Ampen

I had so much hope for Rome 2, and paired with they rushing it, it really turned out bad for me. On the same time, the game was way to easy, no challenge what so ever, and eventually that's what really ruined it. Seems to me like the developers went with 'look hard - play easy' to get as much good reviews as possible. I have yet to see a friend spending more than 100 hours in the game, and for that price, that's just bad value for your money. For a while I followed the forums, but doesn't even do that more, but agree, it could turn out to be a great game. It might. Mount & Blade always was good games though, have to check out Bannerlord.

battle1,battle2,deck1,raid and finally storm for favourite, and for less favourite I can't really say. They're all good as I see it, although I'm used to potbs.

I can understand that, but unfortunately we swedes don't take prisoners.

Sounds like strategic trade spots would get contested by active guilds, then. I like the sound of that.

I'm thinking more of theater-based coloring. If the game is going to be set in the Caribbean, vivid with great colors, turquoise water, etc. Will give that warm feeling about it. If it's to be set in Europe, with the Atlantic and/or the Baltic as playground, I'd like something more desaturated, colder, representing the harsh nature of those waters.

This one: 'Sweden starts to decline' We all know that really didn't happen

Being able to zoom out properly does so much for the tactical aspects of PvP. Also, a good zoom out will make for better youtube-videos.

28

Didn't mean for it to be active like that, My point was merely for a ship about to sink. As I understood it, a ship can take damage and limp out of combat, no need for the crew to abandon then, it would be more dangerous for the crew. But a ship that is shot up so bad it is without doubt going to sink, rather than that in every case having the crew continue fighting and firing, this is where morale could kick in as a variable for the crew abandoning ship.

First off, on the subject on aiming, wich has come up: There were calculations for range and aim used in the artillery during the black powder era that was quite accurate. More interesting, a veteran artillery crew mostly made the aiming on gut feeling, and was surprisingly accurate, despite using very crude methods of aiming, such as using wedges and woodparts to increase/decrease elevation. Therefore, for me aiming seems better left to the gunners, with either some sort of penalty for a rookie crew, or a bonus for a veteran/crack crew. Then on to subject: As stated earlier, being shot in the bow should become raking, wich would then make a certain type of damage to certain specifics, as the crew, rigging or so, this because the bow of a ship is very narrow, and a very bad angle to sink a ship from, why this mostly resulted in just raking shots. Being fired upon in the stern could potentially be dangerous for the ship integrity, since this area, while narrower than the broadside, still is plain, and not pointed against the firing ship such as the bow, This could differ depending on the ship, since this is more valid on bigger ships, while on smaller ships this as well more turns into raking shots. Other than that, all I might suggest is some sort of morale value for the crew. If morale stays up (and better crews could have better morale etc), the crew (or main part of it) continue to fight, while morale breaking (due to morale penalty from ship sinking) would make the crew stop fighting and either strike their colors, or abandon ship,

I reject the last sentense in line 48. But otherwise it seems correct. Interesting sidefacts to the various conflicts between Denmark and Sweden in the Baltic sea during these years: Both England and Holland sided with either of those countries, in an effort (that eventually succeded) to keep them at status quo, enabling english and dutch traders to pass in and out paying little/none customs fee. If Denmark kept the straights, they'd charge a fee, would Sweden gained control of the straights, they would most definetly charge a fee. This gave that they could side with Denmark in one conflict, just to side with Sweden during the next. Only once did they end up siding on one side each.

I dove into Rome 2, and was bitterly disappointed. Played every game of that franchise, every single one, and this was just like being slowly strangled. Also did some EU4. More impressed with that one, even though certain features have been dumbed down in that franchise as well, "streamlining" seem to be the way to go in making games today. Have done my fair share of WoT and War Thunder as well (flying ponies ftw!), and also alot of Pirates of the Burning sea. I just loved the complexity of the PvP with groups in that game. Actually reconsidering that one for the time being. Other stops have included SWTOR and BSGO, but otherwise I'm that kind of weird guy that plays games from Matrix Games.

Considering my suggestion in battle scenarios, it struck me that larger galleys and galiots might be interesting as well. Both russians and swedes used them in combination with SOL's during the early 18th century, starting with it as early as during the 17th century. On smaller maps, or maps with coastlines for example, they would give a tactical edge used correctly, due to their ability to go against the wind if needed.

I think both open sea and archipelago battles could be interesting. With open sea battles more rigid tactics are needed, more care need to be taken to wind etc, while fighting amongst islands will require not only different ships, but also different tactics, and a bit more creative approach to clinch a victory. Archipelago battles could be coupled with certain objectives as well, as a few of those mentioned above, like blockade, or siezing a fortress.