A few suggestions, almost got it devs... almost.

[George Washington]

45 minutes ago, Hodo said:

Yes.  But that means you have to get out of effective gun range and repair.   Which can be nearly impossible if being attacked by a dedicated foe. 

Do you understand that with new physics your damage output is now double. For example my Constitution can unload 3 broadsides now within 2 mins. So, repairs now are actually weaker compared to what we had before. DPS due to turn rate helps a lot here. I really do not see any issues here or reason why reps/ rum should be crew heavy or something. Maneuver game is all what matters now.  

Edited November 22, 2017 by George Washington

[Hodo]

2 hours ago, George Washington said:

Do you understand that with new physics your damage output is now double. For example my Constitution can unload 3 broadsides now within 2 mins. So, repairs now are actually weaker compared to what we had before. DPS due to turn rate helps a lot here. I really do not see any issues here or reason why reps/ rum should be crew heavy or something. Maneuver game is all what matters now.  

It is hard to balance something that isnt complete.

The new sail system isnt complete.   We dont know how it will finally balance out.  I am sure there will be more adjustments made, or it may be trashed all together.   (Either is likely with this dev team)

 

Under the previous, or current system of sails the repair suggestion works.   But with things changing, may have to be sempre gumby.

[DeRuyter]

20 hours ago, George Washington said:

I think turn force should be stronger is waves are larger, and little less if sea is calm. We need weather adjustment.

Heavier seas = stronger winds = better turn force.

Actually it is the opposite - heavier seas hinder your turning. In those weather conditions square riggers would wear rather than tack due to the chance of rigging damage or failing to make the tack or both.

19 hours ago, Hodo said:

And higher risk of capsizing the vessel while under full sail.

We would need rigging damage from the weather implemented because you'd more likely see sections of the masts carried off before the ship came close to a capsize.

[CaptVonGunn]

7 hours ago, Hodo said:

Actually you do need more crew on sails with more sail being carried.   So if you have full sails on the ship, you begin to tack through the wind, you need to change all of the sail positions to do it.  You will need EVERY able bodied sailor on sails to do it, because you have on some ships, several acres of sail to move, adjust, turn and re-set the ropes.   Turning a main sail is not as easy as pulling two ropes with 2 men.  

And some ships did carry a spare mast, while not a main mast, they may have had a spare top-mast or mizzen,  just look at some of the models in game.  I think the Belle Poole is a good one, it has a few spare mast parts in it.   The Renomee is another.

Yes.  Just like when boarding prep is activated.   Normally the crew is spread out based on the crew setting and gun crew requirements.   So if you have a gun deck, and it needs 80 men and you have 100% on guns, then you will have 80 men spread out over the crew hitboxes on the gun deck.

But if you go to boarding prep, and you turn off gunnery, then you will have all 80 men move to the weather deck for boarding.  

Ok I see that when you tack.. but it wouldn't be all the time was my first thought.. I mean once the sails are set the crew returns to other things until needed again...  Plus as you and I both agree I think.. once you start shooting anything but chasers you should be at Battle sail any.  Still not sure on teh numbers though.. I mean say on a 1st rate.. the LOwer deck gun crews were Not the guys doing the sails... if they were it would take 20 minutes to get them all on deck to start

  Are those masts or Replacement stays/spares?  either way they are not getting used in combat.. shudder.. just imagine the carnage  if one of those is being manhandle and is hit by a cannon ball ?

  

   

[Hodo]

Just now, CaptVonGunn said:

Ok I see that when you tack.. but it wouldn't be all the time was my first thought.. I mean once the sails are set the crew returns to other things until needed again...  Plus as you and I both agree I think.. once you start shooting anything but chasers you should be at Battle sail any.  Still not sure on teh numbers though.. I mean say on a 1st rate.. the LOwer deck gun crews were Not the guys doing the sails... if they were it would take 20 minutes to get them all on deck to start

  Are those masts or Replacement stays/spares?  either way they are not getting used in combat.. shudder.. just imagine the carnage  if one of those is being manhandle and is hit by a cannon ball ?

  

   

Oh I agree masts should not be replaced in combat. 

Funny thing is the sail crew are dedicated to sails.. they are able bodied seamen and that is their job in combat.   They stay near the weather deck on ships with a gun deck, and get ready to run out and up the ladders and on the ropes to do what is needed to change the sails.  

It was covered in the series Hornblower. 

Styles is seen leading the men out on the deck from below decks to change the sails.  

Most men on a ship of the line had very specific duties.   Gunnery crews were just that, gun crews.   They maintained the guns, and the blocks and ropes for them.   The sail crew, were broken down by mast on the ship.  Bow crew, fore, main and mizzen.   

And even the chasers shouldnt be shot if you have a bow sprit sail... like the Surprise, and so many others that shoot through their sails.

[Malachy]

7 hours ago, Hodo said:

Oh I agree masts should not be replaced in combat. 

Funny thing is the sail crew are dedicated to sails.. they are able bodied seamen and that is their job in combat.   They stay near the weather deck on ships with a gun deck, and get ready to run out and up the ladders and on the ropes to do what is needed to change the sails.  

It was covered in the series Hornblower. 

Styles is seen leading the men out on the deck from below decks to change the sails.  

Most men on a ship of the line had very specific duties.   Gunnery crews were just that, gun crews.   They maintained the guns, and the blocks and ropes for them.   The sail crew, were broken down by mast on the ship.  Bow crew, fore, main and mizzen.   

And even the chasers shouldnt be shot if you have a bow sprit sail... like the Surprise, and so many others that shoot through their sails.

If you don't want to be able to replace masts in combat then your going to have to make them a lot harder to hit. Right now a blind guy can dismast about anything in a shot or two. Hitting a mast deliberately with a smooth bore cannon from a moving platform is nigh impossible. As far as I am concerned dismasting should be a very slight chance that occurs randomly and our guns should not be pinpoint accurate like they are now. Make that change and I'll support your idea for making masts not replaceable under fire.

Edited November 23, 2017 by Malachy

[Hodo]

On 11/23/2017 at 12:02 AM, Malachy said:

If you don't want to be able to replace masts in combat then your going to have to make them a lot harder to hit. Right now a blind guy can dismast about anything in a shot or two. Hitting a mast deliberately with a smooth bore cannon from a moving platform is nigh impossible. As far as I am concerned dismasting should be a very slight chance that occurs randomly and our guns should not be pinpoint accurate like they are now. Make that change and I'll support your idea for making masts not replaceable under fire.

 

I agree 100% about cannon accuracy being WAY to high.   This is why I believe all guns should be less accurate.   There is a reason why the race to mount MORE guns and heavier guns on a ship happened.   It was accuracy through superior volume of fire.   In simplest terms, it was, if I shoot more guns per broadside, and fire more often, I am going to hit more often, and thus cause MORE damage. 

Firing a gun from a moving platform on land is difficult enough (speaking from an actual tankers point of view).    I cant imagine trying to fire a gun that is more or less, fixed to its position, with a non-aerodynamic round fired from a subsonic gun on a platform that is at the mercy of a random moving surface.

 

If they cut accuracy of all guns down by 1/4th if not 1/3rd.    Then it would be an improvement. 

[Yngvarr]

36 minutes ago, Hodo said:

 

I agree 100% about cannon accuracy being WAY to high.   This is why I believe all guns should be less accurate.   There is a reason why the race to mount MORE guns and heavier guns on a ship happened.   It was accuracy through superior volume of fire.   In simplest terms, it was, if I shoot more guns per broadside, and fire more often, I am going to hit more often, and thus cause MORE damage. 

Firing a gun from a moving platform on land is difficult enough (speaking from an actual tankers point of view).    I cant imagine trying to fire a gun that is more or less, fixed to its position, with a non-aerodynamic round fired from a subsonic gun on a platform that is at the mercy of a random moving surface.

 

If they cut accuracy of all guns down by 1/4th if not 1/3rd.    Then it would be an improvement. 

I've been looking for tables concerning the accuracy of these types of guns, yet i've not found any.

only tables about the max range..

http://arc.id.au/CannonBallistics.html

http://www.napoleonguide.com/navyind.htm

http://www.hmroyalartillery.com/artillery.html

[Malachy]

1 hour ago, Yngvarr said:

I've been looking for tables concerning the accuracy of these types of guns, yet i've not found any.

only tables about the max range..

http://arc.id.au/CannonBallistics.html

http://www.napoleonguide.com/navyind.htm

http://www.hmroyalartillery.com/artillery.html

That's because accuracy was pretty moot. As hodo  said the reason for navies wanting more and bigger guns mounted was to throw more metal down range. When they started rifling cannons ships went to fewer and fewer guns. 

[Yngvarr]

Just now, Malachy said:

That's because accuracy was pretty moot. As hodo  said the reason for navies wanting more and bigger guns mounted was to throw more metal down range. When they started rifling cannons ships went to fewer and fewer guns. 

And also, because they fired broadsides at ranges of about 100 yards.

[Malachy]

5 minutes ago, Yngvarr said:

And also, because they fired broadsides at ranges of about 100 yards.

Yeah that was more due to lack of accuracy though. That's why they did gunnery drills focused on speed over all else 

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

15 minutes ago, Malachy said:

Yeah that was more due to lack of accuracy though. That's why they did gunnery drills focused on speed over all else 

Yep. Era of mass fire the faster you possibly could, in land and at sea.

[CoyoteJohn]

I'd say remove repairs completely during battle. Nobody is going to be patching sails or running rigging while there are cannonballs flying. Same for hulls...only thing you should be able to repair is leaks, pumps, and rudder.

Leave the repairs to open world.

[Malachy]

2 hours ago, CoyoteJohn said:

I'd say remove repairs completely during battle. Nobody is going to be patching sails or running rigging while there are cannonballs flying. Same for hulls...only thing you should be able to repair is leaks, pumps, and rudder.

Leave the repairs to open world.

The game is based around repairing. If you can't repair in battle they need to halve the hull damage and quarter sail damage. Actually probably reduce sail damage by a factor of ten.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Malachy

[Landsman]

8 hours ago, CoyoteJohn said:

Leave the repairs to open world.

I think no repairs at all is most realistic but makes for very one dimensional gameplay and definitely needs very limited chain shot ammo... i'd prefer 1 repair per battle for each (crew/sails/hull) but maybe with limited effect ( maximum 80 - 90 % of max HP? )...

[Hodo]

Repairs being reduced, but accuracy of guns reduction should go with it.   So it comes down to he who has the most guns on target wins... not who can sit at 750M firing ball at the topsail masts wins.

[Preechur Blackheart]

The proposition that repairs are not made during battle is patently untrue. Read some navy fiction or history and crew are plugging shot holes and repairing rigging all the time during battles. The ship's carpenter, for instance, has pre-made shot plugs available. So some repairing during battle should be allowed. It may just be that current game repairing is too fast, too complete and uses too few crew.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Ships did gain safe distance to conduct repairs and, under honour ( an age before the modern notions of total war ), return to combat. Others instance the ships didn't even have time to do that, such one sided combat and so violent the first dozen of broadsides.

[CoyoteJohn]

On 11/27/2017 at 11:36 AM, Preechur Blackheart said:

The proposition that repairs are not made during battle is patently untrue. Read some navy fiction or history and crew are plugging shot holes and repairing rigging all the time during battles. The ship's carpenter, for instance, has pre-made shot plugs available. So some repairing during battle should be allowed. It may just be that current game repairing is too fast, too complete and uses too few crew.

 

I recommended that leaks, pumps, and rudders remain repairable. I understand that holes were patched. However, holes above or not near the waterline were usually not a priority. With the current repair system, you dispatch 1/3 or more of your crew to basically replank the hull of the ship and hang new sails. It's retarded.

 

On 11/26/2017 at 9:01 PM, Malachy said:

The game is based around repairing. If you can't repair in battle they need to halve the hull damage and quarter sail damage. Actually probably reduce sail damage by a factor of ten.

 

Yes, I agree that the damage to ships needs to be reduced. Actual vessels of the time weren't nearly as easy to sink as what we have. Always an advocate for more sim and less arcade.