Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Alex Connor

Tester
  • Content count

    855
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Alex Connor last won the day on November 9 2015

Alex Connor had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

868 Excellent

About Alex Connor

  • Rank
    Lieutenant

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

981 profile views
  1. To battleship specialists

    There were many transitional designs, for example the Japanese would have built a class of all big gun capital ships (Satsuma and Aki) predating the Dreadnaught but ran out of money and ended up with a mixed 12in/10in battery. Building our own ships offers a chance to smooth that transition with a whole range of mid-sized mixed battery battleships.
  2. Work in progress: Working title.

    This is really exciting, I've been wanting another battleship building game ever since Naval Ops Warship Gunner back on the PS2. Very old title but the shipbuilder was surprisingly good (if not always realistic, you could end up with a double-hulled 12 turreted Yamato armed with railguns). 1880-1939 is a great choice for period, working through pre-dreadnoughts, Tsushima, WWI, the "missing generation" of battleships and battlecruisers killed by the Washington treaty and stopping just short of WWII and carrier warfare which would be an entirely different game. Are there any plans for fleet building or strategy elements? A game where you can design a fleet's worth of ships seems made for building your own fleet and pitting it against rival naval powers...
  3. Why Matthew Town?

    I still think of MT as Matthew Town Suppose the whole thing is gaming history and not history proper, but it's a nice touch for the many PotBS players in NA. Good example of game design too (why MT was the pirate base in PotBS), what players want from a port they regularly use. Tortuga, a huge sprawling maze of tunnels, shipwrecks and a volcano that the PotBS devs spent huge effort building, or Matthew Town, the plainest little fishing port ever but with everything important located on the dock...
  4. Трёх Иерархов (Three Hierarchs) 1782

    This ship is based on HMS Victory, Russia brought plans and built 9 half-sisterships to Victory (Chesma/Чесьма-class) for the Baltic fleet. Could easily be adapted from the Victory model ingame, the differences are mostly decorations and small details.
  5. French Vessel on Slipway

    I couldn't tell you the precise ship, but it's one of the final examples of Jacques Noel Sane's standard 18 pdr frigate design. See the link for freddykrueger66's model of one of the earliest members of the class, https://www.artstation.com/artwork/3aZ2D For all the detail differences over the 40+ years this design was built, hull lines remained almost unchanged.
  6. Very nice model Well, the bulwarks are quite distinctively Danish and a ship that looks French but not quite French means Danish, so it was just a question of looking for a matching armament on threedecks and Freya/Thetis/Iris fit the bill. I ran those names through the rmg collection and found plans for Iris, which was a perfect match for the model apart from later style raised bulwarks and a slightly different stern. So, got to be Freya or Thetis
  7. Looks Danish to me, perhaps Freja or Thetis?
  8. ship duping

    A lot of "real" ships got killed by exploiters in their magical ships...
  9. Testbed: Content patch - 9.98 deployed

    Argument about sinking vs surrender is an old one. For full simulator, yes it is more realistic for most fights to end in surrender, but for gameplay purposes devs want ships to sink. Preferably then this sinking should be realistic, only accelerated so sinking happens more often. With regards to real ships sinking, cannonballs are not explosive, they only put small 4in-6in holes in the ships hull, most of which will be above the waterline, and it would take an extraordinary amount of firepower to cause structural breakup of the hull. Between two equal ships, or even 2 ships fighting 1 it would be almost impossible to cause a ship to sink from damage to the hull alone. The reason why ships sunk (or surrendered because they were in danger of sinking) was almost entirely down to crew loss and pump damage. Even a very badly damaged ship might only be making 3-4ft of water per hour in the hold, with sufficient men to pump water and patch leaks that ship could most likely be saved, hence it was common for ships on the verge of sinking to surrender and request assistance from the victor. But of course we don't usually surrender in Naval Action, so ships just sink instead. The current system in naval action is not very realistic, ships sink from damage to the hull and everything else is just secondary. You are fighting and destroying the hull, not the men inside. Also, there is the gameplay problem that a ship can be one shot from sinking because of damage to one side, but simply turn the other side (or even show stern) and remain afloat indefinitely until one side is reduced to 0. Changing the mechanics so that sinking occurs from internal damage is both more realistic and better gameplay, gets people to tank with their broadsides, protecting their more vulnerable bow and stern from raking that would cause greater damage.
  10. Testbed: Content patch - 9.98 deployed

    The name "structure" is not important, could be called "health" or "flotation". Really it's just a way to link internal damage (crew/modules etc) to the ship sinking, which is more realistic than current system of destroying left or right broadside to sink the ship.
  11. Testbed: Content patch - 9.98 deployed

    Structure is a good way shift the focus from sinking ships via external hull damage to sinking ships by internal damage (knocking out crew, pumps etc that would otherwise be able to keep even a badly damaged hull afloat). Arguably crew loss and module damage could be tuned to produce the same result, but this works well enough and improves on the current meta where the only really important factor in sinking a ship is reducing the hp of one side of planking to 0.
  12. 'Cornwallis' British 4th rate (With Plans)

    In many ways the Cornwallis/Akbar is more similar to an indiaman than conventional royal navy frigates. The boxy flatbottomed hull in particular is pure indiaman, although Indiamen were known to exceed the performance recorded for Akbar (the indiaman Exeter ran down a french frigate and bluffed it into surrendering to a "ship-of-the-line"). I suspect the Royal Navy were not familiar with trimming and sailing this hulltype, and didn't exactly get the best out of the ship. Spardeck is also likely copied from Indiamen rather than the big american frigates, the surveyor of the East India Company (Gabriel Snodgrass) was an innovative designer who adopted the spardeck as standard for his medium and large Indiamen from the later 1780s onwards because this arrangement allowed them to carry 26-28 guns all on the weather deck, so that in normal service the whole upper deck could be used for cargo/passengers. Previous Indiamen had to sacrifice part of the upper deck for guns, or end up with only a very light armament like a normal frigate's weather deck.
  13. Missing ingame mechanics.

    As for the idea that people would save their crews for 1st rates and not fight otherwise... I don't think any player should be able to sail 1st rates all the time. 1st rates are special ships to bring out in small numbers for the really big fights, and in fact I would like to see as many methods as possible for fighting 1st rate spam. Crew loss is one, dedicated fireships would be another, along with shallow water that would restrict 1st rate movement in port battles. Fireships especially could be a hard counter to 1st Rate fleets, combined with some reductions to 1st rate agility and upwind/beam reach speed fireships would be very dangerous to three deckers that would lack the maneuverability to avoid them. In turn, this makes the optimum fleet include at least a reasonable number of 3rd rates which would be better able to fend off and sink fireships. To be sure, people would still bring 1st rates, but it would be situational because a full 1st rate fleet or majority 1st rate fleet would be setting up your side for a crippling loss.
  14. Missing ingame mechanics.

    On the subject of timesinks, the vast map is an enormous timesink, it takes an eternity to get anywhere. Even "nearby" important enemy ports are 30min or more sailing and that's with freeports all over the map. Probably too late to rebuild the map, at this stage the only solution would be to speed up travel by about 2-3x (I know, this isn't ideal). Crew regeneration doesn't have to be a timesink, at least not more than present. No reason why you can't recover crew at sea, doctor skill, medkits, pressing men from merchant ships etc. Pretty much anything up to the limits of crew allowed.
  15. Missing ingame mechanics.

    Not unless they are losing 1st rates 24/7. Would probably need to lose 5 frigates in a row to run out of crew, more even accounting for any surrenders reducing loss and the time it would take to lose 5 frigates. Same for the smaller 4th rates with 300 or so crew. Possible to play these ships indefinitely even if you were losing most fights. Bigger SoL you'd need to be more careful, as losing a 74 would put you on 450 or so crew. Which is enough to sail a 4th rate or any frigate, but not enough to bounce straight back into a 74. And of course losing a 1st rate would pretty much wipe you out (probably have enough crew left over for a small frigate), which would make players much less inclined to just throw 1st rates into every fight. In turn, that encourages much better variety of ships to be used, with the larger ones reserved for the really important battles.
×