Naval Action v. PotBS; Compare and Contrast

[William the Drake]

With Early Access on the horizon, there are still many new captains out there who wish to take command of a vessel in Naval Action. Some are coming from a blank slate; expecting anything from the game, whereas others are coming from other Age of Sail MMOs, most notably Pirates of the Burning Sea.

To better introduce these captains to Naval Action and to give them a brief gimps as to how NA measures up to PotBS, I have compiled this somewhat brief collection of the most notable differences between the two games.

 

1. Naval Combat. As this is the centerpiece for Naval Action, it is expected that there will be striking differences between the NA and PotBS combat systems.

• Manual Cannons- In PotBS, cannon accuracy was dictated by percentages. All you needed to do was get the target ship into your cannon's arcs and then mystical algorithms would determine you accuracy percentage based on your speed, distance from target, shot accuracy, and other things. All the player had to do was press the "Fire!" button and the computer would do all the work. Not so in Naval Action. Almost everything is at the control of the player; you aim the guns, set their target distance, and their arc. Unlike in PotBS, you must also adjust for your ship's roll/tilt, meaning that an ill-timed shot could lead to a cannonball hitting the water or sailing over the enemy deck. this also means that should some guns go below the waterline, they will not be able to shoot (mostly on larger vessels). Manual control also means that your view determines accuracy, meaning that something like smoke can block the view of your target (In PotBS, smoke A: dissipated in seconds, unlike in NA, and B: would not have been calculated in the accuracy percentage), This is a much more in-depth system, and while it may seem intimidating at first, it creates a much more interesting and dynamic experience compared to a point-and-shoot system like PotBS. 
• Demasting- In PotBS, demasting was a simple practice; all you had to do was load anti-sail shot and fire until the enemy's sails went down to zero. Again, not so in NA. Here, you have two options: De-Sailing and De-Masting. Desailing is more akin to PotBS Demasting; using chain-shot, you shred the enemies sails until they are useless. However here, you must manually aim at each individual sail to disable it. Once a sail is shredded, continuing to shoot it will not reduce the enemy's sail % further, you will have to target a new sail. This means that if you are too close, hitting a ships higher sails and gallants may not be possible. Next we have De-Masting, in which you literally attack the mast itself instead of the sails. This is very difficult as it requires extreme accuracy in targeting the enemy ship's masts and hitting them with round shot (not chain). While more difficult, this technique can slow down a ship much faster as it takes away a chunk of sail % instead of slowly eating away at it.
• Combat Sailing- In PotBS, sailing was simple: green means fast, red means slow. Turning into and through the wind was simple. Your only control's were the rudder and ship speed. In NA, this is taken a step further with the Manual Sails mechanic, in which you control your ship's masts individually (fore and main mast on 2 masted ships, Fore and Main+mizzen on 3 masted ships). This allows you to utilize the wind for better maneuverability in battle. While it is not necessary to sail, it is vital for maneuvering quickly and efficiently in battle. 
• Ship "Health"- In PotBS, the ship's health was ultimately dictated by how much "integrity" it had. If integrity hit 0, the ship is sunk. Integrity would not be damaged unless the armor was first weakened in a similar fashion. In NA there is no integrity, but there is armor. Armor in NA acts almost identically as it does in PotBS, However after armor is shot away, that's where the similarities end. A ship is sunk in NA one of two ways. Either it goes up in smoke (more on that later), or it sinks due to leaks. Leaks are just as they sound, various breaches in the ship that water is seeping through. The more water you take on, the slower your ship sails, and the lower in the water it gets. Fill up with water and your sunk. More leaks means faster water leakage. Less armor means more likelihood of leaks.
• Ship Collisions- In PotBS, colliding ships was a simple love-bump that at the best would simply have a "thud" sound effect, and at worst might simply knock you off your course. No damage. In Naval Action, ship collisions can be deadly. Collisions can result in large amounts of damage, loss of masts, and leaks. Lots of leaks.
• Boarding Combat- Here's a big one. At the moment, there is no avatar-combat in NA. Boarding is dictated by a sort of Rock-Paper-Scissors mini-game. Crew #, Moral, and preparation all determine what "Attacks" you can use.

2. Open World

• The OS systems for PotBS and NA work pretty much the same: you have your ship on the OS with faster sailing, and enemies you can "tag" to bring into combat instances. There are ports, however unlike PotBS, access is restricted on which you can enter. The biggest difference between the OS systems is the sheer difference in size; the NA open world is massive. what would have taken a couple minutes to travel in PotBS you would be luck to sail in an hour or two (maybe even more!). This means there is a ton to explore, and it gives you a grand feeling of openness that something like the Caribbean should.

5. Port Battles

• I am not well versed in PBs atm, so some assistance here would be appreciated. PBs are relatively new to NA, however the process of creating and fighting them are different. In NA, port conquests are started by purchasing a "Conquest flag, which vary in price depending on which port you are attacking. The PB's themselves atm are rather simplistic; a combat instance with the presence of a few Martello Towers (basically small gun forts). Destroy these and the enemy and you win.

4. Avatars

• This is often a big selling point and/or deal-breaker for many. But at the moment, NA does not have an Avatar system; you cannot walk around a port like you do in PotBS. This is mainly due to the fact that the devs are directing all their resources to the combat and OS systems. And considering the differences I have discussed concerning the combat system, that's understandable. Naval Combat is the focus of NA and that's where they are putting most of their work. At this time, the devs have been on the fence (publicly) as to if Avatars will be developed for this game or a later iteration. 

 

TL;DR:

 

I like to use this analogy of the NA and PotBS: World of Tanks is to WarThunder what PotBS is to Naval Action. PotBS is more fast paced and is more of a quick shoot-em-up style. Little to worry the player other than getting guns on the target. NA on the other hand throws a few more variables at the player, making the experience more interesting and dynamic. Some may not like this increased realism/difficulty, however for others it's just what the doctor ordered.

 

If you have anything to add please comment, all help is appreciated.

 

Cheers, 

[Bart Smith]

Well since  PotBS was good game those days its really hard to compare it with NA specially at current stage of development. Me personally since i switch on NA first time never back to PotBS since...And of course there was a lot good ideas implemented there that i would like see in NA in future or at least similar...But anyway RIP PotBS 

[BoomBox]

thx for the comparison and  differences. I like it. thumbs up from me . 

['Sharpe]

Good summary William. You might want to keep editing it as our features evolve, such as port battles.

As for your analogies between War Thunder and WoT, I have never played either but War Thunder, which you cite as realism, still seems a bit arcade-y to me (maybe I am wrong).

I would almost compare certain elements of the Naval Action sailing physics to Aces High instead. This is high praise. The NA damage system in particular is so exceptionally modeled, and the physics are fairly unforgiving (they could be even more so, but they're close). Reminds me of the awesome physics and damage model of Aces High. The big difference is that NA needs more varied sinking animations based on damage locations.

Edited January 1, 2016 by 'Sharpe

[William the Drake]

As for your analogies between War Thunder and WoT, I have never played either but War Thunder, which you cite as realism, still seems a bit arcade-y to me (maybe I am wrong).

 

When compared to WoT, WarThunder is by far more realistic. WT also allows you to choose between "Arcade," "Realistic," and "Simulator" battles, all with increasing level of control and therefor difficulty/realism. 

[Mirones]

When compared to WoT, WarThunder is by far more realistic. WT also allows you to choose between "Arcade," "Realistic," and "Simulator" battles, all with increasing level of control and therefor difficulty/realism. 

as an long time WT player i can tell you that thay failed at the other 2 besides Arcade. Used to be Historical Battles wich proved to be undoable by their devs. and Simulator isnt an hard compared to the old IL-2 Series.

its a failed project that should remove all other options besides Arcade since they cant keep up to expectations.  game used to have more than 400k online at peak times now you can be happy if you get 30k on weekend.

 

Matchmaking never worked it looks decend on paper but on a closer look its flawed:  +/+ 1.3 BR on an scale from 0-7.3 is alot. its like puting BP against 74's and up.

[JJWolf]

as an long time WT player i can tell you that thay failed at the other 2 besides Arcade. Used to be Historical Battles wich proved to be undoable by their devs. and Simulator isnt an hard compared to the old IL-2 Series.

its a failed project that should remove all other options besides Arcade since they cant keep up to expectations.  game used to have more than 400k online at peak times now you can be happy if you get 30k on weekend.

 

Matchmaking never worked it looks decend on paper but on a closer look its flawed:  +/+ 1.3 BR on an scale from 0-7.3 is alot. its like puting BP against 74's and up.

 

I played WT from back when it first came out of Closed Alpha and it's quite sad where it is now, you are exactly on point. HB's (now Realistic Battles) were the promised land for the game but they unfortunately turned it from a promising flight sim able to cater for all abilities into an arcade Pay to Play. Everything from middle tiers all the way up to the top Jet tiers are unplayable without premium to supplement income and that's just to maintain homoeostasis in HBs, Simulation is both dead and unaffordable to play.

 

On the topic of NA vs PotBS, how is the economy currently compared?

What about society/clan support?

[Manta Scorpion]

Well, it sounds like potbs was very simpel, but indeed, the fight mecanics can not be compared imo, because there was all about skills, it s like comparing Battlefield to WoW, but the other aspects are even and i just hope, they wont do the same fails as potbs did. NA is a new game a new chance and potbs will always be a nice memory. RIP my most loved game

[Renset]

Well done comparison William

 

I hope many of the soon to arrive, with the advent of EA, will see and read this.

 

If they do it will hopefully deter many wails of anguish at it being too hard.

 

I would ask if it could be pinned up so they will not miss it

 

 

That said I love this game and wish the devs all the best with its future