Brigand

I remember people crying for a zoomed out view. The main argumantion for this was that people liked to see the beautifully modelled ships. The Open World did not exist yet. Since the Open World will be arriving soon. We could change the perspective in the battle instances could be locked to the ship (gun deck, quarter deck, masthead, etc) and in the Open World, the perspective could allow (but also support deck views) for the current zoomed out view we now have in the arena testing. Cheers, Brigand

Another thing that needs to be addressed is the furl animation. It is so unhelpfull in getting people to realise that in a battle you would only clew the sail to the yard, but not furl them. So, the furl animation should be replaced with a clew-in animation. And I agree -it has been noted many times before by now- that the clewing in should take longer, just as it should take longer to get underway. ~Brigand

Sir Axralis, @maturin is one of the people on these forums with a lot of knowledge about sailing square rigged vessels. True, he is not the Bosun on the brigantine Fair Jeanne, such as @Ryan21 is, but he sure knows a lot about ship and their sailing capabilities. Your 'conclusion' seems to draw from a somewhat shallow argumentation, if I may so say so myself. ~Brigand

I think that battle boards are somewhat of a mismatch with the type of game Naval Action seems most likely to become. Battle boards are more suited for arena fights, duals and prearranged engagements. Right now, Naval Action is tested in a format which makes battle boards a logical addition. Yet, this test phase will be dismantled as soon as the open world is stable enough for all testers to be moved in. In the open world, battle boards just don't make as much sense in my opinion. ~Brigand

There has been a substantial discussion about this, in a thread named: Nations, Societies, And Ports (lots of good ideas in there). Maybe this thread should be merged with the old one? ~Brigand

The Amsterdam won the poll, so the majority of people on these forums (or at least the part that cared to cast their votes) was of the opinion that the Amsterdam was more interesting than either the 7 Provincieën or Prins Willem. ~Brigand

I like the idea of the ship's history being recorded somewhere. This is one of those ideas that isn't all that hard to implement, yet... it does still take time, and it always takes more time to implement something correctly than you would think. So maybe we should put it on the 'Nice to have' feature list for the future, instead of just forgetting about it. ~Brigand

Very true sir. I think you mention many valid points and I appreciate you take the time to reply once again. ~Brigand

This is definitely outside of the time period for naval action. ~Brigand

Damn, what a monstrosity. ~Brigand

I still think I like this anchor as a 'v' better than the current decorated 'o'. I know you changed it because of comments, but every time I look at it, I go: 'Ah, I liked the old one better'. Just sharing my thoughts on this very nice design. Also, I really like this Game Labs logo by @Deathwoof: Cheers, Brigand

I found then on a website which is about cloths and old fashion, that is why I initially accepted them as probably correct. Only after more searching, I found they came from as collection cards with a pack of sigaretes. So they may indeed be less accurate than I thought at first. I found renactors to be a mixed blessing. On the one hand, you have people who try to fatefully bring history back to live. On the other hand, there is also crap like 'Society for Creative Anachronism' (not to speak of 'Fantasy Renactment') which does a lot to delude history to make it fit their own fantasies and then going out of their way to refabricate sources to make 'history' fit their imagination. I find it very hard to spot the differences. ~Brigand

By coincidence, I stumbled upon these images of costumes from the days gone by: Edit: They are apparently from Carreras's Cigarettes series "History of Naval Uniforms" (1937). There should be 50 of them. Since they are collectors cards from a sigarette brand, distributed with packs of smokes, they may not be period correct. On the other hand, I found them on a website dealing with dresses, clothing and fashion through history, so that leads me to believe that they may be reasonably accurate. Master, 1777 Midshipman of 1775-83 Lieutenant, 1773 Gunner, 1750 Seaman, 1744 Post Captain, 1740 Master mariner, 1740 Admiral, 1704 Seaman of 1690 Seaman, 1663 Ship's officer, 1651 Seaman of 1608 Seaman, 1588 Ship's officer - circa 1574 Seaman of the Cinque Ports (1509-47) Sailor of the Drake Period, circa 1574 Tudor period (1485-1509) Seaman, 1480 Cheers, Brigand

The snow is still missing her trysail mast (so, as a result, you have depicted her as a brig). ~Brigand

We will get the East Indiaman Amsterdam, but if we can help it, it will be modelled on the original lines, not the lines of replica. ~Brigand

It would only weight less, if you shot the same weight from it. A 9 pounder carronade weights approximately 1/4 of a 9 pounder long gun. This difference in weight is then consumed by placing heavier carronades, giving you a higher shot weight from the same cannon weight. ~Brigand

The Batavia shipyard is more than worth a visit. It is a great place where they do things the historically accurate way as much as possible. You won't be disappointed spending a day there. Cheers, Brigand

You could of course visit the Nautical Museum in Amsterdam, but I have to warn you. While it used to be an excellent museum, the are now a 'modern style' museum, which means that they did their utmost best to please the masses and cater to children with the attention span of a rubber duck. They choose to do this because the government funding has been cut drastically and the typical attitude to museums is that if they cannot generate enough money to cater for themselves, they are obviously not adding enough to the market. So, as a result, much of the excellent collection has been moved to the depot. The roofed over courtyard is beautiful though (and can be visited without paying the entrance fee). Cheers, Brigand

I downloaded the doc and started to read it. But, it is just too long, since the only reason for me to read it is to give an informed reply. It would help a lot if it was broken up in separate documents, each describing the topic at hand. Cheers, Brigand

This is a quite common question. The key you need to access the alpha version of the game will be send to you on Friday. A helpful image: Cheers, Brigand

The East Indiaman Amsterdam, one of the proud Transom Returns Ships, build in 1748, as ordered by the Chamber of Amsterdam, one of the six Chambers of the Dutch East India Company, has made it to the top of the poll Player-selected ships 2015. It is hard to get solid data on the original ship. So far I've been able to find the following: Type: East Indiaman, Length: 160 feet, Burthen: 575 last (1150 ton), Complement: 333 men, Armament: 42 Cannons (8 x 12pdr, 16 x 8pdr, 8 x 4pdr, 10 swivel guns). The Amsterdam was build under supervision of master carpenter Willem Theunisse Blok, according to the design made by shipwright Charles Bentam in 1742. She was the 20th ship build of this type. But... we are still missing her original plans! In absence of the plans, she will be modelled using the plans for the indiaman as drawn by Chapman (as mentioned by admin), which is an English Indiaman. Therefore, this call for help! Is there anyone (I'm looking at you Dutchies) who can provide us with a copy of the original (not the replica) building plans for the Amsterdam? They should be available in one of the Dutch archives, either the Rijksmuseum or the Scheepvaartmuseum would be my guess. (It would be a shame if the first Dutch ship to make it into the game would turn out to be a generic English indiaman, designed by a Swede.) Cheers, Brigand

For me, the thing missing in theSpatchula image is the fact that it is a game about the age of sail. Other than that, it stands out from the crowd, a lot (a good thing). ~Brigand

Ah, yes, now I see. My mistake, I'll update the list. It is curious though, she made it into the final poll bases on votes for the 64-gun ship? ~Brigand

No, the razee-frigate was a separate suggestion in the initial list of vessels if I remember correctly. The votes clearly went to the 64-gun ship version, which was, by the way, a fine ship. There was nothing wrong with her, she was only supersede by the French, which build only 74-gun ships and larger by the time Indefatigable was launched. ~Brigand

I just noticed that in 'number of guns' count you included the stern- and bow-chasers, this is contrary to what was common (hence the Bellona is referred to as a 74 gun ship). It was also common to list the main gun deck first, so in case of for example the Surprise, it would be 19 (12+7). Also, I can't really figure out where the 'metal weight' comes from? Typically, broadside weight and metal weight are used interchangeably. Cheers, Brigand