19 mln vs 60 thousand - the cost of crew - moderated

[Velshred]

Im against any new feature that increases dramatically the time that I need to invest to the game doing no fun things like grinding more or waiting for refill. I have only about 3 hours to play the game. This game shouldnt became a second job.

Ditto. I'm all against those changes unless the crew supply in ports is infinite. 

[CeltiberoCaesar]

Ditto. I'm all against those changes unless the crew supply in ports is infinite.

Then it would go in the wrong direction. The idea is to balance the nations so the most populated one won't overwhelm the small ones.

We need this ASAP. Stop thinking about how can you be the very best of the best players and how can you bully other players... This is an alpha, the purpose is to create a balanced/fun game that would encourage the player to stay in it. If the game finally ended up a game where if you are from X nation you bully and if you are not you are fu***... The bullied will leave the game and the others will have none to fight with.

Edited May 9, 2016 by CeltiberoCaesar

[delaine]

we should be unable to get crew from the AI.

 

Cause if thats the case it is indeed just another burden to PvP and RvR.

 

But if they implement it the way I understand it, the main PB ship may once again be a 3rd rate and just a few 1st rate.

At least the opposing nation has the option to exhaust another nation's 1st rate fleet.

 

That way crew becomes a strategic factor.

_______-

 

edit:

 

READ THE OP CAREFULLY!

 

The crew will only be gone if you lost all of your ship's duras.

You can not loose any % of your crew. Its all or nothing

 

Which means that after a battle you will again have 100% crew.

Just as we do now.

 

 

potbs had no crew buy system (not the 5 years I played ) you had them. It regenerated during battle

potbs still dont have a crew system(iv played it on and off and still do ) but im in full support of a crew system tbh much like uncharted waters has im also in favor of random hurricanes that if you have to much sail will either shread the sails if you have to much showing or plain out capsize ya and sink ya losing you a dura on ow if we want it more real but the hurricanes and sorts is a topic for another day

[Lannes]

Now that I have been playing a while I am aware that all ships are under-crewed. So, why have the additional impost of a crew system? We have crew  problems to start off with.

[BungeeLemming]

we dont have crew problems.

We always have enough crew to man our ships on eafter the other. Even when I sink 10 times in an evening I will be able to man the 11th. could have been 10 1st rates or 10 cutters. Matter of fact is that we dont have problems to crew our ships.

 

What you refer to is that our ships are not capable to fight both broadsides with 100% effect. Which is totally fine.

[Z-fuzi]

The idea of a crew is a really good idea.

 

Nevetheless i think that the crew shall have a "link" with the officer :

 

• It could be a kind of "health" bar of the officer. The level of the officer (or specialities) will help to recover this health bar quicker. The "disponibility" of the crew in port (or in the whole nation port) will also be a factor of speed of the recoverness of the health bar

 

• The bar will have a certain level XP (independant of the level of the officer), this level will increase after each battle, but with the death of several crew new crew will join the officer in the port so the average XP of the bar will decrease proportionally. The XP will help to navigate easier and to fire more precisely (with slight amount of course), also they will be XP check point which will allow to select specific abilities of the crew (boarding abilities, fire abilities, specific cannons abilities, navigation abilities, reloading abilities ...). Also the acquisition of level shall be logarithmic (10 - 100 - 1000 - 10000 - 100000 XP for a level), in order to allow casual player (1/2 hours per day) to stay competitiv

 

• If the ship is on his last dura (like Victo / Santi), it will be possible before sink (or capture, with a certain preparation amount needed) of the boat to make the officer and the remaining crew escape, and allow him to try to swim to another boat nearby. Ofc they will be more loss in the crew, and the officer could have a probability (5% / 10% ?)to die in water (sharks like ). But the boat choosen to escape will have to survive (escape?) until the end of the battle.

 

• Take care also in the daily cost of the officer + crew, it shall not be too high, otherwise it will need too much hours of farm to ensure this cost in 1st / 2nd rank (with +800 crew). Also think about the way to pay it (holidays, work), play the game shall not be an obligation per day. You could add an option of indisponibility (in days), which will allow (if real) no salary (few salary ?)

 

• A barrack will allow to have several officer (2 ? 3 ?) in order to have some available crew, but officer in barrack will "heal" slower.

 

This is my view.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Z-fuzi

[Lannes]

we dont have crew problems.

We always have enough crew to man our ships on eafter the other. Even when I sink 10 times in an evening I will be able to man the 11th. could have been 10 1st rates or 10 cutters. Matter of fact is that we dont have problems to crew our ships.

 

What you refer to is that our ships are not capable to fight both broadsides with 100% effect. Which is totally fine.

'Totally fine' for you, that is, a point of view, a personal preference. It might even be borne out historically, I give you that, which is my preference, too.

To manage the sails fully and to man every cannon fully is not possible at the moment. The numbers that are given for sailing and for gunnery attest to this. Therefore, the ship is never at its full complement--or 'on paper strength'. I understand from what others here have said, this is because there were never enough berths on a ship for all the crew that might be needed, but that the crew that they had was sufficient to do the job. Then, why not make the numbers attest the facts? Or, is it because we can increase the numbers by acquiring 'hammocks'?

IMHO, it means that crewing is always taken into account in the game already. I like the idea of Officers being added, but question the need for further onerous 'work' added to the game.

[Enraged Ewok]

'Totally fine' for you, that is, a point of view, a personal preference. It might even be borne out historically, I give you that, which is my preference, too.

To manage the sails fully and to man every cannon fully is not possible at the moment. The numbers that are given for sailing and for gunnery attest to this. Therefore, the ship is never at its full complement--or 'on paper strength'. I understand from what others here have said, this is because there were never enough berths on a ship for all the crew that might be needed, but that the crew that they had was sufficient to do the job. Then, why not make the numbers attest the facts? Or, is it because we can increase the numbers by acquiring 'hammocks'?

IMHO, it means that crewing is always taken into account in the game already. I like the idea of Officers being added, but question the need for further onerous 'work' added to the game.

 

Unless you're sailing a trader or one of the smaller ships, even with hammocks you will not have the ability to fully man both broadsides and your sails. If you could on every ship, the crew management system would lose all meaning. The ships we are sailing are, from what I've read, at their full historical complement on men assuming you have the rank to fully crew them. Being unable to fully man both broadsides was a fact of life for ships in this era, and in the event ships were engaged on both broadsides the gun crews would split to serve the guns with half crews.

[Cragger]

Unless you're sailing a trader or one of the smaller ships, even with hammocks you will not have the ability to fully man both broadsides and your sails. If you could on every ship, the crew management system would lose all meaning. The ships we are sailing are, from what I've read, at their full historical complement on men assuming you have the rank to fully crew them. Being unable to fully man both broadsides was a fact of life for ships in this era, and in the event ships were engaged on both broadsides the gun crews would split to serve the guns with half crews.

 

This is correct. Each gun crew was assigned two guns, one on each side of the ship. Since real sailing ships did not maneuver around like ships do in game since coordinating and handling the management of sail and yards was a laborious task as well as strength of wind determining motive power an entire battle may be fought on one side of the ship. 

 

Ships fought at battle sails to avoid fires from the flash of guns and to reduce the sails to a point that few crew were needed to managed them and could do so from the weather deck. To manage and constantly change the entire sail plan of a warship while servicing the guns and nominal rates was simply impossible. 

[Enraged Ewok]

This is correct. Each gun crew was assigned two guns, one on each side of the ship. Since real sailing ships did not maneuver around like ships do in game since coordinating and handling the management of sail and yards was a laborious task as well as strength of wind determining motive power an entire battle may be fought on one side of the ship. 

 

Ships fought at battle sails to avoid fires from the flash of guns and to reduce the sails to a point that few crew were needed to managed them and could do so from the weather deck. To manage and constantly change the entire sail plan of a warship while servicing the guns and nominal rates was simply impossible. 

 

That would be a neat improvement to our current system now that I think about it. Shortening sail would free more men to help with guns, or if guns are full, they would stand ready to board or be available for plugging leaks.

[Lannes]

That would be a neat improvement to our current system now that I think about it. Shortening sail would free more men to help with guns, or if guns are full, they would stand ready to board or be available for plugging leaks.

 

Thanks, guys. I think we already have 'shortening sail' in 'battle sail', do we not?

[DeRuyter]

'Totally fine' for you, that is, a point of view, a personal preference. It might even be borne out historically, I give you that, which is my preference, too.

To manage the sails fully and to man every cannon fully is not possible at the moment. The numbers that are given for sailing and for gunnery attest to this. Therefore, the ship is never at its full complement--or 'on paper strength'. I understand from what others here have said, this is because there were never enough berths on a ship for all the crew that might be needed, but that the crew that they had was sufficient to do the job. Then, why not make the numbers attest the facts? Or, is it because we can increase the numbers by acquiring 'hammocks'?

IMHO, it means that crewing is always taken into account in the game already. I like the idea of Officers being added, but question the need for further onerous 'work' added to the game.

 

Ah Marechal Lannes much like Napoleon you are thinking too much of land battles!   Most battalions and squadrons were only at "paper strength" upon leaving the depot. However an infantry battalion could perform its' maneuvers at 80% strength the same as if it were 100% strength.

 

The numbers given for crew represent the historical full complement or "paper strength". What we are saying is that even at full complement or "paper strength" a ship would not be able to handle sails at 100% and man the guns at 100% during a battle.  Do not think of the total numbers listed on the sailing and gunnery tabs as the number needed for full crew.  Ships were often not at full complement for various reasons (prize crews, sickness, etc) but this is not represented in the game.

 

Yes you can increase the numbers with hammocks - sometimes ships did have additional crew (French ships often had higher crew numbers) or were transporting an infantry battalion for a landing (marines or muskets modules). Also you can adjust the numbers in the gunnery tab based on which cannons you have mounted on the ship. Carronades require less crew per gun for example.

 

Here is a great reference for the manning and crew management on ships in the Royal Navy:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Nelsons-Navy-Ships-Organization-1793-1815/dp/0870212583

 

Thanks, guys. I think we already have 'shortening sail' in 'battle sail', do we not?

 

Yes we do. But he is referring to the use of battle sails to free up more crew to man the guns, which the game does not do automatically, you have to turn sailing mode off completely. 

[surfimp]

I still have a doubt Devs.

 

Suppose a player has maximum rank. It is, by mechanics, entitled to a certain amount of crew.

 

Now what if that player doesn't want to use them at all ? Like in a simple sloop captain which only wants to command 50 to 70 crewmen.

 

That captain would only have to pay the prizes and allowance for that crew right ? Despite how many sloops of the same model he has in docks, the crew carries over, I get that one.

 

Agree with this sentiment.

 

Eg. I am at level 6, and am entitled to 250 crew per my rank. However I sail a Privateer which uses only 60-70 crew, meaning (if I understand admin's OP) there will be 180-190 crew "left over" in my barracks while I am at sea.

 

Can I instead send those extra crew back to my nation's pool?

 

EDIT: one other thought, will you be able to impress sailors from NPC captured ships? Will there be any bounty offered for bringing impressed sailors back to my nation's pool? Or will they just go into my own personal barracks, for my own use? What happens if I impress more sailors than I am entitled to command, based on my rank?

Edited May 10, 2016 by Sansón Carrasco

[Cragger]

That would be a neat improvement to our current system now that I think about it. Shortening sail would free more men to help with guns, or if guns are full, they would stand ready to board or be available for plugging leaks.

 

More untrained and undisciplined crew wouldn't affect gun reload. A gun crew was the crew. They knew their roles and the commands. Orders were short and clear. Throwing men untrained for such duties at the task massively increased the chance of a premature fire or burst gun from double loading.

 

Let's take the U.S.S. Constitution for example because it is so well documented.

 

Her complement was 450 which includes 55 marines and 30 boys.

 

So that is now 365 sailors.

 

Each 24 lb gun had a crew of 12 (13 including powder boy)

 

 

Each 32 lb carronade had a crew of 8 ( 9 including powder boy)

 

 

Now as the Constitution generally carried 30 24lb long guns and 20 32lb carronades as side armament you get a total gun crew size of 520 men if you tried to fully crew each and every individual gun, which is greater then her ships complement. Even with each crew split between two guns this is still 260 men. Leaving only 165 men to fulfill all the other duties outlaid in the diagrams minus carpenter and his mates, quartermaster, powder passers (The ships boys being part of this). etc.

[DeRuyter]

Excellent post Cragger.

 

I don't think people remember to subtract the idlers who have nothing to do with sailing or gunnery.

 

While a number of crew were not trained gun crew, much if not all of the gun crews were able seamen or topmen with assigned sailing stations. So turning off gunnery in game represents sending gun crews to their sailing stations. I am not sure whether the crew numbers for sailing with both modes on already represents the minimum sailing crew for maneuvers under battle sail. The game already allows for much more sail changes than was done IRL in close action.

[BusterGut]

More untrained and undisciplined crew wouldn't affect gun reload. A gun crew was the crew. They knew their roles and the commands. Orders were short and clear. Throwing men untrained for such duties at the task massively increased the chance of a premature fire or burst gun from double loading.

 

Let's take the U.S.S. Constitution for example because it is so well documented.

 

Her complement was 450 which includes 55 marines and 30 boys.

 

So that is now 365 sailors.

 

Each 24 lb gun had a crew of 12 (13 including powder boy)

 

 

Each 32 lb carronade had a crew of 8 ( 9 including powder boy)

 

 

Now as the Constitution generally carried 30 24lb long guns and 20 32lb carronades as side armament you get a total gun crew size of 520 men if you tried to fully crew each and every individual gun, which is greater then her ships complement. Even with each crew split between two guns this is still 260 men. Leaving only 165 men to fulfill all the other duties outlaid in the diagrams minus carpenter and his mates, quartermaster, powder passers (The ships boys being part of this). etc.

Marines used to work on the quarter deck, the mizzen mast was part of their job as well, also if short handed they would be expected to work the guns. At least this is true in the RN.

 

"More untrained and undisciplined crew wouldn't affect gun reload. A gun crew was the crew"

They would, it takes quite some time to get a gun crew operating at maximum efficiency, the game should certainly penalise the ship thats always losing crew on reloading ability.

[Cragger]

Marines used to work on the quarter deck, the mizzen mast was part of their job as well, also if short handed they would be expected to work the guns. At least this is true in the RN.

 

"More untrained and undisciplined crew wouldn't affect gun reload. A gun crew was the crew"

They would, it takes quite some time to get a gun crew operating at maximum efficiency, the game should certainly penalise the ship thats always losing crew on reloading ability.

 

A gun captain would not so politely to get lost if you tried to jump in to a crew that was fully manned is the point. Throwing at extra 6 men at a gun crew that had no need for them would only make things get in the way. And if undermanned if they weren't disciplined in the roles very bad things could and would happen. It the men are not pre arranged and thus organized and trained into a gun crew who is going to be the captain and the 2nd etc. Without being in a preorganized team they will just be fumbling around the gun in each other's way and prone to making mistakes. 

 

Fail to properly swab the barrel and the charge would detonate in the crew's face and the gun would recoil over the tackle hands. Rammer fails to tamp the charge down the air gap could burst the gun. One of the most serious offenses was double loading the gun. If the men at the gun loose track of what each other is doing you could have the one man load a charge and another trying to 'help' load another charge on top of it not seeing that the charge has already been placed. This is why each man has their specific role and does his role on order from the gun captain. Cast iron guns would burst and send shrapnel raking through the gun crews all around. 

 

Servicing a gun at combat rate is a matter of extreme discipline and training. Reenactments do not do this justice because safety is exercised utmost and thus the pace is slow. In real life these men did this task essentially blind. As nice as the smoke effect is in the game it doesn't even approach the realities of smoke from blackpowder and how it would hang in the air especially below decks. Coupled with the fact that almost all oil lights would be extinguished to prevent flash fire it comes down to disciplined muscle memory and routine. 

 

Marines did crew the quarter deck guns on many ships but the bulk of their numbers were assigned to far more important tasks. Postings at the magazine and hatches to protect against sabotage and mutiny. Positions in the masts to sharp shoot. Issuing of small arms and grenades and last but not least being essentially a human shield for the officers against canister and enemy small arms fire.  

[Enraged Ewok]

Excellent posts on why they should not go into gunnery if reducing sail freed up crew. But surely they could automatically go to boarding standby, correct?

[Cragger]

Excellent posts on why they should not go into gunnery if reducing sail freed up crew. But surely they could automatically go to boarding standby, correct?

 

In the current arrangement of crew allocation it would be the most appropriate place. I'm sure some of the crew would also be trained and assigned to standby gun crews or replace those cut down if needed. But being able to fully manage both side armament was simply impossible. 

 

The crew complement in the game also is not reduced from officers, ships boys, (Carpenter, cook, purser/quartermaster, doctor/surgeon and their mates which would be all down in the hold during battle), also powder monkeys would be passing the charges from the magazine in the hold and the shot from the shot lockers up through the hatches. Then you get into lookouts, swivel guns, etc. 

[Anjelen]

Great idea, sounds like a part of the game Pirates  

 

Loosing crew, hire crew, good old Shanghaiing crew (ships/free ports), heal crew - all great and would people start to think twice about attacking a ship and waste their crew in boarding attempts.

 

Question - will sending a ship to home port also lower the crew? Anybody has to sail the capture. There was a reason why pirate ships sailed usualy overcrewed (attacks on settlements, sometimes capture ships).

[Johnny Rotten]

would you be able to press-gang crew from a port for free?

Edited May 16, 2016 by Johnny Rotten

[Woody051]

Great idea, sounds like a part of the game Pirates

 

Loosing crew, hire crew, good old Shanghaiing crew (ships/free ports), heal crew - all great and would people start to think twice about attacking a ship and waste their crew in boarding attempts.

 

Question - will sending a ship to home port also lower the crew? Anybody has to sail the capture. There was a reason why pirate ships sailed usualy overcrewed (attacks on settlements, sometimes capture ships).

 

 

would you be able to press-gang crew from a port for free?

 

I too would want to know

 

i suggested similar things http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/13601-19-mln-vs-60-thousand-the-cost-of-crew-moderated/?p=252726

[Alberic]

I am keen on the need to hire crew when some are lost if you loose a ship. I see 2 advantages here :

 

- Crew is the heart of ships, and the primary ressource needed, so totally realistic that they have a real cost (in time and money).

 

- It will automaticaly balance the gameplay, lowering significantly the " Ram hard - quick board before sink " that we can see more and more often in Open Sea from some undelicate ganking groups.

As a consequence, it will bring most players to take care about their sailing skills and tactics, which would be far more intersting to play in my opinion.

 

Also, good crew management will be crucial to continue sailing on top of your capacities, keep the game spicy, and allow "low ressources players" to be efficient in long term thanks to their skill and reflexion, and not keep them always outnumbered / outressourced by bad gang Tank players .

 

Can't wait to test these improvements myself

[Rabatz]

I would love to see a greater focus on the ships crew in the game. By that, I mean a well balanced combination of a crew experience system, officers, maybe a morale system, crew payment and a better (real time?) boarding system. It was one of the first things that struck me as non immersive that crew recruitement is completely irrelevant in this game which is great in many other aspects.

 

Nonetheless, I understand the fears of some players that the game may become overly complex and at the same time less intuitive or just unbalanced by a bad design of crew management. Well, here are my thoughts on how to make this work (I know some of the aspects have been proposed before):

 

- the crew in general should have several levels of experience, lets say untrained to trained to exceptional
- these levels apply to different aspects of naval action; lets say sailing, gunnery, close combat/boarding, survival/repairs and maybe discipline/morale (high discipline might allow faster changes of crew focus from sailing to gunnery and the like)
- no country or port would ever run out of untrained sailors
- the total experience of your crew (i.e. 30% untrained, 50% trained, 20% exceptional in sailing) increases based on battle exp and behaviour/activity in battles
- additionally, you can recruit officers like sailing master, gunnery master, first mate, doctor... (or can be send to your ship after special missions); these provide extra bonuses... be creative ; officers are rare and distributed randomly across the caribbean

 

- loosing a big share of your crew in a battle decreases your total crew exp
- additional crew can be recruited from captured ships, captured ports or in ports of your country
- when your ship receives hits in a battle, the majority of your crew will be injured instead of being killed; hence, they are removed from the active crew in the current battle but will recover until the next battle instance (in real life less than 10% of the crew actually died during sea battles according to statistics of the royal navy)
- open world performance of your ship is not affected by your crew (or lack of)
- health kits can help your crew to recover (in battle as well as open world)

 

- as stated before, ports always offer unlimited untrained crew; on top of that they offer a certain percentage of trained (lets say 10%) and exceptional crew (lets say 5%); hence, the increase of total crew exp when you recruit new sailors is limited by those percentages
- the bigger a country/the richer a port -> the lower the percentages of experienced crew members that can be recruited (reason: the inhabitants of rich countries have many other and better payed opportunities apart from the hard life on board a ship)
- the bigger a country/the richer a port -> the more you have to pay for experienced crew members (same reason as above)
- the bigger the ship -> the more you have to pay for experienced crew members (reason: lower expected share of prize from captured ships/ports)

 

- smaller ships get bigger bonuses from a high crew exp
- bigger ships get penalties when not reaching a certain threshold of crew exp (reason: you cannot man a santissima with landlubbers only; setting tons of sails and firing much bigger guns is complex and requires way more skill and discipline compared to a sloop)
- countries gain different advantages from the recruited crew: France has better sailors, pirates are better in boarding, americans have better gunners, Norway has amazingly skilled carpenters, Brits are more disciplined, Spain suffers less from penalties of big ships (just some ideas..., balancing is crucial)

 

This may seem too complex at first. But I believe, as long as it is intuitive and there is transparent in-game information on these aspects this would make the game more immersive, more interesting and giving it depth while not making it "hard work".

 

What do you think?

 

Cheers

[Anymn]

When the problem is santisimo creep, there is a very simple solution: make strong ships expensive to sail. So, e.g. 5th rate is money maker, 4th rate doable, 3rd obly profitable while doing well and 2nd and 1st very expensive. Higher the costs of repair kits and fix the ammount of gold earned for battles.

I prefer a good economy where gold is the limiting factor to play ships. Time should never be a limiting factor. The XP requirements are already grindy for a occasional player.

Do we need crew for such a balance? No. Should devs focus on implementing? No. Please fix the economy First.