Sir Lancelot Holland

I am not an American, I can though understand why they would be unwilling to pay to play any game when they cannot fight in their own time zone, yes the world is round and divided into time zones, players in any location should be able to find combat, be it PVP or RVR, if a port is that valuable to anyone they will defend it as best they can, if they lose then they can always take it back, It's additional content. 9-5 hour wars do not work in an arena where there are time zones, no one forces me to take part in a battle at 20:00m EST or even GMT + 2 or 3, If I am awake and wish to attend, or the port is important then I may do so, my choice, no one else's. There is a reasonable amount of control as to when PB's can be set, a matter of mathematics, good will, even courtesy, people play when it is convenient for them to do so, when conditions favour a good outcome, that is human nature, just as it is human nature to time attacks when it is not convenient for their enemy, Most Americans would agree 08:00 on a Sunday morning is not a good time to be attacked, there are a lot of Germans who would share that view, but there were also a huge number of Europeans grateful for a certain Dawn attack, it paved the way for their freedom! Any form of Naval warfare demands a degree of patience, if fleets ran to bus schedules then everyone would be doing it, so if you want to fight you have go out and find a fight, or manage the timing of PB's so that you can get a reasonable number of players to them, Navy's everywhere who do what they can, where they can, when they can, with the tools they have at the time and place. So get a fleet together and make a nuisance of yourselves, when your enemy gets tired of being unable to go out in their own waters without getting sunk they will have to fight to get you out, or quit. It is well known that the French, Danes and Swedes do this especially on the EU server, they appear to have remembered what a Navy's functions are: to project power, defend their merchant fleets and national waters to do less than that and there is no point in having a Navy. As Lt. Gen. Sherman once said, "war is hell." I prefer von Clausewitz, "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means."

You make some valid points, I would though suggest recovering enemy vessels could be worthwhile under the prize system, even if you just get the cargo, there is prize money in that, of course the ship would bring in additional prize money but if you have the cargo you at least got something. If not, it's just how it went and next time you may find it balances out.

Aboukir bay (the battle of the Nile) saw HMS Culloden grounded on Aboukir Island where she remained for the duration, despite the best efforts of HM Brig Mutine and the 50 gun HMS Leander to help haul her off. So yes such undertakings were known of. Battles fought after storms saw ships fighting with varying degrees of damage, collision damage could be catastrophic, battles have been lost due to collisions, falls under poor seamanship a contributory factor in any battle. Indeed collisions occurred in the Battle of the Nile, as well as misjudged positioning, when engaging the anchored French line. As long as the damage is proportional to the speeds and weights of the ships involved I do not see an issue with collision damage.

Battles at sea where reinforcements actually saved the day were rare, Flamborough Head comes to mind, it is likely HMS Seraphis would have won a pyrrhic victory over USS Bonhomme Richard which was already sinking late in the battle had not US reinforcements arrived forcing the surrender of HMS Seraphis. I think on balance though that unless you were very close to the enemy coast and ports reinforcement is very unlikely, that such fights would still be rare enough not to cause major concern. The sound of gunfire carries many miles at sea and while it is feasible a battle may be heard over the horizon (and the military maxim of ride to the sound of the guns was as relevant at sea as it was on land) many factors would decide if a ship could even reach the battle, not least being the wind which hampered the head of the Franco-Spanish line in any effort to relieve Villeneuve at Trafalgar, (were it not for the light winds battle would have been joined earlier than it actually was) and they were barely a few miles from the main fight. In reality reinforcements can be as much a forlorn hope as a real one, It is said that Napoleon relied on luck as much skill even in some his best fought battles, but then Napoleon was well known for his audacity and unorthodox style of fighting. Many of the Vets will remember having to form up and sail against an enemy at the door, reinforcing with Frigates, or anything that floated and had guns, against all rates off of KPR, many of those battles were hard fought and great fun win lose or draw, under very different ROE, It was a time when initiative was displayed, where some Captains even braved the port batteries to try for the win, Kudos to the French Captains who sailed almost to the jetty at KPR to get at a single Vic and a 4th rate, both ships were in a very sorry state before the surviving French Captains had to withdraw! Under todays ROE and Mechanics I fear we are unlikely to see such battles, courage and initiative again.

We have the one luxury that real 18th/19th century Captains never had, we sail as and when we want, we attack where and when we want. They would plod on endlessly until whatever task the Admiralty set for them was completed, or they were sunk, or they received orders to do something else from the Admiralty via a messenger brig or other small ship. The two are not incompatible as a Captain, clan, or even Nation in game could accept or decline such Admiralty missions. If there is sufficient incentive I think most Captains would accept such missions especially if they know that the Nation or Clan who the missions are aimed at would fight to take the spoils. when no such mission is available or declined then Captains simply do what they wish and forfeit the prize offered. Of course if word of such missions got out what is to stop other Nations or the Pirates from intervening and taking the spoils?

You claim BPHick brings nothing to the game? Actually he brings far more than you think, He brings supplies to small clans that otherwise may not survive at a reasonable cost and also assumes the risks of delivery. He and his clan often sail unescorted through waters at greater risk than many warship Captains, he provides content for those who would play the role of commerce raider, and there are some who do, they add to the game, Commerce raiders try to hunt merchants, warships try to hunt commerce raiders that is content! It is hard, patient work for both types of Captains and when successful brings with it a sense of achievement for a completed sortie.

Most were, many officers served under patronage of Captains or Admirals from a very early age, Nelson was a son of an Norfolk Preacher, served under patronage of a relative. The standards of all officers were those of 'polite society' their code of honour was often in the form of custom or gentlemen's agreements, even extended to their enemies, an officers word was accepted as both an officer and a gentleman. Even among the Brethren of the Coast there was a code of honour, lines that were drawn and not crossed without consequence, no one could ever accuse them of being 'gentlemen' but none the less they were men of honour in their own society. It may be that such a 'code of honour' could add to the immersion in game, there was back then no real way of enforcing such a code except by mutual consent and the threat of exclusion from 'polite society' but with the Brethren of the coast exclusion was not an option, though an early dinner date with Davey Jones in his locker very likely was

Unfortunately that is so, many of the values of 18th/19th century naval warfare have gone, like the gentlemen's agreement regarding SOL's attacking 4ths and below unless fired upon, or the practice of firing a broadside for the pavilion and withdrawing to satisfy honour. It was a different time, different values, sadly I think the game loses some of its flavour by their absence but that happens when 21st century values are transposed onto an earlier era's value system.

Striking your colours and surrendering your sword was seen as an act of honour, the only reason it was considered acceptable is because it saved lives in an hopeless situation. Captains had a duty not only to their Nations but to their ship and their crews. That said a Captain who surrendered his ship would still have to justify his actions before a Board of Inquiry under the Articles of War, to their credit the Admiralty were sympathetic to Captains who surrendered their ships as long as it was the last resort to save life and/or the ship was in imminent danger of sinking. By all means use surrender, save the remnants of the crew, but to the victor goes the spoils, ship, cargo, everything else. Then as now where ever possible, after a battle saving life became the priority, it is why Captains would slow, or sometimes even stop their ships to recover survivors friend and foe alike. It is one of the few values that has withstood the test of time in Naval warfare.

I agree you can't, but you will either end up sunk or boarded either way once the options run out was the real point, the final options would always be fight to the end however you can, or strike your colours.

Thank you for clarifying that, now it makes a bit more sense to me.

Of all forms of warfare naval warfare demands patience, Captains who allow frustration to dictate their actions tend to make more mistakes than a more patient opponent. I do however understand what you are saying, limiting Chain and grape I can agree with, not limiting ball I am not so certain about but I do see the logic. Boarding is something that should be considered, if you have a numerical advantage then the odds may be better than attempting to break off the action, if not and you cannot run the outcome is inevitable, so what is left to lose?

Yes indeed, I think that was pretty much the case with several battles. one has to wonder what the ammunition stats were after the USs Constitution and HMS Seraphis finished fighting!

Limited Ammunition, tedious? Maybe so, but it also makes you think about the battle you engaged in, at what point in the 90 minutes of battle do you decide that ammunition is so low that your next encounter will see you run out? Where do I position my ship to do the maximum amount of damage to my opponent with my limited stocks of ammunition? If I am running low, how low is he on ammunition? It leads to all manner of tactical decisions, dictates directed fire in fleet actions and can be the deciding factor in whether or not you win that port battle too. It changes the game from being point and shoot until they sink to a game where players are forced to think tactically about how to sink their opponent's ships, to work as a team, above all to be a skilled Captain or fleet commander. Whether you win or lose, you gain those skills, you learn from the errors and the successes in battle, That I think is the real challenge of Naval Action, every battle would be a fresh experience rather than just another exchange of shot until someone sinks, even if you do make a mistake and expend too much ammunition you can always run or board your opponent, each option requires a different set of skills, it is how and when those skills are employed that makes each battle unique.

It is basically a reality v gameplay issue, In real life ammunition and powder were limited commodities, If your sails were shredded you got caught and possibly boarded, in a fleet action the battle may leave you behind to repair and escape as best you can. Likewise when a mast or two went by the board, you could not re-step a mast at sea but you could jury rig sails to at least gain steerage way. If you ran low on ammunition then your options were stay and be torn apart or fight defensively and attempt to out sail your opponent(s) to leave the battle, either way your opponent would also be low on ammunition and have similar difficulties. It was a test of skill, who could outgun/out-manoeuvre their opponents until they were sunk, boarded or escaped. In game some of the realities may not be playable due to time constraints or limitation in coding or software/hardware issues so they are hinted at in other ways that may appear to give unfair advantage, when you consider all things, if a Captain has the skill to escape a predator then he deserves to keep his ship, there is no loser, the attacking Captain was simply out-sailed and the escaping Captain will one day meet a captain he cannot out -run. It's similar to fighter pilots, some become aces, most do not. Admirals like Villeneuve and Nelson worked with the resources they had and in both cases sometimes against their superiors, In game we have people like Metatastic Disease, who says he is average, not a good fighter yet he manages to be the thorn in every ones side, he wins more often than not because he uses what he has, he picks his fights well and runs when he should run, He is a very challenging player to play and like Captain Hans Langsdorf of the Graf Spee is very difficult to catch! We have yet to find a Commodore Harwood to catch him but one day.... Would he be as successful with limited resources? I suspect he would, anyone can sink ships with 4-5 to 1 odds, but it's the ones who can work with what they have and survive who provide the real challenges in game and to be that one is the real challenge of the game.

would you consider also a timer to rejoin your old clan or another clan? If a player wished to give up the risks of clan life for immunity then surely they should not be able to retake the advantages of clan life with impunity.

That is the point in the road where our positions meet, that is the situation that should be resolved.

Yes sir, indeed, but is this not how Italy, France, Germany, the United Kingdom all started out, a collection of individual clans, nation states et al? I would really like to see international battlegroups they add flavour to the game and paradoxically underline our respective positions on nationality, I think that our positions are actually a lot closer than we think, the devil Sir is in he details.

There is nothing wrong per se with what you are saying, I would suggest though that a co-operative is little different to an Alliance. Alliances are formed by and large through the fear of a common threat or for economic reasons. as re co-operatives, coalitions, call them what you will they are the same thing. As you have pointed out In game there are no economic reasons to form alliances or co-operatives, There are of course nations that are feared for whatever reasons, In game, nations are simply a co-operative of clans who fight under a unified banner. For any nation, or alliance/co-operative to work there has to be leadership, leadership of groups is gained either by right of conquest or by consent of the people governed, for a war there has to incentive, no one fights for the sake of fighting, Agamemnon fought for the love of a woman Helen of Troy, Ceasar for territory and political ambition, or for the betterment of the people, all civil wars were justified on those grounds. Even in a game there needs to be a reason to fight, a reason to cease fighting, then fight again, no war has ever been eternal or for the sake of war. I think that until there is reason to fight and the duration of fighting does not mean the elimination of a faction things will go on as they are. Put in the reasons, for war, put in a limit on the duration of a war with defined win loss parameters and we will have a game worthy of the title Naval Action.

It is a pity about ship names, as a simple database of merchant and warship names of the period would suffice to keep out the more risqué names some people would inevitably use. I like the idea of permanent paints for ships, most navy's even then had a specific hull scheme usually the coloured stripes indicated nationality in the smoke of battle, in game a clan could have several squadrons all indicated by colour in the same way. Even today many sailors can identify nationality by the shade of grey on the hull. While I am certain you have good reason to consider coloured or patterned sails to be 'arcadey' in reality a good lookout could often identify the nationality of a ship by the cut/colour of her sails usually before the hull was over the horizon. Many could even identify ships by name if they had served aboard or alongside particular ships in a squadron, a skill that can be mastered quickly and easily by anyone even with average eyesight. With the hours you must have in game I would think that you are able to tell between a Vic and a Santi at a considerable distance by sail cut alone, as well as most other classes of ship. Clan flags, commissioning pennants, Commodores pennants and admirals flags all would be nice visual touches all were flown on ships that had flag officers aboard at sea, every ship flew at least the long commission pennant and even had a signal hoist to identify her by name, the predecessor to todays pennant numbers flown by warships on entering or leaving port. Sadly I think the use of signal flags would be prohibitive in time, and the knowledge needed to formulate signals in clear, never mind in code or I would advocate their use as well, maybe they would not even be possible.

Limit repairs definitely. Yes surgeons worked long and hard both in and out of battle, accidents and illness aboard sailing ships were commonplace even without battle injuries. A significant number of battle injuries resulted in amputation particularly where injuries involved smashed bones, head and stomach wounds were frequently fatal and if survived would take months to heal. That left those who were lightly wounded, who could still wield an 18lb cutlass or at best a pistol, even a belaying pin if necessary. The question should be, should the number of men returned to the fight be historical v a reasonable number? Replacing manpower is critical, replacing numbers that equate to almost a full ships company is not really a good thing, neither in truth is using historical values as the numbers would limited to those who while unfit for duty were still capable of defending themselves and their ship, the answer I think would be a reasonable percentage of casualties, for example, a third of the number of casualties sustained, it would cover the number of dead and critical injuries yet still provide more men than the historical values would permit. At least it would provide the defender with an reasonable chance during boarding actions.

Pirates are unique, the game should reflect that, they should be roaming around in small over gunned, over manned ships making a nuisance of themselves as the nations fight it out. They should be able to hire themselves out as privateers if they desire, they should be able to find merchants and small warships up to frigate size to sink, if they have the nerve to take on bigger warships then fair play to them, to be the huge drain on resources both economically and militarily that they actually were. They were men dissatisfied with authority of any description, unless it suited them to be so at the time, let them be what they actually were, outside of law until governments needed them, let them be what they were, Pirates.

You are correct, every Navy had and still has ammunition scales, shipboard space is always limited and every Navy had their preferences as to ammunition load-outs depending on the tactics they employed in battle. The French would often cripple ships rigging to facilitate boarding, or if circumstances dictated, disengage from the action. In fairness to the French it was a sound military tactic, they had after all, at that time lost many of their best officers to Madame Guillotine and was not a reflection on their honour or courage. The British however preferred ball and grape to reduce crew numbers to facilitate boarding, a more brutal choice, but highly effective. other Navy's carried a more balanced load-out. Repairs at sea were, and particularly in battle were very limited. Patching shot holes below the waterline and fire fighting being of the highest priority followed by getting the guns back into the fight. Mast and rigging damage was often left until after the battle unless a ship was left behind as the battle moved on, even then repairs were often patching sails or jury rigging lost masts with a spar and scrap canvass, anything to get steerage way. Replacing Spars and rigging at sea was difficult and dangerous work, re-stepping masts was impossible, in any case it required the ship be to on an even keel and thus a dockyard repair, although a quiet cove could be used as long as the ship could be shored up and refloated post repair. In the event of boarding as many men as was possible were needed to repel boarders, the only exemptions being those working below plugging leaks/ fighting fires, it was common to recall the lightly wounded from the Orlop deck to fight but given the types of wounds inflicted in these battles and medical practices of the day, there would not be many of those. While these issues are reflected in the game it is a question as to what degree they should be, should a dismasted ship be left behind in the wake of battle to take her chances of escape or not as circumstance dictates? Should the percentage of men returned to the fight reflect more accurately the injuries sustained? Should ammunition load-outs reflect the time period or be infinite as they currently are? At the end of the day it is a game, it should be playable and fun, and the questions raised above will affect gameplay, More historical I think, would result in more ships escaping, to fight another day, Less would take the game more toward an arcade game where it is easy to sink anything and everything, somewhere between those extremes lies a good balanced game, and that balance is, I think, what will make the game what it deserves to be.

Is it a miniature Battle of Aboukir Bay (Nelson's Battle of the Nile) or Copenhagan that inspires the idea? I like the idea in principle, in theory the attacker could decide whether he is simply raiding the port or taking the port, Raiding could be simply sinking warships or 'Cutting them out' along with any merchant ships in the harbour and a small scale raid ashore with Marines before withdrawing, or a full on attempt to take the port with mortar Brigs and a ship load of marines to take facilities in addition to the attacking fleet A clan or nation may not particularly want the port they are attacking, so raiding gives them an option for PvP/RVR without the expense of paying for a port if he wins and also allows the defender to keep enough of their assets so they can get up, dust themselves off and fight another day without the fear of being one ported or effectively put out of the game due to lack of resources. Much of the coding will I think be already written, all that would be required is that the game is told prior to the battle what kind of battle it would be so it can award points and gold appropriately, Small clans and nations could benefit in that they get to experience PVP/RVR in the form of a more affordable raid rather than face the huge expense of a full port battle and overreach by losing an overly large proportion of their assets on the roll of a dice. It is also something the Pirates I think would excel at, the thought of messing up the well laid plans for a nation's port battle or simply the rewards of a raid would be equally enjoyable to some of them and one would hope, provide for open water PVP in the area at the same time.

An interesting idea, perhaps a port garrison and barracks for Mortar brigs to target? Maybe the possibility of graping the jetties in support of the boarding ship? A nice job for enterprising Frigate or small ship Captains while the Sol's slog it out in deeper water. Marines doing what they were meant to do even.