Portsdown

I'm putting this up here, in its own thread, as I can't re-find the reply that prompted it. Plus it is, I think, something that is relevant to a number of discussions on the forum. How to split up the loot/exp? I'm a great fan of starting from, and going back to, the historical situation wherever possible. Many of the same problems we see in the game happened historically, or should do if the rules are OK. Obviously this is not the case with all things, to get that we would have to be back in the 19th Century, floating somewhere on the worlds oceans, but its always, IMHO, useful to go back to the sources. So how did the Royal Navy split the loot and encourage the behaviours they wanted? Well first off, they did NOT, as the post that prompted this one suggested, allow the senior officer present to decide, usually with most of the cash etc. going into his pocket. Splitting the loot was subject to the Prize Rules, which were actually controlled by law, and Act of Parliament - junior officers could, and did sue their superiors in court if they felt they had been short changed - Nelson was involved in a long court case with one of his superiors over the division of the spoils from one engagement. The law also applied to Privateers - it was how they made their money. The first thing to note is that any money was split according to shares and that the entire crew (everybody got something) of any vessel in sight of an action got their share. You didn't have to have fired a shot - this was to ensure that ships that, for example, cut off a potential escape route, forcing the enemy into the hands of other ships, weren't short changed. The shares were as follows: 2/8 of the Prize Money was divided evenly between the Captains and other vessel commanders present 1/8 went to the Admiral under whose orders the ship was operating. This encouraged Admirals to give their Captains opportunities to take prizes. If the vessel was acting directly under the orders of the Admiralty in London then this 1/8 was shared by the Captains. 1/8 was shared evenly between all Lieutenants not in command, Sailing Masters and Captains of Marines 1/8 was divided evenly between the Senior Warrant Officers (Surgeons, Chaplains, Pursers, Carpenters, Boatswains, Gunners, Lieutenants of Marines and Masters Mates (the rank above Midshipman - Ensign in the game at the moment)) 1/8 was divided evenly between Junior Warrant Officers, Petty Officers, Warrant Officers Mates, Sergeants of Marines, Captains Clerks and Midshipmen. 1/8 was divided unevenly between everyone else. Able Seamen got two shares, Ordinary Seamen one and a half shares, Landsmen one share and Boys half a share. In game terms this means, if we assume the total 'prize money' seen in the game is the Captains and Admirals 3/8, that the prize money would be shared between all vessel commanders evenly, regardless of rank or what they did in the fight. If one or more is of Flag Rank or someone who has tasked the group is of Flag Rank then the most senior (the one presumed to be in command) should get 1/3 of the total money awarded. Captured ships and their contents were not the property of those who captured them. They belonged to the Admiralty. Captains were able to use them for warlike means if required but they were expected to take or send them as soon as was practical to a port with a Prize Court. The Prize Court would value the ship and its contents, deciding the amount of Prize Money to be awarded. Note that, as I understand it, this was the value as the ship arrived in the port, not the value as captured, so any weather damage or damage by the enemy would lower a prizes value. Theft of what were now Admiralty Stores from a captured ship was a crime. In Pepys time, before the formal introduction of the Prize Rules, an Admiral who had consumed almost all of his victuals and ammunition entered port with his prizes and sold some to pay for more food and powder in order to be able to sail and protect London from the Dutch. He was prosecuted, although politics payed a part in the decision. Note that this is very different from the situation in game at the moment. As well as Prize Money for captures Head Money was awarded - five pounds per person aboard a captured Warship (none for a trading vessel). Other sums were also awarded, for example once Slavery was abolished a sum was awarded for every slave freed and for each ton of a each slave ship captured (more if the ship were empty, in order to partially offset the lack of Head Money for slaves). The money for the capture of slavers is not the only example of sums awarded in order to encourage behaviour the Admiralty deemed desirable. Private shipowners, trade associations and Lloyds would also sometimes make cash awards to captains for protection of trade, recapture of vessels etc. There were also rewards, on top of any Prize Money, for the capture of criminals such as Pirates. These all usually went to the Captain but a wise commander would distribute a proportion to his officers and men, usually in line with the rules set down by the Prize Rules. There were also non-monetary gifts, Lloyds Swords, gifted by the Lloyds Patriotic Fund were famous (and sometime enormously valuable - 100 pounds was a huge amount in those days) and gifts of Plate were relatively common. Other desirable behaviours were rewarded by promotions, or being moved to a more prestigious post or one with more opportunity for Prize Money, at the same rank rather than money or medals. This is how being the first to board an enemy vessel, taking the lead role in a a fight, some clever stratagem or, sometimes a major feat of seamanship that saved the ship (without the presence of the enemy), would be rewarded. After significant actions it was routine to promote the second in command of all vessels by one rank. So maybe split the money for captures evenly but give more experience according to how much Captains contributed to the fight, including to those who actually board, with even more to those who board first?

I am back after a long break. I get the impression that Internal Logins are now active. Is this true and, if so, how do I go about getting one? Regardless of this, perhaps a pinned post or guide could mention this option, plans for it, the fact that it is/is not active etc?

Thats not an Example, thats a Reference Library.

Animated Figureheads - now there's a thought!

There is a separate topic about crests and badges, their history and rules.

Apparently WoT isn't as bad as some out there. <Looks Dubious> <Looks Frightened> A thought: We can all help keep things calm, on top of not posting nasties to chat ourselves, by acknowledging when we make a mistake in chat. A lot of the heat in chat is people venting when people do (what they see as) stupid things that render their ability to influence the battle null and void. Conversely, if you don't think you made a mistake, don't get involved in a two way, just stay quiet. If you feel that you HAVE to say something then try and do it in the way least likely to inflame things. I have still to get round to it but I want 'You say that like its a BAD thing!' on a hot-key in WoT for all the times when someone uses Gay, Polish or some other national or racial designation as an insult. Finally, I get the point about language and the fact that not everybody speaks English it well and it feels like English is spreading the domination of certain countries and you are proud of yours, I really do. BUT if you have found that several players on you team speak your first language and you are giving tactical directions in it please remember that the rest of the team probably doesn't speak it, so don't get all angry when an Englishman like me doesn't heed your instruction or warning in Welsh. Similarly, if you genuinely have a problem with English (in which case, why and how are you reading this) say so at the games start so people can make allowances. ---- Hmm: Suggestion for future tweak to the game (I have made a similar one to the XVM team over on World of Tanks) - how about adding the ability to advertise and see player language skills in some part of the battle interface? It seems pointless if, say, you have a team entirely made up of Germans for them to be chatting away in English for the whole game or have them spend the set up period finding out who speaks what. Allow them to put on their first and other languages on their profiles and others to see them easily.

Be careful with more modern vessels, no longer limited by the restrictions imposed by wooden construction. Atlantic is designed to racing rules which limit Static Waterline Length. The key word here is Static - it is measured in harbour with no sails set. When she heels, which she will do when sailing, her elongated bow and stern enter the water, making her waterline length greater. Look at all modern monohulls and they will all use this 'trick' to some extent, unless the rules of their class specifically prohibit it. She is also probably semi-planing at her maximum speed, rather than acting as if she has a Displacement Hull. BTW, Atlantic crossed in 12 days 4 hours, which is an average speed of around 8 to 9 knots, depending on the exact start and end points. 20 knots is the maximum achieved under test in calm waters.

And the fact that she is one of the most famous historical women in England. If you know Nelson you know Emma.

Emma, Lady Hamilton. 1765-1815 Serial Mistress. Noted beauty and artists muse. Wife of Sir William Hamilton and the great love of the life of Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, who set up home with her at Merton Place, and the mother of his only known offspring, Horatia. On the news of the death of Nelson: "... tears in his eyes and a deathly paleness over his face made me comprehend him. I believe I gave a scream and fell back, and for ten hours I could neither speak nor shed a tear." She died 10 years later, at the age of 49, an impoverished alcoholic in Calais. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma,_Lady_Hamilton

I am no angel, although I'm better here than on World of Tanks. Sometimes I let my annoyance at an occurrence show though into a chat comment. BUT I'm getting better and I have noticed: The calmer you stay, the better you will play The more you watch what you say, the better they will play On WoT it has been clear to me for a while that some players know this and deliberately goad the opposition, just like they try and pull people into distracting side chats. As I say, sometimes I fail with my intentions (in which case I try and apologise when I calm down). But the trick is to pay attention to mistakes in the following order: 1. Your own - remove them 2. The enemies - exploit them 3. Your allies - advise them That order is important. A lot of the angst in online games comes from people who don't want to accept that they fouled up or the enemy is better than them. There is also a skill to knowing how, or even if, to advise. 'Watch your course people' is better than '[Expletive] get outamyway [specific player]!'. Sometimes its also better to take a general look at what is happening 'We are to close together - watch your course and space out'. Sometimes its clear that a player will be unable to learn a particular point at their current level of skill - so why distract them with advice they can't use? Its also unwise to try and advise when you don't know enough. My least favourite aspect of WoT is the player with 100 games who thinks he is Rommel, it always raises my stress levels when other players who should know better follow foolish instructions or the Rommel throws a strop when they don't. Even better players can get it wrong - be wary of advising or criticising the play of someone in a vehicle or ship when you don't know its strengths and weaknesses. To end my rather rambling and not really exactly on topic post: Officers in the era we are talking about were generally polite to each other. If you weren't someone would take offence, leading to 'Pistols for two and breakfast for one'.

His Britannic Majesties Ship appears to have only been used in formal correspondence. It took a long time before His Britannic Majesties Ship or His Majesties Ship, abbreviated or not, came into general use. BTW - any commentary on my 'picks' idea, earned, brought, given etc? Thinking further, they might also be used to name newly discovered or founded land or settlements. I feel using them as rewards and allowing you to do something with them like add a name to the lists, even if you don't name your OWN ship, would give the game an opening for less material (in game terms) rewards for good play, competitions, missions, assisting the community etc. Loss of accumulated of expected 'picks' could even be used as a more moderate form of punishment for infractions without the need to remove things like money and goods earned in game or ban people.

Except that they have never been used on the names displayed on the vessels themselves and HMS only came into vogue around 1800.

I have voted for "Other" The "Other" is that I think that: a) There should be a list. b.)Naval characters would usually get what they were given, selected from this list. However see below. c) Non-navy players should be allowed to select from the list. However they would lose a 'pick' for this, and if they hadn't yet earned any then they get what they are given (which might be a blessing - they don't waste a pick on a bad choice when they are new to the game). d) Some names wopuld be reserved for certain types of ships. For example 'Ark Royal' would probably be restricted to First or Second rate Naval Ships and 'Queen Annes Revenge' to Pirates and Privateers. e) The list should be compiled and added to by both the Designers and a limited number of players with 'Name List Privileges'. I would expect these to be people who have shown that they are responsible and have a reasonable grasp of the issues, including history, involved. f) Players would get a limited number of 'picks', activated after a certain amount of involvement in the game. The base number of picks would be one - this is deliberate, in order to minimise the load on whoever is moderating name addition. They could use each 'pick' for one of a number of things: i) Making a request for a name to be added to the list, which can then be used by any player. ii) Choosing a name from the list, unless they are a naval player. iii) Requesting a name from the list if they are a Naval player. This would be granted with a probability that depended on the players standing in the Navy. Failed attempts would not 'consume' the Pick but either no further request would be allowed for a given period of time or it would result in some amount of damage to a players naval standing (they called in a favour they can no longer use). Note that choosing a name not already on the list costs two picks. This is deliberate. New players would not be able to do this until they had been in the game for a while. Additional picks beyond the initial 1 would be given as rewards for in game and, perhaps, out of game, actions.

If the game design is any good then historical tactics should at least be a reasonable path to victory in battle. PS. I work with the NATO definitions so, to me, Strategy is "The manner in which military power should be developed and applied to achieve national objectives or those of a group of nations". Operational Art is what you use to manoeuvre forces to implement your Strategy. This may result in battles and engagements. Tactics is what you use during battles and engagements. I am aware, however, that others use different conventions. For example Game Theorists use the term Strategy to refer to what I regard as Tactics.