Fleet commander gameplay

[Sir. Cunningham]

 

Orders

Orders will provide bonuses. Of course players will be able to take initiative, but fulfilling the order would be ideal course of action. Following a path drawn by admiral will provide a speed boost, firing at a marked ship will increase your damage and accuracy if you are in range from the command ship. Losing commanders in battle will be devastating. 

 

Discuss.

 

 

Oh god! Please no!

[Johny Reb]

I think I could actually be ok with the accuracy buff on a marked ship if it only applied to your first broadside or two. The reason I could justify this to my satisfaction is similar to the argument others make about morale boosts when in close proximity to the admiral. I would see it played out in this way... The officer screams out over the noise and damage and says, "Lads, the Admiral requests that we direct our fire on the first rate. Will you let him down?" The sailors yell, "Huzzah" and they re-aim their cannon so as not to let the admiral down.

 

The morale provided by the admirals order and the officers influence increases the crews precision for a time but of course would just return to the chaos of battle within a few broadsides I would imagine.

 

The extra speed buff is not a good idea. Would any group of two or more have this command structure in place? If so how would a single trader ever outrun a pursuing group with this buff against him and unable to receive the buff himself?

[Sir. Cunningham]

I think I could actually be ok with the accuracy buff on a marked ship if it only applied to your first broadside or two. The reason I could justify this to my satisfaction is similar to the argument others make about morale boosts when in close proximity to the admiral. I would see it played out in this way... The officer screams out over the noise and damage and says, "Lads, the Admiral requests that we direct our fire on the first rate. Will you let him down?" The sailors yell, "Huzzah" and they re-aim their cannon so as not to let the admiral down.

 

The morale provided by the admirals order and the officers influence increases the crews precision for a time but of course would just return to the chaos of battle within a few broadsides I would imagine.

 

 

Sorry but I can under no circumstances agree with that.

 

The mere action of marking a target for others too see and concentrate on is enough of an advantage in itself, there doesn't need to be some sudden magical increase in your accuracy, or even more ridiculous an increase in the damage your guns do! 

 

Such magical buffs would totally break the immersion and kill the enjoyment of fleet battles for me, and to be honest I then wouldn't want to participate.

[Destraex]

I agree. The admiral would have no effect on accuracy in real life. The only possible effect he may have is on moral and even the that has more to do with the immediate captain.

 

I do like the arrows command thing and the fact it has a delay though. That kind of sinulates signals. In fact it would be ccool for ships captains to have to press a button to repeat the signal and the following captain to notice and go to his or her map room after repeating himself or herself.

[akd]

Sorry but I can under no circumstances agree with that.

 

The mere action of marking a target for others too see and concentrate on is enough of an advantage in itself, there doesn't need to be some sudden magical increase in your accuracy, or even more ridiculous an increase in the damage your guns do! 

 

Furthermore, we are already capable of delivering extremely accurate fire (beyond capabilities of the time), even at longest range. If we head down the slippery slope of ever increasing accuracy via mods and buffs (which I guarantee will be constantly demanded by a vocal segment of players), we will end up with an Age of Sail game with Age of Steam gunnery and tactics and we can just sail in a line trading fire at max range until one side loses. Please resist the slide.

[Sir. Cunningham]

Furthermore, we are already capable of delivering extremely accurate fire (beyond capabilities of the time), even at longest range. If we head down the slippery slope of ever increasing accuracy via mods and buffs (which I guarantee will be constantly demanded by a vocal segment of players), we will end up with an Age of Sail game with Age of Steam gunnery and tactics and we can just sail in a line trading fire at max range until one side loses. Please resist the slide.

 

IMHO the accuracy of the gunnery ingame now is comparable to what was achievable during the period in calm seas when the ship carried a battery equipped with gunlocks as well as tangent & dispart sights operated by an experienced crew. However anything beyond this would be too much for the period, and it doesn't help either if any increase is granted for a reason as bogus as simply being near the commander's ship.

 

Completely bogus though is the idea of adding extra damage to shots just for firing on the ship that the commander has marked... it doesn't get anymore magic than that. How is that ever going to make sense? Do we have to imagine that when our commander places a mark then all of a sudden the enemy ship not only magically becomes larger so we can better hit it, but oh golly the Admiral has just now also authorized the use of depleted uranium cannon balls? o.O

[Johny Reb]

Sorry but I can under no circumstances agree with that.

 

The mere action of marking a target for others too see and concentrate on is enough of an advantage in itself, there doesn't need to be some sudden magical increase in your accuracy, or even more ridiculous an increase in the damage your guns do! 

 

Such magical buffs would totally break the immersion and kill the enjoyment of fleet battles for me, and to be honest I then wouldn't want to participate.

I think you miss the point but I think this is something that we can cordially disagree on.

 

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.

[Destraex]

it is possible that seeing the flaship with the admirals pennaaant flying would. Hheeearten ssailorrzzz. It is not. Possible tthat men. Become accurae beyond there abilitties. That ttKe training.

[Johny Reb]

Except that crew on the gun deck of a man of war can't see anything other than whats straight out his gun port. The Admirals ship could bump the back of their ship and they wouldn't have a clue what pennant it was flying unless a runner or officer told them, so no, its not that believable, or at least not more believable that the Admirals proximity would do a darn thing during a fight.

 

Also who said anything about beyond their abilities? Its more about concentration and the "patriots" movie saying, "aim small, shoot small." Generally as has been discussed, sailors set their cannon and then fought the battle rarely adjusting its aim. So, an order from the admiral to aim at a specific ship would cause all the gunners to, according to their already possessed abilities to re-aim their guns, increasing accuracy, to follow their Admiral's expectations. Very plausible. And out of honesty to what I think is plausible I put the limitation of a broadside or two because after the guns are reset they probably (like usual) not be readjusted until new orders arrived.

[RAMJB]

yes to the graphic interface/utility. Excellent idea, and thumbs up for it.

Rotund and resounding "NO" for magic tricks. My 18 pounders will shoot the same round wether they're close to a command ship or not. They should do the same damage wether they're close to a commander ship, or not.

I see the intent and purpose of this idea, which is to enhance the will of people to follow orders. But while the reasons might be good, magic trics in a game intended to be realistic and immersive are a no-go. And as Admin himself admitted later "if you don't want to follow orders, don't join the navy". Follow orders because you're supposed to, not because suddenly there's a magical wand that makes your cannons more accurate and damaging. And don't follow orders at your own peril. Best case scenario your stunt works and you get reprimanded. Worst case scenario your stunt cost you the ship, your squadron the fight, and your fleet the battle, and you get demoted to an unrated ship until you learn what the navy is about. That should give more than enough "incentive" for people to follow orders. No need for magic tricks.

 

So a big NO to "magic wands" or "buffs". We had enough of them in POTBS, and you guys seem to recall those times good enough not to make the same mistakes as they did, and those "paranormal skills" were one of the big downfalls of the game. We don't need them here.

Please reconsider that part of the idea.

[Sir. Cunningham]

Except that crew on the gun deck of a man of war can't see anything other than whats straight out his gun port. The Admirals ship could bump the back of their ship and they wouldn't have a clue what pennant it was flying unless a runner or officer told them, so no, its not that believable, or at least not more believable that the Admirals proximity would do a darn thing during a fight.

 

Also who said anything about beyond their abilities? Its more about concentration and the "patriots" movie saying, "aim small, shoot small." Generally as has been discussed, sailors set their cannon and then fought the battle rarely adjusting its aim. So, an order from the admiral to aim at a specific ship would cause all the gunners to, according to their already possessed abilities to re-aim their guns, increasing accuracy, to follow their Admiral's expectations. Very plausible. And out of honesty to what I think is plausible I put the limitation of a broadside or two because after the guns are reset they probably (like usual) not be readjusted until new orders arrived.

 

The aim of the guns were adjusted quite often during a battle, either due to a general order (all guns set to 10 deg elevation etc), or as pr. the judgement of the individual gun captain, both being based on the observed fall of the shot. Handspikes & rope tackles were used to adjust the traverse & elevation of the gun runningly during a battle based on these commands,

[Destraex]

Except that crew on the gun deck of a man of war can't see anything other than whats straight out his gun port. The Admirals ship could bump the back of their ship and they wouldn't have a clue what pennant it was flying unless a runner or officer told them, so no, its not that believable, or at least not more believable that the Admirals proximity would do a darn thing during a fight.

 

Also who said anything about beyond their abilities? Its more about concentration and the "patriots" movie saying, "aim small, shoot small." Generally as has been discussed, sailors set their cannon and then fought the battle rarely adjusting its aim. So, an order from the admiral to aim at a specific ship would cause all the gunners to, according to their already possessed abilities to re-aim their guns, increasing accuracy, to follow their Admiral's expectations. Very plausible. And out of honesty to what I think is plausible I put the limitation of a broadside or two because after the guns are reset they probably (like usual) not be readjusted until new orders arrived.

 

As I recall there are plenty of battles where awareness of the admiral near by improved moral "under the eye of the admiral so to speak.

While seeing the admiral fall occasionally completely routed the fleet. But I am more talking about Roman galley warfare which I read up on for total war (what a let down).

 

In tall ship battles I admit that smoke often obscured the fleet. But the ships closest to the admiral generally had better moral and staying power as I recall. If not the men then the officers and men who could see the admiral ship.

 

I am not bothered if this buff is not in. Just saying its about the only one that makes even rudimentary sense.

[Bonden]

I fully agree of course : magic buffs could pervert the whole system, based on realistic gunnery  and damage modelling. I would be really disappointed if this option were maintained.

 

In fact, there is no need for those buffs, as there is already an incentive to respect discipline provided by the game (according to the devs post) : the possibility to be promoted faster as you respect strictly the discipline. This is a good idea, but maybe a bt simplistic. The possibility for the captains to take initiative was an important key to success, within certain limits enacted by the commander/admiral. The question is: will the commanders have the possibility to leave some (well understood) flexibility to their captains ? Or will they have to mark all targets and design with precision all paths for each ship ? Fighting instructions could set the tactical targets, some general principles of action and for example the need to break the line or focus fire on the van, without entering into details and introducing too much rigidity in the chain of command. Nelson shared his vision with his captains but did not, as far as I know, forbid any initiative from his captains.

[maturin]

I'm not particularly enamored of the increased damage idea (especially because the focus fire death spike is so gamey).

But still, I think you guys should remember one plain fact. It's not possible to reenact Trafalgar or most other famously decisive fleet actions in this game and probably never will be. And why is that? Because real battles are won by 10% technology and 90% 'magic.'

Always good to keep in mind, when forumers are making such amusing statements as 'gunlocks would have won the allies the battle of Trafalgar.'

[Johny Reb]

The aim of the guns were adjusted quite often during a battle, either due to a general order (all guns set to 10 deg elevation etc), or as pr. the judgement of the individual gun captain, both being based on the observed fall of the shot. Handspikes & rope tackles were used to adjust the traverse & elevation of the gun runningly during a battle based on these commands,

I really don't know how often they were changed. I am going off of everything that posters in previous threads have said and the fact that most fleet battles in Nelson's age were pretty much point blank which would of made the aiming of the guns all but pointless. The consensus in past threads, if my memory serves me correctly, is that the guns were set at the beginning of the battle and pretty much left alone after that. At least in a fleet action where admirals would be present.

 

As I recall there are plenty of battles where awareness of the admiral near by improved moral "under the eye of the admiral so to speak.

While seeing the admiral fall occasionally completely routed the fleet. But I am more talking about Roman galley warfare which I read up on for total war (what a let down).

What battle saw this effect when the admirals ship came in range? I'm not saying it hasn't happened but the argument over how much morale would be boosted if the admiral sails by should be backed up with actual historical evidence if your point is that its historical. And I imagine that being "under the eye of the admiral" in a formation at the beginning of a battle would definitely increase morale on that ship at the beginning of the fight. And I could see other instances where this could happen. The line makes a "line astern" course reversal so that the head ship will pass all the ships behind it. As the admiral sails by all those ships in these circumstances I'm sure that the men on each ship in line would cheer and have higher morale. But if in the heat of battle the admiral's ship sails up within 500 yards of your hard working ship then I think its fantasy that you will all of a sudden get a morale boost. And I find it even more fantastic to think that the admiral could slip behind you now to 600yrds taking your morale away to then have you drop your sails some so you get within that perfect 500yrd range again to get your morale back. Back and forth you go.. keep station and be within distance of your magical admiral. That seems a stretch of reality to me.

 

I am not bothered if this buff is not in. Just saying its about the only one that makes even rudimentary sense.

Like you, I'm not bothered if your idea or my idea about accuracy is in or not. I think arguments can be made for how they are both reasonable and both unreasonable at the same time.

 

I'm not really sure what school of logic your from if the only idea that makes "rudimentary" sense is a boost in morale that you fail to apply to anything.  "yeah we have morale," cheers the sailor followed by a powder monkey's retort, "Well, what the hell does that mean?" All I've done with the accuracy idea is applied that morale to something. You should try it, its fun. Now if you still can't see the rudimentary sense in what I'm saying then I would have to guess that you are a Democrat as well. Am I right? Am I right?

 

Disclaimer

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

[Sir. Cunningham]

I really don't know how often they were changed. I am going off of everything that posters in previous threads have said and the fact that most fleet battles in Nelson's age were pretty much point blank which would of made the aiming of the guns all but pointless. The consensus in past threads, if my memory serves me correctly, is that the guns were set at the beginning of the battle and pretty much left alone after that. At least in a fleet action where admirals would be present.

 

 

Not quite, before disolving into close combat the normal engagement ranges in a line battle of the period usually ended up between 150-250 yards (most having started out at well over 1,000 yards) and occasionally raged for long periods as far out as over 400 yards, which was refered to as the point blank range of the guns. In such engagements the guns were re-aimed as needed based on the fall of the shots, as explained in the log books from the period. British gunnery was renowned for its effectiveness in such engagements, hence one of the reasons that the Americans always sought to get in close during the war of 1812, where they actually managed to impress the British with the speed of their gunnery.

 

At the Battle of Copenhagen in 1801 the British line placed itself parallel to the Danish line at a distance a smidge over 300 yards, which was the distance at which most of the fighting took place. (Note: In some parts of the line fire was exchanged at a distance of over 500 yards)

 

Nicholas Pockock, a skilled seaman & artist known for is accurate depictions of naval battles in the period, made this painting depicting the battle of Copenhagen: 

[Sir. Cunningham]

Always good to keep in mind, when forumers are making such amusing statements as 'gunlocks would have won the allies the battle of Trafalgar.'

 

I suppose this comment was directed at me, the reason for which I cannot quite detect, however I want to make clear that I never made any such claim.

 

I did say, and I will stand by this, that British gunnery at trafalgar was aided immensely by the use of gunlocks and that had the Allied fleet at Trafalgar been equipped with gunlocks then the British fleet would've no doubt suffered much greater than it did on its initial approach to cut the Allied line. This is NOT saying that the Allied fleet would've won had it been so equipped, because it most surely would not, the British gun crews being  a lot more experienced and better drilled, which was of crucial importance - not to mention that the British fleet's deployment of its ships that day was a lot more competent as well.

[Johny Reb]

Roger.

[Oneironz]

As someone who is hearing impaired, visual orders seem to be a great idea! Voice orders are useless, as I cannot understand them. Although I do not really like the idea of buffs for following the admiral, it just doesn't fit into Naval Action in my opinion.

[Chilly Willy]

As someone who is hearing impaired, visual orders seem to be a great idea! Voice orders are useless, as I cannot understand them. Although I do not really like the idea of buffs for following the admiral, it just doesn't fit into Naval Action in my opinion.

we all know my opinion on visual orders don't we

 

 

[Oneironz]

Ehehe, yes we do! Visual clues should be more important and useful than voice commands, simply because not everyone is willing to log on ts3/ventrillo, or doesn't understand the language being spoken, or the accent alone is hard to understand.

Visual orders are clear and easy to follow for everyone, no matter where the player comes from.

[Destraex]

I really don't know how often they were changed. I am going off of everything that posters in previous threads have said and the fact that most fleet battles in Nelson's age were pretty much point blank which would of made the aiming of the guns all but pointless. The consensus in past threads, if my memory serves me correctly, is that the guns were set at the beginning of the battle and pretty much left alone after that. At least in a fleet action where admirals would be present.

 

What battle saw this effect when the admirals ship came in range? I'm not saying it hasn't happened but the argument over how much morale would be boosted if the admiral sails by should be backed up with actual historical evidence if your point is that its historical. And I imagine that being "under the eye of the admiral" in a formation at the beginning of a battle would definitely increase morale on that ship at the beginning of the fight. And I could see other instances where this could happen. The line makes a "line astern" course reversal so that the head ship will pass all the ships behind it. As the admiral sails by all those ships in these circumstances I'm sure that the men on each ship in line would cheer and have higher morale. But if in the heat of battle the admiral's ship sails up within 500 yards of your hard working ship then I think its fantasy that you will all of a sudden get a morale boost. And I find it even more fantastic to think that the admiral could slip behind you now to 600yrds taking your morale away to then have you drop your sails some so you get within that perfect 500yrd range again to get your morale back. Back and forth you go.. keep station and be within distance of your magical admiral. That seems a stretch of reality to me.

 

Like you, I'm not bothered if your idea or my idea about accuracy is in or not. I think arguments can be made for how they are both reasonable and both unreasonable at the same time.

 

I'm not really sure what school of logic your from if the only idea that makes "rudimentary" sense is a boost in morale that you fail to apply to anything.  "yeah we have morale," cheers the sailor followed by a powder monkey's retort, "Well, what the hell does that mean?" All I've done with the accuracy idea is applied that morale to something. You should try it, its fun. Now if you still can't see the rudimentary sense in what I'm saying then I would have to guess that you are a Democrat as well. Am I right? Am I right?

 

Disclaimer

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

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.

[Baggywrinkle]

If morale has a meaningful role in and of itself (surrender becoming more frequent than sinking) then boosts to it will matter...

Baggy

[Charles Caldwell]

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.

[Bonden]

I also praise for including the possibility to surrender in the game, as this was far more frequent than the complete destruction of the attacked ships. The difficulty is to provide for incentive to surrender: what will be the fate of the prisoners, especially the commander ? Should he be banned from access to the game for a (short) period, to simulate his imprisonment ? It would be better than to be killed, but with enough 'malus' to encourage the commander to fight even in bad conditions.

 

The conditions of surrender could be analysed by 'martial court' (AI or played by players of the same battle of both sides) to decide the consequences of if: if there was no alternative but to be sunk (for instance if a ship is surrounded by ennemy ships without possibility of escape), the captain could get a similar command; if there were better alternatives, the captain could be sentenced to different kinds of penalties, including getting a smaller ship... (the death penalty, sometimes pronounced, not being an option here in the game ;-)). The system of 'malus' could be extended to admirals after a defeat (like in the period)...