Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

James Cornelius

Members2
  • Posts

    407
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by James Cornelius

  1. I often put classical music on in the background, or the soundtrack to a movie like Master and Commander or Wrath of Khan to put me in the Naval Action mood.
  2. Somewhere in the forums are the pictures I took of the Lynx one day when she was anchored in Casco Bay off Portland, Maine. I had taken my little 19' Grady White sport fisher out for the afternoon with my (now) wife and was pleasantly surprised at what I saw! In my professional career I've been on carriers, destroyers, tankers, freighters, and am now staff chief engineer on a cruise ship.
  3. Did someone say Royal Navy monitors? (From my recent visit to Portsmouth, England)
  4. Hello everyone, Last month I traveled to the Scottish Highlands to get married. As part of my honeymoon my wife and I went to Portsmouth, England. Here are a couple pictures I took while there. Once I finish sorting through them and resizing so they will fit I will post more.
  5. A lot of changes from the beginning of the game have been positive, I agree. I am not complaining at all about the pure combat mechanics, or the economic model which is much more vibrant and interesting/realistic than it originally was. I make the statement as someone who bought the game on day 1 on Steam when it became available, and while I didn't play it in the beta before that I was aware of the game and watched it with interest. One of the things that has frequently happened though is large and significant changes - very few things have been done as a marginal tweak to nudge the game in one direction or another. While in some cases this has worked out to push the game in a positive direction, I think that's more luck. Naval Action is definitely a game with a lot of "moving parts" and I would venture that it is unwise to frequently and drastically change core mechanics. Especially since many of these changes make the game further inaccessible for those of us who do not have the ability and/or desire to be glued to our PCs playing this game 20 hours a day. Consider one of the previous reward reworks: Initially you got credit for damage and sinkings. Then, only sinking. Now, you get a tiny bit if credit for an assist, but if you manage to damage three 1st rates while sailing a Cerberus but ultimately get sunk you get next to nothing. If we want to play the historical card, don't forget that what made battles like Trafalgar so significant was that decisive battles were so rare. Far, far more common were indecisive or inconclusive battles where both sides could claim victory, like my distant relative's battle at Cape Finisterre (and whose name I honor here and in game). Naval Action is, despite its niche maker, simply an MMO game at its core. We all know that. But in all the successful (and even some less successful) games there are ample things for solo or small group players to do to enjoy much of what the game has to offer. Naval Action has, since its inception, struggled in this area - or at the very least has an uneven record. I've said many times that the developers who have made this game should be incredibly proud of the beautiful game that they created and that it brings a facet and type of game to the market that has been overlooked until now, and those of us with interest in the time period, the subject matter, etc should be thankful for that. I show my thanks by having purchased the game and put over 1000 hours into it (less than many now, but that's because I seldom have time to play anymore). But for the first year I owned the game, I did play it constantly - and FAR more than "big budget" games that came out in the same time frame. But what Naval Action has failed to do, and these "big budget" games have done, is pick something and stick with it. Is Naval Action a game that simulates late 18th to early 19th century naval combat in the Caribbean? Is it a full blown career simulator of a frigate captain in a semi-fantasy world modeled on the Caribbean of the same time period? Because, frankly, if the rewards for playing are to be an exact historical simulacrum of the time, then I expect to be paid as a ship captain, given ships to sail instead of having to build or buy them myself and so on. As someone who paid just as much as the next person I am sick and tired of seeing the player base dwindle and become more and more the playground of hard core players while the rest of us are left out in the cold.
  6. While I completely disagree with the game going in this direction, it almost already is. We have: 1) Countries available for play that never in their wildest dreams had so much as a raft in the Caribbean in the time period. 2) A mechanic where large clans control all RVR and much PVP with a near impossibility for small clans or solo players to be economically viable or participate in port battles. 3) The discontinuation of a feature (some time ago) that allowed said small clans or solo players to participate in AI battles/fleet missions further removing them from larger rewards for sinking ships. Etc...the list goes on. So, we might as well just scrap the countries at all and go full on to control of clans, lord protectors, and the hard core players. It puzzles me that, in the name of historical realism, there will be a mechanic forcing you to "loot" a ship which takes time and resources which are often not available in a large battle, yet the game has become very ahistorical in other areas. If looting is to become the only reliable way of gaining rewards then I would propose we truly make it 100% historical: when you enter a battle against an NPC trader or AI ship and it is obvious that in any normal course of events that you would win the battle, they should immediately surrender - much like merchants really did when it was clear that opposition would only result in the deaths of their men. This would at least save us poor players who already work a full time job and can't play Naval Action 70 hours a week some time. Then, as has been indicated elsewhere, battles need to be open to more than just two sides: the only people you shouldn't be able to attack are your own nation/clan (depending on whatever way the game ultimately goes). Finally, I have to ask one more question (which I don't realistically expect an answer to): why does Naval Action try to reinvent the wheel every six months?
  7. This is an excellent point. If rewards are being tied to looting, then that seriously impacts the battle mechanic. Moving further in this direction is VERY questionable design practice, and continues to cement Naval Action as a game that can only be fully enjoyed for a select few.
  8. Truer words were never spoken. The game should have launched "as is" in mid 2017. That was the peak of realism vs enjoyment. It's been all down hill since, with an occasional QOL improvement or nudge to sailing mechanics.
  9. Is there anything more that @Nick Thomadis or @admin can provide at this time? I, surely like many others, am very excited and eager to see how development is coming along for this. Like I said before, if there is any kind of campaign overlay then alternate history immediately kicks in. Just because historically there weren't great dreadnought clashes doesn't mean there couldn't have been.
  10. Like many great military thinkers, Mahan didn't necessarily "create" an idea or discover a new application. He rather codified and identified something that good generals or admirals had been doing instinctively, and then presented it in a way that was easier to grasp not just for mediocre officers but the public at large (and those often most ignorant of all, the politicians). But, despite being a name most who play games like these are familiar with, it is shocking how many people who play both Naval Action and World of Warships completely disassociate themselves from Mahanian reality. I mean, how much more common sense can you get with "force concentration"? As with Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, and Jomini, despite sometimes having different practical and philosophical outlooks on war, the general theories are just as valid today as they were when written. I frequently shake my head in frustration at what some people playing these sorts of games think is a "good idea".
  11. The first aerial takeoff from a surface ship happened in 1910 from an anchored ship. It wasn't done on an underway ship until 1912. Seaplane carriers came into being (in the French, British, US, and Japanese navies in that order) at about the same time. Aerial spotting in WWI did exist, but was not nearly as effective as, for example, WOWS would make it seem. @Norfolk nChance is completely correct in pointing out the various meta-flaws of fleet composition that appear in both NA and WOWS (I play both so am quite familiar). WWI also saw the first rudimentary carrier attacks but their damage was generally minor. One thing I will say about WOWS as it pertains to carriers, is that while at higher tiers the carrier is quite effective at striking targets with planes, the whole disposition of the carrier as it relates to the rest of the fleet is exactly what you would expect if you have a pre- or early-WW2 admiral the ability to design such a game: a carrier which scouts for the battlefleet and provides aerial support. It completely ignores the power of massed aerial strikes. Granted, I would imagine it does so for gameplay reasons (which in this case are valid - even as is there are frequent complaints about carriers being "OP") but it still shows a poor approximation of what carriers were ultimately used for in conjunction with the ships that they accompany. If we take at face value that the timeframe of Ultimate Admiral will be about 1890-1930, then yes carriers come in at the end. However, given that any "scenario" or "campaign" shortly becomes, as it were, alternate history, it is not a great stretch to leave much of the evolution of naval aviation out of it for both gameplay and the fact that the name of the game is "Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnouhgt", not "Ultimate Admiral: Naval Evolution from 1890-1930". Consider that at Jutland in 1916, the fleets actually saw each other - while spotting aircraft in some form might have existed, they certainly played no significant role in the battle. I would therefore argue that, if the game consists of a type of "campaign map" that spotting aircraft whether as fixed wing, balloon, zeppelin, etc should do no more than increase your ability to detect an enemy fleet at an appropriate range. I.e., a range greater than that of a lookout on the ships themselves. Spotting aircraft should have no role in tactical fleet combat, like it does in WOWS. Since part of this game looks to be the designing of your own warships, then certainly there will come a time when it becomes an option, perhaps even a desirable one, to put a float plane on your ships. But that plane should do no more than provide greater detectability range for your fleet. Finally, while acknowledging as I did earlier that any sort of open campaign creates an alternate history path, it's important to remember the history of the aircraft carrier as well as it relates to the time period. While the first aircraft carrier in anything approaching the modern sense came into being with the HMS Ark Royal in 1914, the first purpose built carrier (which was the tiny Hosho) was commissioned in 1922. The first large carriers that we think of were not built as carriers at all: the Lexingtons, the Akagi and Kaga, and the Glorious and Courageous were not laid down as carriers, but were converted from large capital ships in the case of the former four, and cruisers in the latter two into carriers. Without the Washington Naval Conference of 1922 to have sparked this, these carriers never would have existed. Considering the Lexington and Saratoga were the first ones finished (in about 1927) we are rapidly getting to the end of our 1890-1930 timeframe. So while @Destraex raises valid points, I think that they can safely be discounted as it was not well into the 1930s that ships began equipping any significant AA defenses. Consider as an example the last pre-WW2 US and British battleships, the Colorado class and Nelson class respectively, and the pre-London Treaty of 1930 US cruisers (Pensacola class). None carried significant AA defenses untli 1930s era reconstructions. The same goes for the Japanese warships. Therefore, TL:DR: carriers - and by extension significant naval airpower - as we know them do not become relevant to the very end of the timeframe in question so as a factor in gameplay for a game focused on dreadnoughts (and time appropriate smaller ships) to begin with, can safely be discounted as a game mechanic. Edit: for some specific examples, pursue the Wikipedia pages of the classes of battleships and cruisers of the late WW1 and immediate interwar period. Their AA complement in the as built configurations is almost laughable.
  12. I think @Norfolk raises some good points above. I love Naval Action. But the development decisions have been..."questionable" at times. I don't say that to judge or point fingers, but I don't think controversy helps in these situations. Like Naval Action, this has a tendency to be more niche than a lot of mainstream games out there. But certain design decisions aside, no one can argue with the quality and love of work that went into both Naval Action and Ultimate General (both iterations). I think that's the strength to continue to build on. I also don't know much about game development, in full disclosure. But what I do know about is naval history, armament, and tactics and strategy (I am a real naval officer and marine engineer/architect after all). So, like I said at the beginning when I posted a picture of a piece of my library on naval information, I am happy to help.
  13. With the title being "Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnought" I would wonder if there will also be inclusion of other ships apart from the evolutionary battleships. From 1880 onwards there was also significant evolution of cruisers, from the first ironclads to protected cruisers to armored cruisers to the modern heavy and light cruisers that we are most familiar with. This also represents fertile ground for such a game - especially if in playing one must juggle financial and political concerns as well.
  14. I too would certainly hope it would cover a large bulk of the pre-dreadnought period. 1890-1930 or so would be good. I also would wonder if some form of international relations will play a role, specifically regarding treaties. A naval treaty like Washington or London (or Versailles if you lose a war) would add interesting options for warship design and combat.
  15. Add an easier UI, and that very succinctly describes exactly what I am hoping for also. Although I will say that from the standpoint of basically being numbers and spreadsheet type information, Rule the Waves is a pretty good approximation of being a Navy minister!
  16. I referenced Storm Eagle's Jutland at one point earlier as well. As @Nick Thomadis points out, one of the chief problems these games had was a terribly complex and unfriendly interface. The mechanics were detailed but inaccessible due to the game design. I compare that to, say, Koei's P.T.O. II which I played decades ago on a SNES which had the opposite problem - very simple interface, but likewise very simple mechanics underneath. All mechanics discussions aside, I'm very excited for this project. As a ship's engineer and naval architect I sometimes curse that I was born too late to take part in designing during what I suspect we would all consider the golden age of steel ships.
  17. This. The PVP reward zones that used to exist got people in a certain area. Treasure fleets that briefly appeared got players in a certain area (briefly). There NEEDS to be more content than just sail and fight for the hell of it. There should be CONTINUOUS DAILY events that draw people to certain areas and they should not be some mysterious thing that magically appears at the whim of the developers/programmers/administrators of the game without warning or explanation of any unique mechanics. Here are some suggestions: AI trade Fleet that needs to be escorted from one port to another. IT LEAVES AT A SPECIFIC TIME! No more "it might be in this area sometime during the day". The defending nation gets rewards for the trade ships making it safely to destination. Attacking nation(s) get rewards for capturing the traders - meaning that they need players to both fight the defenders and capture the merchants. Those attackers who only fight off the escorts would need suitable rewards at all for participating so as not to only reward those who capture. AI blockade fleet that surrounds a national port. As long as it is in place, defending nation suffers a malus to various incomes. It must be broken to restore proper income levels. Other nations might receive various prize monies from blockade if they assist in maintaining it against the defenders' attempt to dislodge it. Overall leaderboard of PVP with massive rewards for sinking those who are high on it. This helps alleviate seal clubbing and directs PVP to those who want it the most. Historically accurate too, as famed captains were desirable targets of enemies for both national prestige and to stop their reign of terror against friendly shipping. The ability for players to send out AI trade ships. It would put a lot of possibly BIG rewards out there on the seas if a player in for example South Carolina can "send" his trade ship to the coast of South America with a load of cargo and have it return. The player directs which cargo it is to return with for maximum profit. This allows him to make money trading without devoting 16 hours to sailing there and back. The catch is that this ship is perfectly visible in the OW and under AI control and therefore completely vulnerable. However, allow the player to set (in advance) the course the ship is to take. He will get a message when one of two things happens: the ship returns safely to its original port with lots of cargo and money...or a message that it has been sunk or captured. If it is captured by another player, then the capturing player receives everything that was on the ship (cargo, money, etc = payday!) These are all ways to get players out on the seas exploring and being drawn to certain areas. Finally it's worth noting that there has never been a successful MMO of any kind (which ultimately is what Naval Action really is) that doesn't have continuous content provided in many areas simultaneously to engage and occupy player base.
  18. I've been asking for variable wind speed since I first started playing the game in January 2016.
  19. Thank you, I agree completely - and one of the reasons why when I was playing Naval Action for 6 hours a day I still couldn't stand to be in TS. There's too much ridiculousness that goes on with it, and key communications can be relayed with chat. People just don't like to admit it most of the time. I've had this argument to great lengths with folks here on the forum, including Grundgemonkey. They are simply not willing or able to accept that their way is not the most superior, and they have a vested interest in ensuring that things are never "their fault". As @VonVolks said so well: "It is just a game".
  20. I support your suggestions. I've been in a leadership position in two clans that had some shady things happen with the warehouse, so it would be very beneficial to set more control over what can happen with it, and I have been offering suggestions since literally Day 1 to make the game more friendly to solo players or small clans. Bravo on your well thought out analysis of this issue.
  21. Provide AI ships in fleet combat missions again. If there is a separate hostility mission, then you don't need to worry about one person spamming these to drive up hostility numbers, but the presence of friendly AI ships in a fleet combat mission allows a solo player (of which there are still many) to be able to participate in a fleet battle if their friends aren't online, they have limited time to go looking for a large battle, or just for the sake of pure enjoyment. Of all the things that have been removed during the course of the game, this is one that I probably miss the most (and I have spoken to many who agree with me).
  22. I like the premise that Admin has suggested, but @Christendom is right about this at the very least. Look, I get fanboyism for the Prussians (for example) as much as the next military history buff, but the inclusion of countries like them, Poland, and Russia really belies claims to make this "historically accurate". Most of these countries didn't get any further out to sea than the depth that they could wade to. And leave sight of their own coast? Ha! Limiting people to the seafaring nations of the Napoleonic era was always better as it centralized your playerbase in areas that made PVP hot zones more likely anyway, even without other incentives. That said, the addition of such incentives are, I think, probably vital into making this a sustainable game to both bring new people in, and continue to provide content for veterans.
×
×
  • Create New...