Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Privateer

Ensign
  • Posts

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Privateer last won the day on September 27 2014

Privateer had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Privateer

  • Birthday 02/17/1995

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Ontario, Canada
  • Interests
    Sailing, naval strategy, and the history of both.

Recent Profile Visitors

443 profile views

Privateer's Achievements

Landsmen

Landsmen (1/13)

15

Reputation

  1. PotBS had a chat command in which one party could request that another surrender a portion of its cargo. While I doubt this was intended to serve as an official forfeiture mechanic, it does bring to question the validity of conditional surrender with respect to the uncertainty of an online gaming environment. In my experience, there very little. I cite EVE as a prime example of this: ransom under threat of force, while effective in reality, is not particularly worthwhile in a game. Here are the strategic odds: should I choose to continue fighting, I am guaranteed to lose no more than that which is presently at stake, and have the potential to reduce the net gain of my enemy even if I am ultimately defeated. However, should I agree to a ransom, especially if payment is expected in some form other than cargo, crew, or ship—the assets truly at stake—(in EVE this is often direct currency, which cannot be involuntarily stolen but can be voluntarily forfeited) then I am guaranteed to lose a certain amount of money and an uncertain amount of assets on hand. If my opponent does not honour their end of the bargain, I am out the value of the ransom and the assets at stake. Here are the psychological odds: if my defeat is assured, there is no economical incentive for them to spare me; they could readily defeat me and take what they wish without the hassle of diplomacy and trust. If they are attempting to bluff, and cannot guarantee my destruction, then their gimmick will be revealed when they are defeated by me instead. All of this is not possible should I concede to strike. I have willingly acknowledged their superiority and elevated them to a position of uncontested authority. I have no assurance that my opponent will honour the deal, nor the means to enforce it. For the most part, on the internet, surrender is usually the worst decision in battle. It is a cowardly mistake made by amateurs unfamiliar with the one thing that separates virtual conflict from the corporeal: you cannot die, nor can your lasting reputation. The best course of action is to keep fighting until the last man, swim home, and avoid a similar fate in the future. To this end I believe that surrender aught to be decision made not by the immortal player but by the virtual crew who virtually can die.
  2. I agree that it's not as straightforward as I made it out to be. I should have been more clear in my explanation regarding PotBS: it would seem that stern camping is the dominant skirmish doctrine against lineships in a small (especially 1v1) environment, barring intervention by other ships that may thwart one's attempt to camp. In fleet action stern camping isn't particularly reliable (you may get some excellent raking broadsides in during a fleet melee, or when the opposing line comes about), but for the most part, in my experience, a line battle consists of a lengthy exchange of broadsides until one of the lines exhibits major weakness, and/or when both fleets have closed in to the point where breaking the line is inevitable. You raise an excellent point concerning frigates. In many circumstances an agile frigate can bring both broadsides to bear in the time it takes a lineship to reload once, which not only improves the frigate's effective firepower but its survivability as well, even in a strictly broadside-vs-broadside encounter. My points regarding "negligible emphasis on the pilot's own intuition" are primarily with respect to EVE's fleet combat mechanics, in which the type of ship and its outfitting play a greater role than the pilot's ability to use that ship. For example, a frigate pilot can still be a formidable opponent in a battleship despite possessing little experience with that class of ship, if they have good character skills, a solid fitting, and can follow instructions. This is not the case in small-scale skirmish environments (such as 1v1), in which the player's tactical acumen has a more dominant role in dictating their survival. I believe that in a real-world setting, there would be much more emphasis on the pilot's ability to use the ship than the game chooses to acknowledge. A frigate pilot may be used to a small, tight-knit, specialized crew and a broad range of responsibilities, as well as quick feedback from a small and maneuverable vessel. Placing this pilot in a battleship environment would demand the cooperation of hundreds of men and officers, through which orders would flow much more slowly and feedback would be equally delayed. The pilot, incapable of being everywhere at once (figuratively), would have a far less intimate relationship with his ship and company, relying more on the reports and discipline of others to conduct routine, much less combat, operations. When the smoke fogs his view, the splinters scatter his crew, and the incessent rolling of gunfire (all of which are much more pronounced on a large ship) add additional layers of difficulty to all of this, simply following the instructions of the fleet commander as if he were aboard a frigate would require a lot more work than that with which he is familiar. I hope that better explains my position on the matter. (Does it?)
  3. On the subject of large ships, though this may not be the most appropriate of places, I would be interested in seeing the overall difficulty of operation scaling with size. While this may be intrinsic to existing mechanics, a viable method of limiting the effectiveness of men o'war, I suspect, may be in requiring extensive knowledge, preparation, and attention to detail during their operation. Perhaps a sloop or schooner is far more forgiving in most conditions, and requires less multitasking to use effectively. Conversely, a first rate is an incredibly expensive monster that requires a very large, well-trained crew to function, and is much more susceptible to environmental hazards such as shallows, gunports coming awash, and strong headwind during tack. The crew's responsiveness to commands may be considerably slower for large ships, especially in the heat of battle, which may become a compounding issue when casualties mount. Citing EVE and PotBS as prime examples, the scale of the vessel does not adequately (in my experience) dictate the amount of skill required to use it effectively. I find that EVE's titans and dreadnoughts—roughly equivalent to ships-of-the-line in their respective environments—certainly require a lot of preparatory commitment from their operators, and necessitate a great deal of strategic coordination leading up to the battle, but in the heat of battle itself are not particularly demanding. The pilot can rely on their character "skills" and the quality of their outfitting, as well as the tremendous effort of their entire team, to see them through battle safely. There is, by contrast, negligible emphasis on the pilot's own intuition; FC calls targets, spam F1 through 8, wait til the thing dies or moves out of range. Smaller ships have the luxury of keeping the thing in range more easily, but are otherwise ostensibly the same. Small skirmishes are a different matter, though capital ships and small skirmishes rarely coalesce, thus the comparison is moot. PotBS (again, in my experience) seems to tell a similar story. Ships-of-the-line demand different tactics than their smaller, nimbler counterparts in an asymmetrical skirmish environment, but on the symmetrical fleet level the difference appears manifest only in tempo. When everyone is sailing first and second rates in a port battle, it's essentially a frigate battle but at a slower pace. The alternative invariably devolves into bouts of "stern camping," which I find equally dissatisfying. Granted, I'm not the most skilled or knowledgeable player on either front, but I do speak from several years of experience. Does any of that make sense? I suppose the crux of the issue is EVE and PotBS lack the grandeur associated with capital ships. They feel like larger and slower versions of everything else, but little more. They aren't particularly difficult to use, and tend to have very high intrinsic survivability by virtue of numbers, rather than commander skill, alone.
  4. That makes sense. I wasn't certain as to how NA was handling heel. The topsails are less likely to take hits and are comparatively easier to trim (ideal when able crew is in short supply), and with further reading I gather that staysails were more reliable in heavy weather, as their use was more conducive to precision heading when the squares became quite cumbersome. You could aways time your shots with the roll of the waves, failing all else.
  5. Poyraz raises an excellent point, and I commend the citations. The weather gage is a key advantage in fair weather, but under extreme conditions can be to one's own detriment. Apart from reduced firing elevation, lower gunports can become awash. This reduces the number of effective guns that can be brought to bear while underway. If I recall, the ship's moment of force depends primarily on the distribution of sail area. At full canvas the ship experiences the greatest amount of heel not only because of an increase in overall force, but as a compounding effect of an increase in the moment of force. Consider a mast with only its course set, all others furled. The moment of force will be low on the mast, close to the hull (and, thus, the center of mass). Conversely, a mast with only its topsails set will experience a higher moment of force, well above the center of mass, and higher still for gallants and royals, etc. It stands to reason that, for an equivalent amount of sail area, the course will impart less heel than gallants or royals in arbitrary conditions, meaning that a leeward opponent would (in theory) favour the use of upper sails with the inverse true for the opponent to windward. In practise this may not be the case, as the reliability of rigging is roughly inversely proportional to its distance from the hull. Am I correct in assumption?
  6. I'm in accord with BungeeLemming on most points. Some noteworthy aspects of collision as far as bowsprit/rigging interaction are concerned (insofar as I am familiar): First and foremost (pun not intended), the bow of a sailing vessel is very unlike its oared counterparts. Galleys with rams could rely on strong prows without rigging getting in the way, to put it simply. A sailing vessel with a bowsprit is a comparatively fragile machine, the existence of which generally precludes any possibility of unilateral damage upon collision. If the bowsprit comes in contact with another hull at considerable speed it will likely shatter, potentially penetrating if the victim's timber is sufficiently weak. Should the bowsprit become lodged in the hull (or rigging, in the case of a two- or three-decker ramming a sloop or frigate with significantly less freeboard), the ramming vessel will be torqued orthogonal to its present heading (in the case of a right-angle collision) as the kinetic energy of the victim transfers to the rammer. This will assuredly destroy the bowsprit and impart a violent force on associated rigging, potentially disabling the rammer's foremast entirely and compromising the bow structure itself, depending on the intensity of the collision. The effect of the ram on the victim, I conjecture, will depend primarily on the point of impact. Should the bowsprit of the ramming vessel become entangled in the victim's shrouds, the resultant torque may be sufficient to collapse the affected mast. Under normal conditions the shrouds counter the positive force of the wind with negative tension, with respect to the ship's heading, but the considerable surge in negative force (as the rammer is torqued in the direction of the victim's heading—Newton's laws coming into play) may overwhelm the rigging. A similar effect renders hazardous a tack in heavy weather, where the sails may be taken aback as the bow crosses irons (producing strong negative force on the rigging) in which case wearing ship is the preferred maneuver. Ultimately, I see ramming as tactically undesirable. It is tantamount to mutually-assured destruction if the conditions aren't strongly in the rammer's favour, and the risks are significant. In all likelihood it is a case of "trading a mast for a mast," should you compromise your own foremast in an effort to destroy that of your opponent. If the rammer possesses a tremendous size advantage over its opponent these risks may be mitigated, but if the opportunity for man o'war ramming sloop arises in the first place the fight can assuredly be decided by other, more orthodox measures (either the sloop is disabled and thus unable to adequately fight back or the sloop's conn is incompetent/AFK/what have you). All to say it's ill-advised, but certainly not without merit, in my opinion.
  7. I believe games tend to appeal to a different, smaller crowd, if only slightly. I am familiar with a number of people who play the kind of games that mimic that which they watch on TV. Grand Theft Auto stands out among others as a series targeted primarily at the drugs/sex/violence crowd (correct me if I'm wrong), and a lot of plot-driven games offer increasingly strong sex appeal—the "innocent" gateway to further intimacy. While the mainstream gaming market (which is growing explosively by virtue of desktop/mobile/console accessibility) may lag behind Hollywood in terms of indecency, I suspect that a similar fate is an inevitability. But I don't mean to drag the discussion down. Master and Commander was, in my opinion, an excellent cinematic portrayal of the period when compared to its contemporaries (POTC, I'm looking at you). It is always refreshing to see elements other than stereotypical piracy manifested on the big screen. By extension, life aboard a warship was no picnic, and M&C certainly embraced that reality. I hope that, one day, history as it really happened can triumph over the fictional archetypes from which POTC and many others were born. But that may just be wishful thinking.
  8. I am in concord. The state of modern media disgusts me for this reason. Tangent, it's worth noting that pirates weren't the only ones who spoke trashy and exercised little restraint; life on a commissioned naval vessel was arguably far less desireable, with men of all ranks committing unscrupulous acts abroad. Of course, there were always exceptions on both sides. Teach was not a man devoid of decorum, but he leveraged his fierce disposition to win by fear rather than force. I'm not well-rehearsed on the likes of Roberts, Vane and Rackham et al, but I suspect they were as cruel as they appeared, so it all comes down to context.
  9. I was informed by a friend on World of Warships, but a PotBS player myself also. Surprised I didn't encounter it sooner, but it looks remarkable. I've run many a Golden Age tabletop RPG, but to see it really come to life is wonderful. As my schedule permits I would be more than happy to help out in any way I can, directed both to staff and the community, though I apologize for hijacking this thread a bit. Fair winds and following seas, mateys.
  10. 80% explorer, 50% killer, 40% socializer, 30% achiever I don't seek to dominate but I enjoy the thrill of the hunt. Should we be on disagreeable terms I will spare no effort in defending the honour and interests of my ship and her company; provoke me and I will show you the error of your ways. However, vindictive I am not, and I will chastise friend and foe alike should we ever engage in an unchivalrous manner.
  11. Ahaha, it does tend to have that effect. For me, it's been predominantly PotBS and the Stronghold series (just like old times) as of late. I used to be quite into World of Tanks, but ultimately never really settled into ground tactics. World of Warplanes is too fast for me, but I may get into World of Warships heavily when she goes live—alpha tester already, but that's all I can say.
  12. Yo ho and a bottle o'rum!

  13. Privateer

    POTBS

    PotBS was a great game in its day. It's a bit unfortunate, in my opinion, to see it in its present state. I don't see a lot of hope for that game anymore; it's well below modern standards and with negligible rate of development. Still, I enjoy it, and it's nice to see some of the old crowd here (and their everlasting ardour).
  14. I suspect this will appeal to a different audience in the long run than WoWS (I am also a WoWS alpha tester, albeit with limited experience). The nuances of combat in the Golden Age and the Second World War differ vastly, to the effect that any comparison really isn't worthwhile. I've seen quite a few from the PotBS crowd around here, which is interesting. Additionally, fancy meeting you here, Eyeless. You may remember me, if by virtue of World of Warwinds.
×
×
  • Create New...