Subutai

"Jack... You have debauched my sloth!"

To answer the poll: No, I would not like to manage a business. But I would love it if everyone else did, more prize money to go around, amirite?

Yes, HMS Superb commanded by Captain Richard Keats. The two Spanish 1st-rates literally destroyed each other (both exploded) while he sailed past to capture a French 74.

Not to mention the analogy is flawed... The rifle of the 19th century was a specialist's weapon, not by any means standard issue. The M16 is today's "musket", and today's "rifle" is a purpose-designed sniper rifle with telescopic optics. I do not deny that the Baker rifle or something similar may have had shot-for-shot "better" kill statistics than say the M16, but you also have to realize that 1. They had to make the shots count. Modern warfare with self-loading firearms means volume of fire wins the day. A rifleman in the 19th century could not simply spray lead at anything that moved, but you can bet your ass he would if he had the technology. 2. They were shooting man-sized targets standing in the open in dense formations, unable to effectively return fire, at relatively close ranges by modern standards. Modern warfare is about firepower. Marksmanship is great, don't get me wrong, but the reason the assault rifle is the weapon of the day, and not the bolt-action or semi-auto battle rifle of yesterday, is because it can simply sling more lead. Most ammunition today is going to be expended in suppressing fire and things like that... To say riflemen of the 19th century had better shot-for-shot kill stats because they were better-trained than today's soldiers is a baseless statement.

Agreed. Especially in cutting-out operations, or attacking a fleet at anchor, fire ships have played decisive roles. They were a common and real enough threat to warrant specific countermeasures by a fleet at anchor expecting to come under attack.

Yes I have noticed this as well. Especially in situations where artillery fires canister into a melee mothball, it seems the damage is particularly biased towards the enemy.

I would personally like to see a Napoleonic-era UG but I know that is probably a boring choice because it's close to the ACW era and is kind of overplayed because of Total War... but I like how we get to see an early combined arms concept developed into a high art. It was half modern, half archaic. Gunpowder weapons were standard, firepower was the key to victory, but cold steel could be a viable weapon under the right circumstances. I like how many analogies there are to modern warfare. Maneuver warfare with heavy and light cavalry is analogous to modern armored tactics, with IFVs and MBTs. Horse artillery was like SPGs. Dragoons (or at least the French ones) were like mechanized infantry. And who doesn't love the "hoof-thundering, sabre-rattling glory" of the cavalry charge?

Perhaps he meant the brigade forming multiple squares by regiment? Not that it would be a very useful feature.... Yeah I would think by the time of the ACW, the infantry square is kind of vestigial. Cavalry simply cannot directly contend with infantry without an overwhelming advantage of some sort. Cavalry vs cavalry actions might resemble something Napoleonic but that's about it. If cavalry in the game had no combat abilities at all, that might actually be a more accurate simulation.

Yeah cavalry should not be able to oppose infantry brigades so effectively.... Even if this were Napoleon's time, I'm not sure if cavalry would be that powerful...

@AlphaCentauri Might be a bit out of the game's time frame... would be awesome though.

WG is such a pos dev... Their attitude towards their community borders on predatory at the worst, non-cooperative at best. Do yourselves a favor and get War Thunder. I was a long-time WoT player. Played WT for ten minutes, that was the end of my relationship with WoT. Recently came back to play WoT casually, somehow I knew I would regret it. My 29.99 USD Super Pershing, which had already long been considered under-powered, had been nerfed for "historical" reasons. WG. Historical. Right. Seriously. Get as far away from WG as you can.

HMS Leander and HMS Newcastle were heavy 4th-rate frigates designed specifically to counter the American 44s. There is also USS Brandywine, the "final evolution" of the American 44 (lol like this is pokemon or something) carrying a main battery of 32-lbers! OP

@akd I agree wholeheartedly. Capturing an enemy vessel rather than sinking her was historically a much more common, and much more desirable, outcome, and it would great to see that reflected ingame. Just think on our share of the prize money... she'll be loaded with gold, and ambergris, and all the gems of Araby... *clinks glass*

You are forgetting one thing that is real, and is at stake: time. Imagine being an unmanageable hulk, dead in the water. You know your opponent will simply lay to off your bow or stern and rake you with impunity. There is nothing you can do now except watch helplessly as your opponent pummels you until you sink. Who would want to continue playing at that point? True, there is nothing to be gained by saving the virtual lives of your crew. Equally true, there will be moments in the game where continuing to fight will gain you nothing. I can only speak for myself but I'd like a "surrender" mechanic at that point, if for no reason but to save time. If there's one thing I hate it's being forced to sit and do nothing in a game.

From what I've seen on the NA Youtube channel, combat is about sinking enemy ships. While this is obviously not a new concept in naval warfare, during this time period, wasn't it relatively uncommon for ships to actually be sunk in battle? Isn't it much more likely for a ship to be reduced to a dismasted, undermanned, disarmed, useless (but otherwise for the moment, floating) hulk, before that point? Would it be practical to reflect this in the game?

Just wanted to say, I've been a huge fan of the Darthmod series for awhile now, and I love what is going on here. UGG is awesome!