I am not the naval expert here, but because of that I raise the question. Does naval combat need to be re-examined? I tend to avoid it in general, but when I read teammate reprots it seems that inferior forces do an unreasonable amount of damage to superior forces, especially when artifacts are measured in. It seems to me artifacts weigh too much in (you can probably make an argument that spells should, not sure). But because one guy on one ship has a sword that has +750 combat, why should his fleet of 6 warships defeat a superior force (equal WS strength) of 9 warships?
The fact that warships str is 5 or 4 in most cases and defense/Con is 3 for all ships you can see that if you do not mind losing a navy commander you will always destroy more ships of the enemy if you have few warships than his. Also, I think swords +750 combat is not just the wielder of the sword but the effect it has on troops knowing that such an artifact is in there army. Also, taking a artifact to sea is risking losing it to the bottom of the sea if you lose the navy battle. I normally do not carry them with my commander unless it is my main landing party. Just like all aspects of ME there are best ways to do battles depending on what your goals are. I love navy battle and think most games underscore the importance of controlling the waters around SG. Just my 2 quick cents.
John
Mostly agreed that the naval combat algorithm is a little weak. But knowing how it works means knowing how to play it. For example - don’t get caught by a relatively equal or smaller force. Either you have overwhelming numbers in order to escape the naval combat with all your troops, or you send out suicide hunters to knock out larger enemy navies.
In some cases, it’s worth considering a toy and some defensive spells. This might allow your equal’ish force to survive - highly annoying in the Sea of Rhun when the enemy navy caught in the water (Yip!) kills you and lands anyway…
I know how to play it, and what to risk and not … what I’m getting at is it one of those issues that should be bettered, or addressed at some point in the future.
Just conceptually a guy with a pretty sword that is good at hacking up elves shouldn’t be able to sink 4 ships.
He only can if 1) he has at least 2 ships himself (1 tran, 1 war) and his sailors are so inspired, so convinced that they are unbeatable, that he is unbeatable, they operate out of adrenaline spiked supreme confidence. And yet, they still only cause a finite amount of increased damage. Run up against a foe too numerous and they all die no matter how inspired they are.
This is a “change the code to make it more realistic” 2nd Edition kind of issue. Like magic flying caravans and character movement of 12 regardless of terrain, or capturing an elven city and recruiting 400 Orcs from it same turn, etc. It’s not realistic, but it is playable.
I’m with you on this one JB. I like sending out 1-2 wships and 1-2 tports with 100 men and watch them do buckets of damage and troop losses to much much bigger navies.
I then hate it as the cors, when my top fleet hits a small QA speed hump’ that tears the keels out of most of my boats. It is unbalanced, but u just play it that way.
When is KS coming, been waiting, waiting, waiting, getting older all the time. By the time i see it i’ll be blind and demented and won’t remeber what i was waiting for
I like the way naval combat works. Brad has eloquently and briefly noted the game vs realism piece which really is a different discussion. I think the only thing to focus on is would a change make an unplayable part of the game more playable.
As it stands, the relatively small navies of Harad and QA can frustrate the much larger navies of Corsairs and the Free, given a little skill and luck. If you change to have a more army-like mechanism where 20% advantage in numbers gives leads to a decisive win, then QA and Harad become very very outgunned…
But it makes a primary nation strength of the corsairs not worth crap. Why have it bcause it actually means little.
The best ends up being SG, you can have a small interceptor fleet and the sinda tiny thing, take the harad and QA navies out of play. The SG then has two substantial navies to tidy up any survivors and land wherever. Then the cors (if free as in grudge) can also go wild.
In one game, my single QA cap navy did buckets of damage with it’s 100 men. Took one navy out completely and then did major damage to the next, this with bugga all troops and a few boats.
I was LMAO at the irony of it.
Nah Adrian… dont see it like that. Perhaps it weakens the potency of the starting Corsairs fleet as a t1 battering ram… but use the corsairs right and you can overwhelm QA and Harad fleets with smaller navies comprised largely of warships.
In a gunboat game I played Corsairs and singlehandedly fought pretty much all the fleets of NG, SG, Harad, Sinda, Cardolan and Noldo and in that scenario the reduced ship build costs was a fantastic SNA. In your situation you used your navy well, they used theirs badly (or took a calculated gamble and lost). Surely thats what the game is all about…
I dont want to speak for Clint, but as one working on Kinstrife I wouldn’t expect a lot of code based changes. There are a lot of interesting things going on there, but major overhauls of intensive code algorithms are not, to my knowledge, on the docket.
Somewhere in the last decade the naval forumla was changed. De-empahsis of relations and tactics and up-emphasis of comm rank were made. A decade ago I was big into naval actions, then played inland nations for years and years. A year ago started back with the maritime nations and discovered the code change. I was NOT pleased.
We have no plans for changing navies at present. KS is a different module which will have lists of changes made to it. As JB says we’re developing a new module not new code (there will need to be some code adapations such as Recruit NPC obviously, and access to new SNAs etc but no code changes as such).
Navy battles are bloody but they are also still very strategic.
“In your situation you used your navy well, they used theirs badly (or took a calculated gamble and lost). Surely thats what the game is all about…”
I broadly agree (not commenting on who used what successfully or not but rather that there are options). With upgrading navies in 1000 we’ve seen a lot more of them and I think that’s been successful - you just need to be aware of their strengths and weaknesses when playing with them.
Shouldnt we be told about how it actually work? The math behind so that we can calculate outcomes ourself? The rulebook allow us to know how to calculate a landbattle. I see no reasson why we shouldnt be able to know how navybattles work in about the same way.
Why? There’s lots of code that isn’t released and part of the game is working out how some things work. I generally find that the more you put into any activity (including playing this game) the more you get out of it as well.
Clint (GM)
Saying that I’m as lazy as the next man sometimes - use Bobbins all the time myself!
The best teacher I ever knew was a hot stove. You learn by doing—which is what I did with naval combat. Always re-examine your assumptions, especially if you think you know the answer already. I didn’t do that and met Mr. Stove again.
There’s some information in the rulebook - the rest can be work out with trial and error I think. It’s the same with say Infother attempts most of the Agent orders, Threaten and many other command orders - they’re all there to be discovered if the players are up for working it out.
The Rulebook provides “some knowledge”, enough, frankly, to provide enough of an understanding such that one can play strategically - it’s already been discussed here, one doesn’t need an algorithm to understand the implications of a Strength of 5 and a Constitution of 3.
Army vs combat does include how Morale, Training, Command Rank, etc are used. But correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe Relations and Tactics modifiers are directly published by the Game itself…? Some of this information has been worked out in the past and widely distributed throughout the community. Personally, it’s a matter of asking the Players, not the Company.
