Seasonal Patch: The Missing Links Part 1

[Redman29]

So did a penetration test with the new pen vales vs hull thickness. Had 2 L'Ocean's, one with Gunnery 2 and one with Gunnery 3, One had hull 1 with thickness of 143 and the other had no hull bonus with a thickness of 142. Conducted 5 tests at 5 different ranges and fired 4 broadsides at each range to test damage and pen.

First test was at approximately 500 meters. 

42 Longs: Partial pens, 3-4 shots penning per broadsides. 

24 Longs: No pen

12 Longs: No pen

13 Shots total penetrated hull of target. 

Second test was at approximately 400 meters. 

42 Longs: Full pen, almost every shot was penetrating target hull

24 Longs: Partial pen, 4-5 shots penning per broadsides. 

12 Longs: No pen

98 Shots total penetrated hull of target. 

Third test was at approximately 300 meters. 

42 Longs: Full pen, almost every shot was penetrating target hull

24 Longs: Partial pen, 7-8 shots penning per broadside. 

12 Longs: Partial pen, 1-2 shots penning per broadside.

112 Shots total penetrated hull of target. 

Fourth test was at approximately 200 meters. 

42 Longs: Full pen, almost every shot was penetrating target hull

24 Longs: Full pen, almost every shot was penetrating target hull

12 Longs: Partial pen, 8-9 shots penning per broadside, increasing to 12-13 by 4th Broadside.

42 Carros: No pen

172 Shots total penetrated hull of target. 

Fifth test was at approximately 70 meters. 

42 Longs: Full pen, almost every shot was penetrating target hull

24 Longs: Full pen, almost every shot was penetrating target hull

12 Longs: Full pen, almost every shot was penetrating target hull

42 Carros: Full pen, almost every shot was penetrating target hull

274 Shots total penetrated hull of target. 

In my opinion, I believe that the increase in pen is well balanced with the increase in base hull thickness. 

However, I believe the imbalance lies with the current mast thickness. Base mast thickness on the test server has been lowered while increasing the pen value and as shown numerous times already leads to a demasting fest which is not fun and will elaborate in the following post. 

Edited August 16, 2020 by Redman29

[Sea Archer]

Imo the accuracy of the guns should reduced, so that mast sniping above 100m is barly possible. Maybe together with reducing the size of the masts hitboxes.

 

[Redman29]

Ok, now for mast thickness.

In the battles I've played on the test server they have turned into a demasting fest with the ability to spam masts and take them then being extremely easy. 

Frost posted the screenshots from the battle we had yesterday and they are all similar to that.

I conducted a test with Batman, where I had an Ocean armed with nothing but 12 pounder longs and he was approximately 200 meters from me. 

After 4 broadsides this was the result. 

4 Broadsides just from 12 longs took down an Ocean's foremast and that was just a full raking broadside, not single tapping. 

There are already several complaints about the ability to single tap and snipe masts. But making it so that withing 3-5 raking broadsides will bring down a mast or two will only make matters worst. 

This compounded with the wind shadow means that battles become a demasting and boarding competition and if you don't start with the wind, then there is very little incentive to even attempt to fight. 

In my opinion the base mast thickness for all ships needs to be increased significantly. This will bring it in line with what I believe the pen and hull thickness values have achieved in terms of being well balanced. 

Edited August 15, 2020 by Redman29

[Despe]

3 hours ago, Random Noob said:

If Elite French is the solution then why did you spend money and time on setting up testbed again? Few weeks ago you said it would be a waste of money and resources.

elite french is not the solution if you can be demasted with navy mast bands, that give you more protection. The solution is not make the guns penetration totally OP.

@Redman29 is making a real good work testing. Im totally agree with him in his conclusions.

Edited August 15, 2020 by Despe

[Aquillas]

26 minutes ago, Lieste said:

What is the clown car nonsense with 142cm+ sides on a ship? That is completely overcooked.

Take a more sensible thickness max of sub 100cm, and standoff further. You protect the hull with distance, you also protect masts with distance. Even the distance between ships in 'the brawl' is closer than the intervals between ships (200+ yds, more for larger less agile ships, less for smaller ships with more agility).

It can be seen here that HMS Victory hull thickness is 2 feet (60 cm).

http://www.contemporarysculptor.com/hms-victory.htm#:~:text=The thickness of the hull,feet (0.6m) thick.&text=Seven large elm trunks were,was light and very supple.

 

[Preechur Blackheart]

16 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

Battle chat can be turned off, how about make it so that others can too if folks don't want to hear it.  Cause the same toxic players will still be toxic just in their nation chat too.  So they didn't change anything.

This is a point we really have not addressed. READING global chat and battle chat are ALWAYS a player's choice. If it is too toxic, don't read it! If you choose to read it, and you are offended, don't complain! But why should the rest of us be robbed of important communication tools? 

I hope the devs reverse the decision to remove global and battle chat. Maybe make the opting out process more visible so offended folk are reminded they DO NOT NEED TO READ it!

[Redman29]

3 hours ago, Redman29 said:

 

The thing is, you can have Mast an Rig 3 (3%), Elite French Rig (15%) and Navy Mast Bands (20%) on an L'Ocean (Base mast thickness 120) and only get your mast thickness up to 165 on the lower mast section.

A 42 long has a base pen value of 164 at 400 meters which means right under 400 meters it can start penning the lower mast section. 42 Long on a ship that has gunnery 4 and Gucuata Superior has a pen value of 168 at 500 meters.

An Ocean with gunnery 4 port bonus and 1 pen mod can still penetrate the lower mast section of another Ocean with mast and rig 3 port bonus and 2 mast mods at 500 meters. 

And this is with 1st rates, just think of the trickle down for 5th rates.

So correction on my post. 

Elite French on test server has been nerfed from 15% thickness to 8%. Which means with Mast and Rig 3, Elite French, and Navy Mast bands, Ocean lower mast thickness is 157.

That means a 42 Long with gunnery 4 port bonus , has 160 pen(With No Pen mods) can penetrate the lower section of the mast of an Ocean with 2 mast mods at 500 meters. 

Hell, a 42 Long with Gunnery 4 and Gucuata Superior has a pen value of 146 and can pen a LO (S) Ocean, with no mast bonuses or mods, lower mast section at 750 meters

Edited August 15, 2020 by Redman29

[DeRuyter]

On 8/13/2020 at 5:37 PM, Lieste said:

Poplar/Spruce/Fir is around 50% as resistive as Oak. Oak sides can be penetrated into by 9pd at combat ranges, why not a weaker wood? There is no 'armour with a mast behind it' or 'armour with hull structure behind it' in both cases the bulk material which resists the shot is also the target which takes injury when struck.

Rope is even more fragile than Poplar, and is the main critical point of rigging injury.

That mast damage seems to be 100% "all or nothing" is incorrect, and the reality is that running rigging which allows stability and control of the sail angle and form, or suspends the yards, or standing rigging which supports the upper spars and prevents the carrying away of the spars by wind forces is damaged incrementally by shots, the rigging failing piecemeal or as one as the critical strength threshold for the prevailing loads is exceeded.

Damage to rigging alters the ability to trim sail to control 'pointability' of the ship, directly with the loss of the windward braces, indirectly if sail must be reduced to restore trim because of lost sail on another mast.

Given the overwhelming presence of 4-9lb guns as chase guns to interfere with rigging function on brig and frigates throughout the entire period, I have to assume that these weapons can be effective in compromising rigging at 'extended chase' ranges, permitting the closing to effective fighting range against (or the escape from) their opponent.

A '12" rope' is only around 4" in diameter. This is comparable to the size of shot, so even a partial hit will destroy a single rope... and there are limited numbers of duplicates and only for certain functions. Many rigging lines are much smaller than '12" rope'.

What one tends to see in game is the shot bringing down an entire mast rather than spars or a topmast. I know standing rigging and damage to spars is not separately modelling in game so hits to masts and sails include that damage. So what one would see with chase guns normally 6, 9 or 12 lb as you said would be damage to spars, t'gallant masts and running rigging mostly. (Constitution used 24 longs but I think that is an exception in frigates). Adding penalties to sail control with rigging damage would be a good addition IMO. @admin

[DeRuyter]

21 hours ago, Sir John said:

 

 

I'm pretty happy to see wind shadows.  What I like most about this update is what you mentioned in your original post, Admin: this will force some needed variety in battle tactics. It was only one minor factor in history, but it makes a massive difference in Naval Action and has already given me much more exciting and accurate gameplay. I do agree with other players that the effect is too strong.

Admin, I think you would be justified in saying that these features can teach us about the difficulties of applying theoretical tactics in battle, but not that wind shadows were the principal motivation for forming lines (they weren't). Assuming you were referring to the British Fighting Instructions, they don't mention wind shadows or any period-appropriate reference to them, and nor do any of the preserved Additional Instructions. As @Malcolm3 said, commanders primarily used line-ahead formations to maximize available firepower (for example, preventing friendly ships from shielding one another's broadsides) and to facilitate maneuvering as a fleet. I am a fan of the Nelsonian idea you seem to support that the best use of a line of battle is to reach close action with the enemy, but it was not the only popular idea in this period. Napoleonic fleets have fought numerous protracted engagements in line formations.  

You're right that ships tried to avoid wind from right aft, but it was for fear of blanketing within the ship, rather than from other ships.  You can see the effect of this in Ryan Karakai's video from l'Hermione: 

 

I'd like to note that the Trafalgar map @Redman29 provided was the more accurate one (although it still leaves much to be desired). I would be skeptical of any map produced so soon after an engagement (before many memoirs and accounts of the battle were published) like the one Admin gives. It's also particularly suspicious because it's a near-contemporary French map probably influenced by the sadly warped sense of the action popular in France because of Napoleon's propagandists' efforts. The lines in that image are impossibly rigid, and the positions of the fleets and individual ships contradict what we know to have occurred from memoirs and official reports.

 

Even if it's not reasonable to include this in the game, it's also worth mentioning for the sake of historical fidelity that furling some sails was not feasible in battle. The courses and mizzen would be brailed up, rather than furled. The reason for this gets back to what you said in your first post: it takes lots of time and effort to furl, with dozens of men laying aloft and out on the yards to handle sail and pass gaskets. If that furled sail were needed later, in the heat of battle, dozens of men would have to lay aloft again to cast off the gaskets. It was, therefore, particularly dangerous to furl the extremely cumbersome courses in battle and much easier to work them from the deck by brailing and loosing them. 

If you don't take my word for it, take Falconer's:

This common practice is visible in this drawing of the Glorious First of June (1794) by Robert Cleveley.  My picture of Niagara below gives a better comparison, showing the fore course & mizzen brailed up while the main is harbor-furled.

 

 

In terms of game feedback, I'd like to see an indicator for when I enter another player's wind shadow. An indicator could look similar luffing sails while tacking, except appearing when you sail under another ship's lee. 

I'm glad to see wind shadows as a feature in Naval Action, and I hope to see them a little more balanced by the time they make it out of testbed. They make me excited to see what's in store for Sea Legends... 😃 If you want to expand on this feature or make it more realistic for sea legends, I'd like to offer some humble suggestions.  

Excellent post. +1 one on the luffing sails idea. Do you sail on Niagara?

I think what @admin pointed out about those battle maps is the most important point. You would almost never sail directly downwind rather one would sail a reaching course. I think the issue with furling is more semantic because the game depicts the sails being furled rather than doused in their gear. Another point about battle sails that people miss with the speed test is that you didn't have to send men aloft and needed less men for sail handling. When I was sailing we only went aloft for a harbour furl or if there was fouled gear. For Sea Legends I am hoping for more individual sail handling and damage to standing and running rigging. 

 

[Urchin]

6 hours ago, Redman29 said:

 

The thing is, you can have Mast an Rig 3 (3%), Elite French Rig (15%) and Navy Mast Bands (20%) on an L'Ocean (Base mast thickness 120) and only get your mast thickness up to 165 on the lower mast section.

A 42 long has a base pen value of 164 at 400 meters which means right under 400 meters it can start penning the lower mast section. 42 Long on a ship that has gunnery 4 and Gucuata Superior has a pen value of 168 at 500 meters.

An Ocean with gunnery 4 port bonus and 1 pen mod can still penetrate the lower mast section of another Ocean with mast and rig 3 port bonus and 2 mast mods at 500 meters. 

And this is with 1st rates, just think of the trickle down for 5th rates.

Why I said this will be the end of 6th and 5th rates. Everyone will just run to the new Meta third rates and above.  Sick of this roundabout of adjusting cannons, hull, woods, fire, reps all of which should of been completed and settled on before release.   I wish devs would move on from their obsession with demasting and work on aspects of battle that had far more significant influence  and not implemented at all. Musket Fire. 

 

 

[Thonys]

On 8/14/2020 at 8:12 AM, admin said:

Announcement 14th of August

After final review of the tribunals, reporting system volumes and the levels of toxicity in general chat I have approved complete removal of Battle chat with enemies, Global chat and Help chat when this patch hits live servers. Global chat only amplifies hate and toxicity allowing jerks to talk to other nations. We have thought differently when adding those chats to the game.

Please take diplomatic precautions as necessary. 

Global chat and help chat will only be present on testbed. 

 

i agree with @admin on the removal of toxic idiots

but also would go further than that :

example:

#. Clerc : player x  sunk a Russian captain at Saint george. 

this message now seen on battle News ^^

1.i believe this is a message what only should be seen in the Russian nation chat .

2. and when it is a Clan member . it should also be seen in the Clan chat.

 

i see this what we have now  more as griefing by a game .

 Yeah, Combat News really getting into the role playing. He 's a total exhibitionist.*

 

send pigeons>> not telegraphic info. (alts will tell)

 

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2020 by Thonys

[Thonys]

good example of luffing and dead wind>>  time :1.35 vid     by other player

deadwind wind shadow at 1.50 >>2.00

 

 

Edited August 16, 2020 by Thonys

[Rektified]

1.  The wind shadow seems gigantic.  Like a L'Ocean eats all the wind even a quarter of a mile away.  It also feels... weird.  Not "unfamiliar" weird, but almost like it's a binary toggle ("no wind, no wind, no wind... SUDDENLY ALL THE WIND").

2.  Aren't there enough advantages to being upwind already?  Can we please think about balance for once beforehand, and not have to rush to fix things after?

As it stands, I cannot imagine bothering with PvP at all if I'm downwind.  I'm certainly not going to bother chasing any ships that have the weather gage.

[DonH]

I like new pen and also the new thickness, only problem is that we values are taking account average thickness on OAK, i think we should change that and tweak the pen of cannon with TEAK in mind, as imho it is the meta wood. 

Acc felt good, but  single shot is too high, mast thickness needs to scalate a bit more, mast hp needs to escalate a lot, the mods need to be brought to this new meta on its values, most of them are really outdated i think. Maybe its an inherent problem of building teak ships, good thickness low hp on the mast?

New sailing model am in love with, apart from the battle sails i still think ppl only are going to use them to deny short range chain shots, unless its given another reason for them to use it, reduced sailor count needed to sail the ship while on battle sails is still my proposal.

All in all i like this build, but there it is still far from perfect.

[GhostOfDorian]

If it all goes about demasting now, what was the sense to implement seasonal logs and rare logs then?

If demasting gets so easy in future, battles will go only about that and about the boarding after. For none of those moves rare logs are needed. It will just be a waste of time to collect the reals, use the time to buy them in a quantity you need for an Ocean and sail them over the whole map to your crafting port.

 

Ships with rare logs will  not be worth the time and money. They will face the destiny of battle ships, when planes became able to sink them easily. Nobody spends millions or billions (in real live) for a ship which can be destroyed with much less expensive ships without risks.

[Henry Long Castle]

As far as wind shadow go, its pretty accurate. It just takes a bit of time to learn not to sail leeway of an other ship. Use the flags that you have on your masts, its a pretty accurate indication of where the wind shadow is. If you have no idea about irl sailing its going to be hard at first but it will soon become second nature to you  . 

[Aquillas]

Just now...

Edited August 16, 2020 by Aquillas

[Henry Long Castle]

6 hours ago, Thonys said:

good example of luffing and dead wind>>  time :1.35 vid     by other player

deadwind wind shadow at 1.50 >>2.00

 

 

But you enter the shadow before the sail starts luffing. When it starts luffing you are already "dead".

[Farrago]

Please consider keeping Help chat. Assign some moderators. Moderating Help Chat should not have the same issues you had with moderators in the past. They’re either legitimate Help discussions or they are not. I’ll volunteer. There are others who actively and regularly respond with Help as well. 

[HachiRoku]

On 8/14/2020 at 11:03 AM, admin said:

Its a great idea. why we have not removed it before i dont know. We no longer wish to provide free communication platform for shitheads. They will just be local clowns now. Only talking to their nation.

 

This is not our idea btw.. Its a player proposal. There are several guys here who we always listen to. It was proposed by them.

The worst insults have been delivered to me by pms and not open chats. Battle chat to enemies is disabled by default as far as I remember and its the players choice to activate it. Apparently players choose it. Global chat is also a choice. The reason people did not disable it is because it has far more pros than cons. Why do you need to remove something that the player can remove with a mouse click? I don't get it? The only reason I can think of is the work it takes to read reports but as you said, its not your idea. 

[Slim McSauce]

On 8/14/2020 at 9:39 PM, Sir Texas Sir said:

how the hell are we suppose to help new players if the help channel is removed?  Battle chat can be turned off, how about make it so that others can too if folks don't want to hear it.  Cause the same toxic players will still be toxic just in their nation chat too.  So they didn't change anything.

Help shouldn't be removed. It's not toxic at all there. Removing Global chat is different. It's universally toxic and often off-topic which isn't in itself a problem but when politics and rivalries get put in the mix it can turn pretty shit pretty fast. A diplomacy tab for clans would be a good idea, and the introduction of a local chat and a trade chat.

[amosblanco]

40 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

Help shouldn't be removed. It's not toxic at all there. Removing Global chat is different. It's universally toxic and often off-topic which isn't in itself a problem but when politics and rivalries get put in the mix it can turn pretty shit pretty fast. A diplomacy tab for clans would be a good idea, and the introduction of a local chat and a trade chat.

Same opinion here. Personally I barely bother to read global chat as it barely contains useful information for me. Most messages there are indeed toxic rants... But Help chat is another thing. Help chat could be a lifeline for new players especially consider the fact that this is a very hardcore game atop of a lack of proper tutorial and easy access to useful information  (I have used it when I was a newbie myself and there are always friendly players around more than willing to help). 
 

Regarding the battle chat.  Why not leaving the choice to players? Just add a Ignore button besides the battle chat should you, for whatever reason, do not want to see the message from the other side... 

Edited August 16, 2020 by amosblanco

[Archaos]

2 hours ago, Slim McSauce said:

Help shouldn't be removed. It's not toxic at all there. Removing Global chat is different. It's universally toxic and often off-topic which isn't in itself a problem but when politics and rivalries get put in the mix it can turn pretty shit pretty fast. A diplomacy tab for clans would be a good idea, and the introduction of a local chat and a trade chat.

I guess if they remove global chat then they have to remove the help chat too as if not everyone would use help chat as global.

[Urchin]

54 minutes ago, Archaos said:

I guess if they remove global chat then they have to remove the help chat too as if not everyone would use help chat as global.

 

 

[Commodore Sixty Four]

15 hours ago, Thonys said:

good example of luffing and dead wind>>  time :1.35 vid     by other player

deadwind wind shadow at 1.50 >>2.00

Great video example, thanks for sharing.