Deliberate death of crew for fire ships

[Hans the Hawk]

Hi,

 

I think something should be done to stop people turning off survival to turn their ships into fire ships.

 

Is it really at all realistic that crews would deliberately blown themselves to pieces in this way. Its called "survival" for a reason is it not?

 

Thanks for reading

 

Hans

 

[Alanxo]

This will be acceptable if the developers introduce ums brûlot ships, as it was, really, and used, an effective tactic.

 

Now, looking at tactics used today, we would call these terrorist actions!

 

Alanxo suicidal pirate

[Wilhelm von Bromme]

It would be funny if your crew would start hopping off board, if your ship is on fire but you don't use survival mode, or say when you go into fire shock.

[Hanzee]

It would be funny if your crew would start hopping off board, if your ship is on fire but you don't use survival mode, or say when you go into fire shock.

Or, perhaps there could be a launch or two (npc controlled) appearing and rowing like mad away from the "mad captain" (with the loss of most crew, of course). 

[akd]

Arguably turning off survival mode when there is a fire on board your ship should lead to instant crew shock.

[Ledinis]

Wait, so what your telling me is that convincing 650 men to burn themselves alive in order to slightly damage an enemy ship was not a realistic tactic back in the days ?! O.o This game lied to me !

[Long Beard]

When there's no escape, certain death is guaranteed, only someone with unquestionably high morals wouldn't turn that ticking time bomb towards the enemy. Are you that fellow Hans the Hawk?

[Nalyd]

When there's no escape, certain death is guaranteed, only someone with unquestionably high morals wouldn't turn that ticking time bomb towards the enemy. Are you that fellow Hans the Hawk?

 

Please, tell me more about how there is no escape when all it takes is ~15 guys out of 650+ to put down that fire.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Nalyd

[Long Beard]

Please, tell me more about how there is no escape when all it takes is ~15 guys out of 650+ to put down that fire.

I'm not talking about the fire, I'm talking about when you're vastly out numbered, taking heavy damage and the only conceivable outcome is defeat.  Not many folks would try to put out a fire in that situation, especially if you can take some of them with you as a last ditch effort.

[Ledinis]

I'm not talking about the fire, I'm talking about when you're vastly out numbered, taking heavy damage and the only conceivable outcome is defeat.  Not many folks would try to put out a fire in that situation, especially if you can take some of them with you as a last ditch effort.

Quite certain most people would prefer to fight to their last or fall to their knees and beg for mercy, not sit there idly while burning alive. 

[Llanowardjinn]

Its a captains decision what he chooses to do with his ship. IF he wants it to sink so you dont take it let him have that decision. you have no right to take that decision from him. 

[Long Beard]

Quite certain most people would prefer to fight to their last or fall to their knees and beg for mercy, not sit there idly while burning alive. 

 

Then clearly it's not a problem then. 

[Hethwill]

Its a captains decision what he chooses to do with his ship. IF he wants it to sink so you dont take it let him have that decision. you have no right to take that decision from him. 

 

Let's take one example from History where a captain had that decision taken from him, shall we ?

 

5th July 1833, Cape St. Vincent.

 

Flag Admiral for the Absolutist Monarchy tries, after being wounded in boarding combat by Charles Napier, the commander of the Liberal Fleet, to light up the gunpowder store and explode the ship. He was shot on the spot by the men ( his men! ) responsible for safeguarding the gunpowder.

 

No sane crew would ever allow a captain to purposedly explode the ship with them on it.

 

Sorry.

[BarnesBL0278]

The fact that anyone believes this to be a viable tactic is laughable.

[akd]

I don't really care if people chose suicide over honorable defeat, but loss should not be equivalent. Suicide tactics should require a meaningful sacrifice that significantly exceeds normal loss from surrender or boarding.

[Vernon Merrill]

Like maybe bust you down a rank? Or nerf a certain amount of XP, and if that drops you down a rank, so be it. It's an interesting question. Another one of those "it makes sense because there's no REAL loss" situations.

[BarnesBL0278]

Oh, I'm sure the officers and crew on board a naval ship would just jump at the opportunity to commit mass suicide.

I've read of several incidents where the order was given to set powder trains and go out in a blaze of glory, but they usually occurred while the captain was dying and his orders for some reason or another were never carried out.

[Marcomies]

The way the fire is handled at the moment, it takes so little crew that there would just be no fires ever getting out of hand if the survival mode could not be turned off.

 

To make people not blow up their ships, a system with persistent crew would need to be added to the game. Losing a durability or a captured ship is not good enough reason to not fight until death or go kamikaze against the enemy but if you lost experienced crew and officers (or their collected xp) the situation could be very different.