Grim DeGrim

I like the idea with minor customizations going too. +1

For sure, this is a "Grace note" type of feature. Not required for gameplay, but is a detail that could add finesse.

Open World feature. But yes... It depends, I might want to surrender just because the ship is 2 years old. Conversely, I might take it to Davy Jones locker b/c I don't want someone else to have it. But my opponent might feel differently I'm sure there could be other features tied to it... I don't want to get carried away... This could tie into the reputation mechanic: 1. I could lose rep for having a ship be sunk. But I lose alot more if it sinks versus surrendered. So I have encentive to surrender (maintains ship history) 2. If I capture a ship, renowned, maybe the reputation gain is worth 1 point more (eg).

This thread got me thinking (that's dangerous): http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/4029-in-game-individual-ship-ownership-history/?p=79375#entry79375 Individual Ship History

While reading the "What will you name your ship" thread in the Tavern, I had an idea: Ships to retain a history of player ownership. Similar to that of a corporation in eve, or player Corp history, players can see what had happened with that vessel throughout the game. This could add alot of incentive to capture a ship... But can also provide a mechanism for "ship lore". No idea if this has been suggested. But it would give me a reason to name a ship... (maybe the history doesn't retain the name... Player ship names can get ridiculous... But record the irl date of ownership and Player name). Edit: example Trincomale "War Song", ownership: 2/2/2015 Grim DeGrim 2/10/2015 Prater (because Prat captured it on this date...) Etc...

If naming a ship has meaning (eg, stays in the game as example even after capture), then I might name then. Otherwise: Unnamed Ship I think that was the default is potbs.

There are so many impacts and variables. In reading last night, just after King Louis XVI was executed, a short time late they fill the Naval administration position (pardon my recollection, the book is at hone). To make a long story short, the gentleman disband the existing naval. "artillery" group, and the "French navy impact is 20 years of slow & inaccurate cannon fire". In line with what Rouleur is saying... But noting that one decision can have an impact for many years in end. Ps- can clean up this passage later tonight, for the sake of clarity.

Well...you did start the post. But if we were to explore different skills, within the realm of realism, there is more than combat I suppose: TRAVEL & NAVIGATION (For use in open world map): Different crew focus for sailing (?)You sailing folks are going to have to chip in for what these types of focus might be... If in Calm seas your focus might be different from that in rough seas (eg, have a crew focus on battening down hatches & etc...again, I need real sailors out there to fill in the potential opportunity for crew focus) Exploration crew focus (?) while exploring? Crew focus fishing (this should be more of a pass time, versus food replenishment (?)... Crew focus Ration (when stores are low...stretches out food, but impacts moral) Racing (maybe different than sailing?...need input from sailors) Navigation, versus Scouting (increase slightly, field of view), Crew focus Blockade to increase attack range (requires you to be at zero speed to implement) I don't know enough about other open world aspects...but if you're read something, perhaps there are other crew opportunities. COMBAT RELATED: We know surrender is coming... But what if this was a crew focus? Are there activities that must happen in a sequence to surrender (prob not...just raise the flag?) Honestly...I'm not sure if there are any other combat related focuses I'd want, but it is of benefit to pose the question. If pushed to say "What else "could" there be, we can look at other non-fictional skillsets that are realistic.

I'll have a look in 12 hours when I get home. I believe there is a topic for each of these, some with direct admin feedback. Great ideas, but some limitations as discussed here. Keep the ideas coming!

Quality over quantity my 'ole man used to always say...

Implementation: 1. Pick a name (see bottom for random ideas) 2. Create sub-forum. 3. Pin intent of forum, and set the standard for no flame 4. Sit back and let the player base surprise us. Intent: a good will forum, where you recognize the good deed & conduct of of your fellow gentlemen captains. The intent is to promote desired actions and traits through the recognition from peers. "Rules" or Warning: this site is heavily moderated. No trolling or negative posts welcomed. Posts will be deleted and forum penalties issued without warning. Naming ideas for the subforum: The Hall of Merit Gratitude Harbour Honorable Conduct Gentleman's Conduct Praise of Conduct Seafarer's Tribute (many variations with the above words) You get the idea. Of course, a Pillar of the Community thread can be done. That will require a volunteer or PR type person to do interview and makes the posts. Though honestly, i'd take those kinds of posts and put them periodically in the good will forum, versus making a subforum solely for it. EDIT: place strategically... Not sure of best spot, either right above or below Tribunal subforum, or very top subforum.

On equal naval terms (eg, standalone naval power)? Perhaps in 1690. Perhaps (?) just after the revolution (if they had the crewmen to man the ships). Perhaps in all the years in between if they had allies with sufficient ships to close the SOL gap differential with Britain. But otherwise, no, as the larger fleet has "generally speaking" always won. I've enjoyed the thread. Very informative discussion Mr. Madoc.

I, shall add another interpretation, that every post is noted and that his shall be reviewed and noted with the same rigor as all the rest. PS Flip - Send me the flag...good addition to my sig.

I had a similar thought, except for the chest thumping, gloating, etc... I'll expand more below. Honest, I appreciate the concerns. And they are valid. Hence, my floating it out for the larger community. Truthfully, I had the smaller stuff in mind. The word "Hero" above was used, but perhaps misplaced. I am thinking more of Gentlemanly conduct, that people choose to recognize - for no other reason than to do it. There is no rewards for being mentioned. There is no forum medal. It is pure Recognition: Someone might even regale a tail of someone going above and beyond. The reward IS the mentioning. I share the concerns of "yeah right, he's a bum", etc... I don't know if that should be determent enough enough to stop it from happening. BIG LETTERS: Trolling and Forum PVP in this subthread will result in immediate suspension and demerit point without warning. Food for thought, I leave it with you for consideration.

I hope many comments. By virtue of showing what poor player conduct is, we can then also promote... For the push (tribunal) & pull (New Forum) for player conduct. Great name btw. "Commendations" "Heros" "Honor & Valor"... There must be a historical equivalent to the Tribunal... In the positive sense (for naming).

As NA moves forward, community development is ongoing. The Tribunal subforum has been established to capture poor player conduct, so that it might be seen and judged by all. Excellent, as we've seen in a recent Wired article (I'll source link tonight when home), this method has been effective elsewhere. But what of good deeds and heart warming stories? I recommend a sub forum where I can go and read positive feedback. I propose that we have a spot that offsets the negative items we read day-in-and-out. I acknowledge we have the Tavern, but it is not the same (labeled as Off Topic, and certainly not dedicated to positive words). Thoughts? Edited for typo's

As noted previously, there has been a treatise on Naval Action compiled by Mr. Doran, edited by Mr. Balck. You can find the link HERE, and a dropbox account HERE for download. As I believe my gaming time offsets a bit with Mr. Doran, I'll instead look at the Treatise mid week in anticipation of the weekend. CREDIT: The material herein is not mine. Credit to the above mentioned gentlemen. And additional credit to Schuetzengel for flipping the Treatise diagrams into .GIFs (link here, I modified them slightly). The notes are based on their work, though I caution that my interpretations could be wrong. Speak with the Master, Mr. Doran, if clarification needed. My writing this out is my way of forced learning...as I have done previously with tacking. Bear in mind that I am not an expert, I find the sailing language clumsy (due to my lack of familiarity), and that I'm prone to interchanging words... so please read THE TREATISE! It is noteworthy to point out that these pictures are on page 10 of the guide, so plenty of theory & notes come before this material. FIGURE 1-1: This figure demonstrates three key points: First, the Black ship approaches and takes a leeward (not having the weather gauge) position. This is incorrect. Always try for the weather gauge (recognizing that it not always possible, still try). Second, the correct maneuver, is the White ship taking the windward position (upwind). While doing so, ensuring 1 ship length between on the initial pass, allows the White ship 2 broadsides (certainly 2, though 3 is the goal as depicted in the gif) to the Black ship's 1 broadside volley. The damage will be spread ... one potential on each of your broadside, whereas your 3 are all against a single broadside, causing critical damage and potentially the use of a repair. As Mr. Doran explains, a rake on the 3rd pass maybe possible...killing crew...and thereby breaking the DPS & ship sailing characteristics stalemate, The ship length is important as it allows the white ship the room required to complete tack through the wind and be able to land another broadside on the damaged black ship. Otherwise, White runs the risk of nothing having the room required for the 3 volley into Black. FIGURE 1-2: This figure demonstrates two key points: First, the Black ship realizes that the windward tack will not realize getting the gauge advantage. Two notes:Black closes tight to White, in order to remove the 1 ship separation (limits potential maneuvers of White). In this instance, Black will always flip from right to left (relative to the wind, flips downwind). This leaves the stern open for a rake. However, if White also turns downwind, this gives Black the opportunity to apply 3 broadsides (certainly 2, though 3 is the goal as depicted in the gif) to the 1 of White, and opportunity to take weather gauge advantage. Same as in Figure 1-1, Black might take 2 volleys, but they will be spread across each broadside, whereas White will receive all the damage on a single side. As Mr. Doran explains, a rake on the 3rd pass maybe possible...killing crew...and thereby breaking the DPS & ship sailing characteristics stalemate, [*]White did not tack for enough separation. White also did not take advantage of the weather gauge and turned downwind, essentially giving up the wind. I'll stop there for today. There are 2 more accompanying GIF with these, and I'll post on them next, and that should take us into the weekend. Be sure to read Mr. Doran's guide first hand.

I fought Mr. Doran 3 times this weekend. All in Trincomales. Battle #1: Loss. I gave up wind immediately. Was stern raked. Battle essentially went like this....I'd rake nose, he'd rake stern. The crew loss differential was pronounced... Mr Doran was very effective. No repairs used by Mr.D. Battle #2: Loss. I did better in the start. Took wind, and for maybe 3 passes, kept it. However, his counter maneuvers ensured I did not take stern. We essentially went broadside to broadside. However, I lost wind and was raked. Crew loss....repeat of battle #1. Doran used 1 rep. Battle #3: Loss. He wanted to something new. tbh...I don't think I ever had wind. Horrible fight. He used his nose cannons (x4 cannonade) very effectively to rake my crew (we were running bow to stern, and I did not make a turn). He did not use any repairs. *Footnote: I am aware of the guide. I need to dedicate additional time to it... in short, I am still struggling with the language, despite the excellent glossary provided - which is by no means a discredit to either of Mr. Doran or Mr. Balck.

Intent is to capture my progress with duels. at this juncture, there is really only 1 opponent to fight regularly...however, he would also be consider "the" opponent. None other than Mr. Doran.

I am biased to the cleaner version with the anchor...or even the one where you made it look older. On a small thumbnail, the ship will not be easily distinguishable (just my opinion...luckily Devs will have many choices to choose from). You are good at this. I like the additional little grace notes with the reflect under "sailors Wanted" in the bottom 2 images.

Accidents happen. But in this case the blame is shared, and possibly more heavily against you. And it is not just "cause bigger ship". #1. You rammed into him. Think of your car (I am assume you are old enough to drive). If you ram into someone from behind, you are almost always at fault. #2. You, just like the other captain, were not watching where you were sailing. #3. Warning was given. The audio is off, but the are bonsun's whistles going warning you of a collision. They are there to help you while in gunnery mode. You ignored the warning (I assume). #4. Mini map. Again, the signs were there, neither captain used it. #5. The line / path chosen was such that on that course, you would eventually block the 1st rate firing arcs. OR, in case of unexpected turn, naturally bring your ships into collision where neither captain is paying attention. I will not comment on the reaction.

Whose / which ones? Generally speaking, I agree with you.

My 2 favorite. Wonderful work to everyone. It's an education to throw one out there and then see these beautiful works.

These are excellent. And good examples of how fate, so to speak, aka luck...plays a big role. Though after 1690...from a pure naval power perspective: Not alot. But had tey won in those early years, 1690...Perhaps that would have changed the course of history. We could ALL be speaking French in Canada, er, Nouvelle France