maturin

'Storm Sails' mode could just be Battle Sails or Dead Slow, with Slow possible if you want to push your luck. Apply a multiplier to all the sail forces so you can sail almost as fast as you can in good weather, with less canvas. And more heel for everyone.

The wake was sighted using a sextant and compared to the ship's compass heading. Somehow I doubt a few degrees of navigation error would cause a mass exodus from the game. Let's not be dramatic. The game had the highest player numbers back before there was even a protractor, when 'eyeball' navigation had the highest degree of error.

Damage to masts was always a possibility, but it's hard to code correctly. The devs have mentioned something about losing masts when 'turning sharply', but this is neither here nor there. Wearing ship can result in turning sharply, but is a rather gentle maneuver after all. Bracing the yards (especially the mainyard) flat aback at high speed would be most likely to cause trouble. Other than that, the most dangerous moment would be sailing fast downwind and suddenly turning upwind. The apparent windspeed would rapidly increase (but still wouldn't be much higher than normal for a close-hauled course). In short, punishing players with rig failure is a bit unfair without varying wind strengths.

You don't need to tap the rudder at all. If you want to sail at 95 degrees and you make 10 degrees of leeway (which is a lot, in moderate wind), then you just aim at 85 degrees. That's absolutely it. Leeway is a very simple feature to account for (maybe not to code). If implemented correctly, it is only of great relevance over the course of a long upwind chase, or when maneuvering close to the wind at slow speeds. For example, trying to maneuver your ship under the guns of a fort, or taking up position to fire into a boarding action. Then we should be sliding all over the place. The question here is what kind of range of leeway we are dealing with. Most ships should just make a few degrees when pointing between 90 and 70 degrees to wind, ranging to above 10 degrees of drift for leewardly vessels. And additional leeway anytime sails are 'stalling', like when square riggers try to make 45 degrees to the wind in-game. Whenever the sails aren't producing enough lift, you'll sag to leeward.

Without storm instances or squalls, I don't see the use of capsizing. No one should suddenly capsize just because they set their yards wrong, like a bolt from the blue. If the ship is in danger you will know in advance because the angle of heel will increase way past 10 degrees (which seems to be the max in this game). If the wind is strong enough to capsize a ship, then sailing backwards in the same conditions would also threaten the masts.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop.

Splitting the graph into three graphs for SoLs, Frigates and unrated would help a lot.

If heel is still modest, better to have more sail set for a steadier deck.

... Meanwhile people on the Russian forum are claiming that Battle Sails are great in some situations. But it's a "secret"

I just tried tacking Agamemnon with battle sails and couldn't even get my nose into the wind. I also tried tacking with 9 kts of headway, then switching to battle sails when I was head to wind. It took an eternity to pay off under backed foretopsail. I sure won't be trying that again! I'm thinking that different ships behave very differently now.

Battle Sails would be a lot more useful if it was just a toggle button that could work with any sail setting. It should just be a 'furl main/fore course' button. (Also the lowest staysails on some ships.) That way we could get the lower sails out of the way without sacrificing so much speed in a game that is often about energy control. It's pretty clear that the sailing model can support this level of granular detail, especially with the recent patches. Yard rotation speeds should be a lot better without the main and fore course set.

That's my understanding as well, but IRL there is probably a less strict understanding of sternway. Speculating a bit here. The game has a super-accurate knotmeter, so players use the strict standards of no sternway = no water moving forward from the stern. But for the sailing master, what matters is that the ship has not lost ground during the evolution. When luffing up, the vessel gains a few shiplengths to windward, some of which will probably be lost to leeward or sternward drift as the vessel pays off under the backed foresail. It's hard to imagine a ship actually accelerating while the foresail is backed, after all. So the ship will be making a bit of sternway, but probably at a slow speed and oblique angle that doesn't result in much ground lost to leeward. So here's Charles W. Morgan, coming about amazingly well. Just 2 minutes from 'rise tacks and sheets' (double-tap Z) to 'let go and haul' (double tap Q). The other minute-and-a-half is just her regaining momentum. Given these excellent times, full sailplan and short hull, it's hard to imagine a 74-gun ship doing much better. She seems to 'hang' in on spot for a long time. Naval Action's somewhat squirrel-y sailing model would probably have her making -1.5 kts within a few seconds.* And even -0.3 would offend players as 'sternway', when she is really just turning on her heel. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe someone with experience from Rose or Hermione will show up and say that they really do have a knot of headway while paying off after 'let go and haul.' *Very hard to split the fine hairs and balance the physics model for these little threshold moments, of course. Also, everyone should look at how fast the main yards are braced around at 0:55. That's what happens when it's done right.

Mahogany is a decent wood AFAIK. It's really the tactics that you need to work on to beat AI. Getting in two broadsides for their one, taking their broadside on the bow by staying upwind, etc. Double shot is essential.

Try hunting in the OW.

You started with your bow in the wind, far above the usual starting point for that maneuver. Then you are just using your rudder with sternway. This has always been possible (albeit slower when sternway was less). The problem in the last patch was that you could turn from 90 degrees to 0 degrees with the yards alone, no rudder. I tried this in Agamemnon yesterday and it was not a viable maneuver in combat. It's an entirely different issue.

Let me get this straight. You start with a strawman interpretation of someone else's post. Then you offer up a pathetic non-sequitur link to Wikipedia, imagining that it makes some sort of point. Then you call me a troll, having prepared to shift the goalposts of the argument. Then you whine about me insulting you. Newsflash: When you're a complete ignoramus on a subject, you do not ask for "a source" on one of the central axioms of that subject. There is not "a source". What you are asking for is more commonly known as "an education". I'm not going to educate you. Go read something by C. A. Marchaj or something on the Fastnet disaster and bugger off.

Yeah, nothing like trying to burn down stone forts!

Large ships have better survivability in large seas and high winds. Period. Smaller vessels are forced to halt their progress and lie to far sooner than larger ships are. Some three deckers compromised stability for more firepower, but over the course of the 19th Century, ships got larger and safer. Every oceangoing ship needed to be ready to face hurricane-force winds at any time, on any passage. I'm not going to waste my time bickering about basic facts with someone who didn't even dip their toes in a duck pond until they bought a sailing game. This dynamic is part of Sailing 101 and is observable even to high schoolers racing their dinghys.

Do you know what you are talking about? And would you say that automobiles are suited for driving on tarmac? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year Prince de Neufchatel has low freeboard, a lot of guns and a huge rig, all sitting on top of a rather skimpy displacement. You'd be much better off sailing the cutter through a storm. And of course, Prince was taken by a lumbering ship of the line because she couldn't sail fast in those conditions.

Yeah, and you're genuflecting to a pumpkin.

Yeah, I was just noticing that yard and sailhandling speeds are very fast with just 30-50 men. Or even less.

Sure you can, if they don't lower theirs. But stern camping is mostly what I was referencing in my post anyways. Except also in NAL where you need the quick kill through the hull. New guys don't have Bellonas. Do I really need to waste my breath pointing this out? THINK OF THE CHILDREN is becoming more and more of a mindless mantra with each new patch. Yes, you can't really rotate in place anymore. At least in terms of tacking. It is still possible, but uselessly slooooow. Acceleration is still generous enough that you are always better building up speed now. However, it does seem like there's a lot less difference between a good tack and a bad tack.

War Thunder: - Tank driver - Pilot What a terrible, unpopular game that must be. This isn't meant to be EVE.

Let us know what you think 150 battles from now. Sometimes naval engagements were over in a few well-aimed broadsides. On the other hand, in-game battles between a few lineships often run out the clock. Having a human captain on both sides makes a big difference.

The only result of this complicated new feature would be a very slight speed reduction on autoskipper (which would have to be exhaustively tested for all ships anytime a patch changes something), plus a whole barrel of UI confusion. Better just to pretend that the master is making small rudder adjustments and trimming the jibs/spanker. Yeah, maybe lower sail settings should have a multiplier to rudder effectiveness and sail side force, just so it's a viable option. As it stands, I NEVER go less than 100%, unless I am hounding a damaged enemy who is completely in my power.