Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'mechanics'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Naval Action
    • Naval Action Community and Support
    • Naval Action - National Wars and Piracy
    • Naval Action Gameplay Discussions
    • Naval Action - Other languages
    • Naval Action (Русский язык)
  • Ultimate General
    • Ultimate General: Civil War
    • Ultimate General: Gettysburg
    • Ultimate General: American Revolution
    • Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail
    • Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts
    • Forum troubleshooting
  • Age of Sail Historical Discussions
    • Shipyard
    • History
  • Sea Legends
    • General Discussions
  • This land is my land
    • General discussions
  • A Twisted Path to Renown
    • News & Announcements
    • General Discussions
    • FAQ & Tutorials
    • Devs Thread
    • Support
  • Game-Labs Forum
    • Jobs
  • SealClubbingClub's Topics
  • Pyrates and rovers's Gameplay / Roleplay
  • Pyrates and rovers's History - ships, events, personae
  • Pyrates and rovers's Literature & Media
  • Clan [GWC] Nederlands talig {Aanmelding}'s Topics
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Historia - Polska na morzach
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Rekrutacja
  • Chernomoriya's Topics
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's Mysteries
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's The Book of Rules
  • Congress of Vienna's Global
  • Congress of Vienna's EU
  • Congress of Vienna's Historical
  • The Dutch Empire's Discord Server
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's Tactics (methods)
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's The Rulebook
  • Ship Auctions's Topics
  • Creative - Captains & Ships Logs's How to...
  • closed's Topics
  • Catalunya's Comença la llibertat !!
  • Port Battle History's Topics

Blogs

  • Emoninail
  • Boost Your Testosterone Levels For Building Bigger Muscles
  • Best Ways To Overcome Hair Loss Issues
  • htrehtrwqef
  • The Process of Lottery Results
  • Implications of Electricity Deregulation in the United States
  • Fitness Programmer
  • Organifi Gold Juice Review
  • TpGS2019~~Nice experience
  • Teds Woodworking
  • Tracker of Good Stuff
  • Traitors Gallery
  • Testing stuff
  • Download Only file APK for Android
  • Blurring reality as artist’s 3D model tricks
  • Game Friv 4 School
  • About Madden NFL 17
  • Travel between Outposts
  • The 2 Week Diet
  • Five Fat Loss Workout Routine Exercises
  • Captains Log, September 1756
  • Log of Cpt. Nicholas Ramage II. Esq; RN
  • Average Gamer Marcs: A Naval Action Story
  • Thiên hạ Ku
  • From The Logbook of Captain Sir Sebastian Pendragon, KB; RN
  • Rachel Tran
  • Thẻ game W88
  • Thẻ game W88
  • Log of Sir Elio Perlman, KB
  • 바카라카지노
  • f8bet nhà cái uy tín
  • Why should you play 1v1 lol game?
  • عروض شاشات سمارت 4k
  • tai game co tuong mien phi
  • Saltback's Blog
  • Core Blackthorn's Blog
  • Real Armada Española
  • Remir's Blog
  • Captaine Arnaud Arpes' Log
  • sellfifa's Blog
  • sellfifa's Blog
  • Log Book
  • British Privateer
  • fastbug blog
  • kusumetrade's Blog
  • The adventures of W. Laurence
  • John Dundas Cochrane's Blog
  • Bernhart's Blog
  • semenax1's Blog
  • Duels (1v1)
  • Mad things going on
  • News Sports Blog
  • Commodore Clay
  • English Nation Gunners Blog
  • Tube Nations Game Givaway
  • linksbobet88's Blog
  • Cpt Blackthorne's Blog
  • Saffronsofindia
  • From the Conny's Deck
  • Ingemar Ulfgard's Blog
  • Antonio_Pigafetta's Blog
  • maturin's Blog
  • Brogsitter's logbook
  • Game App Development
  • Game App Development
  • The Sea Dogs's Website
  • [CTC] Caribbean Trading Company (Pirates - PvP EU)'s Buy ur Favorite Ships.
  • Creative - Captains & Ships Logs's (Naval Action fiction) Diary of Cdr. Joseph Barss

Categories

  • United States Continental Navy's Files

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • United States Continental Navy's Pearl Harbor Day

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 20 results

  1. *****G'day. I now have enough time in-game to offer advice. Here's a substantial list of suggestion topics. Points to raise as suggestions- batch 1 *Manual target selection options; I want to be able to launch just one launcher at a given target. I'd like to be able to fire each *tube* individually, but I'll settle for each launcher. I don't need my destroyers emptying their entire stockpile into a transport that only needs one or two. Ties into another idea; where mouse-overing a weapon icon would bring up a separate simplified ship display that only displays that weapon type, say two inch single mounts (current display is too busy to easily read; look at World of Warships for inspiration). To complete implementation, I want to be able to click that weapon icon, locking open the simplified display screen, and then assign a target to each of those weapons by clicking them and then a target. Applies to guns too. For double points, make the individual weapons display individually show reload status for each mount (I suggest green colouration for ready to fire, fading from red through yellow when freshly discharged and reloading, and have them blink purple when they're currently bearing on a target they can reach, or blink pink when they can't bear on their selected target). I can never remember, in a heated battle, which torpedo launchers have fired and which are ready to engage, and the current display only displays the *longest* cooldown for that weapon type which is very unhelpful. *I also want a manual firing solution order to fire torpedoes on your personal command- select a bearing, watch the torpedo aiming reticule appear telling you were the AI would fire if it was commanding them, and you can manually fire with a "fire now!" button once the launchers train, roughly when those torpedoes line up with the targeting line (this allows targeting the AI ships doing the incredibly effective steady slow turn tactic to avoid all AI-fired torpedoes by firing them inside the AI commander's targeting line, thus predicting where that curve will take them). in general, the launchers will work better if selecting a torpedo target pre-trains the tubes in that direction, as I wouldn't need to have an agonising wait between authorising torpedo release and those launchers having to turn from travel positions to firing positions, which often causes me to lose my destroyer unnecessarily. The alternative is to let those destroyer miss wildly if left to their own suicidal devices. Seriously, around a quarter of my fleet at most will have launch authority at any given time as they don't anticipate friendly vessels occluding their path or backlighting the target. *The underwater tubes are often unresponsive even when presented a perfect target at point-blank range, and have no 'having to traverse into position" excuse. Widen their firing arcs to correct this for gameplay reasons. At least thirty degrees for all mounts, but I'd prefer fourty, twenty either direction. *Display torpedo launcher current orientation with green shadows on battlefield when each launcher icon is mouse-overed (so we can tell where the damn things are pointing) and have them show red as they traverse through parts of their firing arc when they can't fire without landing a live torpedo on your deck. Again, to reduce frustratedly yelling "Fire, damn you!" at our captains as we all so often do when there's no explanation for why they're not doing so. *Allow avoid torpedoes button for ships not in a division. If the AI gets torpedo evasion hacks I want them too, while controlling all other ship functions. I'm going to use manual control almost all the time but mate sometimes the battle winds up in three or more places and I can't be everywhere at once. Effectively, as a fold-out menu from the AI Control button we have now, I want the full "AI Control" button, and I want an"AI Helm Control" only button, in addition to an "AI Guns Control" button and finally an "AI Torpedo Control" button, in case one feels suicidal. Two of the latter three buttons should be able to be turned on simultaneously, but selecting all three just flicks the ship over to the first full ship command button. *Have a button for detach all ships from divisions (to save pointless micro at start of every battle). Better yet have an option in the pre-battle screen to detach all or even better create your own formations and place them in the positions you want. *All weapons should be capable of independent firing- if a ship has secondaries (or spare primaries) on it's other side, I want them to fire on any targets of opportunity they see, instead of being only able to target one thing per entire type. I see my cruisers and battleships just ignoring free targets because they're focusing all the secondaries (which I remind you ring the ship's superstructure) on something else of their other side. It's even possible for the ship to be locked onto a craft it can't bear on, leaving them silenced entirely, when other valid targets existed. Effectively, I want a behaviour coded to take guns currently out of axis of engagement to engage whatever it can reach, unless under player direction. *Unrestrict barbettes. Entirely. I want to place them wherever they'll fit. Screw whatever dumb idea it was to implement them in current form. *Unrestrict number of main guns placeable on early ships. *Allow use of outdated techs, weapons, towers and hulls. I want to use 200 tonne torpedo boats late-game. Also I may have reason to use old hulls for other things, and I certainly can want to use cheaper components for some vessels to save costs. Furthermore I *hate* being forced to use only one of each tower module simply because the devs decided to tie a noose around my creativity's neck- this game has strong creativity tool elements, *don't* restrict them. It's counterproductive and indefensible from a design perspective to remove older options that either look better or better suit my current design needs. On a related note: *I'd like non-barbeted options for all towers that have built-in barbettes with the same stats excepting lower weight. Keep the secondary mounts- I would like more of those actually. But I have to go many towers back in the quality list (assuming you even left me that option) to get weaker towers to mount my heavier guns without having a mixed main armament. Of course, having those towers open a fold-out menu that offers different barbette sizes including none would be just perfect.. *Build times should be affected by cost. My five million dollar escort-type destroyers should not take as long to build as my thirty million or fifty million dollar super-specialised destroyers. *RADAR and hydrophones should be modules, not a modifier to towers. Adding RADAR to a destroyer still leaves it essentially legally blind for spotting purposes, and that's not how that worked historically. Further, it shouldn't cost a thousand tonnes plus to add RADAR to larger ships. Have them be attachable modules that fit into specialised slots on towers and under hulls instead- with towers limited by modernity and size to mount larger RADAR systems, often with a spare on the back with less range and maybe some side ones to aid fire control or short-range spotting, and hydrophones and SONAR being mounted under the hull- again, with at least two slots please, so hydrophones can be combined with SONAR to get maximal short range detection and overall better close range coverage but also keep the wide search value from a SONAR, the same way I envisage multiple RADARS of different sizes all acting together to increase detection chance for each RADAR spotting and how close they are versus their detection profile. No graphics needed for hydrophones but spinning receiver dishes would be appreciated. *Would like to be able to armour magazines in addition to current options, to reduce flash-fire and detonation chances, and effectively permit the use of increased shell and torpedo complements and heavier shells without being a particularly impressive firecracker. Sometimes, the weight would be very worth it... *Would like modern torpedo boat hulls, please. They'd be a lot easier to add than subs... *Would like to advise caution in sub and carrier implementation; sub encounters are shockingly boring most of the time in other comparable games. Carriers could trash all balance very quickly too. I was enjoying just having surface combatants sans carriers, y'know... *Would like to alter how transports are implemented. Instead of them being "universal" and auto-generating at each encounter, I'd like to be able to build them myself (with adjustable hull sizes and preferably several different hull options), so I can personally choose to arm every transport in the dang fleet to the teeth, and/or give them RADAR and underwater detection. Further I want to control them- start them as they are, already retreating, just let me over-ride their orders as needed- I'm meant to be the ultimate admiral, after all. I can make use of some armed transports in some of those battles. Would also like to be able to build dedicated Q-ships and use them either offensively or defensively. To implement, have a second fleet tab for merchant ships under the fleet menu. When a convoy is created, each route should pull ships from this pool as needed, selecting either the cheapest ships by operating costs, the most defensible ships, the fastest, or can be manually swapped out with whatever the AI selected to make mixed fleets before being created. With each merchant ship being tracked individually- Q-ships (or normal transports, if one desires) should be able to be transferred into use as normal warships, albeit poor ones, and presumably in desperation or for ploys. Conversely, warships can be sent to be transports which gives them medium combat penalties for being overloaded, but allow the warships to serve as emergency transports as needed. This would allow fine control over which convoys are prioritised in times of shipping shortages too, by taking ships on or off convoy routes. This would also allow the dedication of warships to specific convoys as escorts- from each convoy route that needs filling, you could have a button labelled "assign escorts" that allows the selection of ships either by name or by map selection. This would make for a nice jumping-off point for: *Invasion fleets. Selecting some suitable port should have an option for "Create invasion fleet" that allows packing troops into merchant ships, preferably landing craft and passenger transports (with the merchant ships, they should be specialisable into cargo, fuel or passenger transports during creation, see above, with either being able to perform the other tasks at reduced efficiency) and assigning an escort of warships. These fleets could then go attempt to occupy an enemy province, making it far cheaper in the peace deal and providing some of that province's income to the occupier in the meantime. Would also like to include landing ships, which though being military ships are sent to the merchant pool on completion of their construction, so they can be stuffed with troops as aforementioned. They'd mainly serve as targets to destroy before their arrival that improve invasion efficiency if they get to land. I don't necessarily want to include modeled ground combat- that *sucks* in Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail- but I do want to launch and repel naval invasions, modeled simply as troops, munitions, military equipment, fuel and supplies depleting each others local stockpiles until one side loses-the remainder of the invasion fleet would then have to go home, providing another chance to attack it. Provinces that directly neighbour others should be able to use their troops, munitions and military equipment (modeled together for simplicity), supplies and fuel to invade that province without the use of ships. See War at Sea for inspiration- I never want to see an actual person modeled in this game, please. *Would like light machinegun and other AA mounts, but assume they're on the way. A simple M2 Browning can seriously hurt a destroyer, especially if there's lots of them, and I want more light ship options that would make good targets for them. All AA mounts should be able to engage surface targets too. *Would like fleet tenders and support ships. Refueling ships can add range to task forces once implemented, munitions transports can rearm ships at sea, hospital ships recover lost crew and return it to the crew pool (whilst also being a source of major opinion maluses if you sink them), seaplanes tenders can scout an area, increasing favourable encounter rates in a given sea region, etcetera... *Would like to be able to demand more money from my government when in dire straights, possibly at cost to naval prestige and unrest. More economy decisions in general would be a good thing, too. *Would like to fight port strike battles in sight of land, both blocking some avenues of running away from the cowardly AI and allowing ships to engage shore defences, which is something they did a lot of in reality. Such defences should be simple; for each port map (and you won't need *that* many; re-use them as needed, we understand dev-hours are finite) there should be a grid to place defences: gun batteries, essentially a concrete platform that you mount extant naval turrets to; torpedo launchers that must be on the shoreline but work the same way; breakwaters and quays to make safer harbours for your ships; AA positions for the upcoming carriers; RADAR installations to increase port readiness if attacked and provide better interception near shore; minefields and sub nets to help make it dangerous to approach or enter a port. These would be built like ships- you place a simple template and then after sufficient time the structure completes construction and becomes a usable defensive work, and its costs reduce from the higher building cost per turn to their relatively minimal operating costs. They should naturally consume upkeep, but be cheap both to build and maintain compared to warships. Similarly, they should be mothball-capable, so unneeded defences can be abandoned. Some basic civilian structures can be modeled as well, providing opinion maluses if destroyed-raid an old SimCity-esque game who's license expired or were never filed for models if required. Related note: *Would like to be able to build naval academies in provinces. They can stay unmodeled, but provide more crew per turn if built or captured, in exchange for upkeep. Alternately, you could make a structure model for placement on your port maps that can be shot up if desired. Naturally, I would like to be able to mothball them. As a possible extension of this, I'd like to be able to invest in arms factories that make more cash over time, essentially obviating the need to spend cash on civilian-made guns, armour and munitions. You could also add drydocks, armour smithing facilities, heavy gun foundries, and other things required to make heavy ships, with losing them seriously hampering your ability to use tech upgrades- better Krupp technology is useless if you don't make the factory to produce it, and the armour thicknesses available could be gated by the armour smithing facilities being too underdeveloped to actually make the dozen-plus-inches of plating you want on that super battleship. Similarly, guns could be limited by factories being large enough to make them, and carrier planes could require factories to replace- even torpedoes need to be made, and that factory could be either a province upgrade or a port model. Ground-based airfields can be included the same way. *Would like mothballing to have a slider that goes between unmanned but completely maintained (no deterioration) and completely abandoned, where they would slowly lose integrity until they eventually become completely unsalvageable and are scrapped for a pittance. The rate for that deterioration should be slightly randomised, to reflect how some ships and defence structures simply last better than others when abandoned. *Need to be able to upgrade port capacity. Presume that's coming. Would like to be able to make my own ports from scratch, too. *Would like to be able to interact with neutral ships. Even if they use extant and planned merchant hulls, it'd add some life to the empty expanses that are sea battles now. Also, sinking them will tick off the owner. *I want to add smoksecreen generators to whatever ship I please. They're cheap, weigh very little in naval terms, and the Germans proved they work well to protect heavy warships time and again. They could also be a port structure that provides protection to the gun batteries present to defend the port, and any ships anchored within. Gun batteries on land are already notoriously hard targets, adding smoke would make a well-defended port capable of holding off a decent force even if empty of ships. Ground RADAR would also be nice, where it'd serve to warn the port an attack is coming- modeled by having the defences already fully manned and functional upon enemy arrival, instead of needing some time to reach full effectiveness. *Depth charges should have a manual launch now button too. If I can sink surface ships in War Thunder using them, I bet I can manage it in this game too... *Would like to be able to sell ships for profit, or get or make your own orders for ships to be made by other powers that are friendly enough. Half-built ships can then be realistically seized if war breaks out unexpectedly. *Would like smoke warnings to continue for unspotted ships even if one or more is currently visible. I often run into the convoy escort without ever seeing the transports because a battlecruiser or heavy cruiser is spotted early and then all warnings stop. Smoke warnings should only stop when all active hostile craft on the map are visible. *Would like to see the introduction of structures to place on hulls. Simple boxes, cylinders and other geometric shapes that we can both intersect with other components like towers to change their appearance and install casemate weapons into and turrets atop them. Provided the R and T keys rotate function sticks after mouse movement, which has to happen regardless for quality of life complex configurations of these structures could be built on our ships almost freely. More complicated structures with multiple mounting points that can function as additions to the towers (possibly providing another rangefinder, torpedo spotter and damage control station for the ship for the big ones) and compatibility with extant barbettes could allow more faithful recreations of historical ships and offer more variety than just picking the two towers that currently serve as our only choice for ship design both aesthetically and mechanically- which is boring. Add connective components to link separated towers, raised funnel mounts so we can make our towers not look idiotic when only one (if we're lucky) mounting point is offered by a tower combination, outcroppings we can mesh into the towers to add a second tier of raised secondaries so they can superfire over the beam or connect barbettes to the towers, simple wave shields and rings to surround turrets (save making those aggravating designs with "fixed" mounting points where placing guns effectively would look stupid or worse be impossible... Make the base hull in a realistic shape, but leave placement of wave shields, coloured rings, national decals, etcetera to us, please. This simple thing can solve many problems. For the dev-time needed to make a few new hull and tower combinations we could have near-total creative freedom to design ships- these thing are boxes and other simple shapes with decking and ladders and such. Make them weigh virtually nothing unless they're mechanically functional (say, they have a turret mount on them) in which case make them weigh what that size barbette should plus a little but make their weight scale barbette and superstructure armour. I especially want to connect my barbettes to my towers so they look like single structures- then painstakingly arrange neat rings of AA mounts all over the top of them. So long as sufficient clearance is given we should be able to build directly over our extant turrets and add more things still- ruining our pitch and roll values but looking spectacular. Furthermore a list or nurnies and greebles would be nice too, even if they don't add anything mechanical, though I'd like to add say air intakes to slightly improve engine efficiency, hull hatches that increase crew survivability in the water (see later regarding hospital ships and rescue craft), my own casements to hulls with enough freeboard for it, and lots more. A structure I particularly want is the whole upper deck on battleships and battlecruisers so I can make versions of them that don't guarantee a huge forward offset if filled uniformly by lengthening the nose sections so the casemates are more evenly spread, using several sliders if need be. Which brings me to: *So many ships just have intractable forward weight offset due entirely to their build- like those battleships and cruisers with raised casemate decks which build historically have 30% fore offsets. Also, side underwater torpedoes also seem to favour the front weight-wise, worsening the issue substantially. This loves happening with early designs where your options to fix it are giving the ship a non-uniform main gun load or just wear the huge offset penalties. More options in general for these many hulls of all eras up to 1930 (later if you keep using them to make cheaper battleships) ships is a huge desire of mine, as in making the latest ones as customisable as possible *I want light torpedo boats and motor gun boats. All the way through history. Use the extant models for now by never obsoleting them but please make a few later models too please- they are cheap and cheerful and great at responding to air threats due to their natural speed. Two hulls per nation should be enough and they're tiny and won't take long. And yes, I *would* like to put a RADAR module with a fixed and decent ten-twelve kilometres range on them, because, y'know, they did that. *Would like quad, quintuple, hextuple and octuple mounts for secondaries, with the octuples having two layers of four each, one stack atop the other (or other arrangements- surprise me). Ever seen an octuple pom-pom? That's nearly an octuple 2-inch gun. Would like quintuples and hexruples for mains too. Just because it *wasn't* done doesn't mean it *couldn't* have been; plans were drawn using such things if never completed. *Otherwise uniform main guns in different sized turrets (like the Pensacola class) can both share ammo and not take an aiming penalty for mixed main armament seeing as they aren't mixed at all, and the game doesn't accommodate that. I'd like it to. If my three different sizes of two inch guns all use the same shell they should be able to pull from the same pool. *Light cruisers should be able to be use four and five inch guns as either mains or secondaries. Mogamis, Brooklyns, and more all were light cruisers, were built during this game's active period, and mounted five-inch secondaries. Of course, for these weapons to show up secondaries you'd need a main gun larger than the ones you want as secondaries. Destroyers with five-inch or six-inch guns should consider everything beneath that secondaries too, and the Germans proved you can make a six-inch armed destroyer and it works fine too, so I'd like destroyer to have access to six-inch primaries in addition to secondaries up to five inches. Cruisers should be able to consider all guns smaller than their mains as secondaries. Worst case scenarios these ships should be able to use guns two sizes smaller than their mains secondaries. But a destroyer with one 2-inch gun on either side but a primary battery of five inch guns shouldn't be penalised with reduced aiming times for them- also I want more fine control over said destroyers' munitions choices; their fives can engage a cruiser with AP while the twos engage transports with HE. ***** If you made it this far, good work. You still understand the value of reading :) More ideas will likely come. Some will be awesome, some may suck and be ignored or even ridiculed, some will just be basic improvements, but I feel most of this is useful. Thanks for reading,
  2. Thanks to the Equipment Mod, I had acces to this readout of the naval gun stats and I have a couple of questions about some of them: "ID": "4 pdr Woolwich Gun", "crew": 2.0, "groundBatterySize": 3.0, "horizontalTurnMax": 25.0, "navalBatterySize": 1.0, "reloadTime": 80.0, "threat": 235.0, "type": "Cannon", "verticalTurnMax": 10.0, "verticalTurnMin": -5.0, "weight": 2.0, "goldPrice": 60, "Ballistics": { "verticalSpread": 0.7, "radius": 0.04, "mass": 3.5, "horizontalSpread": 2.6, "gravity": 1.0, "distance": 950.0, "baseY": 0.0, "armorPiercing": {lots of stuff} } crew: Fairly obvious that this is the required crew to man the gun, but I wonder, is this an all or nothing number or more a gradient? e.g. a gun has crew 10, if I only have 9 crew available for it, does it cease functioning immediately or has it simply got reduced performance? groundBatterySize & navalBatterySize: the only ones I'm really clueless about. Since the naval one is always 1.0 and the ground one varies between 1.0 and 3.0, with smaller guns having the higher value I suspect it perhaps has to do with model size? threat: I am assuming this is for the AI to help in choosing its targets based on equipment, but I want to be sure. goldPrice: Quite obviously the price of the gun, but I wonder how it is adapted to each campaign, since I recall vastly different prices between British and US campaigns even with the same economic skills. mass: Looks to be the damage number that is reported on the details screen, but how does this mass interact with (over)penetration to determine actual damage to planking and/or hull? armorPiercing: This seem to be datapoints for certain % of the guns range, with tangents describing the incoming or outgoing function line, but these tangents currently seem to imply linear progression between all points, though I do see a tangentmode modifier, so I assume it is possible to go for exponential and other forms as well?
  3. 1. Make the Belt and Deck armor be the armor protecting the middle of the ship, and make the Extended Belt and Extended Deck armor be the armor protecting the ends of the ship 1a. On ships with a Citadel, add armored bulkheads as thick as the Belt 1b. Make is so that if the ends of the ship are flooding, the middle can’t flood unless the armored bulkheads have been penetrated, or have been partially penetrated multiple times. 1c. Make the Citadel long enough, on ships with no Extended armor, that if it is the only part of the ship that hasn’t been flooded the ship will still float, but only by a very thin margin. 2. Remove the barrette component and replace it with anti-flash mechanisms and/or improved ammo storage. IRL they reduced rate of fire/increased cost respectively, but also reduced the chance of a magazine detonation if the turret/barrette was penetrated.
  4. Suggestion: Implementation of Open World instances ( dynamic spawn ) that do not, necessarily, contain combat. They should simply spawn "randomly" everywhere, even in the middle of nowhere in some cases. Like 1 spawn for every 3 counties area. Limited to 7th and 6th rates - basic cutter excluded. They should be closed once started. No interference. They should not be repeatable, once used they disappear. Time limit of instance - very small. From 15 minutes to 30 minutes maximum. Mechanics: Player has to navigate, use wind properly, net get caught in leeshore where appliable, and reach the objective, access "location/ship hold" and overall make use of all mechanics other than "aim/shoot". Examples: - navigate shoal reefs to reach a ship wreck - use NA:L bathometric instance design (!) - provide aid to stranded ship in the middle of the ocean - by supplying necessary repairs. - explore a "unknown settlement" on the coast / upriver. - trader in distress - defend AI trader from AI privateer ( this is combat ) The rewards could also be different from "individual" items for the player but Region based. Something like - 10% increase in LH for all ports in the County until next maintenance, if we help the stranded ship - or - 25% increase of NPC goods in all ports in the County, if we contact the "unknown settlement" - or- On very rare occasions, a "epic" loot item, such as a Silver Chest. Say 1 instance out of 100 per maintenance cycle. So only 1 player out of everyone might bump into it. - could provide item similar to the old Letters with indication to navigate to a "certain port" to receive a "thank you" reward, similar to a "sealed Bottle" but being claimed in a port, not in the middle of the sea, and sharing the same mechanic - weight, cargo space, all in one or nothing. Pros: - stuff for newcomers and veterans alike, using the 7th and 6th rates - does not involve big ships, just the smaller vessels are eligible to enter Cons: - instance level making ( dev time ) - no special gear rewards - may award enemy regions with bonuses
  5. After being in battle against a national (both in pirate frigates) I thought how pirate mechanics are supposed to offer a different gameplay - but a pirate only ship (pirate frig), through game mechanics can be sold for gold or w/e, which means the chance (certainty) that a national will be purchasing one. I suggest : When you are pirate - the armaments on your ship changes to the upgraded fit when you dock, unless it is already pirate statistics. Such as the pirate frigate vs the frigate. Same ship - different cannon fit, sail/speed bonus or whatever (the bonus/statistic change is not really relevant to the suggestion, no flamewar plz) An example of how it works: -capture a ship from a national/AI -dock at a port -captured ship then updates to its pirate statistics This can also work the opposite way if you are a national capturing a pirate: -capture a pirate ship from a pirate -dock at port -captured ship reverts to its civilian/navy statistics This would allow you to temporarily use a pirate fitted ship until you next dock, after which it reverts back. This way the nationals wouldn't be able to sail our ships whenever they want, because they would have to be a pirate to get access to the alternate fitting for the ship, or capture a pirate ship off a player and use it until you next dock. The ships would look exactly the same, but have better class, more crew, or whatever the bonus is for the ship based on how pirates used the ship differently, or w/e. No flame :^)
  6. In reality any Captain would have in his crew many men and boys whose job it would be to "Lookout" for other ships. This game models having crew load the guns and turn the yards so why not lookouts in the OW (and perhaps in battle)? It would be pretty clear if the Dev's put in a mechanism to show graphically when enemy and friendly ships came into a certain range (say 8 nautical miles) - like this: Current sailing gizmo : Two Enemy ships show up: Then three Friendlies show: This would save the Captain from always having to do the crews work and look out for other ships. I might even go a step further and ask for a "ding" when a ship shows up to take the place of a lookouts call "Sail HO - off the larboard taffrail" On a frigate at least three people would be on lookout duty at any one time - and they would be thrown overboard if they didn't know a friendly from an enemy ship for the most part.
  7. Seen a few of these posts but thought I might as well have a go The aim of these ideas is to make the pirates a unique 'hardcore' pvp faction with interesting mechanics but also limited economic and military strength compared to the nations. These should also keep a nice balance of power between the industrial and pvp players in the nations. Pirates Economy One economy building per player 25% tax for all trades between pirates and other nations, including player to AI and player to player (bribes, mistrust etc) Production/ships Largest ship produced by pirates will be 5th rates Cannot purchase ships from other nations, any ships larger than a 5th rate will have to be captured (1 dura) Conquest Pirates will be unable to participate in the current conquest mechanics Nations will be unable to launch a port battle/flag against pirate ports New 'control' system describing the difficulties nations had at the time keeping the peace in their colonies Each national port/region will have a base 'control' score (CS) which will naturally decay over time. Local merchants (AI) will create hauling missions for national players to take goods to any ports that need it (similar to the current missions) to increase the CS for that region. If the CS for the region goes too low the nation then has 24 hours to increase the CS above the base score or the region will flip to the pirates. To recover a pirate port (any) nation can send goods near the port to reduce the pirate CS. If the CS goes low enough and stays below the base CS for 24 hours the port will flip to the nation that delivered the most goods. Pirate CS is increased by pirates transporting their own goods to the ports or by capturing/sinking enemy (player) trade ships in the region. These mechanics should create a situation where pirates become strongest on the borders or quiet areas of the national empires. Finding opportunities where nations are fighting each other and playing them off against each other. Small groups of pirates will be able to harass areas and capture a region or two by raiding ports and shipping trying to supply those ports – but find it extremely hard to hold onto those regions when an organised fleet of traders and warships try to take them back. (If technically possible) Pardons could be purchased by a pirate player at any free port which will allow them to join one of the nations for a fixed time (7/14/28 days). The cost of these pardons would depend on the rank and fame of the captain (see Zooloo's fame system for ideas) meaning a famous Curse would find it stupidly expensive. At the end of the time frame the captain would revert back to a pirate (with xp and fame penalties) and lose any of the advantages of being a national captain – 5 dura ships etc. Any comments welcome
  8. Hi all. Here is my idea. Im a clan lead and i would like to separate warehouse acces permission, to the "officer" permission. Let me explain that. ( If I get there ) I've a lot of officers, but some guys just for warehouse acces (not for manage clan) I'd like to have: a craft team (with warehouse acces), and real clan officers. If possible to have: a Clan Lead (with all permission) a lot of officers (with a few permission to manage clan) and a third grade juste for warehouse acces. sorry guys for my badly english... This is just a Google translate... Truly, Snaff
  9. I wanted to start a thread for those of us trying to understand the new game mechanics. To get the ball rolling, I am wondering how we take cover behind stone walls or other embattlements. I have seen the AI do it, and my men have sometimes started in that position, but I have no idea how to order them to do so. Does anyone have any suggestions or other new mechanics they are struggling with.
  10. I am not one to argue for the nerfing of pirates, nor to demand that they are made “no longer a nation”. I don’t argue against either of these positions either. I don’t have an opinion either way, and I’m not particularly invested in the outcome. I am sure that whatever the developers come up with for the pirates, with input and correctives from the testing community, will eventually serve its purpose. However, I have been contemplating a lot on the implementation and the implications of the regional conquest system, and I got to thinking about how the pirate faction will fit into this, both strategically and in terms of gameplay. And I wish to offer my thoughts and suggestions. So, I think there have been multiple posts by devs, arguing that historical pirates did own ports, and that the devs want them to be able to do this in the game. I have no objections to this. Regardless I think it will be interesting to have pirates be able to own ports, and should they be limited, basically, to open waters only, that would be a significant drawback to the faction. They should be able to attack ports at least, be it in the future only to raid ports or to capture them. Yet now that the regional conquest system is beginning to take form, I wonder how the pirates should fit into this. Did pirates ever really conquer an entire map area with infrastructure and a capital city - i.e a region? (I haven’t read enough about it to say either way, feel free to enlighten me) Suggestion for Pirate conquest So how about if pirates were not able to conquer regions the same way as every other nation will be able to? How about if pirates were left the only faction that would still be able, after the new system, to conquer individual ports (quite similar to the current conquest system) - rather than regions? What if pirates were able to raise hostility/conquest meter in a region just like any other nation, but where other nations then have to attempt to capture every port of that region, or lose it in its entirety, pirates would have to choose one port of that region and assault that one (the owning nation could be left to guess until the last minute which specific port would actually be assaulted)? If pirates won the assault, that individual port would then be owned by the pirates, despite being part of a region held by another faction. The pirate port would be immune from reconquest by the owner of the region for the same length of time that regions will be immune (if even) from reconquest by nations after changing hands, or possibly twice as long. After that the owner of the region would have to raise hostility outside that particular port to open it up for reconquest. Pirates would be able to hold more than one port of a region, but only by raising hostility once - and taking a port - and then raising hostility again to take another port (and so on). Pirates holding a port in your region would mean extensive raiding of trade and resources in the region, and result in a percentage loss to trade income and resource production in the entire region for the nation that owns it. Pirates conquering a port of a region, would make a good base for them to raid the resources and raze the infrastructure of that region, probably also weakening it severely in case a neighbouring faction then decided to invade that region. Pirate conquest would be completely unrestricted by proximity and distance. Pirates, from Mortimer Town, could raid Tampico in the Gulf of Mexico, Tulum in the Yucatan, or Lagunillas in the Lago de Maracaibo, and own ports in each of the four corners of the map. Pirates could conquer deep into national territories. No economic zone or PvE-area of a nation would be safe from invasion and conquest by pirates. ----------------------------------- I believe this proposal could work to make pirates something distinct and different from nations, while maintaining them as an interesting faction. It could make pirates truly the joker of the map, while avoiding that they would be just another nation competing for dominance of the map and with an advantage in both strategy and numbers over many of the nations.
  11. As we all know port battle timers are a pain. Either you have to be awake at some godawful hour or you cant get the support for it during your primetime. BUT, What if you could in a sense have your cake and eat it too. My proposal is a simple one. Keep the port timers. And in addition to them make it so you can buy the flag at anytime but at the expense of 5-10x the base cost of the flag. So it is possible to get that port you wanted, but at a cost. The one thing the devs arent looking at really is the mechanic of our own economics. Do some ppl have the ability to throw down upwards 6 mil for a port flag? sure. but will they for long if they keep doing that? not really or realistically. So instead of the devs trying to make everybody happy by engineering a new system, why not keep the one we all know with the added ability to not be so strongly tied to it. Also know that if you set the timer to when you cant defend but still lose it, that the enemy paid one way or another to get it. Plus we are talking about the chance to take a port not the foregone conclusion that they actually win it. buying the flag doesn't mean anything unless you win the battle. so my idea in example say you wanted to sack "generic portname here" and the timer is set for 04-06. At those times the cost is 400k now if you dont have the manpower at that time you can buy the flag still but at 5-10x the cost, (only balancing would come up with a real number) for the sake of simplicity we'll say its 10x. now that port flag can be bought at anytime but for 4 mil when not in the port's time slot. Could the multiplier be static across all ports? sure could the multiplier be on a sliding scale with a mechanic added like how many times its been sacked in say a 30 day period (again, spit balling) so that the multiplying cost would go up to limit the amount of times its been hit? sure. Again let economics be the mechanic instead of anything else thoughts? ideas? please post
  12. 1. To encourage international trade (and avoid nations being eliminated due to loss of resources) I suggest that traders be allowed to change flags (and displayed names?) when travelling such that international trade can take place with traders able to visit any port where they fly the same flag. 1a. Perhaps some limitation on contracts placed (max value or weight?) in a foreign port could be introduced for 'alternate flag' traders. 1b. To make trading hazardous perhaps the papers of the vessel may be checked by certain classes of war vessel (privateer or warships carrying marines but they have to get close in open world to do so?) and both the flag and displayed name returned to actual name and nation (for a time or until reset at a freetown visit) and thus available for attack. 1c. I am not suggesting a name and flag change for warships (although it might be worth considering for Pirates if there is a change in their nation game mechanics). 1d. This may eliminate the need for freetowns at all, which are perhaps an unnecessary anomaly. 2.To stop Freetown sneeky pop-in pop-out exploit mugging I suggest that all freetowns should only be available as outposts for trading vessels and that warship are not on sale at freetowns. 2a. that trading vessels with cannons not be allowed to initiate an attack. Buster Bloodvessel Sucks on pipe (budgie on stem) ​
  13. Can someone explain to me how these mechanics work? To my understanding it simply means that no one can join a battle after the initial tag that would imbalance the BR by a factor of more than 1.5x. And yet, a few minutes ago I was tagged by a belle poule in my surprise, and after the battle started (30 seconds in), a frigate joined the belle's side. If my understanding of the mechanics applied, this should have been impossible, because: Surprise - 140 BR Belle Poule - 180 BR Frigate - 170 BR 140 BR x 1.5 = 210 180+170=350 350>210 Therefore the frigate should be incapable of reinforcing the belle. But he was capable of reinforcing the belle. Why? http://imgur.com/yL2wkC4
  14. As the title says, while the shotlogger will you you your pens, non-pens, and misses it only shows the pens, non-pens of the enemy. Which makes it difficult to collect complete information for the purpose of proving points and making informed suggestions. (As I am now aware of this due to my attempts to more thoroughly study the new ai everyone is freaking out about)
  15. So today I was sailing my privateer around and got tagged/ganked by a group of 5: 2 connies, 1 trinc, 1 surprise, and 1 frigate I believe. I really don't mind bc I'm learning pvp & running but with that br they should not be able to tag such a small ship as the privateer. I'm curious as to how tagging actually works. Is there even a br percentage cap (i.e. In order to tag, the tag group br cannot be more than 120% greater) or such? If not, there should be to reduce ganking. If there is such a mechanic, it needs fixing.
  16. Hey all, Hear me out. I strongly believe that if XP was secondary to personal wealth as the main factor to overcome in this game, it would have a wildly positive impact on gameplay and improve/solve so many aspects which are currently an issue. A few examples if wealth was the limiting factor to better ships and equipment: 1. Boarding and capture would be much more appealing than simply damaging/sinking other ships. This is much more akin to actual practices in this time period, and is much more exciting in general than the same old "all fights end in total destruction" practice which is currently par for the course. 2. Sea lanes would become much more active, as merchanting would become even more important. More merchants means more pirates and privateers, meaning more battles and excitement as players seek to capture cargo bound to be more valuable than NPCs. 3. The elimination of an XP grind for better ships/equipment makes the game much more appealing to new players. XP can definitely still play a factor in crew skill and etc, but if the only thing limiting players shipwise is simply their own personal wealth and purchasing power, the motivation to go out and either start merchanting or boarding+capturing becomes much greater. These are just a few of the positive affects of changing from an XP-centric game to an Economy-centric game. If anyone knows of any more (or of any drawbacks - it's good to discuss all possibilities), please speak up!
  17. Hello everyone, After playing this game for ~2 weeks, I'd like to add some suggestions for gameplay: 1: Open world navigation: Add lighthouses and/or star navigation mechanic for night navigation Add a moveable compass, protractor, distance gauges, and "degrees" onto the compasses for improved navigation Add alert system for land masses, enemy players, etc so that I can be alerted during long voyages (because I sometimes watch youtube or study while doing these long voyages) add a spy glass to the open world Add a fast travel mechanic for outposts (this can be very abused, maybe a long cool down... 1 day, 10 minute initiation timer, etc?) 2: Battles make the battle map mimic the area you started the battle.3: Social/team make it easier to find teams, work together, etc for missions/PVP/assaults. (this seems difficult at the moment to organize)I'm sure I'll come up with more later. I've enjoyed this game thus far, can't wait to see it further develop. Regards, Dunn
  18. Make pirate towns... - uncapturable (like Free towns) - unable to be entered by any nation - few in number, but spread across the whole map (has to be done in locations that cannot be blocked easily by nationals all the time, or there has to be the option to sail under false flag and avoid a blockade this way.) Make pirates unable to capture towns. Make them able to enter Free towns however (for selling loot). Maybe pirates could enter national towns under false flag under some conditions. Nothing specific in my mind here yet.
  19. So while waiting for my team to destroy the last ship on the team, who had disconnected at the beginning of the game, I came up with an idea. I think it would be beneficial when it comes to people disconnecting, other than perhaps working on the netcode, if there was some sort of timer that begins as soon as someone disconnects. If that person isn't able to reconnect within, say 5 minutes, his or her ship would automatically sink. This would ultimately speed up matches, because we wouldn't have to wait for the remaining ships to go upwind across the entire map to go sink the ship that disconnected. This is just an idea, but I think it would work.
  20. Ahoy Matees! I want to mention a couple observations and suggestions on the sailing mechanics in regards to leeway and currents. LEEWAY I don't know if this has been covered yet and forgive me about lacking clarity in trying to convey but I haven't noticed any LEEWAY (the sideways drift of a ship to leeward of the desired course). When on a beam reach (the wind is coming from the side {65-125 degrees }), my ship should move slightly down wind or leeward. Leeway should increase the more lateral wind there is pushing your sails. Leeway also increases with heel. I know this is a very complex mechanic and not neccessarily neccessary, but it would enhance realism, strategy, and players' appreciation for sailing. DANGER OF LEEWAY: LEE SHORE Also, historically, especially with square-rigged sails, a lee shore was a dreaded thought for sailors. This is when shore is within sight but the wind is headed directly towards it. This is bad because even if a vessel is close hauled, the wind pushes the boat back towards the wind. Sure, the boat may be moving "forward" but in reality the boat is veering and will innevitably head closer to shore and if the wind never changes, would innevitably run aground, despite best possible efforts at tacking. Anchoring is the only hope here. But I digress, it may not be necessary. CURRENT and TIDES Now in the sea trials I have tried to crash into the lighthouse and found that it is not programmed to be crashed into. (I just flew right through it). I know that open world will be the more appropriate time to test the mechanics of running aground and currents. But I just want to reiterate the importance of currents in sailing. Tides and their ebb and flow were crucial to timing when a ship would enter or leave a port efficiently. Also, open water currents would often perplex sailors in navigation and could be a fun addition to long distance travel in the game. I hope this was somewhat clear and I would be happy to try to re-explain.
×
×
  • Create New...