• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

52 Excellent

About Kiithnaras

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

58 profile views
  1. Well, if that's the case, maybe after 15 minutes of battle, close the inner circle and force defenders to join from outside the outer circle, eh? *wiggles eyebrows*
  2. On the flip side, I would rather the devs provide clear, concise details on the mechanics that they have envisioned/drafted for feedback before spending development time coding features that wind up being unpleasant and in need of rework. Personally, I hate feeling like my time was wasted because the result wasn't useful or appreciated and, more importantly, have to do it over. I will agree that some of the needless negativity is unwarranted, but proper, constructive criticism, positive or negative, should always be welcomed early and often.
  3. I'm not wholly opposed to this concept. In fact, I came up with something similar (compare/comment, link in sig). Overall, I don't mind if there are NPC ships provided that those NPCs do not preclude players from joining. In other words, if a 25-player fleet shows up to raid a rather large town with 10 NPC defending ships, then those 10 defender NPCs should be in addition to 25 slots for the player defenders. Additionally, I feel like raids should be focused on invading the town directly and disabling the shore defenses rather than merely shooting at other ships. Edit: So, if I'm reading things right, defenders can only join if there are unoccupied NPC boats still available? If the attackers show up with 20-some ships and there's only 8 bots defending, then only 8 defenders can participate? Seems a little one-sided, if that's the case. It does make it nice in that it doesn't put the player's own ships at risk and force them to have ships available all over the place, though. Maybe additionally let players choose to take control of the forts/towers as well?
  4. Updated the main post with the new Historical model. Take a look!
  5. I may be a little behind the curve on this due to the time from the announcement of implementing raids and now, but I figured I'd share my two cents on the matter. Hopefully the community and developers like this concept enough to support and adopt it as future gameplay. Conquest: Taking Control of Counties. Conquest should happen by port battles as it does now, though how we get to port battles will be a little different - through raiding non-capital towns. A captain would be able to purchase a Raid token from the Admiralty (or Brethren Council). Once acquired, the captain would sail to the port they wish to raid and plant their Raid flag within ship-sight of the port docks. This functions much like the old assault flag system did with a few differences: 1) Purchasing a Raid Token does not send a notification to the entire server on which port it is intended for. In fact, Raid tokens are not assigned to a specific port at all*. Any non-capital can be raided at any time*. 2) Sailing through waters controlled by non-allied nations will highlight their territorial waters in red on the map if that port is able to be raided by the token the ship is carrying (see below). Doing so will send a chat notification to the nation that owns that particular port as well (e.g. "Admiralty Notification: Salina Point has spotted a Raid Fleet!"). 2a) Any town that is actively being raided or having a raid token planted will have its territory flash red (as contested ports do) on the map. 3) Raid tokens are differentiated between Shallow and Deep, with restrictions to prevent their being carried by under-rated fast ships. For instance Shallow raid tokens would only able to be held by 6th-rates, and Deep raid tokens could only be able to be held by 4th-rates and up. This fits with the theme of having a literal Flag Ship - the biggest and scariest ship in your fleet. Even if you intend on conducting a raid using, say, Privateers and Cutters, that Heavy Rattlesnake bringing up the rear should be the one with the flag. Raids tokens would also have enough weight that carrying one would preclude carrying more than one additional on board. 4) If a Raid is successful, the individual town in question will become Contested by the raiding nation for 48 hours. If the Raid fails, the port will instead be on High Alert and invulnerable to further raids for the next 72 hours. Upon exiting a Contested state, a town will enter a High Alert status for 24 hours, and Reconstruction for 48 hours during which its defenses will be lessened, but the Raid treasury will also be reduced. Reconstruction can be lessened by delivering War Supplies (or some other similar good) to the town in question to reduce its Reconstruction state by 6-8 hours. 4a) Once a Raid commences, all other non-capital towns enter High Alert for 6 hours and cannot be raided, whether the triggering Raid is successful or not. 5) If, at any point, the majority of non-capital towns (>50%, not =50%) are Contested by the same nation, a Port Battle is scheduled for the following day (or so) around the time that the last town became Contested. This could be done similar to the present means, 22 or 46 hours afterward, or a randomized time +/- 2-3 hours around the time the last port became Contested. 5a) Once a port battle is scheduled, as above, any non-capitals that are Contested will remain Contested until the port battle. If the aggressors in this conflict successfully raid the remaining uncontested ports (if any), the defenses of the capital will be reduced by a certain percentage for each town (minimum half normal strength). 6) If the attackers in a Port Battle are successful, all towns immediately become Contested and change to the victors following maintenance and follow the same pattern as Raided towns (High Alert for 24 hours, Reconstruction for 48). If the defenders of a Port Battle are successful, all towns in the county immediately enter High Alert for 72 hours. Raids: Sacking and Looting Once a Raid begins using the above flag-planting method, attackers will then have 90 minutes to sail in and take the town. Joining a Raid is similar to joining a Port Battle now - an inner Defender circle, and an outer Attacker circle. Attackers usually have the advantage in the element of surprise, but Raiding a town is a tough sell in any case; the objective in a Raid is to sail up to the town and defeat all of its Militia, either by bombarding with cannons or "boarding" the town - there are no capture circles or zones, though sailing too far from the port (5+ km?) will force an attacker to immediately exit (if they are otherwise normally able to) in order to prevent "holding the battle". If the Raid is successful, the town becomes Contested and all attacking participants are distributed a share of gold (and/or other rewards, including admiralty/council vouchers) from the town's coffers (Shallow towns as small as 2 million, perhaps - 80k each for a full 25-ship battle). This sounds easy, but it is complicated by the fact that the forts and towers are still present and will prioritize any ship closest to the town. The towns are also tough nuts to crack - Shallow ports could have up to 500 militia with up to 10% of those as Marines, while Lineship Captials could have as many as 5000 milita, up to half of which are Marines. Bombing the town with mortars and ball are the most effective at killing defenders, but they also damage the town and will reduce the gold share from the coffers. Captains that engage in boarding will need to be careful with crew setups and boarding commands to avoid being taken by the town. Defenders will need to sink, capture, or drive off all attackers to be successful, but they will receive Admiralty awards if they are. A Raid, like a Port Battle, remains open indefinitely, but the defensive victory condition will engage after 15 minutes; if there's no live attacking ships after 15 minutes, the defenders win. Additionally, War Supplies will become a purely defensive tool; supplying a town, captial or otherwise, with War Supplies will increase the number of town militia, fort guns and militia, small increases to the range of the forts and towers, and potentially even additional Martello towers. At no point should the forts and towers cover the entirety of the combat zone, however. Port Battles: The End Goal Port Battles would be conducted rather similarly to how they are at present, with a few key exceptions: Instead of three circles, one large capture circle, 2.5-4 km in radius, centered on the port. The goal is to have one large combat zone that is approximately half-way covered by fort guns. Defenders would start in this zone and have the initial advantage. Victory Points would be accrued by the BR difference of ships in the combat zone as well as ship captures/sinks/escapes and fort/tower destruction. VPs would instead be accrued at a rate of 1 VP/second per 100/200/400 (6th/4th/1st rates) points of BR difference, capped at 10 VP/sec. Victory for either side would occur at 10,000 VP. Defenders could also win by driving off all opposing ships, while Attackers would have to destroy all land defenses as well as take control of the town (see Raids above). After 60 minutes of battle, the point rate will double every minute (2 VP/s for 60-61, 4 VP/s for 61-62, 8 VP/s for 62-63, and so on). This way, a fight that is dragging out with one side only having 4,000 VP, having had a steady, but slow advantage, will quickly start to wrap things up as the battle draws to a close, ensuring that a port battle will almost never end without one side being victorious. As with Raids, War Supplies will affect the defenses of the town in question similarly. The meta-analysis here is that the BR difference is truncated; with one side only having 350 BR greater for a Lineship battle, no VP would be accrued. If the difference is instead 700 BR, it's still only 1 VP/sec. BR of a ship should be dynamic and based on crew - That big L'Ocean with 1,100 crew that suffers a few solid rakes down to 400 crew will not have nearly as much BR to contribute. This victory method is known as the Show-of-Force victory, and is useful if only a few opponents show up to contest the battle or attempt to harass and drag out the battle by skirmishing in and out of the combat zone. On the other side, an unopposed battle will only last under 17 minutes. Since the VP rate is also capped at a base of 10 VP per second, that means that having more than 1000/2000/4000 BR will have no additional effect beyond the maximum rate. Let me know what you think, and as always: numbers presented are for the purpose of illustration - they are details that can be adjusted. The concepts are more important than specific numbers.
  6. Racist comments were perpetuated by none other than Bad Benny and Taurus454, as well as Siberian and Angus Sinclair to a lesser extent, and their actions and words were vehemently denounced by CKA and Great Britain at large. None of these people were ever a part of CKA or AGW. Benny and Taurus are now Swedish and part of the Danish Alliance, as well. As far as the "backstabbing," that was the result of Galt being attacked by Danish screeners outside a port battle for Cap Francais back in January. Nice use of selective memory, @chailang
  7. Entirely unnecessary due to the existence of the Testbed.
  8. @Kpt Lautenschlaeger, that is actually a really fantastic idea. I was kinda meh about the idea, but a Battle Commander slot (one slot available, Join as Commander option) would be fantastic. I'm perceiving it as a means of issuing visible orders to allies in a battle quickly without having to rely on voice or chat communications. Select one (or multiple) ships, right-click to issue player-visible move-order or attack-order markers. The commander themselves would have a bird's-eye view of the action and be able to see details of their allies such as crew, cannon arcs, sailing vectors & wind vectors overlaid on selected ships, and so on. For struggling players, they could even zoom in (camera similar to Home mode), and guide them over voice step-by-step, help teach them details when their attention isn't required for the greater action, or just to record really awesome footage of the action. +1(googol)
  9. I can't think of a better way to put this. I do my darndest to teach newer players the ins and outs, manual sailing strategies, key points of stern rakes, demasting, hull angling, etc. However, it gets painfully frustrating explaining the very basics to new players all the time because there isn't any in-game documentation. I, personally, like that sort of exploration and learning experience, but I am also in the minority of people that do. To many, that process is frustrating when they're just looking for a game they can pick up and go with. At the very least, a welcome screen and quick reference document explaining the basics of how to operate the core mechanics of the game (with optional pictures) would go leagues in player retention. Heck, if you want, I'll volunteer to even write up the content for such a thing for you.
  10. @Yar Matey, I had prepared a detailed rebuttal, but it'd be off-topic. I'll move it to my cannon-pen thread. Short and sweet, though, you're right, sort of. Carros weren't short-range, they were less accurate due to shorter barrels and more challenge with aiming (winds up being ineffective at range, but not for lack of kinetic energy). They had comparable range at the max elevation for the guns (longs @ 10 degrees, carros @ ~16 or so). They also had comparable initial velocities, though I've had trouble finding a lot of concrete data for caliber-equivalent carros and cannons. My main point is that carros bounce way too often at close ranges for what they're supposed to be in both a historical sense and a game-balance sense. Carros should have, in my opinion, at least equivalent penetration to long cannons of equivalent caliber at 100m, plain and simple. I'm perfectly fine with them dropping off significantly past that range (though I feel that no gun of any sort should ever drop off to 0cm pen).
  11. I'll agree that 32 and 42pd cannons could definitely use a damage buff. The falloff in DPS shouldn't be so sharp from 24pd cannons to 32s and 42s. Keep in mind that the game design emphasizes larger cannons do more damage per shot, while smaller guns do more damage per second. I'll also state here that carronades really need some love. They were nerfed hard, and that neither fits the historical model nor sound game design. Compared to long cannons of equivalent caliber, carronades should have a higher close-range penetration, roughly equal at 100m, and falling off sharply afterward (Even though historically, Carronades were just flat-out better, had comparable-if-not-better range, better penetration, and faster reloads, even though they were a little more challenging to aim).
  12. This discussion may potentially be mooted by the introduction of the upcoming Admiralty system and a return of a mechanic similar to ("But without the exploits [of]") the old Assault Flag system. No, this upcoming feature/mechanic was not discussed in detail.
  13. The current 20-second tag timer is a "polite" way of indicating to newer/inattentive players, "Yo, fool, stuff is about to get real, you best be prepared." It allows defenders to juggle for wind position with attackers and vice versa. IF tagging timers were removed, the tagging circle would need to be roughly equivalent to the Area Control radius (750m), which is a rather short distance on the OW, much shorter than what presently exists. I don't think that the pull circles should be shortened in any way. I'm more or less in agreement with @Wraith's post above.
  14. ...or tweak Carronades to actually have higher pen than long guns of equivalent caliber inside 100m (historically-accurate based on info that I could find - carronades actually had a higher muzzle velocity than long guns [and comparable range] due to the tighter windage, despite using less powder). How crazy would that be?! Carronade-Brawling Trinc or Belle might actually be worth a darn again...
  15. @Hethwill, You betcha. I only wish smugglers would get the same treatment instead of being nixed.