Cmdr RideZ Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 So we are capping a ship. So ffs, it got on fire. It could have been also a shot to make it to leak. Accident most probably. So the guy takes all men from survival and ends up making a suicide. I think, that when the the situation on board looks grim enough, the men wont do what the captain says. Instead they will surrender and go in survival mode. There has been enough suicides in the game already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptVonGunn Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 You know that Survival turns on if you actually start boarding right? Or it did I don't think it has changed. Plus if the men will fight to the last man in a obviously losing boarding action(fighting with single digit Moral they will also let the ship sink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tipsypo Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 I don't think he's saying this was during the boarding. Just that their intention was to board and cap the enemy ship. But before doing so the enemy vessel caught fire and so rather than use survival and fight the fire, or surrendering the vessel and allowing an bloodless boarding, he decided to allow the fire to thrive and blow up or sink the ship. Am I right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwis Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 I think, that when the the situation on board looks grim enough, the men wont do what the captain says. Instead they will surrender and go in survival mode. Your mens maybe, not mine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfire Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 If i get caught by 3 ships that think it's "Fun" to snipe at me for 30 minutes an then demast me and sit just out of my line of fire and shoot me for another 10-15 minutes and not just end it so we both can go about our business. Then hell yea i will turn off survival and either sink faster or blow up because you think it is fun to jump one ship with multiple ships and draw out the battle to your enjoyment for that long no way in hell will I let you take my ship as an added insult if I can help it. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quineloe Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 If i get caught by 3 ships that think it's "Fun" to snipe at me for 30 minutes an then demast me and sit just out of my line of fire and shoot me for another 10-15 minutes and not just end it so we both can go about our business. Then hell yea i will turn off survival and either sink faster or blow up because you think it is fun to jump one ship with multiple ships and draw out the battle to your enjoyment for that long no way in hell will I let you take my ship as an added insult if I can help it. You have surrender for that. Survival should not be a toggle. Crew will always fight fire or work the pump, because seamen can't swim. Realism. Simple as that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Ribault Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 Your mens maybe, not mine. They're navy men, they should fight. If they're sissies, throw them overboard and then harpoon them in the water. Then get back to business fighting to the death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricKilla Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 You have surrender for that. Survival should not be a toggle. Crew will always fight fire or work the pump, because seamen can't swim. Realism. Simple as that. Fireships and scuttling ships are valid tactics in war. I see no reason to disable them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macjimm Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 This is a good thread. It describes two aspects of the competitive spirt of this community. One side would force everyone to fight because they believe that combat is the very essence of the game. And others who would self destruct themselves if they were a mouse if only to gouge out an eye of a sadistic cat who had pinned them. The participants have expressed themselves well. Not completely. But very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricKilla Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) This is a good thread. It describes two aspects of the competitive spirt of this community. One side would force everyone to fight because they believe that combat is the very essence of the game. And others who would self destruct themselves if they were a mouse if only to gouge out an eye of a sadistic cat who had pinned them. The participants have expressed themselves well. Not completely. But very well. The hard part about comparing ships full of hundreds of crew and small animals is that they are not one in the same. It would not make sense for a mouse to give up against a cat, because a mouse is a small animal who is trying desperately to survive. The mouse would die, and cease to exist. In contrast, a ship is an entity made of wood and metal. It is a tool crewed by living beings, not a living being itself. This crew can go overboard in boats and as individuals, if need be. The ship itself does not fight for survival; if it sinks it will not lose consciousness and feeling, it will not lose it's soul, because it truly has none. We assign them as people, just as we assign other sentimentalites. Surrendering one's ships to the dark depths through means of explosion or scuttling is not suicide. It is merely the destruction of a tool, and that destruction is often used to further someone's aims, whether that is denying the enemy team their ship, or using their ship to destroy several others. I think, in the context of war, this is perfectly acceptable. Edited June 11, 2016 by EricKilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tipsypo Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) I know scuttling was indeed something done during both world wars and an valid tactic. But was this something done during the times depicted in game. As said "seamen cant swim" and I do remember learning that the majority in seamen in those times could not swim. And I doubt the ships had enough boats for the entire crews. So scuttling would be suicide to most of the crew. I would think that were crew something that would cost the player, rather than being automatically supplied each battle at no cost. Then this would be better. As player has to either decide between scuttling or surrendering, to deny the enemy the goods but having to suffer the costs of recrewing and vice versa. Edited June 11, 2016 by tipsypo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptVonGunn Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 You have surrender for that. Survival should not be a toggle. Crew will always fight fire or work the pump, because seamen can't swim. Realism. Simple as that. UNtil they make you use Morale for your crew in a eeven semi real way this is valid.. ALso 1 Dur ships at all rates for everyone.. if you want Realism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vernon Merrill Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 crew mechanics should change this meta..... at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt Blackthorne Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 Fireships and scuttling ships are valid tactics in war. I see no reason to disable them. Of course these were historically accurate, however the crew jumped overboard before making contact with the enemy, and they were well under crewed. At least from history I read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Æthlstan Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) If your ship caught fire, and you werent a fire ship, and the situation was desparate enough (3v1), the order to abandon ship was given, boats were lowered, people went overboard. If the enemy really wanted that ship theyd have to put out the fire themselves. By the rules of war and the sea at the time, those men became men in distress and any ship nearby would have to pick them up (not that they couldnt immediately be made prisoners) All I see are the type of gankers most of the community doesnt appreciate complaining about people using valid tactics to deny people their ships, the only way they can. And back in these times, due to class divisions and lifelong habit, people tended to follow authority figures in times of crisis and extreme danger. The upper class was responsible for protecting and directing the lower classes. Of course mutinies happened, of course people would do what was necessary to preserve their lives, but theres something about the 19th century man that modern man doesnt have today. Men of that era would follow an officer, sword raised, straight into canister fire and oblivion, and they knew what was coming Edited June 11, 2016 by Æthlstan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quineloe Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) Fireships and scuttling ships are valid tactics in war. I see no reason to disable them. Fireships are ships with skeleton crews and no guns. I can't believe I have to write this over and over. Fully armed and crewed ships were not used as fireships and neither were ships deliberately sunk, sacrificing hundreds of men to deny the enemy a capture. The order to not fight a fire on a regular warship in hope of an explosion that would damage enemy ships and that order actually being followed is something you should back up with a historic source now. You won't find one. You just love your bomb combat ships so much. I'd suggest you people acquire the most basic knowledge on this subject here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_ship#Age_of_fighting_sail.2C_refinement It even goes so far that fire ships were actually obsolete by the time of this game. Edited June 11, 2016 by Quineloe 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptVonGunn Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 Fireships are ships with skeleton crews and no guns. I can't believe I have to write this over and over. Fully armed and crewed ships were not used as fireships and neither were ships deliberately sunk, sacrificing hundreds of men to deny the enemy a capture. The order to not fight a fire on a regular warship in hope of an explosion that would damage enemy ships and that order actually being followed is something you should back up with a historic source now. You won't find one. You just love your bomb combat ships so much. I'd suggest you people acquire the most basic knowledge on this subject here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_ship#Age_of_fighting_sail.2C_refinement It even goes so far that fire ships were actually obsolete by the time of this game. You want this realism but are ok with ships being sunk in combat from gunfire.. something which very seldom happened... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 If i get caught by 3 ships that think it's "Fun" to snipe at me for 30 minutes an then demast me and sit just out of my line of fire and shoot me for another 10-15 minutes and not just end it so we both can go about our business. Then hell yea i will turn off survival and either sink faster or blow up because you think it is fun to jump one ship with multiple ships and draw out the battle to your enjoyment for that long no way in hell will I let you take my ship as an added insult if I can help it. Well said sir! Very well said!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quineloe Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 (edited) You want this realism but are ok with ships being sunk in combat from gunfire.. something which very seldom happened... Where did I say I'm fine with ships being sunk from gunfire? This is a strawman troll. In fact I have repeatedly posted against the severity of leaks and sinking ships from just leaks. So there. Edited June 12, 2016 by Quineloe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Ribault Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 Where did I say I'm fine with ships being sunk from gunfire? This is a strawman troll. In fact I have repeatedly posted against the severity of leaks and sinking ships from just leaks. So there. Well that's true, he has. But God I still hate that avatar Quin ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destraex Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 I think it's ridiculous that people scuttle rather than surrendering the ship. Really this is cutting off your nose to spite the other players face. Not very honourable. If you don't have time, just surrender right away. It's just a ship. Buy another one. As others have said scuttling your own ship in conditions where most of your crew would perish (for instance in battle) would have been an almost non-existent thing. Almost every battle historically had the losing ship striking it's colours and surrendering. A good example being one of the USS President when it was captured by the British. Why surrender twice instead of scuttling? But they did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_USS_President Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahossi53 Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 yeah make ganking even easier. as if it hasnt made enough players leave the game already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lestan de Lioncourt Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 The mechanic of recruitment with limited sailor in nation will resolve this problem i think. Because lost a ship be not a problem if you have a second ship in port... But... With no crew ? Good luck ! ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser_Slack Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 The mechanic of recruitment with limited sailor in nation will resolve this problem i think. Because lost a ship be not a problem if you have a second ship in port... But... With no crew ? Good luck ! ^^ no doubt in that case it'll help facilitate killing the rest of the user base Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Ribault Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 no doubt in that case it'll help facilitate killing the rest of the user base The user base is not dead. It comes in waves as content is added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now