American SOL's what might we see?

[Austrum]

I'd be all about adding earlier -not supahcool later- Spanish ships. Fat and short galleons, designed for trade, proved in battle, reigning the seas for a century.

 

Call me romantic, but I'd rather be the underpowered underdog by stretching "fairness" at the lowest point than at the high hard limit.

 

You can have all the late 'Murican ships you want

 

I kind of agree.  There are a ton of ships from the 1870-1700 time frame that I really, really want to see in game.  A Constitution with another deck added just doesn't appeal to me at all.  Honestly I don't understand why they are even wanted.  Unlike say French, English, Danish, Spanish, etc SoLs which have a long and distinguished history of combat at sea, American SoLs did absolutely nothing.  At most they are a footnote in history so you can't even really claim patriotism is what motivates you to want them.  At best they would represent most fictional ships in a game based in the rich history of the Age of Sail.  

 

Also, sure I am an American so I do absolutely understand the desire to have American ships in the game, however lets focus on real American ships that faced real combat.  Ships like the upcoming Rattlesnake and the Constitution.   There are also many other Frigates, Corvettes, Sloops-of-War, Brigs and stuff that can be added.  America doesn't need a SoL, especially not when there are so, so many other ships like some of the Danish and Dutch designs that are on the perpetual waiting list competing for very limited resources.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Austrum

[LapuLapuStoleMyBoat]

I kind of agree.  There are a ton of ships from the 1870-1700 time frame that I really, really want to see in game.  A Constitution with another deck added just doesn't appeal to me at all.  Honestly I don't understand why they are even wanted.  Unlike say French, English, Danish, Spanish, etc SoLs which have a long and distinguished history of combat at sea, American SoLs did absolutely nothing.  At most they are a footnote in history so you can't even really claim patriotism is what motivates you to want them.  At best they would represent most fictional ships in a game based in the rich history of the Age of Sail.  

 

Also, sure I am an American so I do absolutely understand the desire to have American ships in the game, however lets focus on real American ships that faced real combat.  Ships like the upcoming Rattlesnake and the Constitution.   There are also many other Frigates, Corvettes, Sloops-of-War, Brigs and stuff that can be added.  America doesn't need a SoL, especially not when there are so, so many other ships like some of the Danish and Dutch designs that are on the perpetual waiting list competing for very limited resources.

 

One does not have to go beyond logic to justify the existence of American ships-of-the-line, if the United States Navy is to be represented and represented well in the open world within the time lines given of xxxx -1820/1830 +/- 5, which by all evidence seems that this be the case. Then it would be simply logical to see ships-of-the-line of the United States Navy within those given time lines. If the wishes of the community and the goal of NA is to be as comprehensive as possible then it would be prudent that the United States Navy of that time, be at the very least given the ships that they had for historical and even game balance purposes as it would be illogical to see, say, a Victory or the Nelson in the open world blockading US ports without an Independence to carry out defense.

 

To say that American ships-of-the-line did absolutely nothing and were not distinguished enough to be given even a glance is reprehensible (one should do more research). For one they were important deterrence against the British in the post 1812 world and they were very successful in just doing that. Also, the propensity for excellence building ships with thicker hulls, bigger guns and better sailing qualities gave the fledgling nation a great amount of renown, and more importantly a culture of naval excellence that carries to this very day.

 

All that said I do actually look forward more for the lighter American ships like the Constellation, an excellent little frigate that carried a similar load out to the Constitution, and I do whole heartily agree that American frigates be given priorities over SoLs.

 

However, I also believe that it is intellectually reprehensible to insinuate 'ignoring' one or more vessels in the American fleet during the time line given for seemingly arbitrary reasons, which were very few ships in comparison to begin with. Yes, It is OK to want Danish and Swedish ships in the game, it is not however OK to insinuate cutting a whole class of American vessels in favour of, say, Danish vessels, with ignorant, half-baked reasoning that leaves much to be desired. 

Edited March 4, 2015 by LapuLapuStoleMyBoat

[Elysion]

Also, the propensity for excellence building ships with thicker hulls, bigger guns and better sailing qualities gave the fledgling nation a great amount of renown,

 

This basically. A powerful draw for specific american ships (other than the constitution) may not be present, but the draw to the 'american style' of ship is. Its the fact that america did not have as long a time to build up an age of sail legacy as other nations that makes being able to experience american ships in a sort of 'what if' environment all the more intriguing in a game like this.

[Brigand]

(...)

within the time lines given of xxxx -1820/1830 +/- 5, which by all evidence seems that this be the case.

(...)

 

The timeline has been set as 1680 till 1820 +-5 years. With a later comment stating:

1600-1830 hard limit

1690-1790 preferred

~Brigand

[Ishigami]

1820/1830 +/- 5,

 

Out of timeframe.

[LapuLapuStoleMyBoat]

Out of timeframe.

 

Pardon?

 

As stated:

 

The timeline has been set as 1680 till 1820 +-5 years. With a later comment stating:

1600-1830 hard limit

1690-1790 preferred

~Brigand

 

 

The time line gives way to all Independence class vessels, and most Delaware class vessels the only ship that this leaves out is the Pennsylvania, in practicality most American SoL are indeed compatible with 1820 +/- 5 hard cap of 1830.

Edited March 4, 2015 by LapuLapuStoleMyBoat

[Sir. Cunningham]

1815 is about when America began it's long path to dominance in the technology of death and destruction - culminating with the Nuclear Aircraft Carrier and Nuclear Attack Submarine!

don't even try to negate the US superiority in warfare invention - it's one thing we are REALLY good at 

 

 

Not only are you incorrect but the way you choose to present your case only serves to scream of how biased you are. 

[max_86]

Murica need superior killing technology, you can't stop them brits!

[BungeeLemming]

@ amapholic:

yeah and dont forget the dreadnough class battleships wich were widely produced and exported. Those ships really are a milestone of naval warfaring technology.

Oh wait.. That ship was a british design.. nvmd.

 

Seriously.. If you want your MURICA bias, have it. But dont troll around in a 1800 century focused forum. ty

 

As for this topic.. If you cant stay on it its going to be closed soon.

[Sir. Cunningham]

Seriously.. If you want your MURICA bias, have it. But dont troll around in a 1800 century focused forum. ty

 

 

Yes, or limit it to the tavern subforum at least.

[Ishigami]

As you have quote the preferred timeframe is from 1690 to 1790. Therefore you are out of the timeframe to be considered without really good reasoning.

Now if there were some good reasons to break that timeframe and apply the extended one I have yet to see them I am afraid.

As has been mentioned time and again: American SoLs didn’t do much. That’s apparently a criteria for Game Labs as I remember the Admin mentioning that they would like to have ships that saw some action.

With the lack of action comes a lack of rich careers which usually is entangled with fame. The US SoLs lack in this department and are therefore not really good marketing material.

Furthermore why extend the timeframe when you only would bring in imbalance? You said we would be ignorant of the strength of the US SoL however I believe the opposite is the case. As I roughly estimated a page ago USS Independence in a historical setup would carry more firepower to the line than many first rates, especially the ones in game atm. Having such a ship would make other options obsolete unless you bring in more modern ships or unrealistic setups. We simply don’t want to open this can of worms.

You are also wrong about US dominance of technology as mentioned again in this very topic: HMS St Lawrence of 1814. It used similar hull and had a very heavy broadside for its time.

It even had the same purpose: Deter the enemy. It was also extraordinarily effective in doing just that yet nobody would argue to have that monstrosity in the game because it is simply from a different generation of SoL and even if someone would do so we would argue against it just the same.

Then the US SoLs are artistically not very appealing. Yes very practically and strong build but they are wooden bathtubs with their super straight decks and sides, almost not existing decorations, boring sterns and black and white colour scheme.

Last but not least as I already said it is about allocation of resources for Game Labs and I rather have them work on ships that benefit the game right off the bat instead of ones that might at first break it. There are better choices than these from nations that have yet to get even one ship in the game.

And btw. you can defend you port with a Victory all the same.

[Brigand]

I didn't know what 'MURICA' was, so I googled it, turns out it is some sort of canoe:

Not all that overpowered if you ask me?

~Brigand

[Lord Hood]

I think that is a spectacular picture Brigand, always nice to have a chuckle.

[maturin]

 

Then the US SoLs are artistically not very appealing. Yes very practically and strong build but they are wooden bathtubs with their super straight decks and sides, almost not existing decorations, boring sterns and black and white colour scheme.

Last but not least as I already said it is about allocation of resources for Game Labs and I rather have them work on ships that benefit the game right off the bat instead of ones that might at first break it. There are better choices than these from nations that have yet to get even one ship in the game.

This says it all, really.

 

American SoLs are a Pandora's Box. Or rather, Western SoLs of similar type are a Pandora's Box for game balance and atmosphere. But for some reason we don't have many European nationalists demanding that "every single" British warship ever built be represented in the game. And no one would ever dream of agitating for Britain's advanced 1820-1830 SoLs.

[Elysion]

I didn't know what 'MURICA' was, so I googled it, turns out it is some sort of canoe:

Not all that overpowered if you ask me?

~Brigand

You think that untill one day you are sitting in your nice windward position sniping with your long guns and it just rows straight towards you, laughing at the weather gauge. Thats the power of freedoms my friend.

[LapuLapuStoleMyBoat]

As you have quote the preferred timeframe is from 1690 to 1790. Therefore you are out of the timeframe to be considered without really good reasoning.

Now if there were some good reasons to break that timeframe and apply the extended one I have yet to see them I am afraid.

As has been mentioned time and again: American SoLs didn’t do much. That’s apparently a criteria for Game Labs as I remember the Admin mentioning that they would like to have ships that saw some action.

With the lack of action comes a lack of rich careers which usually is entangled with fame. The US SoLs lack in this department and are therefore not really good marketing material.

Furthermore why extend the timeframe when you only would bring in imbalance? You said we would be ignorant of the strength of the US SoL however I believe the opposite is the case. As I roughly estimated a page ago USS Independence in a historical setup would carry more firepower to the line than many first rates, especially the ones in game atm. Having such a ship would make other options obsolete unless you bring in more modern ships or unrealistic setups. We simply don’t want to open this can of worms.

You are also wrong about US dominance of technology as mentioned again in this very topic: HMS St Lawrence of 1814. It used similar hull and had a very heavy broadside for its time.

It even had the same purpose: Deter the enemy. It was also extraordinarily effective in doing just that yet nobody would argue to have that monstrosity in the game because it is simply from a different generation of SoL and even if someone would do so we would argue against it just the same.

Then the US SoLs are artistically not very appealing. Yes very practically and strong build but they are wooden bathtubs with their super straight decks and sides, almost not existing decorations, boring sterns and black and white colour scheme.

Last but not least as I already said it is about allocation of resources for Game Labs and I rather have them work on ships that benefit the game right off the bat instead of ones that might at first break it. There are better choices than these from nations that have yet to get even one ship in the game.

And btw. you can defend you port with a Victory all the same.

 

Well, let us analyze your 'reasoning' shall we, I believe some of your 'points' has already been addressed in my previous post, therefor I won't repeat myself (at least I will try not to).

 

"Therefore you are out of the timeframe to be considered without really good reasoning" - Ishigami

 

"Furthermore why extend the timeframe when you only would bring in imbalance?" - Ishigami

 

Nonsense, first of all we already have the USS Lynx (1814), an American schooner launched the same year as the ship-of-the-line the USS Independence (The Independence was actually in action in the Barbary coast in 1814-1815, whilst the Lynx stuck at port/dry-dock) and of course the HMS Trincomalee (1817) very clear precedence that proves you incredibly wrong.

 

Balance is indeed something to be to be considered, if the US is to be a nation in the upcoming open world (by all evidence it seems that it will be, noting the amount of American ships being tested currently.) it would require ships-of-the-line to counter the other nation's, well, ships-of-the-line. As an example given in my previous post "...it would be illogical to see, say, a Victory or the Nelson in the open world blockading US ports without an Independence to carry out defense.", which is a perfectly legitimate concern and a reason good enough (not that it requires any more reasons as it stands, as it is well within the time line the devs seems to be going by, noting the Lynx.) to warrant the inclusion of the Independence.

 

"USS Independence in a historical setup would carry more firepower to the line than many first rates, especially the ones in game atm. Having such a ship would make other options obsolete unless you bring in more modern ships or unrealistic setups. We simply don’t want to open this can of worms." - Ishigami

 

It is indeed a superior ship, so? 

 

No one's arguing against the release of the HMS St Lawrence or even the HMS Nelson (1814), though it is still in my opinion that the Independence is the superior vessel, just as the Constitution (1794) is in many ways superior to the Trincomalee and for that matter most if not all frigates it will come across to, it is not a deal breaker, just as it wasn't a deal breaker when they deemed it reasonable to have the Constitution and even the Trincomalee in the game.  

 

Note that It is easier to balance a powerful vessel, like the Constitution and/or the Independence through economic ways (cost, time to build ect.), than to try and balance the US Navy in the open world without ships-of-the-line, going by the opinion of some that said vessels would be too bowel inducing for them to face. As previously made clear, it would actually be more imbalanced not to have said American ships-of-the-line for the simple fact that in situations which requires another ship-of-the-line the US Navy would then be SOL (pun intended) and dead on the spot without ships-of-the-line of their own, because one deemed their ships to be 'not worth implementing'.  

 

"Then the US SoLs are artistically not very appealing. Yes very practically and strong build but they are wooden bathtubs with their super straight decks and sides, almost not existing decorations, boring sterns and black and white colour scheme." - Ishigami

 

I find them handsome, does that then mean your opinions becomes invalid? Irrelevant points.

 

"You are also wrong about US dominance of technology as mentioned again in this very topic: HMS St Lawrence of 1814. It used similar hull and had a very heavy broadside for its time." - Ishigami

 

Comparable in some cases, I peg the Independence to be better with her uniformed armament and live oak , but she looks like a decent vessel and I have no qualms for such ships to be included as it is well within the timeline.

 

"Last but not least as I already said it is about allocation of resources for Game Labs and I rather have them work on ships that benefit the game right off the bat instead of ones that might at first break it.." - Ishigami

 

It is becoming apparent to me that this has absolutely nothing to do with limited resources, nor what may or may not be beneficial to the game, as I have made it logically clear that the inclusion of American ships-of-the-line is actually important for the overall game balance, thus I again make it profoundly clear that there is absolutely no reasons for them not to be considered by Game Labs.    

Edited March 6, 2015 by LapuLapuStoleMyBoat

[Iñigo Montoya]

There's this single good reason: They are overpowered.

 

A late schooner or a medium frigate don't have the power to be a problem. A 1st rate SoL does, and in a very bad way.

 

And no, cost and build time won't ever be solutions for overpowered units in a game. Gamers being gamers they will gather and collect until there's the same number of (or even more) overpowered ships, than reasonable ones. I've seen it, you've seen it, all of us have seen it.

 

The only solution for that is HARD limits on the number of units allowed to be built, and I don't think any developer would consider that as an option.

[LapuLapuStoleMyBoat]

There's this single good reason: They are overpowered.

 

A late schooner or a medium frigate don't have the power to be a problem. A 1st rate SoL does, and in a very bad way.

 

And no, cost and build time won't ever be solutions for overpowered units in a game. Gamers being gamers they will gather and collect until there's the same number of (or even more) overpowered ships, than reasonable ones. I've seen it, you've seen it, all of us have seen it.

 

The only solution for that is HARD limits on the number of units allowed to be built, and I don't think any developer would consider that as an option.

 

As I've pointed out, a lack of counter for the US Navy in the case of omission of their own ships-of-the-line is an even worse balancing problem, if they are not omitted they can at least be made balanced, whereas it is impossible to have balance in the case of omission.

 

I hope that has made it abundantly clear. 

Edited March 6, 2015 by LapuLapuStoleMyBoat

[Iñigo Montoya]

You are assuming nations and locked navies, and that's quite an assumption.

[JebUSMC]

To me its not about national pride here.  Lets not forget that the United States became a nation during this time.  Its those frigates of the American revolution and the super frigates as well as smaller ships that should be included.  The US was heavily dependent during the revolution on the French navy.  Not to crush the pride my countrymen feel but our fledgling little nation was just starting out during the age of sail and could barely afford to build, let alone operate, SOLs.  Ultimately this game isn't about national pride in my opinion but about the glorious Age of Sail.  Want to sail under the flag of the United States?  Learn how best to handle a super frigate.  Outrun those ships you can't out fight and be a nationally sanctioned commerce raider.  Want to sail an SOL?  Sail under the flag of Britain, Spain, or France and slug it out with the other SOL capable nations.  That's all those things are good for after all.

Edited March 6, 2015 by JebUSMC

[LapuLapuStoleMyBoat]

You are assuming nations and locked navies, and that's quite an assumption.

 

Indeed, and I find it a logical one. Even if it was free-form I still see no reason as to why not have American ships-of-the-line, if they can have Constitution be balanced (and they have balanced it, else' they'd have as good of an immunity to some rounds as a Victory at certain ranges) then I'm pretty sure they can do the same to the Independence. 

 

 

To me its not about national pride here.  Lets not forget that the United States became a nation during this time.  Its those frigates of the American revolution and the super frigates as well as smaller ships that should be included.  The US was heavily dependent during the revolution on the French navy.  Not to crush the pride my countrymen feel but our fledgling little nation was just starting out during the age of sail and could barely afford to build, let alone operate, SOLs.  Ultimately this game isn't about national pride in my opinion but about the glorious Age of Sail.  Want to sail under the flag of the United States?  Learn how best to handle a super frigate.  Outrun those ships you can't out fight and be a nationally sanctioned commerce raider.  Want to sail an SOL?  Sail under the flag of Britain, Spain, or France and slug it out with the other SOL capable nations.  That's all those things are good for after all.

 

 

My opinion is that you stop selling yourself short, the United States Navy did have fantastic heavy frigate, very true, but they did also have fantastic ships-of-the-line, though not as numerous as the other nations quality was indeed on their side.

Edited March 6, 2015 by LapuLapuStoleMyBoat

[Iñigo Montoya]

Even if it was free-form I still see no reason as to why not have American ships-of-the-line, if they can have Constitution be balanced (and they have balanced it, else' they'd have as good of an immunity to some rounds as a Victory at certain ranges) I'm pretty sure they can do the same to the Independence.

Well, if real data is of no use then I myself will slap the name Independence on a French 1st rate, fly Old Glory and hand it to you personally.

 

You either want a ship in the game or you don't. A mock ship will get us nowhere.

[LapuLapuStoleMyBoat]

Well, if real data is of no use then I myself will slap the name Independence on a French 1st rate, fly Old Glory and hand it to you personally.

 

You either want a ship in the game or you don't. A mock ship will get us nowhere.

 

I prefer it as you do real as they can be, but the devs have compromised in some cases which is fine as at the end of the day it is just a game and inclusion is better than the contrary .

Edited March 6, 2015 by LapuLapuStoleMyBoat

[Iñigo Montoya]

I'd rather not see all the "Why was the Independence nerfed?" threads.

[LapuLapuStoleMyBoat]

I'd rather not see all the "Why was the Independence nerfed?" threads.

 

You mean like the Constitution ones.