Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

kapling

Members
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About kapling

  • Rank
    Landsmen
  1. While it's certainly no fun to be a one port nation, and I think that they are acting in a selfish manner (there will be plenty of time to deal the the Danes after we beat the Dutch), I think it is within their right to do so. Until a diplomacy patch is released, we will just have to live with it. Lets all be civil about it. Of course no system is without drawbacks! However, I do think that the current system, or lack of a system, has more serious drawbacks than a voting system. The only merit of the current state is that it's already implemented. 1. This is basically democracy, but there is nothing preventing you from requiring larger majorities than 51 % to form an alliance. It is obvious to me that a lot of people will be unhappy about the decisions that the majority make. But since most people have to deal with similar situations all the time, it should be manageable. Those who really don't like where their nation is going can always go pirate, like people did in the age of sail. 2. It would be easy to limit the number of alliances that a nation can have at any given time. Say 1, 2, or 3, whatever seems to work out. This would ensure that no PvE nations form, while still allowing for smaller nations to survive among the bigger ones. I actually think a limit on the number of alliances might be a good idea regardless of the mechanism to form alliances. Voting, mission/Jump-something-style, random (like decided by the king or parliament back in Europe/Washington), dev (kind of like random ), or whatever.
  2. It's understandable that you have limited time, I am writing to make sure that you know that the time you put in is valued by the community! Please do provide pictures when the bow section is done, it would be very appreciated! I don't think she looks slow at all! Being a two-decker does that, I think. Impressive numbers! So sailing wise it should be something like the USS Constitution? Perhaps a tad slower? Well, using the numbers I gave above, and the in-game Bellona numbers (from wiki), the broadsides are something like 580 kg for the Gustav Adolph (what did they use for chasers? 2x24 bow and 2x6 stern?) and around 700 kg for the Bellona (all cannons). While this is still a significant difference, with the GA having about 80% of the broadside weight of the Bellona, the latter presents a much larger target, and its cannons are of smaller caliber. Now if the Bellona is fitted with carronades where applicable, it would still have the edge at close range. From a distance my guess is that the GA-class would at least be a very tough opponent for a Bellona, especially considering their fine sailing characteristics, which would allow them to keep said distance. I guess there will be lots of balancing as more ships are added, and the GA-/Wasa-class shouldn't provide any particular problems.
  3. Looks like a great start! Has there been any progress on this work? I'd love to see both the Bellona and Wasa class in the game. Some of af Chapman's other designs are very fine as well, and would be a nice addition at some point in the future, but these two are really more of a must-have. It seems to me that they formed the backbone in the Swedish navy at an appropriate time (ca 1790), with many ships built that saw multiple battles and long services. A concern of mine, however, is how the armament of the Wasa class would fit into the game. I'm now talking about the later 26 x 36 lb + 28 x 24 lb + 6 x 6 lb armament, or thereabouts, that they per my understanding carried around year 1790. Wouldn't it outgun the Bellona 3rd rate SOL? I wouldn't say no the Hemmema class (the archipelago frigate with the ridiculous armament 22 x 36 lb + 2 x 12 lb) to dominate shallow port battles, but I'm not greedy, that can wait.
×
×
  • Create New...