Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

SweatyPenguin

Ensign
  • Posts

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

424 profile views

SweatyPenguin's Achievements

Ordinary seaman

Ordinary seaman (2/13)

20

Reputation

  1. It lacks the world map element and the empire building. Which is not something I believe the devs will ever strive to add into any of these titles. But the combat is far better done. Much longer battles emphasizing overall tactics rather than moment to moment micromanagement. Total War for whatever reason incomprehensible to me has decided to balance everything around heavily doctored online gameplay and their single player has massively suffered as a result. These days a Total War battle is a glorified game of rock paper scissors. Lasts about the same time too.
  2. That's really not the right mission to discuss the issue around. The goal is to get Walpole to safety, not defeat the enemy fleet. You are specifically meant to be mounting a desperate defence to keep the enemy to your leeward and allow Walpole to get out of dodge before they can cross her path. I did the same thing you did on one of my playthroughs. Bought a 5th rate, could just about afford to equip it and suddenly I was facing 3. A problem further exacerbated by the fact that to save weight I only mounted 9pds on her gundeck, meaning she was left more or less toothless against ships with that kind of planking. Despite that, I enjoyed the mission a great deal. It forces you to think, to sacrifice, to salvage the best out of a terrible situation. Anyone can get through the first or second naval missions where you are anything but handed the victory... But Priority felt like the first time my skill of commanding a ship was actually challenged, and I enjoyed that very much. I would definitely like to see more of this type of gameplay, for example having to retreat your land forces back onto ships and sailing them out fending off enemy attacks.
  3. I can't fully aggree with that. I find mortars do extremely high damage. But the problem is IF. They will often just flat out refuse to engage with units clearly within their cone of fire. If they do the effects are definitely there but quite often they simply will not shoot. Anyone else having this problem? Should I bug report it?
  4. I aggree. I would like this to be made far more "arcadey" than it is. Use current grapeshot damage as base and start with it a 100 percent decreased against 100 percent armour. Little to no damage against "fresh" ships, devastating effect when hammering ships completely stripped of armour. Shortening the range to no little further than musket shot might also help balance this, forcing players to be still be aggressive and stay close when capturing, rather than just "sniping" the crew out.
  5. I am not quite sure how far they want to go. If we go on all the way to Napoleonic wars, we could possibly see even breech loading rifles and definitely carronades. The latter of which is in the game already, HMS Indefatigable has them on in historical battles. The tech appearance during campaign as far as I know is almost completely RNG based.
  6. You can surrender ships by continuous broadsides of round shot. To achieve that you have to have a superior number of ships nearby and at least one of them has to be super close. This does not work reliably however, or at least I haven't been able to find a way to make it so. Nor have I been able to make any connection to damage dealt to said ship that would corelate with it surrendering. Sometimes they give up in three broadsides, with armour barely scratched, sometimes they'd rather sink. You can also cheese the game by using fully loaded troop ships as boarding vessels.
  7. Bumping this thread. While doing my tests about surrender, thus really dragging out the fight, I managed to get a ship even up to two stars in one battle. But in the harbour this don't seem to be doing anything much in harbour and next battle they will be gone. Quite confused. Is this a bug? A yet unimplemented feature? A simple increase in stats we're all too silly to notice?
  8. No, not all the time. There absolutely needs to be a degree of neccessary aggression and risk associated with capturing ships. Perhaps that is why the devs have so heavily tied it to proximity of enemies. I just want to see it more transparent and consistent. Does not mean there cannot be RNG in it, some ships can be easier, some harder, some can still simply fight to death regardless. But I want to see into it. I want to know for certain, that if a ships flag is flashing and another broadside still did not do the trick, I have to close and take him by boarding or risk sinking him. To be able to reliably make that gameplay decision based on clear criteria. Currently a ship that clearly should surrender does not, and a ship you wouldn't have expected to suddenly strikes.
  9. @pandakraut @WilliamTheIII @Afghanicus I figured I owed you all at least some screenshots to illustrate my point. Gentlemen, I give you *insert drumroll* Ship not surrendering! Do note the in-game time passed, this was not one broadside.
  10. @pandakraut Realized I didn't actually finish my answer. Not specifically related to masts. But I think the sum total of damage suffered should have more pronounced influence on the willingness of a ship to surrender. I would like it to sort of add up to a point where I can actually know for certain that if a ships icon is flashing white, the next artillery/rigging shock will push them over the edge. Or that their capability of defending a boarding will be significantly diminished, allowing the ship to be taken even by equal numbers with a favourable ratio of casualties... etc.
  11. I'll happily aggree with that, either muskets are overperforming or canister underperforming, in my opinion a combination of both. That is exactly the kind of use I would like to see for it, a close range weapon of opportunity, not a spammable tool for turning ships into ghost towns. Yes, I think crew casualties from both round shot and canister are severely undertuned, I have seen close range broadsides actually go through the ship, with 12 hits or more, causing massive damages to armour, but for something like this to not take down a single crewman, that just doesn't sit right. Occassionaly the AI would score some kind of critical, I assume a hit right into the gunports, because the shot appeared to hit the hull, dealt no armour dmg, but always killed exactly 3 crewmen. For this to happen, while a full 14 gun broadside misses everyone, that just seems entirely out of tune.
  12. That is what I would expect, but it does not seem to work that way well enough. Perhaps a 2 on 1 is not sufficently bad odds? It ought to be when one has an overwhelming advantage in firepower. A fight must be had, I don't dispute that for a second, but not every fight should be ended either by death or boarding. The lack of clarity in this is what irks me most. I know it is possible to surrender the enemy simply on damage dealt, but why? When? A game needs clearly defined mechanics, I should be able to say with a reasonable degree of certainty at which point and after which criteria I can force a a ship to strike. I did hours of this and it all just felt far too random. Oh gosh, no killing 20-30 man on these smaller ships is out of the question. But what would like to see would the reduction of effectivness of canister to about the musket range and a buff on the deadliness within it, and perhaps some heavier morale effects and debuffs. Say in my ideal world, if I close to point blank and fire canister right before boarding, I would like to see said boarding be more effective due to larger initial shock... Stuff like that. A weapon of opportunity, not something you can just spam and reliably de-crew ships with.
  13. I'm really none too happy about that, and dont understand why we cant convert ships from our own pool for a price. Make that price the same as buying a new ship, I dont care, but remove the unneccessary RNG.
×
×
  • Create New...