Blackie

Your concept of a sandbox game is completely different from most gamers. But that's fine. Your game, your rules. Don't expect everyone who believed your historical claims to accept this betrayal. I'm done. Go on and make your happy players happier. Forget about the many unhappy players who took you at your word from the beginning. I want my money back. Please post procedure for repayment. I have only played for a total of 16 hours in small battles, so don't tell me I have gotten my money's worth. There's nothing here worth playing.

And that's the problem. This is not a historical open world sandbox game which is what was originally advertised. Turns out the devs definition of this is a historical setting with historical ships and fantasy gameplay. The truth is they want to appeal to the short attention span generation in order to increase profits because heaven knows that's all that matters. And another thing. They keep saying that if people want changes they should make proposals for changes to improve the game. This thread and several others have made numerous proposals that will definitely improve the game, but these are ignored because it means changing the game and raise cries of "unfair" and "You're stripping features from the game." What about all the additional features that could be added that will make the game much more interesting and fun. No, that's not on the table. Only proposals that don't change anything are welcomed. Which is just another way of saying, shut up and go away. And it doesn't seem to matter if the vote is overwhelming in favor of such changes, I guess because the great silent majority has the final say. I say fine. You want another run and gun MMO with absolutely no redeeming value to anyone but the most shallow of players, then just go right on the way you're going. You'll find many will leave. And with waning popularity, the servers will be taken down and you won't be able to play for very long.

I'm not talking about extensive storytelling, mission development, or detailed events requiring thousands of hours of labor. And I don't mean forcing people to play according to some agenda some dictator creates. I'm talking about historical context. I'm not advocating for some one to manufacture an agenda, but to use the real historical situations of each nation to set unique abilities, missions, ships, and interesting things to do. An open world historical wooden ship game set in the Caribbean should have only those nations who actually had interests there. And those interests varied from nation to nation. What you have now is a huge game world with nothing to do except fight battles. There are no differences between nations, the missions are so generic that they get boring real fast, and it really doesn't matter which faction you play for. The only thing that matters at this point is who has the most players and who has the biggest ships and the biggest guns. This can hardly be called a sandbox. There is literally no variety, no depth, no immersion, no roleplaying, no fun. In fact the only real setting you have is the Caribbean with a few historical nations and some added non-historical nations who never had any presence there. And there certainly was no pirate nation. This is a fantasy game with everyone grinding along to build first rates for bragging rights. This is as bad as any arcade game ever made. You might as well play Pong. It's the same game. Shoot at one another until someone wins. Doesn't prove anything. Doesn't make any difference in who you are as a person. This is an arcade game which only appeals to kids who thinks it's cool to blow stuff up. The game of the week crowd who will be bored to death as soon as the next big arcade game is released and they will disappear. Because these type of World of Tank games don't hold their customers' interests for long. They end up holding one special event after another just to keep people coming back. Which only works for so long and then they die out. As far as the niche games comment, Total War games are hardly niche games. They are wildly successful because they are historical and provide true roleplaying and war gaming depth. There are numerous other games as well set in history or near historical settings like Mount & Blade games, various Medieval games, and others. Why spend countless hours creating a fantasy game when it's far easier to just apply a little history and make something really special? The devs here have done their research in order to reproduce the ships and the Caribbean in as much detail as possible. And yet they stop short of a true historical simulation and give us sailing ship deathmatches. O' Boy, another multiplayer run and gun game for the short attention span generation. Just what we need.

They say youth is wasted on the young. I might add that history is also wasted on the young who for the most part have no real sense of history any more because it is no longer taught in schools. All you get is what your government wants you to hear, and that for the most part is scary or boring. You never learn actual history that has much to teach. For those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat. As it stands now, this game is an accurate historical sailing simulation with Disney game play, which has been pointed out by others. World of Tanks and World of Warships and World of Warplanes are all perfect examples. Successful because they pander to the lowest common denominator, those who don't know history and don't care. Just give me the big guns and watch me blow stuff up. The only thing to learn here is the biggest ship wins. The largest clan wins. Power is everything. Which of course isn't true at all. The only way many of the naval officers and pirates can play is in PvP battles or single player. And it's a shame really because a true historical simulation could be enjoyed by all, and we would all learn something that can be carried over into real life. The truth is losing teaches far more lessons than winning. But there are so many other factors involved. Like bravery, comradery, brothers in arms, teamwork, tactics, strategy, and never giving up. A battle is never the end all to any war. You have to have a reason to fight. If it's just give me the biggest ship and the biggest guns and let's see who's the best, that gets boring real fast. Why have a huge open world game where you can go anywhere and do anything in an RPG environment, and all you do is look for weaker players to destroy? What's the point? What have you accomplished? To be the biggest dog in the yard for an hour? Wouldn't it be far more fun to have nations in the game with historically accurate ships, unique abilities, and played completely different than other nations with different goals and interests? Wouldn't be far more fun to feel like you belonged to that nation and roleplay a captain living as they did in the age of sail with the same concerns, worries, and missions? And to be able to play as different nations to have a completely different game experience? Why not add treasure hunting, expand trading, introduce exploration and discoveries, include a whole variety of faction specific missions, and create character development to advance in naval ranks with perks and rewards. There is so much that can be done to enhance gameplay in an historically accurate simulation that is far and away better than any power makes right, biggest gun wins arcade game. If you just want to feel like you are superman you can always play in the quick battles using the biggest ships any time you want. Why completely turn this game into a World of Warships grind just for the sake of low expectations. Come on people. Expand your minds, expand your horizons. Grow up for heaven's sake.

Way to go there CptClutch. That's the spirit. My way or the highway. That always works. Not. In fact no one wins with that sort of attitude. Only a compromise in which everyone gets what they want and everyone wins is the only solution worth pursuing. I proposed a workable solution. No one else has proposed an alternate. Either no one can come up with anything better or they simply don't care. They just want what they want and everyone else doesn't matter. Which is apparently your position. So let's say you get exactly what you want. Many interested in historical simulations will leave. If history buffs get exactly what they want to the detriment of everyone else, then many wanting an arcade game will leave. Either way the company loses customers and fewer players means less future profits and the game doesn't last very long. It cost money to maintain multiplayer servers and without support from everyone who wants this game, it's not going to last. So what's it going to be? Compromise or self-destruction?

This is basically a realistic vs. balanced gameplay discussion. No game is ever completely realistic or balanced perfectly. It a design tradeoff as to what works best. To take the position that no one cares about realism or historical context in this case or the position that no one cares about game balance doesn't understand the goal of gaming. Sure everyone wants to have fun, but what that really comes down to is personal preference. So is this problem impossible to resolve? Of course not, even though many will take that position. But any issue like this can be resolved with some compromise. The main problem I see is that so many refuse to even consider a compromise. The best possible course of action is almost always a compromise that everyone can agree with. Just to be clear, I am a pirate and have played as a pirate in numerous games since 1996. I'm also very interested in history and have read extensively. There have been a number of very good suggestions here by other history loving players that also like to play historical simulations. That's what Naval Action was advertised to be even though from the beginning the devs were thinking of using a map of fantasy islands. They have however listened to the players and at least given us the really detailed historical map and extremely accurate replicas of historical ships and the best sailing simulation I've ever played. Sea battles are so much fun primarily because of the attention given to realistic ballistics and physics of weapons, ships, wind, and seas. But now we have the open world released and suddenly the attention to realism is greatly compromised for game balance. To make everything equal and fair with a completely level playing field. But what do we have? Unfairly balanced factions with Brits dominating with Pirates a close second and the rest with few players. That's not fair and not even close to being fun for anyone except the two largest factions. That's ridiculous by definition. Furthermore there is no reason to play any particular faction other than player preference, and players will always choose the most powerful factions to join if given no other incentives. My suggestion is the same method used in Total War games. Give each faction unique special resources, abilities, units, etc. that gives players reasons to play them. This will encourage much more participation in the other factions and provide numerous ways to play the game which will increase replayability over time. Historically each faction had advantages that made them unique. The Brits had their discipline and crack crews. The French had their fantastic ship building and reputation for adventure. The Dutch their advantages in trade and diplomacy. The Spanish with their large American empire, huge fleets, and gold and silver. The U.S. their ship building, freedom, and fighting spirit. But there is nothing in Naval Action that plays up the unique characteristics of these nations. Naval officers didn't get to keep their prizes but had to turn them over to the admiralty. Just like they didn't buy their ships or even build them. They were far too expensive for a mere naval captain to do so. Only nations could afford to build navies. Only rich plantation owners, merchants, and traders could afford to buy ships. Pirates were known only for their brutality, greed for plunder, thirst for rum and wild women, and complete depravity. They were not a nation, but a separate brotherhoods of single ships who elected their own captains every few months for the most part. Sure they banded together from time to time to plunder a treasure ship or sack a town. But they were nothing like the pirates in Naval Action. So here are my suggestions based on history that will greatly increase the enjoyment of everyone playing Naval Action: Make the factions unique with certain advantages and abilities that were known national traits. Each player will choose a nationality as their own. That's who you are and you can't change until you start a new character. Pirates are no longer a nation. Remove national identity as the focus of the game but emphasize the ship captain instead. Allow players to choose a career such as naval officer, merchant, privateer, or pirate, and allow them to switch from one to the other as the mood strikes them. So if someone chooses Brit naval officer that's what he would be for the duration of the game unless he turned pirate and attacked British shipping, in which case he would no longer be welcomed in British ports or the ports of British allies. Other ports should be open this pirate. Your career choice will have certain advantages and restrictions too when it comes to ships and crafting. Naval officers don't own their ships, nor do they have to buy them. They are awarded based on experience by the admiralty. Nor do they get to sell their prizes or keep them but will receive a share of the prize money to use to upgrade their ships. Merchants, privateers, and pirates must buy their ships and outfit them from their profits. Privateers operating on letters of marque must pay a large percentage of their prize money to the admiralty for any ships they capture. Say 20 or 30%. Or pay that amount in order to keep the ship as their own. They may sail, buy, or build any ship in the game if they have the money and experience. Pirates would be free to sail anything up to a frigate with the restrictions already proposed in this thread. Those existing pirates who want to sail the biggest ships should choose the privateer career. They get exactly what they want, can sign up with any nation as a privateer, even change nations anytime they want, always sail for the largest faction, buy, build, or sail anything in the game regardless of nation. The difference in pirate and privateer is only one thing, a piece of paper issued by one nation making the privateer legal. He can attack any shipping, merchant or naval of enemy nations and for all intents and purposes is still a pirate. Except they won't have every nation in the world hunting for them and will be able to access a great many more friendly ports. It's the best of both worlds for big ship player. That should solve everyone's problem. Everyone gets what they want, a truly open world game with infinite variety with different factions with different abilities and the option to play any faction in the game with a unique gaming experience. There will be sufficient numbers of players in every faction to make the game really competitive. This is a game that everyone should be able to agree on.

Thanks Devs. Good to know you're on patrol and looking for cutthroats.

I'm a history buff myself, and a pirate game fan from way back. And this is the exact same argument that happens every time. It has always astounded me how much everyone wants to play the game their way and could care less about anyone else. I don't really understand the arcade crowd just wanting the biggest ship and the biggest guns and could care less about the history. But I don't really have to. It's their choice. Do their wants and needs outweigh the wants and needs of others? No. Not anymore than what history and realism fans want and need. Why not honor both with a compromise. Why not make pirates as realistic as possible honoring their place in history. They were a blood thirsty lot who only cared about profit. They didn't want larger ships simply because they were too slow and required more crew, provisions, and maintenance than they could afford. They needed stout ships with enough firepower to intimidate merchants into surrendering, fast enough to outrun naval ships, and shallow enough draft to pull them up on a beach for careening and hiding out in inlets and rivers. If people really want to play as pirates and sail the largest ship with the biggest guns, then why not choose privateering? You get a letter of marque from your favorite nation, can work your way up to the largest ship and guns and raid enemy shipping just like a pirate, and yet you win honor, renown, and rewards from your host nation. That's what you really want anyway. Many pirates also carried letters of marque to make them legitimate and avoid the hangman's noose. This would allow those who want to live the life of a pirate a realistic historical simulation. Pirates were usually merchant or naval seamen who traded the unrewarding hardship of serving aboard a naval or merchant ship for a life of freedom and adventure. It was usually a shorter life but it was their choice. All pirates want is a small ship and a chance to be free. Please don't force us to play this game like a naval officer. It will ruin the game for us.

Yes, I do. Would love to see a few tools that would simulate period navigation techniques and make us navigators of the dead-reckoning sort and at least give us a chance of not getting completely lost. Teleporting should be a method of last resort and not standard practice.

Love these ideas. Creates a more realistic sailing simulation. I would suggest using a navigation system similar to Silent Hunter 4 and 5 but much more simplistic. These are WWII sub sims that use plotting tools to lay out a course on the local map to plot intercepts and torpedo launches. The protractor is in degrees, but you could substitute the 32 compass points instead. But simple tools like this would really simulate sailing navigation. This is a video demonstrating Silent Hunter 4 navigation tools. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_XOYLy0nSE

As has been pointed out by Powderhorn above, ammo was a factor in the Battle of Gettysburg, and the reality is, it did affect unit effectiveness. Supply problems were much more of an issue for the South, but the North did have distribution issues even though supplies were much more plentiful.

Thanks adambomb. But I already know about Star Citizen. I haven't funded the game, because I want to see what they come up with. If it's good I'll buy the game when it's released. Here's a new trailer showing actual gameplay. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNs1rdSkUi8

I would agree with most of the comments made here on ship to ship encounters. But there are a few things that I would like the designers to consider as they work on ship combat. Because there are many more factors at work than the combat, wind direction, wave mechanics, ballistics, crew assignments, etc. that have been mention. Age of Sail ship to ship battles were mostly leisurely affairs simply because the wind could push a ship only so fast. Naval combat in Assassin's Creed 3 is much too fast as if the ships are all powered by diesel engines limiting the time you have to assess the current situation, make decisions, and then give the orders to carry them out. It was more like an arcade game which required more reflexes than brains. That is wholly unrealistic and gives you no time to take into account the multiple factors involved with sailing, the relative positions of the two ships, and plan your next move to gain the advantage. Please do not set a time limit like 15, 20 or 30 minutes on a typical battle and then adjust ship speed to accommodate it. The game should be as realistic as possible in terms of real world physics. The initial encounter on the main map is just as important as the battle map. From the moment a sail is sighted on the horizon, a captain must make a number of decisions. Should he investigate by altering course to intercept or give chase or continue on his present course and watch to see what the other sail does? If he gives chase, does the other sail run or turn to face him? If he decides to stay on course, does the sail continue on it's course or does it give chase? Does he then change direction to meet the ship or pile on canvas to outrun? Or maybe draw closer to telescope range to get a better look at the ship and perhaps it's colors? Does he run up false colors in an attempt at deception? Finally, a decision to engage or an attempt to outrun must be made. Starting positions on the combat map will be critical. There should be enough room between the two ships to provide the time necessary for maneuvering to close the gap and gain advantage over the enemy, but not so far away as to eat up too much time for this phase. The relative position of the ships, the wind direction, the weather conditions, and other map features should be same as those that existed on the main map prior to the encounter. There was a wide range of tactics available to captains during naval combat aside from maneuvering for a broadside, a rake, or a boarding action and a choice of cannon shot. Marines or sailors could rake the enemy decks with musket fire. Primitive hand grenades could be used against concentrations of enemy crewmen. Pistols could be used as well in boarding actions to quickly cut down the enemy numbers. Fire ships or bomb ketches were a favorite tactic used in small to large fleet actions. Sometimes in fog or darkness and under limited wind conditions, a long boat filled with gunpowder could be rowed next to an enemy ship and detonated. Or fill the boats with men and board the enemy ship. Of course these various items cannot be used unless the wise captain ensures that they are in stock and available to use in a fight. After the battle, there are also more decisions to make. If the enemy ship has been sunk, do you rescue the few survivors and if so what do you do with them? Kill them, throw in the brig, or press them into your service? Salvage a few cargo items floating on the sea or leave them? If you have taken the enemy ship by boarding or damaging or surrender, do you repair the ship and put a prize crew aboard or simply loot and sink it? If you keep the ship do you add it to your fleet or sell it at the next port? Or does it become the property of your king, if you're a naval officer with perhaps a small reward for your efforts?

Same here. Retired and looking for games to play. Would love to help with the Beta. Big fan of the Darthmods and looking forward to Gettysburg.

A simple internet search for "Gettysburg battle photos" yielded a huge list of links and a wealth of photos on the battlefield. Here are a few examples, but I couldn't get the link insert button to work. All the buttons are greyed out. http://www.gettysburgphotographs.com/photogalleries.html http://www.totalgettysburg.com/gettysburg-photos.html http://photobucket.com/images/Gettysburg%20Battlefield/?page=1

I agree with the introduction of randomness in computing outcomes. Naval battles were rather leisurely affairs since the strength and direction of the wind, the individual ships' orientation, and the number of sails set would determine the speed of the ships. Speeds were slow at best, unlike naval battles in Assassin's Creed III in which ships speed along as if they had diesel engines. So random strength and direction of the wind, the motion of the waves, all should definitely be included as well as other weather effects on accuracy of cannon shot. Chance or randomness should also govern ship encounters at sea with distance, weather effects, and day/night cycles having their effects. In fact there are multiple outcomes possible from the time a sail is sighted and the decision made to investigate or avoid, when a ship is close enough to identify the type of vessel, run up colors and/or signal flags, or close in for a closer look. Then you have to decide whether to attack, run, or offer a parley. If the ship decides to run from you, and you want to give chase, can you use the bow chasers to attempt to damage their rigging or masts? Whether this is successful is a matter of luck. Are there plans to include non-player controlled ships such as merchantmen to serve as prey for pirates and privateers and require naval ships to provide escort sometimes? If so, then these would have to be random encounters as well.

Here are some signal flags used in the 17th and 18th centuries.