Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'stats'.

  • 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)
  • Ultimate General
    • Ultimate General: Civil War
    • Ultimate General: Gettysburg
    • Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail
    • Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts
    • Forum troubleshooting
  • Age of Sail Historical Discussions
    • Shipyard
    • History
  • Sea Legends
    • General Discussions
  • This land is my land
    • General discussions
  • Game-Labs Forum
    • Jobs
  • 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
  • Catalunya's Comença la llibertat !!
  • Port Battle History's Topics

Blogs

  • Game Friv 4 School
  • Mad things going on
  • Duels (1v1)
  • semenax1's Blog
  • Bernhart's Blog
  • John Dundas Cochrane's Blog
  • The adventures of W. Laurence
  • kusumetrade's Blog
  • fastbug blog
  • tai game co tuong mien phi
  • Log Book
  • sellfifa's Blog
  • sellfifa's Blog
  • Captaine Arnaud Arpes' Log
  • Remir's Blog
  • Real Armada Española
  • Core Blackthorn's Blog
  • Saltback's Blog
  • British Privateer
  • Game App Development
  • Game App Development
  • Brogsitter's logbook
  • maturin's Blog
  • Antonio_Pigafetta's Blog
  • Ingemar Ulfgard's Blog
  • News Sports Blog
  • Saffronsofindia
  • Cpt Blackthorne's Blog
  • linksbobet88's Blog
  • Tube Nations Game Givaway
  • English Nation Gunners Blog
  • Commodore Clay
  • From the Conny's Deck
  • About Madden NFL 17
  • Travel between Outposts
  • Blurring reality as artist’s 3D model tricks
  • Download Only file APK for Android
  • Testing stuff
  • Traitors Gallery
  • Tracker of Good Stuff
  • Emoninail
  • TpGS2019~~Nice experience
  • Organifi Gold Juice Review
  • Fitness Programmer
  • Implications of Electricity Deregulation in the United States
  • The Process of Lottery Results
  • htrehtrwqef
  • Best Ways To Overcome Hair Loss Issues
  • Boost Your Testosterone Levels For Building Bigger Muscles
  • Teds Woodworking
  • The 2 Week Diet
  • Five Fat Loss Workout Routine Exercises
  • Captains Log, September 1756
  • Log of Cpt. Nicholas Ramage II. Esq; RN
  • Average Gamer Marcs: A Naval Action Story
  • Thiên hạ Ku
  • From The Logbook of Captain Sir Sebastian Pendragon, KB; RN
  • Rachel Tran
  • Thẻ game W88
  • Thẻ game W88
  • Log of Sir Elio Perlman, KB
  • 바카라카지노
  • The Sea Dogs's Website
  • [CTC] Caribbean Trading Company (Pirates - PvP EU)'s Buy ur Favorite Ships.
  • Creative - Captains & Ships Logs's (Naval Action fiction) Diary of Cdr. Joseph Barss

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • United States Continental Navy'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 11 results

  1. How exactly do you choose which guns are the best to use? This is probably one of the first things you think about when starting your design! This will be a pretty long post, but I've spent a couple of days (slowly) gathering the data and darn it if I'm not going to share! If this has already been done, my apologies! I'm going to split this into a few parts on this post, so feel free to jump around. CONTENTS: What are the stats that affect gun effectiveness? Which of those are the best guide for a designer? How can one test this? Conclusions and Suggestions for Game Improvement Further Research or Information needed PART 1: Elements of gun effectiveness I am neither a programmer, a mathematician, or a developer, or even a particularly skilled player in terms of datamining or minmaxing stats. However, there are some interesting coincidences and game design elements that made me want to crunch some numbers and do a few tests! First, it is boring game design to just make the biggest guns the best, or the most guns the best. So is there a "sweet spot" where, all things being equal, you should start a new build? On the flip side, as a game with so many scenarios and possibilities, if you have an obvious "sweet spot" that is objectively the best way to build, you lose a lot of creativity in the designer as the player thinks they MUST do certain things! I will argue in this post that, yes, there is a sweet spot, and also, yes, there is an element of maximizing is better, but also there is a remarkable flexibility, so you won't be failing too much if you get this wrong, either! I would say overall this is pretty well set up. With that out of the way, here we go! Accuracy: Obviously, we want the ships we shoot at to kindly sink or explode or not shoot at us anymore, so one would think accuracy is the most important thing. It is certainly important, but focusing on it exclusively is not ideal either and leads to some...weird builds (see videos of players maxing kill rate with single 18" guns for example. This will be debunked in this analysis). There are two caveats to this number: Note that in the game, accuracy is percent of shots that are on target at a given range BEFORE bonuses are added. You can see changes to BASE accuracy if you add equipment like towers, but weather, speed, aiming progress, and other bonuses won't show up on the gun info screen. It is given per single shell. So when you look at the penalty of using triple or quadruple mounts, you aren't getting a less accurate weapon overall, it's just each individual shell will scatter more. The real question is does the extra shell downrange make up for the loss in accuracy? Rate of Fire: This is the other interesting one, and the same caveats apply. We want to send as much explosives down range as quickly as possible to make the red ships go away, preferably in spectacular explosions. Rate of fire isn't really affected (yet) by in-battle conditions as far as I can tell, so what you see after applying your technologies and mods is what you are going to get. Note that once again, the reload time is per barrel. So even though a dual turret might reload in 30 seconds and a triple might reload in 35 seconds, the dual turret is firing at 4 shells per minute (2 barrels x 2 rounds per minute), while the "slower" triple turret is firing a bit over 5 shells per minute (3 barrels x 1.71/min) This analysis is thus going to focus on how rate of fire, barrel number, and accuracy come together to create guidance for you beleaguered designers! Penetration: This is a very interesting one. Generally bigger is better, but knowing when and where "plunging fire" happens is important. I haven't looked into this yet, and remember that while penetration is based on range (how much horizontal armor vs how much vertical armor it will defeat), the armor schemes in game are a bit convoluted and as I said, I'm not a dataminer! Penetration is the MOST affected by little things like range and angle of armor, so it's quite difficult to explore without tightly controlled experiments or digging around in the code. It does apply, and I'll explain at the end, but for now we'll leave it behind. Damage Dealt: This is assuming a full penetration. Partial pens and fires do not count here for this number. It is affected by shell weight and technologies as well, and those numbers do pop up on the information card. Modifiers: Towers, Propellant (Explosives), and Shell Weight all affect the gun barrels stats. Aiming time is affected by towers, turret techs, and reloading buffs, but once the guns are dialed in, the shells will hit with the same accuracy, penetration, and damage. Therefore, I'm not too concerned about aiming time here. Note that things like aiming time, 3 and 4-barrel accuracy and reload penalties are applied EQUALLY regardless of gun size. So all we're interested in here to choose your gun type and layout is really just accuracy vs. rate of fire. The rest will make it better or worse, but it won't change you your gun decisions stack up against each other, all things being equal Picture Break! (figure 1.1) ! Here we see a graph of the 9" mk 5 gun in terms of accuracy and penetration. Note how quickly accuracy really falls off. Finding the best range to fight at depends on how well the penetration values match up with actually being able to hit anything. Note that larger weapons (15"+) actually do reach a point where the vertical pen will exceed horizontal penetration. If you aren't clear about what "plunging fire is", that's what it is. The tables also might help you determine how much deck armor your ship will need. PART 2: Which Elements should figure into weapon choice? As we've seen, there are so many possibilities, and the developers have really done a great job of making them all viable. But, how can you tell if some are "more viable" than others? What is the "best" design? First, let's focus on accuracy, rate of fire, and equipment. Spoiler alert: All things being equal, there is a best gun to use and a best turret size. However, most will work well. So you want to get the best firepower you can before you start to make compromises on rate of fire or barrel number. Triples are indeed better than duals, so if you can fit triples up to 16", but need to switch to duals to fit 17" on your ship, better to stick with the triple 16's! The same goes for auto reloading. If you can fit auto reloading on 15" turrets but can't on 16" turrets, stick with the ones you can get auto reloaders for. The "Why" gets a bit interesting, and here is our experiment! Because some equipment works across all gun sizes, to control for that we'll need to ensure that our test ship will have the same equipment fit regardless of weapon choices. If you were to look at French triple turrets, with no modifiers (no tower installed, no auto reloading, same propellant), and compare the accuracy across all ranges, you end up with a chart that looks like this: (Figure 2.1) Accuracy for main battery weapons from point blank to 25,000 yds. Note that to spread out the results at effective battle ranges, we are looking at a logarithmic scale for the vertical axis. Takeaways: "Mk" number may refer to an in-battle bonus, it does NOT affect accuracy on the info card. You can see that the smaller guns run out of range before reaching 25Kyds, while some have better accuracy at longer ranges. You can see there is actually quite a lot of variance, but some weapons are clearly more accurate than others. I was surprised to be honest that there wasn't more "grouping" between the different patterns (ex. all Mk 4's ALL being better than the Mk. 3's; which does not actually happen - more datamining required; is this the "guns grade" bonus in game?). I also expected to see each weapon have a point where it's accuracy was better than others. This does not seem to be happening, so the idea of building around a SPECIFIC range seems to be out the window. There are obviously differences between close and long range weapons, though! However, this is only HALF of the story. The other thing that matters is how quickly shells are sent downrange. The more shots you can take, the sooner you will score a hit, especially at longer ranges. So, I plugged the accuracy percentage into a "drop calculator" (because I don't math) to figure out how many shots must be taken to guarantee a hit (I call 99% a guaranteed hit for these charts, by the way - the math holds for lower thresholds too, so it doesn't matter here). So I plugged in the number of shots needed, divided by the rate of fire (remembering these are all triple turrets) to come up with "effective" accuracy. That number, to me, is how long you can expect to fire at a target at a given range to guarantee a hit. Basically, If you have half the accuracy, but twice the rate of fire, you are still going to score hits at the same rate. And here it is! (figure 2.2) This is the TIME taken to reach 99% chance of a hit for each gun size, using triple turrets. IMPORTANT - lower is better here, because more time taken is bad. This is to GUARANTEE a hit, not "get lucky". Of course you will score hits sooner on average, but your second hit might take a while. This does NOT count ladder aiming or radar aiming progress, target lock, etc. This is ONLY the stock guns with the same equipment. Imagine a turret on a firing range with no technology to assist the aiming. Notice that the time taken really flares up beyond 15KYD. This is basically the inverse of your accuracy curve. As long as your armor can take it, you need to get within a certain range to be hitting ships consistently. We all know this already, but it's kind of neat to see on a graph in real time! As a Log chart, we can expand the closer range and actually see what's happening here: (figure 2.3) This is the TIME taken to reach 99% chance of a hit for each gun size, using triple turrets. The log scale opens up the closer ranges so you can see that some weapons are consistently "better" at scoring hits over some ranges. Again, lower lines are better, because the less time taken to get hits the more damage you'll be dealing! So, we can start to see some winners here. Notice that the 12" gun in INCREDIBLE at getting shots on target inside of 10KYDs. At greater ranges, you see that the 9" gun takes over, until it runs out of reach, anyway! The problem, is how much damage are you doing to your targets with such light shells? If you want to look at the "heavy" weapons, you can draw conclusions as well: Note that the 13" and 15" guns are very similar. You are going to get a similar number of hits over time (at closer ranges, the 13" is a little better, at longer ranges, the 15" is slightly better) However, the 15" shell is going to hit a lot harder. Interestingly, the 14" gun is consistently worse than both! There is also a "Pack" of guns around 15KYDs. 14", 16", 17", 18", 19", and 20" are all getting hits at about the same rate. So at that range, bigger really is better. BUT - all things being equal, and assuming all shots can do damage, you can still see the 9", 12", 13" and 15" guns ahead of the pack. Against small ships, the light guns seem to indeed be better. Against medium ships, 15" is looking like the best balance of accuracy and hitting power. Against the big baddies, heavier is probably better, as long as you can control the range (and SURVIVE at 15K Yards!) PART 3: Testing Time! I was inspired by the YouTube "Taskmaster" challenges where various gamers tried to kill 10 early battleships as quickly as possible. I've done two levels of test here, so I'll share both. The first test was whether or not the accuracy and reload penalty of more barrels offset the increased fire. My thesis was that more barrels is still going to be faster, even if the guns are less accurate and slower firing. To test, we used the same 5 Turret "Test Hull" (see figure 3.1) with 18" guns, changing only the number of barrels per turret. We used 1940 tech, vs. ten 1900 BB starting at 20,000 Yds. The results were pretty compelling! (Table 1:) This was my first test, it is not as controlled as the following test and just gives a rough estimate. The results were consistent however, demonstrating the concept that even though larger turrets have reduced rate of fire and accuracy, the extra barrels more than make up for it. First, against such weak targets, the time to get the first kill was pretty much tied to getting the first hits. I was surprised at how similar the times for that were. The guns do dial in much more quickly (and much more consistently) than my "Effective Accuracy" table would predict. True, we were using the same guns, but the rate of fire was going up very consistently, which WAS reflected in the total time, but was NOT reflected in the first kill time. This suggests a bit of a tweak to the code as far as getting that first hit, maybe there is a little bonus to ensure a quick hit that disappears after that first hit. More research!) So, if you can afford them, quad barrels are best! However, what about different gun sizes? That was the point of the first bit of analysis, anyway? Well, glad you asked! Here we go for the "BIG TEST" The Test Ship (Figure 3.1) The specific stats don't really matter. This is the gun layout all of the test ships for both the preceding and succeeding tests are used. The tonnage was always maxed out (to fit the largest turrets) but armor was changed to allow them to fit. We always used a 125,000 ton hull so that we could fit quad 18's (and eventually quad 20's) for the purposes of the test. To get the biggest guns, we limited to speed to 25 knots, and cut the armor as much as needed to do so. We always used the same towers, the same explosives (TNT) and standard reloading. Because we know that quad turrets are fastest at getting the kills in this scenario, we only changed the size of the guns - 14", 15", 16", 17", 18", 19", 20". (smaller guns do not allow quads). Because the variance between what the AI builds, RNG, and different starting angles makes a big difference, we ran several tests per weapon loadout. We looked at: Time for first kill, Time to complete mission, and Time from time of first kill to the end ("effective time") Table 2: Note: The 14" was predicted to perform poorly in the stat analysis above, and after two tests it was clear that that was in fact borne out, so I did not complete the third test. Looking at this data, I believe the predictions based on the graph of effective accuracy were borne out in the results. As expected from the predictions based on data, the 15 inch gun stands out as the most effectively accurate of the heavy weapons, the 14" is noticeably worse, and at moderate ranges the other heavy weapons are remarkably consistent (but still worse). The 19 and 20-inch guns seemed to overperform, considering that although their raw accuracy is indeed the best, their effective accuracy is hurt by their slow rate of fire and they are EXPECTED to line up with the 16-18" guns in terms of effectiveness. My theory is that there is a hidden buff to early "rangefinding" accuracy to get players hits sooner than mathematically should be happening, which then disappears after the aiming process is complete. The 19" and 20" weapons will basically one-shot a 1900 BB, so those "lucky" first salvoes are more effective than would otherwise be expected. It is also important to note that at a range of 15KYD, we should expect the TIMING of hits to be relatively consistent, so the very largest weapons are just showing the point at which the heavier shell does in fact start to overwhelm the other stats! It is also important to note for rangefinding purposes, we are sending 20-shell salvoes downrange, so there is an awful lot of "stuff" to throw at the wall. When some of it invariably sticks, those heavy guns pack a whallop! PART 4: Conclusions and Suggestions Based on these tests, a few things emerge. Firstly, how effective your fire is depends a lot on the range of engagements. If you get to around 15KYDs, you will find that the heavy guns all perform relatively consistently with each other. If you get closer, accuracy improves a lot over all weapons, and your first hits will be devastating. Also, at the closer ranges, the rate of fire really will make a difference especially if you are crippling targets every salvo. Because penalties for 3- or 4-gun turrets apply to reloading and accuracy, it is fair to ask if they are worth it. As of this patch, they are very much so. The extra shells going downrange compensate for the lower accuracy and rate of fire. It is clear that the more guns in a turret, the better! We also see that unless you are needing very heavy weapons, 15" guns work just fine at least against weaker targets. My personal conclusion: The quadruple 15" gun is probably the sweet spot for me. Against similar class vessels or less, it is probably the best overall weapon in the game. I would only use heavier weapons if I know I am facing modern or super battleships. This leads to a few design principles commanders might consider: For a given number of turrets, the more guns in a turret the better. If you can substitute triples or quads without having to sacrifice a turret, do. If you are limited by weight or costs, consider how you can get the most barrels possible. Invest in technologies to boost rate of fire and accuracy. RoF makes a HUGE difference. If you can invest in autoloaders, do so. I didn't include it here in a table, but I took out my test ship with a full 15" accuracy and ROF, and it brought down the engagement time to consistently around 20 minutes, with one run having just 16 minutes between the first hits and the last kill. Those boosts in rate of fire directly translate to expected time to sink targets. Assuming your shells can damage the target, and assuming all other things being equal, the 15" gun is the most effective, barrel for barrel. BATTLECRUISER DESIGNERS: This is a HUGE takeaway for you. Since you SHOULDN'T be engaging heavy enemies, based on this, you should probably go no larger than 15" guns. You will get more bang for your buck and slightly less dangerous shells lying around. If you are going more for a "super cruiser", the stats suggest that 12" guns may be best, at least on paper, out of the triple-only mounts. If you need to go for heavier weapons, it won't make the biggest difference as long as you can maximize the technologies. If you can get better tech or more barrels on, say 17" guns but have to sacrifice to get 18"'s, it's better to stay with the biggest weapon you can "max out". Suggestions for Developers: Based on this study, it seems that gun size balances VERY WELL with rate of fire and accuracy. As long as we choose weapons that are effective against the expected targets, there isn't a "right" or "wrong" answer as long as we consider the applicable elements. Revise how quad turrets are selected for or are possible in designs. The way the stats work right now, all things being equal, quadruple turrets are ALWAYS the best as long as they can fit and be afforded. This probably is something that needs to be addressed because we see in reality only three battleship classes ever used them, (with a few more designed and not laid down) while the vast majority of battleships used dual or triple turrets. Perhaps the weight penalty should be reexamined, so that you could fit a quad turret to replace two smaller turrets but could not fit two quad turrets in a similar area. Perhaps also turret and hull size should be considered - where guns larger than 16" simply cannot fit in a quadruple turret on anything short of the super battleship hull. That is, unlock different turrets based on hull. I would prefer something like this: Battlecruisers/Super Cruisers: 12/4, 13/4, 14/4, 15/3, 16/2, 17/2, 18/1, 19 or 20 can't fit at all Small/Medium Battleships: 12/4, 13/4, 14/4, 15/4, 16/3, 17/3, 18/2, 19/2, 20/2 Modern Battleships: 12/4, 13/4, 14/4, 15/4, 16/4, 17/3, 18/3, 19/2, 20/2 Super Battleships under 100K: all quads possible except 19/3 and 20/3 Super Battleships over 100K: all quads possible. By the way, quads of all main guns should be possible all the way down to 9". PART 5: Further Research, datamining, and Study: I would love to know how initial accuracy is figured out. It seems that ships consistently get their first hit much earlier than expected, especially on the larger guns where it should take vastly longer time to get that first hit (considering the increased time between salvoes). Is it always a hit on Salvo #2, 3, or 4 and an RNG decides which it will be? If such a system exists, what happens after the first hit? Once the first hit is achieved, performance approaches what is expected for gun size and range. Based on the evidence suggesting that more barrels is better with the same techs, I have not compared, say, quad 15" guns to triple 16" guns. The penetration vs accuracy over range curves would be interesting to plot or see for all weapons. This has not been done on secondary weapons either. This study has only worked with French pattern guns. How are other nations different? If you made it this far, Cheers! Happy Sailing, please let me know if this borne out or if I am barking up the wrong tree! -dbs1701
  2. Hello guys, I recently discovered how to mod weapon stats in UGCW in a limited fashion. I’ve been able to change the range, damage, fire rate, and accuracy of weapons. The process is very complex, and I have yet to discover what most of the data means, but here are my tentative instructions. You need a hex editor like HxD. Using HxD, open the resources.assets file in Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Ultimate General Civil War\Ultimate General Civil War_Data. (Make a backup of the resources.assets in case you irreversibly damage the original. It’ll save you the time of a reinstall.) It’ll be intimidating gibberish. change the width to 32 for better readability. Scroll about halfway down, control-F, and type in a keyword of the weapon you are looking. i.e. if you want to modify the 6-pounder Wiard gun, you would look for “Wiard” If you are successful, this format will pop up: Range is 7 characters, ROF and damage are 2, and accuracy is usually 10 but may vary. If not (you probably will not be successful in finding the correct format on the first try) scroll up and try again. If still not successful, scroll down. HxD has a wonky Control-F feature with “search direction.” Keep trying different points of the page till you find the correct format. Once you find the format, you can modify the values. I don’t know how to convert the data values in the file into the numerical stats of the games so usually I will just copy other weapon’s desired stats over. i.e. I copied the 7 character value of the CS_Richmond’s range onto the Enfield’s range to make the Enfield’s range 375. You can also try changing the data values manually and hope for a lucky break (like I got with my 872 range scoped Whitworth) but you’re likely to get crazy values like 2534654 in-game when you type random values for the data. Control-S your changes and restart the game. Enjoy! I have also used HxD to modify save files and change unit sizes past their limit - aka 1500 man cavalry brigades and 1000 man skirmisher brigades. I know these instructions are rather difficult to follow so I'll try to make videos explaining all of this when I get a block of free time and a working mic. Good luck modders!
  3. Prolog: Because joining a clan will be part of the Operations: Welcome to the Caribbean, I think that the current Clan Leaderboard is misleading. Looking at the picture above someone could think ROVER is a clan of mixed PvP and PvE and sometimes RvR. Thats not reflecting the truth. Most PvE kills are Player fleetships. On top the PvP KD ratio is misleading as well. Suggestion: Hovering over the stats reveals more detailed infos. It could look like this Ontop: Hovering over ROVER would reveal a short clan discription made by the clan creator
  4. Hello, I have a question - maybe someone could help me. Are unit stats capped at 100 or they can be higher ? If they can reach above 100 is there a method to see what they actually are ? How it influence unit performance ? Is the unit with firearms 200, efficiency 80 and command 80 shooting better than unit with firearms 100, efficiency 80 and command 80 ? Is it twice as good ? I would be really thankful for help. Cobramys
  5. I made this Perk Calculator/Emulator, just to make an idea how your units will end. It could be helpful when deciding which Perks you want for a given Brigade. Ultimate_General_Civil_War_Perk_Emulator_v0.4.xlsm Usage: click the cells and chose options from a list. Feedback would be appreciated. I hope it helps.
  6. Luc

    Wrong Speed Data?

    Hey, maybe its a mistake by myself but i cannot understand the stats. when im not in my surprise she is 12.39 kn fast and when she is mounted the speed is 11.49kn. with the cerb its the same.
  7. Been playing since the early access release, but I still dont know the answer to this question I keep asking myself : Unit stats - Light and dark grey line - what do they mean ?
  8. The rating of units in this game is a bit confusing, brigades with the same number of stars often seem to have dispirit levels of usefulness (this seems particularly prevalent in the Army of the Patomic). For example, Cutler's brigade seems to be almost on par with the iron brigade despite having only 2 stars, but Baxter's brigade and the bucktails seem much less effective even though they also have 2 stars, is there more going on under the hood than just the star rating? Do the 200-300 extra men that cutler has make that huge a difference? Or am I just imagining things? Disclaimer, I have only really played as the Confederates for the most part. Am I just using baxter and the bucktails wrong? I try to keeps the enemy at arms length in a firefight and avoid melee, should I be more aggressive?
  9. I am one of the few that has received the USS Essex, and I have taken on the duty of testing her and seeing how she fits into the game. Most of her reviews, I hate to say, have been mixed. And it is not just due to her lack of bow chasers either, but that her stats do not feel appropriate for her size and role. From my inspections, the current stats of the Essex seems to be designed as a contender against the Trincomalee. Both have similar speeds (with the Trinc a bit faster), and the exact same turn rate. If the Trinc is crafted with armor with mind should be able to have more hitpoints than the Essex. The Trinc however has a lot more firepower, being able to mount more guns and 18 pounders instead of just 12 pounders. The only true advantage the Essex has over the Trinc is that she have 360 crew in comparison to the 315. Other than the crew size, and decent hull armor however, she does seem to be an odd ship to be compared to the Trincomalee Below is an image of stats of miscellaneous frigates that the Essex would most likely fight against: If by looking at the stats, (which are not truthfully accurate in representing each ship type stats, as they are different woods and qualities of ship building) the Essex seems to be a bit odd. The hitpoints of the Essex is extraordinarily high for a 12-pounder frigate, nearly twice the armor of the Surprise, and 1.2 times the armor of a Live Oak Belle Poule. The Turn rate of the Essex is as full degree slower than the Frigate and the Surprise, which would make sense because they have less armor and hit points, yet that full degree makes a massive difference in battle, which would make the Frigate be able to be able to completely out maneuver the Essex. In turn, the Essex completely out classes all of her competition in crew size. While this may be fine, as the Essex appears to be designed to fight the Trincomalee, looking at the ship in comparison to the others, the Essex’s size and hull does not appear like to be an armored beast to fight 4th-5th rate Frigates: Here, it is easily seen that the Essex is significantly smaller than the Trincomalee and Constitution, yet is the same size as a Frigate. With her hull lines being shaped like this, it does not make sense that she has so many hit points. It also does not make as much sense why her turn rate is as slow when she is shorter than Trinc. Also, after a brief search, I did not find a time where the Essex was crewed with 360 crew, instead I found mentions of her crew only being in the range of 250-300. Also, most records call her a light frigate, of course, for the United States. Her hull construction was mentioned to be made from white oak, therefore her high armor value should not be as great, if not equal to most other frigates in other navies. She was known for her speed however, which should be her key advantage. Therefore, with this, here are the stats that I suggest for a basic Essex with no improvements or penalties: Max Speed: 13.00 Turn Rate: 2.60 Side structure (L/R): 3000/3000 Bow: 800 Stern: 350 Sails: 3400 Crew: 300 Battle Rating: 190 These are up to debate, but basically, this is a nerf to most of the stats, but a boost to the turn rate. The Speed can be higher, but that can influenced by modules. The turn rate is what needs to be tuned the most, as it is just too low. It’s still the lowest of the rest of the lighter frigates but that is the tradeoff for her speed. Wood types will also greatly influence her performance, where she can be more armored or built more for more speed. My changes also are not to make her a badass frigate, but to balance her out in a role she can better play in rather than being ignored as a sub-par Trinc. Please discuss below.
  10. Hello all, Been away for a while as I started at uni in September so have been rather occupied recently, and secondly I have kind of been waiting for the game to hit the soft release on steam. As im hoping that's when there wont be anymore server wipes?!?! I love the game and have 60+ hours on steam but have yet to get the Beautiful Bellona sadly in open world or before! (Apologies if I have spelt that wrong) and cant spare the time to keep grinding to it... Anyway enough moaning about a wonderful game and back on point, So I was thinking, is the game going to have some form of in game encyclopedia? It would be wonderful to have access to something along these lines in game, with some details of the ships along with their background and history, stats, crew and armament ect and an interactive model you could move around and simply enjoy looking at(That would be awesome!). You could also have information on nations, ranks, ports, commodities, resources used in game ect ect. Not everyone is going to want to get the biggest 1st rates (not I for one) but I would love to have a closer look at them and enjoy the work you guys have put into modelling and texturing these beautiful creations, im actually studying Game Tech so have started some modelling myself (3ds Max), so now I have 'some' understanding of what's involved im really starting to appreciate the beauty in games a lot more! keep up the excellent work guys, the game is superb as is and im sure its only going to continue to get better and better! Samuel
  11. Some new ships have been introduced and we need to have a peek: I decided to start with the Pickle since the SOL fever is running high these days. I think it looks ok, but that's it. Simple hull design with fairly fluffy rig. When I first started seeing these in the OW I thought the squarish looking sails were ugly, but inside the instances I thought they looked good. After having a long and hard look at the details, I think the ship, and the rig in particular, is very good looking. It's a tiny little one trying to look like it's square rigged elders. The guns are standard little boat: Six (6 lbs) guns or (12 lbs) carronades each side. That gives you the choice of a broadside weight of 36 lbs up to 72 lbs with nades (Maybe 108 lbs with nade doubles?) I think it makes sense to compare the Pickle to the Cutter and the Privateer, but where does it place itself in specialty and overall abilities? You'll have to forgive my yellow speed trim, but I tried for hours to get my hands on a vanilla Privateer for comparison but found only silly blue planking and blue copper fitted Privs. I gave up and just ran my Pickle much like I would've for gameplay. Maybe the planking and copper on the priv cancels eachother out? I dunno... Note that I used the yellow speed mod on the Privateer also. Anyway... The Pickle shares armor HP values with the Cutter and they're both better than the Privateer in that regard. The Privateer has around a knot higher top speed than the Pickle, but look: Pickle: Privateer: The Pickle can claw it's way up against the wind better than the Privateer, and in my book that's the most important speed to have in those little ships. I thought a bit about how this could be and I've come up with a theory. Look at how the square sail bends around the mast going upwind: The Privateer's sails doesn't have that feature. If the game visuals clues us in on the physics modeling; this may be clearer: The "mast bending" of the sail rotates the force vector Mr. Bernoulli is sucking on towards the bow and speed vector of the ship giving superior upwind performance. The listed turning rate is almost equal among these three. We know the Cutter, with it's single mast and some sail fiddling can flip and turn faster than the two mast ships. However both the Privateer and the Pickle can be made to turn almost as fast. (Note: I could've been more aggressive with turning the sails to eek out even faster turn rate in the following demonstration:) Did you notice the heel values from the speed images. The Pickle heels way less than any of the smaller ships. It is most likely modeled that way because it sits lower in the water: I guess the increased and effective sail area makes up for the displacement and keeps the Pickle from being a dog. Shallow heel makes taking shots very comfortable compared to the others. Armor HP is one thing, but planking/hull thickness is also modeled in Naval Action, at least it seems so to me. This is an area where the Pickle excels among it's peers. Judging from the visual representation the sides looks quite thick, relatively: The Privateer does appear to have thinner sides: Armor thickness helps to deflect balls thrown at you from sub-optimal angles so it is an indirect increase in side armor, it is further boosted if the captain knows what he is doing. The Cutter's sides could be as thick, I can't say for sure, but here another factor comes into to equation. The Pickle is higher than it's rivals and has more protection along the entire railing. Both relative height and armor work together to protect the Pickle's crew. It is very hard to get decent grape shots at the crew from one of the lower rivals. The developers have stated that boarding action sustains a penalty when initiated from a low to a higher ship. I have no idea how significant those modifiers are when comparing between these three ships, I won't speculate more than I already have. In summary: Sheep gud, purdy and stronk! I think this is the best of the small ships. It has that fantastic closehauled specialty, and shouldn't need to lose fights to any Cutter or Privateer. It is an extremely comfy gunplatform. Ok, so a Priv can manage to get away every now and then, apart from that everything is in the Pickle's favor. My Pickle says: "I can bully everyone I can't outrun!" waow, rood! ... but true.
×
×
  • Create New...