Henry d'Esterre Darby

This isn't POTBS, they're generally not going to create a custom gank machine for you. A Xebec is going to have its historical benefits and detriments.

If I'm going to rake the enemy's stern, I'm not going to do it with one or two guns held in reserve. I'll use a full set of guns. Shooting away the rudder, from the gameplay vids I've seen, is going to take more then a gun or two.

I think you meant to say "caught in irons". . When you miss stays, you're "in irons" until you can encourage the bow to fall back off far enough to resume your original tack close hauled.

Women serving as crew - OK. Not that it really happened all that much in military ships I don't think, but hey, whatever. Women serving as crew in bikinis - NOT OK. Not at all historical, not respectful, and not needed.

They had a pretty good naval presence and some very nice ships, I'm hopeful they'll be included!

If you're going to sail an older square rigger, you're going to have to get used to the idea that it flat out can't point as high as a sloop. There should be a level of historical difficulty in tacking in a square rigger (missing stays if there is not enough speed to maintain steerage and get the bow far enough over) as compared to a sloop, schooner, cutter, or what have you. I do not like the idea that ships that had no real ability to point high into the wind would be able to do so and maintain steerage-way in the game. That takes a large chunk out of what little advantages the fore-aft rigged ships have when they encounter a larger, heavier ship, and also removes the advantages those ships have in conveying goods or whatnot to a destination that is upwind. It also removes some of the necessary skill required to get into and out of certain places when the wind lays just so, the need to get enough distance windward to ensure you have the room to get around an obstacle, etc. If you can just point right up into the wind like a fore and aft rigger (even if slower), then what's the point of even sailing the smaller vessels?

I have no direct source of hard numbers. This is all theory, common sense, and what I've personally witnessed over the years I've worked in the software business. There is no hard, set number that can be applied across the entire gaming industry - it will differ based on the particular audience for a game/genre. A twitch FPS that caters to young folks is far more likely to require a higher level of hardware than a strategy game that caters to older folks. Yes, older folks are far more capable (in the main) than the younger ones to have the means to upgrade their rig, but they may lack the urge to actually do so to play. Similarly, the younger folks may have less means with which to upgrade, but they're more likely to be willing to move heaven and earth to grab some new hardware to play a game they like. There is a crossover point between overall hardware price/age, and maximizing your player pool amongst likely players. Any gaming company worth their salt will analyze their users' machines capabilities, estimate how many can/will upgrade to keep playing (or the minimum level they can shoot for and still ensure a majority of their target audience can run it), and then make the determination as to how many it is acceptable to lose if they make a particular development choice.

Because an analysis of the market may show that the best ROI curve occurs when you don't require bleeding edge hardware. Like anything else, it has to be a business decision with an eye towards profitability.

Hear hear! Differing leeway abilities amongst different ships is an extremely important factor in this era!

In most cases, at least from the standpoint of a Naval ship, there were men dedicated to sail handling during battle, as well as members of the gun crews also designated as such.

This. Heeling is an immediate function of the wind's action upon the sails, (and in fact is more dependent on some sails versus others) not a function of speed.

I'd like to see that as well. From what I've read, they have an auto-master feature that trims sails for you if you don't want to be arsed with it, but agreed - if you take the time to learn to manage it yourself, there should be a noticeable advantage in a self-mastered ship.

Not thinking ideas through leads to games that nobody wants to play. A properly vetted feature requires both white-hat and black-hat thinking. "I'm sure they can come up with" statements are well and good, but fully exploring defects in an idea is what allows that idea to mature fully into a useful feature, or be discarded as unworkable. A few dozen forumers are a useful way to review an idea to prevent an exploit in a potential feature. How would you do this? I'm still not even sure how a majority of members would make a decision that controls the "economy". Can you please take a moment to fully think through and explain what you're asking for so that we can get a good grasp of your thought?

A most sincere welcome from a WoT, WoWp, and WoWs testing veteran to Crimson Blade. Fair winds and following seas to y'all!

It's all about your attitude. You can't approach it from a "if I lose because something glitches I'm going to be SO MAD" approach, but rather from the joy of seeing the product before it's completely polished and finished, and being able to participate in the process of making it that much better. Your progress will (usually) be wiped before release anyways, so it's a great time to play around with strategies and ships that you may not even be considering at release and to lose badly without any long-term repercussions. In short, keep it light and productive and have fun while helping the devs make a better game.

Welcome! As mentioned, lots of folks on the forums can answer any sailing questions you might have.

Except bounties are most often claimed by the offendor's alt or a guild mate of the offender. How does that help anything?

@blackwake It was in PotBS, but it wasn't very well implemented.

At the same time, you don't want to make it such an advantage to having a crew that to sail without would be hopeless. Regardless, I'd rather have another ship with me (or three or four or ten) than 5 people helping to crew my boat.

Is dying the sails to that degree a modern invention though?

And the bigger question - why would I want an extra player on my ship, when he/she could be crewing a ship of their own and adding so much more to our combined combat power?

In reality, the reinforcement around the area the cannon as well as the overall displacement which was affected by the resting weight of the cannon themselves dictated the ability to equip and operate a particular cannon. The platform, and bolts which maintained the lines that prevented the cannon from propelling itself right across the deck were only designed to take so much punishment - a cannon that was too powerful for the way the ship was built would quickly start to tear the ship apart. In general, ships were designed for a particular weight of throw, and while sometimes that weight could be modified upwards a bit, my general feeling is that upgunning a ship was generally not done without a major in-port refit. One must also take into account the amount of space dedicated to operating the gun - the larger calibers are longer, wider, and heavier. There must be enough space for an entire crew of men to operate the gun safely. When you're dealing with a whole row of guns, each of which has a gunport cut at just the right width for the guns to operate, changing how many or their overall size is not easily done. While one might have a choice between a long-12 or a 26lb carronade, you shouldn't find the option in the game to go from, say a long-12 to a long-24.

Indeed, forums are usually mature and nice and friendly.....right up until Open Beta and Release, when they turn into a hive of scum and villains.

Wouldn't count on that.