Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Genevieve Malfleurs said:

 

May the remaining players gain enjoyment of life from this infantilism while I start to think to close my three british accounts after roughly 4000 hours of playtime. Best wishes Gene

Focus more on your 5 russian accounts? ūüėÜūüėÜūüėÜ

Edited by Earl of Grey
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Genevieve Malfleurs said:

And one utmost unrealistic convention - the ability to repair a large chunk of a ship in battle every couple of minutes (reminds me of science fiction games) - makes a splendid game almost worthless. That and mods, books, super-woods, latest armament-changes - I write this as a player who generally favours the small vessels! - drove the game away from skill to materialism.

I don't know what are you complaining about then. This topic is saying that small ships are Overpowered 
Feel free to favor them more now. Those carronades can be crafted very easily.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, erelkivtuadrater said:

@admin i see moscalb hits a full broadside of carronades from 500m, do you consider this to be historically accurate?


People who think carronades cannot shoot far are gravely mistaken. According to all sources the difference in penetration was miniscule (check frigates of napoleonic wars for example). Every admiralty table confirms this. In fact in our game carronade penetration is lower than reality. As carronades could penetrate 1m of wood from good distance.

–°arronades had other problems which are not simulated in game for example many captains did not like carronades because of their short barrel hot particles often flew back onto ship and into sails.

+ Whats missing is crew skill in aiming and accuracy which we cannot add as it will be considered a hidden wipe.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, admin said:

–°arronades had other problems which are not simulated in game for example many captains did not like carronades because of their short barrel hot particles often flew back onto ship and into sails.

Can you not make it so that carronades also (have a higher chance to) cause fire in-game? Perhaps they can do saildamage to the ship that is firing them?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, admin said:


People who think carronades cannot shoot far are gravely mistaken. According to all sources the difference in penetration was miniscule (check frigates of napoleonic wars for example). Every admiralty table confirms this. In fact in our game carronade penetration is lower than reality. As carronades could penetrate 1m of wood from good distance.

–°arronades had other problems which are not simulated in game for example many captains did not like carronades because of their short barrel hot particles often flew back onto ship and into sails.

+ Whats missing is crew skill in aiming and accuracy which we cannot add as it will be considered a hidden wipe.

again.. you're playing on both sides, historically accurate or imaginary numbers?

We all know the effective range of the carronades are bellow 500 yards, reason is the guncrew weren't experienced with the recoil and aim.

Also its never about the maximum range, its about the effective range.. You can shoot a Colt 1911 over 1500m, its effective range is under 100m.

You're also stating the problems with the carronades, yet you dont apply them to the game and only give benefits of using them.

image.png.020982910376ad65e13fc9d43fa9ef3b.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I don't know what are you complaining about then. This topic is saying that small ships are Overpowered 
Feel free to favor them more now. Those carronades can be crafted very easily.

beg your pardon but you don't get it do you? I loved the small vessels when they weren't just troll-ships and feel free to tell you as a client that this arcade-game isn't my loved one anymore. You should learn that easy winning isn't what makes me - for sure not the only one - being fond of a game.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

again.. you're playing on both sides, historically accurate or imaginary numbers?

We all know the effective range of the carronades are bellow 500 yards, reason is the guncrew weren't experienced with the recoil and aim.

Also its never about the maximum range, its about the effective range.. You can shoot a Colt 1911 over 1500m, its effective range is under 100m.

You're also stating the problems with the carronades, yet you dont apply them to the game and only give benefits of using them.

image.png.020982910376ad65e13fc9d43fa9ef3b.png

You cant hit anything with carronades above 1000 yards in naval action as they are not really accurate at long range. And then they are extremely ineffective at more than 500 hundred yards (cant penetrate anything). Just like your screen from a book says and it was like this from day one.  Are you arguing with yourself now, just for the sake of arguing?

Dont waste my time. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2020 at 10:00 AM, erelkivtuadrater said:

i totally agree. Its also illogical that you can for instance transport 100 42pd Cannons without penalty in your basic cutter, but damn you if you use any higher caliber then 4pd cannons to defend yourself with. The weight on those 100 cannons would guarantee a trip to the bottom of the sea

no
it would pin the ship to the coast actually!
don't think I would like a realistic hold on indiaman for example, because it would make the game even bigger trash-hauling simulator

Edited by Captain2Strong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, admin said:

There are many realistic and many unrealistic conventions in naval action. All of them are done for the player enjoyment of life.

no

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only ship that needed changing was the Pavel. 

Devs have gone around in circles for the past three years over hull damage,crew damage, guns, fire damage, reps. Now we have Seasoned Woods which have a ridiculously high splinter buffs.  

As for the Snow, no shouldn't be in the game to start with was a lake ship. They were crazy enough already with the maneuverability and speed now with 32lb carros just ridiculous.

Becoming more like World of Warships or some other arcadish game and to play you either grind or pay.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

those dumb upgrades and books shouldn't even be added to the game in the first place, maybe except some copper plating
of course losing them now wouldn't be so nice if you already have some of that

 

Edited by Captain2Strong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mad Dog Morgan said:

As for the Snow, no shouldn't be in the game to start with was a lake ship.

The ship type was used at sea (Ref. HMS Bounty), and the Great Lakes are more inland seas than lakes, anyway. This isn't some weekend sailboat we are talking about. I don't really like them having 32lb carros with no negative, but the "it was a lake ship" argument is getting old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, GrubbyZebra said:

The ship type was used at sea (Ref. HMS Bounty), and the Great Lakes are more inland seas than lakes, anyway. This isn't some weekend sailboat we are talking about. I don't really like them having 32lb carros with no negative, but the "it was a lake ship" argument is getting old.

No idea why you are making reference to a cargo ship. Ship Type as in rigging?  isn't the actual ship concerned is it. 

It was a lake ship, fact. Built by a lake and  only ever sailed on a lake was never an ocean going vessel on any seas let alone Caribbean. I couldn't give a hello kitty if said lake was a pit pond or as big as an ocean. It was a lake ship.

But when we don't even have ship to ship musket fire during battle, ships sail forward and reverse like power boats and Russia owns half the map it's a relatively small inaccuracy when comes to history.

Edited by Mad Dog Morgan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Mad Dog Morgan said:

No idea why you are making reference to a cargo ship. Ship Type as in rigging?  isn't the actual ship concerned is it. 

It was a sloop-of-war before it was purchased to be a merchant vessel. Ship type as in size and hull design. Of course it isn't the specific vessel modelled in game, it is another representative of the class of vessel, which makes it a relevant example.
 

Quote

It was a lake ship, fact. Built by a lake and  only ever sailed on a lake was never an ocean going vessel on any seas let alone Caribbean. I couldn't give a hello kitty if said lake was a pit pond or as big as an ocean. It was a lake ship.

You can look at the hull lines to see that Ontario (or a ship built to the same specification) would have been nearly as capable a sea-going vessel as Bounty (which sailed to Australia from GB). The fact that the particular brig-sloop GL decided to model the snow on was used on an inland sea, as opposed to the open ocean, has nothing to do with its seaworthiness. Had they chosen the Bounty, Beagle, Cherokee, or any of the other of the 80-100ft brig-sloops built by the RN, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The fact is, the ship type is typical of those often used at sea, regardless of whether or not the specific ship modelled in game was. And, it would be completely logical for the RN to use a small ocean-going design as the heavy-hitter for its Great Lakes fleet, as there would be a benefit to a ship built to handle the open ocean when it comes to the Great Lakes weather and size. So the "lake ship" argument is rather trivial.

Quote

But when we don't even have ship to ship musket fire during battle, ships sail forward and reverse like power boats and Russia owns half the map it's a relatively small inaccuracy when comes to history.

None of that has anything to do with the conversation at hand, but I suspect you already know that and are just grasping at straws to support your ludicrous position. It's a game, and some performance characteristics will always be tweaked to enhance gameplay. And history has absolutely no bearing on how individuals or groups of players behave within the game itself (e.g. which ports are held by which nations).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I'm not grasping at Straws, Snow historically was a Lake Ship comparing to a another ship is irrelevant. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mad Dog Morgan said:

No I'm not grasping at Straws, Snow historically was a Lake Ship 

russia and prussia crap... 

Snow/HMS Ontario was a community voted ship which was proposed and voted in by the forum members. It was delivered in all its glory. Majority of voters wanted this ship. So i do not care about your armchair analytics }
+ your commentary is useless snow is not a lake dinghy - its is a 250 ton 22 gun ship for comparison surprise is 650 tons

Reflect on this and move on. Nobody **** with community voted ships.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, admin said:

Snow was a community voted ship which was proposed and voted in by the forum members. It was delivered in all its glory. Majority of voters wanted this ship. Nobody **** with community voted ships.

Is this a bad time to mention this :D:
 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mad Dog Morgan said:

ships sail forward and reverse like power boats 

This guy is either a landlubber or one of those who were threatening to leave the forum in 2014 if we did not make all battles last at least 5 hours real time

The english phrase "Taken Aback" comes from the naval setting when ships were taken aback by wind and reversed course. 
Ships were agile and nimble and misconceptions on lack of movement ability comes from the era of dreadnoughts.
Sailing vessels could easily stop, break, and move back at will of captain

Its very well documented

 

on misconceptions

x10Zy4N.png

on stopping

Da8EMdW.png

on sailing backwards
7LtWFcZ.png

 

On overall maneuverability and sailing back and forth like powerboats.

hAwXLi0.png

 

Everyone who is interested in sailing forwards and backwards should read the Seamanship in the age of sail first before commenting on the sailing model
A sailing game which does not have sailing backwards or cannot heave to (stop the ship by using yards) is not a sailing game but a disgrace. Its like a shooter without ironsights crouching and strafing. 

 

@Mad Dog Morgan - based on your latest comments you are obviously a hater and do not have a clue what are you talking about. 
 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, admin said:

This guy is either a landlubber or one of those who were threatening to leave the forum in 2014 if we did not make all battles last at least 5 hours real time

The english phrase "Taken Aback" comes from the naval setting when ships were taken aback by wind and reversed course. 
Ships were agile and nimble and misconceptions on lack of movement ability comes from the era of dreadnoughts.
Sailing vessels could easily stop, break, and move back at will of captain

Its very well documented

 

on misconceptions

x10Zy4N.png

on stopping

Da8EMdW.png

on sailing backwards
7LtWFcZ.png

 

On overall maneuverability and sailing back and forth like powerboats.

hAwXLi0.png

 

Everyone who is interested in sailing forwards and backwards should read the Seamanship in the age of sail first before commenting on the sailing model
A sailing game which does not have sailing backwards or cannot heave to (stop the ship by using yards) is not a sailing game but a disgrace. Its like a shooter without ironsights crouching and strafing. 

 

@Mad Dog Morgan - based on your latest comments you are obviously a hater and do not have a clue what are you talking about. 
 

I have seen alot of devs admins in my young gamer life. But nothing comparable to you game labs. I at one hand can only laugh on how you react etc. Most company's try to be serious and you can feel that they forced to be nice and gentle all the time. You on that hand don't. That makes you a bit sympathic and also fun to read here.   

On the topic side.  nice documentary about sailing here. I didn't know that ships could do that easily. Maybe I should read the whole book it's interesting.   

Share this post


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

Snow/HMS Ontario was a community voted ship which was proposed and voted in by the forum members. It was delivered in all its glory. Majority of voters wanted this ship. So i do not care about your armchair analytics + your commentary is useless.
Reflect on this and move on. Nobody **** with community voted ships.

so was the montanes class i've heard, yet it seems like its a myth that it will be added

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right @admin , but alterations to the points of sail do result in odd results. I understand it is for the sake of comfortable gameplay but the square rigs would never hug the wind that much and more so wouldn't be able to perform most of the actions without wind, especially a controlled drift,heaving to, with no aft force and we do have force in angles where we would have none in a strict sense :) . ( By the way, can do the exact same with a fore and aft in game, there's no difference between rig types regarding that ).

Given we can do with across the entire wind rose up to the eye of the wind, would there be any chances of reviewing the implementation with a more authentic points to the wind ?

I will not fool myself, NA is as far good as it gets regarding ship control, there's no denying that, it just could be pushed a bit more if the dev team is willing to risk putting an additional strain on the players - proper points of sail to the rig types -

This would have a three fold results - 1. appreciable differentiation of rig types and even rates when taking advantage of points of sail. 2. high sea battle tactics ( this is especially important in a mixed fleet ) 3. indirectly affects gunnery by relative positioning.

Number 3 is the "important part" for this thread. Gunnery is intimately tied to moving and positioning of the ship - especially how much wind it carries - once being a point the drop is sudden.

Finally it would, probably, bring the modulation of the ships to their qualities. Having a extremely good hull would make nothing to a ship that carries no wind above X point of sail. The drop of wind is the same compared to a ship that doesn't mount the same hull. 

And gunnery is tied to sailing capabilities. Is a gun platform. The better the sailing, the better the gunnery. 

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@admin now if we go back on topic. Read https://ageofsail.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/introducing-the-carronade-the-range-myth/

"As we’ve noted, though, the whole issue of range is simply a smoke screen. Naval artillery during the Age of Sail simply did not have the fire control equipment and range tables to fire competently beyond point blank range. The crews of ships had neither the training nor, in the overwhelming number of cases, the interest or inclination to employ the guns as other than short range weapons."

15 hours ago, admin said:

+ Whats missing is crew skill in aiming and accuracy which we cannot add as it will be considered a hidden wipe.

So by YOUR statements, we should use the 18th century values, and modernize them to the 21th century.

And this is the HUGE problem with have with not only the cannons but alot of things and it all comes back to balance, you add a a pro but not a con to an item to balance it. To exaggerate it abit, would you allow me to mount a full carronade 1st rate? Because as you say the reason the snow got higher armament was because the gunports would be able to fit them, so why stop at the shallow ships? There is no use of cannons anyway because of angling and thickness.

Edited by erelkivtuadrater
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note that "point blank" is not the same as "shooting a handgun point blank".

Point blank is equal to the distance that the projectile will fly in a flat trajectory. Can be 10m... can be 500m...This can be variable with shot weight and charges used. Lighter shot can actually fly less than heavier shot, but the opposite can also be true, with lighter shot reaching further than heavier. 18 pounders and 24 pounders being on the sweet spot of point blank / energy carried 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...