Saw this on Steam Greenlight. Looks like it might be good.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=259130636 (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=259130636)
Hope it might have single player some day
No go for me if no single player and it needs damage modeling. No holes in the sails or broke masts after taking a full broadside from a triple deck 120'gun ship of the line?
Maybe added later. Anyway, looks cool but I need SP. I still miss "Broadsides" on my Commodore 64
Edit: I see they will be adding damage modeling, so that's cool
Sounds interesting to me!
I also remembered the other pre-alpha project I had been trying to think of not long ago in the other thread:
Hearts Of Oak
http://www.moddb.com/games/hearts-of-oak
Looking good but i only play games where i can play solo...(having so few time).
So what's this? "World of Sails"?
Quote from: mikeck on May 14, 2014, 07:48:49 PM
I still miss "Broadsides" on my Commodore 64
Me, too! It is sad that after all these years nobody has made a proper modern remake of it. This new game might come the closest when all is said and done.
I miss my copy of Broadsides & Boarding Parties.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on May 14, 2014, 06:19:05 PM
Saw this on Steam Greenlight. Looks like it might be good.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=259130636 (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=259130636)
It does look good. the wind, waves and sails look very convincing. I suspect it will try to rehash some of the supposed actual facts about warfare undersail, but since it will be jazzed up arcade-style, it will paradoxically come closer to the real thing (though at many times the speed). So thing seemed kind of impossible, for example, the one of the two French corvettes were sailing broad with full sails in something approaching a gale -- not likely to last for more than a minute or two, plus one of the two was reaching under full sail in that same wind -- again -- seems a bit suicidal, though the ships don't heel much so maybe not in that version of the game engine. Maybe you can't take in much sail? But then in the background was a ship under bare poles (not very safe either).
More scruitiny shows worse sailing == tacking seems almost as easy as wearing and you stop if you reef your sails (very odd). Sails seem to have two states -- on and off. The relation of sails to wind doesn't seem to have much effect on speed.
Oh well, maybe there will be a realism setting or two or something.
If you read the description, it sounds like they will be putting in realistic sail features.
QuoteRealistic sailing – Advanced wind and physics model provides for realistic portrayal of ship's performance in the age of sail. Yard angles, ship angle to wind, cargo, fittings and ship condition affects speeds and turning rates. Correct tacking, boxhauling, clubhauling and other elements of the age of sail sailing are possible. Hidden ship characteristics will allow to gradually uncover potential of the vessel – every ship in game will be unique.
Quote from: MengJiao on May 16, 2014, 02:12:33 PM
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on May 14, 2014, 06:19:05 PM
Saw this on Steam Greenlight. Looks like it might be good.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=259130636 (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=259130636)
It does look good. the wind, waves and sails look very convincing. I suspect it will try to rehash some of the supposed actual facts about warfare undersail, but since it will be jazzed up arcade-style, it will paradoxically come closer to the real thing (though at many times the speed). So thing seemed kind of impossible, for example, the one of the two French corvettes were sailing broad with full sails in something approaching a gale -- not likely to last for more than a minute or two, plus one of the two was reaching under full sail in that same wind -- again -- seems a bit suicidal, though the ships don't heel much so maybe not in that version of the game engine. Maybe you can't take in much sail? But then in the background was a ship under bare poles (not very safe either).
More scruitiny shows worse sailing == tacking seems almost as easy as wearing and you stop if you reef your sails (very odd). Sails seem to have two states -- on and off. The relation of sails to wind doesn't seem to have much effect on speed.
Oh well, maybe there will be a realism setting or two or something.
I noticed at least some of those things as well. Plus it would have been normal to brail up the mainsails in combat to reduce the risk of fire.
Quote from: Anguille on May 15, 2014, 10:38:57 AM
Looking good but i only play games where i can play solo...(having so few time).
From it's Greenlight page description:
"The game will be shipped in 3 stages.
Episode 1: Multiplayer combat.
Episode 2: Upgradeable ships, crews, ranks, boarding
Episode 3:
Sandbox open world, crafting and conquest"
That implies that you can wander off and do your thing by your lonesome..?
Sounds exactly like something I would play, especially if the ever get all three stages out.
^I hope so.
Crafting? What's the deal with crafting? I hate crafting!
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on May 16, 2014, 06:16:32 PM
Crafting? What's the deal with crafting? I hate crafting!
Gaming proven over and over again that repetitive tasks with colorful results is a proven recipe for success. I imagine implementing a crafting system has an effective cost/benefit ratio for your average development team, but I also imagine there is a cost/benefit ratio that will get Jennifer Aniston to see me naked.
I played Pirates of the Burning Sea for about a year. I love the genre, and I would love for this game to be a success.
Problem with these types of games is that the twitch crowd gets bored easily, and having ships move at 60 knots to increase the excitement level destroys the sedate pace and strategizing that old farts like me want.
Quote from: DennisS on May 16, 2014, 10:23:25 PM
I played Pirates of the Burning Sea for about a year. I love the genre, and I would love for this game to be a success.
"You want buy big ship?" ;D (the beginning of some gold farmer chat spam that started while still in closed beta and continued on through release ::) )
I played for a couple months and then lost interest shortly after reaching max level and getting sick of planning ahead for port battles but possibly lose the lottery drawing to get in. I came back a couple times, but I seem to recall some of the changes being rather annoying. Nevertheless, I rank it as one of the more interesting MMOs and still wish it had been advanced in a better manner. The player-run economy relied so heavily on long strings of different accounts to work in unison that it self imploded at some point and from then on it became a painful experience, when I tried it a third time, due to the demand outweighing the supply. As an after note, the graphics and interface were a bit primitive too.
Quote
Problem with these types of games is that the twitch crowd gets bored easily, and having ships move at 60 knots to increase the excitement level destroys the sedate pace and strategizing that old farts like me want.
I didn't consider PotBS a twitch game. The naval battles weren't all that fast. It sure wasn't a frosty
Age Of Sail 2 sim pace but it was slow enough that it still kept the feel of the thing and allowed for some strategy. This upcoming one sounds like it will be more 'sim' than PotBS, however.
New video up showing a 1v1 Frigate duel. You can see the player taking manual control of the sail yards and manipulating their angles to catch or spill more wind. The pacing seems reasonable to me. I think it look pretty good. Hopefully they'll add marines and sharpshooters to the rigging and work more on the damage modelling but I think it looks promising.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on May 19, 2014, 03:31:17 AM
New video up showing a 1v1 Frigate duel. You can see the player taking manual control of the sail yards and manipulating their angles to catch or spill more wind. The pacing seems reasonable to me. I think it look pretty good. Hopefully they'll add marines and sharpshooters to the rigging and work more on the damage modelling but I think it looks promising.
Wow! Weird, but promising. The basic problem seems to be there's no momentum so you can't actually tack and the rudder seems to have no effect so the steering is by turning the front sails. Oddly the outcomes are not that bad, they just look very strange. I am mystified by having a sailing game where the ships don't really sail -- why not just have ironclads?
Oh well. Maybe they can fix it up. At the moment I just don't get the reasons for having sails in the game.
They seemed to sail alright as far as I could tell. Wind direction, sail state, yard angle and speed were all clearly indicated down in the bottom left of the screen.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on May 19, 2014, 09:49:21 AM
They seemed to sail alright as far as I could tell. Wind direction, sail state, yard angle and speed were all clearly indicated down in the bottom left of the screen.
Sure, but they didn't make much sense. For example sailing very near the wind at 80% of your top speed isn't likely. In fact I don't think a ship rigged like those are could sail that close to the wind at all.
Even odder -- they can get close to the wind, but they cannot tack from what I saw. Perhaps that's just as well since the earlier versions could tack but it was just a turn past the wind (not possible).
So things were fine: reaching, heeling, wearing, backing up and in some cases even the speeds were okay. All-in-all very promising.
Plus of course, a ship could not change sail states (4 different ones, with shifting the yards in say 30 seconds) that fast.
I just don't see the need for this. Are you seriously trying to tell me that CA didn't already nail age of sails warfare in Empire TW??
(... ;))
Quote from: sandman2575 on May 19, 2014, 02:26:28 PM
I just don't see the need for this. Are you seriously trying to tell me that CA didn't already nail age of sails warfare in Empire TW??
(... ;))
Well, they did try sort of. In fact, looking at this Naval Action (not a bad title) alpha made me want to go look at sea battles in Fall of the Shogun..which were nice in some ways. (wow...I meant Fall of the Samuri)
With sailing warship games there are so many problems that a game featuring steam power, but with a dose of realism (which we have never really seen) would seem like the best solution.
With sailing warship games you have the following massive problems:
1) you need to get some kind of sailing model working -- outside of sailing simulations, I have not seen a digital game with a good sailing model
2) apparently you have to model the accepted fighting model -- which seems to be wrong even in board games (eg. the best tactic is not to aim at the hull -- that is the end point of doing everything else exactly right -- ie if you have the luxury of aiming at the hull, you have already won the fight)
3) Suppose (against all odds) you modelled the above two perfectly PERFECTLY -- no one but me would understand the game and even I might find it very confusing most of the time PLUS the game-hating industry would have two perfect hate-targets:
1) the counter-intuitive sailing model (it would be counter-intuitive unless you knew how to sail a good-sized boat)
2) the ahistorical combat model (because the standard histories completely misrepresent combat under sail)
So anything outside of a rather arcadey combat under sail game is not likely to be good or popular -- so I wish they would just do a decent steam-powered warship game instead.
I'm sure this is still in early Alpha. I doubt it will be modelled well for awhile yet, so it's probably not worth evaluating anything until further down the line.
Quote from: Nefaro on May 19, 2014, 06:38:20 PM
I'm sure this is still in early Alpha. I doubt it will be modelled well for awhile yet, so it's probably not worth evaluating anything until further down the line.
But there's already a fine pseudohistorical line going on the Naval Action site and we are already being told:
Not really... any gun fire at sea aimed at range greater than 400m was practically a waste of shot and powder... besides, large Ships of the Line had quite thick hulls, you needed heavy guns to penetrate them... everything below 18pdrs was considered inadequate to penetrate the hull of Ship of the Line... shooting at greater range was possible, yet effects were minimal, mostly hitting sails.. French and Spanish usually opened fire at 400m, British usually held the fire until very close.. (pistol range)Fortunately the developers are not going to ensure pseudohistorical results and their gunnery system will allow you to make useful
hits at distances greater than pointblank range.
Quote from: Gusington on May 16, 2014, 06:11:25 PM
^I hope so.
Boats (from the Naval Action site):
Early access edition will feature these ships
1. Naval Cutter
2. Schooner
3. Light Brig
4. Royal armed Yacht from pre-order package
5. Heavy Corvette
6. Snow
7. Medium Frigate
8. Super-Frigate
9. 64 gun 4th rate
10. 74
11. First rate
Hmm...I don't think I could play an age-of-sail game where the British lose to the French :P
But seriously...I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that realistically simulating age-of-sail naval warfare is unlikely, and we will must needs be satisfied with pseudo-historic games designed with low-to-moderate complexity. Although the era is incredibly colourful and interesting, many age-of-sail battles are little more than massive slug-fests between giant wooden behemoths. When you try to play this out in board game (like Sails of Glory) or computer game, this mostly equates to getting in close, hoping for a lucky shot that causes critical damage or a completely ahistorical quick maneouver, and then battering your opponent into submission. While this can be fun (especially if you use some kind of ersatz flag-signalling system between players, like in Close Action), there are few surprises. Compare this vis-a-vis something like Wings of Glory, where smart or risky maneuvering can turn what looks like an imminent defeat into an exciting victory.
Considering that I have probably owned nine or ten age-of-sail games (board and PC), and my on-line "tag" is taken from that era, no-one is more surprised than me that I am casting doubt upon this genre.
Yours in gaming,
Jack Nastyface
Quote from: Jack Nastyface on May 22, 2014, 05:18:53 PM
Considering that I have probably owned nine or ten age-of-sail games (board and PC), and my on-line "tag" is taken from that era, no-one is more surprised than me that I am casting doubt upon this genre.
Yours in gaming,
Jack Nastyface
I think the genre has its problems, but not so much because of simplifications, but because until recently, there were no good analyses of what the dynamics of an age of sail naval battle really were. It's odd -- but like many things, the interesting reality was buried under a century of glib and dull imagery. But people are now reading Willis and all will be well and with some of the real excitment of those battles.
One thing worth bearing in mind was that the Royal Navy had a tough time from say 1700 - 1794 and really did not gain total superiority until after 1794. If you go over every major action from say 1700 to 1794, you'll find many very close battles that were not simple slugfests and that had plenty of wild moments.
Hey Meng,
Good post, and good points. I agree that there are lots of interesting moments in naval warfare in the era you mention (1700 - 1790), but aside from the AWI, much of this gets ignored in digital games. The Russo-Turkish war featured some savage "take no prisoners" fighting, whereas at the battle of Hogland(?)(Russia vs Sweden), ships were pulled into firing position by longboats. Of course, many events in the life of Capt. Cochrane (upon which the Master and Commander book series draws from) would make for some great gaming.
What I find interesting / annoying is that each age of sail game I have ever played has had some really good features, but no-one has ever built a best of breed. IIRC, The very arcade-y Pirates! was one of few (only?) games that featured ships flying false flags to lure you into combat (a common tactic during the era). Man of War II: Chains of Command (still one of my all time favorites) featured flag signals, and limited repair capabilities (fires and flooding, only). Privateers Bounty had lots of ships, scenarios and campaigns, and even a "ship design" tool. I think only Pirates II featured engagements versus shore-based structures (I think that ship vs land combat was borked in Privateers Bounty), and none of them had working shallows / grounding.
Two of the most recent offerings in table-top games - Trafalgar, by Warhammer Historical, and Sails of Glory, by Ares - are really designed for the casual naval warfare gamer. Trafalgar has ship and fleet "upgrades" that work almost like power-ups, and Sails of Glory allows you to play two movement cards in order to perform the nautical equivalent of a hammerhead stall / bootlegger reverse.
For my money, I will probably stick with Flying Colors for squadron actions, and Close Action for ship-to-ship stuff. I know you have posted about some challenges with Flying Colors, but I'm not sure what else is out there. Perhaps I should look into the old but venerable Heart of Oak rules from FGU.
Signal Beat to Quarters,
Jack Nastyface
Quote from: Jack Nastyface on May 23, 2014, 01:03:49 PM
Hey Meng,
Good post, and good points. I agree that there are lots of interesting moments in naval warfare in the era you mention (1700 - 1790), but aside from the AWI, much of this gets ignored in digital games.
Yeah, its an eternal puzzle as to what gets popular and what gets forgotten. For fighting under sail you get mostly pirates (not bad, but hard to simulate at all well) and very standardized post-1800 imagery with Nelson anihilating the poor French and Spanish according to a stylized set of fairly tedious principles. The whole of the 18th century is written off as usual as "linear" (this happens in characterizing the 18th century in other areas too -- which is a nineteenth century view and one that we should be able to get over). As usual periods that are actually complex get written off as not having some aspect that a later period prides itself on. I'm not expecting anything in the near future to really dig into what made 18th century naval warfare the ever-changing spectacle of disasters that it was because the past as ever-changing does not see to be a popular analytic approach -- people generally want to see the few things about the past that the have actually heard of...which are not usually very representative or enlightening, they just happen to have gotten mythologized.
And of course, heaven forebid it should take some effort of the imagination to get at the odd dynamics of naval battles in the 18th century -- good heavens -- you'd have to understand something about sailing a ship or shooting a canon or what have you.
For now, Naval Action seems reasonably promising, though I think steampower would help with player comprehension -- apparently early steampower is even more lost to the imagery of the popular mind than pirates and what not.
No one has mentioned the game Salvo yet! I haven't played it since shortly after it came out but it still available at HPS (I think). Also, I recently bought Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition during a Matrix sale. They added tactical naval action to the original game. The manual has about 25 pages on this part of the game and it looks impressive. Contains grounding, loose cannon, wind blockage (due to upwind, same size ship), 4 sail states, marines, morale, etc. Unfortunately, I don't see a way to simply generate a naval action without playing the rest of the game to set up the situation. I was hoping there was a 'battle simulator' built in like with some games.
Quote from: Jack Nastyface on May 23, 2014, 01:03:49 PM
For my money, I will probably stick with Flying Colors for squadron actions, and Close Action for ship-to-ship stuff. I know you have posted about some challenges with Flying Colors, but I'm not sure what else is out there. Perhaps I should look into the old but venerable Heart of Oak rules from FGU.
Signal Beat to Quarters,
Jack Nastyface
Flying colors is good and easy to modify, but as you say, in digital games things are very uneven. I kind of like the steamships in fall of the samuri, and it seems like that might be a better model than sailing actions for a sandbox game.
For example, you could use sails for transits and steam for actions so you would use trade wind planning for long-distance travel and then a simple steam model for battles.
I think Salvo was Shrapnel games.
Quote from: MengJiao
For now, Naval Action seems reasonably promising, though I think steampower would help with player comprehension -- apparently early steampower is even more lost to the imagery of the popular mind than pirates and what not.
Please, not steam power or dreadnaughts. I find naval combat games between the age of sail and the introduction of air power to be crushingly dull. Talk about linear. Once you remove the element of wind from the tactical situation every game I've played on the subject devolves in to little more than a slugfest between ships with each player hoping for a critical hit on a magazine or some such.
Quote from: Jack Nastyface on May 22, 2014, 05:18:53 PM
Hmm...I don't think I could play an age-of-sail game where the British lose to the French :P
But seriously...I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that realistically simulating age-of-sail naval warfare is unlikely, and we will must needs be satisfied with pseudo-historic games designed with low-to-moderate complexity. Although the era is incredibly colourful and interesting, many age-of-sail battles are little more than massive slug-fests between giant wooden behemoths. When you try to play this out in board game (like Sails of Glory) or computer game, this mostly equates to getting in close, hoping for a lucky shot that causes critical damage or a completely ahistorical quick maneouver, and then battering your opponent into submission. While this can be fun (especially if you use some kind of ersatz flag-signalling system between players, like in Close Action), there are few surprises. Compare this vis-a-vis something like Wings of Glory, where smart or risky maneuvering can turn what looks like an imminent defeat into an exciting victory.
Considering that I have probably owned nine or ten age-of-sail games (board and PC), and my on-line "tag" is taken from that era, no-one is more surprised than me that I am casting doubt upon this genre.
Yours in gaming,
Jack Nastyface
Funny you should mention it, but I still have a copy of CoA's
Close Action I had purchased long ago (the late 90s??). Was eyeing it the other day, wondering if I should finally punch the counters and dig in. However, the points you made also struck me as how the gameplay would proceed.. pounding away at each other until something gives. To be fair, the combination of restrictive time limits and scenario setups on some other games tend to force a similar style of play. The HPS
Squad Battles series on PC is one example which springs to mind.
@Nefaro,
Admittedly, there is great pleasure to be had in gaming a slug fest between wooden ships. As I see it, a game designer really has one of two choices when desiging a game from this era: Should the challenge come from managing the particulars of individual ships, or from command and squadron maneuver? Close Action does the former, while Flying Colors attempts the latter. Both have their benefits and drawbacks. I like Close Action because it provides enough detail to reflect the many-faceted challenges of the era, but uses a number of mechanics to make these tasks workable.
WSIM is still a great game, but I feel it needs one or two house rules (especially wrt dis-masted ships) to make it slightly more "accurate". Flying Colors plays very easily, and I like the command / leadership element it uses.
CA plays very well with a group of people...if you can find a group willing to game the era.
Yes, I can certainly imagine playing Close Action or a similar game being very fun in a team setting. O0
When it comes down to it, most strategy games could be generalized as boiling down to pounding away at each other up close. It's an unfair simplification as the fun is in the little details and specific situations you find yourself in. Kinda reminds me of someone's synopsis of their recent flight sim experiences as, "take off, get in a fight, return home and land. Rinse/repeat." (was that you Jomni? ;D ). Over simplified summary, I gues.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on May 24, 2014, 08:29:58 AM
Quote from: MengJiao
For now, Naval Action seems reasonably promising, though I think steampower would help with player comprehension -- apparently early steampower is even more lost to the imagery of the popular mind than pirates and what not.
Please, not steam power or dreadnaughts. I find naval combat games between the age of sail and the introduction of air power to be crushingly dull. Talk about linear. Once you remove the element of wind from the tactical situation every game I've played on the subject devolves in to little more than a slugfest between ships with each player hoping for a critical hit on a magazine or some such.
Well...I'm shocked. I'm personally quite fond of hoping for critical hits. As usual, I tend to think the problem is with the choices available to game-makers rather than in the situations peope make games about. What if the ship models were done well enough that every hit had a story? For example in a recent book about French Battleships 1922-1956 there is the tale of the 4 15-inch shells that hit the Dunkerque: 1 went nowhere in particular, one bounced off the top of a main gun turret but still caused a chain of events that killed 8 crewmen in the turret and knocked out a gun; two did exactly as designed (and here apparently the authors decided everybody knew what a "Greenboy" was since these 15-inch shells were earnestly noted to be "descendents" of the "famous Greenboys") and penetrated the thickest armor on the Dunkerque to knock out the control center for damage control, the engines, the electric power and start a fire in the refrigerator that was fueled by secondary charges falling through a hole into the burning meat locker.
Quote from: Nefaro on May 25, 2014, 07:55:22 PM
Yes, I can certainly imagine playing Close Action or a similar game being very fun in a team setting. O0
When it comes down to it, most strategy games could be generalized as boiling down to pounding away at each other up close. It's an unfair simplification as the fun is in the little details and specific situations you find yourself in. Kinda reminds me of someone's synopsis of their recent flight sim experiences as, "take off, get in a fight, return home and land. Rinse/repeat." (was that you Jomni? ;D ). Over simplified summary, I gues.
But that's actually totally wrong for the age of Sail. The nineteenth and early twentieth centuries insisted on re-reading and re-projecting the dull pounding tactics of Nelson and company back into the whole of the 18th century. Actually, ships were profittably opening fire at over 1000yds and shooting the sails of their enemies to bits. The French did perfectly well with that basic opening gambit as long as their fleet control was tighter than that of their (RN) opponents -- which it usually was from say 1690 to 1790. The result was a pretty endless stream of RN fiascos in that period. The RN had to tighten up its signals and tactics from say 1785 to 1805 which happened to be at the expense of the French and Spanish as both of those navies drifted into catastrophic ineptitude.
Quote from: MengJiao on May 27, 2014, 09:02:39 AM
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on May 24, 2014, 08:29:58 AM
Quote from: MengJiao
For now, Naval Action seems reasonably promising, though I think steampower would help with player comprehension -- apparently early steampower is even more lost to the imagery of the popular mind than pirates and what not.
Please, not steam power or dreadnaughts. I find naval combat games between the age of sail and the introduction of air power to be crushingly dull. Talk about linear. Once you remove the element of wind from the tactical situation every game I've played on the subject devolves in to little more than a slugfest between ships with each player hoping for a critical hit on a magazine or some such.
Well...I'm shocked. I'm personally quite fond of hoping for critical hits. As usual, I tend to think the problem is with the choices available to game-makers rather than in the situations peope make games about. What if the ship models were done well enough that every hit had a story? For example in a recent book about French Battleships 1922-1956 there is the tale of the 4 15-inch shells that hit the Dunkerque: 1 went nowhere in particular, one bounced off the top of a main gun turret but still caused a chain of events that killed 8 crewmen in the turret and knocked out a gun; two did exactly as designed (and here apparently the authors decided everybody knew what a "Greenboy" was since these 15-inch shells were earnestly noted to be "descendents" of the "famous Greenboys") and penetrated the thickest armor on the Dunkerque to knock out the control center for damage control, the engines, the electric power and start a fire in the refrigerator that was fueled by secondary charges falling through a hole into the burning meat locker.
As the steampower/dreadnaught tactics are usually limited to cruise along in a nice line and slug it out (and maybe send a few torpedo boats out) it just feels kind of dull. For me, there just isn't enough tactical variety to make the details of slugging it out interesting enough to overcome the lack of variety one finds battling it out on a 2D plane. I feel like I'm essentially playing a drawn out random number generator.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on May 27, 2014, 09:34:15 AM
Quote from: MengJiao on May 27, 2014, 09:02:39 AM
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on May 24, 2014, 08:29:58 AM
Quote from: MengJiao
For now, Naval Action seems reasonably promising, though I think steampower would help with player comprehension -- apparently early steampower is even more lost to the imagery of the popular mind than pirates and what not.
Please, not steam power or dreadnaughts. I find naval combat games between the age of sail and the introduction of air power to be crushingly dull. Talk about linear. Once you remove the element of wind from the tactical situation every game I've played on the subject devolves in to little more than a slugfest between ships with each player hoping for a critical hit on a magazine or some such.
Well...I'm shocked. I'm personally quite fond of hoping for critical hits. As usual, I tend to think the problem is with the choices available to game-makers rather than in the situations peope make games about. What if the ship models were done well enough that every hit had a story? For example in a recent book about French Battleships 1922-1956 there is the tale of the 4 15-inch shells that hit the Dunkerque: 1 went nowhere in particular, one bounced off the top of a main gun turret but still caused a chain of events that killed 8 crewmen in the turret and knocked out a gun; two did exactly as designed (and here apparently the authors decided everybody knew what a "Greenboy" was since these 15-inch shells were earnestly noted to be "descendents" of the "famous Greenboys") and penetrated the thickest armor on the Dunkerque to knock out the control center for damage control, the engines, the electric power and start a fire in the refrigerator that was fueled by secondary charges falling through a hole into the burning meat locker.
As the steampower/dreadnaught tactics are usually limited to cruise along in a nice line and slug it out (and maybe send a few torpedo boats out) it just feels kind of dull. For me, there just isn't enough tactical variety to make the details of slugging it out interesting enough to overcome the lack of variety one finds battling it out on a 2D plane. I feel like I'm essentially playing a drawn out random number generator.
That was the theory of course (at least for the Japanese after 1903 and for everyone else after say 1913) -- but (with the exception of the Japanese again) it only happened once for a few hours at Jutland and even in that case there are more exceptions than anything else.
I'm thinking that steam power for games at least has the virtue of simplicity: you don't have to worry about how to deal with the wind. With that out of the way you could just have the game run wild with ramming, guns, engines, boilers, coal and armor. It's true since nobody really knows what strange events would happen if the ships of say an 1880 vintage fired at each other -- randomness could be modelled on the extreme side. Or not. Games on the topic could make a virtue out of necessity and model the ships in some details so that the occasional penetrating event could cause all kinds of mischeif short of just knocking out this or that standardized subsystem.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on May 27, 2014, 09:34:15 AM
As the steampower/dreadnaught tactics are usually limited to cruise along in a nice line and slug it out (and maybe send a few torpedo boats out) it just feels kind of dull. For me, there just isn't enough tactical variety to make the details of slugging it out interesting enough to overcome the lack of variety one finds battling it out on a 2D plane. I feel like I'm essentially playing a drawn out random number generator.
And another thing ( I was just reading the Naval Action site in horror), apparently there is no way to get people to drop their nineteenth-century views of 18th century warfare. Yet again we are hearing that the French kept to the lee side of the engagement (with the RN on the windward side) so that their ships would heel in such a way that they could hit sails. This is just totally wrong wrong wrong wrong. For one thing you can shoot at sails even from the windward (as the French did off Ushant in 1778) and for another shooting at sails is a good long range tactic no matter what side of the wind you are on in relation to the enemy (as is clear from accounts and modified simulations). In fact it works even better if the enemy is leeward of you since if it cripples them it leaves them easy for you to pursue. So anyway, At least if people shift to steamships, all this complete nonsense about the age of sail will not be repeated over and over and uncritically applied.
Quote from: MengJiao on May 27, 2014, 03:10:15 PM
And another thing ( I was just reading the Naval Action site in horror), apparently there is no way to get people to drop their nineteenth-century views of 18th century warfare. Yet again we are hearing that the French kept to the lee side of the engagement (with the RN on the windward side) so that their ships would heel in such a way that they could hit sails. This is just totally wrong wrong wrong wrong. For one thing you can shoot at sails even from the windward (as the French did off Ushant in 1778) and for another shooting at sails is a good long range tactic no matter what side of the wind you are on in relation to the enemy (as is clear from accounts and modified simulations). In fact it works even better if the enemy is leeward of you since if it cripples them it leaves them easy for you to pursue. So anyway, At least if people shift to steamships, all this complete nonsense about the age of sail will not be repeated over and over and uncritically applied.
Jeez, Meng...next thing you'll be telling us that ship-boarding melees featuring sailors jumping across decks or swinging from ropes in the rigging was almost unheard of ;-).
FWIW...theoretically speaking, staying to windward would increase your chance of hitting the windward standing rigging of your enemy (things like the chain-plates, shrouds and stays), and since it is the windward rigging that keeps the mast from tipping over to leeward you would therefore increase the chance of losing a mast-section in that downwind direction.
Quote from: Jack Nastyface on May 27, 2014, 05:46:34 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on May 27, 2014, 03:10:15 PM
And another thing ( I was just reading the Naval Action site in horror), apparently there is no way to get people to drop their nineteenth-century views of 18th century warfare. Yet again we are hearing that the French kept to the lee side of the engagement (with the RN on the windward side) so that their ships would heel in such a way that they could hit sails. This is just totally wrong wrong wrong wrong. For one thing you can shoot at sails even from the windward (as the French did off Ushant in 1778) and for another shooting at sails is a good long range tactic no matter what side of the wind you are on in relation to the enemy (as is clear from accounts and modified simulations). In fact it works even better if the enemy is leeward of you since if it cripples them it leaves them easy for you to pursue. So anyway, At least if people shift to steamships, all this complete nonsense about the age of sail will not be repeated over and over and uncritically applied.
Jeez, Meng...next thing you'll be telling us that ship-boarding melees featuring sailors jumping across decks or swinging from ropes in the rigging was almost unheard of ;-).
FWIW...theoretically speaking, staying to windward would increase your chance of hitting the windward standing rigging of your enemy (things like the chain-plates, shrouds and stays), and since it is the windward rigging that keeps the mast from tipping over to leeward you would therefore increase the chance of losing a mast-section in that downwind direction.
wow! I had not thought of that. So when the French fired high from the windward (as they did at Ushant in 1778), they could even do extra damage. And the results did show a fair number of RN ships with seriously messed up rigging. Immobilized in fact. at least for a few hours.
Boarding! It definitely did happen, but like many heavily-emphasized aspects of 18th century warfare, it was the result of doing a lot of other things well. then you get the wild drama that the nineteenth century worked hard to pride itself on and then busily misrepresented everything else.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on May 14, 2014, 06:19:05 PM
Saw this on Steam Greenlight. Looks like it might be good.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=259130636 (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=259130636)
Now has greenlight:
http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/879-congratulations-this-game-has-been-greenlit-by-the-community/