akd
-
Posts
2,801 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by akd
-
-
40 minutes ago, fox2run said:
Now I just quit when I'm tagged by experts or gank fleets. No point of playing as nothing can be achieved. Only option is to surrender so the crew and perks are saved. I know many do this. It wasn't like that before.
You don't play the game, so don't make up stuff about how the current game plays.
-
2
-
-
verily!
-
1
-
-
Only speaking for myself, but AFAIK, LV is simply banned from that teamspeak for past behavior, regardless of what faction his clan is currently trying to control. Faction-switching is hardly a good reason to lift the ban, especially since it was partly the source of the ban in the first place. Repeated faction switching should also be a huge red flag to Brits when they are looking for diplomats for their faction.
-
1
-
-
This is a monumentally bad idea.
-
3
-
-
27 minutes ago, saintjacktar said:
The Devs created a resources war by making the wood types regional and caused the bulk of the fighting to be fought off the US coast (for Live Oak) and the Danes being the Danes had to immediately capitalize on our coastline and now we have evicted them and they've cracked it. If the Danes hadn't been so blatantly hostile they would be able to come to the diplo table
It was a good idea until the regional "resources" became decisive combat advantages that overwhelm player skill (or at least are perceived to). Resource wars should be about fighting for economic resources, not combat bonuses that give you an edge over other players. Giving combat bonuses for regions just reinforces imbalance: we take all strong hull regions and now it is even harder for anyone else to take them back, etc.
The better model is regional competition for economic bottlenecks like silver, copper and gold. If one group takes all the regions with a particular resource, they are then spread thin to try and defend them all, while at the same time the other group can resort to smuggling and commerce raiding to gain the resources, made easier by their enemy stretching themselves out to try and control all producing regions.
Regarding Live Oak:
-
4
-
-
Also, if you are going to quit the game because you don't have a regional bonus or a particular wood type, maybe the bonuses from these are the problem.
-
3
-
-
Design of event encourages ganking and is not integrated in any meaningful way with open world / RvR, so I personally lost interest.
-
21 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:
Yah I get why they did it cause it was being exploited the other way. You attack your alt and than you surrender and your side gets the points, but you think they would have found a work around for that.
If you want to exploit, you attack your alt, fire one good broadside into it, then have alt surrender and get the hostility points, so it is really irrelevant in that regard. Surrender is defeat; defeat should raise hostility.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:
Exploit would be a better word for it, but they should make it that it still causes hostility points for a surrender even if you don't get the kill or xp. To many folks do it as an easy way out and they tend to grab cheap ships to do it.
This seems pretty straightforward to me. Surrenders should count as victories for purposes of hostility.
-
2
-
-
Battles have always been capped at 50 total.
-
2 minutes ago, Challenge said:
I did that once. The cargo didn't fit in the ship I capped.
I think AI traders have the hold optimization perk. You can right click to split the stack of goods in the loot screen and take what will fit.
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, Wind said:
Yeah, but risky as well. If you decide to load 3 ships with materials and get attacked it will hurt bad. The thing is this option should be available I think.
Oh, I thought you were saying the cargo hold of your ship should have the total capacity of all your fleet ships. If fleet ships explicitly carry cargo in their own hold and lose it if they are lost (which I have advocated for because players should play as sheepdogs and AI as sheep), then that would be a big improvement. Lots of new UI required, however.
-
1
-
-
That would be rather exploitable Wind.
-
Pressing another button at the end of battle will surely lead to a significant increase in fun, especially if button-pressing gives you magic items! The most skilled button pressers will dominate the game.
Seriously though, smuggling could be made a lot more interesting on all sides of the equation. Hidden cargo might be part of that, but smuggling was just as much about the entire cargo of the ship and where and when it was delivered, which provides so much more opportunity for skill-based gameplay for all involved.
Anyways, searching for hidden cargo makes zero sense in the current implementation of smuggler / trader interception. I mean, if the bastard is shooting at me I know 100% he has contraband cargo and he better damn well hand it over if I catch him. It's not like he is going to sail off in his ship and keep what was hidden. Place it in a PvP context and what you propose is even more a feature for the loser than the victor. "Lulz, you caught me, but now you get to dice roll for the best stuff I was carrying!"
Also, I would like to note that the cargo of NPCs is already a dice roll for value without having to button press, with some pretty substantial extremes. (I made over a million off a single trader brig because it had fine wood.)
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BungeeLemming said:
this will happen every time a new ship is introduced. It is intentionally to make sure new vessels are not OP in PBs.
But she will eventually be allowed in.
lol, how are we supposed to determine that without using them in PBs? Sure you didn't make that up?
-
3
-
-
?? They are quite slow. I can catch up to trader brigs sailing straight downwind in my lynx.
-
Wargamer just posted a very positive first look at UG:CW.
http://www.wargamer.com/news/recon-ultimate-general-civil-war-early-access/
-
6
-
-
Nice comparison (forgive the "USS"):
-
Found a paper with a great deal of additional information on Confederacy. I had not quite realized that she was very large and heavily built for her time (160 foot gundeck!), especially compared to contemporary British frigates of similar armament. In fact, after her capture, the Brits noted she would be more appropriately armed with 28x 18pdrs, and--although misunderstanding the history of her construction--that she could have been "easily converted into a Ship-of-the-Line, for which she was first intended, her Keel and lower Timbers being equal to our Sixty-fours." Unfortunately, her hull was found to have suffered significant detioration from the use of green timber in her construction and neither of these ideas was pursued.
http://www.thenrg.org/resources/articles/Continental Frigate Confederacy by Douglas Robinson.pdf
-
3
-
-
1 dura ships have nothing to do with simulation or realism. Just pretend duras are insurance.
-
1
-
-
Yes, and in a very bloody action, thus Retribution.
-
Roux, French frigate in a gale, 1820
-
58 minutes ago, Cmdr RideZ said:
Someone could ask that what is the reason for the ship in combat, as it is purely about crew.
The purpose of a warship is to carry a battery of guns. The purpose of a battery of guns is ultimately to kill or incapacitate enemy personnel.
Do you really think that naval combat consisted of ships firing at eachother until their "hitpoints" reached "zero"?
-
2 hours ago, BungeeLemming said:
The crew is distributed between the stations you send them to.
For example: you F5 one broadside and fill your other side 100% with crew. that means you will have massive casualties if you get sternraked and aimed at your manned side.
Not sure this is the case. For example, it was originally planned / assumed that boarding mode would send most of the crew to the open decks, but turns out this is not the case. When you switch to boarding mode, crew remain distributed normally across all hitboxes (despite reduction in men on guns), but "armor" is ignored for penetration purposes so that the hitboxes are easier to connect with.
US Merchant Fleet around 1800
in History
Posted · Edited by akd
I think Prater has covered this pretty well. I've been listening to Ronald Utt's Ships of Oak, Guns of Iron: The War of 1812 and the Forging of the American Navy on audio and it contains similar statistics on the size of the merchant fleet and number of seamen, although the estimates of men employed at sea at any one time are highly variable. Will have to order a print copy to pull some of the numbers.