Dismasted

[Hornblower V]

Dismasted ships should not be able to turn at all!  They should turn beam on the wind and drift.  It is not realistic fro them to be able to maneuver still.  Ships with only a spritsail should only be able to sail away from the wind!   Please fix these inaccurate physics.  I still feel dismasted ships should occasionally just surrender...would be more historically accurate.

 

Great game!

Hornblower

Edited April 9, 2016 by Hornblower V

[Dius]

I cant say I agree with anything you suggested my friend.

 

Historical accuracy sometimes has to give way to enjoyable game play.

[Galileus]

It's a case of realism vs playability. For the demasted player that little bit of speed and maneuverability left makes a huge difference - if not for his abilities, then at least for how he feels.

[AKPyrate]

Dismasted ships should not be able to run at all!  They should turn beam on the wind and drift.  It is not realistic fro them to be able to maneuver still.  Ships with only a spritsail should only be able to sail away from the wind!   Please fix these inaccurate physics.  I still feel dismasted ships should occasionally just surrender...would be more historically accurate.

 

Great game!

Hornblower

 

There would potentially be ways for a ship to still maneuver slightly without masts.  As the wind will still blow the hull, if the bow is pointed relatively downwind, then it might be possible with careful steering to still maintain some steerage way and prevent going beam-to the seas (usually it's the waves, not the wind that will dictate the direction a hull lays).  Additionally, if the water is shallow enough, anchoring with a spring on the anchor can allow you to maintain position and still rotate the ship.  As we don't have anchoring in this game, allowing some turning when dismasted could be seen as approximating this maneuver.  If the water's too deep to anchor, then a sea anchor or series of sea anchors could be used to help direct the swing of the vessel.  Location of attaching the sea anchor, as well as the ability to use a spring on it can have much the same effect.  Now it wouldn't be quite as effective as the game allows, but it is a game and not a complete simulation.  Additionally, a dismasted vessel would not instantly strike her colors.  At Trafalgar, HMS Belleisle was completely dismasted, but kept her colors flying and was eventually towed to port.  HMS Java was completely dismasted, but until Constitution came back and assumed a position to continuously rake her she didn't strike.  Even aground, some vessels would fight on.  So, instant surrender? No thanks.

[Hornblower V]

I must say that with all the grinding it takes to rank up, if I have to beat my enemy to a pulp every time before I board at least the ship should basically hold still. Sea anchors would do very little.  Boats towing would do more but then we could sink them.  With these above exceptions, dismasted ships generally would surrender to avoid needless bloodshed.  Tired of the grind and a battle taking above an hour...

[Hornblower V]

Not instant surrender and not everytime...  Perhaps if the crew morale gets  to a low point or if you are able to rake the ship a certain number of times after dismasting?

[Dius]

Tired of the grind and a battle taking above an hour...

 

I can understand the grind, and it will get better with more PvE content.

 

As for the battles taking over an hour. This is a good thing, a lot can happen in an hour especially in a large scale PvP fight. 

[DazednConfused]

Cant say im a fan of the current meta to de-mast opponents before closing in - doesnt bring much skill into the game.

 

A wipe or two ago there was a good balance of mast and hull hp but masts have become a little too weak since the new hull values were added - hence everyone is using this strat. 

 

May bring it up in the testers forum.

[Sureshot]

Demasting does take skill, just some don't understand how to do it. It adds another fighting style. Without demasting, it would make the game boring. Demasting was made super hard in the wacky patch and it was brought back because all that was left was endless hull mashing.

[DazednConfused]

Im not saying take demasting away - far from it (old school demaster talking here). 

 

Im saying if demasting has become the dominating strategy it means it may be a BIT to easy.

[Hornblower V]

I can understand the grind, and it will get better with more PvE content.

 

As for the battles taking over an hour. This is a good thing, a lot can happen in an hour especially in a large scale PvP fight. 

I don't have the time to devote most days to missions lasting above an hour if I want to capture a ship.  I can sink it much faster...

 

What kind of PVE content?

[Blackjack Morgan]

Well I run into an awful lot of people sailing around in tanked up big, slow, fat ships that are pretty much sitting ducks and that's the price they pay for not being able to maneuver.....just alot easier to immobilize them fully then it is to play into their strengths. 

[Neptune]

Hull goes down faster than sails if you focus hull. Demasting is used more because it's easier when you gank someone, they can't run. To be honest, most players run and that is why demasting is used more than shooting hull. Players don't want to get hull down to 20% then have to start chasing enemy and having to demast them anyway.

As for demasting far away, people usually do this in a gank, they aren't going to get close and just get murderd. If that is their strategy in fair PvP, put longs on and shoot back or run and disengage.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Acadian44

[AKPyrate]

I must say that with all the grinding it takes to rank up, if I have to beat my enemy to a pulp every time before I board at least the ship should basically hold still. Sea anchors would do very little.  Boats towing would do more but then we could sink them.  With these above exceptions, dismasted ships generally would surrender to avoid needless bloodshed.  Tired of the grind and a battle taking above an hour...

 

Those were just two exceptions.  I can go on.

 

Battle of 1st June: Marlborough and Impetueux became entangled and Impetueux nearly struck her colors before Mucius collided with both vessels through the smoke.  The three ships exchanged fire, with Marlborough and Impetueux both loosing all three of their masts and all three vessels taking heavy casualties.  After many several of battle, the acting captain of Marlborough called for assistance from frigates in reserve, which towed Marlborough out of the line of battle while Mucius was able to free herself.  Impetueux was forced to surrender.  When the heat of the main battle was over, the British were left with 11 and the French with 12 more or less dismasted ships.  None of the French ships at this time had struck their colors, or if they had the colors had been rehoisted.  They were trying to escape under what little canvas they could hoist on a stump of a mast or with sprits'l and continued to fire at any British ship that came within range.  It was not until a few hours later that 6 other dismasted French vessels were secured, and even then some of those vessels fired at the British ships that came to secure them.

 

Then there was HMS Guerriere which fought after losing the mizzen and having the bowsprit entangled in Constitution's rigging.  After the two ships were disentangled, both the fore and mainmasts of Guerriere came down and Constitution stood off for a bit to repair damage.  Guerriere still attempted to sail his vessel with some sails set on the bow sprit, but it was too damaged and broke.  When Constitution came back, she was ready to renew the action and it was a single shot fired away from Constitution that was taken for a signal of surrender, but even then Constitution did not risk closing to confirm and instead sent a boat with a Lieutenant on board to ask if they had struck.

 

I also find it ironic that you want boats to surrender because it would be more 'historically accurate' while at the same time complaining about battles lasting only one hour.  So you want shorter battles, okay I understand as my time is limited as well.  However, things are already sped up greatly.  At Trafalgar, Nelson gave the order to prepare for battle at 6am, at 11:45am he sent his famous signal, and Nelson died around the end of the battle at about 4:30pm.  A fleet action is different, you might argue.  Okay then, how about a swift frigate battle?  Constitution sighted Java at 9am, the vessels hoisted signals to try and identify each other at 11:30am, at 12:30pm the two vessels hoisted their colors, they jockeyed for position until about 2pm, The battle ensued in earnest until Java struck at about 5:50pm.

[Galileus]

I don't have the time to devote most days to missions lasting above an hour if I want to capture a ship.

 

Then that's a problem with your technique. Depending on luck, I can cap a ship in 15-20 minutes timeframe.

 

If you complain about ships not standing still after completely demasting them - I'm guessing you're trying to decrew them afterwards - no wonder you waste time. Open up the stern, rake-rake-rake, then demast, cap - done. You don't need to take more than one mast to bring them to speeds slow enough, and once you have enough of a handle on AI you don't even need to demast them at all.

[Laik]

Cant say im a fan of the current meta to de-mast opponents before closing in - doesnt bring much skill into the game.

 

A wipe or two ago there was a good balance of mast and hull hp but masts have become a little too weak since the new hull values were added - hence everyone is using this strat. 

 

May bring it up in the testers forum.

 

This is not an issue of mast-to-hull hp ratio. Current 'demasting meta' comes from 2 things. First of all, there is no damage fall off at distance against masts while there is against hull. So, at distance it's easier to hit masts and you can do this at 100% efficiency. Secondly, removal of double-shot made the fights mostly long range, since there is no efficient way to spike someone quickly up close (you can do the same from medium or even long distance) 

 

Therefore, imo, tweaks to masts/hull hp won't fix the issue. What I would love to see is most importantly damage fall off against masts at distance, some form of double shot reimplemented, as well as repairs for sails when out of combat (you're not tagged - you hit survival - you repair sails).

[akd]

Im not saying take demasting away - far from it (old school demaster talking here).

Im saying if demasting has become the dominating strategy it means it may be a BIT to easy.

Some of this is driven by the scorched earth approach to defeat that the game promotes. Since the loser loses the same no matter which way the battle ends, he is encouraged to either burn or sink, limiting reward for the winner or maybe even damaging the winner. Consequently, if a side wants to capture a prize once they have an advantage in a fight, they cannot use ball against the hull.

A second factor is the escape mechanics. If it were harder to escape in proximity to the enemy, but there was more capacity to repair sails and masts if you pulled away from a fight, the dynamic would change substantially.

[Marcomies]

I quite like the demasting and how it works in the game at the moment and from what I have seen a ship without any masts or sails left is dead in the water and can't turn at all (couple patches ago it used to be that a mastless ships could still turn on the spot). I think demasting is harder and rarer (especially at short ranges) than it was in reality but the current system is pretty good compromise from gameplay point of view.

 

I have seen demasting tactics being used often in pvp but they are really only effective if one side with superior numbers is chasing down an inferior force and even then it's more of a side effect of trying to slow down the enemy than the ultimate goal. In equal battle, attacking the hull and crew will usually win the fight before the enemy has time to demast you unless you are really unlucky.

 

Only problem I have with the current demasting is that reinforced masts seem to be widely considered as an essential upgrade for PVP and having an upgrade that is a-must-have doesn't really add anything to the game but rather takes away from it. Maybe the effect of reinforced masts could be reduced significantly and the HP of currents masts could be increased slightly or possibly a penalty to sail and yardarm handling speeds could be added as scaling cons to the reinforced masts upgrade.

[Neptune]

The truth is if masts were strong and all that was left was hull shooting, the opposite would be said. But right now you have to hit each mast individually to demast an opponent, all while it's quite easy to aim for hull. The only thing is, some don't carry longs so if enemy demasts them from out of their cannon range they say it doesn't take skill or whatever arguement that they may use. Truth is, it's a good strategy and it does take skill. Just don't expect to see the enemy get close and engage in hull v hull combat when you are carrying carronades. It is balanced fine, if you shoot for sails you take a risk of being sunk. And if you shoot for hull you take a risk at being demasted & captured.

 

I'm sure the sail mods, and all the other ones will be significantly reworked, just right now the devs don't have time.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Acadian44