Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Captiva

Members
  • Content Count

    412
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

388 Excellent

About Captiva

  • Rank
    Junior Lieutenant
  • Birthday August 31

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    : Horse Latitudes

Recent Profile Visitors

1,337 profile views
  1. Victor. I used three ports as points of distance references and my given location was correct. Hope this helps.
  2. I respectfully don't agree with the auto update idea and the showing of route dots. Simply take your sextant reading (F 11 or whatever), write down the approximate coordinates and then consult your map in your captains cabin to find your approximate location; adjust course if needed using the ships compass. Many of us have been doing this by using Felix Victor's fantastic map. It's more immersive and feels authentic. The sextant perk in it's current form is the worst kind of crutch...broken.
  3. I had envisioned the implementation of the sextant into the game as being used to show your approximated coordinates, at which time you would consult your map to find your approximate location. Then, if needed, using your compass to adjust your course. I did not envision it as being a virtual icon of your ship traveling across the map ala, Garmin GPS. I also never thought that such an iconic navigation tool used during the age of sail would require a perk to obtain. Crafting with a required note? Yes, but not a perk. The whole idea is upside down.
  4. I'm going to suggest this one more time. Port battles should have 2 BR numbers. The first BR number goes toward the number of 3rd rate and lower ships allowed in the port battle. The second BR number goes toward the number of 1st and 2nd rates allowed. BR numbers for 1st and 2nd rates should be no higher than to allow, at the most, a combination of four to five 1st/2nd rates. BR numbers for 3rd rates and below would constitute the largest number of ships in the port battle. Guaranteed ship diversity.
  5. I would still like the dev's to run an experiment having two separate battle ratings for port battles. The first BR would be for the combined number of 1st and 2nd rates allowed, and the second BR would be for 3rd rates and lower. I know it's somewhat of a lobby system, but I can't think of any other way in keeping the number of 1st and 2nd rate ships below the number of 3rd and lower rates. As Intrepido said, Trafalgar and most large naval battles were mostly composed of 3rd rates and a smaller number of 1st and 2nd rates. Diversity adds tactical depth to port battles. I think that's a good thing.
  6. An incursion by pirates for personal gain sounds like something pirates would try; sneaky, disruptive, opportunistic. I would love to see (ad nauseam) pirate specific mechanics in play. For starters, they alone should be the only and truly hardcore faction. I'll give the dev's the benefit of the doubt that they will eventually address the pirate issue. I remember reading on the forum some time ago that they would do that.
  7. I agree. I made this suggestion when DLC ships were first introduced. My argument was that the DLC ship is, in reality, a limitless, endless dura ship. It should be counter-balanced with the reintroduction of the crafted, multi dura ship. This gives an advantage to the crafted multi dura ship because the ship is not subject to the 24 hour wait period to redeem that the DLC ship is subject to. All large ships of the line would stay 1 dura since there is no DLC for them.
  8. Looks amazing! I will look forward to this one.
  9. Salt was an important commodity for sailors in the age of sail. It was used for salt pork, salt beef and fish. Salt was also used for keeping slaughtered beef and fish from rotting on long voyages. Profits from salt - harvested from salt pans that were found on Caribbean islands such as Turks & Caicos, Curacao and Bonaire - became a prime source of income for these islands. Maybe salt should have more value in Naval Action; similar to Cartagena Tar and other 'island specific' commodities.
  10. I offered a suggestion to the developers last year that would use a 'top down view' of two ships side by side. Game-Labs already has combat mechanics that are used for Ultimate General: Civil War that could possibly be implemented for the boarding game in Naval Action. Animated combat would be ideal, but if animation is impossible it could be timed/turn based, similar to speed chess. Or, similar to what we have now where both players have a short amount of time to make their moves and then the combat is auto-resolved for that turn and then the next timed round begins etc. As an example, game-play would be similar to that of 'Pike & Shot' or 'Field of Glory II'.
  11. Yes, and that is what Capt Aerobane was refering to - single ranging shots - and a change to the sequence is what I was agreeing too.
  12. Big affirmative on this idea, especially the third option. Example one (the current game firing sequence) has been an annoyance to many players for some time now on ships that have a cannon layout similar to the Renommee.
  13. Would '100 Focus Fire' and '250 Focus Fire' work? Anything more descriptive, other than simply 'Water', might be more helpful for the new player.
  14. 'Locked' was changed to 'Parallel' so I would suggest changing 'Water' to 'Convergence'. Parallel shots all fire out in a straight trajectory - Convergence shots, when fired, angle in toward a convergence spot.
  15. Should probably be renamed to, '1 Extra Fleet Ship' and '2 Extra Fleet Ships' Why is 'Unlocked Sector Focus' now changed to 'Water'? Does it denote 'Water Line'?
×
×
  • Create New...