Bramborough

No strong (or even mild, really) opinion on it. I'm just curious as to the reason for removing VM's. Were they being abused somehow? If so, thus far I've had a hard time imagining the scenario.

Thanks for replies. Logged in last night to PvE server; figured I'd putz around in there first to relearn the basics (yeah, I'd completely forgotten how to do manual sails lol). Didn't have to make a new account; just fired right up without even a password. And still a member of the same (long-defunct) clan. As expected, starting from zero. No big deal. Lol, that final exam is pretty hard. (gotta say, I don't remember ships being so frail years ago...Surprise was a bit of a glass cannon even then, but I don't remember it being like THIS. It's also immediately clear that de-masting must be the current flavor-of-the-month OP tactic). On log-in, I've got a redeemable 5th-rate, "Pandora". I assume it's probably a wipe-associated gift ship for prior players. The question: is it redeemable on both servers or just one? If answer is "just one", is it a decent ship worth keeping for the PvP server?

Well alright, I saw it bigger, but I saw it lower too. I'll probably give it a go sometime this week. What the heck, I already have the game on steam anyway, not like it's going to cost anything. I did see in a video that "full release" (which apparently was two years later than I thought it was) did feature a hard wipe of all previous XP/stuff/etc. So guess I'll be in the Basic Cutter, lol.

That's a pretty helpful map link, thank you. Wow, Russians are pretty widespread. What's the player level like on War? In summer 2016, 1000+ at a time was common on PvP1, always lots going on. By end of year, had dwindled to the point where 200-ish online at once was peak on a good day.

Put 2200+ hours into this game about 4 years ago, when it was still beta or EA or whatever the heck they called it. Mostly on what was then called PvP 1 server. Loved the game...there was a bit of burnout, but main reason stopped playing was just dropping playerbase...the server essentially depopulated as coming "full release" approached. I just sidetracked into other games and for whatever reason never came back. Now am somewhat interested in having a look...but only if there's enough players. What's the server situation? Multiple PvP and PvE? Just one of each? Which sees highest player count and activity level? I was never much of a small-scale PvP player, but really enjoyed the large realm-vs-realm Port Battles (as they were called at the time, and apparently now that has "come back", lol?). My gameplay pattern was periods of pretty intensive campaigning with the nation (PvP1 Brit) in PBs, alternating with kinda calm trading/crafting "carebear" stuff, helping clan and nation prepare for the next tilt with Spain or Danmark/Norge or whoever. Does that kind of gameplay still go on with today's Naval Action? I seem to remember that pre-release players like me had to create a new account after release, but if using same player name and from same steam account, we'd still get our pre-existing ships in some form as redeemables. The main concern among players at time was what would happen with crafting level; supposedly would be retained. Is any of that still the case 4 years later? Or would I be really starting from scratch? Obviously tons has to have changed over four years...would be a learning curve, no big deal. But what do I need to know about creating new account, which server to choose, etc? I don't want to mess up starting out of the gate.

I rather enjoy the big "SoL mosh pit" battles, and wouldn't want to see them reduced. Partly just because I like them, but also partly because there were quite a few such big battles during the time period; de-emphasizing them would seem historically false to me. That said, it's not as if smaller-scale engagements by frigates simply ended during the Napoleonic Wars. I think it would be great to include a couple in the late-game chapters to break up the monotony a bit. Give us a good reason to keep a couple 5th-rates in the fleet instead of selling them off or burning them up as fireships. Similarly, I've noticed that the land battles taper off toward the end. I know "Audacity" has recently been added; hopefully there's a few more coming in the future as well. I've only played the Brit campaign; nearing its end. Haven't played the US yet.

Agreed, the value of AoS skirms isn't in combat power like their UGCW counterparts using scoped rifles. Ostensibly, one might expect the Baker and Ferguson rifles to have a longer range than smoothbores, but either that's just false or it's not implemented yet in EA state of the game. Your question about dedicated vs detached is a very good one. I guess I've been just assuming that detached skirmishers have the same stats as their parent unit as far as Spotting & Stealth...but that might well be an unfounded assumption. They do have the better Speed, so maybe they take on higher values in the other stats as well. I don't know how to look up their stat values in game, but could be tested during a battle with a dedicated and detached skirm side-by-side, moving them back and forth to see how far away they spot known stationary enemies (and also how far away they lose their "hidden" icon). That aside, the detached skirms are still very small and shatter-prone...that alone may still earn dedicated skirms a slot in a decent-sized land force. Pretty expensive third-tier tech to research, though, for just one unit.

I played around with this a bit last night. This is how much it cost me to recruit a 150-man unit from fresh recruits using Trade 22 muskets (which I had plenty in stock, so weapon costs were not a factor). Fusiliers 2729 Marines 3399 (25% higher than Fusiliers) Grenadiers 4485 (64% higher than Fusi's) Skirmishers 4511(65% higher) This was on Easy difficulty, and I did have several points in the crew-recruit-cost Career Point category. So actual numbers might vary, but I would expect that those percentages probably remain pretty constant. So, are Grenadiers better than Fusiliers? Objectively, of course they are. But are they 60+% better, i.e., are they "worth it"? That's a more subjective question which will vary from player to player with different styles. (Grenadier main advantage over Fusiliers/Marines are in Melee and Speed. Morale & Stamina are same as Marines, only slightly higher than Fusiliers. All three unit types share same values in Spotting Stealth Accuracy). So a player who likes to use a lot of maneuver, charging, and close combat, yeah, Grenadiers are probably well worth the investment. A more methodical style which relies on firepower in a tactically-defensive line-of-battle style can probably do just as well - or least well enough - with cheaper Fusiliers. Worth noting: the price difference pertains only to the initial hire (which I assume includes replenishing battle losses, although I didn't specifically test that aspect). AFAICT, all personnel, regardless of sailors, land unit types, skilled veterans or fresh rookies, etc...all cost a flat 3 per man in maintenance. So a Grenadier unit doesn't cost more than Fusiliers in ongoing wages. With that in mind, yeah, I'll probably still keep using Grenadiers myself, at least a unit or two to have a good charge/melee option available if the fancy strikes me, lol. (A bit off the main topic, I was mildly surprised to see that Skirmishers are roughly the same cost as Grenadiers, not significantly higher. Skirms now strike me as a good investment, especially for a more static style that includes artillery. Spotting Stealth and Speed values much higher than the other three types, and a little bit higher in Stamina/Morale, at basically a very similar per-man cost to Grenadiers...and as primarily arty spotters/recon, you probably wouldn't want/need as big a unit for combat purposes. I haven't used Skirms yet, but will probably give them a try pretty soon...seems like they might be almost as OP as UGCW skirms, at least if paired with decent-ranged artillery).

Right around that stage of the Brit campaign, it's a transition from frigate-heavy gameplay to Ship-of-the-Line-dominated. There's a couple of battles like this; the enemy has a lot more SoL firepower than you do. Even on Easy. I got through it with fireships. Use them to take out a few ships and then overman your few SoLs for a boarding advantage and go for some quick enemy SoL captures rather than sinkings (captures count too). You don't really have to fully "win" these battles, as they have victory conditions like "Eliminate X enemy ships" rather than "Eliminate enemy fleet". You might be in a desperate situation with no hope of overcoming the entire enemy force if you had to fight it out til sunset...but you don't have to. Take those captures and punch out for the victory...and a few more SoLs which hopefully you've got the rep and money to add to your fleet for the next fight. Pretty soon after St Vincent, the campaign gradually opens up a bit more on SoLs. You'll get some a few gift 1st and 2nd rates. There will be more 3rd rate Ardents in the Admiralty shop. Some newspaper events lead to cheaper costs. And of course, the more enemy SoLs, the more available to capture and convert (the +Rep category for Career Points becomes quite valuable here). By the time you get to battles like Camperdown and Copenhagen, you should be going in with plenty of SoL parity to get the job done.

Is "No Adaptation" basically an extra level of difficulty, kinda like "Super Easy"? Or is it independent, so that it would be possible to play, say, Hard but also No Adapt? I have not opted into the Beta, but this seems to have been implemented into the main version already (am on 0.9.7 rev.35547). I see the "No Adaptation" option in a campaign start. I've also been seeing the regular "Follow Orders" default and an increased-rewards option available on sea battles (but not land battles). I have not, however, seen a no-adaptation option on individual battles, but I assume that's because that particular campaign started before the update in question.

Marines vs Fusiliers: Slightly higher Morale & Stamina, slightly worse Melee (which seems kinda weird). Same values in Spotting, Stealth, Accuracy, and Speed. Marines also cost about 600 more than Fusiliers for raising a 150-man unit from fresh recruits. TBH, I'm ambivalent that Marines are really worth the tech cost/reputation to research. For that matter, I'm not sure even Grenadiers are, either. Units ramp up pretty quick to 2 stars with good skills even with average officers; I'm kinda thinking that just sticking with Fusiliers is viable and more cost-effective. (Brit campaign of course. I know the American troop composition is different but am not familiar with it yet).

Am in late Brit campaign, the point where the bills start stacking up with all those SoLs. Last night looked closer to understand better what exactly all the costs are. Learned a few things which may be helpful: Ship Costs. Class specific, of course, but range from roughly 1200 for a 5th-rate up to 3500 for a 1st-rate. Ardent-class 3rd-rate (most numerous SoL) about 2100, while Bellona runs just below 2500. Merchant troopships run from about 500 for the small 2-slot to 1300 for the large one. (these are rounded ballpark numbers, not exact to the penny). Trophy ships cost half-price. For example, an Ardent which normally costs 2100 will cost 1050 as a trophy. Guns, weapons, & officers do not affect a ship's maintenance cost (nor do they affect the ship's sell price in shop, either). An "empty" ship costs just as much as a fully manned/equipped one. With one exception... Upgrades DO increase a ship's maintenance costs. So, unlike weapons and officers, with an upgrade there's not only the initial buy (which is usually pretty hefty in itself), but an ongoing maintenance cost as well. And it's not negligible...one Lvl I upgrade can add hundreds of dollars in upkeep cost on a SoL. (note, upgrades increase maintenance cost, but they do NOT increase a ship's sell price in Admiralty shop. So when selling a ship, do not forget to remove (most) upgrades beforehand; most will give a partial refund, but a few actually cost to remove). Crew AND Reserves cost 3 per man. So there's no cost savings in moving crew from active to reserve. Land troops count for this as well. As far as I can tell, there's no difference between highly-skilled veterans and fresh rookies (as far as maintenance costs go). Note also, there's no way to outright dismiss hired sailors/soldiers, whether active or reserve. Once hired, you're committed to paying that 3x wage until he becomes a battle casualty. So if you're trying to reduce your overall manning levels to cut costs...well, make your next fight a reckless bloodbath, lol. Captives cost 1 per man. Usually not a big budget item, but they DO cost, and makes it a little annoying that you cannot ransom/exchange them immediately after capture but have to wait for the game to take them off your hands. ------------- All the above has made me rethink some of my gameplay practices/habits. I already wasn't being overly lavish in ship upgrades, but likely to become even more frugal with them. Likewise, I hadn't been in the habit of keeping a lot of Trophy ships hanging around a long time as a "SoL reserve", but now will probably cut that out entirely; either convert or sell to Admiralty NOW, not later. Similar thing with keeping a few smaller ships around for potential future fireships; nope, burn or sell now. Building and maintaining a large land force on several troopships AND simultaneously keeping all ship crews fully or over-manned is probably just too exorbitant. Since they share the same Reserve pool, it's probably better to shift manpower back and forth between ship crews and land units depending on the fight at hand. For this reason, those three crew-related career-point categories have suddenly skyrocketed in value from my perspective. I had been in the habit of modestly overmanning ships. Not to max, but enough that the ship could take some battle casualties, do a boarding, and leave a prize crew on a captured ship, and still not go too far below optimum. This is one practice I'll probably actually continue...but at least now I'm more aware of the costs in doing so. I may not do it with every warship, though...will probably specialize the ships a bit more, making more of a distinction between overmanned "boarders" and optimum-manned "shooters". A bit long-winded, but hopefully some of this is helpful to some folks.

Another thing I've wondered is how artillery is treated in scaling. Star quality aside, is a 24-gun battery seen simply as a 600-man unit, or equivalent to a 2500-man brigade?

I'm sure Burnside would've been ecstatic to obtain such a result. :-)

Really liked your usage of detached skirms in Perryville. The more I watch of your videos here, the more I see that our playstyles are quite similar in many ways.