Celtic

1.) Will Sail plans be done via individual sails? allowing for realistic/historical sail plans used in different circumsances. 1a) If Question 1 is a yes, will we be seeing yards carried away, or other rigging damage due to poor selection of sailplan. and giving reasons to risk carrying more canvas at the risk of losing a yard vice carrying less canvas but losing speed. 2.) Will it be possible for a player to start as say the watch officer, as opposed to the captain of a ship.

Given that we'll have avatars - will there be a potential to start as a ships officer (mate, lieutenant etc) , as opposed to the captain?

The point I'm making is that it's not really any more exploitable than the current systems, and is a bit of a strawman argument. You're gaining a modicum more XP for clicking one button, or you actually fight the battle out and gain likely more XP, at the cost of time. If people are going to go to the lengths to exploit for XP grind there are far better ways to do it.

Absolutely not - this isn't Eve. The game is already far too clan focused - generally to the detriment of the "nation."

How is that any more exploitable than the current system? Hint: it really isn't. If a player was so inclined they could use 2 alts and just get a ship near to sunk end the battle, rinse wash and repeat ad infinitum. As for your second point - yes lets balance the game around the fact that everyone is playing is admirals.

It sounded like Sea Legends will bring thing backward to NA though? I do agree that anything that would break into the meta of everyone sailing the same 5 ships.

Except there is literally 0 incentive to surrender, If you read what I suggested it would be 1.5x whatever they would have gained had they not surrendered and fought the ship down to a sink - which probably would have been more XP anyway. Basically the concept I'm suggesting is to make it worthwhile for after fighting a bit and knowing you'll lose you get a little perk for not just getting your boat sunk out from under you. If all you do is surrender without fighting you get 0 xp - and 0 x 1.5 is still 0. but 100 xp from fighting would net you 150 is you surrender.

I see this making the ganking situation worse - if a ship can sit outside a harbour continually sinking nubs it'll just continue to accrue repair supplies and be in no real danger

As a thought, having not played since one of the early builds....Choosing to have the land battle parts be AI controlled, but allowing the Player, if they choose to stay as a naval oriented player control Marines / Armed Sailors / Naval Manned artillery?

Hmm, when I purchased there were only the two options, now there is a third (more expensive) option, is it possible to upgrade?

Perhaps tie it to XP/Monetary reward? I do like the trade window idea - but as an alternative. If a player Chooses to Surrender They Gain 1.5 battle XP (representing lessons learned) (also offsets what they could have potentially got if they fought to end) 1.5x current Ship insurance payout a percentage chance to retain each upgrade (higher for books) Majority of crew is returned to you If a player does not surrender "Heroic Sacrifice" buff - 1.25 real gain modifier for XX Period of Time Current Insurance Payout "Risky Captain" Negative trait Crew is more expensive to recruit for XX Period of Time. All the above values should be up for discussion and adjustment to come to something that provides incentives to perform one or the other as the situation permits. Additionally I still think there should be a "Crew experience" counter which is dinged when you lose men - and would tie quite nicely into something like this. We should arguably be seeing surrenders far more often than we are seeing Straight sinkings if we want to be true to history. Captains would generally see the writing on the wall and in order to prevent a senseless loss of life strike colours. But as it stands there never has been a reason to Surrender vice fight it out the bloody end even if you're not having fun you might at least get more XP out of it. It should be more of a tactical choice that, even if I know I'm going to lose, fighting it out to the bitter end will help secure a victory for my team - but if it's either a lost cause or my contributions would be negligible I should be able to strike and at least get something out of it. Furthermore Captains, at least in the Royal Navy tended to garner reputations where Sailors would try and sail for certain "lucky" captains knowing they were good for going after prizes, or were generally viewed favourably. While other captains would have poor reputations, perhaps from losing large numbers of their men senselessly? and would have more trouble recruiting

Ping or no Ping - the Boarding game has never been either clear, or particularly fun. Which is actually rather unfortunate. While we can understand the limitations of what we can have limitations for what Boarding can be, it can certainly be better than what we have currently.

The Current tutorials and exams need a serious rework, currently the best advice on how to complete the final exam is to cheese the AI with the boarding trick, as well as dealing with the fact that in the Final the AI is given what amount to Hacks with unlimited Double Shot. I've had multiple people buy the game and the straight out refuse to play after completing the tutorials and then attempting the final exam. There are multiple threads on the Steam forum saying much the same thing about how they return the game after attempting the tutorials or final exam. I understand part of the difficulty is because the player who completes them is being given a lot of good gear...which would be okay if it wasn't tacitly implied that one needs to complete the Final exam in order to "be ready" to play in the open world. I believe a better solution would be to remove a lot of the gear and such that are being given to the player, and scale the difficulty back to a level that a new player can be reasonably expected to complete. As it stands the final exam is not a test of skill so much as luck, and knowledge of how to exploit weaknesses in the game mechanics. I don't think I've heard anyone say they feel accomplished after completing the exam, so much as they're glad its over. Difficulty is good, and I think the final *should* be a challenge however, that doesn't mean it should be this ridiculous exercise in exploiting AI weaknesses or run - repair - run - repair. There is so much to love about Naval Action, but players are being turned away by a gateway that isn't even representative of the actual game.

As I mentioned in the wishlist thread, the ridiculous designs have their place in the game, simply because look at some of the real world pictures we have - the French Tumblehomes, the British fascination with turrets stacked like wedding cakes...all these designs that until we hit Dreadnought were being seriously considered, if not built. I say bring them on, let us design our ridiculous Monitor style monstrosity. BUT make it so that it has the actual trade offs that such a design would incur. Let me put a 12" twin turret on a raft, but make it capsize in all but the calmest sea - because at some point somebody either considered building it, or did build it - and it failed miserably. the beauty of a game is that I can be the one to try it, and try it in a shooting fight against an enemy without accidentally killing off 400 real sailors.

To echo what others have said, we as the player/chief naval architect/admiral of the fleet, need more latitude in creating ships. Right now it appears we're limited to creating a functional if ineffective ship with a list of preset parts in a given tonnage range. Arguably this prevents us from turning around and going doing what the British Navy did with something like Dreadnought. We don't have the ability to buck the current trends and norms and create a ship that is incredible *or* incredibly bad. What I mean by this is that we should be able to play with the sliders and hulls with out arbitrary limits. I *should* be able to fiddle with things to go "Okay, if I have a low free board, offset by lengthening the hull and a wide beam I can fit 12" turrets on something that looks like a cheese board floating at sea. and have a low 'detectibility' as well making me quite hard to hit. This sounds awsome right? well then I should take it out, and find myself self swamped and flooding by the wake of someone swimming near by. Why is this a good thing? For every Dreadnought we've had in History, there's been an HMS Victoria or the Vasa (mounting a heavy broadside too low in the hull so the gun ports flooded). (which on that note - can we have the 1890's Hood and Victoria and all those as parts? And Ram bows?) It's far more interesting, and in a backwards way fun for a player to find that they've created something so horrifically ineffective because they got wrapped into the idea of putting the biggest gun they could float out there or making themselves hard to hit without considering the fact that they're still in a dynamic environment that doesn't need to penetrate your armour to sink you. As it stands, and what I mentioned before is that no matter what we as the player attempt to do currently, we're still constrained to making a ship that will always be 'functional' let us be as incompetent possible?

That may be a post after mine - I haven't caught up to the end of the thread. See below: The campaign will offer the sandbox mode you desire. Campaign will be available as soon as possible, when we finish some needed features that are essential for making the campaign interesting.

The explicitely said they're not including one a few posts above mine and that the only form of "sandbox" gameplay will be via the campaign

Really enjoying this so far, and will need to play more before I can come to any concrete statements. noting however your intention to not have a "sandbox" outside of the campaign seems a little shortsighted however, especially right now while people are trying to test out how to blow up boats the best. A simple "Quick mission builder" where you can design a ship, and select an enemy(s) to be generated would be ideal for this - or for people who don't want to settle in for a campaign or want to test configurations easily without potentially tanking a campaign.

I think it should be heavily considered to have Major Nation's able to sell ships to Minor's...It was very common up through the first half of the 20th century for Nations such as Britain to contract out during peace time to build ships for smaller nations.

I will say the Herc is too good, currently with the way the Req and Herc are implemented it is for $10 USD you get an unlimited dura ship that costs about 4k Reals to get kitted out again...that is what makes it OP and the 24 hour cool down mean bugger all.

To be fair, currently with the way the Req and Herc are implemented is for $10 USD you get an unlimited dura ship that costs about 4k Reals to get kitted out again. So the concept of "unlimited dura ships" has long since sailed once those were introduced. Being able to spend 20k or whatever to get back a ship isn't the worst idea right now, as it's much 'safer' economically to just spend the 10 USD and have a free 5th rate for the rest of time

Definitely interested, and want to see this develop

Ah I see

@Flyingtaco Where are you getting information about those ships being part of the Texas Navy? They were all ships of the Revenue Cutter Service which was part of the US Treasury, forerunner to the US Coast Guard.

Got to thinking about it and the "big name" US ships are getting a fair bit of representation in the various suggestions and polls. However the USRCS was...for a number of years the only naval forces the United States had at its disposal and having more small ships is ultimately good for everyone right? Do keep in mind just because they're "cutters" doesn't necessarily mean they were all cutter rigged. Revenue Cutter James Madison 1807 Revenue Cutter Eagle 1799 Revenue Cutter Hamilton 1830