Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Blut Und Eisen. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Looking Ahead/General Discussion
Topic Started: Jan 16 2015, 02:40 PM (3,578 Views)
Marauder709

House of Commons
Where are EFS scores?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ryeassassin

House of Lords
Marauder709,Mar 29 2015
10:05 AM
Where are EFS scores?

So i know that Kristjan is busy but would it be possible to get EFS scores out earlier this week? They can play a major role in planning for next session and having them only minutes before the game kind of makes them useless.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Felicity
Member Avatar
cutest
Viceroys
Ryeassassin,Mar 29 2015
07:39 PM
Marauder709,Mar 29 2015
10:05 AM
Where are EFS scores?

So i know that Kristjan is busy but would it be possible to get EFS scores out earlier this week? They can play a major role in planning for next session and having them only minutes before the game kind of makes them useless.

I'm sure they will be. He had them done early last week too, he just forgot to post them for some reason.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marauder709

House of Commons
Hey folks. I will be very late/not coming to tomorrow's session on account of Easter Sunday. I should be able to get someone to sub though so it shouldnot be a problem.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Felicity
Member Avatar
cutest
Viceroys
Cool. Anyone else going to absent for easter?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Otto of England
The Free State of Kiev
Viceroys
I could possible be late or absent I'm not sure when/if people are coming tomorrow.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marauder709

House of Commons
Looks like none of my contacts were able to make it. They all have easter/work stuff. I don't mind being ghosted though if someone wants to load up to prevent the AI from ruining stuff
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Erthel
Member Avatar

House of Commons
No Germany for the next war :'(
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KevinG

House of Commons
The rules on retreating to neutral ports should be changed for next game. The current rule can easily be abused to salvage your navy if you lose a battle, like what happened with France in the last major war where he lost a big battle and retreated to Heligoland. I wanted his navy to be forced out immediately so I could sink the rest of it, but it was allowed to be interned instead.

In the last session I was spamming my navy to retreat to jylland, but you can't choose the province a fleet retreats to, so due to faulty game mechanics my entire fleet was neutralized for the rest of war. Seeing as how this will probably be the last war in the game, that really blows for me.


A more logical rule would be that any ship that enters a neutral port MUST be forced out immediately, especially if there's an enemy fleet waiting outside to sink it. This would prevent salvaging ships and keep bad mechanics from ruining the game.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
icendoan
Member Avatar

House of Commons
I'm actually unconvinced of the issue of navies in neutral countries. I'm struggling to think of an example where it actually matters whose port the navy is in.

Naval warfare isn't like land warfare: the idea is just to win free movement across the seas, and an ability to blockade and drop troops. You don't get a naval front, and the usual land tactics don't apply. There's no mechanism to break a front via moving through neutral territory, simply because you don't get fronts.

The issue with neutral territory in land warfare is to avoid an asymmetric front; if Belgium is neutral, and gives France access, the French can attack into Germany without any risk, but the Germans cannot attack France at all. That's the root cause behind all these interning rules, and it simply doesn't exist in naval warfare. If you retreat to port, you can't be attacked until you're forced out via land warfare. Blockading a navy in a port is as big a victory as you get in naval warfare.

The only time it would make a difference is if you were to drop troops on the port very quickly and force the navy out, but that navy would still have low organisation and would be retreated immediately, before doing the usual million mile retreats to a friendly port. I think we would have seen the same manoeuvre that the USA pulled in this war without any interning rules, simply because their navy would have been just as useless in ports in Portugal or Germany as being scuttled and rebuilt (and it would put the fleet out of action for just as long).

If you have a hypothetical country with a strong navy and no strong army (or an army that's otherwise occupied, etc), who couldn't simply place troops on their port to defend their rebuilding navy, then you do exactly the same course of action: drop troops on their mainland. Likewise, in the current USA/MEX-UK/TUR/NET war we've got, it doesn't matter whose port it is, whether it's Baltimore or Lisbon, because the USA's islands are just as vulnerable.

The entire objective of naval warfare is just to force navies into ports, either temporarily or permanently, and that aim is achieved equally well regardless of whose port it is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KevinG

House of Commons
There is a difference. You can't force a fleet out of a neutral port, so if that fleet still packs a punch it can sneak out later and possibly regroup for a counter attack with allies. If France loses a battle in the heligoland blights it has to move 3 seazones to reach a french port. If it couldn't retreat to heligoland, the entire fleet would be wiped out before it could get to a friendly port. So the current rule exists to prevent this exploit.

But in my situation I fought a large naval battle right outside my own guarded ports. There is no logical reason for me to choose the german ports, it was forced on me by the retreat AI.

The easiest way to prevent #1 from happening while still not screwing over a player in situation #2 is to force a fleet to immediately leave neutral ports during war. The retreating player in the second scenario can still get screwed if the retreat AI chooses to retreat back into the neutral port again, but this at least gives him a chance to use his navy unlike the current rule where he might as well disband all those ships.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Erthel
Member Avatar

House of Commons
I agree interning rules should not apply to navies.

Also I can't think of any case where a country would let a 100 ship navy to enter it's harbor just to intern it right after - more likely they wouldn't allow such a navy inside a harbor first.

If a navy retreats to a neutral port (usually an "expectator" player port), it should be allowed or even forced to leave inmmediately. After the fleet moves out, the spectator player should break alliance to allow for a proper retreat. The alliance can be redone a month later to keep watching.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
icendoan
Member Avatar

House of Commons
There's no real difference there. In the instance you've highlighted, navies automatically retreat (as a grey line retreat) as far as they have to go to get to a friendly port.

If you beat their navy, you can't intercept them until they want to leave that friendly port, regardless of who owns it. The Dutch and Ottoman navies would have intercepted the American navy several times on their route to Germany, if this were the case. If they had not allied nor had military access with anyone, their navy would have retreated, without being able to be intercepted, all the way back to the American mainland.

There is absolutely no difference between having the navy retreat to a guarded Scandinavian port and having the navy retreat to Heligoland, or wherever.

The only time you can inflict a more crushing victory, or perhaps sink an entire navy, is in concert with a strong invasion on land. If you're already in a position to conduct such an invasion, the addition of a single naval battle is no longer a concern.

The biggest victory you can achieve at sea is to force their navy back to a port. By the time you can force crushing victories, you've won anyway.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kristjan
Member Avatar
Administrator
Head Administrator
@Kevin:

You were told verbally over TS that the internment/neutral territory rules were being enforced in this session as they were in previous sessions. You were also told that the GMs are going to review all rules for the next campaign. Therefore it is not appreciated that you continue on in the public discussion after the fact. The GMs have made their decision. The implied accusation that somehow the rules were being used to screw you over after winning or losing a naval battle by myself or other player is even less appreciated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KevinG

House of Commons
Never said you were using the rules differently between france and I. I used it as an example of two different scenarios that the current rule doesn't account for, and I don't recall hearing you say you were going to change the rules on ts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Felicity
Member Avatar
cutest
Viceroys
I stated several times I disagree with the rule but was enforcing it because there was precedent in that specific campaign. I thought I said that in game chat as well, but I may not have, and only said it in TS (Where some of you weren't present in the channel). I don't really know why I enforced it in this first place; someone complained, and the rule was stated like such, so I guess it happened that way. I guess Kristjan was less vocal in disagreeing with it at the time. I know for a fact I never got a PM from Germany/anyone else complaining that the French navy shouldn't be interned, because interned or forced back into a losing battle makes literally no difference as the warscore basically doesn't matter. In fact, the only case where I've seen warscore matter in a pvp war is for adding wargoals & 100% forced surrenders. No one has looked at the constant -50% warscore of the attacker and gone well, damn! He must be losing!

@icen: The problem is that there is no possible way to force the fleet out of a neutral port, and if they're allied (for vision or w/e) the fleet is being repaired, too. If a French fleet is in aquitaine, Spain could occupy the provinces, force it out, and force a navy battle, or vice versa. If France's fleet is in neutral Netherlands, there is no way to occupy those provinces, so there is no way to force the fleet out. Now there's not a lot of instances where every naval port is being occupied, but it does exist, and to completely ignore the potential of sinking a rival's entire navy kinda sucks.

That is how the rule made some 'sense' before, I believe. It gets muddled when people are allied to others for spectator vision, but I think the rule should be changed instead of disallowing spectator vision.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
icendoan
Member Avatar

House of Commons
The problem I have with that interpretation is that I really don't understand why you'd want to force a naval battle, if their navy is already forced into port.

This comes down to why we would want to have a naval battle: mobility. It can't be about inflicting warscore damage, because as you quite rightly note, it's meaningless. Prestige from the battle is equally meaningless. You don't injure a nation's industry, or manpower, or other capacity to wage war via naval battles. The war exhaustion from them is trivial as well. The ability to sink their entire navy is somewhat irrelevant, also. There's no nation in the game that's capable of fielding a non-trivial navy that's also not entirely capable of rebuilding it in 3-5 years, with a bulk of it (dreadnaughts and transports) done substantially faster

It's clear that the reason you do so is strategic: you want to get naval dominance, and have abilities to freely blockade, or to transport troops, or to prevent your opponent from doing either of these things.

Another limitation of naval warfare is that you cannot intercept fleeing navies: they get a grey retreat until they're in their friendly port. If the player could choose that port, then they'd just choose their own, or the most convenient one. In either instance, they continue to repair.

With this in mind, it seems to make no difference whatsoever if they are forced to retreat to their own port, an allied-in-the-war port, or just any friendly port. The winner of the battle gains the only meaningful difference from the battle by maintaining their navy outside that port, 'neutral' or not.

With the land warfare, as I've said above, there is a motivation to prevent abuse of the AI. Due to the difference of naval warfare, this motivation doesn't exist. I cannot see the point of having naval internment rules at all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Felicity
Member Avatar
cutest
Viceroys
There is psychological value in wiping someone's navy. Don't preclude that. Making them rebuild the navy will also take longer than the war in a lot of cases. So if you manage to force a navy into port, and someone else joins the war with a big navy, you won't have to worry about the medium-sized one joining forces with the bigger one and causing another problem.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crimdal

House of Lords
I don't want to read all of it because I don't get too involved in the massive amount of rules in this game. I don't understand why interning ships is a thing, as they do not move like ground units. They would go home or to allies if it weren't for people allying to see war.

That's about all I have the energy to put forth into the discussion. I hate most of your rules, but i enjoy the chance to play vicki with a group.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
icendoan
Member Avatar

House of Commons
I concur with Crimdal: I don't feel that the complexity of adding yet more rules is justified in this instance.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shampoocat
Member Avatar

House of Commons
But arent the rules going to be reworked after this game anyways?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Slayzer
Member Avatar

House of Commons
Hi guys it's very likely that I won't be able to attend next session due to Easter, if I don't find a sub I agree to surrender to Italy(Unless Japand and Scandinavia have something against it, if they do then we can continue fighting, with or without sub).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kristjan
Member Avatar
Administrator
Head Administrator
@shampoocat: Yes, all rules are being examined and evaluated for revision after this game is complete.

Felicity has also been on the record on TS about both the internment rule as it applies to navies and about revising the rules in general. Personally I will probably suggest that the rule simply be made to clearly to only applies to armies. That said, even without a rule for internment in the next game, the rule set does not contain any other rule forcing a player to withdraw a navy from any port in any province.

I had a spirited debate with icen over my recent response to the issue coming up again in the public chat here. Apparently in the other war an American fleet was forced to withdraw from internment, contrary to how the rule has been enforced in AoE6 and prior campaigns up until now. Unfortunately I really just am not able to pay proper attention to the other pvp war. The bottom line is, until AoE6 ends... if your navy ends up in a neutral port, it simply stays there until the war ends or until said nation joins the war.

Also, I will get the EFS done, Felicity has sent me the save.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crimdal

House of Lords
I was forced to withdraw and delete because I retreated to a random person that allied me for vision. The army troop withdrawing part makes perfect sense to me and is not a horrible rule, anything to do with navy is bad to me for two reasons. 1) Paradox hasn't figured out how to code navy in a friendly way yet in anything other than maybe new EU4 dlc's. 2)Navies weren't as easily tracked down in flight after a big battle as armies were. The current rule makes it really advantageous to be the defender over the attacker in a war where you are trying to take land through naval strategies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yenzen
Member Avatar

House of Commons
We all agree that naval rules are stupid, I would prefer my remaining navy in France, but the UK, but rule changing in the middle of a session are bad. Besides, next session is probably the last.

As for Slayzer, I think we'll settle for your two west African states/colonies and the gold coast for France if we settle, since its all mostly about ports. I'd need to speak with them though. If we make a treaty I would be willing to pay some reparations too, as long as your side cedes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crimdal

House of Lords
I am ready for the next game as well, hopefully we can finish this next session. Maybe we can even start signups for next one subject to start 1 week after this game completes instead of hesitating to do signups and possibly having to take a few weeks off. I just started a german class and so I really want to be Prussia or if I have to settle Austria (though everyone knows I am a terrible austria, since i gave austro-spaniard enough lands to his serbia to form yugoslavia).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Felicity
Member Avatar
cutest
Viceroys
If I play in the next game, I will be dropping out probably in the mid-late game, assuming the game goes the normal 10 sessions they usually do. Early June I'm leaving to be deployed to Qatar in support of OFS, and while internet access won't be much of an issue there, timezones will, (and latency, I wouldn't be able to host on my laptop/that connection) and the sporadic schedule where I won't know which sundays I will actually be available.

So I can either continue playing minors until that time or play a major and then pass it on to someone else potentially near the end of the game.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crimdal

House of Lords
Felicity,Apr 10 2015
04:44 AM
If I play in the next game, I will be dropping out probably in the mid-late game, assuming the game goes the normal 10 sessions they usually do. Early June I'm leaving to be deployed to Qatar in support of OFS, and while internet access won't be much of an issue there, timezones will, (and latency, I wouldn't be able to host on my laptop/that connection) and the sporadic schedule where I won't know which sundays I will actually be available.

So I can either continue playing minors until that time or play a major and then pass it on to someone else potentially near the end of the game.

I got an idea. You play SGF (after i let Default form it), I play Prussia, and Default plays Austria. DEFAULT says he's never played austria from start in MP so he'd be down. After you deploy the German question can be solved.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Felicity
Member Avatar
cutest
Viceroys
Let's not talk about roster positions until signups actually happen and we see what interest for certain countries is like.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marauder709

House of Commons
Guys, I might be about 10-15 minutes late. Shouldn't be a problem since we always start late anyway.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Age of Empire VI · Next Topic »
Add Reply