Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Naval bonus editor question

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Naval bonus editor question Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Naval bonus editor question - 7/19/2009 1:46:09 PM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
Hi all
do you know if +1 bonus for British side and the +1 bonus for having 1.5 times heavies is cumulative for Britain (i.e. Britain can get +2), or is there a +1 maximum?
DB.

< Message edited by Dancing Bear -- 7/21/2009 1:34:30 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Naval bonus - 7/19/2009 3:06:10 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 3159
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
The rules state that these modifiers are cumulative but the net modifier may never be more than +1 or less than -1.  Are you seeing something differnt?

(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 2
RE: Naval bonus - 7/20/2009 12:44:28 PM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
Thanks pzgndr.

No, I'm not seeing anything different, but was unsure what the rules were, and if it should be +2. It looks like things are operating as the rules say they should.

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 3
RE: Naval bonus - 7/21/2009 1:38:29 PM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
Does anyone know if there is a way to remove the +1 bonus for 1.5x heavies using the editor? We are looking at makinga classic scenario with the classic naval rules by simply only allowing heavies. The problem is that the above +1 bonus may remain, upseting the combat tables.

(We might also stick with the light and heavy fleets, but introduce some proportional losses (between nations and ship types) if this is possible).

(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 4
RE: Naval bonus - 7/21/2009 1:40:55 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
You cannot do that in this version and frankly I never have thought of that! :-0
Maybe I should eliminate the bonus if both are eligible?


_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 5
RE: Naval bonus - 7/21/2009 1:50:43 PM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
It is not really a problem for the British who have the bonus all the time. It is more for other nations, who would get a +1 which they would not under the original rules.

I'm not sure if eliminating the +1 when both are eligible would work (if I understood correctly). Maybe elminate the +1 if only heavies are involved in the fight would work. So you get +1 when you have 1.5 times the number of your opponent, and your opponent is sailing with a mixed fleet of heavies and lights.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 6
RE: Naval bonus - 7/21/2009 4:57:35 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

Does anyone know if there is a way to remove the +1 bonus for 1.5x heavies using the editor? We are looking at makinga classic scenario with the classic naval rules by simply only allowing heavies. The problem is that the above +1 bonus may remain, upseting the combat tables.

(We might also stick with the light and heavy fleets, but introduce some proportional losses (between nations and ship types) if this is possible).

There may be a workaround: Eliminate light fleets completely. Then, the only time the 1.5 bonus would be in force would be if one side had 50% more ships.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 7
RE: Naval bonus - 7/22/2009 1:54:12 AM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
Perhaps the best way to deal with it, is to make all the fleets light fleets, and then give everyone a +1 bonus to off set the -1 for light fleets, except for GB who would have a +2. Then we adjust the costs and transport capacity of light fleets to match the original EIA.

Thinking more about this. In addition to only applying a +1 for 1.5 times heavies when fighting a mixed heavy and light fleets, maybe the -1 for lights can be removed when light fleets fight only other light fleets (I mean is there any reaosn why losses from a frigate to frigate battle would be reduced?).

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 8
RE: Naval bonus editor question - 7/22/2009 2:29:01 AM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 3159
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

9.2.2 Naval Combat Resolution
Each side receives a random number of between 1 and 6, adding one if a British fleet is present on that
side, adding one for having 1.5 times more heavy ships than the other, subtracting one if a side consists
solely of light ships and subtracting one if a Prussian and/or an Austrian fleet is present on that side
(these modifiers are cumulative but the net modifier may never be more than +1 or less than -1).


Versus the original EiA rules:

quote:

6.3.3.2 NAVAL COMBAT RESOLUTION: Each side rolls one die, adding one if a British fleet is present on that side and sub-tracting one if a Prussian and/or an Austrian fleet is present on that side (these modifiers may cancel each other if both are present in the same stack).


Really, the only difference here is the extra bonus for having 1.5 times more heavy than the other, and subtracting one if a side consists solely of light ships. When a classic EiA scenario with only heavy ships is implemented, does this rule really need to change?? I mean, if there are no light ships then so what? Maybe Britain would be present AND have 1.5 times, but they would only get +1 anyway. If anyone else has 1.5 times then they would get a bonus. Shouldn't they?

And for EiANW scenarios with both heavy and light fleets, shouldn't the side with only light fleets suffer a penalty?? Makes sense to me. And if both sides have only light fleets and both sides suffer a penalty then that would be a wash. If anything, I could see deleting the light fleet penalty if both sides have light fleets.

Frankly I do not understand the concerns here. Proportional losses between nationalities AND heavy/light fleets are more important and would probably resolve most naval bonus concerns. Maybe fix that first and then relook this issue?

(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 9
RE: Naval bonus editor question - 7/23/2009 3:35:34 AM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
I'd prefer proportional losses myself. However, in the interim, I was looking for something that recreated the original rules (i.e. only GB gets a +1 under any scenario)

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 10
RE: Naval bonus editor question - 7/23/2009 6:06:15 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 3159
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

I was looking for something that recreated the original rules (i.e. only GB gets a +1 under any scenario)


So if a British fleet is present, even if outnumbered 1.5 times or more, GB still gets +1 and the other side doesn't? At some point it seems only fair for GB to lose its advantage, and rather unrealistic to retain it under any scenario.

(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 11
RE: Naval bonus editor question - 7/24/2009 1:27:32 PM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
Well pzgndr, the problem is that the combat tables already take into acount the realtive sizes of the fleets, i.e. 25% of 20 ships is more than 25% of 10 ships, so the +1 for superior numbers should not apply as superior numbers is already accounted for.

Leaving the +1 for the non-GB side when it has superior numbers only seems unfair.

The +1 for being GB is for better sailors, experienced captains, better cannons, well maintained ships in the face of a British blockade of ship supplies, and better designed ships. This should not change because the enemy shows up with more, poorly maintained ships.

Finally, for the purists, only GB gets +1 in the original game, as per the rules.

And since we can fix it with playing with light ships only, it does not require intervention from the Marshall, so it is up to the players in the particular game.


(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 12
RE: Naval bonus editor question - 7/25/2009 1:59:09 AM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 3159
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

the problem is that the combat tables already take into acount the realtive sizes of the fleets, i.e. 25% of 20 ships is more than 25% of 10 ships, so the +1 for superior numbers should not apply as superior numbers is already accounted for.


Dancing Bear, how so? 15.5 Naval Combat Table does not account for relative fleet size. If you take Britain out of the equation completely and consider all other naval combats, the +1 random number modifier for having 1.5 times more heavy ships seems reasonable enough. A British fleet still retains its +1 bonus and if Nelson is present then there is additional bonus. These are modifiers for the random number roll remember. The actual % loss result is random, and of course a % loss for a larger fleet is going to be larger but that's not the point. It's the modifier for the random number roll that the bonuses/penalties are for. I hear what you're saying but question how often this is a genuine problem for a British player, and if it is a problem why the fleet numbers were allowed to get so out of whack in the first place. Britain retains a natural superiority, obviously, but why shouldn't this be subject to change during a campaign game??

quote:

Finally, for the purists, only GB gets +1 in the original game, as per the rules.
And since we can fix it with playing with light ships only, it does not require intervention from the Marshall, so it is up to the players in the particular game.


I'm not arguing per se, just trying to draw out some key points. The +1 modifier for 1.5 times heavy ships could be a game option? Playing with light ships only may be a work-around at present using the editor, but if Marshall reworks the PP losses to be 1pp for heavy fleets and 1/2pp for light fleets, then that would not be consistent with the original game. Better to have a solid set of consistent rules for either classic EiA or EiH OOBs, where either heavies only would play out as in the original game or heavies/lights could play out equally well. That should be the objective, yes?

(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 13
RE: Naval bonus editor question - 7/25/2009 2:37:37 AM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Better to have a solid set of consistent rules for either classic EiA or EiH OOBs, where either heavies only would play out as in the original game or heavies/lights could play out equally well. That should be the objective, yes?


Hi Pzgndr
I agree that this is the best way to go. It would be great to have a robust set of flexible naval rules. My preference is to include light&heavies with the proportional ship type loses and pp losses that you listed. As other have suggested, the naval chit choices would also be an excellent addition, but maybe in time.

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Naval bonus editor question 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

0.164