Traveling Fleets Tweak

Old Discussion topics

Traveling Fleets Tweak

Postby Hawk » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:19 am

Right now a traveling fleet with danger is always available for plunder at both ports (the port that it departed and the port it is traveling to). Why not make it so that a traveling fleet can only be attacked within certain distance from port ( 5-15 mins?) and is safe until it gets close to a port. This would be more realistic and make the game much more interesting with chases and new strategies. The tavern may need to be updated to allow better tracking but I think it would be an easy update and only change to game for the better.

Also maybe the safe distance from port could vary based on how much danger the fleet

Example:
3 to 10 danger on fleet = 5 min plunder range from port.
For trade routes or fleets arriving and then leaving the /total would be 10 mins

3 to 10 danger = 5 mins /total 10 mins
10 to 20 danger = 7.5 mins /total 15 mins
20 to 40 danger = 10 mins /total 20 mins
40 to 60 danger = 15 mins /total 30 mins
60 to 100 danger = 30 mins /total 1 hour
100+ = 1 hour /total 2 hours
150+ = 2 hours /total 4 hours
"Have at it gentlemen"
User avatar
Hawk
Players Dev Team Member
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:32 am

Re: Traveling Fleets Tweak

Postby Hawk » Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:58 am

Also my fleet is still visible in multiple ports although it is done traveling.
"Have at it gentlemen"
User avatar
Hawk
Players Dev Team Member
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:32 am

Re: Traveling Fleets Tweak

Postby Xepshunall » Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:24 pm

It was once claimed that more realism was a goal. Unless all the desired realism has been achieved, this is a point that should be given some serious consideration. How far is the range of a ship-borne cannon. I know a little about Howitzers but I doubt a cannon had similar range and I suspect that it was further reduced by having an unstable foundation. The longest range I've been able to find is 7,180 meters. That's far less that the 23 miles that an 8-inch Howitzer can propel a high explosive round with its most powerful explosive, charge 7 white bag.
Yesterday I gave my all. Today I'll give more. Tomorrow, I'll take back what you took for granted.
User avatar
Xepshunall
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: Traveling Fleets Tweak

Postby John ward » Fri Jan 11, 2013 4:24 am

The Naval 32 pounder cannon Weight of solid shot - 32 lb

Ranges: Point Blank 400 yds
Elevation 1 degrees - 820yds
Elevation 2 degrees - 1,200 yds
Elevation 3 degrees - 1,520 yds
Elevation 8 degrees - 2,610 yds

Muzzle Velocity 1600 ft per second

Penetration of solid shot:
Point blank (up to 400yds) - 42" into solid oak
At 1,000 yds - 31 and half inches into solid oak.

Rate of fire - About one round every two minutes.
Source:Major JGD Elvin, RA, Handbook of the 32 Pdr Smooth Bore Cannon 1805. This is state of the art for us at Pirates Glory Thanx to YUKU
User avatar
John ward
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:40 pm

Re: Traveling Fleets Tweak

Postby John ward » Fri Jan 11, 2013 4:35 pm

Up date: Experiments conducted by the Admiralty in 1813 determined that at point-blank range, that is, an elevation of zero degrees, a long 24-pounder had a range of 200 yards. A 32-pounder carronade, under the same conditions had a range of 340 yards. When the 24-pounder fired at its maximum elevation, 9 degrees, it could reach 2213 yards. The carronade firing a it’s max elevation of 11 degrees could reach 1930 yards.

To a certain extent that isn’t surprising. The carronade, as we’ve noted were bored with a much tighter windage than long guns making the propellant more efficient. The carronade fired a hollow shot which reduced the notional weight of a 32-pounder into the 20-something pound range. Powder was probably apportioned based on the notional weight of a 32-pound shot and not on its actual weight which means the 24-pounder was using 8 pounds of powder while the 32-pounders was using slightly more than 10 pounds. Thanx to Age of Sail
User avatar
John ward
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:40 pm

Re: Traveling Fleets Tweak

Postby Hawk » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:21 am

Well not sure we need that level of realism lol.. but interesting facts
"Have at it gentlemen"
User avatar
Hawk
Players Dev Team Member
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:32 am

Re: Traveling Fleets Tweak

Postby Captain Jack » Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:09 pm

We need to promote engagement for now. Perhaps we can review this feature again in the distant future, when hundreds of thousands of players will be involved. So it really is a game-play issue.

Also, this partially relates with another issue you mentioned here:
viewtopic.php?p=3328#p3328

Which we already agreed with a fix.
User avatar
Captain Jack
Project Coordinator
 
Posts: 4043
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:12 am
Location: Pania

Re: Traveling Fleets Tweak

Postby Hawk » Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:49 pm

I so caught up with with my idea so I forgot the reason I was posting in the first place..

Apparently I am available for attack in two ports even after I am done traveling. On several occasions when I travel my fleet still shows up on the plunder list for all the ports I visited. It remains like that until I am attacked at least once or the danger disappears.
"Have at it gentlemen"
User avatar
Hawk
Players Dev Team Member
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:32 am

Re: Traveling Fleets Tweak

Postby Xepshunall » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:22 pm

Captain Jack won't change what he thinks is a good idea. The current setup supposedly promotes excitement and advancement for new players, thus keeping their interest. It doesn't seem to matter that there are those who have been around a while and will poach these players to the point that they lose all interest in playing.
The real problem I see is that a ship has to park in a port before it can plunder. Does a pirate attack in a port? Only if he is stupid. Or if the port is the target and is weak enough to be taken by a single pirate fleet.
So the realistic way to come into range is to be within a certain distance from another ship. If this were possible, it would be based on location on the map and a straight line distance. This should overcome danger ratings. After all, If it can be seen to be in range, it is target-able. To fail to acknowledge this reality in the game is to show a complete lack of any common sense. This should be in conjunction with an ability to have escort fleets to protect your trade fleets and the option to add a certain amount of distance to a trade route if there is a pirate in the path. When the pirate is in the port is the time to factor in danger ratings.

This should be acceptable to a pirate and would be fair to all if the escort fleet is set to automatically attack in retaliation to incoming attacks on either itself or the trade fleets that they escort. Any pirate worthy of his title will know how to take advantage of this arrangement. This would apply to an escort fleet whose mission is to protect an ally player's trade fleets also. After all, we are nations and guilds. The trade fleets under the protection of the escort would move as a group and the owner of the escort fleet would determine how many fleets he will protect with his escort. If a player's escort fleet is protecting another player's trade fleets then there would have to be an agreement on percentage of profit transfered to the escort. This would encourage the trader to cast enhancement voodoo on his escort which might run out and would have to be replenished (can anyone hear the implied word "credits" in there somewhere?) .

How is that for a fair way to promote engagements? The only way that this would not be doable is if there are no such things as grid coordinates in this game. I think that between Hawk's proposal of distance from port having an effect on availability to be plundered and my suggestion of being attackable based on distance when beyond that range from port, we can have a very interesting game.
Yesterday I gave my all. Today I'll give more. Tomorrow, I'll take back what you took for granted.
User avatar
Xepshunall
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:13 pm


Return to Archives