AKPyrate

Though I'd be more in the mood for combat xp myself, I don't see why this can't be added as well. Additionally, if a new port is captured by your nation, there's an incentive to actually visit that port. Something nominal, such as 10-50 xp per port visited (one time only) would be fine with me, as I'll be honest that usually I've been finding a good hunting ground and staying put for sometimes weeks at a time instead of exploring more of the map. I've never hit the mainland except briefly due to logging out in OW recently and logging back on I happened to be outside Charleston as a Brit (until that glitch is fixed...don't log off in OW!...luckily I was able to teleport back to my capitol without being attacked). When the map started listing goods produced/consumed and I got curious. However, that curiosity only lasted so long as to find some local ports that produced what I needed to dabble a bit in crafting. It was stated a while back that the game would encourage exploration as well, and I could see this as a great way to do it. I do think that xp/distance sailed would be easily exploited and should not be implemented. Another option is to make 'exploration xp' a separate entity to leveling xp. Instead of rank, you can earn titles and awards for exploring. Possibly some leveling xp/gold/ship blueprints/other rewards could be earned by achieving these titles? Not enough to make post captain, but enough to create a bit more incentive. Possibly earn (in the random order I think them up) a knighthood, title of 'cartographer', a coat of arms (such as Cook's posthumous one granted to his widow and decedents by George III), title of 'explorer', or maybe something like the 'James Cook Award'. There are lots of possibilities that could maybe unlock trivial things, such as certain flags that fly from your rigging. Just something to brag about and get some personal satisfaction (and proof to others that you did it). And some of these honors could be achieved simply by fulfilling missions, such as visiting any port on the mainland, visiting all the free ports in game, visiting Bermuda, visiting a port on each of the main islands, etc. Sorry for the bit of rambling, but even though it's probably not for me, I like the idea and think it would add depth and additional goals to the game. It could also make different styles of ships more desirable (speed over firepower, for example) and increase the diversity of ships we see in game.

Of course, hopefully this feature will go away when the game is complete. It is a work around for now, but hopefully it is not used for navigation by many players long term. Really, the navigation is pretty simple as is, and if you're trying for a long voyage, it would have been uncommon to get a perfect landfall anyway. It's also possible to just 'island/port hop' from one place to another.

Navy brigs are well armored and fast, but they are sluggish in turning. If you can stay on their stern and outmaneuver them, then you've got a good shot at sinking the thing. Different enemy ships call for different maneuvers. Now I haven't battled one yet since the wipe, so if they've changed stats you might be on to something. Also, I'd like to know what ship you're sailing, as that can make a huge difference.

8 bells (4 sets of two, so :ding ding.....ding ding...etc.) is the nautical bell signal for 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 hours. Each set of two bells was an hour, and single bells were for half hours. The nautical 'day' traditionally begins at noon, which is 8 bells. Having this sound once per day at 'noon' in game time would be just fine with me. Hearing it once every 20 or so minutes that I'm in OW wouldn't get annoying and could be a good reminder to myself about how long I've been online and when I need to finally find a port and log out.

Really where xebecs excelled was in lighter winds due to their lighter build. This made them more fragile, but nimble. Additionally, many carried sweeps as well. As for dousing the sail and hoisting it on the other side, this is not a necessary step, though it was likely done on longer legs. However, by not rehoisting the boom, you'd often have one 'good tack' and one 'bad tack'. Sometimes they would have tried to mitigate this by hoisting the fore and main sails on different sides so that at least one of the sails was drawing well. This would create a decent compromise that, while not achieving their best sailing trim, would be much better if successive shorter tacks were required (say beating up a channel or going for that prize to windward). Below, though not a xebec, shows the lateens on each side of the mast: Additionally, this shows lateen rigged vessels sailing on both tacks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAByJmEsOdg

Chain and bar shot really would be equivalent in game (the slight differences really wouldn't matter). I do wish that chain would take out the shrouds and stays a bit better instead of just sails, but fine tuning the dismasting feature has been an ongoing process. Also, I second what maturin said: chain would not 'tangle' in the rigging. It would slice through sails as well as standing and running rigging. It would cause havoc, but not necessarily have the ability to take out spars themselves (unless by severing the rigging holding that spar in place).

This has been discussed to death. You can teleport back to your capitol if you get too lost, or just sail around until you find land and get your bearings from the nearest town. As for navigation back then, it was...crude. Making your proper landfall after a long voyage was rare, and weather could drastically impede your ability to fix your position. For now, and likely for the duration of the game based on what devs have stated in the past, this is just the way it is. In reality, the navigation isn't that hard. There's no current, no leeway, fairly accurate speeds, accurate chart, etc. Just point in the direction you need to go to find your destination port (or the channel between islands before altering course to destination) and even with the wind against you, you'll make it there.

Another benefit could be making the less optimal higher tier ships more popular because of reduced availability of anything in that tier. Then, there might not be quite as many Constitutions sailing around because another heavy frigate (yet to be rendered? Maybe the smaller Congress or Constellation?) that might not be quite as good, but still a good vessel would be used by more players. Also, with the addition of more ships that are actively used instead of a half dozen 'ideal' boats, there would be even more unpredictability during engagements.

It should also appeal to those of us who want more immersion and less 'gamey' features, such as an instant position on the map. They didn't have it back then, and even celestial navigation was not very precise; generally it got you just latitude and your longitude was a guess. The navigation here is not all that difficult without any leeway, current, etc. and our charts are more accurate than they would have been back then. Many charts were hand drawn by the captain/officers/pilots in the day. I'm sure there were some well sounded areas, such as the Thames estuary, Plymouth, Brest, etc. that may have had mass produced charts, but often the officers would rely on their own personal knowledge from previous voyages in the area, guesswork based on the topography of the land, and doing their own surveying when time/weather/resources were available. They would also copy each others' charts if they had no experience in those waters. So, yes they could easily put their own notes on it. Below is an example of one of Capt. Cook's earlier charts as he was learning surveying in Canada during the Seven Years War:

As I've said before, I'd like to be able to manually estimate a position on the map and mark it (say before logging off during a longer voyage). Other than that, showing which port you're in (and possibly if you are right outside that port and close enough to read it's name) should be quite enough.

There was a lot more than just keeping water out involved. Ventilation for crew health and preventing mold/mildew from the excessive humidity was crucial. As for those vessels above without ports amidships, those decks are also open to the weather. They probably had sufficient scuppers to allow the water to escape in case of rough seas, and they'd let that same water in during rough weather, so the extra water coming in from the ports would be negligible. That being said, it may not have been the absolute safest thing either. I'm just throwing a couple of possibilities out here.

Agree almost completely. Instead of a randomized shock effect, I'd like to see it at least loosely based on the damage done by the last broadside (especially among the gun deck and crew), morale, crew health and fatigue (if those ever become factors), and yes crew experience/training as well.

You can supply your own music. There are plenty of youtube videos and other sources of music that you can go to for entertainment while playing (and the music does come through while playing the game). Additionally, shanties were generally not used by navies as work songs; they were much more common among merchant ships, and even then the vast majority of the shanties we have today came from the mid to late 19th century. They would definitely not be sung in battle, as it would make it much harder to give and hear orders. Contrary to contemporary belief, shanties really weren't used for that long as work songs; less than a hundred years or so before steam power (even mechanical winches and capstans on some sailing vessels) phased them out. So, for our era, they weren't really used. Many of the older 'shanties' that we know of today were really just songs that were sung while not working.

Additionally, heavily laden ships can be faster than if they're being transported 'in ballast' or in fighting trim. They should accelerate and turn slower, but with the designs of these vessels a deeper draft can occasionally increase waterline length slightly, which will in turn create a faster theoretical hull speed (lots of factors here, including extra friction and extra draft, but in general the longer the vessel for the beam, the faster it is). Additionally, once up to speed, waves will slow down a light ship much easier than a heavy ship, and the momentum can be used to carry them through a slower tack while maintaining more speed. Furthermore, the weight of cargo should be compared to the weight of all the cannons, extra crew and possessions, food for the extra crew, shot and powder, less than optimal stowage of weight (cannons are higher weight than cargo would generally be, potentially causing stability and trim issues). In short, a naval vessel and a merchant ship built along the same lines could be easily loaded to the same draft lines, and the speed would not be appreciably different. Often why merchant vessels were slower was because of limited sails (many merchants eventually were 'cut down' creating fewer sails, thus cheaper to operate for the owners), and the design of larger merchants was heavily in favor of cargo space as opposed to speed. But, if they're the 'same ship' in game, there really shouldn't be a difference in speed.

So, if you set stuns'ls, you'd be okay only sailing on a broad reach and possibly wearing (though that usually meant striking stuns'ls on one side and setting them on the other, as there's usually not much point to setting leeward stuns'ls due to the wind shadow of the rest of the sail plan. Additionally, it does take a lot more coordination as there are many more lines involved and they are more finicky. These sails are set 'flying' and are not nearly as easy to control as the majority of the standard sails. Any damage to them would exacerbate the potential damage to the rest of the rig, as the extra booms could easily poke holes in the main stack of squares and possibly foul the braces as well. Additionally, if we all are on the same page without them, then there's really no point to having stuns'ls except that some people kind of think it looks neat. Additionally, it should be noted that sometimes more sails actually slows the ship. I really wish this would happen in higher wind so we don't see people with full sails in a hurricane. Many of the British ships did not, in fact. For example, Tonnant had her stuns'ls torn away by enemy shot before cutting the line, Nelson ordered Neptune to take in her studdingsails and drop astern of Victory, and Temeraire cut her stuns'ls away as was stipulated in Nelson's tactical memorandum of October 9th. Ultimately, it just isn't necessary in this game, though I would be all for it if an over press of sail caused damage in this game. That way, I could laugh as my opponents tore up their own rig for me on their way in to battle.

Heck, I'd settle for the shrouds not to pierce the sails/yards when braced close hauled. Flapping sails and relative motion between the yards is WAY down on my list. At least they do back when proper, but this can just exacerbate the issue with standing the rigging.

So, essentially do what ship repairs do at sea already... No thanks, just man up and stock up on the repair kits. Also, careening could only be done on certain beaches and was extremely risky in the case of storms coming in. You could loose the whole ship that way, or be stranded for up to a month if you chose the wrong tide to careen on. And, most importantly as stated above, we already have repair kits. Careening would be redundant and a minimal savings of money/time.

Grand Turk and Pheonix are not the same, nor was the Grand Turk based on the HMS Pheonix. The Grand Turk was loosely based on HMS Blandford (1741). Both the HMS Blandford and HMS Pheonix (1743) were "post ships", essentially small frigates of 20-24 guns, but I haven't found any indication that they were of the same design. The Blandford and Pheonix were built from the 1719 Establisment, though the Blandford from the 1733 modification for 20 gun frigates, and the Pheonix from the 1741 establisment of 20 gun sixth-rates: There is a brig replica called Pheonix these days, owned by Square Sail, but this is not a replica of that 1741 frigate. Pheonix works a lot in the movie industry, so her appearance has been altered multiple times (yes, that caravel is Pheonix as well).

By showing class, I meant something as vague as '5th class', not 'Leda class frigate'. As for how captains knew enemy ships...spies and peace treaties. Some of the larger vessels would likely have service lives as long or longer than many of the sailors' careers. And any new ones built would take years in which intelligence about them could be ascertained. As for the frigates, they were often the newest, fastest designs and thus spies would try to learn as much about them as possible. Then there's just the plain act of taking enemy vessels. Often more than one ship was made to specific drafts, and thus characteristics would be shared between multiple vessels. As for smaller boats, there were so many of them that they did differ quite a lot, but it also didn't generally matter in the case of them vs. frigates or greater. There was a lot learned of these smaller boats during the chase.

Not a bad idea, though I do think that the 'conversations' could get old pretty quick. It would be nice having some sort of history and context in game. I know there was talk a while back about having some sort of index of the different ships, with pictures/models, history and stats. That could be expand to notable ports, historical actions, etc. as well. I was imagining this in port, but it might not be a horrible idea to have it in the OW as well, and possibly force us to identify the ships instead of having the name given to us. That way, you had better know the difference between the looks of the Constitution and a regular frigate, or a 3rd rate and a Santi. Of course, being given the general class given to us, but forcing us to identify between, say a Trincomalee and a Cerberus. This might be a little more difficult if they do implement different paint scheme options for vessels; if those are used to generate more funds and give a distinct advantage (say having a red frigate so people mistake it for a Cerberus), then I'd hate for this to become a pay to win kind of game. But I like the idea in principle.

Quite my point. If damage could be greater for ramming, accidental or otherwise (hey, look around at other boats in your fleet once in a while to avoid crossing their bows-maybe limit the damage silly AI vessels can do to you though?). That being said, I think that low speed collisions (i.e. trying to board) should have little damage associated with them in general. Maybe if the relative speed of the two vessels coming together is less than 2 kts (or some other reasonable figure), that there will be no damage? However, there can be great damage for any vessel colliding at higher speeds, though taking tonnage into consideration. Let's face it, a Lynx isn't going to sink a Victory, or even do much damage beyond paint and maybe some little bit of Lynx's rigging to clear away from the spar deck.

Another account, this time in battle: Here again, the "ram" was unintentional. It was due to shooting away the mizzen, which made the rig out of balance. Ultimately, it did not bode well for the 'ramming' vessel.

I think that losing a bowsprit during a ram would be completely feasible. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the buffed masts, though I can understand keeping the buffed up lower masts for gameplay purposes. That being said, here is an account of an actual collision during this timeperiod, and one that was an accident at that! EDIT: Descriptions of these actions can be found in William James' "The Naval History of Great Britain" (Vols 1 and 2). This is on line at: http://www.pbenyon.plus.com/Naval_History/Index.html END EDIT. Based on this account, and a comment that I read about it stating that the frigate sent over work crews to help repair the damage to the HEIC ship, that the frigate was relatively undamaged. Of course, the Marquis Wellesley was at anchor and thus had very little relative speed. However, the M.W. was an 818 ton vessel (http://www.wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?139187), and the Egyptienne was a 1,434 ton frigate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_frigate_%C3%89gyptienne_(1799)). Most importantly however, is the aspect of the crash. The frigate essentially sailed across the bow and it became entangled. All the attached rigging was pulled, resulting in a partial dismasting of the fore mast and a lot of other damage as well. Additional incidents from the era, though I haven't done as much looking in to them: Ultimately, collisions had a very unpredictable outcome during this era, and could cause immense damage. Remember, back then just winning the fight was the first part of the battle. You still had to make it home afterwards. It's no use pounding the enemy to submission if you're going to sink shortly afterwards. Besides, tangled rigging is a mess that can severely alter the battle in unpredictable ways.

Lady Washington, a 90 ton brig. It helps that she has a tiller, as a wheel often will slow actual rudder movement.

A couple of problems with your argument, even though I do believe that with no masts the turning should be limited more than it currently is. With the ship upwind and with a speed of 0.0kts, the turn rate is not necessarily faster than real life. Rudders are just one tool for turning. Sails can be manipulated in ways that aren't possible in game in order to cause a ship with no speed to rotate; sometimes even rotate with great speed. Second, especially with smaller vessels, the rudder can be 'pumped' to turn without any way on. I've done this on a square rigger myself, though it is much easier and more realistic with the smaller vessels, say up to a brig or snow. Additionally, sea anchors could be rigged on the bow/stern and used to help warp the vessel around, just as they sometimes did with anchors in port. As for the sailing, as long as a boat with no masts is headed downwind, I don't see much problem with him going 2-4 kts. My sailboat has a max speed of about 6.5 kts, but I've had her going 3 kts downwind while trolling in 20 kt winds under bare poles and no engine. Some of these ships, even without rigging, have more 'sail area' in their hulls than moderate or even large modern sailboats. Additionally, on the smaller ones the rudder can be used to scull slowly, and small boats could potentially be lowered to tow the vessel as well. I'd just say that what you see in the game is trying to simulate lots of possibilities that they don't have the need to actually have a command for, and just haven't or won't have the graphics for.