Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Things you want to fix, change or add


Recommended Posts

@sterner @Husserl

Some of the dedicated players of this promising game are discussing things to fix, change or add to the game (mostly on discord and steam).

The recent talk for example is about the necessity of revising the damage model and nerfing gunnades; it‘s about the different level of difficulty, about the need of an AI algorithm, that prevents friendly ships from firing through another, to hit an enemy vessel; and it’s about the missing of Bellona class ships / historically inaccurate aboundance of first and second rates, in battles of campaigns without adaption ...

It would be awesome, if you stated, what of these topics you want to tackle before the release of the game - so that crazy folks like myself are able to anticipate what is still to come and what‘s not!

Thanx in advance!

Edited by Navalus Magnus
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sterner said:

@Navalus Magnus

What is wrong with them?

There are lots of examples provided by @JaM in the Discord channel. In short gunnades (Congreves) allegedly ...

- deal as much damage as carronades,

- are far more accurate than carronades,

- have a longer range than carronades,

- and a better penetration than carronades (please correct me, if I’m wrong!).

Keeping in mind that they seemed to be between medium guns and carronades, in terms of barrel length, they should be nerfed e.g. in the damage dealt, the accuracy, range and penetration values should only be slightly better than those of carronades 

Otherwise carronades would be quite useless, isn’t it? 

Edited by Navalus Magnus
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@sterner Gunnades in particular right now, have better dispersion than medium guns, have better penetration over distance, take less time to reload and on top are lighter than medium guns... YET, historically, Gunnades were hybrids between short naval gun and carronade, and therefore were nowhere near as effective as standard Frederick-Armstrong or Bloomfield medium guns used.. In fact, when they were employed, they were found less effective than one caliber smaller long guns - 24pdr Gunnade was found less effective than 18pdr Bloomfield gun.

 

So,right now, Gunnade is practically the best gun possible, because it doesnt have any negatives, just positives.. If it was modeled based on reality, their accuracy would be just slightly better than EOC Carronades (which were already slightly longer than normal Carronades), but worse than EOC short guns of the same caliber (so 24pdr EOC short gun would be superior to 24pdr gunnade in terms of accuracy and penetration, but gunnade would be easier to reload and slightly lighter)

 

 

Technically, in game Armstrong and Bloomfield guns, can be assessed as medium guns, as they were typically 8-9 feet long. Long guns were usually 10feet or longer. Short guns like EOC ones, were typically around 6-7 feet long, Gunnades 5-6feet, and carronades 3-4feet. 

 

So penetration wise, best would be long guns, followed by mediums, shorts, gunnades and carronades. same would apply to dispersion.

In terms of Gunnades, they should get about the same penetration as carronades, but slightly better dispersion than EOC carronades (let say around 2.8 instead of current 1.7). But Short guns should definitely be better than gunnades, because they had barrels longer than gunnades.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

But of course, its not just gunnades that need some work. Whole naval artillery technology needs some work to better represent actual gun development during those times.. You have Borgard guns in game, which were introduced in 1690, and at time period this game starts, these guns were quite rare. Armstrong guns which replaced the Borgards in 1720, were already obsolete as well, and were replaced by updated Frederick-Armstrong guns, which were technically identical, but manufactured by much more advanced process, which made them a lot more accurate than older types. Bloomfield pattern guns were the most modern guns, introduced in 1780-1790, and were further improved, but difference was not that drastic, and most ships still carried older Fredrick-Armstrong guns even during Napoleonic wars.

 

Yet in game, obsolete Borgard guns have for some strange reason extremely bad penetration, comparable to carronades, despite being a lot longer..  Armstrong and Bloomfield pattern guns have in game same accuracy, so they are practically identical, which is quite far from truth - If in-game Armstrong pattern represents later Frederick-Armstrong guns, then there should be a small difference in dispersion. But if those are old Armstrong pattern guns, then Bloomfield pattern needs to be a lot more accurate - as thanks to more advanced manufacturing process, these guns were a lot more accurate than old Woolwich bronze guns ever were.. (yet in game, Woolwich bronze guns have dispersion 1.65, where Bloomfield only 2.6 {and gunnade 1.7}...)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, currently we have Congreve long guns stronger than shorter Carronade (of the same cal.), have better range and efficiency but have also cons, they are heavier, need more crew and are slower on reload (significant slower than non-EIC Carronade). So there are good reasons for somebody to choose Carronade than Congreve, especially if he has not plenty of gold or available cargo on deck.

About historical period and the chosen models, please have in mind that in order to have a large variety of model choices, we may add weapon models from earlier or later periods. This is a reason that a model from an earlier period, which historically was rarely used in game's time, may appear common and in large quantities (but in the lower tiers of the list). Also the more models available the less the space for differentiation among them.

                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Husserl said:

Hi, currently we have Congreve long guns stronger than shorter Carronade (of the same cal.), have better range and efficiency but have also cons, they are heavier, need more crew and are slower on reload (significant slower than non-EIC Carronade). So there are good reasons for somebody to choose Carronade than Congreve, especially if he has not plenty of gold or available cargo on deck.

About historical period and the chosen models, please have in mind that in order to have a large variety of model choices, we may add weapon models from earlier or later periods. This is a reason that a model from an earlier period, which historically was rarely used in game's time, may appear common and in large quantities (but in the lower tiers of the list). Also the more models available the less the space for differentiation among them.

                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             

@Husserl : problem is, stats you have for Gunnades are better than what you have for Medium guns... and Gunnades are much shorter than Medium guns... Mediums in your game should have  a lot better penetration and accuracy than any gunnade or carronade... yet Bloomfield guns have dispersion 2.6, where Gunnade have dispersion just 1.7... And look at penetration values over distance... Gunnades right now, can penetrate more armor at greater distance than Armstrong or Bloomfield guns of the same caliber...

 

5foot long Gunnade should be nowhere near to a Bloomfield pattern gun 9foot long...  So No, its not question of Gunnade vs Carronade right now... Gunnades are clearly superior to every gun in the game... even those super accurate (French re-bored) guns are worse, because they are slow to load, and their accuracy boost is not that better (1 vs 1.7) for much slower rate of fire and a lot more weight...

 

If anything, Gunnade should be worse than EOC short gun of the same caliber, but should be lighter because its also shorter.. Short gun should be more accurate, but slightly slower to load compared to gunnade. Plus, lets not forget that gunnades and carronades did not actually used full powder load similar to medium or even short guns.. so their muzzle velocity was slower than what short guns had..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanna add - Smoothbore ballistics was relatively quite simple, as each gun fired projectile of same shape, so only thing that changed was muzzle speed and weight of the ball.. Muzzle speed was a function of barrel length and weight of powder charge.. shorter guns tended to have lower muzzle speeds, and Carronades/Gunnades used less powder charge(it was necessary because short barrel means powder would not burn completely up) than normal guns due to further weight savings.. so overall, its practically a linear function where barrel length and gun weight shows the clear picture how certain guns would perform (heavier guns could withstand more powder)

Therefore when it comes to performance (accuracy/penetration over range), Carronades were least effective, followed by Gunnades, Short guns, Medium guns and on top were the Long guns..

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Husserl @sterner
Another topic:

I’d really appreciate, if you enabled an ever turning mini map, that adapts to the perspective of the player’s camera view:

Right now the mini map is static and the players field of view indicator adapts.

Please make it the other way round, so that the field of view indicator, just like the camera view, is static, pointing from the bottom to the top of the screen, but the objects of the map ever adapting and rotating in accordance to the players camera swings and shiftings.

This would make the use of the mini map much more convenient imo, because you wouldn’t have to adapt a completely turned upside down mini map view to the camera‘s field of view by yourself‘s thinking.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Husserl @sterner

Two other things:

1) When playing Custom Battles, Line of Battle or Crossing T I’m forced to fill all available slots with ships, otherwise the battle is not accessible.

Please remove this limitation! I‘d like to decide how many ships I (and my enemy) bring to the battle!

2) I might be mistaken but the model of the Victory class 1st rate seems rather (too) short in length. Compared to photographs showing the original HMS Victory from the side, the ingame Victory looks quite bulky to me!

I know it seems absurd, keeping in mind all the efforts you guys put into the detailed rendering of the models.

But could you check it please!? It might also be an impression suggested by the ship’s sticking out of the water a little too much?

 

Edited by Navalus Magnus
Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggestion i posted on discord: - Skirmishers needs to get some bonuses.. right now, they are not really good when using rifles due to their tendency to run away.. in my recent campaign i had much better results with them when i used Infantry carbines on them due to fast reload... when i had two skirmisher units, one equipped with rifle, other with a carbine, carbine equipped unit completely outperformed the rifle equipped unit every single time... Effectivity of smoothbores right now is way too high compared to rifles, so slow reload is way too big disadvantage. Personally, i think skirmishers need to get build-in cover bonus at least 50% so they are tougher to shoot at by normal units or artillery. At the same time, i think they should be the unit that ignores the terrain penalty to shooting... because right now, it looks like if you have a skirmisher unit facing line infantry in a shootout, both units tend to take approximately similar casualties... which is wrong, because skirmishers were actually using aiming fire, while Line Infantry used un-aimed volley fire which was more like an area effect fire...

Maybe just give them the tactical training perk that artillery has, which increases stealth by 200% and adds 25 to cover? It makes no sense for artillery to get such huge stealth bonus anyway (cover bonus could remain for artillery) and skirmishers could really use something like that to be less likely to wiped out so easily

Link to post
Share on other sites

The game is going to be published soon and although you all have some good points I think were all running out of time for any major change to this wonderful game. I can say I hate enemy SKR units and I always have to chase them around the whole map for a very long time so I need to corner them to kill them off.  I never use them so I can't comment on any of their abilities but I would not want them any better than what they already are or at least let me have an ally CAV unit in each land battle so I would then have a chance to run them down as I already said I hate SKR units in this game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

enemy skirmishers are annoying yes, but they can be dealt with relatively easy, because they are small unit and cannot survive shootout against line infantry unit that is usually 4x larger... there is no point chasing them around..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Enemy SKR units in some of my battles are over 100 so to me that is not a small unit just last night there was a couple 160 man SKR units same size as most of my infantry units so I don't think they are too small. Sure, sometimes with the right combination of units nearby you could have a chance to wipe that unit out however their hit and run tactic makes it very hard to get them if they decide not to stay and fight. Also, I have found them nearby picking away at one of my units that is out of range and sight so they are sneaky and problematic. The reason I chase them down is I don't like any unit that is a roamer behind my lines. They go after artillery units, supply wagons, captives, lone small infantry units, units that are facing the wrong way which become flanked units and any unit not in range to the SKR, and they also go after objectives and they could be near you spotting and you don't even see them due to their stealth and terrain.

Edited by doublebuck
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

But thats how they should work actually.. problem is, AI can manage them right, but human player cant due to retreat functionality which makes human controlled skirmisher units painful to micromanage because they tend to run away and end up facing enemy backwards..

 

Maybe they should implement a check which would turn the skirmisher unit around based on where enemy is, when they retreat.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much all of you for your help, we really appreciate it! JaM thank you for the constant feedback here and in discord.

Navalus Magnus I'll check custom battles issue, you should be able to assign as many ships you like.

Skirmishers are special units for special roles in battles. Scouts (skirmishers detached from infantry units) are mostly for scouting. Anyway, we currently work on the fallback and false rear/flank attack indicating issues. Until we stabilize land battle mechanics to work seamlessly, should expect no changes on any land units.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2021 at 6:24 PM, Husserl said:

Thank you very much all of you for your help, we really appreciate it! JaM thank you for the constant feedback here and in discord.

Navalus Magnus I'll check custom battles issue, you should be able to assign as many ships you like.

Skirmishers are special units for special roles in battles. Scouts (skirmishers detached from infantry units) are mostly for scouting. Anyway, we currently work on the fallback and false rear/flank attack indicating issues. Until we stabilize land battle mechanics to work seamlessly, should expect no changes on any land units.  

Hello Husserl,

 

I've seen the change in latest patch, anyway i dont think changing tech description for Congreve Gunnades changes anything...

 

Description itself mentions guns which design was submitted in 1812, and it took some time for these to be tested.. Plus eventually, Navy declined the design, because in tests they (24pdr Congreve gunnade) were found to be less effective than standard 18pdr gun (Bloomfield or Fredrick Armstrong pattern..)

 

The whole problem with crazy stats remains - Gunnades in this game have Dispersion 1.7 despite having (per description) barrel length of 7 and 1/2 feet long... Comparatively, Bloomfield pattern guns were typically 9-10 feet long, yet in the game, they all have dispersion 2.6...  Penetration profile for Bloomfield guns in game is also much worse than the one for gunnades...For example old Borgard guns were typically 8 and 1/2 feet long, so even these had better kinetic performance to a Congreve gunnade...

And there is a whole issue with the fact these guns are set in Tier 2 tech tree, costs just 3000$ and 2 rep.. Yet historically these were not even designed before 1812, while Bloomfield pattern was in early introduction at 1780..With the current campaigns that are in the game, Congreve Gunnade is out of place completely, because last battle you can fight is Trafalgar in 1805, and Congreve submitted his design 7 years after Trafalgar....

So, if you want to have Congreve Gunnade in the game, it has to be Tier 3, should cost a ton of money to research, Its accuracy/dispersion should be comparable to Short guns (which were typically 7 feet long), but they should be slightly lighter.. Personally, i would just drop them completely. Some countries did use Gunnade type of guns, for example Russians, but their gunnades were shorter (5-6 feet) and Russians are not in this game anyway...

 

Gameplay wise, Congreve Gunnade remains a cheat OP gun that makes naval combat trivial.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, whatever a DEV put into this wonderful game, it's there for us to use or not. Anybody thinking something is a cheat OP and wants to nerf it or eliminate it from the game seems to me if you don't like something in this game for any reason you can decide to use it or not use it, but please don't take it away from some of us whom may like something such as that. Would you want them to take away the use of fire ships too. One well placed fire ship can sink the best ship in this game. You can chose to use them or not use them. I'll say it again, generally, whatever is in this game we all have to decide for our selves if we would like to use it or not use it.

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

Well, whatever a DEV put into this wonderful game, it's there for us to use or not. Anybody thinking something is a cheat OP and wants to nerf it or eliminate it from the game seems to me if you don't like something in this game for any reason you can decide to use it or not use it, but please don't take it away from some of us whom may like something such as that. Would you want them to take away the use of fire ships too. One well placed fire ship can sink the best ship in this game. You can chose to use them or not use them. I'll say it again, generally, whatever is in this game we all have to decide for our selves if we would like to use it or not use it.

Problem is, these guns are not properly modeled in the game, are out of place, while others that should be there are badly misrepresented (Bloomfield pattern guns). Yes, you don't have to use them (i don't). But, as they are, they are destroying the game balance, making every other gun completely irrelevant. Instead of having a choice which gun you want to use based on its characteristics, Gunnades always win, because they have no weakness, no drawback.. If they were so superior in real life, they would not get declined by Royal Navy as a failed experiment...

This game strongest point is its historical authenticity.. problem is, things like these make the game less enjoyable for people who prefer this type of games.. Ultimate Admiral Age of Sail is not a mainstream game, it never will be.. so dropping historical authenticity for casual players makes no sense..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, doublebuck said:

Well, whatever a DEV put into this wonderful game, it's there for us to use or not. Anybody thinking something is a cheat OP and wants to nerf it or eliminate it from the game seems to me if you don't like something in this game for any reason you can decide to use it or not use it, but please don't take it away from some of us whom may like something such as that. Would you want them to take away the use of fire ships too. One well placed fire ship can sink the best ship in this game. You can chose to use them or not use them. I'll say it again, generally, whatever is in this game we all have to decide for our selves if we would like to use it or not use it.

Part of the argument is that the gunnade is available earlier, is more effective, and is cheaper than other options. Because it is such an outlier in terms of performance vs cost it discourages using other choices. Having a t2 cannon completely overshadow the t3 options doesn't make much sense.

The suggestions were not to remove it, but to either bring its stats more in line with the other options, or to increase it's cost or availability so that there is some trade off for its strength. 

Fire ships can be very useful, but they also have major downsides. They are not particularly cheap, are a one time use, and take up a deploy slot that could otherwise hold another valuable ship.

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...