Brigand

Admin has stated that they are not sure about travel map(s) yet, because they like the idea that you can get lost. ~Brigand

This sounds awfully arcady to me. For me, the point of a sandbox MMO is that you can do whatever you want and find your own rewards in it. By creating pre-set awards, the gameplay is channelled into pre-set patterns, which actually narrows down the creative gameplay opportunities. Any artificial reward system just masks the lack of enduring gameplay by shepherding the players into pre-set patterns. I'm not playing an open world game so that I can get rewards for semi random predefined threshold values. I play an open world game because I can define my own goals, my own achievements and my own victories. What's more, I can create goals for my guild mates, maybe even reward them with medals if they succeed above expectations in a task set. In a sandbox game, the players create the content. Just my two three cents, Edit: I sure hope we don't get a 'skill set', such as 'exploration skill': I want to be good in exploring, I don't see the point in collecting a skill that says I'm good in exploring, because that way, in the end, everybody will be 'best' in exploring. The same goes for gunnery: I want to the player skill to determine whether you hit or not, I don't want the player's skill boosted by some number that can be farmed or collected. Cheers, Brigand

So, if I understand you correctly, you say that you would be happy if stats would only be supplied at clan/guild level? Thereby putting the focus on team win instead of individual win? For me, this would be a workable compromise I guess. ~Brigand

The 'problem' with stats, even if private by default, is that they change the object/goal of the game. Without stats, a players position on the ranking will be determined by 'soft' qualifiers, people can argue about what is even meaningful and what is not. In general though, winning the game as a group seems to prevail as best metric for success in those cases. The individual role of the participants in the group can be hotly debated. If you provide stats, there is not debate; the stats are correct (negative impact on social interaction?). Stats being private by default makes no difference here. Those people who are interested in the 'benchmark' against others will share their stats and (third-party) leader boards will appear. Since the people who are interested in the leader boards are also typically interested in being 'best' stats will become important. What is more, you can play/manipulate the stats meta-game to boost your statistics and improve your position on the leader boards. Playing the game to win as a group becomes less important than maximizing the individual stats of each player. As a result, the overall gameplay typically changes, most commonly this change has a negative impact on the gameplay experience (even for those who pursue the perfect stats). Just my two cents, Brigand

Oh my, I was completely in the wrong section of the forums. Please ignore me and my errors! ~Brigand

Good picture, I believe it is from Steel's practice of rigging and seamanship? Apart from showing the bilander with its round stern clearly visible, it also clearly shows the snow still having a loose footed gaff sail, where the brig has a gaff + boom. The other difference between the two is also clearly shown: the snow sets a course (which she can do without complications, because of her snow mast) and the brig sets a staysail instead. The staysail effectively mimics the in-front-of-the-mast part of a lateen sail. The ketch clearly shows that she evolved from a single masted vessel, which gained a mizzen and with it the ability to better control the balance of the rig. Earlier brig did, in northern waters, have a boom. The boom was added somewhere in the first quarter/middle of the 18th century. I'm not sure when this chance propagated south. ~Brigand

My first comments where on the fact that the topic title says brig where the plans say brigantin. By the last quarter of the 18th century, in Northern Europe, the terms brig and brigantine described separate rigs, although the terms where still used somewhat interchangeably. I don't know when the split in terminology appeared in the Mediterranean. The rig as shown would, according to the terminology we use now, be called a brig. Some more comments on these plans in the OP. The lateen (or settee) sail was retained a lot longer in the Mediterranean than in other European waters. It was used up until the early 20th century by fishermen in both Greece and Turkey to supplement their engine. As such, I think it is reasonable to assume that other, larger vessels in the Mediterranean also kept the lateen yard and sail longer than their contemporary northern European neighbours. The rig as shown in the OP has both a top and topgallant set above the lateen sail. I've never seen a rig with a top gallant set over a settee sail, on two masted vessels. This doesn't mean it isn't a possibility, but it does make me suspicious. Given that the dimension of the top gallant are quite generous, it makes me a bit more suspicious. The plans show a hull shape that seems about correct for the time period. The steering wheel is however in an unusual location and the tiller is very short, it looks suspiciously close to a late 19th century setup, when the relieving tackle ropes had been replaced by steel cables, etc. And last, the bowspirt & jib boom are steeved up at a steep angle, which was far more common in the 17th century. Given that the plans look like they belong to a model kit, I'm inclined to think that the image presented to us, may not be completely historical correct. It is generally accepted that the gaff sail spread through Europe from Holland. The gaff sail has most likely evolved from the sprit sail, which was in very wide use in the Dutch Republic and is known to have existed as early as 1475. If you move the boom of the sprit sail steadily up, you get a less top-heavy construction which can spread the same amount of sail. Continue doing this and after a while you get a gaff sail. The earlies mention of a boom I have been able to track down is on a painting of the Royal Cork Yacht Club from 1720. The brigantine evolved from the small vessels and not from the ship (more on that later). The bilander has been mentioned in this thread and the rig it set is most likely a predecessor of the brigantine. (the bilander itself is however a type of rig + hull: the bilander had no transom but a round build stern). The for-and-aft rigged two masted traders still set square topsails and commonly also flew a for course. So the brigantine rig is more or less a logical result from the rigs which were around at the time. The boom on the main sail (but not between the masts) was already in reasonable common use (I think, but haven't confirmed yet, that it saw its earliest common use on the Baltic Sea) at around the same time the ships lateen sail was cut in half. However, these early gaff sails were used only on inland and coastal vessels, the ships (three masted) invariably had a lateen set on the mizzen. By the 1750s the lateen sail was cut in halve, but the lateen yard was kept for another 30 or so year. The earliest gaff sails on a ship had no boom, the boom was only introduced quite a lot later. Then we have the snow, which is -contrary to what may seem logical in the 21st century- non-related to the brigantine (or brig). Their history is separate: the snow evolved from the (three-masted) ship. And interesting enough, the snow still sailed with a loose footed gaff sail in the times the brig, which evolved from the brigantine, had become a rig which typically included the use of a boom. The brig is most commonly know to us from its use by the Royal Navy, which strived to standardised all dimensions of their vessels, for as much interoperable parts as possible. To this purpose, they choose to make the main sail of a brigantine a bit smaller and set a top gallant of the main mast. By doing this, the main mast of a brigantine was dimensioned the same as the mizzen of some larger ships. (yet, on a ship the mizzen is smaller than the fore mast and on a brig the main mast is the aft one). As such, the snow and brig slowly grew closer towards each other. The difference between a brig and a snow can be hard to spot, and a lot of mis-naming has happened through the ages, not uncommonly to the annoyance of those who sailed them and knew the difference. Note: When I write lateen sail, I typically mean either a lateen or the settee sail, when I write lateen yard, I mean the lateen yard with half sail. Generally accepted evolution of the lateen -> gaff sail (for ships): From left to right: lateen, settee, lateen yard with half sail, loose footed gaff (boomless gaff), gaff with laced foot. ~Brigand

Looks like a print from one of the Osprey Publishing books. ~Brigand

The below are direct quotes from the book "The Liverpool Privateers and the Liverpool Slave Trade" by G. Williams, published in 1897. The following is from Williamson's Advertiser, Liverpool of Feb. 17th, 1758:- "For Sale a Healthful Negro Boy, about 5 feet high, well proportioned, of a mild, sober, honest disposition; has been with his present master 3 years, and used to wait on a table, and to assist in a stable." On the 8th of September, 1758, the following appeared in the same paper: "Run away from Dent, in Yorkshire, on Monday, the 28th August last, Thomas Anson, a negro man, about 5 ft. 6 ins. high, aged 20 years and upwards, and broad set. Whoever will bring the said man back to Dent, or give any information that he may be had again, shall receive a handsome reward from Mr. Edmund Sill, of Dent; or Mr. David Kenyon, merchant, in Liverpool." In 1765, we have another specimen from the same source: "To be sold by Auction at George's Coffee-house, betwixt the hours of six and eight o'clock, a very fine negro girl about eight years of age, very healthy, and hath been some time from the coast. Any person willing to purchase the same may apply to Capt. Robert Syers, at Mr. Bartley Hodgett's, Mercer and Draper near the Exchange, where she may be seen till the time of Sale." In the paper of September 12th, 1766, was announced: "to be sold at the Exchange Coffee-house in Water Street, this day the 12th inst. September, at one o'clock precisely, eleven negroes, imported per the Angola." The property in slaves was specifically acknowledged by statute of 5th, Geo. II., Cap. 7, and again by I3th, Geo. III., Cap. 14. See also: Slavery Abolition Act 1833. But I think we are drifting off-topic here. ~Brigand

What you say may be true, after they abolished slavery. Before that, any black man caught was sold, it was the law and who is an empire to let a good profit go to waste? ~Brigand

Just dropping in to say I'm really happy to see this topic being discussed in the way it is now. Cheers, to all and cheers to a good discussion. ~Brigand

While this is confirmed by the museum to be a consistent rumour, they found no evidence on the wreck of any open gun ports. In fact, the evidence points they found at the wreck to the other direction. The theory put forward by the museum is that it may have been a rumour invented after she sank, to keep the king happy: if she sank due to open gun ports, the captain was to blame (he drowned, so no problem there), if however the Wasa sank while the gun ports were closed, the blame came dangerously close to pointing at the king's own decisions. In the official hearing that was conducted in the months after the sinking (at which the King and two other high ranking officials were conveniently missing because they were of too high a status) the committee came to the conclusion that the vessel sank because of flawed design. The minutes from those meeting make it clear that there was absolutely no doubt within this committee. ~Brigand

for anyone wondering about the row of 'flags' hanging from the yards in the picture in the post above me, they are hammocks hanging out to dry. ~Brigand

This is just me, personally, thinking about how things would turn out if a there was enough freedom in fitting and equipping ships. I don't think admin has, as of yet, mentioned anything about ship fitting. ~Brigand

I think that almost any vessel can be jury rigged to carry one or more gun. The same goes the other way: if there is sufficient advantage to be gained by removing guns, people may fit out unarmed ships. ~Brigand

The marketing department most likely. ~Brigand

The plans says brigantine? Edit: but the newly added second images shows a brig rig, got it. It seems kinda implausible though. It has a lateen on the main mast while being dated 1775, the man at the quarterdeck seems to be holding a steering wheel, which would not be placed there. The high rising bow sprit was more typical of an earlier era. I'm guessing this is a somewhat cheap model kit. ~Brigand

If whatever statistic will be available, I think the hashed bitmasks used as keys in EVE are really worth looking at. For me personally? No statistics please. Statistics have a negative impact on a game and gameplay if you ask me. ~Brigand

The number of guns for a ship is counted in 'nominal guns'. I'm not sure about the exact rules, but if I remember correctly, if you have a 24 pounders on you gun deck, anything below 18 pounders is not counted in the nominal gun count. Bow and stern chasers are of course also excluded. ~Brigand

Captain si1foo, You have to remember that there currently is no game, there is only an alpha testing phase and people who pre-ordered the game got the Yacht as a pre-order bonus. As a special privilege, all people who have pre-ordered the game are also allowed to test some very early aspects of gameplay, before the game will be released. The Sea Trials (battle arena) have been build to test the combat mechanic for the future game. The testing access to the Sea Trials (battle arena) should by no means be confused with a finished product or even with the game you bought: the game you paid for has not been released yet. As such, a lot of features are not finished yet, they are not important for the development of the game at this point in time. Chat functionality has been mentioned as one of the things that will be revisited somewhere soon. But right now, all the development effort is concentrated on getting the Open World stable enough for testing access by those who now have access to the Sea Trials (battle arena). The Sea Trials will be "disbanded" once everyone is moved to the open world. ~Brigand

You could as well remove the section about the 13th century 'small oar driven warship' because, other than its name, it has no relation to the Brigantine of later ages. As an illustration, I present these: (In the left hand side painting, the Brigantin is the the vessel on the right) Cheers! Brigand

Save games work very well in a single player environment, in a multiplayer game like Naval Action, not so much. Also, please remember that currently, Naval Action is in an alpha testing phase: it is nowhere near a finished product. In fact, the Sea Trials (battle arena) are only build to facilitate the testing of the combat mechanics. We may be tricked by the smooth gameplay into thinking this is a game, but it is not: it is a testing tool. Hope this helps, Brigand

I think it depends on the angle from which you look at it. If you look at the mechanics from the merchant point of view, you see an escort system. If you look at it from the fleet duty point of view, you get something very close to battle arena fighting. ~Brigand

I really like the looks of the first ship you posted! This one seems to be a mortar vessel. A ketch, judging by the fact that the aft mast is a mizzen. ~Brigand

English iron processing, especially the casting of cannons, in generally accepted as being superior to that of the French. At the same time, the quality of Swedish, Spanish and Dutch iron was deemed equally good. ~Brigand