1st Big content patch information.

[Vogue]

It's a kind of magic

 

Great taste in music, as well as games

[Pugwis]

36lb require 14 men
24lb lb require 11 men
18lb lb require 9 men
12lb require 8 men
8 lb require 7 men
6 lb require 5 men
4 lb require 4 men

 

Those are the 'crew' for a pair of pieces. They can double up and serve a single piece increasing the rate of fire, reducing fatigue and making a cushion for losses (and forming boarding parties), but it is perfectly possible to fight both of the guns this sized crew looks after. (Also only the crew for heavy pattern ordnance - light pattern guns, carronades etc use smaller crews in proportion to their deck weight (gun plus carriage))

Reloading and firing require less effort than adjusting the pointing of the piece, and it wasn't until late in the period that gun tackle was even suitable for more than very small changes in pointing.

 

I am sorry, but this is not true, 14 men is definitely NOT the number of men required for a pair of pieces of artillery (36lb canon in this case).
The value that i have given previously are the number of men required for ONE and only one long piece of artillery (36lb) in the navy.

I don't know how it is working on the merchant marine, or with land canon, this number are taken from a book about navy/ship, and can easily be verified.

So i must confirm, a ship can't fire both side at a same time, this is a fact. (or at least reload if you want to consider that both side was loaded before battle, but you won't go far this way)

 

I actually don't like to take the information on wikipedia cause some may say that it is not accurate, but here is a good sentence to explain why it's require lots of men for a single canon, you can check in book and such to make sure that my number was accurate, but trust me it is.

 

"A 36-pounder long gun requires fourteen men to battery the four tons gun: a gunner, twelve servants and one ship's boy (powder provider) which brings the cartridges from the hatch."

[Guest raat]

The new crew system seems like tedium, like unnecessary micro-management.  However, I like the idea of behind crew changes with regard to boarding.

[Tomms123]

The information I have gather about how many men you use for each gun they count for 12 pds 8-9 men in total but if they were ordered to use both port and stab side they would split so 4 men on each and the powder boy in the middle.

From another source I got that on HMS victory 32 pd gun they had 6 men crew on each gun.

 

From the book HMS Victory Pocket Manuval 1805: Admiral Nelson's Flagship At Trafalgar on page 102 it states the following:

42 pd, total crew 16, if firing both broadsides 8

32 pd, tc 14, ifbb 7

24 pd, tc 12, ifbb 6

12 pd, tc 10, ifbb 5

9 pd, tc 8, ifbb 4

6 pd, tc 6, ifbb 3

4 pd, tc 4, ifbb 2

3 pd, tc 4, ifbb 2

 

It also stated the following "The number of men dedicated to each gun's crew was determined by the weight and type of gun. The calculation used to determine the number of men required to operate a standard carriage gun was as follows.     (Weight of the actual gun (lb) + Weight of gun carriage (lb))/500lb

The division figure of 500lb was the estimated maxium weight a single man could haul. The number of crew needed for the carronades was between four and six,...." 

 

https://books.google.se/books?id=4bYoCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=gun+crew+numbers&source=bl&ots=3wemj96-l8&sig=-3n67GVLAJiu5ljkTHngVmoO6hg&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJmcWZlPvKAhWKFiwKHR1YA_IQ6AEIYjAL#v=onepage&q=gun%20crew%20numbers&f=false

 

http://www.stvincent.ac.uk/heritage/1797/victory/guns.html

 

http://www.navyandmarine.org/ondeck/1800gundrill.htm

[Rigge1988]

Raking.

Isn't it a bit of going back to square one to buff raking? If I remember it correctly, it was nerfed since yachts had no problems with 1st rates... ( yes this is where my pessimistic eyes and thoughts got stuck for a while please forgive me)

 

Crew focus

If I got it correct this will enable us to, for example, sacrifice a percentage of sail management to repair leaks at the same time? If so - Great!

Im not sure if I like the idea around the crew for cannons thingy however.

 

Mast magic

Meh.

 

Production buildings

This is where things can get real interesting. I've always been a spokesperson for a total playerbased economy.

No resources should be automagically produced at ports.

And why not have so that some ports will give a bonus output in some production buildings.

For example. Philipsburg gives a bonus output to wood. Or if more specific, Philipsburg gives a bonus output to fir log. Guayama gives bonus output to stone. Etc.

That would make planning port conquests more important as a sort of side effect.

 

New ships

More ships are welcome! We need ranks also. Ranks are good. The gap between frigate/belle -> 3rd rate is where the constitution sits without love.

[admin]

Stupid question, with all ports being reset how will this impact outpost, ships at ports that are reset, warehouses etc?

 

who said that this is happening now

[Ruthless4u]

The new crew system seems like tedium, like unnecessary micro-management.  However, I like the idea of behind crew changes with regard to boarding.

Depending on how it's done it may be a bit clunky, that is my concern.

who said that this is happening now

Misread on my part, what happens when you don't get much sleep lol.

[Ledinis]

Raking.

Isn't it a bit of going back to square one to buff raking? If I remember it correctly, it was nerfed since yachts had no problems with 1st rates... ( yes this is where my pessimistic eyes and thoughts got stuck for a while please forgive me)

 

Crew focus

If I got it correct this will enable us to, for example, sacrifice a percentage of sail management to repair leaks at the same time? If so - Great!

Im not sure if I like the idea around the crew for cannons thingy however.

 

Mast magic

Meh.

 

Production buildings

This is where things can get real interesting. I've always been a spokesperson for a total playerbased economy.

No resources should be automagically produced at ports.

And why not have so that some ports will give a bonus output in some production buildings.

For example. Philipsburg gives a bonus output to wood. Or if more specific, Philipsburg gives a bonus output to fir log. Guayama gives bonus output to stone. Etc.

That would make planning port conquests more important as a sort of side effect.

 

New ships

More ships are welcome! We need ranks also. Ranks are good. The gap between frigate/belle -> 3rd rate is where the constitution sits without love.

^^^

This!!! We really could use a rank for 4th rates like the Consti (i assume there will be quite more rank 4 ships in the future), since the insta jump from a Trincomallee to a 3rd rate seems a bit overkill.

[Jack Feathersword]

I am interested in the repair changes and the repair crew focus and how they might work together? Will you be able to repair slowly in repair more? will you still have repair kits? 

 

Has a repair over time been looked at that uses a slow trickle of resources to repair? the more damage you have the more crew and materials it uses?

[Rosvo Roope]

Please make Production Buildings happen. Would be a huge leap in terms of economical gameplay and creating a more balanced trading on long term.

[theox]

Great patch guys, really looking forward to it! I need more to do as Captain, the crew management bit looks promising!

[Dalriaden]

Is there going to be a refining of crews/levels so there's a point to manning the constitution instead of just jumping from a belle poule/frigate straight into a third rate completely bypassing the Constitution? 

[Mclovin]

To Call the New Crew Management new Content ... would be ok if we had no crew in the past .. but we had .. we just had no numbers ... wohooo

 

I was looking forward to Content when i red the Topic ...

 

 

Production buildings

This is where things can get real interesting. I've always been a spokesperson for a total playerbased economy.

No resources should be automagically produced at ports.

And why not have so that some ports will give a bonus output in some production buildings.

For example. Philipsburg gives a bonus output to wood. Or if more specific, Philipsburg gives a bonus output to fir log. Guayama gives bonus output to stone. Etc.

That would make planning port conquests more important as a sort of side effect.

 

New ships

More ships are welcome! We need ranks also. Ranks are good. The gap between frigate/belle -> 3rd rate is where the constitution sits without love.

 

 

We need more balance for Nations with less Players ... maybe with new/other Port Battles mechanics/Productions Buildings so they cant build 31232314324 big ships

Edited February 16, 2016 by Mclovin

[Mr. Starbuck]

interesting and engaging changes ahead! seems like we all will have to re-learn the game to a certain degree. More complexity is always welcome!

 

However, no changes to the crafting system? I thought we'd see something here as well? BP drop mechanics cry out loudly for tuning!

[Francech]

I think that improving damage to stern/bow is a bad idea game play wise. I understand it would be historically correct. But smaller ship have no chance to tank with their sides to bigger ships. Currently it's only viable to avoid damage by camping in stern or turn to bow/stern to avoid as much damage as possible.

 

If raking will become prominent, what will happen is that fights will be quite a lot less engaging from a player point of view.

[OlavDeng2]

I think that improving damage to stern/bow is a bad idea game play wise. I understand it would be historically correct. But smaller ship have no chance to tank with their sides to bigger ships. Currently it's only viable to avoid damage by camping in stern or turn to bow/stern to avoid as much damage as possible.

 

If raking will become prominent, what will happen is that fights will be quite a lot less engaging from a player point of view.

1. well currently a small ship can avoid a lot of damage by showing stern/bow and extremely easily stern camp a larger ship... this means in a smaller ship you have to try to use your speed and maneuverability to avoid getting shot.

 

2. it means that if small ships can get on the stern of a larger ships, it will be more capable of doing proper damage

 

3. it will stop larger ships from showing their stern to avoid taking damage(this happened quite a bit)

[Francech]

yea, but my point is that this way if you get the bigger ship, there is no point than to just tank on your side. Like a Frigate vs Cerberus. Not Frigate vs cutter.

[OlavDeng2]

yea, but my point is that this way if you get the bigger ship, there is no point than to just tank on your side. Like a Frigate vs Cerberus. Not Frigate vs cutter.

well that is why most of the armour on ships were on the side... you dont drive around in world of tanks with your tank tanking with your side or rear... if you got weaker armour, it is your job to use whatever advantage you have and to counter any disadvantage you have.

[Francech]

sure but game play wise, you get less stuff to play with if the side where your main damage comes from is also your main source of armor. As it is now, you have to ask your self, do i take more damage or do more damage which is an interesting choice.

[OlavDeng2]

sure but game play wise, you get less stuff to play with if the side where your main damage comes from is also your main source of armor. As it is now, you have to ask your self, do i take more damage or do more damage which is an interesting choice.

Honestly, do you get less stuff to play with? you would still be able to angle your armour, you would have to decide for example take shots in the bow but be able to rake the enemy in a bit for even more devestating effect or be able to tank with your side armour. Right now it is more like this:

 

you fire, you turn your bow to the enemy before he can fire so he either has to wait or shoot in your bow, you reload and then you turn your side to him again and fire.

[Goodblue]

Most of it looks good but I'm a bit concerned about these three things:

 

Combat tuning

We want to increase importance of positional damage - raking and reduce importance of broadside damage slightly. Captains should tank with a broadside not with a stern/bow. This will be achieved by the following.

• Significantly increased cannon damage from raking fire Significantly increased? Does this also mean more damage to crew? Yesterday I graped down 100 crew of a Frigate in one rake (full broadside). If it is more planking damage then that's fine with me. I'm not sure I like the idea of graping down 60%+ crew of a Frigate in ONE broadside. Also the Stern HP is already pretty low.
• Lower rudder HP A bit concerned about this part. I remember the time where every 2-3 broadsides resulted in a red rudder. Hopefully it wont be reduced TOO much. Let's see if you guys found a good balance in this.
• Increased broadside planking and class for all vessels Don't know. We'll have to test this.

Mast/Sail repair on long cooldowns

Demasting became a dominant strategy and does not give many options for the person on the receiving end. We know that many will say it is a wrong choice – but giving the player the option to recover masts in battle at least to a certain extent will bring more variability to battles. I'm not sure if this is a good idea. If you want to give players the opportunity to repair MASTS as well, then make sure to reduce the effectiveness of the replaced mast as it should NOT be a brand new mast that brings the sails back to 100%. I would suggest half of the percentage of a mast will be repaired. For example if one mast goes down that brings the player to 60% sails. The repair should only repair 20% of that mast instead of 40%. Sails would still be fully repaired.

 

Our proposal is this:

Bring back cool downs for hull repairs and mast repairs: Cool downs should only work when the player is on the exit timer – if you are out of combat. If enemy does not pursue you in battle actively you can disengage away wait for 10-20 mins and get another repair chance. Captains who participated in the previous repair discussions actively can bring back their ideas into the discussions here.

 

Planking imbalances on lower level vessels. I'm curious but also a bit concerned on this part.

We want to compact the planking integrity on unrated vessels bringing them closer to each other. This will increase variability and improve ship choices for shallow water combat. The difference in hp and survivability between a Navy brig-sloop and a privateer should not be as strong as it is now (almost 2.5x). I hope you wont bring these 2 classes TOO close in terms of planking. The privateer is probably already a more viable choice then the Brig of NavyBrig (at least from my experience). I hope they will find a good balance in these 2 classes and hope it wont be close to a point the Brig or NavyBrig will be useless compared to ships of a lower class.

 

My thoughts about these changes.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Goodblue

[Callaghan]

All sounds good apart from compression of power of lower ranked ships - unrealistic and unhistorical, not to mention counter-productive. Taking on and defeating a snow in a yatch or whatever is already possible if the player has enough skill, it shouldn´t be made possible for players who aren´t willing to try harder, just seems to go against the core design principles of the game.

[Francech]

To me getting the right time to turn while shooting and the right angle os quite interesting. With this change why bother to turn if you can do max dps and max tanking at the same time.

[Hellifant]

I really hope that the canon pen changes will make med/longs a MORE viable option for missions. I dont like the dmg = exp focus in pve right now , forcing everyone to use carronades for the most exp reward. I really tried med/longs, and  even in the best case scenario i get like 20-30% less exp compared to carronades.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Hellifant

[Hethwill]

That is exactly one of the indirect effects of the renewed crew allocation system. Obviously it will have its drawbacks ( especially on undercrewed ) but guess we will have to find out