Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Hullabaloo

Reduction in wood speed bonus for higher rated ships?

Recommended Posts

Admin might do it if he thinks it will sell more copies. Historical accuracy is less important than a fun game and a fun game becomes popular. Smaller ships must have a good chance of escaping larger ships, the game doesn't work otherwise. Its no fun for less experienced players being executed by Wasas.

Restricting light wood types altogether is nice and simple and it's not that much of a restriction.

Perhaps?

1st- 4th rates - no fir or cedar
5th rates - no fir*
6-7th rates - any

* I think this might help a little with the fir/fir chasing 5th rates that just chain and run too. oak/oak would be the cheap crafted 5th rate, a lot more fun to fight.

Make up some crap about 'lack of structural integrity' in the crafting window and your done! :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fir/fir wasa has about the same base speed as teak/teak trinco/endy, same turning speed (and is better at tacking), much more armor and sail hp, much more firepower, gets same bonuses from all speed modules and speed books except elite spanish where wasa gets more from it then trinco/endy due to wasa having bigger percentage of square sails!

Why change whole wood mechanic? Wouldn't it be easier to just nerf wasa? I don't see people complaining about agas, ingers or any other big ship. Its always wasa. 

As a side note all big ships turn way too good compered to 5th rates

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think because it is a broader problem that Wasa just exemplifies. Wasa is good ship but not so OP when compared to other 3rd rates, if you nerf it, then how?  You just open up a whole new can of balancing worms, you want it to remain a useful ship.  It's not really changing the WHOLE wood mechanic really, just a simple restriction on light woods for larger ships means no new balancing required and problem alleviated across the board. Atm fir/fir is very cheap, very effective andvery boring.

Edited by Hullabaloo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Agree, Wasa gets complained about a lot because it is the only 3rd rate (biggest ship) that doesn't need a permit, so everyone who can crew them is in them. Since it is also cheap to make, people will use them as throwaways. Couple this with how fast it can be and you have a problem.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Zoky said:

Fir/fir wasa has about the same base speed as teak/teak trinco/endy, same turning speed (and is better at tacking), much more armor and sail hp, much more firepower, gets same bonuses from all speed modules and speed books except elite spanish where wasa gets more from it then trinco/endy due to wasa having bigger percentage of square sails!

Why change whole wood mechanic? Wouldn't it be easier to just nerf wasa? I don't see people complaining about agas, ingers or any other big ship. Its always wasa. 

As a side note all big ships turn way too good compered to 5th rates

It is not about the Ships by them self, if Ships are resticted to some woods in building them it woud give those ships a different role, no Fir/Fir very fast wasa 13kn base Speed instead a Teak/WhiteOak very fast 12.2kn as max base speed without mods and books. So people who want to attack a 5th rate in a slower 3rd rate Ship have to bring a 5th to attack other 5th rates. 

Devs have tried to balance the game by Wind Model changes and Turn behavior of the ships and Cannnon Pen/Loadout. So now it is no longer so easy to sterncamp bigger Ships on smaller Ships and that is fine. But now i think it is time to rebalance woods by Crafting. Oak/Oak is i think the Basic Stats of every ship in the Game. 

So a Oak/Oak Niagara (Old Basic Stats) can now only get build in Fir/Fir with the basic stats of the old Oak/Oak, and Bermuda/Bermuda instead of Teak/Teak and Mahagony/Mahagony instead of Live/White.

The Woods are only Names and the Stats can be changed, for lets say 3-4 Woods that can be combined only for ships of 7th-6th Rates. that woud make enough combinations.

Same for 5th-4th Rates 3-4 Woods only used for those Ships and the same Rules for 3rd-1st rates.

I think it will help to Balance the game more. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hullabaloo said:

I think because it is a broader problem that Wasa just exemplifies. Wasa is good ship but not so OP when compared to other 3rd rates, if you nerf it, then how?  You just open up a whole new can of balancing worms, you want it to remain a useful ship.  It's not really changing the WHOLE wood mechanic really, just a simple restriction on light woods for larger ships means no new balancing required and problem alleviated across the board. Atm fir/fir is very cheap, very effective andvery boring.

Wasa vs aggie cost is also hilarious. the only major difference is doubloons, which is 92 more doubloon cost. hello kittying lol. Even if you make the Wasa a Combat mark permit like the other lineships, it will still outperform pretty much any ship that "could" fight it.

You're right, compared to the other 3rd rates right now, Wasa is not OP, but now compare it to any 4th rate and high end 5th rates. There is no, and i mean absolutely no reason for anyone to sail a 4th rate with the Wasa as it is currently in game.

quickest changes would/could make a slight change to make 4th rates economically more enticing and reduce Wasa effectiveness without butchering it. Further changes could be made down the road:

1. increase Wasa doubloon cost - bare minimum 3,000. maybe bump it to 4,000 doubloons.

2. increase the Wasa's BR to 450

3. Reduce all doubloon costs on 4th rates by 50%. 
Example: Aggie would be 1,355 doubloon crafting cost instead of 2,708

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Teutonic said:

...There is no, and i mean absolutely no reason for anyone to sail a 4th rate with the Wasa as it is currently in game...

Preference?

Appearance?

Fun?

Variety?

Ship-specific training?

There are 5 reasons, I'm sure there are more.  You're thinking too much for RVR, but there are different reasons to play the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wyy said:

hold your hats here, this was at their best point of sail and alot of wind. I've read that most sols had terrible sailing capabilities over beam reach like 60* off the wind, which would make sense considering their not so aerodynamic look and having problems with the leeway where the wind would push it down and backwards if they went against the wind.

NO square rigged ship had ANY kind of decent sailing capabilities beyond a close beam reach 60°. Not frigates and not SOLs.  Sailing closer than 60° is hard to do with square rigged ships. Almost impractical because of leeway. The point stands that, in their best conditions, the faster SOL designs were simply better in every way than frigates. Had navies had the money to sail only with first rates and 74s, you can bet that they would have. Have a few disposable frigates for escort duty and scouting. 

I don't want to see that happen in game though, which is why the insane bonuses from wood types and mods needs to be toned down, as in my suggestion above (that I have been suggesting for over a year now...its not going to happen but I'll keep spamming it in every such thread that arises). Hard caps like so many are whinging about in this thread will not get us to the desired balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, William Death said:

NO square rigged ship had ANY kind of decent sailing capabilities beyond a close beam reach 60°. Not frigates and not SOLs.  Sailing closer than 60° is hard to do with square rigged ships. Almost impractical because of leeway. The point stands that, in their best conditions, the faster SOL designs were simply better in every way than frigates. Had navies had the money to sail only with first rates and 74s, you can bet that they would have. Have a few disposable frigates for escort duty and scouting. 

I don't want to see that happen in game though, which is why the insane bonuses from wood types and mods needs to be toned down, as in my suggestion above (that I have been suggesting for over a year now...its not going to happen but I'll keep spamming it in every such thread that arises). Hard caps like so many are whinging about in this thread will not get us to the desired balance.

Actually a square rigged ship won't be sailing closer than 60 degrees because you can't brace up the yards any further. So it is the inherent design of the rigging that causes the limitation,  a hard limit, more practically 65-70 degrees. In general I agree with your point that certain SOLs usually 74s could run down frigates "in their best conditions" and there were certainly recorded instances of this happening. But @Wyy makes a valid point that those conditions were not always present. Frankly in the wind state represented in NA no SOL would get near hull speed and a frigate should easily be able to escape.  One point he made was about windage which was a factor on large ships with high freeboard, ie; multiple guns decks. I disagree with the point that they were better in every way though even setting aside cost issues. Logistically it was more efficient to send a frigate on patrol or commerce raiding than a line ship. Frigates were more maneuverable and could go places a line ship could not. 5th and 6th rates were used for every duty except fighting in the line of battle, and they even did that on occasion. They were just more versatile. At the end of the time period the trend was to build more larger spar decked frigates. For example the British did not send 74s to hunt down the big US frigates, rather they razee'd several 64s and 74s and built a new class of single gun deck 50 gun ship (HMS Leander, Newcastle) in response.  

I do agree with your suggestion since we won't be getting variable wind strengths (something I have been posting about since 2016 along with actual ship drafts). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Papillon said:

Preference?

Appearance?

Fun?

Variety?

Ship-specific training?

There are 5 reasons, I'm sure there are more.  You're thinking too much for RVR, but there are different reasons to play the game.

I'm not even thinking of RvR, I'm thinking PvP.

I would have accepted

1. Group Missions

2. 4-5th Rate Limited Patrol Zones

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like a historical accuracy in sailing models and capabilities but it only works if the other historical accuracy is implemented:

A nation (player) has a limited military budget because there are other demands for that time and money. Lineships are expensive to maintain, crew, and sail. There is a reason why in real life not every deep water ship is a nuclear aircraft carrier or battleship. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...