_Alucard_

Claro, toda ayuda es siempre bienvenida y si hay cosas sin actualizar es por falta de tiempo. Por mi encantado

LOL, I remember this. It was a looooot of fun. I'm glad you had fun too.

So you are only saying that demasting was a tactic back in those days? Of course it was. I think I have never denied that. I'm just saying that your example (Aga demasting the Santísima) is irrelevant because it was 5 vs 1 and any of those 5 could have done it. That doesn't prove anything. You just made me waste my time.....

I would understand that if you want to have all the slots in a 5th rate, you should unlock them first in a 6th rate, that's fine. But, looking at the tree for progresion, you have to unlock cutters, brigs, navy brigs, cerberus and so on..... Why don't you do it by classes? 7th rate to unlock all 6th rates, 6th rates to unlock all 5th rates , etc..... When people in live server realize that they have to sail all these small ships, I can see a lot of angry customers complaining......

Is this a joke? The Santísima Trinidad fought against 5-6 ships at the same time. So your point that Agamemnon was able to demast her is absolutely irrelevant. Why? Because if it was not Agamemnon , another ship would eventually have demasted her. Translating that action into Naval Action: Santísima sank, Agamemnon got an assist and another ship got the kill. And yes, demasting in the testbed is very very easy.

I think San Juan Nepomuceno would be a wonderful ship to have in Naval Action. Just read the story of Churruca (Nepomuceno's captain) and you'll realize why. Men back in those days had more balls than we have today.

Oh, I realized what you mean. Yes, the Purísima Concepción and San José were designed based on the Gautier system and the others were designed based on Romero Landa system. That's a mistake, yes.

Yes, the Purísima Concepción was a 112 guns ship of the line, designed based on the Gautier system. Based on the Purísima Concepción, Romero Landa (Spanish shipbuilder) built the Santa Ana (another 112 guns 1st rate) improving some of the Gautier system defects, and the Santa Ana was the first of 8 112 guns ships (brothers) called "los Meregildos". They were: 1- Santa Ana- Ferrol 1784 2- Mejicano - La Habana 1786 3- Conde de Regla - La Habana 1786 4- Salvador del Mundo - Ferrol 1787 5- Real Carlos - La Habana 1787 6- San Hermenegildo - La Habana 1789 7- Reina Luisa - Ferrol 1791 8- Príncipe de Asturias - La Habana 1794 All of the ships designed by Romero Landa were known as excellent sailors, with great manoeuvrability, a lot of room on their decks, great power of fire and among the best ships built in Europe. In fact, in the maiden voyage of Santa Ana her captain wrote: "she can turn against the wind only with the rudder or with sails, but she doesn't need both, she goes smoothly even with bad wind or bad sea"

Those are plans for 112 guns ships of the line. Spain had several and they were built based on the same plan. It's known as ships of a certain class

¿Qué carajo sabrás tú del trato que le dimos o dejamos de dar a Gaizka? A nadie le importa eso ya. No está. Y por cierto, mucho mejor así porque era un blando. A Gaizka lo único que le importaba era él mismo y su afán de protagonismo en algo en lo que le iba claramente grande. Ya me puedes ir diciendo cuando me rendí yo en algo, porque tú tienes la boca demasiado grande para lo poco que haces. Acusas a todo el mundo de rendirse, de no luchar, de lo que sea con tal de liarla. Eres patético. ¿Qué coño has hecho tú para poder ir lanzando la piedra contra todo el mundo? El día que estés en una batalla de puerto peleando y no cazando novatos, quizás pueda ser que alguien te escuche. Mientras tanto, eres un objeto navegador carente de valor, insignificante y nada más. Porque claro, en tus vídeos ya vemos que en cuanto alguien opone la más mínima e imprescindible resistencia (pero nada del otro mundo), ya dices que ha jugado bien. Lógico, dado el nivel de la gente a la que te enfrentas, no conoces cómo juega la gente que de verdad sí juega bien a esto. Pero claro, qué le vas a pedir a alguien que hasta hace 2 días no sabía girar con velas manuales, no sabía qué era la convergencia, no sabía las reglas de una batalla de puerto, no sabía (y dudo que aún lo sepas) cuales son los 3 modos de disparo..... En fin, que puedo seguir hasta mañana. Pero claro, aquí lo fácil es criticar y no proponer cosas. ¿Por qué? Porque en cuanto se proponen cosas uno se da cuenta de las carencias de dichas proposiciones. Y nada más, paso de darte protagonismo porque ni eres digno de él y menos te mereces un cierto grado de respeto. Para mí siempre has sido un bocazas que lo único que hace es demostrar que no tiene ni idea.

La capacidad de no tener ni puñetera idea del juego queda patente en este mensaje. La cuestión es echar mierda simplemente por echar. Un consejo que elija a lobogris como diplomático lo dice todo acerca de ese consejo.

Bueno, después de un tiempo sin actualizarla y ver que había un problema en la visualización del contenido, la he cambiado de hosting, solucionado dicho fallo y además he incluido 2 barcos que faltaban: el rattlesnake y Santa Cecilia. Agradecer a @Liquicity la cesión momentánea de su Santa Cecilia para hacerle unas fotos y a corocota por tomar el timón mientras yo me dedicaba a las propias fotos. Realmente es una historia interesante la de este barco. Se que aún me quedan muchos por incluir, pero poco a poco y cuando tenga tiempo y ganas lo iré haciendo. Por cierto, en la web también tenéis un enlace al foro en el que muchos escribimos. Todos estais invitados a uniros.

I have an Intel i5-4570, 8GB and a 1060 6GB. I can run the game on ultra with antialiasing off at constant 60fps (if I turn it on it kills the performance going down to 30fps). However, in big battles those 60fps can drop to 40 or less depending on how many ships are involved. With a good processor and the 1060 you should be able to play the game fine on ultra settings (except the antialiasing).

Nice collection of plans you have here Ned Loe. Thank you. It would be great to have those

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salga Strenght: 6000 troops vs 8 galleons, 1 patache, 1 caravel and 1000 troops. So being outnumbered 6-1 is an epic fail? Ok, what do you say about this then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ponta_Delgada 28 vs 60 and ................... those 28 win!!!

Or even the epic fail trying to capture Cartagena de Indias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cartagena_de_Indias

I think two collided and one of them had her sails very damaged so it was captured. And the other loss was by the magazine in another ship. Doesn't matter. The history books say that this was a great defeat and, even considering your numbers, 7 ships is in no way such a great defeat. If you besiege a castle and then go home it isn't a defeat, actually is called retreat which to me it isn't the same. In our case, the English can call it whatever they like but the armada suffered way more by the storm than from them. And this is what the books should tell and they don't. But it's better to use the history and make sure everybody knows this story and hide the contra-armada the following year.....

Here you have the list of all ships Spain had during the 18th century: https://www.todoababor.es/listado/ A lot of ships and multiple choices there. From 50 to 140 (Santísima) they can choose the amount of guns they want. My favourites: - Santa Ana (112) -Montañés (we have real plans of this ship) and San Juan Nepomuceno (74) -Glorioso (70) google this one and see why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_of_the_Glorioso

The Spanish didn't achieve their aim ----> correct, they didn't Lose seven ships -----> I don't remember the exact numbers, but if I'm not wrong, only 2 were lost "in combat" Get driven out of your anchorage, abandoning the invasion force, is that not defeat?-------> No it isn't. Because the Spanish still had almost the full fleet. Only minor loses and that's historically worldwide known as the "defeat of the Spanish Armada"??? Come on..... Or would you rather say that the Spanish just failed on their own---------------> Obviously the English had something to do with it, but it wasn't a great defeat. They fought and they managed to get what they were looking for. But what the people don't know is 75% of the fleet managed to get back to a Spanish port. And even more, what people don't know is the "contra-armada" the following year (1589). That IS what I call a great defeat and it isn't even mentioned in the history books https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Armada Listen to the podcast, and tell me your opinion after doing so.

And here you have the key point. They had the perfect timming to attack the English fleet docked at Playmouth with good wind (very important) and they didn't because Medina Sidonia was told to go to Flandes and meet the Spanish troops there. Another key point is the fact that the man who was going to lead this armada (Alvaro de Bazán) died on February. He was the best commander and actually he died undefeated. Had Alvaro de Bazán led the armada and saw the perfect oportunity at Playmouth.....well, history might have been different.

Sorry to disagree but this may be interesting for you: https://www.ivoox.com/the-spanish-armada-and-an-iron-age-mansion-audios-mp3_rf_2901619_1.html Listen to that from 2:50 -Defeating the Spanish Armada: rubbish -Actually both sides were in military terms fairly well matched -But of course, the English didn't defeat the Spanish Armada -Lots of other factors did: stupidity on the part of the Spanish (arguable, but this who talks is English), poor organization, bad luck, but most of all the weather.

No, they didn't. In fact, the Spanish arrived at their destination with almost the full fleet. Then the British used fire ships in order to get the Spanish out of the harbor. After that we know the storm did its job.

Bullshit, the weather defeated the Spanish Armada not the English. Split into it's own thread for great justice (and historical discussion)! - H. Darby

It's cOjones. By the way, do you use this word in the US or you just know this one?