Baggywrinkle

Literally identical to the discussions on the Flying Labs forums at the same point in PotBS' development. Ended up coming across to me as overly 'gamey' once it was implemented. I'm happy to see the hints from the devs that they agree with the suggestions made by myself and others that players shouldn't be able to buy warships. By signing up to a navy you become entitled to be assigned to a ship. It strikes me as entirely appropriate that national warships may be coppered, or fitted with flintlocks etc. It doesn't strike me as appropriate to buy such things, any more than it does to buy a warship. The other issue is the huge time period covered by NA. How do we deal with 'historical' upgrades in such a context? I'm aware personal fitouts paid for by captains did, very very occasionally, happen (I countered the wonderfully knowledgeable Marion van Ghent on the matter)...but I haven't yet thought of a way to make such a thing useful and fun in game. Baggy

Given rarity, and the voiced concerns of one's own vessel blowing up under your feet... How about if any cataclysmic explosion trigger was only for NPCs? We'd still get the spectacle but not the WTF. Baggy

Come on now gents, I think we can see the topic of discussion. Nothing is progressed by pissy, if pithy, comments to newcomers to our small community Ultimately, I'd love to see NA as a competitor to Star Citizen etc. The devs have drawn links with EVEs economic model. These are huge games, and to be attracting those kind of player numbers a robust and comprehensive shoreside economy is a must. Eventually though - first things first... Baggy

I'm for encouraging gameplay and battles that don't devolve into kiting. If it takes 'artificial' tweaking, like reducing gun ranges from real figures, to support realistic (and so fun, more skill based, and good looking) behaviour then it doesn't worry me. I am worried by things like gun upgrades though. I know people love the customising thing, the feeling of personality etc it gives, but all this kind of upgrade does is make new players uncompetitive. Straight up improvements will be used by everyone who knows about and can afford them, which won't include those starting out. It would just provide another advantage to already experienced and competant players. No thanks Baggy

Wow, this is a bold area of exploration. Scenarios where fire ship use would be appropriate suggest a pretty deep set of mechanics under the game Can we ask what ideas are behind the question? Thanks for all the good reading material Destraex and Ligatorswe, I enjoyed that. As stated, getting caught alongside a fire ship would be the end of you, be your vessel a cutter or an SoL. One was enough to take out any ship, but 'normal' usage would employ small fleets of them to ensure a decent level of panic was caused, as much as to increase the chance of destroying particular targets. Baggy

Great canvas damage model in that video. Fires are in, which is a good thing. Anyone have any official word on explosions? It would be fun if they were in, but it would be hard keeping them rare enough to have any impact. Anything much more than once a month (?) and it would stop being talked about and just become part of the damage model, rather than an awful and awesome feature. No to heated shot from ships' guns from me for the reasons stated above. Like the idea for shore batteries though. Baggy

I'm honestly struggling to see how or why the UI makes any difference to the lengths of battles (something we all seem to agree on). "I guarantee it" hasn't convinced me, though I don't disagree necessarily. Can anyone provide any more info? My main objection to healthbars is purely aesthetic, nothing to do with realism or historical accuracy or making the game hardcore. Again, it's not that I don't want the information, I just would rather have it presented in a way that is a little more involved and immersive than having stats and ppercentages shown so blatantly all the time. I agree with AKP that new players may not understand the significance of some damage visuals - though is that any different to any new player of any game? - but I don't see how they'd fail to learn. I work at sea, gaming a couple weeks a year in a very casual manner. All my suggestions come not from wanting a hard-core realism sim of a game, but from trying to convey some of what makes the sailing of these amazing vessels so special in the real world. Part of that is employing all available senses, experience and intuition for information, rather than relying on data sheets and figures. Can't understand why the more vocal, though not more numerous going by the poll, members of the community aren't more interested in exploring options other than conventional health bars. As it happens, despite or because of c.20hrs flying time logged (not a lot I know, and mostly as a cadet a few years back now) I've flown icons off on pc games. For me a good measure of immersion and 'realism' comes from learning how things are presented in game and learning how to respond accordingly. The ShackTac approach to realism Baggy Ps. Claims that the workload of a gamer is higher than a captain of a fighting vessel in action are properly hilarious

Another day, another ragequit threat. Sorry Johnny, we've agreed on lots over the last few months...but not this. As a reply to what was meant to be, and seems to me on re-reading, quite a temperate post your response is what comes across as a little overboard. Nobody 'against' health bars is against having information, we're simply saying how we'd prefer that information to be presented to us in the kind of game we'd like to play. It's all okay, you can still have your fish finder. As it happens, also as a poor fisherman, what frustrates me is sharing a stretch of water with those who don't, for whatever reason, bother to learn about the fish they're after, to learn the waters they fish. Strikes me as irreverent and to be missing the magic, the art and the skill of such activities. But that's by the by. No response to the battle length thing because I don't see how it's relevant. They take as long as they take, health bar on screen or no. That it seems to be in the rough neighbourhood of half an hour seems ideal. If having a visible health bar influences this then the problem lies in the mechanics, not the UI. Baggy, professional realism junkie

No healthbar for me please. Show us the damage, let it impact vessel handling so we get information from that too, and brief new players through decent tutorials. In reality you kept firing as effectively as possible until the enemy hauled their colours, or you struck yours. See absolutely no problem with having the same in game. Spy glass UI elegantly finds centre ground, maybe audio/text information from your officers would also work...? For what it's worth, in the absolute carnage that fleet actions were, captains had a crap overview. Read any account of any fleet action and misinformation, mistaken assumptions, missed orders etc are rife. Something that Nelson was well aware of, for example, and planned accordingly. This is one of those areas where deviation from strict realism is fine by me. But still no healthbars Baggy

Bear in mind her pretty extensive refit 1800-1803... A lucky ship, in many ways. Baggy

For sure, most red sails you see out and about now are dyed synthentic canvas, rather than barked natural stuff...but checking back through paintings to black and white photographs to colour prints it seems that a) there was huge variety in shade and some were very dark, and some very bright. Nice pics AKP Have you come across any from back in the day? Baggy

Hull paint: some level of customisation good. Allowing a choice of pre-defined paintschemes with 'only' historical colours (that's still an awful lot of choice) should allow for nice variety whilst maintaining some sort of cohesion. It would also allow for those lovely Cochranesque attempts at disguise and deception, which would be very very cool. I also like the mentioned idea of paintworks being part of the economy. Maintenance is cool in my book - it's a very real consideration IRL. Sail paint/dyes: historical customisation good. No massive symbols, no mental colours. Natural canvases vary in colour a lot from the bleached white through various flaxes and linnens in myriad off-whites : They get dirty from the tar and tallow on the rig: And tanned canvas (listed in fishing equipment inventories from 1677, patents records for various mixtures from 1768) can leave a sail anything from bright red to deep brown. Not a thing that I've ever come across for naval vessels, or square-riggers in general, but definitely big with European working boats of all kinds: Which should be enough to keep a bit of variety and individuality without going mental with colours. Baggy ps. Nobody mention Alexander von Humbolt...

Another voice of support for Privateer's fine post, and one against anything that would make 'ramming' (the intentional driving of your vessel into another with an intent to cause damage to her) a lightly undertaken activity. Ramming like this would only really work - you win, they lose, end of story - against a vessel small enough to lie under your bowsprit (though not necessarily your dolphin striker). By happy chance, anything that small would simply be pushed aside by your bow wave and go bouncing down the side of your hull largely unaffected. A bit bigger and although your head gear might be man enough to take being punched through a cutter's mainsail without breaking, all you've no achieved is picking up an extra ships boat with no easy means of retrieving her! Trying to ram anything bigger still would certainly involve some level of damage to your head rig, including potential loss of spars. Which is pretty stressful, and not that conducive to effecting an epic win. Laying alongside another vessel is tricky and dangerous enough as it is. We came alongside a square-rigger with her yards braced square (it is common practice and courtesy to brace sharp up when alongside) once in my old boat, a fore-and-after, and it was bloody hard work to keep clear of a tangle aloft. Clearly in battle priorities are a little different, but the risk of disabling-ly serious damage would still be a major concern. Huge risk, very little reward. In terms of hulls, a stem post coming crashing in between frames will stove planks in, without doubt, and no wooden vessel is good at shock/impact loads. There are some wonderful (scary!) images of collision damage from lots of classic yacht races. So it's not that causing damage is impossible, and there does seem to be potential to use the tactic offensively. However, the odds of a successful hit are so low, the risk of damage to your own vessel aloft and below so high, and the net result (two vessels stuck together) so tactically ambiguous that it should not, in my view, be an attacking option to be encouraged. Blast with shot, lay alongside and board. Don't go charging in jibboom cranse iron and outer forestays first! Baggy ps. This is very different to not wanting collision physics to be looked at.

Haha, I ended up reading it too. We're a group of naval combat enthusiasts: we're in no rush! Short answer to the short question: dunno, sorry. Worth asking, and fingers x'd for an informed answer. Baggy

Welcome to the real world Baggy

Well there's Surprise (Unity) already in, which is a good start And hoping this week to put up some pics and plans for some Breton (and Cornish) luggers which hopefully will grab the attention of one of the excellent ship modelers who pop in to these forums - we need something for the cutters in-game to chase down! On a vaguely related note, anyone here know where this shot was taken, or indeed where Hermione is at the moment? I think it was taken from Le Cap de la Chèvre as she leaves the Bay of Douarnenez...pretty perfect picture for NA, although it seems whilst I've been away the first 'map' will no long be the English Channel...? Baggy

What a cool discussion Forgive my wading in here without doing any of the research put in by the two of you, but just drawing on practical experience: unless someone has a decent reference to the contrary I'd be surprised if the four-yard three-squares'l thing was ever used all at the same time. It strikes me, as mentioned by AKPyrate, to be the plans and model makers showing all possibilities rather than the realities Do either of you know how the course yards are rigged? I'm trying to come up with ways that don't involve them fouling the luff attachment for the mains'l. To me that collection of spars and canvas would be used in progression on a downwind passage as the wind lightened - first tops'l, probably, although maybe the small course (the one that sheets home to the lowest yard). Then the little course/tops'l. Finally if conditions allowed the the small course would be stowed and the large course set...and maybe eventually all three set at once. Mental! Would love to see/hear and details about how these yards are attached, and how it looks like that would effect hoisting/lowering the gaff. Brailing mains'l? I certainly wouldn't complain to see versions with just the tops'l, tops'l+small course, tops'l+large course and tops'l+small+large courses. Four vessels for the work (-ish) of one, and all that extra in-game variety. Nice one coen020, she looks stunning Baggy

I found this stunning photo earlier, and it reminded me just how rare it was for a ship to carry her full sail in a breeze. In the pic you can see it's not a stormy day, looks to be about Force 5, and Hermione is sailing nicely almost dead downwind under reduced canvas. It would be outstanding if the wind mechanics of the game made it a comparatively rare sight in NA too. Carrying too much canvas has all the downsides, from decreased performance (too much heel adversely affecting steerage, too much leeway, too much initial speed becoming too little speed as the vessel starts to slam into waves, slowing her down and risking structural damage) to loss of the vessel with all hands, via blown sails and sprung and broken masts and deck fittings. In a 20-knot moderate breeze, a vessel might run downwind at, say, 10 knots, comfortably having all plain sail set (as the apparent wind over the deck would be only 10 knots). This is what square rig is designed for. However, the same vessel on the same day going in the other direction would be experiencing 30 knots of wind over the deck, a very different situation and one that would require shortened sails and/or reefing (down to a deep reefed-reefed fore-tops'l and maybe deep-reefed spanker if it was getting really draughty) to avoid potentially serious damage. NA is looking better and better, and it looked pretty good to start with, but this is one of those things that constantly jars with me, and detracts from the immersion. The Youtube video of the Lynx sailing in rough conditions (found ) demonstrates the best wave and vessel motion I've ever seen on a screen...but is compromised by the wrong sail set. Pity, as otherwise it'd be perfect Baggy

I really like points 5. and 6. Belphe, not least because all the time I look at Naval Action I also see a realism mod based on such a beautiful engine I think much of what you suggest might be outside the realms of possibility if the game is ever going to be finished, but the devs have said that they are open to NA being modded. For all the pros (personalisation) and cons (divided community), it is mods that you'd be most likely to see things like fully modelled crew or vessel interiors. So, don't be disheartened by what we've said, but get Unity and start having a play Baggy

Thanks for the info - was planning to head to Mystic tomorrow to see her, now I know where to go!

Weather and sea state variations will be modelled...but not wind? How?! What is weather variation without wind variation? And sea state is driven by...wind!Please please have another think about this. The English Channel is famous for its variable weather and wind patterns, conditions which have profoundly influenced vessel design and usage, and the Caribbean for trade winds and squalls. The examples given were fair and exciting, but seem to miss the point. Don't have 0 wind, that's fine, we all understand. But give us 5kts and studdingsails (your art dept is still wrong ) and give those historically light and lofty vessels a reason to exist, and advantages to work. Likewise, winter gales in the Channel are thoroughly unpleasant, I've ridden out enough of them in traditinal sailing vessels, and surviving them was a major driver of some hull designs. Give us these too, and likewise give a reason to these vessels and give the players controlling them something to do! Likewise with trade winds - sure they give a pretty steady 15-25kts from a pretty steady direction, and exploiting them is what square rig is really for, but there are frequent squalls of varying intensity that could be the breaking of a ship, a passage, or engagement. I've just driven across the Atlantic, and it was boring. We got 3 days sailing in, which were great and not at all boring. Driving is boring, motor boats are boring. Please don't make a game, even in whatever 'Open Sea' equivalent mode you plan, of driving motor boats from A to B. Give us wind, let us use it, in all its fickleness and variety, and let us experience the frustrations and so the joys of the real world sailor. Please Baggy

That depth of damage reporting would be wonderful! Immersive, informative,in many ways a winner. And I'm with you that some issues are hard to both see and read, but some are practically obvious - not altering course etc. And if damage doesn't cause any practical problems then it's not really damage! Basically I'm after a damage model that shows me damage and models it (!) in a bid to avoid the visuals showing half the hull missing, but the model still schooning round at 25kts blowing the wossname out of every foe. Just wanted to give a little real world backup to the notion of damage, and the effects of damage in particular, being noticeable and so not necessarily requiring a bar being depleted, or even on-screen text, or any of the other 'normal' gamey UI which it seems we all hope NA will rise above in time. On a related note, I'd like the option to assign a hand to keep an eye on any given vessel and report notable course changes, sail changes, damage incurred, apparent targets etc. It should help keep a realistic level of situational awareness in messy fights.

Ryan, or anyone else, would you be able to provide any info on any traditional vessels you know, like, recommend etc on the Eastern seaboard? Planning to be in Newport, R.I. around May for a bit, and thinking about using some leave (from my job a sailor on a big gaffer) to go sailing on something nice and old...or at least traditional Busman'sholidaywhat?! Baggy

"Damage would be very hard to read..." I'd like to respectfully entirely disagree Hard to see maybe, buy not hard to read. From big things like broken spars (bowsprits, topmasts, mizzen booms) lumps of boat missing above the waterline and blown sails to less obvious - a cap shroud rolled out, steering gear fouled, broken gaff jaws, even seasick crew - I've been at sea with other vessels and have been able to a) spot something was up and see or workout what it was from up to ten miles away and sometimes in very reduced visibility. Just by way of supporting the visual damage modelling advocates. Anyway, to get towards the question at hand: please incentivise me to surrender. Please let there be a risk of my crew surrendering on my behalf if I'm being a bloody idiot. Don't force me to sink every time. It's not interesting, nor fun, nor useful and a lot of game mechanic problems go away when sinking every time goes away. Also, can we please remember that, hopefully, much damage can be caused by the elements. It's not all blood, splinters and see-through topsails. To actually deal with the question at hand: * audio-visual damage model. No bars. Reports from officers an acceptable workaround for damage hard to represent. * same damage model for me and NPC. * shot should be tracked, and damage what they hit. The previous generation of combat flight sims managed it, so should Naval Action. * This means accurate (and so informative) holes in hull and rig. The chance of knocking out a block or parting a line cause loss of sail control if not loss of the sail itself. If you can't see the damage itself, you should at least notice the impact it has.^ * Visible crew would be nice but not necessary, because... * Most information on a vessel comes from her apparent intentions and how she executes them. Slow to alter course, missing stays, sporadic return fire, sat low in the water with an exaggerated roll at odds with the swell, unusual sail trim or suit...all things you might see on an otherwise apparently pristine vessel that would tell you things were seriously amiss. And happily, I hope, none too complicated to model. * Sounds are very very very important. When a sail flogs, you know about it. With surprisingly little time, the tone of the rig, and indeed the creaks of the vessel herself, can provide half of all the information you need about it. And having a breathless Second shouting in your ear that the gammoning has been shot away and you're about to loose jibboom and your foretops would, I imagine, probably get your attention. Noise of battle or no! Baggy ^ For example, it was uncommon for a spanker to be set on every point of sail in every set of conditions, so you might not realise that you've shot the enemy's halyards away. But you should realise that when she's unable to sail so well on the wind, or even keep her head up, and her spanker isn't set whilst yours is, what has happened. Conversely you might shoot away the spanker tricing/brailing lines, and the sail would flop out and slat about causing no end of mischief. A flappy sail is an unhappy sail