Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Juan Navarre

Members
  • Content Count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Juan Navarre last won the day on June 4 2018

Juan Navarre had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

86 Excellent

About Juan Navarre

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. +1 Beyond getting stuck, I understand that there is some historical precedent for ships running into underwater rocks suffering some kind of damage. It would be great to see naval strategy pull some more weight in the game. It seems to me that the strategy in the game currently is all about choosing which mods and upgrades to ruin the authenticity of your ship's performance with. Getting the weather gauge and keeping your bearings provides precious little advantage compared with having l337 sniper skilz. Having to pay attention to shallows would go a long way to bringing some more strategy into the game.
  2. Wierd. And you are zoomed in all the way with your scroll wheel? I wonder if it has to do with which ship you are sailing. I seem to be able to stay on the deck in my Indefatigable. Might be because it goes right to the bow chasers or stern chasers. Anyway, I agree that a first person view from the helm would be ideal.
  3. Can't walk around the deck, but if you are zoomed all the way in with the scroll wheel, you can look around a full 360 left and right and stay on the deck in the center of the ship. That is how I usually do most of the battles, just turning from starboard aiming to bow chasers, to larboard, to stern chasers. Unfortunately, if you press Ctrl+H, it won't seem to let you switch out chain, grape, charge, etc... So it is tricky to do the whole battle without the holographic HUD.
  4. I really thought, reading the game's description, that the OW was what the game was all about. That it would be like Sailaway, but with 18th century brigs and frigates instead of modern cruisers and catamarans, and with the occasional naval battle to spice things up. There is no combat in Sailaway. Sailing the OW is the entirety of the game. Just like the OW is the entirety of MS Flight Simulator and XPlane. The OW is fun in those games because there is more to sailing a boat or flying a plane than just WASD around the map. Sailing in the open world would be fun if there were any actual sailing involved.
  5. This seems complex, contrived and like it would require a completely new mechanism. Missions in an assigned ship dedicated to that mission would be simple, intuitive, and the mechanism is already in place for the tutorials. As the OP observed, the appeal of the game for many is to be in an interactive Jack Aubrey story. Jack got assigned to the Sophie, and told what his mission was. He didn't have to purchase her, outfit her with mods and upgrades and then wander around looking for something to do. It is just intuitive that if you have the skills, but don't have the capital, you sail someone else's ship until you can afford one of your own.
  6. As I mentioned in another thread, missions on the PvP server should play matchmaker. French players getting a mission in a 5th rate at no cost will defend their nations weapons shipment against British players whose mission is to capture said French weapons shipment, etc... If you have no control over what ship and upgrades you are using, it would be a way to create balanced encounters in which people's objective will be to accomplish their mission, rather than to preserve their irreplacable Hercules, so that they don't get stuck in a cutter. Letting people run missions without having to use their cutter to capture a snow, and then using their Snow to capture a Cerberus, and then using their Cerberus to capture a Belle Poule, just to get back to where they were each time they lose their ship, won't ruin the game economy. It would in fact be less disastrous than the current setup, where deleting and starting a new character is extremely lucrative. I've seen those naval clocks going for 10Mil, and a Hercules note going for 4Mil + 800 combat marks + an Agamemnon. Even aside from all the nonsense that can be done with alts, if I were inclined to join a clan, what would keep me from outfitting my whole clan with all the Hercules notes and Naval Clocks they want, and then getting a few quid pro quo from my clan afterwards? Seems to me that if you get no starting cash, no ships, and the reward for passing the exam is just the rank, and the missions that go along with that rank, it would eliminate a lot of those types of shenanigans, and be better for the game economy all around.
  7. I am not quite sure how you distinguish between captaining someone else's ship, and being provided with a ship for a specific event and nothing else. Is it your ship that you own and can do whatever you want with, or is it a ship that you are captaining, but do not own?
  8. Not true. M&C can have a max of 280. 400 is post captain. I think a better route than having basic ships to buy for free like the cutter, would be missions where you captain someone else's ship. So, for example, a M&C without a ship of their own could take a mission in a Surprise, which they would be unable to sell. They would only be able to attack the target of the mission, and would not be able to place anything in the hold, or remove the supplies provided from the ship. If they have the fleet perk, they can keep any ship that they capture during the mission, and by completing the mission, they will receive enough reals to afford to buy their own ship.
  9. Historical accounts aside, I can't think of any mechanism that would prevent ships with similar velocities from grappling because of their speed through the water. The leeward ship would presumably be able to cast grappling hooks from further away due to height advantage of the increased heel. Other than that, what else would STW or SOG affect with regard to casting grappling hooks?
  10. A better historian than I might correct me on this, but I sincerely doubt there are any accounts of boarding that include the speeds of the ships. 18th century ships were not equipped with the precision speedometers we are accustomed to in Naval Action. They had chip logs, which were pieces of wood cast overboard and attached lines with knots tied at regular intervals. A sailor would count the knots that were payed out over a period of time accounted by use of a sandglass. Needless to say, this involved process would only be accurate at all if the ship were kept on course for the duration, and would be impractical to use in a pitched battle while maneuvering to board an enemy. Additionally, the crew might have had other priorities than determining their speed at the time. We can infer that grappling was accomplished at a variety of speeds though. The first and most obvious inference is that if bringing the enemies speed down was a challenge that boarders had to overcome, there would be some account of it, and of the techniques used to reduce an enemies speed to a point where boarding would be possible. There are also accounts such as the 1779 battle of the HMS Serapis and USS Bonhomme Richard, in which Captain John Paul Jones tethered his ship to Serapis as a counter to the smaller ship's superior maneuverability and gunpower. If he had to reduce the Serapis to 2 knots before lashing the ships together, then lashing the ships together would not be an effective way to reduce her maneuverability, since it would be a moot point if he had to effectively reduce her maneuverability in order to reduce her maneuverability. Further, in 1799, the USS Chesapeake was heeling enough that she could only hit the rigging of the Shannon, when she lost maneuverability and became entangled with the other ship, and was subsequently boarded. The only way she would be heeling that much is if she was under enough sail to be going more than 2 knots.
  11. Did they remove trading and crafting and switch to an arena style deathmatch game? I must have missed the memo.
  12. Curiously enough, in his 1782 treatise on the subject of naval tactics, John Clerk sorely neglects the very effective tactic of ramming your bow into another ship under full sail in order to push them windward and get them down to the 2kts required to board. One would think he would have dedicated half the book to that, and the other half to the art of mast-sniping. It makes you wonder, "did he even sail?" It seems to me that DD is silly, but no sillier than the rest of the boarding mechanics. If there are going to be magic missiles in the game, why not have magic shield spells to counter them?
  13. I love everything except the health bar, and extracting the oil onboard. Onboard tryworks weren't really a thing until the 19th century as far as I know. You should get blanket pieces for your hold that you can either sell, or refine into oil at a refinery building that you can build at an outpost.
  14. Three things I love: 1. I love all the details and authenticity in historically accurate ship models, sailplans, points of sail, etc... 2. The ships and environment are gorgeous. 3. I love the physics of sailing in combat. Yard control, heel, leeway, etc... Three things I would improve: 1. Crews with names and stats. Assembling and managing a crew seems like it ought to be an essential function of a naval captain. Also, losing a crew member who had seen several battles together with you and had unique stats that could never be replaced would raise the stakes and investment in combat. 2. Sailing in the OW. The sailing physics are by far the strongest part of combat, so why not have them in the open world? That, along with some sailing challenges like storms, reefs, etc... would practically double the content of the game. 3. Bring the crew animation and graphics on par with the beautiful ships and environment. The only crew is on the cannons, no sailing crew, no crew holding swords and flintlocks, ready to board, no one at the helm, etc... The cannon crew has some of the worst foot sliding I have seen, and it's hard to tell what they are supposed to be doing. Three things I hate: 1. The boarding minigame. It is literally worse than no minigame at all. Autoresolving would be an improvement at this point. A real time strategy minigame where you click on units and assign them to shoot or grenade or attack enemy units would be cool. A first person shooter minigame where you board the ship as a captain armed with flintlock and cutlass would be cool. Pretty much any minigame you can imagine would be better than waiting 15 seconds to click a little rectangular button. 2. The holographic handholding HUD. No need to read the wind or guess at the enemies numbers. All the situational awareness and metagame info you could possibly want is force-fed to you, so that you can focus on the real challenges that 18th century captains faced, like aiming the scope of their sniper-cannons. 3. As I mentioned, one of my very favorite things about the game is the detailed attention to historical accuracy of the ships and how they sail. Those beautiful details are undone when a ship made of fir is magically 20% faster than the same ship made of live oak, and a bunch of mods and upgrades will make it faster still. Materials and modifications to ships should have effects that reflect the same authenticity that was put into their original design. Modifications and upgrades with a larger gameplay effect should relate to the skills of the crew, rather than destroying all the work that went into the historical accuracy of the ship's performance.
×
×
  • Create New...