cporter

My proposal would apply to both players and the AI, I understand the concern that players may not like an involuntary surrender system. To counterbalance this striking would only become a possibility (it would establish a morale point at which striking can not automatically will happen) once a ship is both heavily damaged and essentially unable to continue to fight or escape. A ship with no armor would not necessarily be at risk, but a ship with no armor, heavy crew losses and significant sail damage could be at risk. Perhaps this calculation could also take into account the condition of enemy ships. So that a badly damaged ship would not be likely surrender to another badly damaged ship in a one on one action but be far more likely to surrender to two or more relatively intact ships. (This could be measured against all other ships in combat or against the ships that have fired on the target in the last X minutes for example). Essentially, while some players might still be unhappy that they did not get to go down with the ship, the point at which their ship would be at risk of striking would be a point at which their ability to continue to effectively resist is already gone.

This will be something of a long and complicated post. I apologize in advance. TLDR summary at bottom. Following the 6.9 patch I have noticed some division in the community over the new sinking/damage mechanics. After participating in a lively discussion in global chat today I realized that this debate comes down to two essential issues. 1) A feeling expressed by some that ships are too hard to sink and can sometimes be endlessly pummeled without apparent effect, ultimately necessitating boarding actions. 2) That as a result gunnery is now less relevant and that play styles based on closing and hammering opposing ships have been restricted by this change. One person expressed this frustration arguing that before the patch he rarely boarded a ship but now he feels forced to board most of the time. A play style he finds less enjoyable. While another was annoyed and surprised that a ship with no armor and half a crew was still fighting him. I believe that the addition of an involuntary surrender or striking mechanic in addition to the 6.9 changes would address this frustration and enhance game play and historical authenticity. In my opinion the new damage/sinking model is an invaluable and well balanced addition to the game, directly linking sinking to flooding caused by holes at the water line forces the player to play more tactically, aim more carefully and really consider what they are hitting. It is no longer sufficient to simply hit a ship; one must now hit specific parts to achieve specific tactical goals and that is a very good thing. I already enjoyed Naval Action, and these changes have made me enjoy it even more. Yet as we are all probably aware some players do not like this system and prefer the older more arcade damage model. Put bluntly, they want to be able to blast away more indiscriminately at an opponent and end a battle without feeling that they are forced to either board that ship or spend an hour sinking it. We can give them a third option by introducing a mechanism whereby under certain circumstances a ship will involuntarily strike it’s colors and surrender. Historically most ships crews would not fight to the death, as they currently do in game. At the point that a ship was badly damaged, suffering heavy casualties and unable to either offer further resistance or hope to escape her surviving officers would surrender the ship or her crew would simply stop fighting. This could be reflected in game by giving the crew a morale value modified by crew deaths, remaining armor integrity, serviceable cannons and damage to the sails/masts. Combined with some randomizing factor this calculation could set a point at which ships both player and AI would strike their colors and involuntarily surrender. (A combination of these effects would be required, so that a ship that had lost most of it’s armor but could still maneuver and fight would not surrender, but one that had lost a large number of men, significant armor and many of its guns might.) This idea would allow players an alternative to taking a ship by boarding or by grapeing the entire crew and add a new dynamic to both PVE and PVP battles by causing heavily damaged ships to sometimes unexpectedly give up. Further, because ships would have to be heavily damaged to reach this surrender point it would be expensive to repair and less valuable to sell, therefore discouraging abuse and retaining a distinct reason to use boarding to capture a ship. I believe that some variation on this idea in combination with the new sinking and damage mechanics could represent a compromise position and appeal to the Naval Action communities varied play styles. Allowing a player to choose between sinking a ship, boarding a ship and trying to bombard it into submission with the full understanding that the captured ship will be very badly damaged in the process. TLDR: I propose adding an involuntary surrender mechanism based on a crew morale level modified by crew losses, damage to armor, sails/masts and guns as a solution to the concern held by some that ships are too hard to sink or that 6.9 patch changes have forced a boarding based play style.