win them

Different wind conditions, Commander having a bad day, changing tide, mistakes, magazine explosion, all these things and more would mean that a battle could be won and lost.

Think of the consequences if Trafalga and the Nile were won by France. Quite conceivable both.

Don't you know that the Brits are Supermen? (That is, until they came to this side of the Atlantic.)

In my opinion, wargame rules should depict each side at their best and not necessarily depict the results of history. The point is, why even play the game if the conclusion is already decided before you start? That's no fun at all.

[Nordiska]

I hope when this game comes out, that "Advanced Naval rules" are an option to click on (among others) when you start a campagin.

[Le Tondu]

ORIGINAL: Nordiska

I hope when this game comes out, that "Advanced Naval rules" are an option to click on (among others) when you start a campagin.

Blaspemy, blasphemy!

Yet, I'm with you on that. [:)]

Still, that is the crux of the matter. Isn't it? There are those who would not ever allow you to have any options. They want EiA to stay as the original boardgame on computer.

Good luck to you Nordiska. I hope you get your wish.

[ardilla]

I agree with your Nordiska, as well other rules, it should be nice to have an option screen to fill in by all the players, at the same time as the bidding, at the start of the game, so the game could make a counting of the different options as well as the bidding, giving back to all the players the final bididing result and options for the game and start it.

I dont know if I am asking for too much [:'(]

Regards.

[Nordiska]

Now that would be nice, if all seven players could click on the options avaliable; If an option gets a majority then it is a rule for that game.[8|]

[Camile Desmoulins]

I also hope that there are options and that we can play like the original game. I don't hope that this work as mere computer support (for that this ADC and similar), but yes that comes closer the maximum to the original game.

But let us remember that the original made several new official rules, it modified things, and develop very complicated forums, because the game it is very complicated itself. [>:]

The Naval Advanced Rules are a problem, although you can play and fun without them. But I'm woerried more about the question of the diplomacy, that I see the center of the mechanic of the game. The war is the continuation of the diplomacy for other means, remember

[gazfun]

hi doomed mantis
If you like playing Empires at Arms maybe we could get together electronically Im with a few guys in Brissy who play it my email at the moment
GArry

[ardilla]

Yes, but before the bidding screen, so p.e. you will have to do this to start a game:

1) Each player checks the optional rules he wishes.

2) Each player bid for the countries (p.e. all the players have a total bidding amount that distributes among all the countries, AND, every country has a maximum bidding)

3) After each player had sumited his bidding and optional rules the main computer returns the results of the biddings to all players and the rules with the final countries and rules result (As clear as possible with all the players votes so everyone is happy and doesnt complain or think about cheating

That is my "dream", and I think is not too difficult to implement, at least for patch 1.
Regards.

[eg0master]

Doesn't the options affect the bidding?
So you have to resolve the options before bidding. Probably someone wnat to play some country with some options but not if the options are not used.

[ardilla]

Ok, you maybe right, but I always played that before choosing, drawing or bidding for a nation we had discussed the optional rules.

Another problem to be done separatly will be that it will take 2 emails from everybody, and that you will not be able to bid till everybody had voted the optional rules and that the main computer of the game had resolved and answered the results of voting.

Anyway, for bidding (doesnt matter if it is at the same time or not) I will do it like this.
Of course, allowing Economic Manipulation (this should be voted I guess or by default choosen by the player with the main computer if all other players agree!!)

Country VP Maximum bid allowed (10% p.e.)
Austria 330 33
France 400 40
GB 370 37
Prussia 320 32
Spain 325 33
Russia 335 34
Turkey 315 32

So, I will give to every player a total of 61 VP to bid for all countries.
Why?
The highest value to bid is FR (40) so 40+6+5+4+3+2+1 = 61
Because:
No one can repeat a bid ammount in each country and you have to bid at least 1 point for each country.

This will help that if 2 players go crazy for FR and bid like that (40, 6, 5, ...) the looser will probably take the less bid country, so I guess they will think twice to bid like that.
And of course, FR, from my own experience is the most wanted country to play.

Of course, the other problem is if he doesnt want to play, but there is nothing we can do about it....

[Ozie]

Ardilla

I think your system is TOO restrictive in the sum of bids and too lenient for individual countries. What if I want to bid:

France 32
England 26
Russia 21
Austria 13
Prussia 8
Spain 3
Turkey 1

This equals 104 points in my bids but none of my bids is unreasonable. Infact they are realistic bids for games I've played/read about.

I agree there should be a cap for highest bid for every country. But as the results are counted in specific order they dont have to be as high as the 10% of VPs for the last countries. Because last player always gets Turkey there is no point bidding more than 7 seven in any case for Turkey. You'll always get it for 7. Why 7? Because if you really want to make sure you get Turkey you have to use every other low number for some other nation not to get them.

It doens't work like that for Spain but I think around 15 for maximum bib for Spain could be reasonable. And about 20 for Prussia.

For the other MPs your highest bid systems seem good to me.

But your total amount is too low.

[pfnognoff]

Returning back to Advanced naval rules discusion. I think we still need to see how things play out with the automated handling of the Naval interception phase. It could prove that GB would not be unbeatable, but very easy to defeat if the SP/FR alliance moves their fleet counters correctly...

2 cents

[ardilla]

Thanks Ozie, about the total amount (61) and the maximum for each country (10%) it was just an example to balance the bidding, of course it is not perfect, I figure out in 10 min, but overall it is the way I WOULD like it to BE.

Thats all, just my 3 cents and hopping that with your ideas and experience as well as everybody else in this forum we can get a realistic and good bidding system, so MG just have to implement a little program and dont loose time thinking how to do it [;)]

Regards and have a nice weekend everybody.