akd

The crew listed (380) seems to be correct for the 1797 Constellation. Thing is, she was rated for 38 guns but carried 48 and was very big for her rating (over 1200 tons), so that might explain her large crew. As noted, Surprise was built to carry 32 long guns, and was initially rated in British service as a 28-gun frigate, but she eventually switched long guns for carronades and added additional carronades, as these didn't require as much crew. (She also has too many guns in game.) Surprise was 578 tons, which shows how comparing based on number of guns alone is misleading.

If you move a long distance in the battle instance, you seem to come out further away from the initial location, which is great as it makes exit less predictable. However, some have reported ending up very, very far away, so perhaps there is a bug?

Currently spawning ships in their relative positions and distances in the battle circle at initial instance creation works quite well. If I am far downwind of the enemy near the edge of the circle, I will find myself far downwind in the instance. But then ships that join after the instance is created can show up much closer to the enemy (I think they are teleported to the instance creators location). This both looks and feels ridiculous, and provides an incentive to stay out of the initial instance creation, especially if you are in a slower ship that might not have been able to close the distance on the enemy in OW or gain a favorable wind position. It is a mechanic that is ripe for abuse. As such, the minimum distance for a reinforcement to enter, even if they are clicking join only moments after the instance is created, should be the maximum distance ships join at in initial creation (i.e. the edge of the circle). The distance should then increase from there as time lapses.

I thought that the original plan was for surrender to reduce repair costs, but now there are no repair costs if you suffer total loss in battle. So truly there is absolutely no reason to surrender, and maybe even incentives to behave suicidally if it will cause your opponent to suffer repair costs. Officer / crew loss (if not in crew numbers then in some experience factor) is the best way to make surrender an attractive option and force players to weigh the cost / benefit of suicidal behavior.

For the love of god, please change her name to Cherubim. "Frigate" is incredibly confusing in an open world full of various frigates.

The port was La Tortue and flagged neutral last time I sailed by there in game. Did it change? If not, please don't name it Basse Terre. Too damn many places named Basse Terre!

I think it's great. We are losing more guns over the course of a battle, but loss seems okay relative to hull integrity. I'm only really losing lots of guns fighting large numbers of AI, which makes sense to a degree. As others have mentioned, the AI does not seem to be managing leaks well.

Until there is an actual alliance system, I'd prefer to be able to refuse players also. This total free-for-all joining, combined with terrible spawn mechanics, is just resulting in pure chaos and confusion.

But I don't see how that 24pdr would work in that position. Maybe it was meant to be rolled forward to the left or right foremost empty gun port in action?

Currently modules are collectively more valuable than most individual ships and are theoretically immortal (as long as you don't put them on a 1 durability ship). This is a recipe for a pretty weak economy and somewhat stale "end game." I personally think that modules should be made less valuable, less powerful (and/or have more opportunity costs) and more expendable, such that they are more about small marginal benefits and tweaking individual play styles, rather than gaining very large, permanent bonuses, and so that they can contribute to economic churn. The whole idea of "monkeys of reloading +3" dropping as "loot" and kept as treasure forever seems an unnecessary concession to traditional MMORPG mechanics that doesn't fit the spirit of NA at all. I'd rather see resources and money gained as "loot," resources and money which can then be put toward a player-driven ship upgrade crafting system. This would all fit into the game much more logically.

Do modules really add anything to the game? If they are something you want to have, then they should also be subject to risk.

People really shouldn't get caught up in nominal rating reflecting actual balance in gameplay. There are old 1st rates that would be handily beaten by a newer 3rd rate. Saying that rates as built should be changed to reflect actual balance in fights will lead to all sorts of confusion. Just think of rates as an honorific title indicating the status of the ship to her nation when she was built.

She was built with 90 guns and the Russians considered her a 2nd rate. Rating systems were not universal, or even particularly consistent within a single country. Obviously she could be considered a strong 3rd rate, or a weak 2nd rate.

There are very good reasons to have distances be meaningful in game and not allow teleporting. The only balanced way (preserving the distance implications for economy and PvP) to offer travel without sailing would be to allow captains to "book passage" to another port, but require the real game time to travel this distance passes before the transfer occurs. As long as this time is tracked while the player is logged off, then you would be able to make a long journey without physically sailing. This would need to be only for captains, their officers and the captain's personal effects and wealth. No moving ships, upgrades or economic resources. This could even be made very tangible in the world, providing additional strategic and gameplay possibilities. E.g. you would book passage on an AI or player's packet ship that would then need to complete the actual journey. Interception of the ship (capture, destruction) would result in additional time penalties applied to the transfer. Obviously players would pay a premium to book passage on a player ship, and this would open up a whole specialist role in the game for fast packet ship captains. There would also be strategic benefits to hunting and catching these sorts of ships, which are otherwise poor in economic benefits.

I don't have a problem with it being harder to see at night, if it has meaningful gameplay implications. Current cycle is too short for that, however. If night is just like daytime with different aesthetics, I don't see the point. The shorter view distance that annoys you might benefit someone else pursuing different goals.

Night is already ridiculously short compared to day. More like Northern Europe latitude (in summer) than Caribbean latitude, I think. I agree that the entire cycle itself is very fast, but I think it is pegged to the travel time compression, i.e. we are sailing realistic distances per day of game time.

oh look, it says tester under my name. Can I get access to latest beta?

Appears to be Belle Poule using plans from this book: http://ancre.fr/en/monographies-en/17-la-belle-poule-fregate-1765.html

eh, I think it should be backed up with an actual alliance system, not some on the spot I fight for you today because it is convenient but not tomorrow system that will be totally chaotic.

You should be able to withdraw from boarding as well (although your opponent would need to have an opportunity to prevent this and counter-board if they have sufficient combat strength).

Studding sails didn't really increase speed. They allowed you to maintain decent speed in lighter winds. The wind is always blowing strong and constant in NA.

my god, it's full of schooners

Just watch: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/06/03/fallout-4-confirmed/#more-292747

If a particular cannon loses efficiency at 10 feet, then 8 feet would have higher MV. The range implies the distance for actual loss of efficiency depends on other factors. No it doesn't.

Nothing in the above quote says that. "Beyond that is a waste of metal," yes, but it does not say there was no practical difference between 8 and 10 feet. Maybe with poor powder the max was achieved with an 8 foot barrel, leading to no gain with a 10 foot barrel, but with good powder, etc. (other things equal), 10 feet might provide a noticeable MV benefit over 8 feet. Just follow the ballistics link posted earlier. Barrel length is a factor and is born out with correlations between predicted and tested values.