Should Naval Action have 2 time periods, one for Napoleonic ships, another for Golden Age of Sail?

[Austrum]

 

The technology for sail boats didn't really change much in 200 years. A 1670 ship first rate can still fight a 1820 ship just fine...

 

1670-1820 spread OR 1620-1820 spread is not "too wide" it's only 200 years and it would allow for a much wider variety of ships to be in the game. 1750-1815 is far to narrow as that's only a 65 year period.

 

The problem is your assuming all those older ships sunk which they didn't. So it's actually more realistic to include the older period ships into the game if they were still afloat than to leave them out entirely.

 

I completely disagree with that. 1800-1900 is more like "age of steam" than "age of sail".

 

 

Depends how your interpret the word "Golden".   On one hand it can be interpreted as the Pinnacle of Peak of something. On the other hand "Golden" is also often used to describe the twilight or end of something.  For example when we say someone has entered their "Golden Years" it means old age.  In the case of the Golden Age of Sails, it means both.  Basically if some says it is the "Golden Age of Sails" they are likely referring to the time when Sailing ships had reached their technological peak right before sails were replaced with steam so I think that that term is highly appropriate to the 1800-1900 time period. 

[Austrum]

There are frigates built before 1820 that are bigger, faster and not much worse armed than 1670 1st rates, and 1st rates that have almost 2x the displacement and weight of broadside and still sail better.

 

Yes, the underlying technology did not massively change, but there were huge advances in the sizes and armament of different types of ship, new construction techniques, the introduction of scientific ship design allowing ships to sail much faster and handle better, advances in rigging, all these factors combine to make later ships far superior. Even visually there are huge changes and the ships don't look right together. Mixing them is just a bad idea.

 

But how is this fact an issue?

 

I mean so what if a ship which was considered a 1st rate powerhouse in 1670, isn't as strong as a Frigate built in 1820?  You just tier the 1670 ship appropriately. Basically it just becomes cheaper to buy and easier to acquire because it is old and obsolete. Then as a player, you can "Choose" to use this ship either because it is cheaper and easier to acquire or perhaps because you just enjoy sailing an old Spanish Galleon with lots of character.  

 

I mean as I mentioned earlier, I love the HMS Mordaunt "Reason" from PoTBS, a ship designed in 1681 though I had forgotten about it until Wind posted here on the forums. In fact it was my favorite ship in that game just because I loved the way it looks.   This ship is also something I would eventually love to get my hands on in Naval Action at some point and I seriously would not care that other, more modern, 4th rates or Heavy Frigates would likely handle better or even have better guns.   Really it isn't always about what is best, sometimes it is about what you like. 

[maturin]

The long and short of it is, it looks really freaking weird. A DC3 next to a 747.

[Theuerdank]

The open 'world' will surely very big and then splitting the community to different games? Stay at one 'game' and hopefully fitting period.

[Robert Danforth]

But how is this fact an issue?

 

I mean so what if a ship which was considered a 1st rate powerhouse in 1670, isn't as strong as a Frigate built in 1820?  You just tier the 1670 ship appropriately. Basically it just becomes cheaper to buy and easier to acquire because it is old and obsolete. Then as a player, you can "Choose" to use this ship either because it is cheaper and easier to acquire or perhaps because you just enjoy sailing an old Spanish Galleon with lots of character.  

 

I mean as I mentioned earlier, I love the HMS Mordaunt "Reason" from PoTBS, a ship designed in 1681 though I had forgotten about it until Wind posted here on the forums. In fact it was my favorite ship in that game just because I loved the way it looks.   This ship is also something I would eventually love to get my hands on in Naval Action at some point and I seriously would not care that other, more modern, 4th rates or Heavy Frigates would likely handle better or even have better guns.   Really it isn't always about what is best, sometimes it is about what you like. 

 

Because of the size of the team, it's asking kind of a lot for them to make ships that in the end no one is going to use, because they're going to be frustrating at the end of the day. There are a lot of pretty ships in the early part of the stated range, and they were great ships for their time, but they won't hold up.

[Ned Loe]

Simply no

[Austrum]

Because of the size of the team, it's asking kind of a lot for them to make ships that in the end no one is going to use, because they're going to be frustrating at the end of the day. There are a lot of pretty ships in the early part of the stated range, and they were great ships for their time, but they won't hold up.

 

Yes but how are you so sure no one would use them?  I absolutely would use the HMS Mordaunt because I hands down like the way the ship looks.  I mean lets face some facts here, in a game like this, player skill plays just as much if not a more important role in the performance of a ship, than the ship itself does.  Also we aren't talking huge differences in performance, I mean perhaps a more modern ship is a few knots quicker or turns a few degrees faster or maybe can get a few degrees closer to the wind, but this isn't an overwhelming disadvantage that skill can't make up for so these older ships can still be effective.  I any case, I can almost guarantee you that once open world hits, I will be choosing my ship as much for how it looks as I will for how it handles or what guns it carries because part of the fun is envisioning yourself on the deck of that beautiful ship your sailing around.

 

Anyway, I do agree that the devs shouldn't be wasting resources modeling ships no one will play but I would hazard to bet that quite a few of the earlier ships will be very popular and used quite often by those of us like me who aren't min/max types.    Perhaps they should take some of the more popular older ships like the HMS Mordaunt to the polls and ask the community what they think and bring in a few of the more popular ones just to add a bit of flavor.  Also, I think most would agree that there are quite a few newer, more modern designs that have yet to make it in the game that should take priory so while I wouldn't mind seeing some of the older ones eventually, there are probably about a dozen or more newer designs that make much more sense in the short term.  

[Similon]

Seperate game worlds? I'd vote against.

 

Having old ships available? That just makes sense. As others have pointed out, they were still around. Just because there's a better option, doesn't mean there's no other option.

 

I doubt I'd want to use many older ships, and not just because I'm in love with the HMS Trincomalee. Although, if you added a Dromon, I'd happily sail a 1,000 year old brick of a ship for the oppotunity to spew fire over my much more advanced foes...

[weirdguy]

The idea is really unpopular (which I fully predicted before I ever posted this thread), but then I have to say that I disagree with Games Labs and their idea to use such a wide time scale.  Naval Action should change their accepted time period to be from 1720 to 1820.  That century of time is good enough.

 

It is a shame, as the older ships tend to be a bit more pretty and iconic looking.   A lot of later ships all tend to blend in together, such as the Trincomalee being mistaken for the Constitution for example.

 

But I have to be honest and say I really dislike the idea of a ship from 1610 being put in a game that has ships from 1800.

[SYN_Bloody-Bandy]

Split the game/community?  No.  But perhaps in some distance future there could be a progression in timeline and ship design?

 

Don't  get me wrong, the ships are beautiful, but in the meantime concentrating on 1700's and very early 1800's designs should be the choice/priority of devs.

[DeRuyter]

I have sailed on a replica of a ship built in 1625 and I would agree that ships before the early 18th c. (1710-1720) should be left out. Having said that I do agree that the early ships are beautiful and it is a shame to leave out the Dutch Golden Age.

 

The differences in rigging and sail plan are more than meets the eye. The shape and size of individual sails changed and there was refinement of sail handling lines. Most importantly was the adoption of staysails and jibs, which allowed for much better upwind sailing and maneuver. Hull shape and design also changed, which again effected performance. I'd rather not see a WoT like tier system just to have a broader time frame of ships in the game that just opens another can of worms.

[GreatTimo]

It would be an awful idea to give naval action 2 periods. The game is made for these ships and i love it this way. 

[Destraex]

my idea was for naval action to have one server that has an active timeline for ships, that cycles allowing new ships as they appeared historically until we reach the end of the timeline and the server resets to old ships only.