Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'damage'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Naval Action
    • Naval Action Community and Support
    • Naval Action - National Wars and Piracy
    • Naval Action Gameplay Discussions
    • Naval Action - Other languages
    • Naval Action (Русский язык)
  • Age of Sail Historical Discussions
    • History
    • Shipyard
  • Ultimate General
    • Ultimate General: Civil War
    • Ultimate General: Gettysburg
    • Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail
    • Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts
    • Forum troubleshooting
  • This land is my land
    • General discussions
    • Feedback & Suggestions
    • Support
  • Game-Labs Forum
    • Jobs
    • Future games & special projects
    • General discussions
  • Naval Action Legends
    • General Discussions
    • Closed Beta Gameplay discussions
    • Legends Support Section
  • SealClubbingClub's Topics
  • Pyrates and rovers's Literature & Media
  • Pyrates and rovers's Gameplay / Roleplay
  • Pyrates and rovers's History - ships, events, personae
  • Clan [GWC] Nederlands talig {Aanmelding}'s Topics
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Rekrutacja
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Historia - Polska na morzach
  • Chernomoriya's Topics
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's Mysteries
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's The Book of Rules
  • Congress of Vienna's Global
  • Congress of Vienna's EU
  • Congress of Vienna's Historical
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • The Dutch Empire's Discord Server
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's The Rulebook
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's Tactics (methods)
  • Ship Auctions's Topics
  • Creative - Captains & Ships Logs's How to...
  • closed's Topics

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • The Enclave's Pearl Harbor Day

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 23 results

  1. Hello all, o7 Before I begin, I would like to say that I am well aware that there are other posts concerning the (re)implementation of storms into NA battles. It is my intention to not only condense what I have seen suggested but also add to it. I am also aware that storms are in the Naval Action: Legends beta, and if it is already planned that they should make their way into the OW game, then please disregard my section pleading for their introduction, and instead direct your attention to my other hopes which concern additions to storms and other weather conditions. I am also aware of the probable futility of my effort, however try I shall nonetheless, Even the best fighting ship fears a storm Dynamic Weather - Storms + I am of the opinion, along with numerous fellow captains, that dynamic weather or even simply more weather conditions would be a welcome, realistic, addition to this wonderful game. In real life, a sailing ship facing a moderate storm would not be able to carry all of her sail, lest parts of her canvas might carry away. Even, in the worst of storms, a ship might be at risk of capsizing or losing more important parts of rigging, running and standing alike (including entire masts). These threats gave way to the development of storm sails, or stronger, and in most cases smaller sails. Also important to take into account is the steerage afforded by the rudder of a ship. While heaving in large swell, there might be times when the rudder can lose most or all contact with the water, and therefore compromise the main steerage way of the ship and subject it to great danger. The crew of any ship in a storm would, in addition to the danger of their ship, find themselves in a danger mostly independent from the ship. Struggling about a weather deck during a storm subjects a sailor to a number of deaths. He could be swept overboard by a rolling wave, or killed by a falling spar or other loose item. An introduction of realistic storms to Naval Action would bring to the most realistic sailing simulator the worst nightmare of any sailor: the lee shore. Here, I quote from The Pirate Empire Blog, "Perhaps the most famous pirate death by storm was the gigantic pirate vessel Whydah Galley captained by the Prince of Pirates, Black Sam Bellamy. Sam sailed up the Atlantic coast of North America during what should have been a reasonably safe time of year. But he and his men were caught by an enormous storm. It drove the Whydah onto a sandbar. The sudden stop caused all the masts to break off at once, while the retreating wave rolled the huge ship onto its side. The following wave actually picked up the 300 ton vessel, rolled it farther, and dropped it upside down into shallow water. Of the 150 pirates aboard, only two men (Welshman Thomas Davis and 18-year-old Central American Moskito Indian John Julian) made it to shore alive." -Heavier storms In the heaviest of storms, these dangers were only multiplied and paired with even greater threats. Huge waves, conjured by a gale, are a threat within themselves. A ship might find itself extremely vulnerable even to rolling while sailing broadside-to-the-waves. In these conditions, broaching might be more than likely and extremely fatal, especially with a light ship. While running before the wind, waves breaking over the stern of a ship posed yet more dangers. Water pouring over the stern could crush the structure of the ship and/or swamp it to the point of sinking. Masts, spars, and everything else which might find itself exposed during such a storm would be in great peril. Strong winds will easily snap these appendages, resulting in extreme damage to the rigging and danger to the crew. Discussing the damage to the rigging could lead me on a whole new tangent, describing control of a ship with losses of certain areas of rigging, however I shall leave it for the time as incredibly hard and perhaps impossible to control a ship if one were to, for instance, lose a section of foremast. Practicality / Introduction to NA Obviously, not all of this is possible in a game. Some of these ideas are merely interesting concepts. However, I think most of these ideas would be great additions to this game. If you do not agree, please participate in the poll that goes along with this post and comment your thoughts. At the very least other weather conditions should be implemented. I have already seen what a difference this makes while playing Naval Action: Legends. It does much to break the monotony of repeated battles, not to mention the profound effects it has on the quality in terms of visuals in this beautiful game. I hope to see more than storms added, perhaps calmer days not so different from those of previous builds, and maybe days where there are different types of rain. A great hope of mine is to see in a game like this colder weather, although I have left this mostly out seeing as this is the Caribbean, after all. (So not that one.) I think that some level of dynamic weather would be good to implement, even if it is only small changes. Some damage to crew if you take waves over your stern, maybe damage to structure. Of course, in smaller ships with no dedicated gun decks this would be most prevalent. Damage to rigging (hopefully some animations of sails being ripped to shreds or carrying away). In the case of large storms, the possibility of losing a topmast or more would be realistic. More aggressive wind and greater heel to ships is a great start. Along these lines follows an inflation of leeway while sailing and a tougher beat upwind. As previously mentioned, I could start a whole new discussion concerning the effects of losing certain areas of sail, and I would also hope to see that in the future. As brief of an example as I can come up with is as follows: the loss of a foremast should result in almost uncontrollable tendency for the ship to swing into the wind, given the loss of balance. While in the wind, a ship without a foremast becomes a sitting duck as it is mostly stuck in stays. *Edit* Forgot to add this: One of the other ideas tossed around between myself and some fellow captains went along the lines of a weather event, similar to a fleet event. Just like the treasure fleet events, a message would come to all players in the session (for instance, "Rumors of a large storm spread through the West Indes"). A location could be added on the map. When captains sail there, they are brought into an instance where they have to battle the storm and other players in the area. Maybe some incentive could be added similar to the admiralty events, where rewards were multiplied. This allows captains who do not wish to participate in a storm battle their chance to do so, and an incentive for those who might like to participate. These mechanics, if added, would allow for a greater range of uses for numerous upgrades such as optimized ballast and art of proper cargo distribution. There would even be reason to add new upgrades. One such new upgrade could be "Storm Sails," giving +10% sail hp, -2% roll, +10% sail rising speed or something like that. Thank you all for taking the time to read this long suggestion of mine Happy sailing, and may your chests be filled with prize money! o7, Sir John Please be sure to check the comments for any new updates of mine Credit to Liberator for this fine screenshot, link here Taken from the Naval Action: Legends beta, link here
  2. Prolog Currently our flags stay untouched and look new even after tremendous rigging damage. Suggestion Flags get a damage layer like sails do, but complete destruction of the flag isnt possible. Details: After/during a battle flags could be damaged and look like this for increased immersion: Pro: increased immersion Con: Dev time
  3. Currently, experience is provided to players based on the hull hits they score on a killed target. This entirely leaves out players who score primarily sail or crew hits. This is a major flaw especially for sail hits because there are many situations and strategies when playing alongside friendly ships wherein a captain may legitimately maximize their effectiveness by focusing on rigging or crew damage, and as of now they receive zero credit for it. Even further, the task of dedicated rigging attackers is best suited to smaller vessels that are commonly captained by newer players. It is very hard to new players to sail alongside higher ranks in larger battle because even though they can provide the very useful contribution of rigging hits and raking grape attacks, they won't get any points for doing so and are thus discouraged from training alongside folks. From a new player retention viewpoint, this could also provide some much needed encouragement for midshipmen and the like as they'd actually be useful and benefit themselves from participating in fights they're invited to by more experienced players, who can even show them the ropes in the process.
  4. I've been working on and mathing over a subject that's been bothering me for quite a while - Cannon Penetration. Specifically, Carronades and how their penetration drops off to 0 at extreme ranges, so it got me thinking. Could one really stop a 42-pound iron ball that's been flying through the air for 1000m by...holding up a piece of paper? Noooo, that's silly. Therefore, I'd like to introduce a concept I like to call Minimum Penetration. Min Pen should be identical for shots of identical size, no matter what sort of gun they're fired from. Min Pen is based on the terminal velocity of an iron sphere of a specific mass in free-fall for an indefinite period of time. As I was pondering this subject, I said to myself, "You know, I'm sure the devs have a formula in the background that they tweak for this sort of thing, but it isn't readily apparent and carronades don't seem to follow a simple mathematical model." So, I devised a plan. Two alternate models for cannon penetration, easily adjustable based on the minimum (infinite-range) penetration, maximum (gun barrel againt hull) penetration, and the distance at which the devs want the weapon to have a pen value halfway between min and max. Edit/Update: After far too many hours than is healthy, I've updated things. I dropped the previous "Falloff" model as it was a little silly and had zero chance of being adopted. Instead, I have done extensive research on the internal and external ballistics of cannons and cannon balls for a "Historical" model that should more closely fit a realism-based scenario. The Epic Spreadsheet of Epic The above sheet shows current values, Exponential Decay, and "Historical" models as well as data on relative penetration based on kinetic energy divided by projected area. I arbitrarily set 4 pdrs to pen through 5cm of wood in a free fall, which seems reasonable to me, but this is easily adjustable with the data present After lots of research, I finally was able to simply calculate the hypothetical oak penetration, at terminal velocity, of the various weights of cannon rounds. The key is that minimum penetration is solely dependent upon the mass of the iron ball - 42pd carronades and 42pd long guns will have the same minimum penetration at hypothetical infinite range. I have two models here. The first is a gamey, Exponential model that has, as Gamelabs does, all guns of the same type lose energy at the same rate, and has Carronades' initial penetration equal to Long guns of half their caliber. The second is a "Historical" model that attempts to more accurately model internal and external ballistics. In the Exponential Model, I attempted to adhere to the theme of Gamelabs design - long guns maintaining energy over long ranges, Carronades dropping off quickly, and medium guns somewhere in between. Here, Medium cannons have 5% less 0m-Pen compared to Long guns of the same caliber, and Carronades have the same 0m-pen as a Long cannon half its caliber. The horizontal lines are for reference, from top down, Victory mast thickness, Connie mast thickness, Actual physical diameter of the HMS Victory's lower mainmast, and the current thickness of the Victory's hull. It's clear that even using this model that, while any gun is capable of damaging a 1st-rate's hull if the ship is close enough (Privateer swarm ftw), being able to deal effective damage to the masts of a 1st-rate is nigh-impossible; ONLY 42-pounders at close range (and 68pd Carros at sneezing distance) are able to pen through the thickness of those masts. The advantage of this model is that it keeps carronades short-ranged in all regards and clearly defines roles for guns. The disadvantage is that it can make using carronades, and even medium guns in some cases, frustrating at anything more than a stone's throw from an enemy ships. The Historical model attempts to more accurately simulate both external and internal ballistics. With this model, Long guns are 20 calibers in length and use a 1/4 charge-to-shot ratio. Medium guns (historically termed Short cannons) are 16 calibers in length and use a 1/5 charge-to-shot ratio and have a 10% lower muzzle velocity than Longs. Carronades are only 8 calibers in length and use a 1/12 charge-to-shot ratio but have much tighter windage that results in a higher-than-expected muzzle velocity for such a lower charge. This winds up with Carros having about a 30% lower muzzle velocity than long guns of the same caliber, but curiously about the same muzzle energy as a long gun of half their caliber (even though it's a little less penetrating potential since the same energy is being distributed over a larger projected area). Here, Carronades are slightly less effective at point-blank range, but it treats, externally, all shot of the same size the in the same manner - a 42 pound ball will lose energy flying through the air at the same rate (as a proportion of its velocity) as any other 42-pound ball. However, larger shot maintains its energy better over distance (since the shot's mass increases as a cube of radius, while its projected area only increases as a square of radius) and thus will lose penetrating potential slower than smaller long guns. It can be readily seen that guns of the same caliber, regardless of type, decay to the same minimum penetration value at extreme range. With this model, accuracy becomes much more important; long guns are the kings of this, while medium guns have a little more dispersion and slightly reduced muzzle velocity and carronades are not very accurate at all. Carronades, while having the potential to reach the same range as a long gun (due to the capacity for higher gun elevation), it will not only strike with less force, but a higher impact angle (which significantly reduces the effective impact energy). Large carronades fired at range, if aimed well with decent accuracy mods, might be acceptable for chaining sails or raining grape onto weather decks, but little else. The Comparison chart shows existing 42pdrs in red, Exponential model guns in green, and Historical model guns in blue. Obviously, no concrete data is available for shots beyond 1km with the current values. Personally, I am a fan of the Historical model that I've concocted here. It makes Carronades much more of a skill weapon - high damage potential with very low accuracy. A skilled captain could, potentially, out-damage a similar ship at medium range with carronades. While this treatise does not address cannon damage, my initial thoughts are that damage and reload should be adjusted so that cannons of the same caliber do the same damage, but different types of cannons have faster reload times. E.g. 50 damage for 42-pound shot, 72 seconds for a 42-Long, 64 seconds for a 42-Short, and 48 seconds for a 42-Carro. Edit: It is this way mostly, already, just some minor tweaks and fine-tuning. The other issue at hand is mast thickness. Hull thickness is more or less acceptable (a few outliers, like the Constitution), but Masts are far and away far too thick to avoid "demasting at range". A general rule of thumb to go by is that the lower main mast should be no thicker than 4/3rds the hull thickness. By this logic, the thickest that a Victory's main mast should be is 100cm. This means that, even with the Historical model, all but 42-pd carronades will have trouble demasting a Vic, while Long 12s and Medium 24s should be up to the task, albeit at very close range. However, that doesn't mean they should be necessarily easy to demast. Lower mast sections were quite tough. While this thickness should be dropped to less than 100cm, the mast HP should be buffed easily 50% for lower mast sections, and 25% for mid-sections with the lower mast thickness. One amusing side effect of the Historical model is that the 68pd-smashers would actually retain more penetrating potential outside 1200m - but good luck hitting anything, let alone hitting it square enough to do significant damage.
  5. I wanted to start a thread for those of us trying to understand the new game mechanics. To get the ball rolling, I am wondering how we take cover behind stone walls or other embattlements. I have seen the AI do it, and my men have sometimes started in that position, but I have no idea how to order them to do so. Does anyone have any suggestions or other new mechanics they are struggling with.
  6. The following address will take you to pages concerning British Ordinance for the 17th and 18th centuries. Lots of info for casual interest, and those having mathematical minds interested in such things as muzzel velocities and ball trajectories. If you're interested in Naval Action there should be info for each of us to glean. I hope these can be of interest and help answer many historical questions. Enjoy. http://www.arc.id.au/Cannonballs.html
  7. I thought I'd throw this out there.... just to see if I am alone in this, way off the mark or actually onto something. I am talking about the visibility of the damage inflicted on the enemy, and other glues as to their seaworthiness and ability to fight. After watching numerous videos its quite apparent that the visual information on the enemy has a huge impact on the engagement and the tactics employed. I'll say it, I feel uncomfortable with the idea of having such accurate info on my enemy. Surely this brings into play an unrealistic mechanism that removes any element of risk or skill on the part of the Captain fighting the engagement, and his/hers ability to judge whether they are winning by visual clues and hard won experience.... By removing the enemy damage indicator, the Captain would have to rely on his assessment of the enemy ship, its speed, its maneuverability and its visual damage. Whether also its Broadside weight and gunnery is lacking due to damage inflicted. I also note in one engagement that the Captain of 1 ship knew how many repair counts the enemy ship had left and had used!!!! It may be too hardcore but should the damage inflicted be more vague? Your valued thoughts and opinions Gentlemen?
  8. I have been sailing the Bucentaure for a few days now and I'm having a pretty serious issue with it. My crew loss per mission is unbelievably high compared to my clan mates in ships of the same size. 200 + crew lost in each battle and not just from stern shots. Each broadside I take I see my crew drop by 5-10. What this makes for is an almost unplayable match and today i lost my Buce for the last time due to one point blank broadside from a Bellona which wiped out 330 crew. I know you history buffs will say "That's what happened at Trafalgar" and it is... The ship was rendered useless in one broad side. Yet i can put a full broadside into the back of a third rate or Bellona and only kill 30-40 crew. I'm now stuck with no big ship, no upgrades, and no money due to the fact i spent it on ships for my clan mates yesterday other than 1 last Buce which is (In my opinion) My least favorite ship in the game and practically useless for anyone who wants to do PVE fleet missions to level. I get the ship being a bit squishy, But the crew loss is too extreme when it takes more then the 160k-200k gold I'm getting from missions to recrew and repair the ship. Also for those of you getting ready to type away at how bad i am at the game and how you never lose anything save it. I'm excellent in anything other than this ship.
  9. This might be the most modified game mechanic until now and I would like to share some more ideas here. I have seen in different threads similar ideas, and here is my total RoE package for a robust, fun and sustainable PvP environment on the open sea. The Concept: The main difference here for the initiation of OS engagements is, that the location is not only factor for determining the allocation of ships in the instance, but also the time itself. So, basically after the OS attacking, the instance is created. And any ship, outside this first initiation circle, would be joining to the instance as reinforcements. Until this point, it is similar to the current system. The reinforcements on the other hand, would be again positional according to their open sea location, but the reinforcements would be relative further away to the engaging ships in the instance. I would like to use here the term cutter minutes, similar to light years, the distance a cutter would cover in one minute. For example, the first joiner would start in that instance 6 cutter minutes away (outer rims of orange circle) from the engaging ships. The reinforcement who joins after one minute of the start of the instance would be 6+1 minutes away (outer rims of green circle); the one who joins after 2 minutes of initiation would start 6+2 minutes away and so on. As a result, the more late you join a battle, the further away you would spawn from the initial battle location in the instance. What would this allow for the game? The open sea battle instances could stay open for much longer times instead of just 2 minutes, which would increase the dynamism and activity of the open sea and rendering it more lively. This would not end ganks, but if a captain is ganked close to a friendly port, there might be a chance for reinforcements to arrive at the horizon On the other hand, it might also lay the groundwork for a good organized gank, using the positional reinforcement. However, the distance to reinforcement point depending on timer (6 + x minutes) would still give a chance for the ganked captain. No BR limits Smooth transition from open sea to the instance Need and thrill of searching the horizon not only in open sea but also in the instance Attack Circle and Timer: The attack circle on open sea could be adjusted. A relative smaller circle and shorter timer, would increase the importance of the open sea positioning and engaging. Keeping the Target in Battle: At the current state, if you land a cannonball from 800 yard distance on the sails or hull and inflict some damage, you would reset the battle timer for the target. In most cases, this would result in a very long and boring chasing situation. The current tagging mechanism also gives opportunity to the griefers. To prevent those, a damage threshold could be applied like the need of inflicting minimum 1% damage to sails (or hull) to be able to reset the battle timer for the target. Similar measures were also taken in PotBS to prevent griefing. Even in the worst gank scenario, this would give the gankers at least several chances to attack the target for resetting the timer, whereas, the target also keeps its fair chance to be able to run away and click out. Instance Join Timer for Reinforcements: The timer for reinforcements could be easily increased in this concept. I would say a time between 5 and 10 minutes might be the optimal point. Ship Polars: Minor changes to the directional speed limits should be made according to the gameplay instead of realism here, I think. This means appointing different best speed directions for different ships, so that every ship could overtake others at a specific direction or similar to that. If we look below graph, Trincomalee curve (orange) is a good example being at some directions more slow and at some directions relative faster. In conclusion, I think all those rules together would render the open world much more lively and active place for PvP and RvR compared to the current situation.
  10. This is a simple question but I can't seem to find guidance anywhere that suggests the answer. After you finish battling a ship and it's sinking, the Battle Over message is displayed. Prior to masts going to Davey Jones' locker, I sometimes take the opportunity to practice my shooting skills. You can get hits on the ship if it's still above the waterline, hit and knock down masts, and ironically even kill crew. The question is, if you do these things after the Battle Over message shows up, does it give you more XP for it, i.e. credit you the extra damage? I do it for the shooting practice against a non-threatening target, but it'd be xtra special if more XP came with that. Anyone know?
  11. I would suggest upgrading all grades of planking for leak/damage protection. Removing the speed cut back would be nice too!
  12. Long Cannon Balls The problem I see with longs is that even at far range, far enough not to penetrate hulls of ships, still do full damage to sails' canvas and masts. Why do Long Cannon balls still do the same damage to sails' masts at long distances? Shouldn't long cannon balls not be able to penetrate sails at long distance? A ships with carronades wont even be able to get close to another ship with longs. If the ship with longs just focuses on sails then there is really nothing you can do if your sailing with carronades. If the sails' canvas is the target, the most damage should be done with chain and not balls.
  13. I think the incorporation of setting a ship on fire is an awesome feature of the damage model. However, I think on-board fires are far too weak and aren't much of a threat. I have set a number of vessels on fire, have seen others lit up, and had my own set on fire on a number of occasions and only seen one explode. That's ok, I am not looking to see more explosions but shouldn't a ship made of wood, cloth and packed with gunpowder be under far more danger when on fire? As before, its not difficult to set a vessel on fire in the game and it happens at least once in larger battles but I see a vessel get ignited and I just think "Well, it will be out 20 seconds" and if its the AI, almost all fires will be extinguished no matter how many times it started (unless they have minimal crew, of course). Extinguishing a fire seems to have as much urgency as fixing a pump or rudder and the only real threat to not extinguishing it on time is that after several minutes it may hit the magazine and detonate it. I think a fire should be harder to start and more rare in battle, but once it happens I believe that it should be one of the most devastating things that can happen to a ship. I think that over time, the fire should damage the hull more, kill crew, destroy cannons, damage sails and so forth for the duration of the blaze. I don't feel it should just be another thing that happens in battle which will be fixed and no longer a threat in just a few moments. I am Captain and have been in a number of engagements and just don't feel that the fires have that "urgency" to them as I feel they should have had during the Age of Sail. Just a thought. If anyone has any ideas or opinions, I would love to hear them. Great game by the way. Number one most played game in my Steam Library.
  14. Hello all, Does anyone know if the devs have implemented, or intend to implement storm damage in both the open world and battles. If not, here are my suggestions on how it could be implemented: - Using too much sail in storms can result in damage to the sails (e.g tears and rips) and damage to the rigging (e.g de-masting). This would encourage more careful use of sails and manoeuvres in battles and, perhaps, bring more in-depth sail control to the open world. - When vessels are healing over intensely, due to using too much sail, or when you face larger waves at a dodgy angle (e.g side on) they could be flooded, using a mechanic similar to how leaks work in game. - Reckless sailing in storms should, perhaps, result in you losing crew. - All this would be more relevant if the weather, sea conditions; time and setting in the battle instances match the conditions in the area of the OW where you have joined the battle. -Some kind of damage should be implemented in the OW too, because it would mean having more detailed sailing control and, perhaps, having to stay in port until a storm passes if you feel nervous about entering one. What are everyone's views, opinions and ideas on storms and storm damage?
  15. Fellow Captains and Honorable Admirals, I apologize for putting this in general discussions. This may even be covered already I am enquiring about how dificult it will be to dismount our enemies' cannons in relation to their size. While chosing my cannon weight and showing the constructor to a friend, they asked, "Does the size of the cannon affect how easily they are destroyed?" I had no good answer and look for it here. I have not noticed enemy cannons, nor even my own, being knocked out of commision very often, let alone at a different rate for different gun sizes. A larger gun would require more volume of space, including the tools required to operate the weapon effectively. Even a 6 pound ball could disable a heavy gun if directly hitting a carrriage, wheel, harness, block or even barrel. Not to mention the crew. The question isn't the damage a shot would do to the gun but how easy can it be hit in the first place. There should be a correlation to how large the game's "hit box" is for cannons. This is not a very important issue as the battle mechanics are already extremely enjoyeable and I understand sea trials 2 is officially over, but this could be implemented before the final product if it is not already on the schedule.
  16. Hello. I'm right now playing as a Navy Brig and after having a very hard time with the standard brig, I thought this one was going to be better but I was mistaken. This I am going to say it's true: I got more damage per battle with a Privateer than what I get with Brigs or Navy Brigs. My problem is not the firepower or the manueverability right now. My big problem that for this ship is that it pretty much is like a piece of paper. I can't stand seeing how in a single shot it's entire nose armor gets almst fully destroyed and almost the same for port or starboard, and rear. Two shots and it's done even when being shot by not that big ships, but if it gets shot by a constitution its done almost in the first set of shots. So, I cannot even approach ships without gettign destroyed before I can do a decent ammount of damage, and somehow in pve ships will manage to hit you without ranging shots in the first try. So yes, i'm despeprate with this ship, cause I thought It was going to be better and more resistant but no it is not and I have a long way to the snow.
  17. Let's note: the highest damage scores you've got or have seen (state the type of the ship and what you have done to reach that score) epic battles, great victories and WTF moments I'll start with my 56915 damage, when playing a victory. A storm map. The battle ended in a tie (one enemy remaining). Most of the time I was shooting at the masts of a santissima, taking them down (first we were chasing him down, then he ended up upwind from us, not very eager to come closer ).
  18. Basing of off the various stories and accounts of the most famous naval battle in the age of sail, our canons in game do way more then they did in real life. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/interactive/animations/trafalgar/index_embed.shtml Biggest fleet battle in Napoleanic history and hardly any ship sunk IN battle with only 1 being blown up when the magazine blew up. In our game ships get sunk too fast imo and masts get broken a tad bit too early. Let the boys have their fun and give our ships more HP or just lower the damage of the guns. If ships werent sinking like mad in Trafalgar why should they do so in our game?
  19. Hello all, first post. I just had a game where, after an intense battle between my NavyBrig and another ship of the same type, we had a collision. I intentionally rammed him, as a last effort to provoke damage and sink him. Problem is that I didn't think to survive since my ship was battered and damaged while his had almost full frontal armor. Now, how does RAM mechanics work ? Since we both had the same ship, and he had more armor than me, shouldn't he survive the crash and I sink ? Why did this happen ? Thank you in advance,
  20. As a group of enthusiasts we were spit balling this around a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps less important during testing but a simple solution to friendly fire and collision at release. Damaged caused is real. It happened, fog of war, stupidity, heat of the moment bad decision etc. During the game the damage stands. The ship causing the friendly damage has double the points removed from its match score to a minimum of zero points. (Think of this as an on the spot Court Martial inquiry fine and slap on the knuckles). Should point scoring not be taking place, then the fine could be applied as a currency cost either 'as well as' or instead. As the game applies damage and collates points scored I would have thought that blue on blue damage could be recorded relatively easily and then the 'fine' applied for the end of match result. Your thoughts ? Posted on behalf of Sea Lords Virtual Fleet Soundboard group Join Here Captains Crankey Caldwell Master_Scrub Heneage Dundas Robert Danforth Edward Vernon Patrick Walsh Llewellyn Jones RN FLGibsonJr Edward Harvey Jack Aubrey Aplogies if we are repeating anyone elses suggestion here I couldn't locate a direct comparison post.
  21. I'm getting this when I try to download steam. I'm running on a PC laptop using a mouse in a usb port (but only in selective games). I play Eve, WOW, World of Tanks/Planes. I've never had this come up before. Has any one else Have tis happen to them?
  22. Can some 1 explain exactly what logs mean in terms of the numbers shown in damage log? It is a very handy tool to know what type of canon your opponent has but there is somethings I don't get like the numbers in the [ ] symbol and when you loose canons. I understand that damage left, damage right etc mean and kinda of what 3.6 crew lost and magazine hit mean just not the rest. Also does any 1 know what the K button does?
  23. Is it just me or does it seems that damage taken from the stern doesn't seem to do enough damage to the ship besides armor? According to all movies and books I've ever seen, ships taking shots thru the back usually meant canons bouncing thru the entire ship causing mass casualties and damage to the ship. I think devs need to represent this more in game.
×
×
  • Create New...