World Ceasefire Declared - Hostilities stop on Monday.

[Cetric de Cornusiac]

Why does every serious discussion have to slip into same trash talk about RvR on PvP server, in the style of that "Russia so bored they..." in national news - which reminds me you have a whole forum section for that.

Here it feels like spam. Not even entertaining to read.

[Daxav]

I think we should be objective about the whole thing. The imbalance issue that NA is experiencing is the result of too many people wanting to play on the winning side. Plain and simple. Because they have many more players, they can RvR and PvP in a systematic way that other nations cannot. The way to solve the whole problem is to remove the excessive benefits that the winning side has. One such way is to remove screening, as their numbers will count no longer, and they will not be able to influence other nations RvR. They will still have an advantage -by having a large player base ready to attack/defend- on their own RvR, which I find fair, as they are the largest nation. 
The question will now be, with the new mechanics, if the RvR advantage that they already have will be compensated. For example, limits on multiflips decrease that advantage, especially if there is no screen. In such scenario, numbers play no role.
I think we should not complain before we see the effects. If we complain beforehand, it really only makes us a quite rash, unreasonable and unreliable community. Happy to criticise @admin afterwards, if it all gets screwed up... BTW, it would be nice @admin if you at some point posted data and your reasoning leading to changes. Might help the community understand your choices.

[Poryv]

Sory guys

@Cornelis Evertsen de Oude@van stiermarken@RepairyMcRepairous@Henry Long Castle@Swedish Berserker

but you are getting poryved:

[van Veen]

On 5/21/2020 at 12:31 PM, admin said:

No its not ridiculous.

Major driver of speed is length of the vessel. Hull speed is determined by keel length. And modified by skill and fitouts, and basic sailpower. It is the reality of seamanship.
Theoretical 3rd rate will always be faster than theoretical frigate at best point just because its longer, if their sail power by weight is the same. If frigate is longer its base speed will be faster. But only at its best point. 

Overall. Get a fast ship and equip it for chase. Every ship is faster than every other ship in particular circumstances. There is always a faster (bigger) hammer. 

The myth that frigate is always faster than a 3rd rate must  be cut by red hot axes from the minds clouded by older incorrect games. Its like Asbestos - must be removed from everywhere. 

 

Your theory is based solely on one parameter which is hull speed. And, as you surely know, the resulting theoretical speed advantage of a 3rd to a frigate is in fact marginal given that the speed scales with the square root of the length.

Cinsider displacement to length ratio, and, more importantly, sail area to displacement ratio. Both these values largely benefit frigates. 

Late 3rd rate designs were excellent sailors, capable of good speeds and behaving well in heavy weather. But this also applied to many frigate designs. In moderate or light wind conditions, a frigate would drive circles around a heavy ship of the line. 

[van stiermarken]

4 hours ago, Poryv said:

Sory guys

@Cornelis Evertsen de Oude@van stiermarken@RepairyMcRepairous@Henry Long Castle@Swedish Berserker

but you are getting poryved:
 

I don't know what you mean. Sorry but the word "poryved" has absolut no meaning.
and you are not in the position to teach others. that is more than disrespectful and have your parents taught you no behavior?

[Conte D. Catellani]

44 minutes ago, van Veen said:

Your theory is based solely on one parameter which is hull speed. And, as you surely know, the resulting theoretical speed advantage of a 3rd to a frigate is in fact marginal given that the speed scales with the square root of the length.

Cinsider displacement to length ratio, and, more importantly, sail area to displacement ratio. Both these values largely benefit frigates. 

Late 3rd rate designs were excellent sailors, capable of good speeds and behaving well in heavy weather. But this also applied to many frigate designs. In moderate or light wind conditions, a frigate would drive circles around a heavy ship of the line. 

Just asking since is interesting 

the kees do not also have a resistance given by the front section? In this case the section of a third rank is higher respects to a frigate

[Swedish Berserker]

Check historical litarature on the Topic Line ships were mostly faster than frigates! HMS Victory could go up to 13 knots Le Buccentaure had a frigate Takelage and could go even faster!! 

If you read some Books about it (like Aubrey Maturin for example) you see many fights were frigates could not outrun a 3rd rate do to the Fakt that you cold sail it way harder since it's masts we're stronger and also the hull! That swhy the Connie was so fast Historicly! 

[Serk]

8 minutes ago, Swedish Berserker said:

Check historical litarature on the Topic Line ships were mostly faster than frigates! HMS Victory could go up to 13 knots Le Buccentaure had a frigate Takelage and could go even faster!! 

A very good reason to get rid of DLC lineships  😂

[van Veen]

16 minutes ago, Conte D. Catellani said:

Just asking since is interesting 

the kees do not also have a resistance given by the front section? In this case the section of a third rank is higher respects to a frigate

Yes, water line length to beam width is also a factor. But it is not the main driver for speed imho, as this is well covered by the displacement. Same applies to the wetted area, which is also an important parameter, but can be deduced or guessed from the displacement. 

If you are interested in design parameters, search for "block coefficient". This is the parameter that tells you about the bulkiness of an underwater hull. 

[van Veen]

16 minutes ago, Swedish Berserker said:

Check historical litarature on the Topic Line ships were mostly faster than frigates! HMS Victory could go up to 13 knots Le Buccentaure had a frigate Takelage and could go even faster!! 

If you read some Books about it (like Aubrey Maturin for example) you see many fights were frigates could not outrun a 3rd rate do to the Fakt that you cold sail it way harder since it's masts we're stronger and also the hull! That swhy the Connie was so fast Historicly! 

Strength of masts is not the issue, it's stability, i.e. uprighting momentum. Since frigates had more sail area per displacement, they need to reef their sails earlier. 

Speed is not a fixed number, it depends on wind, trim, sea state, and point of sail. So, I'd always try to read the context as well rather than the raw number. 

On top of that, historical speed measurement precision is quite debatable. 

[admin]

1 hour ago, van Veen said:

Your theory is based solely on one parameter which is hull speed. And, as you surely know, the resulting theoretical speed advantage of a 3rd to a frigate is in fact marginal given that the speed scales with the square root of the length.

Cinsider displacement to length ratio, and, more importantly, sail area to displacement ratio. Both these values largely benefit frigates. 

Late 3rd rate designs were excellent sailors, capable of good speeds and behaving well in heavy weather. But this also applied to many frigate designs. In moderate or light wind conditions, a frigate would drive circles around a heavy ship of the line. 

We don't have OUR theory .. There is universal theory.
What we meant is this - If all things with the hull are being equal then the longer ship will have faster speed 
Hull speed is the maximum theoretical speed. Meaning whatever your Block coefficient is, whatever your sail power is, you wont ever exceed hull speed, because that`s how it works. 

Below that speed many other things matter. But the max possible speed for the ship is determined by its hull length https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_speed 
Of course this is 18/19th century theory has been improved later - but we are in the 18/19th century right?

What people are complaining about that the 14th meter wide Redoutable is faster than another 14 meter wide, shorter ship. And they both correct and are incorrect too, as until we have variable wind and ability to set sails individually and until the safety is removed (ability to capsize your ship with too much sails), we will always have these discussions. But everybody know that if we remove safety (ships start to capsize due to too much sail) we will remove many players too (sea legends will have proper model in this regard)

[Archaos]

1 hour ago, van Veen said:

Yes, water line length to beam width is also a factor. But it is not the main driver for speed imho, as this is well covered by the displacement. Same applies to the wetted area, which is also an important parameter, but can be deduced or guessed from the displacement. 

If you are interested in design parameters, search for "block coefficient". This is the parameter that tells you about the bulkiness of an underwater hull. 

The main driver for speed of a vessel is the motive power. It does not really matter what your length, beam, block coefficient, prismatic coefficient, displacement etc. are without the motive power you are not going anywhere.

For a fixed motive power then you can adjust these other parameters to get more speed. A modern super tanker could have a block coefficient of around 0.85 while the ships we are talking about in NA are around 0.687 for the Santisima Trinidad and 0.611 for the Victory, but the modern supertanker could easily do around 16 knots while the sailing ships could possibly do around 12 knots.

So when comparing speeds you need to look at the motive power first, which in the case of sail ships I guess is the sail area she can carry. Of course for sail ships this also gets further complicated because you cannot just keep adding more sail to get more speed as there is a limit to how much sail the masts can take and the power produced by the sail can differ depending on the wind. If you fix the sail area for both ships and the wind speed so both have the same motive force, then you can start looking at hull form and length to beam ratio to see which would be faster.

Edit: For those interested here is a link I found about comparing ship structures of the time under sail and under fire

http://oa.upm.es/1520/1/PONEN_FRANCISCO_FERNANDEZ_GONZALEZ_01.pdf

Edited May 22, 2020 by Archaos

[DDZ_Vasduten]

On 5/21/2020 at 8:31 AM, Christendom said:

I was outside Baracoa on my pirate account when Russia took it the last time.  Pirates had at least 2 full screening fleets + a couple other clans that didn't join the big groups + a AI Patrol fleet + some swedes screening.  Numbers were even.  End result was...Pirates lost the PB anyway.  Take all that away and you'll still lose port battles......but the content for the 60+ OTHER players that show up, won't exist.  Now you'll lose them to 15 on 15 while the rest of us watch on twitch.  Perhaps that's the whole point of this anyway. 

Screening is the great equalizer to elite port battle fleets.  The Ram Dinarks and Reverse's of the game need another group of players to get them into port battles to win them.  The rando Russian, Pirate or Brit that used to help out in screening and is trying to learn the ropes.....has no purpose.  This is critical I think to the games survival because as we've seen with the slow down in the Russia vs Sweden and now GB vs Spain wars.....no port battles = no screening and the game pop tanks.  

Some of my more enjoyable fights have been 1st rate screening battles outside carta before DLC ships and Capturable 1st rates made screening a joke and slaughter fest and I'd rather see those change instead of just tossing out screening completely.  

I was outside Baracoa for that as well... and let me tell you, the privateer fleets somehow disappeared from Mortimer Town, and as we sat waiting for the "giant Russian fleet" from La Tortue, instant fog showed up and barely a minute later US and Dane fleets appeared and tagged everyone. 

It was the most sketch thing I've ever seen in this game. Seemed like fog showed up ahead of the battle fleet, the AI fleets disappeared and screeners warped into place. 
All so Russia could "win" the port and then GIVE it to Pirate RHB so that the bonuses could be neutered and WTF was stripped of their best shipbuilding port. 

It's interesting to know that YOU were sitting there in your alt Pirate account as the US players all showed up to "screen" with the Danes.


I'd like to believe that it wasn't an extreme case of shenanigans but so far I've yet to hear anyone say how it WASN'T.
Only people like you chiming in to reveal even more sketch. 

Why not remove screening and stop alt accounts from gaming the system, if only for a minute until people find other exploits?

[DDZ_Vasduten]

On 5/21/2020 at 8:52 AM, Christendom said:

so the 50+ brits who showed up at Belize didn't care about losing yet another crafting hub?  Or the Spanish trying to take the port really didn't care either?  hmmm news to me.  I know that I cared so little about the Swedes taking ports in the gulf that I showed up to screen every single time....

Does it really matter either way?  The crux of my argument is that screening creates content.  Without that content the game stagnates, as it currently is doing.  Unless Admin has some very special ideas cooked up for this new variation of the flag pulling, I'll remain a bit skeptical given how some of the past improvements turned out.

The "content" that is SUPPOSED to be generated around RvR is PORT BATTLES; not vulching gaminess.

[BoatyMcBoatFace]

2 hours ago, DDZ_Vasduten said:

I was outside Baracoa for that as well... and let me tell you, the privateer fleets somehow disappeared from Mortimer Town, and as we sat waiting for the "giant Russian fleet" from La Tortue, instant fog showed up and barely a minute later US and Dane fleets appeared and tagged everyone. 

It was the most sketch thing I've ever seen in this game. Seemed like fog showed up ahead of the battle fleet, the AI fleets disappeared and screeners warped into place. 
All so Russia could "win" the port and then GIVE it to Pirate RHB so that the bonuses could be neutered and WTF was stripped of their best shipbuilding port. 

It's interesting to know that YOU were sitting there in your alt Pirate account as the US players all showed up to "screen" with the Danes.


I'd like to believe that it wasn't an extreme case of shenanigans but so far I've yet to hear anyone say how it WASN'T.
Only people like you chiming in to reveal even more sketch. 

Why not remove screening and stop alt accounts from gaming the system, if only for a minute until people find other exploits?

you people still claiming russians removed privateer fleets (which one could avoid given the position so its a non issue) specifically for that battle? is that tinfoil bs still floating around? sigh

[BoatyMcBoatFace]

2 minutes ago, rediii said:

I was there and check'd to call bullshit on this one but yes. On the day WTF lost baracoa there were no privateer fleets ingame for pirates

there are two separate issues tho.

 

1. privateer fleets get bugged all the time (check numerous history confirmed by ink of that happening)

2. russians had them removed specifically on that day. or got somebody from the office to do it...

 

the other thing is, baracoa was attacked many times. if they failed that time too it would have happened in 2-3 days again. and again. each attack resulted in fewer and fewer pirates helping so it was a matter of time. no need to even conceive anybody cared about the fleets.

[Nixolai]

2 hours ago, rediii said:

I was there and check'd to call bullshit on this one but yes. On the day WTF lost baracoa there were no privateer fleets ingame for pirates

I remember that, but that was for 2 days i think, it was all the privateer fleets around the map, not just around Mortimer, we searched for Spanish privateer fleets out of KW and found none.

[Beeekonda]

34 minutes ago, Nixolai said:

I remember that, but that was for 2 days i think, it was all the privateer fleets around the map, not just around Mortimer, we searched for Spanish privateer fleets out of KW and found none.

 

2 hours ago, BoatyMcBoatFace said:

1. privateer fleets get bugged all the time (check numerous history confirmed by ink of that happening)

2. russians had them removed specifically on that day. or got somebody from the office to do it...

THEY did everything to make it look unsuspicious......

 

[Frosty]

I've been at Mortimer multiple time with the others from my clan to grind wooden chests (long time before switching to Denmark) and we used to wait 30 minutes out of the line for the Capital Zone out of Mortimer (docks were very close) without having any Priv fleet chasing us. 
Also when Russians took Baracoa we were there and screened for them... they didn't get as close as to say "How come they weren't chaised?!"
It was just a foggy day out of Baracoa and screeners didn't see them (+ we and US helped them to get in despite the fact there were many pirates around) 

[Snoopy]

12 hours ago, Archaos said:

The main driver for speed of a vessel is the motive power. It does not really matter what your length, beam, block coefficient, prismatic coefficient, displacement etc. are without the motive power you are not going anywhere.

For a fixed motive power then you can adjust these other parameters to get more speed. A modern super tanker could have a block coefficient of around 0.85 while the ships we are talking about in NA are around 0.687 for the Santisima Trinidad and 0.611 for the Victory, but the modern supertanker could easily do around 16 knots while the sailing ships could possibly do around 12 knots.

So when comparing speeds you need to look at the motive power first, which in the case of sail ships I guess is the sail area she can carry. Of course for sail ships this also gets further complicated because you cannot just keep adding more sail to get more speed as there is a limit to how much sail the masts can take and the power produced by the sail can differ depending on the wind. If you fix the sail area for both ships and the wind speed so both have the same motive force, then you can start looking at hull form and length to beam ratio to see which would be faster.

Edit: For those interested here is a link I found about comparing ship structures of the time under sail and under fire

http://oa.upm.es/1520/1/PONEN_FRANCISCO_FERNANDEZ_GONZALEZ_01.pdf

Thanks for the link, thats really interesting info 

I agree about your points about hull design differences, but I would like to add that difference in sail area is probably not a factor.

There is plenty of sail area that can be configured on frigates and ships of the line, so much so that with enough wind you will lose efficiency of newly added sail/power because it will increasingly go into making the ship heel and increase drag and thus loss of efficiency, increase in leeway, or risk of capsizing.

If we are talking top speed we would have to assume "a lot of wind", and in that case these ships are probably more limited by their hull design than sail area, it is the hull that determines how efficient power can be turned into forward motion, how efficient it stays over the range of applied power via sail area increase and the optimum speed should be well below max sail area.

One would expect Montañes to have a more efficient hull for speed than say Ingermanland (if both ships were scaled to the same size), there is almost a century of ship building progress between them, but it is still true to say that Montañes will definetly be faster because she is longer and has a higher hull speed.

 

 

[Conte D. Catellani]

1 hour ago, Comrade FrosT said:

I've been at Mortimer multiple time with the others from my clan to grind wooden chests (long time before switching to Denmark) and we used to wait 30 minutes out of the line for the Capital Zone out of Mortimer (docks were very close) without having any Priv fleet chasing us. 
Also when Russians took Baracoa we were there and screened for them... they didn't get as close as to say "How come they weren't chaised?!"
It was just a foggy day out of Baracoa and screeners didn't see them (+ we and US helped them to get in despite the fact there were many pirates around) 

XD

Edited May 23, 2020 by Conte D. Catellani

[admin]

1 hour ago, Snoopy said:

Thanks for the link, thats really interesting info 

 

 

 

that was indeed a good link @Archaos

send me more in pm if you have! we are collecting those. 

[Captain Reverse]

before each port battle, we bring a sac to the god of fog, the privatirs fleets, and just go to office 545  

[Cornelis Evertsen de Oude]

On 5/21/2020 at 11:25 PM, BoatyMcBoatFace said:

u twist words well. do u believe your own tongue

 

VP did all that after ceasefire, aka after they lost. snow helped broker that agreement else maracaibo basin would be russian. then snow left nation. not before, and not other way around

 

no rvr players in sweden zerg didnt need a break. they had to save their ego so they just went on hiatus. sweden wanted that war. sweden was sure it was ez win. when realize not, they just leave. which fine,  but in process they drag spain, france, prussia, and suck playerbase from VP to make great russia kill swerg. sweden so cocky they screen for pirates too. they so cocky they take seasoned ships to mess around people's ports. look at us. we so good. we so rich. then they start losing battles and oops, season now expensive. we tired. etc. swexcuse engage!

 

ofc u dont like bastd.  they change nation and bring fight to your door. even if u 2 port they still attack.  staun and lars not gone bacause content. are you really sayin that? they always say once san juan danish again, they retire for time being. always say that. 

 

if san juan goes to another nation tomorrow, they back and resume. 

Nice, so I don't like BASTD?? Nonsense, right there, assumption all the way. Then Sweden was sure to win, what is there to be won?? Tell me, cause than maby some finally have a goal. The only thing there is is content, mostly bad content, but sometimes good. lose or win, that's all I look for. Now Russian clans like SHOCK, BF and in a way REDS to need to dominate the map, take all 55 pnt ports from nations than can endanger them, so they have better equipment if they fight an equal force. That's what the map shows me..you probably see something else than I do. And that's perfect well for me..

Also again, I have no issues with the Danes, never had, probably never will. I liked Staun, Lars and BOCAR for keeping the figt going, even if it didn't go in their favour..thing was that BASTD wanted to play into that role aswell, doesn't seem right. With BASTD the playerbase Danmark had started to look really fine again. Thing is, now I don't see any BOCAR around, and why is that??

 

o7

 

[Archaos]

7 hours ago, Snoopy said:

Thanks for the link, thats really interesting info 

I agree about your points about hull design differences, but I would like to add that difference in sail area is probably not a factor.

There is plenty of sail area that can be configured on frigates and ships of the line, so much so that with enough wind you will lose efficiency of newly added sail/power because it will increasingly go into making the ship heel and increase drag and thus loss of efficiency, increase in leeway, or risk of capsizing.

If we are talking top speed we would have to assume "a lot of wind", and in that case these ships are probably more limited by their hull design than sail area, it is the hull that determines how efficient power can be turned into forward motion, how efficient it stays over the range of applied power via sail area increase and the optimum speed should be well below max sail area.

One would expect Montañes to have a more efficient hull for speed than say Ingermanland (if both ships were scaled to the same size), there is almost a century of ship building progress between them, but it is still true to say that Montañes will definetly be faster because she is longer and has a higher hull speed.

 

 

I agree with what you say, my point was a bit simplistic to indicate that just looking at length to breadth ratio and block coefficient does not tell you how fast a ship will be as that depends on the motive power. For sails, as I mentioned, you cannot just keep adding more and expect to go faster as other factors come into play, in the same way for modern ships you cannot keep increasing engine power to go faster as you have to consider the increased weight and "hull speed", although "hull speed" is not a limit and ships can exceed it.

The naval architect has to play around with all these figures when designing a vessel and there are always compromises made to achieve the optimal design for a particular vessel. In the case of super tankers one of the main requirements is cargo carrying capacity, the size of them increased during the Suez crisis when the canal was closed so oil from the Arabian Gulf had to be transported round the cape which was a much longer trip but speed was not essential if they could carry more. For fruit trades the ships needed to be quick as well as carry cargo so you get a finer form with a much lower block coefficient, its all a balance and the same types of compromises were made with ship designs in the age of sail.

Edit: on a side note another interesting article I came across regarding maneuverability of sailing warships

https://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mariner/vol14/tnm_14_3_57-68.pdf 

For those interested in the subject here is another article regarding sail warship design

https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/files/34486018/247182.pdf

If you like it a bit more technical then there is this article

https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/sites/default/files/Preprints/P308.pdf

For those interested in a simple explanation of bogus hull speed limit watch this video

 

Edited May 23, 2020 by Archaos