hoarmurath

If the risk is too high, they won't play... At all... And this is perfect use of their heads, as there's no point for them to play just to serve as punching ball for pvpers. And by your definition, i'm still looking exactly for the risk involved into attacking traders with a fully pvp fitted ship. It's nice of you to want to provide risk to traders, but what exactly are you risking? Anyway, i see this topic is turning as pve vs pvp once more... Just by the same as usual. There's already a topic in open world section, and the whole "the open world must be full pvp" discussion has nothing to do with my suggestion. This suggestion is for a playing environment already set for using pvp flags. If we end up with a pvp and a pve servers, this suggestion is irrelevant. As your answer.

No, its points aren't valid... As an eco player in potbs, let me explain you exactly what happen when i want to do eco, and my main production port is in red zone : I don't eco, i do something else. I would just shut off the port until it's accessible again. If i had something else to do, pvp, missions, then i would do it. Otherwise, i would just close the game, and play something else. Like everybody else, only noobs would try to move goods in a red zone. Currently, the discussions are about having a full pve shard, so nobody ever get attacked, or a flag system (the NCO flags), so you can only attack other pvp flagged players. With maybe an exception for pirates, but i wouldn't bet on it. So, what exactly he is whining about... Not being able to jump on unarmed trader ships? Well, that's exactly why there are discussions about no pvp server/flag. Or, OMG, i can't attack players moving their big ships before some battle? And how exactly do you intend to stop people from moving such ships (we don't even know if we will need to move our ships to participate in port battles, as there's still the possibility that it works as in potbs). You're going to blockade port? Alone? Certainly not. With enough ships to ensure that no single players will pass. Welcome to gankland, once more... And anyway, if there's a pvp flag, what already prevent people from doing it? Tinman is just having a knee jerk reaction about the open world not being full pvp everywhere anymore in the future. The fun part is that, what i just suggested would actually limit the invulnerability from pvp flag. But he haven't thought at all about it, he just saw it was about open world not being full pvp anymore, and started crying. Bart is having the exact same reaction "OMG, the game isn't going to be full pvp anymore?"... Well, according to the last discussions, no, it's not going to stay that way.

There was some discussions earlier about pvp flag, and i thought about recycling an idea i had for potbs during beta... What about making pvp and pve flagged players invisible to each others? They would sail the same sea, go to the same ports, and see the same npcs. The interactions would still be possible under some circumstances. All players would see started battles. They could always join their nation side if their nation is involved in the fight. If it's a battle between two other nations, there's two possibilities : Battle was started as player vs npc, you can join on player side only Battle was started as player vs player, usual rules of engagement apply You could also get dragged into a battle if it start near you, even though you couldn't see the player starting it. Then you would find yourself on your nation side, as usual. In case of someone attacking a smuggler from your nation, i still wonder if you should side with the smuggler, the attacker, or have the choice... It would limit interactions between pvp and pve players, without removing completely the risk for non pvp flagged players... It's just an idea...

Beautiful ship, we need a 64 for each nation...

I presume you already know this website? http://arc.id.au/Cannon.html http://arc.id.au/ArmstrongPattern.html

Also there's no seagulls, no albatros... and no penguins!

all you have to do is make it accurate when you look in the sextant.

You can make the same for fame ranks, as i said, the most renowned is your captain, the more the admiralty is to give access to better ships and equipment, and to pick better crew and officers... In fact it doesn't change anything, excepted the rank names displayed...

The more i think about the xp and rank progression, the more i'm under the impression that they aren't the best way to follow our progression in game. Starting as midshipman to rise in rank and finally become admiral seem ok, until you realize that in the end, the game will be full of admirals with very few captains. What we are playing, is the role of a Captain, do we really need to rise in rank? I don't think so. Instead of earning xp to rise in rank, why not earn renown to rise in Fame rank? Starting unknown, then, with every accomplishment, become more and more famous, thus earning more respect from the admiralty, ability to handle more men, and being given more prestigious commands, even though you're still just being a Captain ? In fact it wouldn't change a thing to the current game mechanisms, just the names, it would just replace "xp" in interface with "Renown", and instead of having "Ranks", we would have "Fame" with, for example : midshipman => Unknown ensign => Barely known junior lieutenant => Known lieutenant => Recognized master and comander => Well known post captain => Renowned flag captain => Famous commodore => Heroic rear admiral => Legendary

And they had sex in real life... Not gonna happen in game either...

Nay, a good pirate is a dead pirate...

No, it's not even humorous... The guy isn't logical anymore but he has stopped thinking for some posts now. This can only end in some sort of flame war, unless someone stop it now... I just did.. Let's be logical... How many men in a gun team. Depending on the gun size, it can be up to 14, let say 12 on average (not all guns weighs 4 tons). For a full broadside of a 74, that's 37x12 = 444 men... if you take a half team to start doing something on the other broadside, that's 666 men. I won't even start wondering the time necessary for only a half team to reload a gun. So, 666 men... fine, out of a crew of 750 on average. The officers don't man the guns. The petty officers, others than those affected to gunnery, won't man the guns. The domestics won't man the guns. the kids are not manning the guns, but they can bring the powder. The marines are supposed to be in position to fire their muskets at ennemy ships, prepare to repel boarding, or prepare to boarding. They aren't manning the guns. Their officers aren't manning the guns. So, how many men can man the guns? 497 seamen aboard a french 74, you add 41 master gunners and gun captains, that's 538... You're already short. Of course, if you don't need them, you can take the 93 marines. This isn't their primary job, but even if you do it, that's 635 men manning the guns. You're still short. And this is with no men actually sailing the ship, i affected not a single seaman to anything else but gunnery. You want to be logical, you take a calculator, and you see that the various sources saying that the two brooadsides weren't manned at the same time have a damn good chance of being right. Of course, you don't need a full team to actually fire the guns, so if your two broadsides are loaded, you can fire them at the same time. After that, you have the men to reload only one at a time.

Various sources indicate that the norm was one manned broadside, but you keep trying to present your logic as how men should be used in a warship of the era. Get out of my topic, go being logic somewhere else. Thx. Now i have to look how to ignore someone... Go away, leave, now...

You should have taken a look at the site, there's even an english version... What i'm saying is that there's 37 gun captains aboard a 74 guns sol, one gun captain is in charge of one team of gunners. So, on a 74 sol, there's 37 team of gunners, they man one broadside at a time. And i'm not saying it, the national french naval museum is saying it. I'm just saying they are saying it.

http://www.musee-marine.fr/programmes_multimedia/vieabord/ Number of guncaptains : 37...

Rigging then... I'm saying this as, during battle, i noticed that i was fighting while sailing backward a lot, in fact it helps me turn faster even through wind, and also helps me preventing my opponent from taking the weather gauge too easily. And it's more effective when at full sail, as it is how you will reach the highest negative speed. If you think that this is perfectly normal, you are the one that can't be serious. And i don't only have wargames and movies about this era, but enough books to know that this kind of tactic is unheard of, as we use it. Yet the wargames are the easier to refer as they have already translated that in game term, while in book i would be more looking for anecdotal evidence (or lack thereof), that and the fact mine are all in french and i'm sure you aren't going to read them. Yes, boxhauling, but not under full sails like we do.

shouldn't these countries be included as neutral countries in the carribeans?

This is not how the rigging is modelled, and to be honest, this is not how rigging is depicted in model building. I did a few models of square rigged ships, and the dormant rigging is clearly supporting more the masts from the rear than the front. It's not also how it's described in the miniature rules heart of oak, where being put in irons gives a chance of demasting. As this is the best researched set of wargaming rules for naval warfare in the napoleonic era, and according to my experience in building models of such ships, i think they are right.

Curious, in all wargames i have from this era, you can load only one broadside at the same time. You can also see it depicted in the movie Master & commander when they do gunnery training. I still have a scan of wooden ships and iron men rules, it's very clear, one broadside reload only. You can fire both, but only reload one. I remember it being the same in heart of oak miniature wargame rules (can't find them right now... ).

The masts are rigged to resist the wind action from astern, if you stay under sail while in irons, the force of the wind on the sails is enough to break the masts as the rigging doesn't help anymore.

Two points about things that would bring more realism... First, there is the manning of guns. Most warships had enough men to fully man one broadside only. There should be an action required to tell the men to man the port or starboard broadside, with a cooldown. And only the manned broadside would reload. Second, a ship of this era was at great risk if under sails while being in irons. Crossing the wind was a risky maneuver that could demast a ship. Shouldn't this be included as well for more realism?

Yes, for example... Or reserving extra planking for permas, this kind of things. The improved magazine acces and powder monkeys is a good example, as the magazine access should be part of the ship design, while the monkeys are crew members well trained for a specific task.

My suggestion is pretty simple... To make permanent upgrade slots only compatible with structural upgrades, while free slots would only be compatible with non structural upgrades

When you paint a ship, the first thing you do is remove the old paint.