I've been thinking about it, and it seems to be be too little for a 180 point advance. Very useful in one situation, but when you compare it with something like Argriculture, or Military.

How about a minimal effect without a ship marker present? (Say landing force loses one.)

Ditto for "attacking tokens" directly from sea (with or without a ship present) - landing force loses one unit point.

Then again, I haven't really used this in play so far, so maybe it is just the way I am reading it.

Maybe we could reconsider my proposal in http://67.66.187.69/civproject/forum/to ... TOPIC_ID=9

Raffaele
Goblin's lair

Since the current rules for Naval Warfare are my idea, and I really don't want to add an additional round of combat involving ships, how about adding Naval Warfare making a civilization immune to Piracy? Or blocking Barbarian Hordes from crossing water boundries? Both these new powers and the current one basically are for players that are "winning" and want to avoid getting smashed, so maybe none of it is a good idea.

Well,I should have already known this, since I just dealt with a piracy in Apollo 18, but Naval Warfare already reduces by 1 the cities taken by Pirates

Not in the latest rules, but I think it would be a god thing to (re?)introduce.
Another idea on Naval Warefar is to allow a ship to be considered a token when resolving combat in a costal area! This would help both attacking and defending, and would imo make more sense than the current deffensive-only rules.
I think these two rules (replacing the current one) would actually be ballanced for 180 points.

I agree. This is worth 180 pts.

Raffaele
Goblin's lair

I would go for the rule allowing ships to be considered tokens in combat. There would be some questions to be resolved.

Would you require it to be acompanied by tokens for it to work? Does it count against the population limit? Can it be taken as a casualty?

My answers would be: Yes, No, No.
But, that would have to be clarified in the rulebook.

My answers would be: No, No, Yes.
The first one is just a matter of opinion, I could go either way.
The second one is obvious imo.
The third one is important, and maybee just a misunderstanding. My idea is that you copuld use them as causalties in combat (so you have to send one regular token less), but not use them to construkt cities or as losses due to calamities (except of cource when a boat is called for...).

Well, the first question and the third are closely linked, and the fact that we flipped on them, points to a difference in perception on the rule. Which, as you say is fine.

If you allow ships to attack on their own, we have to allow them to be taken as casualties (single ship moves into a 1 region with single opponent token)

Not allowing them to be taken as casualties simplifies the rules or PBeM slightly (extra provision for forcing ships to be lost first/last, or extra decision to be made by player during conflict). We don't have to worry about ships from more than one side in the area, etc.

The question about population limit is more than a flippant question. I bring in 1 token and three ships to fight in a coastal 4 spot with one token in it. Does my one token just land (my preference), or is there a fight.

The more I think about it, the more I believe Yes, No, No is going to be the simpler way to go.

I take it you refer to the potential problem when two (or more) sides in a battle has ships and resolving the combat requires multiple ships.
Personaly I neither think it would occur to often, nor be a huge problem when it does.

I think a nice solution would be to do it similarily to how Advanced Military works. That is something like:

That would be Yes, No, Yes to your questions, integrate easily with Advanced Military, and would not affect the order in which tokens is removed.

Advanced Military: Prior to Advanced Military, in PBeM, conflicts are all GM driven (no input from players) to speed up the game (this is important), as a GM can get from Moves clear to after distribute Trade Cards without any input from the players. Don't underestimate how much this speeds up a game.

I think you misunderstand my concerns.

So, a single ship moving into an enemy space with a single token. Does this trigger a conflict? What about two ships? The spot is under the population limits, as per #2. So if a ship doesn't count in the population limit, then it is impossible to trigger a conflict without some supporting tokens.

So, rewording my questions.

Can they attack alone?
If yes, then we have to either have them count against population limits or have a new conflict termination rule (other than under population limit).
If no, then no additional rules are required.

Do they count against population limits?
If yes, this is a big drain on the owner of the card. No one would buy it. We could restrict it to only counting against population limits in conflict
If no, then we can't have boats attacking things on their own (impossible to get over the limit)

Should they be taken as casualties?
If yes, then some PBeM modifications will be required.
If no, then they cannot attack alone (1 ship wipes out anything)

Trying to clear up any misunderstandings:

In my latest proposal, no they can't. They dont affect wether a fight starts at all, nor the order of causalties removal, just as Advanced Military.


My answare is NO. Anything else just mess things up.


Imo without this, they would not give any substantial benefit in batle.
Yes, some PBeM modifications would be required, but no more than for Advanced Military. A sugestion would be to require all users to specify order of causalties (tokens in area, ships in area or tokens in other areas) independently without knowing the other players order, limiting the problem to one aditional email per turn for both Advanced Military and Naval Warefare.

Does this explain what I mean and why? If not, please ask. If you don't agree, please give me a better idea to ponder on.

Okay, it'll have to do. I like your answers, and we can make Naval Warfare and Advanced Military work.

Jeff

Here are two Naval Warfare option:

Easy version:
If you have Naval Warfare and the opponent does not, you may choose to block any attempt to leave a coastal area that contains at least one of your ships. To block movement in an open sea area you must have at least two ships in that area. It takes two movement points instead of one to leave a blocked area.

Advanced version:
If you have Naval Warfare and the opponent does not, you may block any attempt to pass a water area that contains at least one of your ships. They may enter your water area, but they can't leave until the following turn. You may block ships from several opponents with the same ship, but if the opponent has more ships than you, the excess ships move normally. In that case, the opponent chooses which ships that are blocked. Any token remaining on a blocked ship must disembark immediately. If that is impossible the tokens are returned to stock. To block ships in an open sea area you must place an extra ship in that area (i.e. at least two ships). That extra ship doesn't count when the opponent calculates excess ships.

-----
I haven't concidered if this should be an addition to the current city defense rule with Naval Warfare or instead of that rule.
-----
As for calamities. Although I like the proposals of calamity defense with Naval Warfare these options might also be concidered:
* I you have Naval Warfare you (may? stop barbarian hordes from crossing areas where you have ships.
* I you have Naval Warfare; for each ship you have in a coastal area with one of your cities, you block one pirate attack on that city.

/Christer Pettersson, Sweden

Dogs have masters. Cats have staff.

There is a problem with both proposals: You cannot end a move in open sea areas.

Raffaele
Goblin's lair