DeRuyter

Thanks for your response Skully. So to be clear you are sailing up to a battle and you can only join it for a limited window - as the engagement circle passes over your ship? Is the choice of engagement distance only for the initial participants - the tagger and taggee (and their groups)?

The recent concern over the timer is not new. Here is the thread discussing the reduction of the timer from 10 minutes to 5 minutes: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/7652-battles-now-remain-open-for-only-5-minutes/page-2?hl=battle There are multiple other threads on the "battle entry timer" but the issue remains the same - how do you deal with the OW time dilation vs. the battle instance. So my question is does your expanding battle circle resolve this problem? If not your goal is not being met IMO. There is a suggestion in the above thread to do away with the timer but to have ships spawn a distance away from the battle based on their arrival time from the OW. Is this captured by your expanding circle?

IMO the problem is that fireships have been implemented by a Module which does not really account for how fireships were actually used. Should be a cratfable commsuable to turn a regular ship into a fire ship for example. Even if the Fireship Fitting module remains it should have penalties such as: - remove guns. - reduce crew to minimum to sail ship. - no survival or putting out fire once lit. -fireship captain should be able to set fire with a timer or someone suggested make it like boarding prep. Now there is no worries about green v green to set the fireship alight.

A crew member with multiple splinter wounds could be just as combat ineffective as a dead one cut in two by a ball, just sayn'

Even better go back and see if you can book a sail on her! I sailed on Lnyx in Baltimore for an event and they put up every scrap of canvas including the fisherman sail! very fast and handy ship. Very fun sail. Got to fire the 6 lb carronade as well.

I don't disagree that losing an entire mast was devastating and often a ship may just strike once that occurred - but as you note we don't have a crew morale system in the game. Where we disagree is on the dismasting tactic in general. My point is that dismasting was not the main tactic used to capture ships. In other words rigging was hit and disabled, but it wasn't by specifically aiming at the masts to dismast a ship entirely, ships for the most part lost parts of masts and the ability to handle the sails and maneuver it was rarer to have the unicorn effect we have in game. Maybe it is just that the effect of cutting the standing rigging is not modeled in the game or that you can tack just as well with 100% sails as you can with 70% sails. The better training comes into play with the rate of fire and to a lesser extent accuracy - they didn't fire low because they were better trained. The British fired on the down roll to hit the hull for the damage effects. The French on the up roll which resulted in hits to the rigging but also lot of misses and it left the British gun crews and cannon relatively undamaged. In a close range fight both ships would likely have sustained a lot of damage to the rigging but the French ship struck because of crew casualties, hull damage and dismounted guns. I just don't want people to have the idea that ships IRL deliberately sniped down masts from 1000m or even 500m away. That an issue with both round shot and chain. I agree that the adjustment was a double buff to chain - accuracy and damage. One other point about chain not in game is that not all ships carried it in large quantities the British in particular. IMO - chain should be very inaccurate at ranges over 200-300m.

Actually it wasn't. The French tactic was to aim high to disable rigging. British tactic was to aim for the hull to disable guns and crew. Which one do you suppose won the day most of the time? I agree that chain is now op - because it is too accurate at longer ranges. Chain should do damage to sails and more importantly standing and running rigging at closer range reducing a ships mobility and potentially causing a mast to fall due to loss of standing rigging supporting it.

+1 You know I think in all the posts in thread that is the first time this came up. Now if everyone complaining about sailing back to port, or more accurately "potentially" sailing back to port to replenish crew would just stop and think about how many times they have sailed back to port because it is cheaper to repair their damaged ship there, then crew replacement wouldn't be an issue.

Agreed - when you are talking about large warships or a fight between similar sized ships. A ship of the line or large frigate should be able to sink a small trade brig or schooner like the Lynx in one broadside. I think they can find a balance that is fun and reasonably accurate.

See admin answer above ^^

For your reference here is detailed thread about this topic: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/380-musketmen-sharpshooters-swivel-guns/page-7?hl=musket#entry182936 Keep in mind that effective range for musketry, especially on a moving platform is about 75m.

You have just described WoT, WT, and WoWS.

Not lunacy very historically accurate. Sailing ships in the era did not deliberately ram each other with intent to sink the other ship. You are thinking of galley warfare that is before our time line. Ships in this time period did not attach rams to their bows either. I hope you don't think that Assassin's Creed bares more than a passing resemblance to naval warfare in the age of sail

Looking forward to testing this system. A couple of comments: How will the surrender mechanic work for the crew on the surrendered ship? Surrender should be a valid option to save crew as it was historically. So if you surrender do you lose the ship but keep the crew (and officers)? Seems to me that this adds an element of player controlled morale into the game. Now you have an incentive to save crew (and officers) instead of letting your ship burn and explode for example. I like the idea of having to put a prize crew on a captured ship to sail it back to port. Would we still have the option to "send to admiralty" and just get prize money without having to sail the ship back to port? Might be a good option versus just add to fleet or sink. Definitely need to have a casualty recovery system after the battle so you really only lose the KIA crew. Surgeon officer comes into play here. That way you may be able to continue cruising without having to return to port after every battle.

Actually that was the USS Chesapeake which was the same size as the HMS Shannon - both were 38 gun frigates with 18lb main battery. More like 2 Tricomalees fighting each other in game. The Halifax squadron pursuing the USS Constitution also contained a 64 gun SOL in addition to the 4 frigates 2x 38 gun, 36 gun and a 32 gun) and some unrated ships. In game this would roughly translate to an Ingermanland plus 2 Trincs, a Frigate and a Belle Poule. This would be interesting but I would suggest that the Connie would lose this fight.

+1 - And they normally had much less crew for the size of ship. Crew that were not usually well trained in gunnery and boarding combat.

Ramming with bow generally perpendicular at high speed: Ramming ship: Damage to bow structure leaks incl below waterline possible loss of mast/rigging damage + rigging shock Target ship: Side damage If armor mostly down also module damage? above waterline leaks Ship size, speed and angle of attack make a big difference to damage. Cutter position in front of Victory should be simply run over by the much large ship or pushed away with little damage to much larger ship. Glancing blows should not result in much damage at all.

I agree with what you are saying however the sister ships were not built on the same hull. United States and Constitution were originally laid down as 74 gun ships and those scantlings remained. AFAIK President was laid down after the 74 gun SOL idea was abandoned. Chesapeake was designed as a 38 gun 18 lber frigate from the outset and was effectively not a 44 gun class ship. She was defeated by a ship of equal size for the reasons you pointed out. Constitution was popular well before the preservation efforts, certainly with the officers who sailed on her. Unfortunately we have no historical precedent for a 1v1 on equal terms with the US 44 gun class, just the data from the construction and broadside wgt, etc. President would have fought Endymion were it not for the chasing squadron. Constitution v Leopard another what if. Maybe we can eventually recreate those what if duels in NA. Historically President was ganked of course! Lastly -one point people are missing about Ingermanland - she still carried the old sprit tops'l rig with no jibs and stays' and high stern. So she should not be very maneuverable in particular when tacking.

Boarding combat and melee was not actually all that common. What admin pointed out was the line fighting strategy of sailing parallel to the enemy line often at a fair distance away and just shooting at the opposite ship. What changed as you noted was the aggressive breaking of the enemy line and focusing on a section at a time with close range gunnery including musketry. Ships were often boarded after most of the resistance had been broken and officers killed, etc. If ships of the line are very hard to sink as IRL we need a morale system (IMO).

IRL specific sailors were detailed as boarders and led by naval officers not necessarily marines. Marines were also held back to provide covering musket fire. So I am not sure that higher marines casualties was a given in a boarding action. From a game play perspective I can see your point though.

"Ports will stop buying resources if NPC stock exceeds 25000 - further changes to economy will be done in the next patch" If I am reading that correctly they are only putting a cap on the compass wood gold rush not eliminating selling to NPC completely. Big thumbs up for eliminating TP to capitol with your precious load of compass wood. Now you'll have some risk for your big gold rewards.....

Currently in dry dock undergoing major refitting and restoration work. https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/restoration/

I bought that pen last time I visited the ship in 2014. Several of the books I have on the Constitution are good but perhaps too detailed for your friend. One that I got at the museum is "Men of Iron" which is about the crew. Another is "Old Ironsides" by Thomas Gillmer which is 50% history and 50% about the bicentennial reconstruction. I got that one before going to see her sail in 1997. For a more general history Roosevelt's Naval War of 1812 is good. For fiction I might recommend Hornblower over Aubrey/Maturin as it is better for someone new to age of sail reading. Although now there is a slew of age of sail novels and series on kindle. Any interest in Lake Erie and Niagara? "A Signal Victory" is a good read.

Now that is true Pirate game play!!

Unfortunately this works both ways. It is easier to jump out of port and sail to someone's aid but at the same time it is also easier to exploit sitting invisible in port/ battle screen, etc and jump into battle/gank started by a bait ship. Look at it this way - on the open ocean the only ship able to aid a distress call was one that happened to sailing nearby and see your sails on the horizon. That is what the 2 minute timer represents. You may need to adjust your tactics - one can certainly have a large battle on the open seas the fleet will just have to sail closer together - in formation it you will just like fleets in the time period. Frigates can scout ahead to spot the enemy fleet. If you sail independently as a pirate or privateer looking for traders you can chase one while scanning the horizon for enemy warships without fear that a fleet will be joining the battle from a port 200 miles away. IMO the timer promotes a type of game play that you may not like, but is more representative of naval warfare of the age of sail.