Enraged Ewok
-
Posts
453 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Enraged Ewok
-
-
Smuggler was added to please the Nations and give them the same possibilities the pirates had when it comes to attack each other and tp ships in a blink to outposts without having the search a trader that were extremely rare to find around capitals and near by cities when there was a bit more population on-line, a simple way to calm the things when it comes to pirates huge advantages they had.
Soon the teleport of ships to outposts will be removed and this will not be needed anymore.
I'm not very found of the smuggler option as it is, first all pirates should be automatically flagged smugglers by default when they sail traders, and as long as you can get a basic cutter to exit a port once you entered with a trader with smuggler flag i am not very happy with this anyway.
It should be simple to make a unarmed cutter or lynx version and include it in game for 0 gold price like the basic cutters, and only this could be picked by a smuggler to exit a port, or a trader of course, being able to enter another Nation city as smuggler in a trader and exit it with a basic cutter having canons is a non sense to me, wondering where you do respawn if you have an outpost and get sunk with your basic cutter tho but this should not be possible at all.
Also need to add a large supply of NPC basic traders to all NPC shops to get availability of those too as some cities don't even get one for sell.
Remove smuggler for Nationals, turn pirates automatically into smugglers when they are in traders, and maybe once diplomacy is implemented allow Nationals to buy some kind of license to be able to trade with other allied Nations, a kind of tax you pay in form of a license to be able to enter one allied Nation ports with traders and traders only and remove the possibility to get a basic cutter once there, instead make an unarmed cutter that will be the only choice if the player have 0 gold to buy a trader ship.
I like the smuggler tag as a way for smaller nations to get access to materials in hostile ports, or as a way for players to commit economic warfare on other nations at the trading house as well as on the open sea. That being said, if it is no longer necessary with the war and peace update, I would happily see it go to remove the exploitability of dynamic position on OW when leaving battle instances.
-
I would also love to see that there are 4-5 uncapable ports for every nation so even if they loose they loose the rest of the ports they would still be able to craft ships.
Why is this necessary when we have the smuggler tag?
-
New manual series coming soon. Please quit asking me questions about this garbage outdated by over a year.
And here I thought I was on the right track after several duels with you and then reading this. Looking forward to the new version.
-
Do you have any examples of what content can be created by players?
Player trader raiding/piracy, convoy raiding, single ship frigate actions, medium and large fleet actions. All you have to do is undock and go sailing instead of hanging around your capital or favorite free port. This is a game where unless your entire reason for playing is to click "build" on the crafting screen, you must go onto the OW. The thrill of outsailing a pirate and protecting your cargo, the feeling of triumph from sinking another player, its all there on the OW and only costs the risk of pixel gold and a ship dura which can be easily regained.
-
3
-
-
I've noticed it starting to creep back up the past few days... I saw ~825 at 1600 EST yesterday.
And plenty of PvP if you head east. Plymouth is great fun.
This must be my PVP issue. I'm usually not home from work and online until 1800-1900 EST
-
Port can be raided any time
Port can be captured only if assault fleet is built
- To set up a port battle Nation must build an Assault Fleet
- Building an assault fleet requires weapons, troops, transports and supplies (any player can add them to the project)
- Once the project is fully supplied the construction starts
- It takes X days to complete the project
- Once the construction starts it will generate pvp quests for the Nation and Target Nation in the port zone, completing those quests can increase or decrease the speed of construction (or can be a hard requirement to complete)
- Nation can speed up the completion by bringing additional resources and PvP rewards
- Enemy nations can delay the completion by disrupting supplies, raiding by smuggling in the PvP rewards and by other means
I had several ideas to help flesh this out:
1. Assault Fleet Creation:
a) The port where the assault fleet is created is where the invasion force must be assembled and supplied. So for example, if I want to attack Portillo and I pay the gold to start the process at Baracoa, Baracoa is where the supplies for the fleet must be delivered to build the assault force. Since these shipments would have to travel at least partly on the OW, this would give defending players an opportunity for commerce raiding and the attacker the job of defending those shipments, with a clear idea of where the shipments are going to be travelling.
b ) In addition to transporting supplies (food, planks, canvas, cordage, cables, carriages, etc.), troops must be delivered from capitals or regional capitals to the launch port. This would require a new kind of crew (call them "Infantry" for example). A ship can carry for example at most 200 or 50% of its maximum crew as infantry, whichever is less, and would replace the marine complement while on board. When the conquest successfully begins, infantry can be embarked from the port for use in the PB (more on that below).
2. Port Battle Combat Instance
a) Each capture zone in the PB instance is tied to a fort and is close to shore. In order to capture a zone, ships with infantry embarked must sail into the capture zone and come to a stop. As the zone "caps" the infantry is disembarked from the ship and begins building an AI gun battery on the shore to shell the fort. The battery will only attack the fort linked to its zone until the fort itself is neutralized, then will begin firing at the nearest target. The AI battery can be destroyed by defender ships getting close and graping the infantry on shore or destroying the guns with ball. More ships in the zone will mean more guns in the battery to a certain maximum, and each zone will have a maximum number of infantry that can be disembarked. Number of guns can be linked to number of infantry disembarked.
b ) Victory in PB for the attacker requires all defending forts to be destroyed/captured, with no requirement for enemy ship destruction. Victory for the defender requires a large BR ratio plus holding all the capture zones (zones are recaptured by killing all disembarked infantry/guns)
The aim of these suggestions is to give a designated "hot" zone for PVP through the preparation period and then to give a clear objective for both PB teams that revolves around conducting or preventing an amphibious assault on the port being attacked.
EDIT: Removed smilies
-
1
-
I would expect correctness on the treatment of capture crews to be in game and not be a rush to "enslave" crews.
This is not the age of total war. There was a "diplomatic protocol" of sorts. To jail the enemies for a certain duration, and to honor the officers as guest prisoners.
Exceptions might exist.
Some has an insight on this ? A solid one ?
From Roosevelt's The Naval War of 1812, captured sailors (during this war) were typically treated quite well. Usually they were paroled after reaching shore, and occasionally used for prisoner exchanges. Ships that were burned or sank after capture would have had their surviving crew removed to the victor's ship, which would carry them until it found a neutral ship to offload them to or returned to shore.
That being said, I am not sure how often men were pressed into service by the British when they captured American traders or privateers, as Roosevelt's book tends to deal more with the US navy and not privateers.
-
Regarding the worries over crew casualties in combat then translating to the OW, this seems like a remarkably simple thing to fix. Treat the crew number in combat as the number of combat effectives left, IE not killed/wounded. After the battle, a percentage of the crew casualties are returned to duty (wounded fixed up by the doctor), which for example would be 40-60% of the casualties. This would also apply to the enemy crew available for pressing into your crew after a boarding.
-
So in the future, we have to always have boarding setup to get money from battles?
Gold boarding upgrades, will be even more important in the future I assume?
edit..
Or we still get money from Kills/Assists?
Personally, I thought having at least a basic-common marine module was a necessity now, and nearly always was. They give a minimum impact to your ability to fight your ship, but still give you the edge boarding edge over players that don't carry marines at all in lieu of their gold powder monkeys, toolbox, rum rations, pellews sights, and hammocks. Regardless, from what admin has said marines will most likely go from being a drop upgrade to another type of crew you can hire, allowing all players to carry their preferred setup of marines without relying on rare drops or having to pay exorbitant prices.
Regarding kills/assists, if you assisted another player in capping a vessel I would think you would get at least some of the prize money.
-
You are rear admiral rank (allowing 1100 men)
You had 350 men on your ship when you sailed
You captured another frigate (for example losing no-one)
You transfer 50 men to another vessel (minimum required to sail the vessel)
This ship is added to fleet and sails with you (and you can give him orders)
Once you reach the port you can hire another 300 men (because your rank allows it) - and sail with 2 frigates.
I'm actually a big fan of this despite the AI being a pain in combat, solely for the ease of closing old outposts it would provide. Currently, we do already have to sail across the map to set up an outpost a good distance away from an existing one, so I'm not sure why people are complaining about making the sail as if it is something new introduced by these new mechanics. The nice thing is that instead of making that trip and then finding a friend (if pirate) or trader ships next to the port you want to move the ships from, you can sail the ones you want at the new outpost in one trip (Ex: I'm switching outposts but I have 3 ships in the current one, I just get the crew for my Mercury, Essex, and 3rd rate, add the Mercury and Essex to my fleet, and sail the 3rd rate to the new location).
-
History tells us different story my friend and Naval Action is historically accurate game. Leaving OS battles visible to players should give Captains freedom to attack/chase when they want even if enemy is weakened. Note - those who camp battles outside can be an ideal target for other Hunters on OS
Creating fun and pvp.Several days later, Santísima Trinidad was spotted, still damaged, making her way back to Spain, and engaged by the 32-gun frigate HMS Terpsichore under Captain Richard Bowen, but she escaped. She eventually returned to Cadiz for repairs.
Not exactly. The difference between your example and what happens in game would be if HMS Terpsichore was waiting within visual range of the battle itself for the Santisima to limp away, where she could then take a crack at it. This is what happens in game, where with visible battle markers players would keep the wind advantage in OW until the prey dropped and then jump them. This is very different from running across them as they head back to port from the battle, as at least in that situation the damaged ship has more than 30 seconds to put up sails, use repairs (if any) and take steps mitigate any wind advantage you may have. What you are suggesting enables the same crap I saw early on in Steam release, where players not happy with the battle outcome would come back and wait for the aggressors to drop from the previous battle for another try.
-
1
-
-
Keep battle swords on OS all the time (historically battles were visible miles away) and don't let them vanish. This way I can camp battles and get pvp knowing battle location and be able to hit players who exit battles.
I disagree with this due to the time compression in OW vs the battle instance. I don't believe a captain who happens by hours to days after the battle began should be able to anchor and wait for the weakened victor to pop out. It's not fun for the guy in the battle to immediately be forced into another battle against a gank squad simply because the guy he killed in the battle gave the location to his friends 2 days sail away. Leaving it hidden at least allows some room for error so that the waiting player/fleet isn't guaranteed the perfect position to intercept anyone who leaves the first battle.
Regarding the changes listed, this looks suspiciously like the system Sea Dogs used
which is a good thing in my opinion. More OW traffic, and also prevents the rapid redeployment of ships from one side of the map to another. I can also see this decentralizing ship crafting and commerce centers (currently everything worth anything is in the capital for most nations). I'm a big fan of crew casualties being divided up into wounded/dead, with wounded being available again after the battle and the surgeon/doctor officer. Also, I second DeRuyter's question. Will surrendering allow us to keep our crew/officers, even though we lose the ship durability? I'd like to see how the player's mind works as the morale system when losing his ship will also mean losing the crew/officers.
EDIT: Fixed CTRL-V fail
-
2
-
-
From what I've been reading of Roosevelt's Naval War of 1812, the crew was the deciding factor for the closely matched (on paper) engagements, ex. Chesapeake vs Shannon and Constitution vs Java. With the exception of the Shannon, the British ships on the American station tended to be very poor when it came to using the ships guns, despite in most cases being very good sailors and ship handlers. Despite controlling the engagement from the beginning, Java 's accuracy was incredibly poor. By comparison, the Constitution shot the crap out of her and displayed excellent gunnery.
The same occurs with the sides flipped when Chesapeake engaged the Shannon, where Shannon was firing off two broadsides (and firing far more accurately) to the Chesapeake's one. By the time Broke boarded the Chesapeake, the only crew able to organize any resistance were the ship's marine complement, and the handful of remaining regulars that had transferred from the Constitution.
-
Britannia rules the wave
Currently a pirate, for two reasons. Primarily (one I voted) is because the clan I play with switched from USA on PVP2 to pirate on PVP1 for bigger populations and more PVP. Pirate faction naturally lends itself to the PVP due to location and ROE, so it makes me a happy camper.
-
2
-
-
Full agreement on this. It works fine so far so why change it?
My issue with that mechanic is that it only works fine for ships with chasers, leaving many otherwise great ships useless without a buddy to tag for them, or perfect wind and land in the battle. It pains me that my Essex has only ever seen a fight in the duel room in part due to this.
-
3
-
-
Excellent posts on why they should not go into gunnery if reducing sail freed up crew. But surely they could automatically go to boarding standby, correct?
-
you can already do this....
Can confirm. Both are BR 200, though I was a pretty poor match for Mr. Doran.
-
This is correct. Each gun crew was assigned two guns, one on each side of the ship. Since real sailing ships did not maneuver around like ships do in game since coordinating and handling the management of sail and yards was a laborious task as well as strength of wind determining motive power an entire battle may be fought on one side of the ship.
Ships fought at battle sails to avoid fires from the flash of guns and to reduce the sails to a point that few crew were needed to managed them and could do so from the weather deck. To manage and constantly change the entire sail plan of a warship while servicing the guns and nominal rates was simply impossible.
That would be a neat improvement to our current system now that I think about it. Shortening sail would free more men to help with guns, or if guns are full, they would stand ready to board or be available for plugging leaks.
-
'Totally fine' for you, that is, a point of view, a personal preference. It might even be borne out historically, I give you that, which is my preference, too.
To manage the sails fully and to man every cannon fully is not possible at the moment. The numbers that are given for sailing and for gunnery attest to this. Therefore, the ship is never at its full complement--or 'on paper strength'. I understand from what others here have said, this is because there were never enough berths on a ship for all the crew that might be needed, but that the crew that they had was sufficient to do the job. Then, why not make the numbers attest the facts? Or, is it because we can increase the numbers by acquiring 'hammocks'?
IMHO, it means that crewing is always taken into account in the game already. I like the idea of Officers being added, but question the need for further onerous 'work' added to the game.
Unless you're sailing a trader or one of the smaller ships, even with hammocks you will not have the ability to fully man both broadsides and your sails. If you could on every ship, the crew management system would lose all meaning. The ships we are sailing are, from what I've read, at their full historical complement on men assuming you have the rank to fully crew them. Being unable to fully man both broadsides was a fact of life for ships in this era, and in the event ships were engaged on both broadsides the gun crews would split to serve the guns with half crews.
-
1
-
-
Feature that definitely will get in
Port battles will split into 3 levels next patch (eta mid may)
Regional deep water capitals (unless its a shallow water port) - will accept all ships
Normal deep water ports - will accept ships up to 4th rates
Shallow water - will accept ships up to brigs
Why stop there? Why not make drafts for ships like you have already, and let only certain ships with a deep enough Under Keel Clearance get in to port to dock/fight? This will make battles so much more intense and fun, since you need a much much MUCH wider spectrum of ships other than the 1st rates, the superfrigates and the mercs. This way you will Not only be able to play with the maximum of said ships, but ALL ships in the game will get a spot in the port battles. This has been mentioned multiple times, even by SteelSandwich(RIP DAS), but I can't take emphasys on it enough.I don't think they are going to stop there. This is essentially a quick and dirty way to test along those lines. Ship draft and port depth are likely on the TO-DO list, but not high priority at the moment.
-
Devs,
I am at the end of my rope with this game. Now you want to have to find crew in addition to notes, coal and the rest of the rigmarole. ....... We end up spending hour after hour of building up mats to get that ship just to get it sunk and you get to enjoy the battle IF it was matched. I have been bleeding off my capped 3rd rates at a frightful pace while trying to grind to get that friggin' Santi.......and for what? I just watched the streamed battle of Carlisle that matched two complete fleets of 1st rates. Many lost their ships just to have to start over. What kind of game is that? The game is currently broke now that the only ships "of value" seem to be 1st rates; what is the purpose of the game as a whole? I might be in the minority here, but I am getting pretty tired to trying to play catch up. The open world is not a compelling place....it is a grind. When I get Rear Admiral and my Santi, I will probably call it a day. I hope the game finds a way to get more people into matched pvp rather than getting ganked outside ports or having to play second fiddle screener with a 3rd rate.....ahistorical to say the least.
-Ski
By introducing the crew changes, the blob of first rates suddenly becomes far more risky. Why risk the first rates for anything but the most important objectives, when third and second rates can perform the same function with less risk?
-
That's why I would like to have a cooldown/timer when a heavy damaged ship escapes a battle till his crew is refilled and ship is repaired. If he gets tagged again right after he escaped he is finished.
Players should be more careful what they do and smaller ships should have more effect in battles. If a few small ships are damaging a Santi but they get destroyed and Santi escapes the next smaller ships would be able to finish the Santi. Like now the Santi can jump from one battle to the next and every battle she starts with 100% crew and 100% hull if repairkits are avaiable.
It's more yolo style without any risk for big ships/fleets at the moment.
I think like this would hurt smaller ships more than SoLs. In a gank situation it's already near impossible for a 3rd rate or higher to get away from 2-3 Trincs/Constitutions once the battle has started. It simply doesn't have the speed to do so against any smaller ship with a chaser. It will eventually get run down, dismasted, and sunk or captured. The only option available is to fight, as running just prolongs the inevitable and makes the ship less effective in the fight due to damage aloft from chasers. Meanwhile, it is possible for 5th rates and below to escape the popular PVP gank ships even if heavy damage has been taken. Making them a guaranteed kill if/when they get tagged again reduces the reason to use them even further.
Regarding fleet battles, my own experience is that unless the small ships drastically outnumber the SoLs, the SoLs will annihilate the smaller ships with little damage to themselves. The only thing that will stand up to a SoL fleet is another SoL fleet, skill being near even.
-
1
-
-
The post battle part of the OP is incoherent. Victory points aren't mentioned as a way to win, so why have a system for awarding victory points?
Having ports that are unable to be captured just because a defender showed up is possibly the worst Idea I've ever seen proposed for any game.
Including land in port battles is a great idea and IMO should be implemented and tested before any other changes are made to the PB system. Each change needs to be tested on it's own merits so that we can see what works and what doesn't. Making all of these changes at once is a sure recipe for disaster.
Regarding uncapturable ports, how would you expect to take Cartagena de Indias or St. Augustine if Spain actually showed up to play? Some ports by nature of geography and the forts historically built to protect the approaches make them impregnable to anything but soldiers on the ground.
Regarding declaring war, there are some obvious problems. What exactly would be the mechanic for making these decisions?
I think that war should be the default position, and declaring peace should take some effort and decision making.
Regarding the purpose of victory points and the war declaration system, http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/13596-such-is-a-lord-simple-politics-and-alliances-part-1-heavily-moderated/
-
I am on board with only 50% crew loss on surrender with 1 dura.
Creating fun and pvp.
which is a good thing in my opinion. More OW traffic, and also prevents the rapid redeployment of ships from one side of the map to another. I can also see this decentralizing ship crafting and commerce centers (currently everything worth anything is in the capital for most nations). I'm a big fan of crew casualties being divided up into wounded/dead, with wounded being available again after the battle and the surgeon/doctor officer.
Devlog: Forthcoming content patches plan
in News Announcements & Important discussions
Posted
1 month for the voting (end of March to end of April), and then the discussions we've been having on the forum on this topic since the end of April and the backend design of this massive addition to the current game framework takes a while?