Arranged Weekend Trafalgars anyone???

[Charles Caldwell]

Thanks for posting Olav.

 

One of the best, professional and ordered Trafalgars I've played... a real credit to the seamanship & skills of the SLRN & TDA, plus others on the Blue side.

 

Excellent Command Snoopy. 

 

Salute.

[Fellvred]

yup really nice fight   I still think damage to the rear of ships needs looking at (taking on water, extra guns being taken out etc).  I managed to completely mess up my approach after turning in late and got trapped right in front of the enemy line (13:00) I managed to survive by pointing my arse at the fleet and hoping for the best! I'm not sure how many shots I took but the total damage was only ~150 crew and a few guns being taken out.

[nornica]

Oh god.. I was participating in it? ;-0

[OlavDeng2]

Oh god.. I was participating in it? ;-0

Hehe, and me and brandon got it all on camera as well

['Sharpe]

We (team blue) look pretty badass through the spyglass at around the 6:30 mark, with two perfect columns advancing. 

 

Great sailing and cooperation between the Americans and Brits.

[admin]

so its suddenly more fun? Nothing has changed except for BR fixes.

 

BTW.. the line tactical fighting is still possible. It is hard to make a good line and maintain your station but if you do you can focus a lot better. 

[Charles Caldwell]

so its suddenly more fun? Nothing has changed except for BR fixes.

 

BTW.. the line tactical fighting is still possible. It is hard to make a good line and maintain your station but if you do you can focus a lot better. 

 

Clearly the BR fix made a difference to the feel and composition of the fleets... no one likes broken teams.

 

I agree line fighting is possible, but it involves a degree of teamwork and excellent communication.

 

Great battle

[admin]

Also would like to add this.

 

Sometimes feedback despite being reasonable brings unforeseen effects on the fun. 

 

Current large events look like this

 

Battles turn into individual melee and small group duels (from 1v1 to 5v5). It is how it was in real life. Maintaining the line is extremely expensive and requires careful planning. Keeping the station also reduces DPS as you don't purse stragglers to finish them off. Nelson understood this and as a result most decisive victories relied on individual skill in a general mess of the battle, not on the line fighting that was ineffective for decisive victories. It is fully replicated in Naval Action line fighting does not bring decisive victories and enemies usually escape.

 

To bring tactics back several things must be brought back

1. Reduced survivability - increase the cost of mistakes and cost of getting out of the line

2. Nerf of survivability upgrades - increase the cost of mistakes and cost of getting out of the line

3. Minor increase to speed - increase ability to keep station reduce time required for planning fleet maneuver

4. Minor increase to turning - increase ability to keep station reduce the time required for long term planning

5. Increased accuracy - increase ability to deliver damage at long range to make line fighting more effective

 

The sad thing is that there are some old timers (like verhoeven, flgibson) who were major proponents of realism and history and pushed hard for more realism. But they don't participate in events for some reason (or participated a lot more during more casual sea trials1)

 

PS.

The first stable group of 10-15 ships with an admiral who is able to force his fleet to keep the line/station and focus fire will win majority of battles (OW or in Ports)

[OlavDeng2]

Clearly the BR fix made a difference to the feel and composition of the fleets... no one likes broken teams.

 

I agree line fighting is possible, but it involves a degree of teamwork and excellent communication.

 

Great battle

This is a big one, i feel that in the last couple of matches(i might be wrong) the dutch side has ended up with people who either A) refuse to listen and do their own things or B ) just dont understand english well enough. This causes a lack of communication and i feel that while things went better this time, the lack of communication(even though we at least tried) killed us.

Edited December 1, 2015 by OlavDeng2

[Charles Caldwell]

Also would like to add this.

 

Sometimes feedback despite being reasonable brings unforeseen effects on the fun. 

 

Current large events look like this

 

Battles turn into individual melee and small group duels (from 1v1 to 5v5). It is how it was in real life. Maintaining the line is extremely expensive and requires careful planning. Keeping the station also reduces DPS as you don't purse stragglers to finish them off. Nelson understood this and as a result all most decisive victories relied on individual skill in a general mess of the battle, not on the line fighting that was ineffective for decisive victories. It is fully replicated in Naval Action line fighting does not bring decisive victories and enemies usually escape.

 

To bring tactics back several things must be brought back

1. Reduced survivability - increase the cost of mistakes and cost of getting out of the line

2. Nerf of survivability upgrades - increase the cost of mistakes and cost of getting out of the line

3. Minor increase to speed - increase ability to keep station reduce time required for planning fleet maneuver

4. Minor increase to turning - increase ability to keep station reduce the time required for long term planning

5. Increased accuracy - increase ability to deliver damage at long range to make line fighting more effective

 

The sad thing is that there are some old timers (like verhoeven, flgibson) who were major proponents of realism and history and pushed hard for more realism. But they don't participate in events for some reason (or participated a lot more during more casual sea trials1)

 

Hmmm I not sure using the game ship mechanic to force tactics is a good idea... as it should be up to the team playing to create an effective method to overcome the enemy.

 

What is more important for me anyway is that the ship's characteristics are as accurate in game terms as possible and that everyone, EVERYONE is on an even playing field. If you sail a better ship, I can get that ship with the same level of dedication and commitment as you. With all things even, then the thing that sets us apart should be mostly skill and hard won experience.

[Kaos]

 

Battles turn into individual melee and small group duels (from 1v1 to 5v5). It is how it was in real life. Maintaining the line is extremely expensive and requires careful planning. Keeping the station also reduces DPS as you don't purse stragglers to finish them off. Nelson understood this and as a result most decisive victories relied on individual skill in a general mess of the battle, not on the line fighting that was ineffective for decisive victories. It is fully replicated in Naval Action line fighting does not bring decisive victories and enemies usually escape.

 

To bring tactics back several things must be brought back

1. Reduced survivability - increase the cost of mistakes and cost of getting out of the line

2. Nerf of survivability upgrades - increase the cost of mistakes and cost of getting out of the line

3. Minor increase to speed - increase ability to keep station reduce time required for planning fleet maneuver

4. Minor increase to turning - increase ability to keep station reduce the time required for long term planning

5. Increased accuracy - increase ability to deliver damage at long range to make line fighting more effective

 

The sad thing is that there are some old timers (like verhoeven, flgibson) who were major proponents of realism and history and pushed hard for more realism. But they don't participate in events for some reason (or participated a lot more during more casual sea trials1)

 

PS.

The first stable group of 10-15 ships with an admiral who is able to force his fleet to keep the line/station and focus fire will win majority of battles (OW or in Ports)

 

 

Wouldn't it make sense gameplay-wise for these ships to have some sort of a weakness or a counter against them? Without maneuverability weakness it would make things more linear with the end-game sol's being the final destination for everyone who want's to compete and lessen the variety and make other ship types obsolete.

Besides isn't the point of the sol to stay in line, hence - Ship of the Line. If it get's isolated from line (it's support and main defence to neutralize the lack of maneuverability) due to unfortunate circumstances or the incompetence of the captain then it should deserve to sink but without maneuverability weakness it wouldn't have the penalty in brawling mode so why even line up with it? My mind draws a picture of generic yolobrawl metagame with these universal SoL's where the battle is forced into a chaotic brawl and the individual skill of each captain takes it from there to decide the outcome.

 

Currently frigates have limited gameplay and influence in those big battles other than running down the routing ships. You can do everything much more efficiently with 74 and above than with a frigate.

[admin]

Currently frigates have limited gameplay and influence in those big battles other than running down the routing ships. You can do everything much more efficiently with 74 and above than with a frigate.

 

Which is why 74 was a workforce of all navies in Europe (not a heavy frigate). 

[Kaos]

Which is why 74 was a workforce of all navies in Europe (not a heavy frigate). 

That's the point - bring a SOL or go home, I'd imagine there could be potential interesting tactics for coordinated frigates too but I guess history wouldn't allow that.

[OlavDeng2]

That's the point - bring a SOL or go home, I'd imagine there could be potential interesting tactics for coordinated frigates too but I guess history wouldn't allow that.

Frigates do have a role in this game, however not a lot in the trafalgars (although if you have a coordinated group they can just destroy, the issue is getting that co ordinated group in the first place), really they are more suited in open world roles such as scouting, privateering and such.

[Snoopy]

Also would like to add this.

 

Sometimes feedback despite being reasonable brings unforeseen effects on the fun. 

 

Current large events look like this

 

Battles turn into individual melee and small group duels (from 1v1 to 5v5). It is how it was in real life. Maintaining the line is extremely expensive and requires careful planning. Keeping the station also reduces DPS as you don't purse stragglers to finish them off. Nelson understood this and as a result most decisive victories relied on individual skill in a general mess of the battle, not on the line fighting that was ineffective for decisive victories. It is fully replicated in Naval Action line fighting does not bring decisive victories and enemies usually escape.

 

To bring tactics back several things must be brought back

1. Reduced survivability - increase the cost of mistakes and cost of getting out of the line

2. Nerf of survivability upgrades - increase the cost of mistakes and cost of getting out of the line

3. Minor increase to speed - increase ability to keep station reduce time required for planning fleet maneuver

4. Minor increase to turning - increase ability to keep station reduce the time required for long term planning

5. Increased accuracy - increase ability to deliver damage at long range to make line fighting more effective

 

The sad thing is that there are some old timers (like verhoeven, flgibson) who were major proponents of realism and history and pushed hard for more realism. But they don't participate in events for some reason (or participated a lot more during more casual sea trials1)

 

PS.

The first stable group of 10-15 ships with an admiral who is able to force his fleet to keep the line/station and focus fire will win majority of battles (OW or in Ports)

 

I think large events look like this because we suck

That is to say it is very difficult to sail as a cohesive force if half of the team can't/won't follow orders and there is no common understanding on how to do things.. which is what the laid back Saturday's Trafalgars are. That is not a criticism - far from it. But it seems like a stretch to infer the need for game changes from a friendly free for all 'propaganda' event that is aimed at getting everyone in rather than fierce national/guild competition in port battles.

 

I also think that it is not a bug that Naval Action replicates history so well (line fights frequently being indecisive) - I rather think you did an excellent job making a game that reflects history, and like you said in close quarter melee it is still possible to get a decisive result.

I'd rather have reality dictate tactics, that is make the ships as realistic as possible, than lamentations about the lack of 'tektiks' (without any mentioning of what exactly we are lacking) write the stats of the ships.

 

This doesn't mean there isn't room for adjustment: the survivability is ok for most ships, however, we have insanely overpowered live oak first rates with extra planking mod. I think everyone would have to agree they are way over the top.

[admin]

 

 

This doesn't mean there isn't room for adjustment: the survivability is ok for most ships, however, we have insanely overpowered live oak first rates with extra planking mod. I think everyone would have to agree they are way over the top.

 

planking and pumps upgrades were added to check longer survivability and need to be nerfed

current bonuses are too big.

[akd]

Also would like to add this.

Sometimes feedback despite being reasonable brings unforeseen effects on the fun.

Current large events look like this

Battles turn into individual melee and small group duels (from 1v1 to 5v5). It is how it was in real life. Maintaining the line is extremely expensive and requires careful planning. Keeping the station also reduces DPS as you don't purse stragglers to finish them off. Nelson understood this and as a result most decisive victories relied on individual skill in a general mess of the battle, not on the line fighting that was ineffective for decisive victories. It is fully replicated in Naval Action line fighting does not bring decisive victories and enemies usually escape.

To bring tactics back several things must be brought back

1. Reduced survivability - increase the cost of mistakes and cost of getting out of the line

2. Nerf of survivability upgrades - increase the cost of mistakes and cost of getting out of the line

3. Minor increase to speed - increase ability to keep station reduce time required for planning fleet maneuver

4. Minor increase to turning - increase ability to keep station reduce the time required for long term planning

5. Increased accuracy - increase ability to deliver damage at long range to make line fighting more effective

The sad thing is that there are some old timers (like verhoeven, flgibson) who were major proponents of realism and history and pushed hard for more realism. But they don't participate in events for some reason (or participated a lot more during more casual sea trials1)

PS.

The first stable group of 10-15 ships with an admiral who is able to force his fleet to keep the line/station and focus fire will win majority of battles (OW or in Ports)

So why change things? Sounds like line fighting is difficult, but properly rewarded when executed with skill in the right situations, but the trade-off is time consumed in coordination, potential loss of initiative, and excessivey rigidity. It's not the right tactic for all situations. This another reason Nelson deemphasized maneuvers and prioritized invididual, aggressive action. A team spending all its effort and focus on maintaining a line / executing a complicated maneuver is vulnerable to an opponent getting inside their decision loop. (That said, I do think survivability / repair needs more tweaking, especially huge potential HP spread, but I also think a bigger problem may be crew survival / efficiency. But please do not change accuracy. It is very balanced currently.)

Also, you don't want to overemphasize distant line fighting and end up removing the need for invididual close action, potentially reducing every fight to a rinse and repeat one tactic wins focus fire duel, where the team with the lee position will almost always prevail. As you note, we've seen battles where a great deal of cohesion was maintained on one or both sides, and battles that quickly devolved into chaotic melee, all without any major change in the core system. Sounds to me like we mainly just need more people to participate in more battles, and more variety in types and conditions of battles, not changes in core mechanics.

[balticsailor]

planking and pumps upgrades were added to check longer survivability and need to be nerfed

current bonuses are too big.

 

Yes with live oak build strenght and planking you can get a santisima up to 20k hp on the sides vs 14k on a teak one without build stenght. That is 42% more hp per side (with a better pen protecetion). On top of that you get also a bit more hp back from the hull repair.

Edited December 2, 2015 by balticsailor

[Jacques de Montagne]

I don't think that HP needs to change again, I like the prolongued battles in general. Some mod combations are just to powerful on the big ships. Especially since they can tank with their depleted sterns without limit!

 

The latest changes, including those to the BR ratings have been quite helpful reducing the feel of a doomed battle. I was one to propose greater potential BR difference between the teams, but I was proven wrong.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Jacob de Montagne

[Brandonchat]

Didnt upload this yet so...... here it is. Trafalgar 28-11-2015

 

[akd]

So why change things? Sounds like line fighting is difficult, but properly rewarded when executed with skill in the right situations, but the trade-off is time consumed in coordination, potential loss of initiative, and excessivey rigidity. It's not the right tactic for all situations. This another reason Nelson deemphasized maneuvers and prioritized invididual, aggressive action. A team spending all its effort and focus on maintaining a line / executing a complicated maneuver is vulnerable to an opponent getting inside their decision loop. (That said, I do think survivability / repair needs more tweaking, especially huge potential HP spread, but I also think a bigger problem may be crew survival / efficiency. But please do not change accuracy. It is very balanced currently.)

Also, you don't want to overemphasize distant line fighting and end up removing the need for invididual close action, potentially reducing every fight to a rinse and repeat one tactic wins focus fire duel, where the team with the lee position will almost always prevail. As you note, we've seen battles where a great deal of cohesion was maintained on one or both sides, and battles that quickly devolved into chaotic melee, all without any major change in the core system. Sounds to me like we mainly just need more people to participate in more battles, and more variety in types and conditions of battles, not changes in core mechanics.

 

Two much more important points:

 

-you can't really expect players to use formation tactics much in a game that drops players in a clustered mess within gun range of each other.  We really shouldn't focus too much on the dynamics of large group formations until we have some sort of battle commander function that lets players be arranged in formation before battle (and maybe rewarded with points for maintaining formation?).

 

-line fighting, and age of sail tactics in general, do not mix with random wind changes.  Fleet tactics were almost entirely dependent on relatively consistent wind.

[admin]

 

-line fighting, and age of sail tactics in general, do not mix with random wind changes.  Fleet tactics were almost entirely dependent on relatively consistent wind.

 

This means only one thing. We perhaps should stop listening to commenters and should just continue making the game for ourselves the way we - makers - want to play it.

We had standard wind turning into a predictable direction. It was the request number 1 to randomize it. Let's harvest the fruits first before requesting standard wind back.

From now on we will not accept feedback on core gameplay factors if it is not thought through and does not provide detailed in depth analysis like it comes from NW on the ship HP, from all points of view (defenders and attackers)

 

 

Wind in life is random. And its strength is also random. In many cases it could just die down in battle. God and Glory will guide your hand to win the battle despite the wind.

[Guest raat]

This means only one thing. We perhaps should stop listening to commenters and should just continue making the game for ourselves the way we - makers - want to play it.

We had standard wind turning into a predictable direction. It was the request number 1 to randomize it. Let's harvest the fruits first before requesting standard wind back.

From now on we will not accept feedback on core gameplay factors if it is not thought through and does not provide detailed in depth analysis like it comes from NW on the ship HP, from all points of view (defenders and attackers)

 

 

Wind in life is random. And its strength is also random. In many cases it could just die down in battle. God and Glory will guide your hand to win the battle despite the wind.

 

Is it not possible to have both?  Random wind direction and strength is good for overall gameplay......sometimes.  While standard wind direction is good...sometimes.  I think what would help is captains of the day would've known what the wind is generally like in a specific area.  At this port, it normally blows parallel with the port.   At this port, it blows toward the port.   At this port/part of the coastline, there are doldrums...beware.  Etc., etc.

 

If the you had an idea of the type of wind you could expect in a given region, then you could plan your battle tactics accordingly.  Making for more immersive gameplay and adding strategic value to your ship selection, approach, perhaps even time of day, and even specific regions of the map.

 

That would enable line fighting in areas where wind is more constant, and a variety of ship selection and tactics in areas where wind is more random.  While of course, even in the areas of more constant wind, the strength could change and even the direction could change, but less frequently than in areas of the map where wind is more random.

[akd]

This means only one thing. We perhaps should stop listening to commenters and should just continue making the game for ourselves the way we - makers - want to play it.

We had standard wind turning into a predictable direction. It was the request number 1 to randomize it. Let's harvest the fruits first before requesting standard wind back.

From now on we will not accept feedback on core gameplay factors if it is not thought through and does not provide detailed in depth analysis like it comes from NW on the ship HP, from all points of view (defenders and attackers)

 

I mean in battle (not OS) and totally random, rather than random variations within X degrees of starting wind (the sort of minor variations that allow skilled players to gain maximum performance by paying attention, but that don't swap the windward position for the leeward position).   To feel most realistic and support rewarding planning and positioning, wind would vary a small number of degrees constantly, and have a decent random chance to make a moderate change (45-90°?) in a typical fight.  This could manifest itself in two forms: small variations in one direction leading to larger change over the course of the battle (wind is slowly veering) or small variations in either direction from starting wind for long period of time (constant wind) followed by chance of veering significantly over short period of time to a new point of origin.  Huge changes (90°+?) in wind direction were rare in battles, and in fact plans and tactics were formed around fairly reliable expectations of the relative position of the wind, even if there was never exact certainty about its point of origin.  And I actually have no problem with huge wind changes in battle, but if they are routine, they are not exciting.  Make them a random, rare factor (perhaps associated with a visual environmental clue) and they would really add something to the game.

 

OS - ideal would be consistent wind for several days of in-game time (random 1-3), followed by totally random change in direction.  This produces variability (no given journey is always or usually against the wind), but allows players to complete short voyages with relatively consistent wind direction, rather than having to constantly chase veering clockwork wind.  It is also more exciting because there is a random factor that can frustrate plans.

 

Battle Instance - general direction of wind fixed at start of battle based on OS, with variation as outlined above.  Players can make plans and shape tactics around the wind, which is the terrain of an open sea battle (imagine planning for a land battle where the high ground could randomly become the low ground.  Planning would be pointless and battles would tend to descend into chaotic melee.)  Huge change in wind is rare and dramatic event, stunning all players with the power of the gods.

 

 

 

And its strength is also random. In many cases it could just die down in battle. God and Glory will guide your hand to win the battle despite the wind.

 

Change in strength is a more a neutral factor (although not entirely) and does not undermine tactics and planning the way totally random direction does.  By that I mean if I have formulated a plan and formation based on a general wind direction, that does not fall apart simply because the strength of the wind changes.  If it dies away entirely, then my plan is paused, not overturned.  Anyways, you have totally rejected the idea of variable wind strength in the past, so I don't know why you are bringing it up.

[admin]

 

Change in strength is a more a neutral factor (although not entirely) and does not undermine tactics and planning the way totally random direction does.  By that I mean if I have formulated a plan and formation based on a general wind direction, that does not fall apart simply because the strength of the wind changes.  If it dies away entirely, then my plan is paused, not overturned.  Anyways, you have totally rejected the idea of variable wind strength in the past, so I don't know why you are bringing it up.

 

If the battle plan can be ruined by 50 degrees wind change - perhaps the plan was not good enough?