Haratik

Ah, my mistake then, thanks for clearing that up.

I'm fine with the haze, it adds an element of mystery to the game, also great for cloaking the hunters or hunted during a chase. I would prefer to see said fog limited to the coastline perhaps, rather than the general OS.

As an American player, while I have my disdain for the poor shape the French Navy was in post revolution through the Napoleonic Wars, they were excellent shipbuilders and I can readily name more than a few French vessels that served in the time period other than the Bucentaure. You're right, most of them had infamous histories, but the ships themselves were not to blame, the poor leadership was. Stop thinking of the ships being piss-poor examples of a proud navy, and start focusing on the real issues behind the disgrace the French Navy put itself through post revolution. I always found French ships to be beautifully crafted personally, damn the name.

My only hope is there will be another wipe sometime in the future. Hopefully by then we won't have a duplicating issue.

I can see this working, but it would have to be a rare spawn, like one out of one hundred AI trade ship spawns. If it were to be a common spawn, I couldn't see the system working. Example #1. You hail a ship and it responds with "3rd Rate Trader Ship" then you know there is a recipe for one of the 3rd rate in-game ships aboard the vessel. This trader ship will be a 3rd rate ship matching the rating of the recipe it carries. The ship will be armed and will be accompanied by one small escort ship (say, no larger than a Cutter). Example #2. You hail a ship and it responds with "5th Rate Trade Ship", it will be a armed 5th rate ship carrying an undisclosed 5th rate crafting recipe. It too, will be accompanied by one small escort ship, and on and on for all other classes of ships. An additional problem I see here is the escort is too small for the examples given. Especially for Example #1. I'd think a ship carrying a 3rd rate recipe would stand to receive a more serious escort than a small cutter...

Prepare for the single dura Connie/Pavel/1st rate spam in the coming weeks then.

I wonder how differently the battle would have turned out, if the Franco-Spanish fleet had had several factors reduced to non-factors.

Damn, I checked too. Spelling was slightly off. Thanks bud.

Appears to be a reconstruction version, I glossed over it, here's the link to the original model: Panteleimon Victoria (pre-reconstruction)

Came across this Russian 3rd rate (probably 4th rate by our current standards) while doing some research into a project. View link for pictures: Panteleimon Victoria Panteleimon Victoria (Drawings) Not sure if the drawings are copies of plans, figured it's worth looking at. Love the detail on the model. Details below: The history of the ship: 66 - gun battleship "Panteleimon Victoria" The ship was named in honor of Gangut (1714) and Grengamskoy (1720) victories won on the day of St. Panteleimon on 27 July. It was founded 03.22.1719, in S. -Petersburg Admiralty. Builder Blaise Pangalo. Launched 07.27.1721, he joined the Russian Baltic Fleet. In 1722, 1723 and 1727 as part of units and squadrons was in practice swimming in the Gulf of Finland. In 1726 GS squadron was at Kronstadt Raids crew training, but did not go into the sea. Since 1728 stood at Kronstadt harbor, not to arm. In 1734 g.pereshel from Kronstadt to Revel. Collate dilapidation in 1736 Commanders: Vilboa F. (1721), D. Wilster (1723.), KN Zotov (1726), M. Korobin (1728), Aboleshev A. (1734).

Good luck in your endeavour, perhaps a summary of what you stand for and what you seek would get other captains interested in your cause.

Please, keep acting like you know what I'm thinking, the arrogance you and maturin portray is seriously entertaining. I don't care if it's an archaic fluyt from the 17th century or a "modern" fluyt to your design specifications. I just don't want to see one type of Indiaman of historical accuracy and 2-3 "fictional" types that look like someone slapped them together. Diversity is my goal, as is some representation into the mercantile field by such economic heavyweights as the Dutch and Spanish.

I'd like both tbh, but we'll see what the devs come up with. As I said previously, the devs might want to narrow their time period requirements for ship designs if players aren't going to want older designs.

Thanks Alex, much obliged for that.

The technology difference between Soviet era heavy tanks and the M1 Abrams might as well have been 100 years. Please don't tell me you can't do the math.

I love how you keep referring to modern technology to prove your point, maybe you should reference this too: Gulf War Yes the Abrams was completely superior, but guess what? The Iraqi army still fielded outdated tank designs. So if we go by your line of thought, shouldn't this game also allow outdated designs?

That's not what I meant and you know it. Unless he can provide credible proof of his statements with paintings, drawings, sketches, etc. Do I really need to spell it out?

Until you can provide some photographic proof of your statements, you're not going to get much in the way of belief of your credibility. "You did all this research and stopped short as soon as you thought the facts were on your side. It's exhausting for everyone else in the thread!" You look in the mirror while you're typing this?

There does need to be some variety in ship fleets, but further in the future, not now while we're testing crafting. Give it time.

Pardon me for assuming you didn't know a thing about history...woops, I'm sorry, that was exactly the same assumption you've made about me wasn't it? Edit: The galleon itself at 700 tons was smaller than the Centurion but was shockingly unprepared for attack. There were 44 cannon aboard but 12 of those were packed away. The rest were only 6 to 12 pounders and were mounted on exposed decks. There were also 28swivel guns but since the men on the Centurion made no attempt to board these were of little concern and in any case, those manning them would have been killed by the marksmen or the grapeshot. (Never knew a Ship of the Line with a dozen cannon in the hold, and the only cannons mounted on the decks were no bigger than 12lbers. Talk about a DPM machine!) Mayflower in the game? Dear sir, you must be joking. Partake a little less of the wine and focus on the matter at hand please.

That's fine, you can dislike my tone however you like, however you want to read it. It's funny how you state the facts as if they were indeed facts, but if you had done your research, you'd have found that said galleon was armed with only 36 guns when it was brought to bear by the HMS Centurion, which was part of a fleet under Captain George Anson's command to take the Manila Colony away from the Spanish. Some ship of the line that was eh? Some further reading for you: Captured Galleon Thanks for assuming I'm part of the 98% of humanity. I'm glad to be part of the majority with you.

Please then, provide an accurate photo or plan of a Manila Galleon, and we can lay the argument to rest. btw, found this photo, caption reads as: The Capture of the Spanish Galleon 'Nuestra Señora de Covadonga', 20 April 1743 Look at the date, and look at the stern of that galleon, and tell me a ship like that does not belong in the game.

It's exactly what I'm debating. If ship design is your only qualm, then it's a moot point. Regardless of ship design, the merchants in this game will, hopefully, never be a clutch warship. They're meant to haul cargo, not fight. Even if they're armed, they won't stand up to a warship seeking to capture it, not unless they're in numbers, depending on the size of the warship. I see no reason not to include a fluyt or galleon built in the 1600s if you're worried about how much of a bathtub it looks like.

Read the link on Pulo Aura. Ship design aside, the merchant vessels were still lightly armed, gunnery skills suspect at best, and slow. What's the point of adding merchant vessels at all if ship design is the only difference between galleons and fluyts built before this "modern" period, and the merchantmen you profess only fit in this "modern" period.

That wasn't the point I was making, but thanks for so conveniently continuing to display ignorance.