Wind and its role

[PIerrick de Badas]

Slipknot is not that bad. Naked females are ok too. Only the guy that did that video is a dickhead.

 

I don't really want a sailing simulator, i don't care for magic skills. All i want is a game in the age of sail that is fun to play and a worthy substitution of potbs, which is imho the best mmo in the age of sail atm.

+1

Inh a game withtout clikable skills as in potbs, you have to focus of giving fun to people to make them love your game. A too realistic wa will make the game boring for most people exept the ones who love simulation.

It's time to choos between simulation or succes

 

About the problem dealing with using just a small part of the map, you have to make the wind turn before each battle and sometime into the battle.

Not like in potbs where the wind can change in 180° in 1 sec but making it changes evero 10min from 45 to 90° could give more intensity for the fight.

 

You have to understand that the players who loves tactic will create for each map a tactic to use.

In potbs PB leaders have 1 to 5 different tactic per map. The difference in a good and a bad PB leader was this ability toi choose the good tactic on the good moment or to create a new tactic. Yous maps will be as in Potbs farmed and everyone will know the basics tactics to win.

It's the same thing in WOT where you have to hide your tank on the right place on the right moment to be able to destroy opponents.

 

Making the wind change before the battle and into the battle with break the stactics tactics that we will create. Itwill force anyone to take care on any moment to see if the tactic can still be used. It will allow you to see people playing anywhere in your map.

 

About land, i didn't love the Potbs way neither i loved the interact way potbs use. But too realistic would kill the fun. If you touch a coast in real way, your ship is lost. In a game i would rather see a cooldown wirth crew using barks to put your ship back in sea

 

For example you could manage different kind of coast

- Sand: Block your ship for 30sec, 100% crew is used in barks to drag the ship back into the sea

- Rock: Block your ship for 20sec, 50% hull destroy

 and you can think about different consequences dealing with the speed of the ships (dismating it with full speed, more time to be back in sea etc)

 

Abot ship v ship you have to consider that yours masts are the first one to be destroyed in this kind of interaction

 

 

Wind is the key for the victory and the key for a pirate game. it's the only thing that make your game different in regard on wot or this kind of games. Don't be stuck in realistic way or create a pirate simulation. If you want a large multiplayer game, just open your minds and try to choose the best of any aspect

[BrutishVulgarian]

From my limited perspective, I would want tacking to be a dangerous risk, depending on what type of ship you were sailing and the sailing skill of your crew. A Captain who spent more time training his crew as sailors might beat a Captain who spent his time training his crew as gunners or visa versa.    

 

Perhaps a slider..... Arcade mode <----------------> Realistic mode.....If 2 arcade mode players meet, they can fight arcade style.  If "Arcade kid" meets "Realistic old codger", then the battle is in realistic mode.

[Ned Loe]

Question

how not to make wind a huge, frustrating hindrance to players. (obstacle)

 

Let's discuss

 

So far we have encountered the following problems

 

1. In 90% of cases battle goes in one direction (direction of wind). If we have a wind to the north, fighting fleets most likely move into the direction of wind not using the whole map at all.

2. With a semi-realistic tacking (turning through the wind) it takes time and after trying it once players usually stop doing that and move into the direction of the wind (returning to the problem 1)

3. Maneuver with a realistic wind and semi-realistic turning us rarely used on medium or heavy ships, because 1 mistake with turning and you are either dead, or out of combat for longer time.

4. Collisions with other ships or game objects (stones, land) its usually death of the ship (we need to think through a gameplay way to get off your ship from land or shoals and from collisions from other ships) 

5. Land does not have any influence currently. We have made a nice demo map similar to venice harbor with lots of paths and islands. Players are still trying to fight in the areas that have space for turning and maneuver.Because wind mistakes lead to sudden death.

 

what are your thoughts on wind and all this.

 

 

1. Have wind shift its direction every 10-20 mins during battle. (lottery type, never know when it will change and how often)  This way players will have to change and adapt tactics and sailing direction. You can also, try to program it in your favor or the way you need all players to be. Have them start the with X wind and then slowly direct the wind using programmed timer to position them closer to a port etc.

 

2. Turning through the wind is bad atm, it should be faster! We do not need long time and boring turns, we need action!

 

3. Fine tune turn and make it more aggressive like in Potbs. Adjust armor with resistance and damage reduction? to keep the player alive longer?

4. Ok you have to ask yourself, do I need collision damage or not? if yes it will be bad end of story. As I said before we are fighting and not watching what is under our ship. If ship gets closer to a land , simply add a slow mo effect where player will have to turn around to avoid running the ground (not using landing mode). Have ships bump each other , but not make damage. OR have very light damage since you got a friendly fire ON. If you want to land your troops on a land have a switch (landing mode) player will have to switch to that mode in order to land, same for boarding....

5. Remove collision damage. ))

[Johny Reb]

Im responding to this erroneous idea that a ship that doesnt have the wind gage should loose. This is rediculous! The wind gage had many advantages: control of a fight being its main one but the french historically preferred the downwind position. This approach allowed an escape as its main advantage but it also allowed more guns to bear in heavier seas, and had better visibility of the enemy. When an upwind ship fired, all its smoke drifted towards the enemy and could blind their aim. A downwind ships smoke would drift away giving a clearer view of the target.

Take for instance the action between the Java and the Constitution. The Constitution was downwind almost the entire fight. Look at the fight of the Constitution vs Guerierre...  They start with even wind and the Constiution gives the Guerierre the wind gage twice before demasting her.  Look at the fight between the Constitution vs the Levant and Cyane. The Constitution starts with the wind gage but gives it up and sinks two ships. Shucks it sailed backwards to kill one of them... If Im not mistaken the battle of Trafalgar started with Nelson having the windgage. He then crashed through the line and gave it up... The battle of Cape St. Vincent started without the windgage for the Brits... Battle of the Nile. Started with wind gage, ended even wind.

 

Admin...  If you invited me to your focus testing I could tell you why all your fights are running downwind. ;P

 

My assumptions would be that the ships are just not maneuverable enough or the sail control is to complicated to to deal with it. The fights between frigates should be much more dynamic as they were historically and shouldnt just turn into a downwind run. It sounds as if some dynamic needs to be tweeked or the sailors of these ships are noobs and dont know better.

[Ryan21]

I noticed a couple blatantly false statements near the beginning of this thread that really need to be clarified. 

 

For one thing, in the manning of ships of war, there were enough men on board to man every gun and every sailing station PLUS a percentage of men that varied by ship that were idler's or landsmen, that could be brought to haul a line or replace a fallen man at a gun immediately.  Look at the complement of a first rate, 950+ men!  for instance, on the US Brig Niagara, the modern crew is comprised of 50 because the ship is just sailed, not fought, 50 men to sail her, her original complement was upwards of 100, so that each gun, pump, and sail station could be manned at once + a compliment of marines.  A ship like Victory could be sailed by a fraction of her 950+ compliment.

 

The notion that ships did not tack or maneuver during battle is absolutely false.  Entire squadrons could tack and ware ship IN LINE and maintain their position, in blockade and during action depending on how the action was fought.  On a warship gun crews were assigned, and every sailor on board who was not manning a gun had a sailing station to man during any sail maneuvers during battle and otherwise. 

 

Also, there is no need for any seaman to go aloft during Maneuvers of any kind, tacking included.  All evolutions except furling and loosing sail are carried out from deck, by braces and other lines. 

 

Let me clarify, when sails are furled it means they have been clewed and bunted up by there gear, and the seaman manually furl the sail tightly and tie it with lines called gaskets, this is not done in battle.  Without furling the sails, windage can be very quickly reduced by clewing a sail up by its gear, this is not proper sail dousing procedure for everyday practice but in battle any square can be partially taken in by casting off its sheets and hauling clewlines and buntlines, nearly completely spilling the wind from it.

 

If anyone needs any evidence of this just look at my youtube page, scroll through the videos, there are a couple that feature tacking.  No men were removed from there sail stations to work the guns unless the ships were close alongside and in a hammering match, broadside to broadside, as men would die they would need to be replaced at the guns.  But during manuevering men never left there sail stations under normal conditions.  Some of the greatest frigate actions in history were very well documented.  All you have to do is look them up.  Johny has already referenced a couple.

 

Also, the Lee gauge, as opposed to the weather gage actually had some excellent advantages, which in some situations but not all could turn the tide of the battle against the ship with the weather behind him.  One of these being sailing on a beam reach, with the wind 90 degrees to the ship, your entire broadside is presented to the ship to windward, while only his chasers can fire.  So if your gunnery is determined you can wreck him or dismast him from a relatively stable sailing position with perfect firing angle for your main battery of guns as he is sailing towards you to engage.  Winning these ship engagements was not determined by a formula of X+Y=defeat, it was determined by brave steadfast officers and men who were well practiced in maneuvering their ship and firing their guns at a higher rate and more accurately than the opposing vessel.

One more thing, tacking if a skilled crew is onboard is not an unreliable process, the 200 foot US Brig Niagara tacks like a ferrari takes a corner on a road course.  We never missed stays, not a single time.  On Niagara and Lady Washington, in a variety of weather conditions.  And Lady Washington has a very Blunt bow, never seen her fail a tack, and we have tacked her through 35 knots.  To understand this process in detail refer to seamanship in the age of sail, the rudder is simply nudging the ship in the right direction, the sails being full and then thrown aback provide the rotational power to bring her through stays.  The hardest tacking is at both ends of the spectrum, extremely light wind and extreme sea state.

[maturin]

For one thing, in the manning of ships of war, there were enough men on board to man every gun and every sailing station PLUS a percentage of men that varied by ship that were idler's or landsmen, that could be brought to haul a line or replace a fallen man at a gun immediately.  Look at the complement of a first rate, 950+ men!

If the ship actually had a full complement aboard. Which was very much the best case scenario. Fighting both sides was considered a rather rare and enviable ability of a numerous but also skilled crew.

 

  Entire squadrons could tack and ware ship IN LINE and maintain their position, in blockade and during action depending on how the action was fought.

Do you have any battle diagrams showing fleets tacking in line? Because in practice, the fleet would be made up of different sailers with different crews, and many would make sternway while tacking while others would not. So tacking in line could easily become chaos.

[tater]

Biddlecomb's Naval Tactics and Trials by Sailing (1850) shows numbers of instructions for tacking the line of battle.

 

They also had signal instructions for tacking in succession, etc. It was clearly done, though how often it was done in large fleet engagements is another story (need to find a book I have to check for specifics). Small units certainly tacked in chase/combat situations. 

 

Question

how not to make wind a huge, frustrating hindrance to players. (obstacle)

 

The wind is a huge, possibly frustrating obstacle. It defines that era of combat. The crew, damage models, etc? A distant second in importance to the wind, and the fact that windward travel (and I mean almost at all, not just dead into) is nearly impossible. Ryan can perhaps give personal accounts about how close a small warship could get tot he wind. A point or 2 off having the wind dead abeam, basically. And all make leeway, too.

 

 

 

 

 

[Ryan21]

I have seen Niagara point as high as 55 degrees and make excellent way with her clipper bow, and lady usually points about 65

 

I believe the average for ships of that era was between 65 and 70. 

 

Tacking and waring in succesion was common practice, mostly on blockade but also in combat, of course individual handling characteristics needed to be taken into account, some ships would have to slow down there maneuver to allow others time to catch up.

 

There are many examples of this in david steeles theory and practice of seamanship and Naval tactics.  Of course as vessels would be dismasted and take damage the line would become imperfect but that is the natural course of battle.  As long as the wind is fair and the ships are decently manned, squadron maneuvers are an excellent way to focus your broadside into an enemy line, or to break his line with yours. 

 

As far as im concerned the wind is supreme lord and dictator to every sailing ship on the sea, I know that may not be the case in the game, but its realism really should be the defining factor of the game, otherwise we are just playing WW2 battleships with less sophisticated projectiles and pretty sails.

 

His Majesties Royal Navy were very well practiced at squadron maneuvering because of there many years of blockade duty.  They had real experience maneuvering their ships in formation, because they did it regularly.  The Franco Spanish fleet at Trafalgar was in a much poorer state of practice because they were simply bottled up in the harbor while Nelson's squadrons tacked and wore back and forth, waiting for them to come out.  No sea time for practice for the French and Spanish in that instance.  Once and a while a gale would blow up and blow the RN off station and a ship or two would escape but for the most part that fleet was seriously hampered by the Brits, unable to practice live gun drill too, major factor in the battle.

[tater]

Better than I wrote then, for a brig. 2 points off dead abeam is 67.5 degrees, so Niagara sails about 3 points better than abeam. I seem to recall reading that larger ships were closer to 1-2 points off dead abeam, and that all vessels made a point or 2 leeway as well.

[Ryan21]

If the ship actually had a full complement aboard. Which was very much the best case scenario. Fighting both sides was considered a rather rare and enviable ability of a numerous but also skilled crew.

 

 

 

This is true, they were often undermanned, not always, but it was a problem.  But sailing stations were still only abandoned in the gravest of situations because of the strategic importance of maneuvering the ship.  If the ship lost its ability to sail, the battle was usually won in short order.

[Ryan21]

Niagara is an absolute GEM, and honestly she should be in this game.  Her sailing qualities absolutely shocked me.  In a barely noticeable wind she wind still make way, with scarcely a ripple on the water, and about 15 knots of wind gusting to 18 she will tear along at 8-10 knots, close hauled!  She scarcely seems to lose any speed closed hauled.  She has a very sharp bow, and a HUGE rig for her hull size.  Exceptional performer in lighter weather, tacks in the blink of an eye, I cannot stress how sweet a sailor she is enough.  And with 18 32 pounder carronades an 2 12 pound long guns she packed more weight in Iron than most 6th rate frigates, and in close action she could give just about anything a swift pounding.  She is truly a beautiful Vessel in every aspect.

 

She is 198' sparred

30' beam

over 120' tall

 

total sail area is approximately 14000 square feet

 

I will never forget my time serving in her.

[Ryan21]

[tater]

How much change in her performance might there be with a full crew and stores, plus her guns? Is she ballasted to old working weight?

 

<EDIT>

This might tell the devs something about how loads change the capabilities of ships if she's grossly underweight compared to combat ready. We know that ships would lighten to escape (dumping water, guns, etc). Characterizing how effective this was makes for a set of commands that can be added for emergencies, allowing players to make good their escape, even if it means the expense of losing their guns, etc.

[Brigand]

With regard to windward performance, Barberouge linked a very nice article. very much worth reading, especially with regard to this topic.

 

~Brigand

[Ryan21]

She still has 4 carronades onboard, her ballast would be different with the full load of carronades, but she wouldn't become a slug, it would hamper her a bit but she still has a clipper bow and huge sail area to hull ratio, her bow type was not characteristic of her time period at all.  She would have easily outsailed any vessel of similar size with the typical bluff bow of the period in light to moderate wind. 

 

Also, consider this. 

 

The modern Niagara Has Twin caterpillar diesel engines, gearboxes, two large propeller shafts, Thick watertight non removable bulkheads with heavy steel watertight doors, freezer, Radar, GPS, over 60 neoprene immersion suits stored in the hammock rails, over 60 lifejackets, man overboard recovery equipment..  The list goes on, and on top of all the extra weight provided by these things the two large propeller shafts create drag when the ship is under sail.  So to be honest, the original Niagara with all of her guns probably performed almost exactly like the modern one.

[Marion van Ghent]

I think it only fair to ask Admin if, at this point, the original post contains still-active questions. A lot can happen in 7 months of a game's development!

 

So, has the situation changed? If so, what mechanical or other adjustments did you make to change it, and how has it changed? If not -- or at least, not to your liking -- how can your Navy of Armchair Admirals™ help? 

 

For the moment, assuming that the game plays about the same as in August of last year, my intuition from what you described suggests the following. Either:

 

1) The sailing model is inaccurate (at least as far as tacking goes);

2) UI is not sufficiently providing players what they need to know to tack successfully; or...

3) All of the above.

 

Ships could and did indeed tack during battle. They also could and did miss stays; whether due to poor ship design, poor handling, poor (too weak or too strong) winds, poor sea state, or a combination thereof.

 

I suspect that, if tacking "takes time" enough to discourage players from tacking, it's taking too long. Under most conditions even a SoL could tack through the wind in about 4-8 minutes; wearing would take at least as long -- in fact, significantly longer, closer to 10 minutes, if wearing from close-hauled on one tack to close-hauled on the other -- and cost significantly more leeway.

 

For a game, of course, 4 minutes is indeed a long time -- but I think few expect or desire the game to be carried out in exactly realtime. Even 4x speed -- taking about 60 seconds to tack, and 120 seconds to wear -- will feel agonising to a lot of people, especially if they're used to games like PotBS. But that should make tacking all the more attractive, as your guns will be "pointed the wrong way" for much less time. And if firing rates and accuracy of the guns are balanced proportionally, neither tacking nor wearing should be a death sentence... unless you completely botch it 

 

A good video on the topic, though admittedly with a much more modern ship, is this video of the Star of India tacking and wearing. In particular she's tacking in very light airs -- meaning slow ship and higher chance of missing stays -- but still pulls it off in 5 minutes. She wouldn't tack like the Niagara in a 20kt breeze, but she'd still do it in about 3 minutes. Better than a SoL -- but comparable, I'd say, to a frigate.

[Ryan21]

On a smaller brig like lady in moderate wind we usually tack in under a minute, as already pointed out bigger ships can take longer depending on wind, mostly depends on the wind. In 25 knots a frigate should not take a long time to tack. The star of India video is very good! Very very light winds!

[Ryan21]

Speed of the ship needs to be proportional to wind force, that's the most important thing, it affects maneuvers in a huge way, realistic ship speeds also adversely affect fighting tactics. This is why empire basically feels like a motorboat game. You can sail directly against the wind, albeit slowly, and there are no defined points of sail, I try to put a ship on a beam reach which is 90 degrees to the wind, the square sails get pulled in for some reason and I slow down?? The same when close hauled. And under sail the ships look like they are travelling at 45 mph, these are the main issues. Graphics while cool are not that important to me, I would be happy if someone made a game with empire graphics and accurate wind, ship speed and proper maneuvers. Because currently no game on the market actually even begins to simulate actual sailing combat.

[Ryan21]

Also angle of heel would be a good addition, as a ship close up against the wind will heel noticeably more than a ship sailing off the wind, especially in gnarly weather.

[Chustler]

Im responding to this erroneous idea that a ship that doesnt have the wind gage should loose. This is rediculous! The wind gage had many advantages: control of a fight being its main one but the french historically preferred the downwind position. This approach allowed an escape as its main advantage but it also allowed more guns to bear in heavier seas, and had better visibility of the enemy. When an upwind ship fired, all its smoke drifted towards the enemy and could blind their aim. A downwind ships smoke would drift away giving a clearer view of the target.

Take for instance the action between the Java and the Constitution. The Constitution was downwind almost the entire fight. Look at the fight of the Constitution vs Guerierre...  They start with even wind and the Constiution gives the Guerierre the wind gage twice before demasting her.  Look at the fight between the Constitution vs the Levant and Cyane. The Constitution starts with the wind gage but gives it up and sinks two ships. Shucks it sailed backwards to kill one of them... If Im not mistaken the battle of Trafalgar started with Nelson having the windgage. He then crashed through the line and gave it up... The battle of Cape St. Vincent started without the windgage for the Brits... Battle of the Nile. Started with wind gage, ended even wind.

 

Admin...  If you invited me to your focus testing I could tell you why all your fights are running downwind. ;P

 

My assumptions would be that the ships are just not maneuverable enough or the sail control is to complicated to to deal with it. The fights between frigates should be much more dynamic as they were historically and shouldnt just turn into a downwind run. It sounds as if some dynamic needs to be tweeked or the sailors of these ships are noobs and dont know better.

 

My thoughts exactly.  The wind that suits one captain best may be different than the wind that suits another best.  The ship, rigging setup, fighting style all factor in...

[tater]

The principle reason the Royal Navy instructions pushed the weather gauge was not tactical. It was to prevent captains from drifting away from any fight. To prevent cowardice, or insufficient aggressiveness. The other guy might well just run away, but you would have to beat upwind to run. The idea is that you could always claim that you were disabled, and simply drifted out of a fight if leeward. It's another reason for the line---you knew when another ship was out of the line (and then perhaps exposing herself to less danger). Once the engagement happens, if you are losing, you drift… into the enemy. Don't lose.

 

I read a paper by an economist about the Royal Navy, and his argument (which is pretty convincing) is that it was the rules and incentives of the RN which made it so lopsidedly effective. Prize money was a positive incentive, the vast array of Post Captains on half-pay were a warning that you could be removed from your ship as they were, and replaced in 5 minutes with a crowd of guys eager to redeem themselves. Junior officers had to submit logs, so the Captain's activity was not presented in a one-sided way. He points out that the lee was considered superior by the tactical minds of the time, and that british ships were not superior, and their sailors were no better (look at all the pressed men), etc. that the different navies looked pretty similar in capability aside from their "culture." The organization was better than the sum of the parts

[Johny Reb]

Where are you getting that analysis in the first paragraph Tater? The fact that the Royal Navy expected their Captains to win even when faced with an unequal fight makes it morte believable that part of the reason for the weather gage was to encourage them to fight. Of course the weather gage allowed the Captain to have a good chance of ignoring the fight as well so he could still be a coward but it would have been harder to explain. The analysis about the line partially being formed to keep an eye on the other ships sounds like rubish to me so that why I ask if you have a source or if thats your opinion. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just curious.

 

And I'm not so sure that I would agree with the statement that the British sailors weren't any better than the French. Not that the quality of the men were any different but the French spent much of their time in harbor being blockaded while the Brits were constantly at sea. Also, many of the fleet actions weren't so much about tactics as they were about ship against ship fighting. The fact that the Brits tended to win those fights speaks toward the quality of their training, skill, and morale.

 

Trivia question of the day:

What fleet action saw the British and the French on the same side?

[Johny Reb]

Admin,

 

At the start of this thread you mentioned issues you were having with testers always running downwind together and not maneuvering. That post was last July if I remember correctly. I'm curious if that has changed or if you are having the same issues.

 

If you are then I would ask:

how many do you have currently testing the game?

what are their backgrounds? (for instance did they play other sailing games like Potbs)

Did they pvp in those games?

And why would tacking be so hard if you have proper speed and autosail on?

[maturin]

I read that paper too. Everything individual point he makes is very convincing, and it's excellent analysis of an institution overall, but of course his overall thesis is a case of vast overreaching.

 

Britain is simply an island with a maritime economy. It always had a greater population of skilled seamen than did France, and the press (which worked better than the French equivalent) was more valuable as a means of abducting skilled hands than of sweeping out taverns and jails. And the doctrine of sea control meant that the British had the oceangoing population of the entire world at their fingertips. They could press pretty much anyone.

 

A crew with a poor captain is worth a lot more than a motivated captain with no crew, so there were enormous factors there that had nothing to do with the institutional culture of the opposing navies.

[tater]

I have many of the book's he referenced, so I had seen elements of his ideas in multiple places. Particularly the notion that the weather gauge is not objectively better, and was not thought so even by some naval tacticians in the UK. I think it's an interesting take, because he's right in saying that if the weather was not obviously superior, it becomes reasonable to ask why it was their doctrine to have the weather instead of the lee.

 

Other explanations are hard to imagine.

 

The guy's an economist, so given his toolbox has incentives in it, he;s likely to describe it that way. Still, I don't think it's an overreaching premise, I think it's a reasonable one to consider, certainly elements of it. From all my other reading, the lee seems unambiguously preferably in so many ways (smoke, use of lower gun decks, ability to attempt to disengage easily, etc). The only clear mechanical weather advantage would be the old uphill recoil argument, but that seems a stretch to me.

 

The RN, was, however, absolutely demanding with respect to aggressiveness in commanders. The USN submarine force at the start of ww2 was much the same, one patrol that was not sufficiently aggressive and you'd be on the beach.