William Death

I was going for demasting in this Santisima duel with a buddy. However, I decided to be clever, I had his foremast about ready to topple, when I noticed he would be lined up for a perfect stern rake as I passed astern of him. I had double ball loaded (I was out of charge shot and double works quite well at demasting if you are within range), I luffed my sails enough to get to a nice, slow speed (every ship has a preferred speed to rake at, some prefer faster speeds, some prefer slower speeds), and set sector to 250 (since his stern gallery was roughly that distance). Fired when the shot lined up. As you can see, the results (384 crew and 11 cannons) were devastating. That was not even a perfect stern rake, because, if you notice, his ship is not 90 degrees to me, if it had been, I would not be surprised to see 450 crew or more and closer to 20 cannons. Still, its the most crew I've ever taken off in a single rake. I've taken max 17 cannons out in a single rake since then, and also about 350 crew. I usually average about 250-300 crew per stern rake in a first rate duel. I don't see the problem here, he could have easily braced, or simply out-maneuvered me, after all, I was missing my foremast. Instead, he became confident that I was strictly going for masts. I surprised him by raking his stern, and then whipping my ship around to port and demasting him with the starboard broadside As an aside, the next duel we did, he soundly beat me by demasting. I think I made him angry LOL.

No. Then you HAVE to have some sort of lobby system because if everyone shows up in first rates and everyone clicks join at the same time, who gets in? It will force people into ships they don't want to be in, which is a sure way to drive players away. Nobody will be happy when they sailed a first rate for an hour to get to a PB only to find out that a couple low-level captains in frigates filled his BR about 2 seconds before he could press the button. Then he's stuck outside in his extremely-valuable-and-extremely-hard-to-make first rate at the mercy of whatever screening group wants to tag him. NO BR LIMITS! Don't directly force anyone into varied ships, instead force them indirectly by giving strong incentive to bring a diverse fleet (by adding shallows), but don't require them to bring this varied fleet to win (they can win with two circles but they will have to deal with the enemy fleet over a longer period of time than if they brought some frigates to take the shallow circle).

The fact is, ball was used for raking historically and it is fine in game. Grape works for when you are broadside to broadside and you get all (or almost all) the HP gone (by shooting the side of the ship with ball). It takes out boatloads of crew in a single broadside. Also grape is quite effective when you shoot down onto your enemy's decks (as in from a large ship into a small ship). No need to buff grape or nerf ball in any way.

They could add shallows into the PB instances. Make one of the circles be positioned over shallows. That way, if its a first rate PB, you can bring all first rates and still have a chance to win, but you'll be giving up one circle automatically (because no first rate will be able to float in that circle). Or, you could bring a mixed fleet and have enough shallower ships to float in that circle, giving you a chance to take it. The shallows would have to work like they do in OW: the closer to land, the shallower it is, and the smaller the ship you need to be able to get there. For example, in a "deep water" PB, the outermost regions of the shallower circle can be accessed by third rates, the middle of the circle by fourth rates, and the very shallowest parts by fifth rates. Also, the area around the circle would have slowly-increasing depth, meaning that first and second rates have to keep their distance from the circle: they can still hit ships at range that are in the circle, but they won't be able to camp the edge of the circle and take out fifth rates sitting inside the circle. Furthermore, each ship has a draft: an Indefatigable has a similar draft to the Constitution, so it will only be able to float in slightly shallower water; but a Belle Poule is considerably shallower on the draft than the Agamemnon, so it can get much closer to shore than the Agamemnon can. All of this is basically already present in OW: a first rate can't get as close to land as a brig can. I'm not sure how much work it would be to code this into PBs but I do think it would be a good system. It allows you to bring 25 first rates if you want to, but it encourages you to have a mixed fleet that will be able to conquer and fight the shallower areas. I am 100% against any lobby PB system: it prevents people from sailing the ships they want to sail. For this game to be successful, you can't be forcing people to sail ships they don't want to sail, or play roles they don't want play. So no BR caps, and no limiting the number of each class of ship. Instead, let the clans and players form a strategy and make a fleet that will work with that strategy.

Agreed 100%. Nothing quite like hearing your crew cheer as you watch the mast fall by the board. I love to demast in OW PvP. Granted I'm not very good at it, but I am practicing and learning all I can. It has saved my hide multiple times. Most recently I was in my speed-fit Bellona (my OW baby, absolutely love that ship) and ran into two battles where demasting allowed me to either escape certain sinking, or pull out a win. About a week ago, I got into a battle with two first rates and a pavel (all player-controlled). I was going to fight the two first rates until the Pavel jumped into the fight. By then, I had my sails chained to shreds and the only way I could get ahead of the Vic that was at my broadside (and keeping me tagged) was to take down his foremast. It worked and I made it out. In another engagement, about a month ago, I ran across a lone player Bellona. I quickly realized I wouldn't be able to stick on his stern very well (he turned nearly as well as me and I didn't have the HP to play any tactic that made me tank broadsides from him), so I used my superior speed to get range on him and demast. It worked and I was able to de-crew him and win the engagement. When I was first learning how to demast, I only did mast rakes with a full broadside. Lately, however, I've been practicing my single-shot technique. It still needs work, but I've found both to be very effective. Like you said though, which one to use is dependent upon the situation. I had two duels with the same person last night, the first in Pavels (which I won by demasting) and the second in first rates (which I lost by demasting [I swear though, his mainmast only needed 2 more hits before it fell! I was counting!]). Both duels I used the single-shot method mostly, and he used the mast-rake method mostly. Also, I don't know what server you plan to play on after the wipe, but I'd love to get in a battle with you to watch a master de-master at work. I'm 100% sure I'd lose if I was fighting you, but I'd come away having learned some things.

I absolutely love the beautiful graphics of this game, I never get tired of the beautiful combat in this game, so here are some of my favorite screenshots: My Belle Poule exercising her guns: My very first first rate, had her since August and yet this infamous pink beauty never failed me in combat: Trincomalee looking for trouble: So, we all know Naval Action is a beautiful game, here are some of the best times I've had while playing the game: My very best stern rake: (384 crew!) Shutting down Charleston almost every night for a week with one Bellona and two AI frigates. I'll miss this ship most of all, 13.7 knots, turns on a dime, can demast a first rate, can outrun almost anything that isn't built to chase down a fleeing target, and extremely fun. My very favorite ship: (taking a selfie at the docks) Showing her speed while chasing an Indefatigable that tried to run the "blockade": The moment when, just the other day, I found two lone first rates with her, and decided to engage When they brought in a Pavel to back them up, I decided it was time to scoot! I was once again reminded why I love this ship so much: I clean outran them in the first engagement, went to OW and tagged again to mess around with them, took out the Victory's foremast for giggles and outran them a second time (really wish I had a screenshot of the Victory missing her mast in the second engagement). I shall really miss my OW ship of choice after the wipe. I'll have to work hard to get a couple built as soon as possible, sailing this beauty is just too much fun!

I call false on this. Have you tried stacking upgrades? You are incorrect about the speed bonuses and all other bonuses. In fact, there are so many different upgrades that can stack, you can get insane percentages on things like reload, repair, speed, accuracy, etc. Granted, there are hard caps for each, but you won't reach those hard caps with a 3/2 or 3/3. \begin rant/ There is NO WAY that a captain would lose a fight with a 3/5 if his enemy has the same skills as him and is sailing an identical ship, but only has 3/2 or 3/3. What almost everyone is forgetting is that we have ALREADY sailed those boring little ships to get our ranks up to sail in bigger ships, why are you FORCING us to grind all over again just to have the "knowledge" that our rank would indicate we already have? And yeah, I personally hate most of the sixth and seventh rate ships, I paid my dues in them and am glad to have washed my hands of them, but if someone likes them, more power to ya, just don't make me re-grind them all over again please. I'm a frigate and lineship captain, thank you very much. Oh and by the way, when you are grinding your rank up as a new player, you most certainly will not gain enough xp in each of the ships to unlock the next as you work your way through the ranks. This whole knowledge tree will be a senseless grind. Sure, it'll only have to be done once (until it is wiped or the bug feature gets removed). So a few people will contentedly sail around in inferior gear and brag about the wonderful ship knowledge system, while a large portion (mostly high level guys too, I'd wager) of the server population tries and fails to unlock their favorite ship only to discover they need to go on a wild goose chase down a ship tree all the way to the CHEERFUL BASIC CUTTER! What is not obviously wrong there!? /end rant\

Yes, some other captains earlier in the thread were arguing that demasting was not a prevalent tactic at the time. I was providing numerous examples where ships were intentionally demasted. And yes in a 5vs1 anyone could focus on getting the mast down, maybe it was just Agamemnon, maybe it was a combined effort...anyways, besides the point doesn't prove anything useful to the discussion other than demasting was a tactic. Can't help you with the last part. Nobody can ever make you do anything you don't want to do. And I'm certainly not trying to waste anyone's time (although I think that is the point of a game...a fun way to waste time ).

Yeah, if you are all aiming for masts. Since I don't know what each broadside from each ship was aimed at...I can only draw from the information I have researched, which credits Agamemnon with pounding the Santi until the vessel was dismasted and surrendered. Whether other ships helped Agamemnon demast the Santi or not is irrelevant to the original point: demasting was a tactic and quite possible to do in the age of sail naval battles. First off [and an aside]: if I'm in a first rate fighting five smaller ships, I'm going for masts and doing everything I can to make sure we draw out this fight as long as possible (to waste your ganking time and make you earn the kill) and make sure I do as much damage to you as possible (sinking as many of you as possible), I fight dirty when I face a gank and I will be a royal pain the stern gallery and make you earn every bit of your kill. Back on topic: Again though, see the point above, maybe other ships shot at Santissma's masts, but I have not read anything confirming or denying other ships credit for taking out masts (remember, I'm not a naval historian though, my research comes from some quick googling and a few books I've read). Now, I'm not saying lets give the Aggy a gold star for being the one responsible for single-handedly causing the demasting of the largest warship afloat at the time, but some credit must be given where it is due. She stayed and pounded the Spanish four-decker until Santi lost all her masts, whether other ships shot the masts or not is still irrelevant to the original point: demasting was a tactic. I'm not sure how many examples of naval battles one must look at before realizing this... If you want to argue about who should get the "kill" and who should get the "assist" in these cases then thats fine, though its irrelevant to the point that I'm attempting to show. I don't think they did anything to make demasting easier, they increased somewhat the damage that cannons can do, but they gave us multiple repairs to counter it. No, I didn't watch the tournament. Don't need too. I can demast as good as the "average" player or maybe slightly better, but if I get into combat with a "pro" why should I even expect a chance to win? I can't demast as well as he can, but I can hope that maybe I'll be able to stay on his stern or out DPS him. But honestly, even if I lose, I have nobody to blame but myself for engaging a superior player and expecting something other than crushing defeat. After all, I didn't complain when I got stern-raked by someone more skilled than me; instead, I watched them and got better at it until I became as good at it as they are. Same thing applies to demasting. Keep in mind the "exploit" I wrote about earlier in this thread concerning repairing masts. Make sure you get all the repair perks set on your "officer" and get some decent repair upgrades thrown on your ship, as soon as you lose a mast, assign full crew to repair, as soon as you get part of that mast back, turn on everything else to draw crew away from repair and make that repair take as long as possible, so that you're constantly repairing the damage that your enemy is doing. Of course, you should also pull away from the fight as much as possible. By doing this, you increase the time you keep your masts up (if you lose a mast while repairing it immediately comes back, no rigging shock or anything), and you decrease the time from the end of your repair until the next time you can repair. And I should sincerely hope that while your enemy is trying to demast you, you'd either be trying to do the same to him or else you are shooting his hull and trying to sink him. Honestly, (and I've said this over and over), I think they should make demasting lower masts harder but ultimately more rewarding (because once its done, its done, no mast repairs for that), and make demasting upper masts slightly easier, but less rewarding (because your enemy can repair them ONCE in battle). I consider it quite strange that you can all of a sudden re-step, re-rig, bend sails, and resume normal use of a mast while your enemy is trying his very best to blow your ship out of the water. Even re-stepping topmasts once is a compromise: that is something that would be very difficult to do in battle, but it was not unheard of for a crew to jury rig something to hastily set a sail.

Not at all a joke, it is an example of a smaller ship taking out the masts of a larger ship in a fleet engagement. Did you notice that I tried to provide examples of similar class ships demasting each other, fleet engagements with demastings, smaller ships demasting larger ships, larger ships demasting smaller ships, and ships that got demasted in multiple battles they fought in? I chose those examples to show that demasting could be used in almost any naval engagment. Ok, so if HMS Bellona had been the one to demast the Santissima...what point would that prove? Santissima was still demasted by a smaller ship in a fleet engagement. It doesn't matter how many ships were aiming at the Santi, the one credited for taking out the masts must have been the one doing the best job aiming for masts, no? So how, again, is my point irrelevant? Ability of a ship to demast another becomes irrelevant if multiple ships are focusing fire on the ship that is being demasted? If you wanted examples of a 1vs1 with demasting...did you take a look at Constitution vs Java or Guerrier? When you were demasting on testbed...were you fighting an actual player who shot back and attempted to sink you, or were you fighting some dumb AI? If all you are doing is counting the number of shots to a mast to get it down then that is hardly realistic. No way would I let you sail broadside to broadside with me and single shot my masts without me doing something back to you. Did you know you can repair masts indefinitely on testbed? Your only limits are the number of rig repairs you carry, and a 15 minute cooldown timer between mast repairs.

1. Yes, I'm not saying they never shot hull. But the fact remains that they DID target masts as well. Whether the French targeted rigging, or the British targeted rigging...does it matter? We are trying to prove the point that demasting was a valid tactic, and the fact that one major naval power has been "stereotyped" as a demasting/rigging-targeting group is enough proof for me. And, as you have seen, I showed plenty of examples where the US and the British targeted rigging to demast. 2. Of course the Constitution deliberately went to demast the Java. When a smaller ship is repeatedly raking you, it becomes pretty obvious that the best tactic you can employ is to remove their maneuverability. Why would a mast fall if the gunners were intentionally targeting the hull of the ship and avoiding targeting any rigging? Furthermore...why would SO MANY masts fall (especially the topmasts, leaving stumps and lower masts on the vessel) if nobody was aiming for them? 3. I'll answer your question with a question: why would a mast fall if nobody was aiming for parts of the rigging? Whether its 1vs4 or 1vs1, a mast would only fall for three reasons: 1) you intentionally shoot at it and the surrounding rigging, 2) pure dumb luck from hitting the hull so much you manage to have a few of your gunners miss and their shot takes out the chainplates anchoring the shrouds to the hull, 3) lucky shots hitting the masts below the deck level (and this is in the testbed with the new damage model). 4. Respectfully...No. Demasting is not now (on live server), nor will it be (looking at what is on test server) easy. Unrealistic rig repairs allow for magical re-growth of masts (even worse on testbed because you can repair masts indefinitely, only being limited by the cooldown and number of rig repairs you bring), reinforced masts make it twice as hard to demast (not sure if those are on testbed, I haven't looked for them specifically), and repair-module stackability expands on the first point of unrealistic repairs. I urge all who say demasting is easy on testbed to get into a real engagement, where shot is flying between two players. One of you shall aim for masts, and one shall dry his very best to sink the other. Do so in identical ships, and try to test this with players of roughly equal skill. Load down with repair kits and spend however long in the instance it takes you until one emerges victorious. I spent a decent amount of time on testbed simply demasting everything I could engage and came to the conclusions stated above. Furthermore, if you do similar testing, I think you will be quite surprised to find that demasting is not quite as easy as the professionals make it seem. Not telling the whole situation of Agamemnon vs Santissma!? I never said it was 1vs1 LOL. We are talking about the Battle of Trafalgar, which I assumed everyone knew was a fleet engagement. Agamemnon was simply the ship credited, in my research, as the one which demasted the Santissma. Again, whether its 1vs4 or 1vs1, a mast would only fall for three reasons, see point 3 above. If four ships are firing at the same ship, that increases the chance of hitting the mast below deck level, "accidentally" taking out the chainplates, or having one ship decide to focus on getting those masts down. About the new damage model. The structure bar is the one that you have to watch for masts. I can successfully demast an Ingermanland by stern raking with my Trincomalee. Once the center bar is down about 20%, I can expect to take out the mizzenmast soon. I know that simply losing that center bar of structure by 20% via broadside hits does not guarantee a mast to be taken out. However, I have not tested to see if weakening the structure via side hits and then raking the ship would take out a mast. I have mainly ignored this part of testing because the center bar seems to be the only one that matters for keeping the ship afloat: you can float just fine without side HP, but as soon as that side HP drops to about 10%, the center bar will begin fall extremely fast with every hit. Therefore, once your enemy is that weak, it makes no sense to take time to stern rake or try to demast, since you can simply fire one more broadside, finish off the center structure bar and watch him sink.

Did you read my examples? I did about 10 minutes of research into historical naval battles and gave 6 examples of ships being demasted in 1vs1, 2vs1, and fleet engagements. I easily left out other examples (Agamemnon was demasted in many battles she fought, I just gave the one example where she demasted the Santissima Trinidad), and again, only did a few minutes research to find examples of demastings. I'm not sure why you keep saying it does not make sense to snipe masts or fire full broadsides into masts...as I said, if you can cause your enemy to become immobile and prevent him from bringing his guns to bear on you, wouldn't you do it? Besides, if you fire a full broadside, directed at your enemy's masts and supporting rigging, you are bound to cause major damage unless your gun crew is extremely drunk. If one cannon is like a poorly aimed rifle, then 20 cannons must be like a shotgun blast: some are going to hit the mast and weaken it, some will hit the rigging and cut it, some will hit sails and tear them, some will hit yards and shatter them. Where did you get the information that the Royal Navy only fought up close? Did you not read the battle logs of Java vs. Constitution? Java repeatedly went to rake the larger frigate. How about the Battle of Trafalgar, where instead of fighting line to line, Nelson decided to cut the Franco-Spanish line and rake everyone (especially Bucentaure) into oblivion? And in that battle, Agamemnon chose to stay out of the firing arc of the much larger Santissima and demast the floating gun platform. To say that going in close and smashing hull was the prevalent tactic is simply not true. The fact remains that in Naval Action, a good rake or a skillful demasting could turn the fight decidedly in your favor: have not historical records proven this to be a fact? [Hint: read the examples I gave, read some books on naval combat, do some research of your own, you will find that rakes and demastings were quite common and very powerful tactics]. Nobody has ever said that hull hits don't cause damage. I don't know what ships you are fighting, but even on live servers, when I shoot someone in their hull, I almost always take out crew, cannons, and occasionally start fires, take out pumps, or even shatter his wheel. And if you've played on testbed, you'll notice that the damage done by shooting hull has been buffed (via the new damage model and the increase in firepower from cannons). So not sure what you are saying about hull damage doing nothing. If you find yourself being repeatedly raked or demasted, perhaps it is not mechanics that are to blame. I rarely find myself demasted unless the enemy has also lost some masts. Furthermore, if you are raking me, it is MY FAULT and YOUR SKILL that let you get there, I have no game mechanics to blame for that. So to sum it up, if you engage a player that is more skilled at raking, or demasting, or shooting cannons away, or staying on the weakened side, etc. than you are; you'd best hope you can out-dps him or try to some Jack Aubrey stuff to pull out a win. You should not stand a chance to win against a more skilled player. No game mechanic should help someone beat a more skilled opponent. We are not playing a game to award participation trophies or make everyone feel like a winner. I find it extremely irritating when I spent many hours learning how to demast properly, and someone comes up with "But thats not realistic!" or "Thats OP," or something similar. I feel the urge to say "Wrong sir! Wrong indeed! You have been demasted, you had your chance to do something spectacular while I was demasting you, but you didn't and now it is time for you to pay for your inefficiency and lack of skill! Muwhahahahaha!" I don't complain when I get demasted by someone, instead, I concede that I have been bested by a more skilled player. All this leads me to wonder why, (in fights where everything but the players are equal)...why do some captains expect to automatically be good at the game? Or to stand a chance at beating someone who has put a lot of time and effort into honing their skills?

Lot of questions here, not really sure if you are looking for answers or trying to make some kind of point. At any rate, I'll give you answers whether you wanted them or not. Basically: Yes, demasting was prevalent and happened in a lot of battles. Look at Constitution vs. Guerrier; Indefatigable and Amazon vs. the French third rate Droits de l'Homme (where the frigates shot away the third rate's mizzenmast); Agamemnon vs Santissima Trinidad at the Battle of Trafalgar (Agamemnon pounded the four decker until Santi lost her masts and eventually struck her colors); HMS Bellerophon (74) lost some masts during the Glorious First of June, lost all masts in the Battle of the Nile, and lost two masts in the Battle of Trafalgar. For further evidence, one only needs to take a look at many of the paintings you see for age of sail combat: oftentimes, ships are shown demasted in combat. If you want concrete evidence, a quick google search will pull up as many details as are commonly known about the battle in question. If you could take out your enemy's rigging, then you could easily maneuver around him and stern rake him, so yes it was a strategy. Who said Constitution would penetrate Java from every angle? Java was a lighter frigate, sure, but she was definitely no slouch. She was worked up, well-handled, and extremely deadly. By all rights, she was quite a fight for dear old Ironsides. And Java was trying to stay on Constitution's stern and rake, Constitution wanted nothing of that, but could not outmaneuver the more nimble ship, demasting was the answer. Not at all sure what you are referring to side hull hits. We have those in Naval Action, and they work quite well, just as they did in history. The reason you see more lower masts falling and less upper masts falling is because, while it takes longer, it is more effective to completely take out a mast, rather than partially do it. However, it is important to note, that demasting topmasts and topgallant masts is much easier (takes fewer shots, and can be penetrated by lighter cannon) that taking out the lower masts. I have seen used this to advantage in a couple of fights where a skipper was in a small ship and needed to demast a larger ship: he can't take out the lower masts, but he can take out the upper masts. Cannons were not super accurate, that being said, if you fire enough of them, aimed at a target, a few are bound to hit it. And remember, using chainshot to knock out the rigging of the ships was another tactic to demast: cut the ropes that keep the masts upright and the masts will fall. In reality, it would only take a few good ball shots to a mast to shatter it, or at least render it too weak to carry much canvas. Since we have a game with sped up time and increased cannon accuracy (to make the game more playable and fun), devs have wisely made it take more than 2-4 shots to take out a mast of a similar sized vessel. There have been several threads discussing how to make chainshot and rigging damage work into demasting strategy, and I've posted my opinions on those, so I won't linger too long on this topic. I don't think it was common to sail with a "supply ship" to carry extra masts. Large squadrons on blockade duty would have probably sailed with ships that could run supplies to them from port, but I am not sure if this was common practice for other fleets or not. What I do know is that most warships that would be sent on solo cruises, such as 3rd rates and smaller, were meant to be completely self-sufficient for the expected duration of the voyage, or until they could re-supply in port. Ships would usually carry enough spars to replace their topmasts, topgallants, and a few yards. The carpenter had these supplies to jury rig whatever got shot away. Also remember, if a ship lost masts, or even had damage done to them, chances are whatever side lost the battle would have a ship with at least enough spars intact to replace them ("borrowing" the masts from his captured enemy). Yup, if you do much reading on combat in the age of sail, you will read about demasting. It was pretty common. Think about it, you can disable the one thing that is letting your enemy bring his guns to bear on you. If you think you have a solid chance to do that, maybe you better do it. If not, or if you have some advantage (maneuverability, firepower, numbers, etc.), then maybe you shouldn't be focusing on getting his masts down. There ya go, told ya I'd answer whether the questions were rhetorical or not. Hope it cleared some things up .

Take a look at what @Remus posted, apparently the Java was able to jury rig a makeshift mast to try to stabilize the ship and gain steerage way. You could probably rig something up to make a makeshift lower mast, but you certainly would not be able to gain an entire mast back, from the lower mast up. If you noticed what I have suggested before: ability to repair upper masts once in a fight, and repair lower masts never, but adjust difficulty of removing lower masts to compensate; I think that would be a good system. It would reflect what could be done historically, prevent unskilled people from even bothering with trying to demast people, and still give those of us skilled enough to shoot down a mast a distinct advantage in the de-sailing/demasting phases of a fight. With the new HP system on testbed, if you don't know how to demast properly, your enemy should have you sinking before you could ever get more than 2 masts down. The skilled folks can demast you before you sink them, but not the average skipper trying to show off. One day, in the far far future, I hope to see shooting away yards become a thing, as well as causing the wreckage from a lost mast hinder the firing of guns/turning of the ship until it can be cleared away (give a timer to clear it all away). But that is something I don't think needs to be implemented until all the other bugs and mechanics being currently introduced are fixed and balanced properly.

I listed the logbook entries from Constitution in that same post, read it again. As for ships representing Java, any heavy frigate could stand in for her: Trincomalee, Pirate Frigate, Essex, Endymion, Indefatigable, etc. Java was a very well worked-up 18pdr frigate, so any of those I listed would stand well for her example. The Constitution was obviously shooting the masts of the Java, (as the article indicates) because Java kept trying to rake the Constitution. Sound kind of familiar to what we do in Naval Action? Because if you try to rake me, I shall try to demast you. One tactic to counter the other. They had spare topmasts and topgallant masts that they could sway up after a battle. It would be nearly impossible to step a new lower mast at sea: if those took damage, you had to patch it as best as possible and be very careful with the stress you place on it as you limp to port. If that mast was lost completely, you could try to rig a new, smaller mast there, to at least dampen the roll of the ship, but if you lost more than one lower mast, you'd probably need a tow to get back to port. Read up on the towing, capture, and re-capture of HMS Africane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_frigate_Africaine_(1798)#East_Indies:_capture_and_recapture So having mast repairs in battle is extremely unrealistic. You could probably sway up a new topmast or topgallant without too much trouble if you could manage to pull away from the battle long enough to do so, but repairing masts over and over again would not be an option, especially in the heat of battle. PS: Its best to read up on some historical battles before claiming that demasting was not a tactic, or that ships could repair masts after every battle. In some cases, a simple yard from one of the sails would have to suffice to stand in for a mast: if a frigate lost her topmast, perhaps a lineship in the squadron could send over one of her spare topsail yards to be used as a jury rigged mast aboard the frigate.

I think a lot of people have forgotten the original pirate hack: if 1 guy shoots the same ship repeatedly in the hull, the ship he is shooting will sink if 2 guys shoot the same ship repeatedly in the hull, the ship sinks twice as fast if 3 guys shoot the same ship repeatedly in the hull, the ship sinks 3x as fast .... Demasting is not the only way to win a fight.

Agree with the small ships. About historic loss of masts, I'm not sure if HMS Victory lost any masts or not, but I think some people need to see the battle logs for USS Constitution vs HMS Java: At 3 The Head of the enemies Bowsprit & Jib boom shot away by us At 3.5 Shot away the enemies foremast by the board At 3.15 Shot away The enemies Main Top mast just above the Cap At 3.40 Shot away Gafft and Spunker boom At 3.55 Shot his mizen mast nearly by the board At 4.5 Having silenced the fire of the enemy completely and his colours in main Rigging being [down] Supposed he had Struck, Then hawl'd about the Courses to shoot ahead to repair our rigging, which was extremely cut, leaving the enemy a complete wreck, soon after discovered that The enemies flag was still flying hove too to repair Some of our damages. At 4.20. The Enemies Main Mast went by the board. [source: https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/uss-constitutions-battle-record0/uss-constitution-vs-hms-java-1812.html aka one of the top results when I googled it ] In one hour and twenty minutes, Constitution nearly completely demasted Java. Remember to allow for time compression in the game, and I believe our demasting in game is quite alright, based on this example. Also look at the records for how many masts ships would lose in a fleet engagement. Look at the historical paintings, some ships are pictured having lost a mast or two, and their rigging badly cut up. Demasting was a real thing, and it is in game. It is not OP, it is a viable tactic, one which has several viable counter-tactics. If anything, demasting is harder on testbed than on live server because your enemy can repair his masts over and over and over and over and over again.

I wish I knew the answer to that. Maybe @admin can shed some light on the subject.

Actually what I think happens in instances is this: the compass does a 180 degree rotation. What is north in open world (0*) becomes 180* in battle. It is no big deal, just a simple little thing to do with the values assigned to the marks on the compass. The good news is this affects absolutely nothing in combat: a ship that is tagged in the channel between La Tortue and Hispanola will retain its position in the instance relative to OW positioning and winds, just the way that it should, the only difference is that the numbers on the compass have been reversed. But yes, now you can all share the kind of pain those who have known about this for a while feel . And if I'm wrong/mistaken, I blame the US admiralty for equipping me with a faulty compass when I turned pirate. But that would be sabotage ...Wait a minute, I think I figured out why my maps all look like the same crayon sketches!

Demasting on Testbed is NOT OP. You can repair every 15 minutes for goodness sakes! And if you want to exploit that, here is how: stack up with repair upgrades and perks, as soon as you lose 1 mast, hit repair and assign max crew to repair, then as soon as you get part of one mast back, turn on EVERYTHING else: the whole point is to move crew away from that sail repair. That way you can be constantly repairing sail/mast damage as it is dealt. I think you should be able to coax at least 3-5 minutes out of a single repair, meaning you only have to wait, at the most, 10-12 more minutes for another repair. Our top-of-the-line demasters will have no problems tearing you to pieces again in that short timeframe, but noobs and hotshots cruising around with big boy guns won't be able to do a meaningful amount of damage in that amount of time. I just had a fight last night on PvP2 with the skilled Captain Jean Paul Vilvenue. We did a small battles with some of the other guys in our clan and a few participants from Global Chat. He was in a Santi (shocking, I know ), I was in a Bellona. I decided to go for masts just for the heck of it, I knew he would too. He took out my foremast with about 2 solid broadsides delivered to my rigging. I think another Bellona on his side hit me with a volley too, but the shots hit my masts much less than Jean's expertly-aimed broadside did. I took Jean's mainmast down with about one broadside of single-shotted and double-charged 32s and 24s: I missed quite a bit owing to the awkward range and trying to get shots in before he could turn his ship and deny me any good mast-shots, but it only takes 11-14 double charged 24s to knock down the mainmast of a first rate, at least in my testing. So down his mainmast fell . He took out my mainmast, I took out his foremast, we both repaired, He took out everything but my mizzen , I took out everything but his mizzen and bowsprit. Along the way we both had some team-mates helping each other out, but the two of us did the most damage to each other's masts. We ended up so close in crew numbers, the last two ships left in the fight, and not being able to maneuver, so I did a gentleman's surrender once we boarded. All in all, a fun battle On testbed, that match would have gone MUCH differently. If we both tried the same tactics again but with the testbed mechanics, I forsee it looking like this: I could have repaired my masts over and over and so could he. Due to the slow nature of our ships, the fight would have timed out with both of us plinking each others masts down, only to have them repaired very soon afterwards. We just can't have multiple repairs to masts in these battles. And I agree with what others have said, if you let a guy within 100 meters and he has carronades onboard, you should ABSOLUTELY pay the price for that. Although I never make it a point to try to demast with carronades... the little guns just don't have the penetration to demast at "normal" ranges. Furthermore, I'd like to point out, for those that don't know, that there are two different methods to demast, the "broadside method" shown in the videos Norfolk posted in this thread, and the "single-shot" method, which is what Liquicity posted in his video. Both have advantages and disadvantages, and the choice is often made by the ship class, speeds, angles, ping, etc... People complain too much about getting demasted by the few skilled guys who are actually capable of doing it well, but these same people who complain about that seem to have no problems with anyone sailing past a brig and killing 50 crew in one broadside when the brig is in perfect condition. Demasting is a skill to be learned, and it can prove exceedingly valuable in combat, but if you don't execute it properly, you just signed a one-way ticket to the bottom of the ocean.

I didn't suggest that. I just said that with the current system on testbed, there is no NEED for players to work together to craft stuff, you can still craft ships on your own, it will just take time. I don't think this lovely idea of a "player-driven economy" will work well at all with such a small population. With a larger population, yeah it might work. Or they could increase the count of production buildings for players and maybe that would work, but all this is only vaguely related the point of the OP, who was asking about capturing cannons from AI. And for the record: I would have been fine if they kept a lot of things as-is, implemented some stuff from testbed, fixed the broken stuff we currently have, worked out a couple bugs, and released that as a game...but that is just my opinion, and I'm fine that they keep adding content to the game. I don't mind some of these changes, but they need work out some major flaws, but those flaws are perfectly pointed out in other threads. Back to the original post...med cannons capped from AI is absolutely fine, and ruins nothing.

But unless AI has changed, when you could capture them, you'd only get medium cannons. So if you want long cannons, you have to go and craft them. Same thing if you want carronades. AI already sells medium cannons in shops, so there is always that option to buy them. Being able to capture cannons could help low-level guys afford to keep their ships armed. Not sure if I'd like it if you could capture carronades or long guns off of AI, that might remove the need to craft cannons. /rant coming\ Though to be fair, the whole "Well there will be cannon-crafters, and there will be ship-crafters, and there will be resource-producers..." idea is nonsense. It has never worked before in this game and it is not likely to start working now. Nobody is going to just craft cannons LOL. Nobody is just going to make resources. Clans will continue to be their own self-sufficient entities when it comes to crafting, but even if a lone player wants to craft everything himself, he can do so by alternating buildings each week. I see nothing wrong with that system and I see no reason to continue to try make crafting any more of an annoyance/time-consuming difficulty than it already is. \rant over/

I've been doing some demasting practice on testbed. I am by no means very skilled at it, but "practice makes ...blah blah blah you know the rest." Like the others, I think *most* of the accuracy upgrades are just for vertical dispersion. Personally, I don't think demasting will be any more popular with the new system than it is now. Especially since you can now repair masts every 15 minutes, and get some pretty good repairs once you unlock enough slots and perks to start stacking. If anything, they should make demasting the lower masts harder to do, but permanent [as in, you can't repair those in battle]; while making demasting the upper masts--topmasts and above--ever so slightly easier, but less rewarding because your enemy can repair those ONCE in battle. Something that was recently brought to my attention, and makes perfect sense, and I am glad it is implemented, is this: the upper masts are thinner, and can be penetrated by lighter shot. I was doing some testing and saw a Trincomalee be demasted above the main-cap by ball [not charge] from 9pdrs on a Surprise. I also used double-charged 18pdrs on my Trincomalee to demast an Indefatigable above the foremast cap. Now this is probably common knowledge among the dedicated "mast snipers" here, but I did not know this, and I found it to be quite a nice touch. More to the point of your question: Firstly, keep in mind that the penetration of those carronades will still fall off quite considerably at range... Also, with the way HP is distributed on ships on testbed, if you are not darned sure of yourself going for masts, you'd best watch out because you may find yourself sinking before he loses a mast the second time [demast, repair, demast, then get a few minutes to shoot a less-maneuverable ship before he repairs again]. By the way, I think I read a post somewhere that the cap on dispersion was 100%, but not sure if this is true or even an attainable percentage. Also, unless they changed something, "notched angles" skillbook is also a dispersion modifier: like Pellew's Sights but with a different [and strange] name. "Master gunner, notch those angles properly now, none of this radius business: I want those angles notched properly. Understand?"

This system would be good, too I think. It is similar to what we have on the live servers from my understanding, but with the new system you won't have to hit pray button and hope for random drop of gold, blue, or purple marines I hope. The main idea I am proposing is to get away from a single "all-or-nothing" marine upgrade like we have on testbed now: I don't like to run over 20% marines most of the time...they hurt the reload and manual sailing too much. However, there are times when I will kit out a ship with my gold marines. At any rate, I'd be happy to see some diversity in the marines upgrade. Also, would it be at all possible to squeeze a 15% and 25% marines in there? Those two percentages would be the sweet spot for a lot of the ships I sail, and I know of a few others who like to run just a few marines, but the grey sometimes prove too few, and the green or blue marines take up too many crew.

Aye, if the coding is hindering a slider system, then yes I would think some additional options for marines...say 10% 15% 20% etc. would work well for those of us who don't want to be bogging down reload with a lot of marines, but at the same time want to have a few marines to help out with the occasional boarding action.