Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
  • 0

Testbed - Demasting & Accuracy cap


Liq

Question

I've been testing demasing on the testbed for a bit.
There seem to be quite a few new +accuracy upgrades / skill books. The ones a clanmate has found so far are the following:

  • "Table Of Parts Of Ships Of War" -10% Dispersion
  • "Flag Officer" -8% Dispersion
  • "Sir William Congreve's Sights" -5% Dispersion

Additionally, if running carronades, the perk "Carronade Expert" lowers the Dispersion by another 5%.

All these buffs combined result in an accuracy bonus of +28%.

Now, I'm wondering, is there a cap for dispersion? Because I think the point of Carronades is to be somewhat in-accurate close up damage dealers and they're not meant to be laser guided missiles.
Combined with the buff regarding demasting (It takes 7 32pdr hits to demast a surp's main mast, see the video below), and the repair time being upped to 15 minutes, demasting might actually become a more often used thing to do in battle. We will know once it goes to live servers :) I'm very curious to see.

(In this Video I didn't have any accuracy buffing upgrades / skill books, so imagine if someone stacks all possible upgrades together, that might result in some crazy sniper action.)

 
Edited by Liquicity
  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0
2 hours ago, Challenge said:

And in that 1hr and 2o min they weren't able to repair one of the masts? I only takes 15 min in our time acceleration -- that's what maybe an hour in real time?

Take a look at what @Remus posted, apparently the Java  was able to jury rig a makeshift mast to try to stabilize the ship and gain steerage way. You could probably rig something up to make a makeshift lower mast, but you certainly would not be able to gain an entire mast back, from the lower mast up.

If you noticed what I have suggested before: ability to repair upper masts once in a fight, and repair lower masts never, but adjust difficulty of removing lower masts to compensate; I think that would be a good system. It would reflect what could be done historically, prevent unskilled people from even bothering with trying to demast people, and still give those of us skilled enough to shoot down a mast a distinct advantage in the de-sailing/demasting phases of a fight.

With the new HP system on testbed, if you don't know how to demast properly, your enemy should have you sinking before you could ever get more than 2 masts down. The skilled folks can demast you before you sink them, but not the average skipper trying to show off.

1 hour ago, Remus said:

Now, there's a couple of things we don't see in game :D

One day, in the far far future, I hope to see shooting away yards become a thing, as well as causing the wreckage from a lost mast hinder the firing of guns/turning of the ship until it can be cleared away (give a timer to clear it all away). But that is something I don't think needs to be implemented until all the other bugs and mechanics being currently introduced are fixed and balanced properly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 minute ago, Willis PVP2 said:

Take a look at what @Remus posted, apparently the Java  was able to jury rig a makeshift mast to try to stabilize the ship and gain steerage way. You could probably rig something up to make a makeshift lower mast, but you certainly would not be able to gain an entire mast back, from the lower mast up.

 

I recall reading accounts of sailors setting up jury masts in other disasters, but I think this is Java's lower foremast itself - what's left of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
2 minutes ago, Willis PVP2 said:

The Constitution was obviously shooting the masts of the Java, (as the article indicates) because Java kept trying to rake the Constitution. Sound kind of familiar to what we do in Naval Action? Because if you try to rake me, I shall try to demast you. One tactic to counter the other.

PS: Its best to read up on some historical battles before claiming that demasting was not a tactic, or that ships could repair masts after every battle. In some cases, a simple yard from one of the sails would have to suffice to stand in for a mast: if a frigate lost her topmast, perhaps a lineship in the squadron could send over one of her spare topsail yards to be used as a jury rigged mast aboard the frigate.

So you are saying that a Connie demasted a smaller ship?  But like 2x3rd rates demasting each other?  Not shooting hull as demasting was dominant tactic for that age?

I have understood a Connie could penetrate Java from every possible angle.  Connie would not take a shot to hull, even if would get a clear shot, instead just continued shooting masts?  IRL I have understood crew would die from side hull hits as well. Side hull was not like a shield like in NA, that protected crew from everything.  If I have understood this correctly, without reading anything about historical battles.  I have understood also that side hull hits are actually pretty unrealistic in NA, as that would end the game fast, and would not be fun for guys who want to snipe masts and rake?

Was there more or less always demasting in combat?  Sniping all the time?  Like in NA?

I am not seeing too much topmasts falling, always just from the root.  Very interesting.

Also, I think there should be multiple battles taken on account, not just one.  So if demasting, mast sniping, was a common thing, then cool.  But somehow I have understood, without reading about some historical battles, that cannons at that time were not really that accurate.  But what do I know.

About repairing..  I have actually understood that they did not repair masts.  Also am a bit interested, as masts were the target for snipers.  As it seems to be historical now.  Did they have some ships designed to repair other ships?  As probably they lost a mast or 2 in every battle, or even 3 sometimes.  So to not lose their ships all the time, they must have had a towing fleet at least?

Also not sure if we should keep one battle where demasting happened as a guide how all should be designed.  Probably this same stuff is written from every battle?  Sniping masts?  So if I just pick a book about historical battle, they probably explain me how they were sniping masts? It was a dominant tactic and all, so probably so, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
5 hours ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

So you are saying that a Connie demasted a smaller ship?  But like 2x3rd rates demasting each other?  Not shooting hull as demasting was dominant tactic for that age?

I have understood a Connie could penetrate Java from every possible angle.  Connie would not take a shot to hull, even if would get a clear shot, instead just continued shooting masts?  IRL I have understood crew would die from side hull hits as well. Side hull was not like a shield like in NA, that protected crew from everything.  If I have understood this correctly, without reading anything about historical battles.  I have understood also that side hull hits are actually pretty unrealistic in NA, as that would end the game fast, and would not be fun for guys who want to snipe masts and rake?

Was there more or less always demasting in combat?  Sniping all the time?  Like in NA?

I am not seeing too much topmasts falling, always just from the root.  Very interesting.

Also, I think there should be multiple battles taken on account, not just one.  So if demasting, mast sniping, was a common thing, then cool.  But somehow I have understood, without reading about some historical battles, that cannons at that time were not really that accurate.  But what do I know.

About repairing..  I have actually understood that they did not repair masts.  Also am a bit interested, as masts were the target for snipers.  As it seems to be historical now.  Did they have some ships designed to repair other ships?  As probably they lost a mast or 2 in every battle, or even 3 sometimes.  So to not lose their ships all the time, they must have had a towing fleet at least?

Also not sure if we should keep one battle where demasting happened as a guide how all should be designed.  Probably this same stuff is written from every battle?  Sniping masts?  So if I just pick a book about historical battle, they probably explain me how they were sniping masts? It was a dominant tactic and all, so probably so, right?

Lot of questions here, not really sure if you are looking for answers or trying to make some kind of point. At any rate, I'll give you answers whether you wanted them or not. ;) 

Basically:

  • Yes, demasting was prevalent and happened in a lot of battles. Look at Constitution vs. Guerrier; Indefatigable and Amazon vs. the French third rate Droits de l'Homme (where the frigates shot away the third rate's mizzenmast); Agamemnon vs Santissima Trinidad at the Battle of Trafalgar (Agamemnon pounded the four decker until Santi lost her masts and eventually struck her colors); HMS Bellerophon (74) lost some masts during the Glorious First of June, lost all masts in the Battle of the Nile, and lost two masts in the Battle of Trafalgar.  For further evidence, one only needs to take a look at many of the paintings you see for age of sail combat: oftentimes, ships are shown demasted in combat. If you want concrete evidence, a quick google search will pull up as many details as are commonly known about the battle in question.
  • If you could take out your enemy's rigging, then you could easily maneuver around him and stern rake him, so yes it was a strategy.
  • Who said Constitution would penetrate Java from every angle? Java was a lighter frigate, sure, but she was definitely no slouch. She was worked up, well-handled, and extremely deadly. By all rights, she was quite a fight for dear old Ironsides. And Java was trying to stay on Constitution's stern and rake, Constitution wanted nothing of that, but could not outmaneuver the more nimble ship, demasting was the answer.
  • Not at all sure what you are referring to side hull hits. We have those in Naval Action, and they work quite well, just as they did in history. 
  • The reason you see more lower masts falling and less upper masts falling is because, while it takes longer, it is more effective to completely take out a mast, rather than partially do it. However, it is important to note, that demasting topmasts and topgallant masts is much easier (takes fewer shots, and can be penetrated by lighter cannon) that taking out the lower masts. I have seen used this to advantage in a couple of fights where a skipper was in a small ship and needed to demast a larger ship: he can't take out the lower masts, but he can take out the upper masts.
  • Cannons were not super accurate, that being said, if you fire enough of them, aimed at a target, a few are bound to hit it. And remember, using chainshot to knock out the rigging of the ships was another tactic to demast: cut the ropes that keep the masts upright and the masts will fall. In reality, it would only take a few good ball shots to a mast to shatter it, or at least render it too weak to carry much canvas. Since we have a game with sped up time and increased cannon accuracy (to make the game more playable and fun), devs have wisely made it take more than 2-4 shots to take out a mast of a similar sized vessel. There have been several threads discussing how to make chainshot and rigging damage work into demasting strategy, and I've posted my opinions on those, so I won't linger too long on this topic.
  • I don't think it was common to sail with a "supply ship" to carry extra masts. Large squadrons on blockade duty would have probably sailed with ships that could run supplies to them from port, but I am not sure if this was common practice for other fleets or not. What I do know is that most warships that would be sent on solo cruises, such as 3rd rates and smaller, were meant to be completely self-sufficient for the expected duration of the voyage, or until they could re-supply in port. Ships would usually carry enough spars to replace their topmasts, topgallants, and a few yards. The carpenter had these supplies to jury rig whatever got shot away. Also remember, if a ship lost masts, or even had damage done to them, chances are whatever side lost the battle would have a ship with at least enough spars intact to replace them ("borrowing" the masts from his captured enemy).
  • Yup, if you do much reading on combat in the age of sail, you will read about demasting. It was pretty common. Think about it, you can disable the one thing that is letting your enemy bring his guns to bear on you. If you think you have a solid chance to do that, maybe you better do it. If not, or if you have some advantage (maneuverability, firepower, numbers, etc.), then maybe you shouldn't be focusing on getting his masts down.

There ya go, told ya I'd answer whether the questions were rhetorical or not. Hope it cleared some things up :).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
5 hours ago, Willis PVP2 said:

There ya go, told ya I'd answer whether the questions were rhetorical or not. Hope it cleared some things up :).

In Master and Commander, even in that Hollywood movie they 1st shot the hull.  They did not start from sniping masts, until it was time for some heroic naval action.  I have also understood this was only Hollywood.  It was not a norm to snipe masts.

All that I have read about naval artillery from that time -> It probably did not make sense to snipe masts or fire full broadsides of balls to masts.

Shooting rigging with chain, yes, this makes sense.  In the end could have caused mast tops to come down as well.

...

Oh, and side hull hits were more brutal in real life than in the game.

Royal Navy tactic was to sail close and hull bash hard. It was very efficient, it was a war winning tactic.

Now in this game, we do not want this kind of damage, as it would be a bit boring.  Many want to bend combat to be more about raking and mast sniping.  I do not think that makes it realistic.

When it was decided to bring side hull damage down (especially crew damage), everything else should have followed.  Instead people were calling massive rake damage, and mast sniping.  For some reason everyone wants to forget that hull hits from sides did cause damage, not just decreasing a HP bar.

Edited by Cmdr RideZ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
14 hours ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

 It was not a norm to snipe masts.

All that I have read about naval artillery from that time -> It probably did not make sense to snipe masts or fire full broadsides of balls to masts.

Did you read my examples? I did about 10 minutes of research into historical naval battles and gave 6 examples of ships being demasted in 1vs1, 2vs1, and fleet engagements. I easily left out other examples (Agamemnon was demasted in many battles she fought, I just gave the one example where she demasted the Santissima Trinidad), and again, only did a few minutes research to find examples of demastings.

I'm not sure why you keep saying it does not make sense to snipe masts or fire full broadsides into masts...as I said, if you can cause your enemy to become immobile and prevent him from bringing his guns to bear on you, wouldn't you do it?

Besides, if you fire a full broadside, directed at your enemy's masts and supporting rigging, you are bound to cause major damage unless your gun crew is extremely drunk. If one cannon is like a poorly aimed rifle, then 20 cannons must be like a shotgun blast: some are going to hit the mast and weaken it, some will hit the rigging and cut it, some will hit sails and tear them, some will hit yards and shatter them.

14 hours ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

Oh, and side hull hits were more brutal in real life than in the game.

Royal Navy tactic was to sail close and hull bash hard. It was very efficient, it was a war winning tactic.

Now in this game, we do not want this kind of damage, as it would be a bit boring.  Many want to bend combat to be more about raking and mast sniping.  I do not think that makes it realistic.

When it was decided to bring side hull damage down (especially crew damage), everything else should have followed.  Instead people were calling massive rake damage, and mast sniping.  For some reason everyone wants to forget that hull hits from sides did cause damage, not just decreasing a HP bar.

Where did you get the information that the Royal Navy only fought up close? Did you not read the battle logs of Java vs. ConstitutionJava repeatedly went to rake the larger frigate. How about the Battle of Trafalgar, where instead of fighting line to line, Nelson decided to cut the Franco-Spanish line and rake everyone (especially Bucentaure) into oblivion? And in that battle, Agamemnon chose to stay out of the firing arc of the much larger Santissima and demast the floating gun platform. To say that going in close and smashing hull was the prevalent tactic is simply not true. The fact remains that in Naval Action, a good rake or a skillful demasting could turn the fight decidedly in your favor: have not historical records proven this to be a fact? [Hint: read the examples I gave, read some books on naval combat, do some research of your own, you will find that rakes and demastings were quite common and very powerful tactics].

Nobody has ever said that hull hits don't cause damage. I don't know what ships you are fighting, but even on live servers, when I shoot someone in their hull, I almost always take out crew, cannons, and occasionally start fires, take out pumps, or even shatter his wheel. And if you've played on testbed, you'll notice that the damage done by shooting hull has been buffed (via the new damage model and the increase in firepower from cannons). So not sure what you are saying about hull damage doing nothing.

If you find yourself being repeatedly raked or demasted, perhaps it is not mechanics that are to blame. I rarely find myself demasted unless the enemy has also lost some masts. Furthermore, if you are raking me, it is MY FAULT and YOUR SKILL that let you get there, I have no game mechanics to blame for that. So to sum it up, if you engage a player that is more skilled at raking, or demasting, or shooting cannons away, or staying on the weakened side, etc. than you are; you'd best hope you can out-dps him or try to some Jack Aubrey stuff to pull out a win. You should not stand a chance to win against a more skilled player. No game mechanic should help someone beat a more skilled opponent. We are not playing a game to award participation trophies or make everyone feel like a winner. 

I find it extremely irritating when I spent many hours learning how to demast properly, and someone comes up with "But thats not realistic!" or "Thats OP," or something similar. I feel the urge to say "Wrong sir! Wrong indeed! You have been demasted, you had your chance to do something spectacular while I was demasting you, but you didn't and now it is time for you to pay for your inefficiency and lack of skill! Muwhahahahaha!" I don't complain when I get demasted by someone, instead, I concede that I have been bested by a more skilled player.

All this leads me to wonder why, (in fights where everything but the players are equal)...why do some captains expect to automatically be good at the game? Or to stand a chance at beating someone who has put a lot of time and effort into honing their skills?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
14 hours ago, Willis PVP2 said:

1. Where did you get the information that the Royal Navy only fought up close?

2. Did you not read the battle logs of Java vs. ConstitutionJava repeatedly went to rake the larger frigate.

3. And in that battle, Agamemnon chose to stay out of the firing arc of the much larger Santissima and demast the floating gun platform.

4. I don't complain when I get demasted by someone, instead, I concede that I have been bested by a more skilled player.  why do some captains expect to automatically be good at the game? Or to stand a chance at beating someone who has put a lot of time and effort into honing their skills?

1. I cannot remember sources, but I think there has been more than one.  I have understood that french were shooting more rigging and RN was for rapid-reload-hammering. edit. Also understood that French wanted to have leeward side because of this.  No?  edit2. Also understood that like for example in Trafalgar Victory hammered some, 3rd rate, was it?  But this was also because they just happened to be there like this.  But that famous RN rapid-reload-hammering was pretty well used there.  That 3rd rate, I think it went in pretty bad shape from that?

2. I actually like the Java vs Connie.  I think bigger vs smaller should be exactly like this.  But was it because they wanted to demast, or was it because they could not get in good position to hammer the hull?

3. Santisima was isolated by 4 shipts that were hammering it.  Why Santisima lost masts?  Was it because Agamemnon was sniping masts, or was it because it was simply hammered really hard. 1vs4 might have been a bit difficult situation.

4. I am not complaining someone is better than me, I am complaining it is too easy.  And I can also see what others do, and if that looks and feels too efficient...  You do not have to think that unbalanced mechanisms are always just and because you suck in computer games.

...

Agamemnon sniping Santisimas masts, and not telling the whole situation..  This makes me to think that you are biased to tell things that support your own point of view.

...

Almost forgot, about hull side damage.  I may have to test this again.  The last time it mainly decreased HP bars.

edit more. Just reading the wipe patch notes.  It says there.

  • Combat model updated. Structure introduced. Ship now receives structural leaks when structure goes down (not when armor is destroyed like before). Structure affects leaks and masts integrity (you will be able to demast by bow and stern raking)

Admin could confirm this.  It states that rake damage can cause loss of masts.  It does not state that side hull hits could cause this, right?

Edited by Cmdr RideZ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Quote

As probably they lost a mast or 2 in every battle, or even 3 sometimes.  So to not lose their ships all the time, they must have had a towing fleet at least?

They returned to port between battles, just like most players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
16 hours ago, Willis PVP2 said:

Agamemnon was demasted in many battles she fought, I just gave the one example where she demasted the Santissima Trinidad), and again, only did a few minutes research to find examples of demastings.

 Agamemnon chose to stay out of the firing arc of the much larger Santissima and demast the floating gun platform.

Is this a joke?

The Santísima Trinidad fought against 5-6 ships at the same time. So your point that Agamemnon was able to demast her is absolutely irrelevant. Why? Because if it was not Agamemnon , another ship would eventually have demasted her. Translating that action into Naval Action: Santísima sank, Agamemnon got an assist and another ship got the kill.

And yes, demasting in the testbed is very very easy. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

1. I cannot remember sources, but I think there has been more than one.  I have understood that french were shooting more rigging and RN was for rapid-reload-hammering. edit. Also understood that French wanted to have leeward side because of this.  No?  edit2. Also understood that like for example in Trafalgar Victory hammered some, 3rd rate, was it?  But this was also because they just happened to be there like this.  But that famous RN rapid-reload-hammering was pretty well used there.  That 3rd rate, I think it went in pretty bad shape from that?

2. I actually like the Java vs Connie.  I think bigger vs smaller should be exactly like this.  But was it because they wanted to demast, or was it because they could not get in good position to hammer the hull?

3. Santisima was isolated by 4 shipts that were hammering it.  Why Santisima lost masts?  Was it because Agamemnon was sniping masts, or was it because it was simply hammered really hard. 1vs4 might have been a bit difficult situation.

4. I am not complaining someone is better than me, I am complaining it is too easy.  And I can also see what others do, and if that looks and feels too efficient...  You do not have to think that unbalanced mechanisms are always just and because you suck in computer games.

...

Agamemnon sniping Santisimas masts, and not telling the whole situation..  This makes me to think that you are biased to tell things that support your own point of view.

...

Almost forgot, about hull side damage.  I may have to test this again.  The last time it mainly decreased HP bars.

edit more. Just reading the wipe patch notes.  It says there.

  • Combat model updated. Structure introduced. Ship now receives structural leaks when structure goes down (not when armor is destroyed like before). Structure affects leaks and masts integrity (you will be able to demast by bow and stern raking)

Admin could confirm this.  It states that rake damage can cause loss of masts.  It does not state that side hull hits could cause this, right?

1. Yes, I'm not saying they never shot hull. But the fact remains that they DID target masts as well. Whether the French targeted rigging, or the British targeted rigging...does it matter? We are trying to prove the point that demasting was a valid tactic, and the fact that one major naval power has been "stereotyped" as a demasting/rigging-targeting group is enough proof for me. And, as you have seen, I showed plenty of examples where the US and the British targeted rigging to demast.

2. Of course the Constitution deliberately went to demast the Java. When a smaller ship is repeatedly raking you, it becomes pretty obvious that the best tactic you can employ is to remove their maneuverability. Why would a mast fall if the gunners were intentionally targeting the hull of the ship and avoiding targeting any rigging? Furthermore...why would SO MANY masts fall (especially the topmasts, leaving stumps and lower masts on the vessel) if nobody was aiming for them?

3. I'll answer your question with a question: why would a mast fall if nobody was aiming for parts of the rigging? Whether its 1vs4 or 1vs1, a mast would only fall for three reasons: 1) you intentionally shoot at it and the surrounding rigging, 2) pure dumb luck from hitting the hull so much you manage to have a few of your gunners miss and their shot takes out the chainplates anchoring the shrouds to the hull, 3) lucky shots hitting the masts below the deck level (and this is in the testbed with the new damage model).

4. Respectfully...No. Demasting is not now (on live server), nor will it be (looking at what is on test server) easy. Unrealistic rig repairs allow for magical re-growth of masts (even worse on testbed because you can repair masts indefinitely, only being limited by the cooldown and number of rig repairs you bring), reinforced masts make it twice as hard to demast (not sure if those are on testbed, I haven't looked for them specifically), and repair-module stackability expands on the first point of unrealistic repairs. I urge all who say demasting is easy on testbed to get into a real engagement, where shot is flying between two players. One of you shall aim for masts, and one shall dry his very best to sink the other. Do so in identical ships, and try to test this with players of roughly equal skill. Load down with repair kits and spend however long in the instance it takes you until one emerges victorious. I spent a decent amount of time on testbed simply demasting everything I could engage and came to the conclusions stated above. Furthermore, if you do similar testing, I think you will be quite surprised to find that demasting is not quite as easy as the professionals make it seem. 

Not telling the whole situation of Agamemnon vs Santissma!? I never said it was 1vs1 LOL. We are talking about the Battle of Trafalgar, which I assumed everyone knew was a fleet engagement. Agamemnon was simply the ship credited, in my research, as the one which demasted the Santissma. Again, whether its 1vs4 or 1vs1, a mast would only fall for three reasons, see point 3 above. If four ships are firing at the same ship, that increases the chance of hitting the mast below deck level, "accidentally" taking out the chainplates, or having one ship decide to focus on getting those masts down.

 

About the new damage model. The structure bar is the one that you have to watch for masts. I can successfully demast an Ingermanland by stern raking with my Trincomalee. Once the center bar is down about 20%, I can expect to take out the mizzenmast soon. I know that simply losing that center bar of structure by 20% via broadside hits does not guarantee a mast to be taken out. However, I have not tested to see if weakening the structure via side hits and then raking the ship would take out a mast. I have mainly ignored this part of testing because the center bar seems to be the only one that matters for keeping the ship afloat: you can float just fine without side HP, but as soon as that side HP drops to about 10%, the center bar will begin fall extremely fast with every hit. Therefore, once your enemy is that weak, it makes no sense to take time to stern rake or try to demast, since you can simply fire one more broadside, finish off the center structure bar and watch him sink.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
22 minutes ago, _Alucard_ said:

Is this a joke?

The Santísima Trinidad fought against 5-6 ships at the same time. So your point that Agamemnon was able to demast her is absolutely irrelevant. Why? Because if it was not Agamemnon , another ship would eventually have demasted her. Translating that action into Naval Action: Santísima sank, Agamemnon got an assist and another ship got the kill.

And yes, demasting in the testbed is very very easy. 

 

Not at all a joke, it is an example of a smaller ship taking out the masts of a larger ship in a fleet engagement. Did you notice that I tried to provide examples of similar class ships demasting each other, fleet engagements with demastings, smaller ships demasting larger ships, larger ships demasting smaller ships, and ships that got demasted in multiple battles they fought in? I chose those examples to show that demasting could be used in almost any naval engagment.

Ok, so if HMS Bellona had been the one to demast the Santissima...what point would that prove? Santissima was still demasted by a smaller ship in a fleet engagement. It doesn't matter how many ships were aiming at the Santi, the one credited for taking out the masts must have been the one doing the best job aiming for masts, no? So how, again, is my point irrelevant? Ability of a ship to demast another becomes irrelevant if multiple ships are focusing fire on the ship that is being demasted?

If you wanted examples of a 1vs1 with demasting...did you take a look at Constitution vs Java or Guerrier?

When you were demasting on testbed...were you fighting an actual player who shot back and attempted to sink you, or were you fighting some dumb AI? If all you are doing is counting the number of shots to a mast to get it down then that is hardly realistic. No way would I let you sail broadside to broadside with me and single shot my masts without me doing something back to you. Did you know you can repair masts indefinitely on testbed? Your only limits are the number of rig repairs you carry, and a 15 minute cooldown timer between mast repairs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
3 hours ago, Willis PVP2 said:

No way would I let you sail broadside to broadside with me and single shot my masts without me doing something back to you.

Lets agree to disagree.  We are not getting anywhere here.  Just takes damn long to read and answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
4 hours ago, Willis PVP2 said:

Not at all a joke, it is an example of a smaller ship taking out the masts of a larger ship in a fleet engagement. 

Ok, so if it doesn't matter you take a Santísima and 5 of us take let's say 1 victory, 3 Bellonas and 1 Aga..... I wonder how long would it take us to demast you.... I bet  1 full broadside of each of us and you lose 1 or 2 masts, no need for snipping <_<

Ok, so if HMS Bellona had been the one to demast the Santissima...what point would that prove? Santissima was still demasted by a smaller ship in a fleet engagement. It doesn't matter how many ships were aiming at the Santi, the one credited for taking out the masts must have been the one doing the best job aiming for masts, no? So how, again, is my point irrelevant? Ability of a ship to demast another becomes irrelevant if multiple ships are focusing fire on the ship that is being demasted?

I think you don't understand my point of view at all. If you are are a 1st rate but you are fighting  five or six smaller ships like Santisima had to do, it doesn't matter what the Santisima does. Eventually you'll be demasted by a smaller ship, yes, and what? Don't you understand that you are outnumbered and if they all aim for masts, sooner or later you'll get demasted? The theory of a smaller ship demasting a bigger ship would be fair in a 1 vs 1.  In your example it could have been the Agamemnon, but if a frigate was passing by and shot a broadside when all the work was done by other ships, does it give all the credit to the frigate? If a cutter passes by and fires a broadside, can we say that a cutter is able to demast a Santísima? Come on, pure logic man.

If you wanted examples of a 1vs1 with demasting...did you take a look at Constitution vs Java or Guerrier?

Yes, that's a good example.

When you were demasting on testbed...were you fighting an actual player who shot back and attempted to sink you, or were you fighting some dumb AI? If all you are doing is counting the number of shots to a mast to get it down then that is hardly realistic. No way would I let you sail broadside to broadside with me and single shot my masts without me doing something back to you. Did you know you can repair masts indefinitely on testbed? Your only limits are the number of rig repairs you carry, and a 15 minute cooldown timer between mast repairs.

I tried it on the testbed only with npcs because population is really low to waste my time looking for players. But it is really easy.  Yes, the npc is not a player, I know, but if you are good at it you can do it easier than before. If you are fighting a good player aiming for demasting you, eventually he'll do it and you are doomed. Did you watch the videos of the tournament? No need to say more words...

Yes, on the testbed you can repair every 15 minutes, but if you lose 2 or 3 masts you are fu ck ed (something happened when I wrote this word correctly :P)

Let's see how it works, but I still think the same: it's too easy.

 

Edited by _Alucard_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
4 minutes ago, _Alucard_ said:

Ok, so if it doesn't matter you take a Santísima and 5 of us take let's say 1 victory, 3 Bellonas and 1 Aga..... I wonder how long would it take us to demast you.... I bet  1 full broadside of each of us and you lose 1 or 2 masts, no need for snipping <_<

Yeah, if you are all aiming for masts. Since I don't know what each broadside from each ship was aimed at...I can only draw from the information I have researched, which credits Agamemnon with pounding the Santi until the vessel was dismasted and surrendered. Whether other ships helped Agamemnon demast the Santi or not is irrelevant to the original point: demasting was a tactic and quite possible to do in the age of sail naval battles.

5 minutes ago, _Alucard_ said:

I think you don't understand my point of view at all. If you are are a 1st rate but you are fighting  five or six smaller ships like Santisima had to do, it doesn't matter what the Santisima does. Eventually you'll be demasted by a smaller ship, yes, and what? Don't you understand that you are outnumbered and if they all aim for masts, sooner or later you'll get demasted? The theory of a smaller ship demasting a bigger ship would be fair in a 1 vs 1.  In your example it could have been the Agamemnon, but if a frigate was passing by and shot a broadside when all the work was done by other ships, does it give all the credit to the frigate? If a cutter passes by and fires a broadside, can we say that a cutter is able to demast a Santísima? Come on, pure logic man.

First off [and an aside]: if I'm in a first rate fighting five smaller ships, I'm going for masts and doing everything I can to make sure we draw out this fight as long as possible (to waste your ganking time and make you earn the kill) and make sure I do as much damage to you as possible (sinking as many of you as possible), I fight dirty when I face a gank and I will be a royal pain the stern gallery and make you earn every bit of your kill. ;):P:lol:

Back on topic:

Again though, see the point above, maybe other ships shot at Santissma's masts, but I have not read anything confirming or denying other ships credit for taking out masts (remember, I'm not a naval historian though, my research comes from some quick googling and a few books I've read). Now, I'm not saying lets give the Aggy a gold star for being the one responsible for single-handedly causing the demasting of the largest warship afloat at the time, but some credit must be given where it is due. She stayed and pounded the Spanish four-decker until Santi lost all her masts, whether other ships shot the masts or not is still irrelevant to the original point: demasting was a tactic. I'm not sure how many examples of naval battles one must look at before realizing this...

If you want to argue about who should get the "kill" and who should get the "assist" in these cases then thats fine, though its irrelevant to the point that I'm attempting to show.

16 minutes ago, _Alucard_ said:

I tried it on the testbed only with npcs because population is really low to waste my time looking for players. But it is really easy.  Yes, the npc is not a player, I know, but if you are good at it you can do it easier than before. If you are fighting a good player aiming for demasting you, eventually he'll do it and you are doomed. Did you watch the videos of the tournament? No need to say more words...

Yes, on the testbed you can repair every 15 minutes, but if you lose 2 or 3 masts you are hello kittyed...

Let's see how it works, but I still think the same: it's too easy.

I don't think they did anything to make demasting easier, they increased somewhat the damage that cannons can do, but they gave us multiple repairs to counter it.

No, I didn't watch the tournament. Don't need too. I can demast as good as the "average" player or maybe slightly better, but if I get into combat with a "pro" why should I even expect a chance to win? I can't demast as well as he can, but I can hope that maybe I'll be able to stay on his stern or out DPS him. But honestly, even if I lose, I have nobody to blame but myself for engaging a superior player and expecting something other than crushing defeat. After all, I didn't complain when I got stern-raked by someone more skilled than me; instead, I watched them and got better at it until I became as good at it as they are. Same thing applies to demasting. 

Keep in mind the "exploit" I wrote about earlier in this thread concerning repairing masts. Make sure you get all the repair perks set on your "officer" and get some decent repair upgrades thrown on your ship, as soon as you lose a mast, assign full crew to repair, as soon as you get part of that mast back, turn on everything else to draw crew away from repair and make that repair take as long as possible, so that you're constantly repairing the damage that your enemy is doing. Of course, you should also pull away from the fight as much as possible. By doing this, you increase the time you keep your masts up (if you lose a mast while repairing it immediately comes back, no rigging shock or anything), and you decrease the time from the end of your repair until the next time you can repair. And I should sincerely hope that while your enemy is trying to demast you, you'd either be trying to do the same to him or else you are shooting his hull and trying to sink him.

Honestly, (and I've said this over and over), I think they should make demasting lower masts harder but ultimately more rewarding (because once its done, its done, no mast repairs for that), and make demasting upper masts slightly easier, but less rewarding (because your enemy can repair them ONCE in battle). I consider it quite strange that you can all of a sudden re-step, re-rig, bend sails, and resume normal use of a mast while your enemy is trying his very best to blow your ship out of the water. Even re-stepping topmasts once is a compromise: that is something that would be very difficult to do in battle, but it was not unheard of for a crew to jury rig something to hastily set a sail.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
32 minutes ago, Willis PVP2 said:

Yeah, if you are all aiming for masts. Since I don't know what each broadside from each ship was aimed at...I can only draw from the information I have researched, which credits Agamemnon with pounding the Santi until the vessel was dismasted and surrendered. Whether other ships helped Agamemnon demast the Santi or not is irrelevant to the original point: demasting was a tactic and quite possible to do in the age of sail naval battles.

 

Again though, see the point above, maybe other ships shot at Santissma's masts, but I have not read anything confirming or denying other ships credit for taking out masts (remember, I'm not a naval historian though, my research comes from some quick googling and a few books I've read). Now, I'm not saying lets give the Aggy a gold star for being the one responsible for single-handedly causing the demasting of the largest warship afloat at the time, but some credit must be given where it is due. She stayed and pounded the Spanish four-decker until Santi lost all her masts, whether other ships shot the masts or not is still irrelevant to the original point: demasting was a tactic. I'm not sure how many examples of naval battles one must look at before realizing this...

If you want to argue about who should get the "kill" and who should get the "assist" in these cases then thats fine, though its irrelevant to the point that I'm attempting to show.

 

So you are only saying that demasting was a tactic back in those days? Of course it was. I think I have never denied that. 

I'm just saying that your example (Aga demasting the Santísima) is irrelevant because it was 5 vs 1 and any of those 5 could have done it. That doesn't prove anything.

You just made me waste my time.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
35 minutes ago, _Alucard_ said:

<snip>

You just made me waste my time.....

He didn't make you waste your time. You pretty much did that all by yourself. He was trying to express a simple point that demasting was a period tactic; you took his example and turned that into an argument about how easy it should or should not be. You really can't blame others for something like that.

You are, however, right about your point which seems to be that it's too easy and loosing the base of your mast should not be repairable within the battle instance. I Fully agree with that one.

Edited by Challenge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
54 minutes ago, _Alucard_ said:

So you are only saying that demasting was a tactic back in those days? Of course it was. I think I have never denied that. 

I'm just saying that your example (Aga demasting the Santísima) is irrelevant because it was 5 vs 1 and any of those 5 could have done it. That doesn't prove anything.

You just made me waste my time.....

Yes, some other captains earlier in the thread were arguing that demasting was not a prevalent tactic at the time. I was providing numerous examples where ships were intentionally demasted

And yes in a 5vs1 anyone could focus on getting the mast down, maybe it was just Agamemnon, maybe it was a combined effort...anyways, besides the point doesn't prove anything useful to the discussion other than demasting was a tactic.

Can't help you with the last part. Nobody can ever make you do anything you don't want to do. And I'm certainly not trying to waste anyone's time (although I think that is the point of a game...a fun way to waste time :D).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
7 hours ago, Willis PVP2 said:

Yes, some other captains earlier in the thread were arguing that demasting was not a prevalent tactic at the time. I was providing numerous examples where ships were intentionally demasted

And yes in a 5vs1 anyone could focus on getting the mast down, maybe it was just Agamemnon, maybe it was a combined effort...anyways, besides the point doesn't prove anything useful to the discussion other than demasting was a tactic.

I did not say it was not a tactic.  And you telling me that I said something like that, made me to think this is waste of time + we were and probably will be stuck in our conversation again, so no reason to continue.

I said it is hard for me to believe that they were sniping masts and firing full broadsides of balls to masts.  I believe tho, that there could have been some cannons that were used for sniping.  Sniping was not a norm if I have understood this correctly.  Were they btw. shooting chains instead of balls to rigging?  I could imagine them shooting chains to rigging.

Also like mentioned earlier, ship could lose it masts because its hull got in a bad shape.  You know, your Agamemnon sniping Santisima example does not take on account that there were plenty of other ships shooting Santisima.  So it can be that the reason why Santisima lost its masts was something totally different than that Agamemnon in the end.

You also say that hull sides are now a very good target, when everything else I read says that mast sniping is the game.  So I do not know who to believe here.  Not maybe worth our time to figure that out.

btw. Hull bashing is bashing only because people do not understand that it is not just bashing.  Ships are slow and if you want that someone is not bashing your hull, how do you do that?  Even if you were super good at this, mast sniper wins.  A good mast sniper basically wins every battle -> Skill cap going down, as the combat system could offer a lot more tools than 1.  Which is relatively easy even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Quote

I said it is hard for me to believe that they were sniping masts and firing full broadsides of balls to masts.  I believe tho, that there could have been some cannons that were used for sniping.  Sniping was not a norm if I have understood this correctly.  Were they btw. shooting chains instead of balls to rigging?  I could imagine them shooting chains to rigging.

Yes, and you are mistaken in your preconceptions. Are we going to go around in circles again?

Entire fleets fired roundshot at masts (and sails and spars and rigging). "Sniping" is your word, and I'm not sure what you are imagining when you talk about sniping and 'dominant tactics.'

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 5/16/2017 at 3:36 PM, maturin said:

Entire fleets fired roundshot at masts (and sails and spars and rigging). "Sniping" is your word, and I'm not sure what you are imagining when you talk about sniping and 'dominant tactics.'

Ok, then I am probably wrong.  Just one question..  Then why did they invent chain shots?

Sniping, as done in Naval Action.  You do not fire your broadside to ships hull for example, as you know it is better to fire one shot at time to a mast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

 

I think you've all shown some good points for and against with real life examples.    

The problem with Naval Action the game is the Guns are way too accurate compared to the real life examples. If they were mapped accurately it would never work so for the sake of gameplay this is why.   

From a coding stand point if you tweak the cannon ball shot accuracy then you need to do so the chain and grape. The Perks of Double Charge and Shot will magnify also...    

Maybe a better question to ask is in relation to the standard medium cannon ball shot, is the carronade, chain, grape and magnifiers(Perks) too accurate?          

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
4 hours ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

Ok, then I am probably wrong.  Just one question..  Then why did they invent chain shots?

Sniping, as done in Naval Action.  You do not fire your broadside to ships hull for example, as you know it is better to fire one shot at time to a mast.

Chain shot is far more effective at destroying sails and rigging at short range.

There is one period book that recommends using chain shot in lighter wind conditions, and round shot in gustier winds because a small hole may split a sail in two.

 

I think you're in a bit of a moral panic about mast sniping. The NA tournament proved that the best way to dismast is a perfectly-timed raking broadside. Ain't no one got time for 14 carefully aimed shots when the enemy can yaw at any time to dodge them. DPS goes to pot that way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
56 minutes ago, maturin said:

I think you're in a bit of a moral panic about mast sniping. The NA tournament proved that the best way to dismast is a perfectly-timed raking broadside. Ain't no one got time for 14 carefully aimed shots when the enemy can yaw at any time to dodge them. DPS goes to pot that way.

It can be that I will be personally sniping if they do not change this.

 

edit.

Oh, and I am pretty sure I am not going to be the only one.

Edited by Cmdr RideZ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
49 minutes ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

It can be that I will be personally sniping if they do not change this.

 

edit.

Oh, and I am pretty sure I am not going to be the only one.

I recommend dueling someone from OCEAN, and we will see which method is better.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
2 hours ago, maturin said:

I recommend dueling someone from OCEAN, and we will see which method is better.

a duel, which is a controlled environment that most folks play by set rules.   Though how often do they do this in OW fights?  I know we do at times in Live as a means to stop/slow down the other guys and most of them have no clue how to demast for the life of them, but we do so we use it.  That is called experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...