Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'realism'.
Found 18 results
-
When playing the new cruiser killer mission, I couldn't help notice how the game makes a 40 knot plus battlecruiser, forcing me to make a 44 knot monster to try and chase them. The game estimates the horsepower at about 355,000HP. AFAIK, even with modern technology, between shaft loading limits and cavitation, we can't practically cram more than 70000HP (like a Nimitz class supercarrier) onto a shaft, and since there are usually a maximum of four shafts, we should be limited to about 280,000HP, at most. Should we put in a similar limit in game, or in the long run limit it by tech level? It would seem to increase realism, it would help guide the AI, and give an incentive to build lighter ships that can go faster (since we are all limited to 280,000HP max).
-
“My case for the bulge” The absence of torpedo bulges has the strong possibility of sinking Ultimate Admirals Dreadnoughts otherwise historically accurate experience. The main purpose of the torpedo bulge throughout both world wars was to mitigate the damage of a torpedo strike. At this they achieved mixed results but, they were a very important feature of many ships overall defense. Most of the time a torpedo bulge was just an added layer of external armour below the waterline of a ship; no bulge was adequate on its own. It was important that all bulges work in conjunction with bulkheads to maintain the best possible defense. I believe in theory it would be a very achievable goal to implement them in before release. If torpedo bulges are not added, we stand to lose, not only an integral part of the damage model but also a great loss in diversity and realism in aesthetics. If it is therefore not a huge drain on resources to do so I advocate heavily for their implementation. I intend to argue this case here and provide what I think may work as a solution to our battle of the Bulge. The importance of the aesthetic or the visuals should not be discarded. Who doesn’t love a good bulge? Although it may appear to be on the surface an unimportant feature it does in facet effect many zones of interaction. Perhaps most importantly is the damage model, currently torpedo bulges seem to only apply an abstraction of their intended purpose on a ship without affecting the visual narrative of that abstraction. This has a significant impact on immersion and realism. If ships had bulges in reality, those ships could not be accurately duplicated in game. It was one of the most prevalent features of prewar battleships that were refitted to serve in the second world war. We would lose a significant amount of Iconic battleship hulls or worse in my opinion simplify them to the point of unrecognition. As for implementation of the in-game assets I suggest this, a simple few types of generic bulges set up in a similar manner to the hulls, that is to say extendable with displacement. These would then correlate to different bulge types or implemented into game mechanics as the developers see fit. I have included several Pictorial examples of this concept. A lack of bulge would be devastating. There can be no accurate hulls for so many class’s including, New York, Pennsylvania, Littorio, Kongo, Fuso, Nagato, Queen Elizabeth, Revenge, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Tennessee, Ise, etc. These vessels not only represent the pinnacle of their nations navies but are also the most recognizable designs that players will expect to see accurately and realistically rendered in the game. These Iconic designs would not be reproduceable, the possibilities of new designs featuring hulls that never saw them would be extinguished. This ship feature, aside from being practical, is also a great way to provide a huge increase in design capabilities for relatively low labor. In conclusion I think adding torpedo bulges will add considerably to gameplay, immersion, design potential, variety, realism, and aesthetic. For a small amount of effort, a great contribution can made towards making Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts an even more rewarding experience for fans of naval warfare simulation. I do some 3d modeling for mods and my own 3d printing, I was able to model quickly a few Generic Bulge types that may offer some idea to the developers I have also included those models. Here you could either section out parts of the bulge much like how the hulls currently work based on displacement or elongate the bulge horizontally to the displacement size, as the bulge does not need to cover the entire hull this should be achievable. Here is an in game representation of what it might look like on the BC 3 hull I believe. Various images of Torpedo bulges in all their glory. Most older Battleships that saw participated in WW2 saw a few refits and modernizations, almost all had torpedo bulges added at some point. here the new York Class before and after modernization. Again the New York before her bulge Refit. Link to Models: https://www.dropbox.com/s/l1gl05nantywjbm/Torp Bulges.rar?dl=0 References: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.php http://combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_underw.htm http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/34a.htm extensive use of Wikipedia to find refits and dates. Most pre war BBs that were in service during WW2 had bulges. These will be hulls that start in game without bulges and without the need to make entirely new hulls it would be preferential to make attachable bulges.
-
Talked to a dev in Discord about this briefly. IRL Indians would “Knap” arrowheads usually from flint or obsidian. Knapping is the process of breaking off a piece of flint, or obsidian, and then chipping around the edges of it to form a sharp arrowhead. I can’t imagine it would be too difficult to add flint and/or obsidian into the game to make arrowheads with. Flint could be used for regular arrows, and obsidian for the better arrows. Here is a guide to American Indian Arrowheads; Native American Indian Arrowheads: The Ultimate Informational Guide Wingnut
-
The OW doesn't seem to let you use yard controls. You can sail directly into the wind without ever ending up in irons. With sails fully reefed, you can turn on a dime, regardless of where the wind is coming from. The speeds in the OW far surpass the speeds listed for the ships, and the speeds seen in combat. I have seen others mention the tedium of traversing the OW. I imagine much of it has to do with how it involves hardly any sailing skill. Here are just a few things that I think would make travel in the OW a game unto itself. Include the sailing mechanics already present in combat. Reefs and rocks that you can see if you look for them, but will tear your hull apart if you miss them. Planning supplies for your crew. Do you take extra in case you don't get to your destination by the time you had planned? Or do you go with the bare minimum that you can get away with so that you can pack more merchandise into your hull, and risk losing crew? Storms! Outrun them if you can, or reef your sails and heave to. Folks sailing broad reach in a storm under full sails will get torn sails, dismasted, or even sail straight down to the ocean floor. Replace the heading indicator and wind arrow with a simple compass. There are plenty of other ways to tell which way the wind blows already in the game. Ocean currents. Contend with the prevailing currents while navigating. Just because you know which way your ship is pointing, doesn't mean that is the direction your ship is going.
- 60 replies
-
- 11
-
-
- sailing
- open world
- (and 1 more)
-
Exploring my ship in freecam, I noticed that the capstan was at a level which would put the capstan bars through some sort of beam. It also seems a bit too high for any man to reach, if you compare its height to the height of the nearby cannons. edit: removed picture for space since this was answered Just wondering what the beams were and if this was realistic Thanks
-
Hi all, i wanted to see if we can start a discussion on the current state of the combat mechanic in game. Since coming back to the game I feel that although the ship sailing model has gotten more realistic with bigger ships being slower and less maneuverable, this combined with the repairs model and the game controls has actually resulted in what I regard as a very negative consequence. In "the old days" before I left, you had one repair and had to use battle sail (if you were smart) to preserve sails and try to preserve your sails while hurting the enemy (if you chose to target the sails). Now, the slower ships have resulted in captains deploying full sail ALL THE TIME in order to override the new ship model and enhance maneuverability, whilst using 2 things: 1. The multi repair model to allow for sail damage with no worries as constant repairs can make good) 2. The "arcadey" mechanic of using swinging yard arms and depowers to "dodge chainshot". Now as we ALL know, age of sail combat used Battle sails (so named for a good reason) IN BATTLE, and age of sail combat was slow and unmaneuverable, hence the need to think tactically when positioning ships, and the fear of tacking and the importance of wind. I really feel the current system has really gone away from the realism the devs were aiming at to a more "arcade system" where sails are never used except at 100% and that SOLs are being used almost like very big frigates, maneuvering all over the place, rather than grinding along in straight lines pounding things. "Dodging" chain shot with yard arms swings seems to me the very opposite of the kind of game play we (I?) want. I love the realism and "slowness" of age of sail combat where the game WAS heading and the time for thought and to outthink the enemy, and think the move to arcadey fighting with twitch manouveres like sail dodging is not good. Any system which means all ships sail about at 100% sail in combat cannot be seen as a system functioning properly. It defeats the whole idea of different sail rates, and also defeats the idea of "crew allocation" as its raising and lowering sails that really takes a lot of crew, and not so much maneuvering the yards. If your sail allocation is pointless, it means you can just crew the guns / boarding and ignore sails. Thoughts? Suggestions? MY opinion is that sails reps should only allow a "diminishing return" of repairs, to encourage sail preservation, eg 1st rep - to 100% (if possible), 2nd rep Max 85%, 3rd rep max 70% Also perhaps 100% sail will magnify MAST damage? Via more strain and tension on masts (or whatever, but just as a way to prevent constant 100% sailing with no downside)? Or perhaps each level of sail up, means yards take longer to turn (as more weight and pressure in the sails?) eg 100% sails = 50% slower yard turning, and proportionate penalties down till 1/2 sail?
-
Trade and cargo transfer can be done between two ships! Two players, independent of ships type or nation, will be given the option to meet at high seas in OW to trade and transfer cargo ship to ship (STS). Vessels move alongside within their small circles, stop on zero speed and STS-button will be activated. Clicking it will start a 60 seconds countdown. "Get ready cargo gear" will be shown. After that the same trade routine will open as we all know from trade in ports. Players can still watch the horizon but hindered by the trade windows. Trade can only be done between single or leading ships if with fleet. If one of the trading ships is attacked while in this mode the trade window will shut down as if it is canceled and all trading participants will find themselves in battle mode. To reflect the vulnerable state they where caught in, (two ships tied together working hard with cargo gear) the traders will remain dead in water first 2 minutes after start of the battle before they are able to set sails and move. But guns may be fired and all other orders may be given normaly. If the trade is done without any unpleasant interruption players may close trade window and sail on ... bon voyage! This feature shall bring more realism and players freedom to the NA-universe. It could be an occasion for exciting game situations. It will reduce frustration about long trips to deal with other players and nations over far distances if you are free to meet anybody anywhere and only have half the way. It will promote and revive ships traffic and the ingame economy. This will provide more potential of victims for all hunters and raiders. And it could open to play as raider trap or to play the role of a supply ship (tender) for battle fleets and squads providing rum and repairs... it's demanding good navigators. This will help the game to stop drifting more and more towards a world of warships under sails ... Dear DEVS please think about that seriously. Forum members please let me all know your thoughts about this issue... may be i forget to consider something... the devil hides in details.
- 7 replies
-
- 8
-
-
- realism
- freedom of trade
- (and 1 more)
-
You recommend yourself as ultra realistic cannon balls game. Doubling on enemy is suppose to be a tactic presumably since balls may entirely pierce through both and any sides of armor of ship, to which end making making damage cross over through all three layers or just one or the other would be ideal so that firing from both sides on a ship isn't a major waste of 2nd ship on your side.
-
http://www.nelsonandhisworld.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1679 Make cannonballs bounce, it supposedly even extended the range. Likely considered to be measure of gunnery excellence.
-
English version below. Вкратце: - Формулы риска и вознаграждения в игре все поломаны. Вознаграждение за бои почти не существует, а Боевые Капитаны в огромном невыгодном положении по сравнению с Трейдерами - Запускать Экономику без начальных вливаний это не-реалистично и глупо - ГДЕ ИСТОРИЧЕСКИЕ СТАРТАП ИНВЕСТИЦИИ? - Торговое меню смехотворно плохо разработано с игрой, не играемой без сетевых инструментов. Нет способа сортировки как по производству и по расстояниям (simultaneously). - Экономика, движимая игроками, чрезвычайно раздроблена в зависимости от кланов и регионов, а некоторые регионы имеют огромное преимущество перед другими - Опыт нового игрока ужасен, а "бесплатные корабли" оскорбительно бесполезны без экипировки. Опыт нового игрока, простая арифметика: Загнивание в Базовой Лодке - скучной одиночнои мачте. Первые 12 до 9001 миссий не имеют риска, потому что вы получаете все оборудование бесплатно, а награда - 6000 + 1500 золота за миссию. Ремонтные работы также бесплатны, поэтому вы можете выполнять 3 миссии за один выход ~22К без каких-либо дополнительных затрат. Тогда вы должны получить достаточно денег на 6-й Реит, который обойдется вам в 23К корабля и ~ 70К пушек и ~10К+ за ремонты корпуса. Ваш доход за миссию увеличивается всего до ~ 9000 + 2500 (minus repairs!), а ваш РИСК поднимается до ВСЕГО ПРОГРЕССА, который вы делали раньше. Если вы попали на абордаж или в миссии против двух кораблей, или вы проиграли битву, все ваше ~ ~90K+ золота, корабль и снаряжения потеряно, и вам нужно снова начать с нуля. Зачем рисковать всем когда можно гнобит себя в Базовой Лодке еще 9001 сражений? Вы не можете захватить корабли NPC - весь корабль, мачты которого вы тщательно отстреляли, тщательно взяли на абордаж, часто дает ноль дополнительной прибыли, так как все ее супер дорогие пушки волшебным образом исчезают, а весь корабль оказывается мнимым. Я понимаю причины - чтобы не надувать экономику миссиями. Почему не давать захватывать корабли NPC Fleet в открытом мире, по крайней мере, 6-го уровня или ниже? Почему награда за боевые успехи настолько низкая по сравнению с риском? По сравнению с AFK торговлей? Кто придумал что заставить всех Боевиков подчиниться донату клана или Базовой Лодке - хорошая идея для роста населения открытого мира? English - In brief: - The Risk versus Reward formulas in the game are all messed up. The reward for doing well in battle is near non-existant, with Fighting captains at a huge disadvantage compared to Traders - Starting up a player driven economy without startup capital is ridiculous. Where is the HISTORICAL VENTURE CAPITAL INVESTMENT? - The trading menu is ridiculously poorly designed with game unplayable without offline tools. There is no way to sort by both Production and Lowest-Distance, for example. There is no easy comparison of prices or profit potential. - The player driven economy is extremely broken depending on clans and regions, with some regions at a huge early advantage compared to others - The New Player or Returning Player experience is Horrible and the Redeemable Ships are insultingly useless without cannons Returning player experience: You start out stuck rotting in the Basic Cutter. The first 10-12 missions have No Risk because you get all the equipment for free, and the reward is ~ 6000 + 1500 gold per mission. Repairs are also free, so you can do 3 missions per trip with no extra cost. Then you should get enough money for a 6th rate which costs you ~23K for the ship and ~70K for Cannons and 10K in hull repairs. Your income per mission rises to ONLY ~9000+2500 per mission (minus repairs!), and your RISK rises to the ENTIRE PROGRESS you made before. If you get boarded or unluckily raked in a mission against two ships, or you lose a close fight, your entire ~90K of ship and equipment are lost and you need to start in the Basic Cutter again. You cannot capture NPC ships - the entire ship you carefully de-masted, carefully raked and boarded, can easily provide 0 extra profit, since all her super expensive cannons magically disappear, and the entire ship proves imaginary. I understand the reasons - to avoid inflating the economy - but whey aren't the Open World NPC's capturable, at least the ones of 6th rate or below? Why are the rewards for Combat so low in comparison to the risk? Who thought that forcing all Fighting Captains into Clan donations or Basic Cutter servitude is a good idea to grow the Open World population? This type of "Hunger Game" will lead to the bottom percentile of players constantly burning out and leaving until there is no foundation and no prey for the top percentile to hunt. The result will be starvation for everyone, and a gradual decline. The game needs a growth in player base, not a starvation diet. Learn from EVE and figure this out fast. -
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.
- 9 replies
-
- 10
-
-
- penetration
- damage
- (and 2 more)
-
This topic about physics of sailing Purpose=More realistic game play 1.)Simple example about Physics While Sailng you must always consider dragging force and lifting force and there is a opposite force which is rudder force.Sail force is forward of hull force by amount 'L', boat will turn downwind unless rudder force is used to correct As you see there is a need for continuous rudder force depends on wind direction and wind force and hull angle and most important of them is sail trim quality(Because Sail trim quailty effects all of them) 2.)İdeas for game content +Adjustable Rudder by degrees(Like ship simulation games,) +Wind Force (Strong Wind, medium wind, gale, etc. İ know there is a topic about wind force) +Sail trim quality(Maybe it can be depends on number of sailing crew, Sailed miles,crew rigging quality, maybe officer ability ) +Speed adjustment depends on rudder positon(higher degrees will decreases speed ) 3.)What İ expected: -Realism -We will not bored while sailing in battles -Harder and mindful battles(harder to create line and staying in line) -Need to consider wind advantage (Captains will not want to lose wind) -Abilty to create advantage from disadvantage situaton(if you have good rigging and assign all your crew to sail then you can reach your max speed while your enemies realoading guns) Exemples 1.)if u set your rudder to 30° it will stay until you change it 1.) if dont set your sails, ship will be turn to the upwind 2.) Ship=Victory Ship=Victory Ship=Victory Wind=Strong from right(90°to the hull) Wind=Strong from right(90°to the hull) Wind=Strong from back right(135°to the hull)(That will decrease angle and aerodynamiclift) Crew on sailing= 300 Crew on sailing= 200 Crew on sailing= 200 Rigging Quality= good Rigging Quality= good Rigging Quality= Bad == == == Expected Speed= 10.1kn Expected Speed= 9.5kn Expected Speed= 10.3kn Expected Rudder Degrees=100 Expected Rudder Degrees=110 Expected Rudder Degrees=115 RUDDER= (left)0__|__ 180(right) (90°is middle) İ try to explain,Sorry for my bad english Kaptann
-
Now first off due to recent events, let me say I gave this game a thumbs up on Steam, so my criticism is with love. Aaaaand right now a bit of hate. Now I am all for the regional bonuses, I think modules are okay, I think the perks are great, but there should never be a setup that allows a Trincomalee to chase a Bucentaure from Grand Turk to La Tortue and not be able to close distance and attack. I followed a US player who was in a Trinc (I was in a Rattler just following) as he chased a pirate and could not even gain on him. Now I have had my Endymion blown away by a Gros Ventre on my best point of sail. I have been outran by Indiamen (the historically slow as a tortoise crawl Indiaman!) in just about any ship you can think of. There are just some things that should NEVER happen in an age of sail game, don't you think? We should use these 'lines of absurdity that should never be crossed' to review the way the game is being played and create a list of things that happen in the game that just should never ever happen. Here is mine: No trim, perk, bonus or wood can make a 2nd rate outrun a Leda class frigate!!- 60 replies
-
- 17
-
-
The game comes across as very realistic, and each update seems to make it even more so. There are some things that jar (and feel more out of place after each update), as they just don't fit, like "clans" instead of "Fleets", or being able to sail by a huge enemy AI fleet with impunity as it never attacks on its own initiative. The way the pirates are now is the same, it just doesn't come across as quite being as realistic as the rest of the game. I have some ideas for pirate benefits, as well as some liabilities that would, I think, (hope) still keep pirates as a faction that people will play, and also be a better fit to the game overall. Benefit: Pirate ships are faster than other player ships Historical basis: Pirates were fanatical about keeping their hulls cleaned, but they lacked shipyards to clean larger ships. Tweak: 5th rate ships and below should keep this benefit, Fourth, and 3rd rate ships should have no benefit, and 2nd and first rate ships would have a minus speed benefit (this also being one reason pirates didn't have larger ships). Benefit: Pirates were better marksmen with guns than even naval marines Historical basis: Pirates had to make landfall and hunt game for food. They had more practice then their military counterparts, and if they didn't become good shots, they went hungry. Tweak: Pirates should have a plus with regards to handguns, and muskets Benefit: Pirates should have a benefit when boarding ships. Historical basis: Everything they did was to ensure ships they wanted to capture would surrender quickly. tweak: Pirates should have boarding bonuses for boarding ships, more so for merchant ships. Liabilities: Pirates didn't have shipyards, even if they did, they wouldn't have naval architects, carpenters, craftsmen, etc. to man the shipyards. Pirates should be limited in the kinds of ships they can craft, offsetting this, they should be able to keep ANY ship they capture. Liability: Pirates didn't have access to brass or iron foundries or casting houses (as per shipyards) Pirates should be limited in their ability to purchase canons above a certain size. Also, pirate gunnery should have a negative modifier above a certain class of cannon as they were challenged to outfit their ships with cannons that were matched sets (another reason they didn't have larger ships like 3rd 2nd and 1st rates). Pirates would be limited to 9 or 12 pound cannons, and large ships (3rd, 2nd and 1st rates) would have negative modifiers to accuracy and damage. If the above were introduced, then pirates would have some significant advantages with regards to 5th rate and lower ships, but would be disadvantaged with 3rd rate and higher ships. More of their ships would be captured ships and fewer would be crafted/purchased, so to be fair, there should be an additional tweak to hit points (or improved damage control...etc) to off set the loss in durability. They would retain an advantage in boarding. 4th rate ships would be on average the same as all other nations. An additional idea would be to allow them easier access to all ports, but have a slight chance of being discovered (in reality, getting caught historically would result in being hung or placed in a gibbet at the ports entrance so all could see the dying pirate, or his corpse)...in game, maybe would result in the loss of the players ship and cargo, or possibly a percentage of wealth in fines (bribes) to escape. I think the above would make pirates a lot more realistic. They gain advantages at the lower level ships, are on par with everyone at the middle levels, but have some disadvantages with larger ships, they lose ship crafting ability, and lose easy access to cannons, but gain the ability to retain all captured ships, including 1st rates. Plus they would have boarding bonuses at all levels. One thing I don't have a suggestion on is fleet size. Pirates only very seldom operated in fleets and then only small groups of ships (up to 3 ships, not very often more than 3). Pirate captains generally didn't submit to another pirates authority, and also there wasn't a huge amount of trust when it came to splitting the spoils afterwards. A large decrease in the amount of prize money and goods could be imposed if the pirates had more than a certain number of ships in a battle but, I can't think of an offset to that (and I did come up with offsets for everything else). As the game is now, it seems pirates have advantages, and no disadvantages and are more like a separate nation than a loose confederation of outlaws. Assuming the game coding would allow the tweaks I'm suggesting, I think the above would make pirates be more like pirates, and still keep them as a viable faction.
- 45 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- pirates
- pirate advantages
- (and 3 more)
-
Let the devs know what you think. They have taken note of a few perks that people don't like, should the repair stack matrix of Carpenter, Steel Toolbox and Pumps stay as is or should they be changed?
-
Battle ready all the time? I rerally like this game, and the feel of sailing the carribean... however, there is one thing that it lacks.... the differenciation in ships appearance between open world and battle. In the open world have the impression, as if I always sail cleared for action. Gunbs ports are always open, cannons are run out, not boats are visible.... on the other hand huge bright firery lanterns are burning in the middle of an ship to ship engangement.!!?? I really would love to see and think the games reasim would benefit from a few small adjustements on the appearance of the vessels in open world and battle. Imho it would be great if the the following adjustments in the ships apearances could be implemented: Battle: most things are fine as they are, only the lanterns should always be out, as one of the first things every ship of those days did when clearing for battle was to extinguish all fires and lanterns (with exception od some fes, exspecially secured ones in the lower ship). That there are no live or work boats is ok too, as they were mostly cast overboard (if not towed) to lower the risk of splinter injuries. Some small things however that could be done - even so they are not important but would add to the realism. There could be added some chains, which were used to secure the yardarms better than with rope only There could be nettings added which where streched across the weather deck (above the heads of the sailors) to shield them from falling parts of the rigging The hammocks could be put in the nets at the gunale and in the mast platforms, where they were placed to protect the crew and marines from musket fire etc. Add some more crew (Officers on the quarter deck, helmsmen and maybe marines - if they are equipped) Open world: Here on the other hand, the live or work boats should be visibly abord, e.g. hanging at the rear davits and/or palced on the gratings midships. Also the gun ports should be closed and the guns on the weather deck inside, so not protruding, as on the voyage cannons were fixed so that the muzzles were inside the board walls. It would be great to have some crew in the open world too, at least an officer of the watch on the quarter deck and a helmsman, as without, you always have the impression to command a ghost ship! :-) I think this diffeence and the transition from traveling to fighting vessel would add a huge bit to the realism of the game. Thanks for considering and for the good work done on a great game till now!!! Harry McHackou, Commodore
- 3 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- open world
- battle
- (and 2 more)
-
While I am waiting for the final release of the game I have enjoying exploring the open world. For those to whom combat is not the key motivator, patience is the key word as we wait for the full features that will enable the rich interaction with this virtual reality. Recruitment: After my initial exploration as a neutral I joined with Britain to seek out pirates and cut their filthy throats (pardon my vehemence). It was very easy to join up in the Navy. I’m not sure how it happened but I was quickly shuttled to the south east and issued a new Lynx. Mission objectives were less clear, or perhaps more so . There were none. So I looked for any ship (other than English or Neutral) and picked a fight. From my perspective on deck I found the fire control challenging. Intially I floundered around Antego, Barbuda and St Chriftophers and grappled with the pirates that I found. They always seemed to be in pairs and I was not a worthy opponent. I could damage but not defeat them. I was happy to team up with a lad from Great Britain and we tried several times to destroy the Lynx of the Cutter/Lynx pirate pairs. Even together we were not successful. Fortunately we did not lose a ship and were able to put in for repairs in English Harbour or St. Johns. We stayed within easy reach of these safe havens.Later we joined forces with a large group of English men with many Lynx and a couple Cutters and Privateers. We destroyed a fleet of Swedes in similar sized vessels. It was chaos and mayhem as we dominated the sea for the British Queen. Here is a video of our Victory. After my initial fleet actions with my fellow Brits I ventured North West to the Virgin Islands. My self appointed objective was to seek less traveled waters and capture a smaller vessel.I was quickly distracted and transfixed upon reaching the islands. They are exceedingly picturesque and awe inspiring. Perhaps one day there may be a way to make a living by exploring or trading. But for now I was committed to the efforts of the navy and reducing our foes. I saw many vessels but it seemed that we would find none suitable for capture. Finally we encountered a Danish Trader Brig between Green Island and Peters Island. We were in luck as the trim ship had nary a cannon or even a swivel gun. We killed half of the crew with grape shot then boarded her and took her as a prize without a single man lost from our compliment. We sailed to Spanish Town on Anegada where I write this message and wish you all well. If any of you see any of that lousy crew that left with my Lynx please advise that I intend to gut and fillet them for leaving me here without cannons on this trader brig. My next journey is back to St Johns to stow this vessel till I can afford to buy some armament, powder and shot. I understand I will be issued a new Lynx. The wealth of the Empire must be limitless. It will be an interesting run with no cannon. Wish List: I would still be very pleased with a compass, watch and sextant accessible via key bindings both in and out of an instance. It would be easier with some realistic reference to aim that is in harmony with the pleasing graphics. Perhaps a keybind, will be implemented, for a using an attractive gunsite while the Ctrl H is engaged. Someday. Also I found myself dreaming of the addition of signal flags, pennants or flares or something to communicate between ships without breaking the immersion. It is such a beautiful game. I find it more pleasing to view it from the first person, on deck, without the “interface”. Those who don’t wish to use signal flags would not be obligated to do so. Like minded players could use them to enhance immersion and emulate traditional methods.
-
Ahoy Matees! I want to mention a couple observations and suggestions on the sailing mechanics in regards to leeway and currents. LEEWAY I don't know if this has been covered yet and forgive me about lacking clarity in trying to convey but I haven't noticed any LEEWAY (the sideways drift of a ship to leeward of the desired course). When on a beam reach (the wind is coming from the side {65-125 degrees }), my ship should move slightly down wind or leeward. Leeway should increase the more lateral wind there is pushing your sails. Leeway also increases with heel. I know this is a very complex mechanic and not neccessarily neccessary, but it would enhance realism, strategy, and players' appreciation for sailing. DANGER OF LEEWAY: LEE SHORE Also, historically, especially with square-rigged sails, a lee shore was a dreaded thought for sailors. This is when shore is within sight but the wind is headed directly towards it. This is bad because even if a vessel is close hauled, the wind pushes the boat back towards the wind. Sure, the boat may be moving "forward" but in reality the boat is veering and will innevitably head closer to shore and if the wind never changes, would innevitably run aground, despite best possible efforts at tacking. Anchoring is the only hope here. But I digress, it may not be necessary. CURRENT and TIDES Now in the sea trials I have tried to crash into the lighthouse and found that it is not programmed to be crashed into. (I just flew right through it). I know that open world will be the more appropriate time to test the mechanics of running aground and currents. But I just want to reiterate the importance of currents in sailing. Tides and their ebb and flow were crucial to timing when a ship would enter or leave a port efficiently. Also, open water currents would often perplex sailors in navigation and could be a fun addition to long distance travel in the game. I hope this was somewhat clear and I would be happy to try to re-explain.
