Seasonal Update: Treacherous Waters - Preliminary information

[Malcolm3]

1 minute ago, Fluffy Fishy said:

Some collections from general understanding of historic sailing from books like "Seamanship in the age of sail" and various publications by people like Brian Lavery and Robert Gardiner. The reports for the knots themselves come from The Admiralty reports from the back of "Nelson's Ships - A History of the vessels in which he served" by Peter Goodwin. There's a useful selection of reports and charts at the back and just makes for easy reference for this kind of thing, its a great book if you are interested in some examples of history of specific ships. The ISBN is: 0811710076

Thanks

[Obi-Heed Kenobi]

28 minutes ago, Fluffy Fishy said:

Some collections from general understanding of historic sailing from books like "Seamanship in the age of sail" and various publications by people like Brian Lavery and Robert Gardiner. The reports for the knots themselves come from The Admiralty reports from the back of "Nelson's Ships - A History of the vessels in which he served" by Peter Goodwin. There's a useful selection of reports and tables at the back and just makes for easy reference for this kind of thing, its a great book if you are interested in some examples of history of specific ships. The ISBN is: 0811710076

Awesome. Thank you for the reference. I'll be ordering that at the next paycheck. Reading the first-hand reports, and/or sources based directly on them, is great.

Naval history is something I've got an...interest in. One of the most informative things I've done is to read the actual reports of war patrols from US submarines in the Pacific War. It doesn't put you on the boat, but you can almost imagine cruising back at 10 knots in a submarine stinking of diesel and BO, trying to type those out on a typewriter.

[Captiva]

16 hours ago, koltes said:

Wind Gasp could just be replaced with an area on the map that gives such boost, but still needs to be activated manually.
The duration of the boost should not be TIMER restricted, but rather area restricted. If you leave the area - you lose the boost
The strength of the boost should again be area dependent. Further inside the wind channel you get more boost, while closer to the edge of it - lower boost. This all will sort itself out beautifully.

100% this. 

[Destraex]

I would also love to get hold of your sources fluffy fish.

edit: and they magically appear above. I must get the above book.

 

However of the admiralty reports exist for the ships of Nelson they must exist for the entire fleet? I have robert gardiners book on frigates and it has some speeds but nothing comprehensive. Surely somebody somewhere has access to those admiralty records.

 

Fluffy Fish, I am particulary interested in merchant ship performance with and without cargo in this era. I have a friend who says with cargo ballast, a lot of cargo ships perform faster with cargo than without by design.

[AeRoTR]

We tagged 3x1st rate, with 2x1st rate on our side and 2 players joined them via LOKI RUNE.

I accept 1 player joining as NPC, but 2 players plus NPC is overkill. I think maximum 1 player should join player vs npc battle via Loki Rune.

[Macjimm]

I'm very pleased that the wind boosts are optional.  It allows an opportunity for players who enjoy navigating to do so, without over complicating the calculations.  Dead reckoning can still be conducted simply if the wind boosts are not used. Alternatively, these features can be used as arcade type navigation landmarks for captains who want to avoid spending the points on the GPS perk.  Some players may prefer simple navigation but want to save the perk point (for the GPS perk sextant)  they can use the wind boost icons on the in game map as landmarks (or road signs) out on the open ocean.
As we become more experienced with the wind boosts we we learn how to utilize them for more than travel, I was recently attacked just after using one and suspect that the raider was loitering near by, hoping to catch captains as they left or apporached.   Seems like traders can benifit by avoiding the wind boost icons and planning their route to give them a wide berth.

It seems that these wind boost icons generate in the same locations, for all players.  While this is arcadey, we can use it to our advantage and hopefully some of the third party maps will plot all of them for ease of use, and planning.  Or perhaps the Devs will include them all on the ingame map.  I doubt that the Devs would consider using dynamic positions that are unique to each player.  (like ship wrecks).

Seems like complaining works.  I recall many, many complaints from lots of players that the Econ Delivery Quests should be nerfed.  Lots of them blamed these low risk missions for the poor trading opportunities.   It appears that the relentless whining has paid off.  I don't think trading has improved though.   We shall see.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Macjimm

[ZWAJO]

1 hour ago, AeRoTR said:

We tagged 3x1st rate, with 2x1st rate on our side and 2 players joined them via LOKI RUNE.

I accept 1 player joining as NPC, but 2 players plus NPC is overkill. I think maximum 1 player should join player vs npc battle via Loki Rune.

I actually posted what I think would be a great fix for the loki rune system that would turn it from a troll tool to something legitimately useful.

 

[Obi-Heed Kenobi]

After 6 hours or so on the new patch, here's my feedback.

1. You now have to get dubloons from PvE. Yes, you can get some 500-dub missions, but the reality is that for coastal trading (which is all most of us really do), the wind gusts locations don't help. I don't really have a problem with the concept of getting dubloons from PvE, but there are a few issues with the implementation.

2. As you can only realistically get dubloons from PvE, you have to do PvE. Again, no big deal, but now you've got Loki. In numerous instances, I've had opponents jump in via Loki. A few times I've been half-sunk at the time of joining, because I've been fighting a fleet of larger ships by myself. No big deal - until you see the Loki player start to loot the ships you just sank.

3. Loki feels dirty, at least to me. I've got one sitting my warehouse, but I can't bring myself to use it. I haven't enjoyed when other players have jumped without notice into my PvE, and I won't pay that forward to other players. So, although I've yet to lose to a Loki player, I'd say it's diminished my enjoyment of the game.

4. Additionally, since there's now a substantial risk of fighting both another player and AI when engaging in PvE (because, to reduce the battle timers, I'll only attack AI with a higher BR than me, which usually means fleets), there's an increased chance of losing a ship, that requires dubs to build, in the quest to find dubs. Again, this isn't a huge deal, but it's worth thinking about - why should I risk a dubs-required ship (Aggie or bigger) to make dubs, which are likely to be a lesser amount than required to build the ship?

5. The Loki players don't risk anything (I don't think?). Granted, I don't think they gain anything either (do they?), but if there's nothing to lose by jumping into someone else's battle, well...lame.

6. Steam says I've got 1200 hours in game. For me, that's almost entirely actual playing time - I don't do AFK.

So, with those observations in mind, here are my critiques and suggestions:

A. The changes aren't all bad. The wind gusts and Loki are good ideas, but I think the implementation needs to change.

B. For the wind gusts, change it to wind zones as has been mentioned elsewhere. If you can tie it into weather-type events, that will be great. It really will.

C. For the wind gusts, make them a mechanism for travel and finding action - but *not* actually engaging the opponent. That doesn't "feel" right to me.

D. For Loki, again, it's not a bad idea. But, change the implementation a little. For instance, don't allow Loki joins into PVE battles more than X minutes old. Don't allow Loki joins into battles where it's 1 player against a fleet with a higher BR. Announce when it's a Loki join, and let us know who the other player is. Maybe even make it an "ask to join" kind of system. Assign some kind of cost to the Loki player, so it's an actual contest rather than it feeling like someone just trying to be a pain in the rear end.

E. I'm not quite at the point others are. But, when I write "it's diminished my enjoyment of the game," well, that sucks. Because this is a game I like. Please listen to our feedback. You don't have to change anything, but at least take it into account.

[llort_a_si_nimda]

Economy could use some more balancing, but we are almost at the sweet spot. Not too hard to earn doubloons and reals, but not too easy.

[Obi-Heed Kenobi]

A few more thoughts on Loki:

1. Why not make it so it disguises a warship as a trader? Or makes a player appear to be AI in the OW? Or makes an Enemy Player appear to be friendly (the "giveaway" could be that the name displayed is not in your nation)? That kind of false flag has at least a basis in some kind of reality, and in history (Q-ships have been used since, what, at least the 1700's). I think something along those lines would vastly improve both the concept and the game as a whole.

2. I'm not sure a player's perks should apply when using Loki. For instance, if I'm fighting AI, in 50% of instances it's because I don't have the time to do PvP (kid about to wake up, work obligations, etc.). AI is a quick battle for some quick fun/dubs/XP/etc. If some jackwagon jumps into a battle using control, I can't leave quickly, and I'm stuck doing the PvP I was trying to avoid in the first place. Now, if that's the intent, so be it - but I think it might be an improvement to disable a player's perks on entering a battle using Loki.

Anyway, that's my two cents on the latest patch. It's got some good features, that need to be polished. Keep at it.

[Earl of Grey]

will never understand this patch & new feature politics. you bring wind-gusts into game, defend it strongly against critics ("they will never get out of the game"), then nerf it again down until they get almost useless ... at the end both groups, the supporters and the haters of wind gusts, are angry on you ... strange ...

[Conte D. Catellani]

Did they nerf in these last days the wind gust? Just asking sinke I'm on vacancy 

[Malcolm3]

For those, who interested.

The article about speediness and maneuverqability of ships of Black Sea fleet in 1827-1828 (on Russian though)

https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/analiz-hodkosti-ostoychivosti-i-upravlyaemosti-korabley-chernomorskogo-flota-v-period-russko-turetskoy-voyny1828-1829-gg-na-osnove

Interesting that in stronger wind ships are slower...

[Aquillas]

Deleted

Edited October 28, 2019 by Aquillas

[Michiel the Ruyter]

@admin Could you please update your first original post with the hotfixes information? Thanks!

[Tortue Agile]

On 10/24/2019 at 4:03 PM, admin said:

We already said it is totally realistic, just a bit exaggerated (because ow speed even basic ones exceed 100 and ow travel is abstract - everyone know it).
Its a known fact that two identical boats can have different wind speeds in the same area, especially on the borders between high/low pressure zones. In fact a ship can have 0 wind at all and another ship 1 mile away can give 2 knots.  Only in tradewinds the wind pressure is somewhat uniform and even then there are lower and higher pressure zones.

We plan to remove speed indicators some once we add the skill knot log (if this happens - not guaranteed). Removing indicators will bring peace of mind. 
In addition to that we will add barometer that will help predict wind change and wind strengh (changing speeds between classes in real time)
Current wind gusts will lock this all together. 

+ We no longer tolerate time wasting for hours. 

If you want to implement a faster sailing system I think it's fine in OW to shorten the distance for every body equally... It's like strategical movement but different rules should apply when in tactical mode (IE battle here) I would think gust (as well as the long overdue taking the wind out of someone's sails) should be implemented in the battle instance not in the OW.

Removing speed indicator and adding it as a skill doesn't help much. Especially when we have limited skills slots. By the 18th century the system was well known and didn't need special skill for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_log Samuel de Champlain in the 1630's described it https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Traitté_de_la_marine_et_du_devoir_d'un_bon_marinier-Autre_manière_d'eftimer.svg

Having a barometer would have to be standard too... The skill is not in the instrument but in the use of it. Or maybe have the player pay for navigational instruments (as he pays to have guns) for each ship.

 

When I was in the Navy we used barometers and other navigational tools to help us take good decisions... But in the end the most important is what you do with the information. 

For example, I witnessed while I was on the captain deck a major incident that ended up with the ship hitting a sand bar and being stuck on it...

Just because the captain didn't trust the information he was receiving from the look-out, he didn't trust the local authority to do the right thing (we were leaving Thessaloniki in Greece and he thought that a buoy marking the sand bar was missing because we didn't see it on our starboard while it was in fact on our port side [and nobody was looking for it on that side] making us closer to the coast that we thought). We even had a navigational sonar but its alarm was turned off because the operator thought it was too noisy... and he wasn't even looking at it before the beaching on the sand bar. And for some reason the radar wasn't even used for distance.

[SunguruXT]

That's cool. Just one week after the season update, 200 people disappeared. 

1. Remove RAIDERS attack
2. Increase your shipping costs.
3. experience our pain on the player side.

Don't give us a beta test. Try and apply the game after you've done enough yourself. We are sick and tired of losing our crews and friends to your update. A week or so was enough. Why don't you let us out of pain now?

Edited October 29, 2019 by SunguruXT

[DeRuyter]

On ‎10‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 7:25 PM, Fluffy Fishy said:

Hull speed is fairly meaningless when it comes to the age of sail, there are far more important factors when it comes to determining speed from historical wooden ships. Historic sailing is so dependable on other factors like rigging type, stiffness, trimming/load and general hull form much more than modern vessels. Frigates aren't by any means faster than ships of the line, nor are larger ships of the line by default slower than smaller ships of the line. Taking just the easily accountable examples of HMS Victory, Bellona and Agamemnon, Victory sailed 11kn, Bellona 12kn and Agamemnon 9.5kn in their best wind conditions historically. Other examples from history that are easily accessible are the 24 gun HMS Seahorse who could only manage 11kns, HMS Lowestoffe at 32 guns who could do 10kn, Unite 36 guns at 13kn and HMS Badger 12 guns who could only perform a top speed of 9kn. Typical 74s tended to be around the 11-12kn mark although some are considerably faster, similarly some examples of 80 gunners could produce some really high speeds in comparison to frigates and post ships.

Despite top speed being a a thing its more realistic to look at actual viable speeds which is represented in game fairly well with the sailing graphs where certain ships would perform better than others in certain directions due to the way their hull form and rigging made them behave. The most important part of this however is that certain sailing conditions favored some rigging types and sized ships much more than others, it all becomes very complicated though. In calm seas with low winds its not uncommon for a larger ship to catch winds much better than a smaller ship due to having much higher sails, while in heavier winds with calm seas sailing conditions typically favoured smaller ships. This all becomes much more complicated when you throw in things like stiffness and rougher waters where factors like how weatherly a ship was come into play much more, stiffer ships will sail much better in rougher waters, again potentially favouring larger ships, but again trimming, ballast and where the gunports sit compared with roll and heel become much more important than ship size.

There are plenty of examples of large ships historically out sailing smaller ships. The nonsense of frigates being default faster than ships of the line is also a myth mostly propagated by bad history from all sorts of media. Even within the game we have fairly obvious examples from discussions on the forums like Montanes who could sail 14kn and Endymion who could sail 14.5kn vastly outrunning smaller ships.

Very good analysis as always. I thought we did have some aspect of the lower gun ports closed or unusable in the Sea Trials storm battles. @admin ?? But with varying weather conditions it and rigging damage should be implemented.

When you talk about light winds I think you have to add the location as well. Close to land you can have a significant wind shadow that is going to benefit the taller rig in calm to light breezes. Out in the open ocean the effect won't be as pronounced. As a practical matter in game I don't think we'll see winds so light that the effect of the taller rig on a larger ship makes any difference. There is a wind range where a smaller ship, and I am talking mostly about unrated ships and fore and aft rigged vessels, will sail faster.  For NA the question is what wind strength is represented in general and by the wind gusts we now have in game and what effect does that have on the various classes of ships. 

With regard to frigates out sailing ships of the line I think you want to look for what the mostly likely outcome was and that is by and large the frigate would outrun the SOL. Now less so at the end of the period with newer designed 74s. Montanes may be the exception rather than the rule (taking into account weather conditions of course). Looking at your chart of Nelson's ships it does appear that the HMS Medusa (32) was the fastest in those conditions. (I am assuming that the 16 knt speed on the Albemarle was a typo).

[LeBoiteux]

On 10/25/2019 at 1:25 AM, Fluffy Fishy said:

There are plenty of examples of large ships historically out sailing smaller ships. The nonsense of frigates being default faster than ships of the line is also a myth mostly propagated by bad history from all sorts of media.

But the custom for a Sol not to shoot first at a smaller ship is true, right ?

If so, this constraint could be implemented into an Age of Sail game to compensate their speed.

(btw, is a Sol faster than a Brexit? 😉)

Edited October 29, 2019 by LeBoiteux

[admin]

On 10/25/2019 at 2:25 AM, Fluffy Fishy said:

Hull speed is fairly meaningless when it comes to the age of sail

 

Hull speed was not meaningless in the Age of sail. It determines how fast a  hull can move through flat water, and depends solely on waterline length (without heeling)
Even though Froude proven it in mid 19 century it is useful for determining ideal possible speed of a vessel in the age of sail at least relatively. 

It would be meaningless if one crew cannot trim sails and cannot feel wind rotation, but it is not meaningless at all when determining the relative ship performance with all other things being equal, or balanced to be equal. 

 

On 10/25/2019 at 5:21 PM, Fluffy Fishy said:

Sorry but this is entirely wrong and mistakes the comparison between modern ships and historic ships. The typical weighted keel of a modern yacht or ship behave in very different ways to the wooden keel and ballasting of a ship during the age of sail. Sails and rigging also behave differently enough to historic ships too. I went into some details why in my previous post here (https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/32055-seasonal-update-treacherous-waters-preliminary-information/?do=findComment&comment=680682)

Well i am not sure you understood the example we gave.
Examples are given for points between close hauled - beam reach, to illustrate the point that wind strength is also important and depending of wind strength performance of a vessel will change a lot. That is why there are certain rigs that work on some coasts and not work well on other coasts.

So for closed hauled - our examples are correct - heavy line ship sill struggle finding any movement close hauled in light winds. Cutter will be a lot faster. And there is wind strength where line-ship will sail but cutter wont. 

Numbers you provided show max recorded speed at the best wind for that vessel.  We are talking about wind strength and how ship performance will change. There were ships that were amazing in trade winds but were completely useless in light changing winds near coasts. A xebec will perform well near Sicily, but will have a hard time in Providence, near Boston. 

About the reference you provided. 

• Top gallant gale = gale where you can carry top gallant
  • Which means meaning - this wind is not really super strong, as it would be dangerous to carry all sails in very strong wind if it suddenly increases and drops (and it happens sometimes especially on the edges of fronts. 
• Top sail gale would probably mean a stronger wind - as you would only take off top gallants if wind is stronger.. and here you already see effects @Malcolm3 was talking about - some ships are slower with stronger wind.  But some ships are faster.. 
  • That's why wind strength will find its way into the game and future games. 
• None of the examples you provided show close hauled or reaching speed 
  • if they were providing it - badger (12) would probably be the fastest especially in light wind - confirming our table. Cutters, xebecs or bermuda rigs would be even faster. 
• HMS boreas numbers look weird. 6 knots 
• HMS Alrbemarle (former french merchantman) numbers look even more weird at 16 knots when it is known from multiple sources that Endymion was the fastest ship at 14.5 15 knots.

So overall we do not see where our examples are incorrect. But nevertheless this discussion is very useful as we really looking for for all the missing pieces for this and future amazing games in the age of sail. We see great future of our sailing model that will only get better and better.

There is also one missing piece that will finally solve the battle sails puzzle - we only discovered by accidentally stumbling on a rare seamanship book from 1810. But we wont talk about it in public until this feature is tested. 

ps.. medusa (32) 13 knots before the wind - slightly doubt it . 

[admin]

On 10/27/2019 at 3:19 PM, Malcolm3 said:

For those, who interested.

The article about speediness and maneuverqability of ships of Black Sea fleet in 1827-1828 (on Russian though)

https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/analiz-hodkosti-ostoychivosti-i-upravlyaemosti-korabley-chernomorskogo-flota-v-period-russko-turetskoy-voyny1828-1829-gg-na-osnove

Interesting that in stronger wind ships are slower...

Not all - some hull shapes are less inclined to this
But in general there is wind speed which will force you to be slower, due to multiple factors (wave, wind pressure on masts or just heeling). in fact heeling not only can make you slower, but have another useful or very dangerous consequences. All of which will be implemented in this or future games.

[William Death]

51 minutes ago, admin said:

We see great future of our sailing model that will only get better and better.

Have you considered some kind of interface that will let us pick exactly which sails we want to set, and allow us to set extra sails (like additional staysails and royals on ships that could fly them)? 

Also, if you implement varying wind strength, I think you should tie mast HP into the amount of sails set, and the strain from the press of sails. This way, a ship with already damaged masts cannot set full sails in a strong wind, without risk of losing his masts. And a small ship won't be able to carry a full press of canvas in strong winds, for fear of carrying it all away or getting thrown broadside to the sea and broaching.

I look forward to more depth in the sailing model. 

 

You mentioned battle sails. I think this is already in game (feels like it is); but battle sails should make the ship roll less. The press of wind into the sails would stabilize the ship. Ideally, battle sails would be the optimum sail setting that minimizes roll while maximizing speed, without setting additional sails that will cause the ship to roll or pitch more violently. It feels like battle sails already does this in game, but I don't remember if it was ever outright stated.

[SirAlatriste]

5 hours ago, admin said:

All of which will be implemented in this or future games.

Pls in Naval Action. Or is it possible to make a NA2 in for example 10 years?

[Sir Texas Sir]

7 hours ago, William Death said:

You mentioned battle sails. I think this is already in game (feels like it is); but battle sails should make the ship roll less. The press of wind into the sails would stabilize the ship. Ideally, battle sails would be the optimum sail setting that minimizes roll while maximizing speed, without setting additional sails that will cause the ship to roll or pitch more violently. It feels like battle sails already does this in game, but I don't remember if it was ever outright stated.

I still think battle sails aren't used enough in battles.  People tend to keep full sails all the time balls to the wall speed.  Which isn't what it's meant to be used in battle unless your running.  I still like my suggestion that you only get partial repair when doing it full sails.  How can you repair sails while going full sails?  More than likely you would do more damage than good.  Full repair effect should be during battle sails or even stopped.  Other things like aim should be reduced while at full sails....and can we get the laser accurate stern guns to shoot like every thing else now?

[Sneakyfinger]

On 10/28/2019 at 11:03 AM, Tortue Agile said:

st because the captain didn't trust the information he was receiving from the look-out, he didn't trust the local authority to do the right thing (we were leaving Thessaloniki in Greece and he thought that a buoy marking the sand bar was missing because we didn't see it on our starboard while it was in fact on our port side [and nobody was looking for it on that side] making us closer to the coast that we thought). We even had a navigational sonar but its alarm was turned off because the operator thought it was too noisy... and he wasn't even looking at it before the beaching on the sand bar. And for some reason the radar wasn't even used for distance.

May I ask what nations navy this was?