Mustang_Calhoun Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 I tried a search and didn't find much relating to this topic. Please point me to the proper topic if this has been discussed before. The ability to coordinate instantly via voice comms and the combination of teamwork... how does this matchup against historical engagements? To me the inevitable conclusion is focused fire will decide engagements. While its no secret bringing superior firepower to bear on a single point is obvious in its application, it seems to truly shine in Naval Action with the pace of gameplay. I'm not sure fleets back in the day were able to accomplish this level of teamwork so quickly...maybe I'm wrong. In a line v line engagement, once someone identifies a target - you can melt someones side almost instantly. I realize a competent captain will use evasive maneuvers... I just feel like ships will sometimes be taken out in seconds which isnt very realistic but it is a very real possibility in the current combat environment. I'm just curious what people think, especially those that have spent a few hours experimenting with current parameters, and those who may know how the future of engagements might be envisioned? MC.
William the Drake Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 I think, inevitably, many players will drift towards using voice programs such as teamspeak or ventrillo regardless of historical prevalence, simply due to their ease of use compared to text chat. However, as far as coordinating attacks, most admirals would give an overall battle plan prior to major engagements. These would not be extensively specific, but would give an outline of what to do during certain scenarios: "If A happens, then we shall reply with Z. Should B happen, then we will counter by enacting Y" These would be broad enough to where the fleet or flotilla could adapt tactics while still following the overall plan to a degree. As for singling out a target in the heat of battle, it has been discussed on the forums that ships used flags as a means to communicate with another at long distance (using large flags run up the masts) and short distances (using smaller manned flag signals). It is not out of the realm of possibility that when engaged in line combat, captains could identify a particular ship to target to others, however this would be unlikely in a more intense brawl.
Klava Pupkina Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Ventrilo : 1) ru.ventriloservers.biz:3812 (no pass) Server provided by developers. On the server, there are mainly Russian-speaking testers.
Mustang_Calhoun Posted January 16, 2015 Author Posted January 16, 2015 Thanks William. I guess at this point I should just say, based on what I've experienced so far ships are going to go down fast and targets can be swapped at an instant. I'm not really looking for voice servers or whatever... I'm just saying ships are gonna go down faster than they ever really did.
sthorup Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Well i think that voice coms are a necessity in a game like this. Its not even the tactical part that is so important to me but the social part. In this kind if game you will have groups of people that hang out on voice come and socialize and that is a good thing for the life of the game.
Saintduiex Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Hi Mustang! Welcome to NA. There is a thread somewhere that I can find for you, where the admin is speaking of a fleet commander mode. If you are familiar with their other game UGG, you would see a map with your ships on it where the squadron commander would draw arrows of where he wanted the different ships to sail/ attack. We may see something like that down the road. There are also many threads on using flags for communication (and identification) but the fact is that TS and ventrilo are part of modern computer gaming and will be a part of this. It is not historic but the pace of the game is much faster than historic. In any case this will be an area where organized groups will have an advantage over those without voice communications and not much can be done other than to accept it and try to make it fair for all sides. And welcome to the fleet
Robert Danforth Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Focused fire already occurs without voice chat. The lead ship says in team chat "Focus on the Bellona" and that's what happens, at least until the grand melee starts.
Megiddo Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 This is good-to-know and have been wondering after watching some of the video that RAMJB and others have created. Yes I agree this would be faster than historically, but historically you had midshipmen calling out information that we don't hear now. Even chats can go away faster than I have a chance to glance at (tunnel vision issues, I know).
GERFixer303 Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 I really don't know how they communicated back then but maybe you could implement some kind of flag signals? It...just came to my mind, it's probably stupid
Grim DeGrim Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 I'll be using voice comms. It is about 70% the fun of getting on a socializing, and highly effective in fights.
Chustler Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 Yep voice comms are the way to go. Any flagging system will just not be used so there is no point. Not much can be done, nor should it in my opinion.
DanielCoffey Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 I am in the position of being able to listen in to voice comms but not participate in mic chat - the PC is in our shared room. I used to handle this in MMO games by letting the coordinator know in advance that I was in the audio but would type replies. It worked well as I tended to play Support classes rather than Scout or primary Tank. Hopefully with the slightly slower pace of NA I should still be able to get along this way.
Mundane Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 What if Naval Action wouldn't launch if you have a voice chat client running? That would solve the mic chat problem and make using flag signals useful. Historical accuracy is needed in a game like this.
ParaBellum Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 What if Naval Action wouldn't launch if you have a voice chat client running? That would solve the mic chat problem and make using flag signals useful. Historical accuracy is needed in a game like this. Something like this would probably kill the game. An MMOG simply needs text/voice communciations, simple as that. I see zero problems with the current implementation of things.
Mirones Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 2Moderators and Friend of mine vs the rest, comunication is one thing knowing what you are doing another.
Robert Danforth Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 What if Naval Action wouldn't launch if you have a voice chat client running? That would solve the mic chat problem and make using flag signals useful. Historical accuracy is needed in a game like this. That would be the most-easily bypassable thing ever. E: Just for starters, I have more than one PC.
Flip Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 What if Naval Action wouldn't launch if you have a voice chat client running? That would solve the mic chat problem and make using flag signals useful. Historical accuracy is needed in a game like this. No thanks, voice comma are going to happen, it's the 21st century. Also makes NA the equivalent of malware. 2
One-Eyed Willy Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 If there was some coding that made voice comms not work with NA I would drop NA & never look back. 1
Grim DeGrim Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 What if Naval Action wouldn't launch if you have a voice chat client running? That would solve the mic chat problem and make using flag signals useful. Historical accuracy is needed in a game like this. I will say -1 on the idea. But +10 for your signature....
Mundane Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 I retract my horrible idea. I guess mics will always be a problem, no matter what happens. I will say -1 on the idea. But +10 for your signature.... ... Do you want one for yourself? Send me a message if you do.
Robert Danforth Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 I don't see them as a problem, really.
Crankey Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 What if Naval Action wouldn't launch if you have a voice chat client running? That would solve the mic chat problem and make using flag signals useful. Historical accuracy is needed in a game like this. Mics aren't a problem, just local situations that mean you cannot use them. move house i say I don't play games that I can't jump on TS and have a chat while gaming, whether it is to discuss tactics or just shoot the breeze. Its fantastic I can jump on comms and discuss game play or just the local weather with someone from the other side of the world. Saves me a fortune in air fares !! 1
Mustang_Calhoun Posted January 19, 2015 Author Posted January 19, 2015 Thanks for all the replies. Maybe my title is a bit misleading and perhaps even should be changed. Let me attempt to clarify. Historically, most engagements did not end with sinking ships. However, in Naval Action I see many, many ships being sunk and probably will be the norm rather than the exception. I know currently we are all thrown into a fish tank together and slug it out till last man standing aka Sea Trials so sinking is the name of the game. I guess my point is the reality will be very different from what historically happened and people should be prepared to be focused down fairly quickly. Communication whether text or voice and even name tags above ships will result in fleet commanders calling dangerous players and or ships as primaries and people will find themselves out of battle very quickly. If this is indeed the case how would you feel about being sunk in a few minutes considering it rarely happened that way historically? Maybe tactics will self correct from this phenomenon and we will see something completely new. How do we find the right balance between risk v reward? The pacing of engagements? I think it will be a delicate piece of work to get it right. I know we are still early doors here and ship durability and firepower stand to be re-balanced. Anyway, I love the game immensely already and I'm just voicing out something I noticed after a few rounds in larger Sea Trial engagements.
Crankey Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 The simple answer is that Yes this is just Alpha, the developers are getting us to mass test the firing , sailing, and damage mechanics. Most ships wouldn't sink they would be captured after lowering their ensign and withdrawing from the fight due to impossible odds or loss of life and damage. Atm there is no point at which a players ship will surrender. Even ships that did take on too much water, would generally settle very slowly and sink over a long period of time as they are in essence a large wooden float.
Magnum Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 We (TDA) are usually on TS3 during battles in the evenings these days - even when the matchmaker puts us on different sides (some French some English) we have a good time yaking about the game and whats going on. Of course without giving away any team strategery
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now