Cecil Selous

True, but would also be one of the most stupid things to do. Go on a long journey to the event area just to surrender at the start of the battle and respawn in your last port. But well, humans, everything is possible I guess At least someone who is fast enough to put some crew on it gets a new ship.

Huh? Doesn't surrender or capture already grants a kill to the one who did the most damage?

Would it be possible that once the PB starts, the defenders who are in port, can't leave the port and join from the outside but have to join the PB directly from the port. There spawn would be right at the port in the instance. So it would only be possible for defenders who already are in OW or a reinforcement fleet to join from the outside and thus possibly gain an advantage and spawn behind the attackers. A screening or support fleet of the attacking nation can prevent them from doing so.

I would like it the other way around, like z4ys suggested. Only traders in your fleet, but you can put your goods on them. Your job is it to protect them. Player fleets with multiple warships is just ..... ugh (maybe only if you capture one and want to escort it home instead of teleport (why would you do this now) with assigning crew only from the crew pool of your main ship)

Interesting thought. I for myself would like to see that some minor upgrades will stay for the ship (maybe you already need them during the crafting process, like they are build in everytime + 1 permanent and 1 regular upgrade slot where you can customize a bit) and everything crew related like reload, boarding and tacking be based on experience which the crew members gain over time. Therefor crew must become persistent. Not all of them need a name or something similar deep, but it would be nice if the game could keep track of their status somehow. For this the doctor perk must become a standard game mechanic since we lose so much crew at the moment, that this feature wouldn't justify the effort to code it.

Hopefully with allies being good allies

I hate to mess with this because I am not really a part of the rvr but isn't it exactly what they did? A whole nation defeated your clan, although you were blockaded somewhere and didn't care for antonio anymore. We all know that SORRY is a very capable PVP clan and it is very hard to beat you 25 vs 25. So the brits chose this tactic because it was more promising. Bragging about it is not appropriate but this relates to both parties. In the last few days it was really refreshing to see that some kind of mutual respect was established with a lot less provoking statements and bragging on either side, even from yourself. Now it's back to normal. Constant direct or indirect insults. Accept the tactic of the brits and that it worked and come back in the future to kick our asses again. Besides that a port battle is always max 25 vs 25. It doesn't matter if you have a clan, a nation or 5 nations against you. Never got this argument or what's so special about this that you are one clan. You have very good and active members. We get it and we respect it. Your clan's performance and abilities are impressive but please be at least a little bit more humble about just everything. Take some heat out of all of this and make some normal conversation sometimes. Also a few weeks ago you pulled that flag for english harbor and captured it and then made fun of the french, swedes and danes when they concentrated there forces in these waters, while you took the mostly empty swedish ports at haiti and called it a clever move. Why was this clever and what the brits did wasn't? I aggre on t hat. It was clever since it worked pretty well but there is always this feeling of applying double standards in this whole rvr discussion. This also counts for both sides.

My other argument is, that this would make boarding more interesting imho. Devs already said that they will refine boarding to include better mechanics anyway. I don't know what they have in mind but I trust them to find a satisfying solution. Marines shouldn't be an upgrade, they should be on every warship. About 1/5 of crew size in large ships and 1/6 in 4th rates and below (primary source is "Nelson's Navy: The Ships, Men and Organisation, 1793-1815" by Brian Lavery. I have it from "Patrick O'Brian's Navy"). You should pay for them like you do for the rest of the crew. Suitable upgrades should only give some minor advantages to their fighting skill like melee, musket accuracy etc and not their numbers. Or maybe they can gain experience to become better (a thing that I would also like for the rest of the crew). Beside the boarding aspect they would also provide the musket fire at close ranges which was discussed lately in the forums. Often Marines also served in the guncrews. Right now we have the extreme of combat fitted ships and boarding fitted ships. Some run something in between. Boarding fitted ships have disadvantages in fighting other ships but have an insanely huge advantage in boarding (talking about 4th rates easily capturing 1st rates). And usualy the boarding fitted ships never sail alone, at least I have never seen one, so this disadvantage in combat can be somehow countered. If new boarding mechanics get introduced in the future an almost equal marine complement on comparable ships just makes it more interesting and exciting. Hopefully it would be totally different from the current mechanics where you don't need to click in the last second. You need to make the right decisions to win the boarding fight and both opponents have the chance to win. Crippling the enemy before you attempt to board them becomes more important. Also smaller ships can't board much bigger ships anymore without some preceding work. 50% percent Marines is the most ridiculous thing in the game in my opinion. I can imagine that the majority thinks otherwise but I am just making a suggestion here. Troopships can still be a thing. Maybe you can hire a bigger marine or infantry detachment if you want to capture forts in port battles or to capture ports in general (I always found it odd when france, sweden, or denmark can hold a port on jamaica without infantry support while the rest of the island is still in british hands)

Please no. No sliders for marines. I am absolutely against those ships with 30 - 50% marines we have now and those sliders, at least in the way you suggested it, won't change anything. Historic marine complement for every warship, thus no marines upgrade, sliders etc. For a 4th rate this number would be somewhere around 60 (first rate around 170). That you have to pay for marines is okay though. And the possibility of troopships to capture large forts should come with a really big disadvantage. Bigger as it is now with gold boarding mods. This is like the fifth time I mentioned that. I am repeating myself and I am kind of stubborn with my opinion on this subject

Not really a good comparison. You can't chose the cannon you want to shoot individually and very often you wait for a good moment to fire just to see a new cannon reloaded and screwing your whole aiming in the process. And with space you fire just deck by deck, so first you have to fire all your weatherdeck cannons and after that the gundeck. Additionally shooting with space is very slow. Sure, you can F1, F2, etc like crazy but that's just awful. Holding space like Hethwill suggested to fire until you release the key sounds interesting.

Hm, very informative video. You SORRY guys seem like a nice bunch of people with one exception. Good battle!

True. Though in some ships I have the feeling sometimes that it is not totally in my hands. For example the Rattlesnake. There is an odd artificial pause between the 3rd or 4th cannon and the rest, which can really fuck up your raking attempt. The idea behind fire as she bears for the game is that every gun crew tries to fire when they reach the point of the first shot. If you don't want to make it too op you need to implement some variations in it. Maybe even simulate the effect off the smoke on visibility and thus accuracy. Like others said, too complex and too much effort to code it for a feature we almost already have. Faster manually shooting via spacebar would be better too achieve this. Maybe a variation like shift + space, because with space you just fire the cannons of one deck from front to back and not all decks.

I don't think this suggestion is ridiculous. How can you say that? It would bemore realistic than what we have now. Does it make raking and demasting easier? Yes it does but another factor that makes this easier is our current aiming system. We can aim our cannons horizontally and vertically like hey are mounted on a turret. Within seconds we can change elevation and the horizontal alignment. We can snipe masts, the waterline and gun ports. I would rather see a mechanic where you have to set the aiming arc and elevation beforehand (slow down the change of both drastically) and then aim with you whole ship. Maybe even different for every deck. You have to look for waves and ship movement. Then you can introdcue a "fire as she bears" option. With the current aiming system it would be easy to do a devastating rake. If that is a good or bad thing is up to discussion. EDIT: With the locked sector option and the right speed you almost have a fire as she bears. So I don't think we really need this proposed feature.

Honestly, I think it is not a good thing. Shooting through gunports is kind of overdone if this is really the reason of the heavy crewloss. A big part of the gunport in terms of surface area is in most cases the cannon itself. And also the gun crew isn't hugging their barrels all the time. I don't agree with a statement, that says that a grape shot to the gun port affects the whole crew of that gun. Most will hit the gun themself, maybe ricochet and hit a few crew members. I also think that not every ball of the grape itself will hit the gunport. So if it is that easy to hit a gunport and kill the crew on that cannon and quasi "kill" said cannon. Why is it far more difficult to do it with ball shot?

This would make even more sense if the wind strenght would be variable and the resulting load on the masts is simulated. I think both things go hand in hand.

You have a point. Another thing is that people ingame mostly shoot at each other while still making 10+ knts, every sail to be found is set and heeling is the norm. Battle sails ftw if there wasn't the threat of floating barracks.

That's right and we all get how the game mechanics work to achieve this but is it plausible or even realistic? Was it a thing back then in the age of sail to kill (or wound) most of the enemy weatherdeck with one broadside of grape? Battle reports say otherwise in my opinion. Battles that lasted for hours with fewer casulties than the ones we can achieve in one grape broadside to the weatherdeck. Of course there are many sailors cramped together, but there are also all those hammocks in the netting around the ship that gave some protection. And the bulwarks aren't that low, that you are fully exposed even if your heels into the enemy. Like I said in the other grapeshot thread I don't thnik that grape is broken, it is simply too effective.

Morale loss should never make you auto surrender. I agree on that. It should always be my decision if I strike the colors or continue to fight. Also moral shouldn't be influenced by the sheer presence of an overwhelmig force but only by damage taken. We already have reload shock if you take too much damage in a short amount of time. But the crew completely recovers from that. A morale system could have an impact on efficiency. Right now your efficiency lowers with crew loss. You can't reload all guns anymore, can't man the sails completely and if you have leaks the situation worses. However, if you disable one broadside and your stern and bow chasers too, you can still reload the other side in the given time. With an morale impact on efficiency, this reload time will get longer although you can man those guns entirely. Also the speed of crew transfer could be affected by that. Of course there is still the problem that those mechanics would be too artificial for a game and if they just lead to a more frustrating gaming experience. BTW: how is the initial morale at the beginning of a boarding action between two players calculated? Straight away I can't remember if both opponents always start with 100%.

And yet nobody cares.

That's a pity, but I just assume that you plan something big with the land in port battles and to implement this is a bit difficult.

I bet that most of the time one party (the ganked one or the reinforcements) has to sail upwind and has to beat to windward. That's not fun either. And what if the initial battle participants stay close to the battle start location? You will have dozens of ships spawning close to them, making a possible fair fight very unbalanced. I could live with 3 min timers but not any longer.

I just realised how much more detailed this map is. Especially the coastlines. Nice!

For fucks sake which game are you playing that you can't find battles? Which nation do you play and where do you sail?And if you are so eager to have really large ones, why don't you want to use TS? Without TS the large battles are everything but fun. Don't you sail in a group if you want large battles? I finally made the decision to not visit jamaica for a while because I got bored of the large clusterfucks there. No coordination, some leave and you can't rely on them, many prefer to wait for them exiting BS etc. etc. That a game has a large playerbase at the begining which then declines is totally normal. Especially for a niche game like NA. lower playerbase results in fewer battles. that is pure logic. But the lower playerbase is not the result of the 2 min timers. Don't gank! simple as that. You hate it too, so why do it? I honestly don't know why gankers have fun in the way they play. If I get ganked by a way larger force (like a 5 vs 1 and above) and have no chance to escape, I pop off some broadsides and surrender! They will get my ship and maybe that is there only goal, a confirmation that their tactic is working and somehow "fun" but I save some useful time. I can't be bothered with this playstyle and the usual go kart ramming to board with floating barracks (which for me is way more frustrating then getting ganked). So before I get chained to death I surrender and save my crew. It's the players. They will even do this if the timer would be 10 min. But in this case you will also get the other types of ganks, which were common before the devs switched to the 2 min timers. And I still didn't see you responding to the problem with longer timers and the resulting ganks out of nowhere (ports, BS, behind drawing range) And if everybody is sitting in port waiting for something to happen it will still happen, but they can't do anything. Sail out there, be active and don't hesitate to help someone if you see it happening. This is another problem, people just don't care for others even if they could turn the gank into an equal fight. I saw it happen so often, people in bigger warships and higher number around me or others. But in in the instance you won't see them. The solution to that is not a longer timer but a change of mind (And maybe XP/gold distribution according to the BR, but who knows. XP and gold is not really the incentive and shouldn't be). I think the 2 circle idea has some great potential too. We will have to wait and see. Not the solo player is the problem, but the large groups who don't prey on other groups but lone players. But you can't punish them for that. It is lame, yes but it is not forbidden. Just don't play with them.

Why all the hate? It is called a "safe zone" but there will be still pvp. And by the looks of it I asume that there will be a lot pvp in smaller ships, which aren't that complicated. It's just artificially made fair with the new ROE. So in theory it minimizes the frustration of newer players. With the new freetown distribution there will be only one right in the middle of the bahamas (ok not right in the middle of the rookie zone), Maybe a way for "noobs" and more experienced players to trade via delivery or for a nation to support their new captains with resources. Finally not everything is cramped around the main capital. Also, why are there so many who suddenly care about the bahamas? Everytime I was sailing there it was kinda dead with rather rare sightings of actual players. Changes in port ownership over the last few weeks can be counted on the fingers of one hand (maybe even less).