Please don't make us sink everything

[maturin]

Age of Sail naval combat very rarely resulted in one ship sinking the other.

 

This is for two obvious reasons:

A. Hunks of wood are very buoyant, and large crews can easily stop holes and pump out water. Cannonballs don't create holes much larger than their own diameter and can't shoot through water, so damage is limited to the hull at the waterline or above. Causing damage that threatens flooding relies on very specific conditions or deliberate action...

 

B. ...which combatants were unlikely to take, since the objective was almost always to capture, not destroy. This brings in the most prize money. In game terms, it is also far more fun, because we get to maybe seize a brand new vessel to play around with, rifle through its hold, etc.

 

And if we do get sinking ships, please don't make them blow up in a ball of fire when their HP reaches zero, like in POTBS.

 

Concrete wishlist:

Ships can take huge amounts of damage before sinking.

Ships receiving fire on the windward side when heeled can suffer shot-holes that cause flooding. This forces them to divert fighting manpower to the pumps to stay afloat.

Ships that sink do so slowly and realistically.

Captured ships are sent away with prize crews.

 

 

But if ships don't often sink, how do we win battles? Won't human captains be opposed to surrender and often choose to fight to the death?

Yes, and at a certain point, the game must take the decision out of human hands to prevent the irrational and trolling behavior that would otherwise ruin the gameplay.

Once a ship suffers too many casualties, the crew will naturally run down into the hold or otherwise stop fighting from exhaustion, demoralization or plain attrition. In this case, the officers should either automatically surrender the ship, be considered disabled/killed, or the game should communicate to the opponent that a boarding action would now result in effortless victory.

[Brigand]

Another option to force surrender is by increasing the risk of serious injury to you captain with increasing damage (apply some formula). If a player knows that from a certain point onward the chances of having his captain hospitalized (or killed if you want to go hardcore) are large, he may well choose to surrender and live to tell the tale.

I think this would however only work if the attacker is forced to accept a surrender, otherwise it could well be that the joy of grieving another player would make them sink other players anyhow (I've played EVE, so I've very little hope for good sportsmanship).

~Brigand

[maturin]

Automatically accepting surrenders would certainly be simplest (or making surrendered ships stop taking damage, which would work if there is no option to aim gun specifically at the waterline).

 

But there are a large number of realistic disincentives to sinking surrendered vessels that could be implemented. A pirate captain would be promptly voted out of office for depriving the crew of prize money (assuming the hold wasn't looted first). Naval crews would respond in a similar way, although it would just be a hit to morale. A captain is a member of polite society as well, and subject to severe censure for such a dishonorable action (and the admiral loses out of prize money too).

[Baggywrinkle]

Here here!

 

Surely pretty much as per the real world would be easy enough to implement? You surrender (assuming you've got into a scrap in the first place) because it is no longer feasible to fight your vessel. Excessive structural damage, loss of guns and/or gun crew would prevent you from fighting, you would surrender. Excessive damage to your rig, or loss of topmen and deck crew would prevent you working your vessel...you would surrender. These are all fairly easy stats to keep track of, no? So having set triggers for a surrender (optional, for those who wish to really go down fighting, like TW 'end/continue battle' option?) should be doable? Certainly would be my preferred method of ending a fight. I also really like your idea of increased likelihood of personal injury Brigand.

 

That said, catching fire was a real danger, and we've all seen those stunning period paintings of what happens when your shot finds it's way into the enemy's magasine...

 

Baggy

[maturin]

Thankfully, the magazines are below the waterline, so those fireworks are reserved for the truly unfortunate.

 

Fires could often get out of control, though, especially on dismasted vessels where sails fell over the guns and ignited.

[masterofn0ne]

at a certain point, the game must take the decision out of human hands to prevent the irrational and trolling behavior that would otherwise ruin the gameplay.

Once a ship suffers too many casualties, the crew will naturally run down into the hold or otherwise stop fighting from exhaustion, demoralization or plain attrition. In this case, the officers should either automatically surrender the ship, be considered disabled/killed, or the game should communicate to the opponent that a boarding action would now result in effortless victory.

 

My thoughts exactly! If you read accounts of historical single-ships actions, there are a couple of things that stand out: 1) most actions end with one boat fleeing; 2) the ones that don't rarely end up with one of the boats being totally destroyed; 3) casualties on the losing side are usually limited to 10-20% percent of crew (and that's a heavy battle), which implies that most battles end in surrender

[TheDamDog]

From what I've read, ships only tended to be damaged to the point of sinking with regularity if:

 

1.  The battle was a real knock-down, drag-out affair like Trafalgar or the Sinope.

 

2.  Bad weather was involved (the unfortunate fate of the Spanish Armada)

 

3.  The battle was a blockade (see a thousand famous break out actions.)

 

Sometimes ships would flee and sink after a battle, but I'd hope to avoid Empire: Total War scenarios where two fleets come in and 1/3 of one sails out.

 

That said, if the game does go into the 1820's we would be seeing early (effective) explosive shells, see Paixhan's gun.  The later era ships would be much more capable of inflicting significant damage to each other and causing "insta-kills."

 

 

 

One thing I would suggest is that a captain who surrenders can, under some conditions, "volunteer" to join the enemy.  Up until the Napoleonic era this was a very common thing.  The Russian navy, the one I'm most familiar with, lived off of its foreign captains, which included a number of Scotts and one rather famous American.  The same thing applied to officers on the ground as well, of course.  Many officers would merrily join up with their captors under the right circustances. 

 

Of course, the number of times a captain has changed sides would be known to his attackers (in the game) and thus they would be able to judge his trustworthiness based on that information.

 

Assuming nations are implimented in some fashion which gives them a presence in game, then it could be arranged for them to ransom captains.

 

 

Finally, if your ship is captured or destroyed and the enemy decides not to take your captain with them, it can be assumed that he finds a lifeboat and just happens upon rescue, or finds a desert island or somesuch.

 

Or, as an alternative, every time your character 'dies' you assume the role of his son/brother/heir, who recieves a letter (and possibly a coffin) informing them that they are the proud owner of whatever was stuffed in your warehouse.

[Thomas Blackwell]

I surrender my ship, hand over my sword, have dinner with the enemy captain and his officers before turning in for an early night. Ain't war great?

[maturin]

I surrender my ship, hand over my sword, have dinner with the enemy captain and his officers before turning in for an early night. Ain't war great?

Exactly how the first Patrick O'Brian novel ends.

 

Although then the British characters end up watching a large-scale fleet engagement from the highly un-safe vantage point of the officer's head. But they make great friends with the captain who captured them, before shredding his fleet two novels later.

[TheDamDog]

I surrender my ship, hand over my sword, have dinner with the enemy captain and his officers before turning in for an early night. Ain't war great?

This is actually how things went after the Battle of Poltava (minus the ship, of course.)  Several of the Swedish high command ended up joining the Russian army and fighting against the Turks a few years later.

[Subutai]

From what I've seen on the NA Youtube channel, combat is about sinking enemy ships. While this is obviously not a new concept in naval warfare, during this time period, wasn't it relatively uncommon for ships to actually be sunk in battle? Isn't it much more likely for a ship to be reduced to a dismasted, undermanned, disarmed, useless (but otherwise for the moment, floating) hulk, before that point? Would it be practical to reflect this in the game? 

[Ink]

Right now there is another damage model in development, you can read about it here:

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/842-damage-model-30-discussion/

[Clinch]

Out of 74 ships at Trafalgar 1 sunk.  Yes I agree!

[Destraex]

I agree. They should strike colours, burn or be damaged too badly to fight or be abandoned. Last resort if to have them explode like le orient at the battle of the nile.

[Leviathan]

The only issue I see with striking colors is if it means an automatic loss of your ship to the enemy. In real life striking colors is useful to spare the life of the crew but who is going to forfeit a hard-earned ship in the game to save the lives of their digital crew? Not I. It may work if it doesn't always result in a loss of ship but maybe cargo or currency to the winner. I would like to see the chance of fire and a rare explosion implemented.

[CubanMafia]

that model development look nice cant wait to try this game

[maturin]

No captain should be forced to strike colors. However, after enough casualties the crew should suffer a catastrophic moral failure and desert the guns, saving themselves by hiding below the waterline. This would leave players no choice but to run away. And in turn, this would encourage people to fight aggressively and spread out the damage between both hull and rig so that disabled foes can be run down and boarded.

[Chilly Willy]

upon boarding and the surrender of the captian/crew the victor would strike the colors

there will need to be a good reason for striking colors when not boarded

like leviatthian said Damn the ditigal crew ya aint gettin my boat.especially if it took a long time to get in the first place

but i do like the idea of striking colors

[Clinch]

I agree with Maturin here. If a ship loses all of its morale, it would strike. If your ship strikes, you lose all control of it and it just becomes a floating hulk. It would be the same as if it had sunk except it hadnt.

[Privateer]

PotBS had a chat command in which one party could request that another surrender a portion of its cargo.  While I doubt this was intended to serve as an official forfeiture mechanic, it does bring to question the validity of conditional surrender with respect to the uncertainty of an online gaming environment.  In my experience, there very little.  I cite EVE as a prime example of this: ransom under threat of force, while effective in reality, is not particularly worthwhile in a game. 

 

Here are the strategic odds: should I choose to continue fighting, I am guaranteed to lose no more than that which is presently at stake, and have the potential to reduce the net gain of my enemy even if I am ultimately defeated.  However, should I agree to a ransom, especially if payment is expected in some form other than cargo, crew, or ship—the assets truly at stake—(in EVE this is often direct currency, which cannot be involuntarily stolen but can be voluntarily forfeited) then I am guaranteed to lose a certain amount of money and an uncertain amount of assets on hand.  If my opponent does not honour their end of the bargain, I am out the value of the ransom and the assets at stake. 

 

Here are the psychological odds: if my defeat is assured, there is no economical incentive for them to spare me; they could readily defeat me and take what they wish without the hassle of diplomacy and trust.  If they are attempting to bluff, and cannot guarantee my destruction, then their gimmick will be revealed when they are defeated by me instead.  All of this is not possible should I concede to strike.  I have willingly acknowledged their superiority and elevated them to a position of uncontested authority.  I have no assurance that my opponent will honour the deal, nor the means to enforce it. 

 

For the most part, on the internet, surrender is usually the worst decision in battle.  It is a cowardly mistake made by amateurs unfamiliar with the one thing that separates virtual conflict from the corporeal: you cannot die, nor can your lasting reputation.  The best course of action is to keep fighting until the last man, swim home, and avoid a similar fate in the future.  To this end I believe that surrender aught to be decision made not by the immortal player but by the virtual crew who virtually can die.

[Subutai]

You are forgetting one thing that is real, and is at stake: time. Imagine being an unmanageable hulk, dead in the water. You know your opponent will simply lay to off your bow or stern and rake you with impunity. There is nothing you can do now except watch helplessly as your opponent pummels you until you sink. Who would want to continue playing at that point? True, there is nothing to be gained by saving the virtual lives of your crew. Equally true, there will be moments in the game where continuing to fight will gain you nothing. I can only speak for myself but I'd like a "surrender" mechanic at that point, if for no reason but to save time. If there's one thing I hate it's being forced to sit and do nothing in a game.

[akd]

True, there is nothing to be gained by saving the virtual lives of your crew.

What if there were? Personally, I think experience should be accumulated in your crew, preserved if you strike, but lost entirely if the ship is destroyed. This would be a core mechanic in encouraging players to strike rather than fight to the death. Combine this with a severe disincentive to reject an opponents surrender, and we will have much more interesting win-loss dynamic. In fact, the disincentive to reject surrenders could be the same as the incentive to strike: you destroy a striking a ship and your crew deserts you refusing to serve under a dishonorable captain, causing complete loss of accumulated experience.

There could be material incentives on both sides, as well, of course. For example, you sink and you lose easily "portable" wealth (e.g. gold, silver, jewels) and your cargo, while your opponent gains nothing (no floating cargo salvage BS). Sinking a ship should be lose-lose, not a normally sought outcome but an exceptional occurrence in extreme circumstances. Strike and you keep your portable wealth and your opponent gains your cargo.

[Subutai]

@akd I agree wholeheartedly. Capturing an enemy vessel rather than sinking her was historically a much more common, and much more desirable, outcome, and it would great to see that reflected ingame. Just think on our share of the prize money... she'll be loaded with gold, and ambergris, and all the gems of Araby... *clinks glass*

[Destraex]

remeber most crews WERE exchanged fairly quickly in some cases??? Actually I need to research this. Considering how many hulks were filled for the wars duration.

[VEYRON]

the game should be more about,,econ,,adventure,,and exploration,,there should be plenty of ship wreak gold and bounty to find out there at the far side of the world..leass about pvp and sinking someones ship,,damage and cost of repairs should easily make any captain think twice about combat,,this is how i understand the story line is we all make the game what it is,,we could have sailing races for prize money,be a ship maker or a gold miner,dident see anything that we had to be on any side and forced to fight any one.

 

    anther issue is how many accounts can one person have and will he be able to play them all at the same time,,people on a team speak can use this for recon and know where others are and bring the forces to bear to defeat them..so limited accounts would be a good thing i believe,,and unless they can play on 2 computers at the same time that they will not have the ability to duel box.cant stop all the crap some people will do to gain an edge but you can make it real hard for them to do it.

 

                  if you do strike your colors,maybe a standard payment of a percentage of all your ammunition and goods on board might fix the problem, and after the battel all ships involved are dispersed and cannot see each other position may help,,be good money for a man of war to imposed the threat of distruction on a ship that cant get away yet not haveing to sink it,..and maybe some penaltys for thoughtless fights or just bullying ships that have no possiibility to win,,