Brigand

My guess is that @Flibustier suggest that it would be nice if the game would include a dutch yacht: If this was not his suggestion, it is still a nice idea to add one of those to the game. ~Brigand

The rattlesnake is very small. I compared it to the brigantine: while it is certainly a bit longer, it has almost the same draught and beam. I wonder how this ship would hold it together on deep water voyages. It has the lines of a frigate, but it is more a sloop-of-war is you ask me :-) As it stand now, I think the brigantine is in dire need of some extra votes! ~Brigand

Another thing that may be worth noting is that, in order to change tack, the lateen yard has to be brought down and re-hoisted at the other side of the mast. For big dhows, the yard is 'dipped': the sail is pulled to the yard and the yard is then pulled in, and 'pushed around the mast', after which the sail is loosened again. Either that, or the sail will be in non-optimal form because the mast is preventing it from taking on its ideal 'wing' shape (which is not all than uncommon a sight either). On the upside, the lateen rig can handle quite significant changes in wind direction. ~Brigand

Reading through the various (online) sources, I gather that the this type of ship (it was the 20th ship build along the same plans) generally could carry p to 54 cannons. The Amsterdam was equipped with 42 for its planned voyage. Yet, the information is somewhat 'thin', so I could definitely be wrong. Also, I cannot find any information on the weight of the cannons. ~Brigand

So, how will the voting process continue. We can now vote at a large list of vessels in a voting round called 'initial poll'. How many (if any) rounds are next? what are the criteria for a vessel to make it to the next round? Cheers, Brigand

I'm not sure you could say the pleasure yacht is a Dutch idea. Although the Dutch where already sailing fore-and-aft rigged yachts in the 16th century*, the English and French also sailed small vessels for pleasure. The Dutch do have a history of sailing flat bottomed shallow draught yachts, often lavishly decorated. They even organised 'spiegel gevechten' (which literally translates as 'transom fights') where the well to do gentlemen held mock battles close to the beach for their of pleasure and the entertainment of spectators. Chapman (Fredrik Henrik af Chapman) was a naval architect. He created the Architectura Navalis Mercatoria as a collection of contemporary ship types that he considered to be the best and most interesting. His work was intended more as a reference piece meant to showcase the designs thought 'best' at the time than is intended as actual designs. I do not think he based this design on the Dutch yachts (in fact, it has little resemblance to the typical Dutch design), nor do I think it was designed for any 'market' (which does not mean that it is impossible that some English Shipwright build a yacht based on Chapman's designs :-) I'm aware that every vessel of the time had a tiller. What I meant to say is that the Chapman design had no steering wheel, just the tiller (as was the norm for ships this size at the time). *) See Fore and Aft by E. Keble Chatterton (1912) you should be able to find it on google books. Cheers, Brigand

The above may be erroneous interpreted as the yacht having a relation to a Dutch yacht design... it is not; it is a Swedish yacht design, as confirmed by admin: In other words, the pre-order yacht is based on Swedish historic draught, more specifically Chapman's 'Armed Yacht' in Architectura Navalis Mercatoria, plan 44 vessel nr. 3. If you look closely at the plan done by Chapman (see attached file), you will notice some differences, such as the original plan having a tiller instead of a steering wheel as well as a raised section in the midships, which would most probably be a raised cabin section (gentlemen's salon). ~Brigand

Hi (yes, I'm still lurking around ), I would (still) like this game to include a large choice in smaller ships, the true workhorses of the seas. More specifically, I would love to see a nice brigantine; typically a bit smaller than a brig, but larger than a schooner. Brigantines where known for their versatility and good sailing characteristics, being able to sail very close to the wind (almost as close as a schooner). So, my nomination for the Player selected ship 2015 listing (some of you will remember this one) is: The brigantine Vilaine (1740) This brigantine was build as a packet boat and later converted to serve as a privateer. As a privateer she was armed with twelve French 6-pounders cannons and two Perriers à boîte (long barrelled, breach loading swivel guns). The image shown here is drawn by me. I've been researching this particular vessel for some time now and I've slowly been working my way to a complete set of building plans. The sources are many, but I believe it is accurate for the period. The main sources for the hull lines are the droughts for several brigantines commissioned about the same time as the Vilaine (Dauphin, Lys and Marie Madeleine) on the west coast of France. The hull lines of those vessels match near enough. The finer details on the sail plan, including mast and sail dimensions, running rigging is mostly from ship models in musea, that survive from those days. I've cross referenced those with the rougher details on paintings and schematics drawings in books. The image I've posted here shows (nearly) all the rigging used on a brigantine; more detailed rigging schematics. Cheers, Brigand

Smaller ships invariably used tillers (often with a relieving tackle) instead of steering wheels as is also clearly shown in Chapman's draught (as linked in the OP)... So I can't help but wonder: Why did you guys choose to model the yacht with a steering wheel instead of a tiller? ~Brigand

That's a lovely little ship! Cheers, Brigand

The problem with premium content (be it 'cosmetic only' or 'pay to win') is this: Development effort tends to go where the money comes from. This is not something that is unique to game development, rather the contrary: even if you love the work you are doing, you'll need the income to continue doing it, so you better focus on that which produces income. In a Premium based sales model, the money comes from the 'extras'. This inherently makes the 'extras' a first-class citizen; the development studio needs to (continue to) produce 'extras' to ensure their continued revenue stream. In this sales model, the core gameplay will always have to compete with the 'extras' for development time. (This is even more true for the 'Freemium' based sales model, where all the revenue is generated through 'extras'). In a subscription based (or even a 'box price') sales model, people pay money for the core gameplay. Because of this, there is a financial incentive for the development studio for the continued improvement of the core gameplay; the lack of Premium content ensures that the core gameplay becomes the most important aspect of development, because it is the means to generate revenue. I like to play a game where the core gameplay gets maximum attention and the effort is focused on making the game the best it can be. I will happily pay, and continue to pay, for a game that offers good gameplay, even more so if I can see the gameplay improve over time. ~Brigand.

I think we need 1 (one) type of account in order to make every player just as privileged as any other player. What you suggest here is pay-to-win. And these are examples of pay-to-win features. These are fanity features, they are fine because they do not, in any way, influence the balance of power. For me, if anything that even smells like pay-to-win would ever be implemented in this game, my support for it will instantly drop to null/void/zero. Cheers, Brigand

Hi, I wondered what happened to the Brigantine (pic), since it is not in the list of featured ships? Cheers, Brigand

Maybe you do have the resources, only you didn't realise it yet. You have a whole group of dedicated people hanging around here on the forums; I'm sure you can pick the ones that are trustworthy enough. Why not delegate this process to some of the community moderators? ~Brigand

@@Barberouge Do you just find these papers/pages through search engines? or do you know about them through some formal education/professional interest in them? ~Brigand

Thank slik for this last link! ~Brigand

Naval Action has reached the early alpha stage (so imagine what the finished product may look like). Game Labs is working on another game, it is called Ultimate General (forums), a hardcore American civil war strategy game. ~Brigand

I found this paragraph intersting as well, mostly because it promotes many shards to increase the impact of single players. This is the opposite end from EVE, which does not use sharding: everybody (except the Chinese) plays on the same cluster; one universe shared by everybody. As a result, alliances can have a real impact on the universe and since there is only a single copy of this universe, the impact can be seen/experienced by all players. So, while many shards increase the impact a single player can have on a single shard, it at the same time isolates this impact (groups of) players can have on the overal gameplay experience of the broader player population. I always liked the single cluster approach a lot: it made the universe feel more 'real'. ~Brigand

By now, I'm fairly certain (but no one source stating the facts) that bar shot is better at destroying masts, yards, spars, etc (all the rigid wooden stuff, above the hull), while chain shot did, in general, more damage to the rigging and sails. The challenge in damaging sail/rigging and masts/yards/spars is that this area of the ship has lots of empty air. So, a projectile with a broadest reach, has the best chance of hitting something. Chain shot expands the most, and, as a result, has the biggest chance to hit something while also tearing the biggest holes in sails. When chain shot hit rigging, it tended wrap around the rigging and tear it apart. Chain shot would also wrap itself around spars, mast and yards, but would not always have the energy to actually break them. So, while lighter spars may have been more vulnerable to chain shot, the bigger masts and yards would be capable of resisting chain shot (not indefinitely off course, but you get the idea). Bar shot had a smaller cross-section compared to chain-shot, but was a lot more sturdy. So, it combines the increased chances to hit of chain shot, with the more solid impact of round shot. It seems it could damage woodwork in one of two ways. The first was when hitting something with the bar, which could break the (top)mast/yard/spar or send the projectile violently spinning (in which case it had a very good chance of damaging something else) the other, more damaging option was 'clipping' when one of the (half) balls chopped a bite out of the mast or chewed itself through the deck planking. Another interesting fact I found is about cannister vs grape shot (source: Arming and Fitting of English Ship of War 1600-1815). Cannister shot exploded into a cloud of balls upon impact, while grape shot burst into a cloud of balls upon leaving the barrel. So, while they both are intended to do maximum wounds to the enemy crew, they are a bit different. If you wanted to kill everyone in a certain quarter, you would increase your chances by using canister shot, while if you merely wanted to kill whomever stuck his head above the cover, grape shot would be best. (Although I've not read anywhere that captains switched types during battle, some do seem to have had a preference for on or the other when ordering ammunition supplies). Cheers, Brigand

Nice reading, I had read some online articles in the past touching the fact that there are theoretic models that should be applied more in game development, but I never found (or searched for) actual articles. If you have more, please keep em comming :-) Edit: I like how the number of pages progressively increases (from 9 to 16 to 46) with each pdf you linked :-) Edit 2: The last article is definately of a higher quality than the previous ones! I hope the fokes at Game Labs take the time to read it. Especially the last one is a topic that is very interesting. EVE has no explicit elder game (nobody will ever complete learning all the skills), but zipping around in super capitals still somehow feels like you've come as far as it goes, and the game looses the appeal that comes from 'progressing'. In most other games, the start of the elder game is more explicit, you reach level X and you can now participate in the big-boys game. Some games are even worse, they only present the elder game, with the pre-elder game serving only as a grind you need to work through to get to the good stuff. Maybe we should start a separate topic for this in relation to Naval Action, although it may be to theoretic for the general gamer. Cheers, Brigand

What you get when members of the Dutch Youth Orchectra manage sneak on stage before a performance: (original video: Wonderful Days op een xylofoon) ~Brigand

Thanks for the links, I didn't know the test, but from what I read, there has been put a lot more thought and theoretic knowledge than I thought. ~Brigand

Wikipedia is wrong in this instance. Although I cannot quickly find an online source that says so, @Marion van Ghent is correct: the Mayflower is a galleon (not a pinnace, as they where known for their elobarate transoms and balconies). The Dutch fluyt has a very typical hull shape: it is has a very round bow and stern (no transom) with high sides curving inward towards a very small deck. A fluyt was ship rigged and could be sailed with a small crew, was very stable and could carry an exceptionally large cargo (due to the round shape). Edit: I found a source (in Dutch) confirming it as a galleon. Cheers, Brigand

The game's dates are set to end at 1820: ~Brigand

The USS Constitution is already in the game. ~Brigand