Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Rikard Frederiksen

Members2
  • Posts

    187
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rikard Frederiksen

  1. I'm generally in agreement with Æthlstan on this one, and can understand where they are coming from. However, I don't think there is a need for a whole mechanic, but for firing times of a broadside to be tightened. It feels ridiculous on a single-decker with a 9-cannon broadside that the last gun will fire 4 or so seconds after the first gun. Gun-captains will have several indicators that it is time to fire - the order, if they can hear it (command system vs. ears deadened by gunfire/lingering powder smoke from previous firings obstructing ability to see visual signals), the smoke/flame of cannons firing, and the vibrations of said cannon recoiling violently across the timber decks. Applying a lit linstock/yanking the landyard on a lock does not take 3-4 seconds, and the finely mealed powder used for priming ignites very quickly, so the delay should be minimal. As Æthlstan points out, the long delays can mean that a well-timed broadside loses a large amount of its firepower, which nullifies being a superior position to rake a target.

     

    Thus I'd say tighten up the delay between the first and last guns firing, but if something needs to give as compensation due to a potentially greater amount of the broadside striking, then the accelerated reload times we have could be decelerated. If you're raking you should gain the full benefit from being in such a position, not lose a significant amount of firepower because of the long delays between the order being given and all of the guns firing.

    • Like 1
  2. Says who? This whole notion of handicapping Pirates because nations can't get a handle on how to combat them is ridiculous.

    For me it has nothing to do with fighting against pirates, but everything to do with piracy offering me nothing that I don't already have in a nation. Sailing for a nation you have a load of safety nets - lots of ports to sail to and from, good quality ships readily available in the home port, a safe line of progression, back-up from fellow nation members. What is different about being a pirate? You have a different flag? Wow, that is really going to tempt me to ditch the nation I sail for. If I betray the nation I sailed for, if I turn my back on the safety nets, then I would expect the consequences of my actions. Such consequences I would expect to be along the lines of a limited number of ports (i.e. Free Towns only), either no crafting or limited to up to 6th Rate, only able to raid - not capture - ports, and limited to capturing ships a lot of the time to get a new one. I'd also like to see the removal of nation grouping/chats for pirates; if you want to be organised then do it externally.

     

    The way piracy is implemented offers no consequences for the act of betrayal in attacking friendly shipping. I want being a pirate to force me to think on my feet, to carefully pick my fights/sailing routes, to not have the safety nets underneath me, to feel alone and unable to trust anyone*. It feels to me, by and large, that those who voraciously defend the current way piracy is handled just want to have the allure of being a pirate without the dangers of it. It is as though they just want to have their 'cool' flag and to think of themselves as some ferocious buccaneer, when in the game their nation is really just a carbon copy of the others.

     

    *My experiences from DayZ & EVE are to blame for this.

    • Like 3
  3. Looks like a smashing little vessel. I've a soft spot for the Snow, therefore this one could be a nice addition to my little fleet.

     

    Well, she's a private vessel, named to suit the whim or politics of the owners.

    Maybe their ancestors were staunch roundheads.

    Neither the Whigs nor Tories would have looked kindly on it, would they? I don't know anything about British politics.

    The context of the name is very important and 'Oliver Cromwell' appears to have been chosen for its connotations. Cromwell fought against his king, was instrumental in the defeat of Charles I, was prominent during the trial and execution of Charles, and ruled Britain's only republic, the Commonwealth, between 1653-58*. By comparison the rebels of 1775-83 were fighting against their king, intending to defeat the king's forces militarily and establish a republic. Naming the ship after the man who just 120 years or so before had a hand in fighting and killing an English king was not an accident.

    *Calling it a 'republic' is stretching the term rather. Cromwell wanted to establish England as God's country, governed by Godly men in parliament, but found that it wouldn't work so he ruled as 'Lord Protector', splitting up the country to be ruled by his generals. Cromwell was in effect king, and whilst he did turn down an offer of the crown there are arguments that he intended to be, even wanted to be, crowned king.

    • Like 1
  4. If you find yourself in London, I'd recommend visiting HMS Belfast, a Town-class cruiser of the Royal Navy moored as a museum ship in the Thames - fascinating to wander round it and the admission prices aren't too steep. There's also the Greenwich Maritime Museum, which has some very interesting pieces within.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...