Fleet commander gameplay

[Baggywrinkle]

I hope that surrendering becomes the norm over sinking. The idea of having to sink every ship you meet will get tedious after a while..... plus you dont get a prize for a sunk ship. There has to be a very robust morale system in place for it to work well, it has to reflect crew quality, training and damage taken, along with other more subtle factors.

Essential, if you ask me. The weak points of a fighting vessel were her rig and her crew, and loss of either means the vessel can no longer fight, and 'must' surrender. Failing to reflect this is where so so many naval combat games have got it wrong.

[Freebooter]

Surrender must be part of the game, whether striking is voluntary or involuntary.  Without this there can be no realistic portrayal of war at sea.

 

Games in which the enemy is only destroyed (or sunk), or otherwise obliterated do not come close to realism and victory only through destruction as a mechanism is a sign that the makers do not know much about warfare.  So far I see plenty of class in Naval Action and I hope it extends to all aspects of the gameplay.

[Edward Vernon]

Surrender must be part of the game, whether striking is voluntary or involuntary.  Without this there can be no realistic portrayal of war at sea.

 

Games in which the enemy is only destroyed (or sunk), or otherwise obliterated do not come close to realism and victory only through destruction as a mechanism is a sign that the makers do not know much about warfare.  So far I see plenty of class in Naval Action and I hope it extends to all aspects of the gameplay.

Gotta agree Boss.....

[Johny Reb]

WOW. A lot to consider whether to bother replying to here. Basically what I meant was if the admiral only gives a moral boost in the most basic sense at all and that is the only one that even reaches that level  then I pretty much agree with you for everything else.

I guess the kind of things that would increase moral are things like seeing the admirals ship force a ship to strike and hearing a cheer go up.

 

I may or may not try to find some examples for you... lol

 

Disclaimer

The statements made in the last sentence were meant as just fun banter and author apologizes to all who are butt hurt, pissed off, humourless, uptight, and bitter.

My question wasn't concerning the source of the morale boost but rather its effect. That can either be a buff or a forced surrender. Leaving the surrender aside (unless that is of course what you think morale should effect) then what buffs does morale apply to? I said it could be applied to accuracy. You said nope but gave no alternative so what is your alternative? Otherwise saying that the crew will have an increase in morale is a meaningless use of words.

 

 

Essential, if you ask me. The weak points of a fighting vessel were her rig and her crew, and loss of either means the vessel can no longer fight, and 'must' surrender. Failing to reflect this is where so so many naval combat games have got it wrong.

Incorrect Maybe in a 1v1 the loss of rig would pretty much end the fight but many fleet battles included fighting between demasted hulks. Any forced surrender will be a bad idea and will piss off a lot of players who were still fighting yet forced to surrender.

[Destraex]

The effect of the buff should just be that the ship affected is just less likely to strike. Not that we even have a mechanic for that.

[Baggywrinkle]

" Rig and crew"

[Johny Reb]

The effect of the buff should just be that the ship affected is just less likely to strike. Not that we even have a mechanic for that.

Ok, then your for forced surrenders. Well, we will never see eye to eye then. I think that is a horrible mechanic. Give people the incentive to surrender and don't use some arbitrary computer calculation to do it.

[Freebooter]

No doubt crew will have their own morale.  So I would expect (or even suggest) that when morale is reduced to a particular level then the vessel will strike her colours regardless of the desire of the player.

[akd]

Surrender is the captain's decision. What the crew can do, however, is stop fighting past a certain breaking point and hide in the hold. That might mean basic survival actions continue (plugging holes, fire-fighting, etc.), but fighting guns or complex maneuvering becomes impossible or very slow (some intrepid souls might stay on the deck and keep fighting and working the ship). The ship would also then be susceptible to capture by boarding without resistance. That breaking point could be governed by morale.

This keeps surrender in the player's hand while still offering options. The player could attempt to limp away at the risk of taking more damage and crew loss in the process, or they could offer an honorable surrender and keep their crew (and their skills) intact. This also offers accelerating incentives to strike past a certain point of damage and loss.

Now, if a captain wants his crew to fight to the last man, he better train them up into total fanatics.

[Sir. Cunningham]

I agree that surrender has to be a part of the game, esp. since it was what happened most of the time. It wasn't that often that ships actually sank each other in battle, and that for the very good reason that the main goal usually was taking possession of the cargo & ship itself. Infact that was one of the prime reasons for getting in close fast so you could overwhelm your opponent and take his ship as quick as possible without risking a prolonged gun battle where one ship sank whilst the other likely became highly damaged itself - in which case you're in a pretty bad predicament out on the open sea

[Johny Reb]

So... We will give up Captain control of his ship for mutiny. Is that what you are suggesting with this forced surrender idea or even the "they will stop fighting" idea (although at least here you are trying to find a compromise.) You guys are so into the realism in this case that you are willing to be unrealistic to achieve it. Replacing the Captain's choice to surrender with open mutiny is highly unrealistic as well since that didn't happen often either.

 

The simple solution is as has been said hundreds of times in many threads. Give the player an incentive to surrender and not sink. Then its to the Captain's peril if he chooses to fight till the end but for King and Country he may choose to do so.

[akd]

I think if you look into a bit more, you will find that crew reaching a breaking point (through loss, exhaustion or a combination of both) where fighting efficiency drops off precipitously was not uncommon and was probably a deciding factor for a captain surrendering his ship in many battles. This is not mutiny. It is defeat. It happens on battlefields both dry and wet. It does not have to "force" a captain to surrender his ship, but it can function as a very real incentive toward surrender.

But if crew are automatons that always fight to the last man unless you say otherwise, then indeed the entire concept of morale in the game would be pointless. If there is no condition under which men would fight worse, why should there be "morale buffs" that make them fight better, unless "morale" is just a euphemistic substitute word for "magic"?

"We want magic that makes it easier to destroy our targets and makes our ships sail better. We can call this magic 'morale.'"

"But what if 'morale' also took away some of your abilities under certain circumstances?"

"No, that would be frustrating for players and have game mechanics rather than player skill deciding fights."

[maturin]

Guys, forced surrenders versus no surrenders is a false choice.

 

No player should EVER be forced to strike. But you can reach pretty much the same result by simulating debilitating morale failures and disorganization among gun crews.

 

ie, after HMS Victory takes 200 casualties, men start hiding below the waterline, the upper deck is mostly clear of officers and marines, etc. Rate of fire slows to almost nothing for what guns are still being served, sail handling speeds are sluggish too. In such a situation a player will see that he is combat ineffective, and either flee or limp away, depending on the state of the rig.

 

Tell me how this is less desirable than a straight-up surrender. It gives a defeated player a chance at escape if the enemy is preoccupied. Moreso, it gives a daring captain in a light frigate the chance to chase down the wounded elephant and claim an incredible prize!

[AP514]

Good answer....maturin    +1

[BrutishVulgarian]

 

 

 

 

------ We will add more info as we get more questions, ideas and comments.

 

Discuss.

 

Directional arrows are a great idea.     Love it.     I would like to see killing the enemy admiral and squad leaders take away those arrows, make the leaders high value targets.

 

I can't say I'm fan of bonuses and buffs, in battle.   Even if you like the idea, speed boosts for those ships in formation will make catching up and reforming a line very difficult those of us who need to grab a beer out of the fridge.

[WavesofGrain]

I love the graphic orders. Not sure how they'll be implemented into the UIs of those captains following ships, but interested to see.

 

Magic speed buffs are silly. Full stop. I could see possibly a slight reloading buff to those who are doing what the admiral told them to do? Due to morale? Maybe. Although I guess better weather helm and sail adjustment could generate a touch of speed as well. Benefits should be small in reality but hyped up in the UI so the newbs follow the arrows.

 

The big benefit of doing what your commanding officer told you to do is that you should get more Admiralty points in your navy or organization. On the other hand if doing something else will result in a better outcome, you should be free to ignore orders. If you choose to ignore orders and don't do something fairly impressive, you should lose Admiralty points and, ultimately, rank.

 

A game that makes Pirates & Privateers as strong as the Navy, makes the Navy redundant. Good bye Naval players!

 

The easiest solution is to restrict the rated vessels to the Navy only.

 

That's the easiest solution, but I think a much better solution is to inflict costs on non-Naval players for 'upkeep' of their rated vessels such that they are very rare outside Navy hands (who have loyal taxpayers to fund their upkeep )

[Johny Reb]

probably a deciding factor for a captain surrendering his ship in many battles.

Key words here. It is a deciding factor for the Captain.

 

 This is not mutiny. It is defeat. It happens on battlefields both dry and wet. It does not have to "force" a captain to surrender his ship, but it can function as a very real incentive toward surrender.

It is mutiny if the crew decides when to surrender and not the Captain.

 

But if crew are automatons that always fight to the last man unless you say otherwise, then indeed the entire concept of morale in the game would be pointless. If there is no condition under which men would fight worse, why should there be "morale buffs" that make them fight better, unless "morale" is just a euphemistic substitute word for "magic"?

I'm all for morale effecting the fight but it is dangerous at the same time. Other threads have covered the whys so I will be brief. Morale is a complicated thing in and of itself. It could be effected way before the battle ensues simply based off of the confidence in the Captain the crew has, their previous success rate, the nation they fight for, the ship they are in etc. The danger (and I'm not arguing to not have morale but rather arguing in order that it is done right) is that you could be winning a fight but because you lost Xnumber of guns and crew your morale becomes crippling when your crew, though tired, would be in high spirits as they see prize money over the horizon.

 

Morale should be in no ways magical which is how, at least, potbs used it.

Tell me how this is less desirable than a straight-up surrender. It gives a defeated player a chance at escape if the enemy is preoccupied. Moreso, it gives a daring captain in a light frigate the chance to chase down the wounded elephant and claim an incredible prize!

 

 As long as its in the players hands then I'm all for giving this a shot

[Mirones]

i need no mechanic to know when i am in trouble or beaten by someon else.

[Lord Hood]

I'm readily looking forward to this sort of Command and am liking the suggestions thus far. I wonder though how many fleets shall mutiny against an ill picked Admiral, this game does cater for friendly fire after all and a few cannonballs could elect a new commander!

[BungeeLemming]

Samuel.

Remeber that friendly fire it not far away from piracy.

If you sink your own fleet's ship your going to be marked as traitor. Wich may cause more problems than those a bad fleet commander will get you into.

 

Still. If the admiral you follow is bad he gets downgraded and he may not have the "skillpoints" (or whateven system they intend) to command a great fleet in the near future.

You will have to earn the title of fleet commander. Its not a given thing.

[Lord Hood]

I'm well aware Bungee, it was merely a tongue in cheek comment. I have never had any intentions of piratical behaviour no matter how bad things get; and trust me Britain on Antigua in PotBS is pretty bad.

[Balck]

I'm readily looking forward to this sort of Command and am liking the suggestions thus far. I wonder though how many fleets shall mutiny against an ill picked Admiral, this game does cater for friendly fire after all and a few cannonballs could elect a new commander!

It's time for mutiny lads!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVwX_8pN7fw

 

(sorry felt compelled to do it )

[Horatio Hornblower]

 

To those that find fault with my reasoning yet believe there would be a morale boost when the Admiral's ship is close by, "what would that morale boost increase?" It must have some meaning behind it. Is it speed, accuracy, boarding morale, ship handling? What?

 

I just suggested that it would be possible that morale would increase how well the crew would concentrate on aiming their guns(and no extra damage) and only for a broadside or two. Hardly a magical skill.

 

 

In real battles morale was always important and had an effect!

 

Of course not on the damage, as neither the guns nor the balls had any morale.

Accuracy increase is also an improbable result of an admiral being near, as adrenaline rarely improves brain power.

 

So what is improved by adrenaline which is released by the captain's cry "don't let the admiral down!"? 

 

Bodily strength!

 

And what game mechanic would this improve?

-reload rate

-execution of sailing commands

-fighting power in boarding/defending boarders

-waterpump speed

 

Also i like Maturin's idea of crew going more and more below deck as a result of low morale. I think if the flagship is in sight, more crewmembers would stay on deck to have an occasional look at it and being reassured by its noble appearance.

 

This is no magic at all but simple psychology and leaving this out would be extremely unrealistic and unimmersive! (They are not 300 robots on your frigate!)

[NorthernWolves]

I really like this commander concept, will anything like it be able to be tested or is it much further down the road?

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

In real battles morale was always important and had an effect!

 

Of course not on the damage, as neither the guns nor the balls had any morale.

Accuracy increase is also an improbable result of an admiral being near, as adrenaline rarely improves brain power.

 

So what is improved by adrenaline which is released by the captain's cry "don't let the admiral down!"? 

 

Bodily strength!

 

And what game mechanic would this improve?

-reload rate

-execution of sailing commands

-fighting power in boarding/defending boarders

-waterpump speed

 

Also i like Maturin's idea of crew going more and more below deck as a result of low morale. I think if the flagship is in sight, more crewmembers would stay on deck to have an occasional look at it and being reassured by its noble appearance.

 

This is no magic at all but simple psychology and leaving this out would be extremely unrealistic and unimmersive! (They are not 300 robots on your frigate!)

 

I couldn't agree more, and I really like your list of what would be improved by morale.