Matrix Games Forums

A look through the keyhole #10!The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!Paypal System UpdateDistant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!Armageddon invasion starts in 2014Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!Servers UpdateThe Deal goes Fourth!		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Missing rule: Naval Evasion

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empire in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Missing rule: Naval Evasion Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Missing rule: Naval Evasion - 4/25/2008 2:31:13 PM   
Ashtar

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline 		Lets give this issue a topic on his own:

I noticed that the Naval combat evasion rule is apparently missing in EIANW. From EIA rules:

6.3.2 POSSIBLE EVASIONS: The major power upon which an attack is declared may attempt to evade unless the attack is caused by an interception or is in a port or blockade box. If the evasion is unsuccessful a combat will be fought. If the evasion is successful, the phasing player may not then attempt to attack any other stack remaining in the area.

6.3.2.1: Every time the phasing major power intends to attack a stack, the non-phasing stack may attempt naval evasion. This is done by the non-phasing stack's controlling player rolling a die. if a "1" or "2" is rolled, the non-phasing stack evades combat and is retreated according to the naval retreat after combat rules (see 6.3.5.1-treat the evading side as if it were the loser of a combat and the attacking side as if it were the winner).

6.3.2.2: There are no political points for a successful evasion.


If not already in current EINW, I think it could be easily implemented it as a three choices order given to your fleets during your naval phase (adding them to the orders window as for the intercept orders):
a) Do not attempt evasion (standard status)
b) Attempt it only against superior enemy forces
c) Always attempt it

thanks
Post #: 1
RE: Missing rule: Naval Evasion - 4/25/2008 3:13:14 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 653
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: Watertown, NY
Status: offline 		Good catch Ashtar and great suggested solution.

(in reply to Ashtar)
Post #: 2
RE: Missing rule: Naval Evasion - 4/25/2008 11:06:48 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5566
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		This might be a little difficult since we already have a set for orders (Interception) and we looked into this a ways back. The problem is that we may have to change the DB struct to accomodate the new order slot for evasion. We already have an order slot for interception which means we need to add another slot for evasion orders. While not impossible, we might run the risk of obsoleting older games. It would need to be looked into at a pretty in depth level.

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 3
RE: Missing rule: Naval Evasion - 4/25/2008 11:46:01 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 1188
Joined: 3/18/2004
Status: offline 		If nothing else, you could simply link interception and evasion orders, since a player's intent is to either be aggressive or passive.  For example, always intercept could be matched with never evade and vice versa.  Intercept only if superior force could be matched with evade if inferior force.  Would we really need something more complicated?

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 4
RE: Missing rule: Naval Evasion - 4/28/2008 1:03:14 PM   
Ashtar

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
This might be a little difficult since we already have a set for orders (Interception) and we looked into this a ways back. The problem is that we may have to change the DB struct to accomodate the new order slot for evasion. We already have an order slot for interception which means we need to add another slot for evasion orders. While not impossible, we might run the risk of obsoleting older games. It would need to be looked into at a pretty in depth level.


Uhm. I see a potential problem here.
I will try to explain the importance of this rule.

A common British tactic to achieve Naval dominance is surprise attack: declare war on a potential future enemy with some of his fleet at sea, set your naval movement order to move before him and concentrate your entire fleet on a quick attack on his fleets. This is especially devastating against Spain - suppose he is tempted from joining France against GB - since you can move after France (thus using your fleet to keep the French one blockaded) and before Spain (thus attacking his ships with all your fleets). Next month, you simply switch your movement order to first and resume the blockade of the French fleet.
This way, with a single strike you can be sure to inflict heavy losses on your target (typically between 13 and 26 ships), while immediately recovering the pp's lost to declare War.

Naval evasion strongly limits this tactic, offering a 2 out of six chances for this surprise attack to fail. This way, you are not sure of recovering your lost pp's and you risk having to face a new enemy fleet at full strength. Without this rule, no fleet other then British will ever be safe outside a port, especially if within 7 sea zones from the Channel.



< Message edited by Ashtar -- 4/28/2008 1:04:40 PM >

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 5
RE: Missing rule: Naval Evasion - 6/15/2008 3:04:07 PM   
Ashtar

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Marshall:
This might be a little difficult since we already have a set for orders (Interception) and we looked into this a ways back. The problem is that we may have to change the DB struct to accomodate the new order slot for evasion. We already have an order slot for interception which means we need to add another slot for evasion orders. While not impossible, we might run the risk of obsoleting older games. It would need to be looked into at a pretty in depth level.


Marshall, I realized a cheap solution to the problem:
99% of situations, intercept orders and evasion ones are logically going to be same (if I do not want to intercept a non-invading enemy force I doubt I will wish to stand for a combat if I am attacked by them).

So just take evasion orders from the intercept ones, if you set "intercept all" you will never attempt to evade,
if you set intercept weaker forces you will only try to evade superior forces, while if you set no interception (or intercept invasion forces) you will alway attempt evasion.

This way you will not need new slots and you will keep existing database structure, maybe just change the names for clarity:
intercept all -> intercept all/do not evade
intercept weaker forces -> intercept weaker forces/evade superior forces

Of course is ESSENTIAL that an evading force get retreated to a friendly port and not left unharmed in the original sea zone.

(in reply to Ashtar)
Post #: 6
RE: Missing rule: Naval Evasion - 6/15/2008 4:43:12 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 1188
Joined: 3/18/2004
Status: offline 		Didn't I suggest this 2 months ago in the post above?

(in reply to Ashtar)
Post #: 7
RE: Missing rule: Naval Evasion - 6/15/2008 4:49:56 PM   
Ashtar

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Didn't I suggest this 2 months ago in the post above?


Ooops, you are completely right pzgndr, my fault...

So it is two months a solution is around, please Marshall, can you do something ASAP (==1.03 ?)


(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 8
RE: Missing rule: Naval Evasion - 6/16/2008 4:18:15 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1140
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		I suggest that someone write this up and add it to the bug tracker.

It's unlikely to get done for 1.03 because Marshall has slated that release to incorporate mostly AI fixes. No new game features are being added. The bug tracker is, however, collecting a list of feature requests that will be looked at for future releases (e.g. new political combinations, alternative dominant powers, TCP/IP, etc). So add this to the list and Marshall will schedule it for a future release.


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Ashtar)
Post #: 9
RE: Missing rule: Naval Evasion - 6/16/2008 10:13:10 AM   
Ashtar

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline
quote:

I suggest that someone write this up and add it to the bug tracker.


There is a thread with a list of mostly needed *rules fix*, can't you just copy and past it to the bug tracker?
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1810101

quote:

It's unlikely to get done for 1.03 because Marshall has slated that release to incorporate mostly AI fixes. No new game features are being added. The bug tracker is, however, collecting a list of feature requests that will be looked at for future releases (e.g. new political combinations, alternative dominant powers, TCP/IP, etc). So add this to the list and Marshall will schedule it for a future release.


But Marshall is taking care of pp per loaned corps in 1.03, so maybe he can slip this one too in 1.03. Fix this and 1/2 pp per fleet and the Naval rules will be finally balanced --> game fully playable. --> Very happy costumers

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 10
RE: Missing rule: Naval Evasion - 6/16/2008 10:44:43 AM   
JanSorensen

 

Posts: 3677
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline 		I believe its already in the bug tracker as issue 075 - though I suppose more information cannot hurt.

(in reply to Ashtar)
Post #: 11
RE: Missing rule: Naval Evasion - 6/16/2008 2:54:27 PM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1140
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

I believe its already in the bug tracker as issue 075 - though I suppose more information cannot hurt.


Yes it is. Adding some more information and the suggested fix would be an idea.


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to JanSorensen)
Post #: 12
RE: Missing rule: Naval Evasion - 6/17/2008 12:52:11 PM   
eske

 

Posts: 258
Joined: 1/2/2008
Status: offline 		Original EiA also contains the rule, that loser can elect to let victor retreat him to an adjacent sea area.
Anybody found a cheap solution for that ??

I imagine the point is that friendly ports may be far off in an undesirably direction (if within 7 areas at all), or you can still invade from any adjacent areas or it preserves your interception options or ...

Just to fend off arguments on irrelevance in advance

Any thoughts ?

/eske

_____________________________

Alea iacta est

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 13
RE: Missing rule: Naval Evasion - 6/17/2008 1:43:18 PM   
Ashtar

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Original EiA also contains the rule, that loser can elect to let victor retreat him to an adjacent sea area.
Anybody found a cheap solution for that ??


Never understood/liked that rule. And never used it in my games.

quote:

I imagine the point is that friendly ports may be far off in an undesirably direction (if within 7 areas at all), or you can still invade from any adjacent areas or it preserves your interception options or ...


Think of that: if you move in advance of GB and manage to move an invading fleet (with troop loaded on it) in the straits of Dover GB will be utterly powerless to repel the invasion. Even if they move their fleet to defend their shore and they win the naval battle, you can still force him to retreat to an adjacent sea area. And all adiacent sea areas still allow for a disembark on GB soil.

This imply that if GB does not block all enemy fleets (something difficult if Spain and France join forces) there will always be a good chance of being invaded.

I would prefer not to see it in EIANW.

(in reply to eske)
Post #: 14
RE: Missing rule: Naval Evasion - 6/17/2008 2:47:56 PM   
eske

 

Posts: 258
Joined: 1/2/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashtar
...
Think of that: if you move in advance of GB and manage to move an invading fleet (with troop loaded on it) in the straits of Dover GB will be utterly powerless to repel the invasion. Even if they move their fleet to defend their shore and they win the naval battle, you can still force him to retreat to an adjacent sea area. And all adiacent sea areas still allow for a disembark on GB soil.

You (GB) are not powerless. You just has to prevent him from ending his move in the channel by intercepting. And if GB has major fleet in the channel you get at least two chances. Then of course you have to hit him again for a second retreat, so he must chose between losing his invasion forces in the Atlantic (and a possible third naval loss to GB next turn) or retreat to harbor, where he can be blocked. Most likely it will be more complex than this tho'
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashtar
This imply that if GB does not block all enemy fleets (something difficult if Spain and France join forces) there will always be a good chance of being invaded.

I would prefer not to see it in EIANW.

Wether it is a good chance is arguable. Of course depending on circumstances, but a well prepared, not caught of guard, GB can reduce the chance of landing forces in GB to below 25%. And the cost is likely to be two major naval losses no matter how it ends. In PP GB can afford to surrender and whoever tried this stunt won't have ships to repeat it probably for the rest of the game. GB might just welcome this...?

In short the seas in EiA is the place for gambling with high stakes. Is there not a place for this in EiANW ?
Oh, and - regardless of this rule - war vs France and Spain can be very bad news for GB early in the game.

/eske

_____________________________

Alea iacta est

(in reply to Ashtar)
Post #: 15
RE: Missing rule: Naval Evasion - 6/17/2008 3:33:14 PM   
Ashtar

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline
quote:

You (GB) are not powerless. You just has to prevent him from ending his move in the channel by intercepting (..)
Wether it is a good chance is arguable. Of course depending on circumstances, but a well prepared, not caught of guard, GB can reduce the chance of landing forces in GB to below 25%. And the cost is likely to be two major naval losses no matter how it ends. In PP GB can afford to surrender and whoever tried this stunt won't have ships to repeat it probably for the rest of the game. GB might just welcome this...?


Of course, if GB manages to intercept invasion will be foiled. What I was referring to as powerless was the situation in which someone just managed to put their invasion force in the Dover straits. Then GB is powerless.

Actually, a well prepared GB will move ahead of any enemy blockading their fleets. On this we agree. On the other hand, I do not think GB surrender is going to be a matter of pp. Anyone managing to land a reasonable force on those beaches will not be satisfied by less then unconditional victory --> Scotland or Wales will be captured and occupied by a consistent force and GB "island advantage" will be greatly reduced.

quote:

In short the seas in EiA is the place for gambling with high stakes. Is there not a place for this in EiANW ?
Oh, and - regardless of this rule - war vs France and Spain can be very bad news for GB early in the game.


Maybe you are right, I just frown a bit at the idea of GB to be easily invaded and pushed out of the game by just a single mistake. This is why only expert player should play GB - not to ruin a campaign from the start.





(in reply to eske)
Post #: 16
RE: Missing rule: Naval Evasion - 6/17/2008 4:03:19 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline 		I really think, naval retreats should have a higher priority atm the algorithm is scary.
Retreating to ungarnissoned ports, or really low port defenses should not happen, when better ports are avaible unblocked, within reach. (sometimes even closer than the port the game chooses).

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to Ashtar)
Post #: 17
RE: Missing rule: Naval Evasion - 6/17/2008 6:02:59 PM   
Soapy Frog

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashtar
Never understood/liked that rule. And never used it in my games.

...

I would prefer not to see it in EIANW.

The core rules should be fully implemented, regardless of your personal opinion of them. Making it harder to invade GB would, in any case, be very bad for the game; with the half-assed naval implementation it's already heavily slanted in GB's favour.

(in reply to Ashtar)
Post #: 18
RE: Missing rule: Naval Evasion - 6/17/2008 7:17:10 PM   
KenClark

 

Posts: 87
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline 		If it's an option you don't have to play with it, if it's implemented.

In most of the games I played recently we played with a homebrew naval system that was similar to the naval system in the General, but more complex. We had rules for invasions that said that if you were the loser in a naval battle that you couldn't still invade, which I think is a useful concept. This avoids the "if I get to the Channel I can always invade England" problem, which I agree is a bit of a problem (GB should be able to repel invasions somehow).

That being said, I like the "retreat one sea area" retreat rule and agree it should be implemented. However, seeing as how land retreats aren't really implemented either, I am starting not to care.

(in reply to Soapy Frog)
Post #: 19
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empire in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Missing rule: Naval Evasion Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.727