GOF 1.1.x - Discussion thread

[buho]

GOF 1.1.x have changed nothing related with that flag, but I don't know if GOF 1.x changed something.

Cheers.
buho (A).

 

[Edmaroon]

That paragraph specially this sentence from that book is mixing different terms with little knowledge. Culverins weren't the main gun, they were special long range guns mounted in the bow or stern if there was space enough to place them and operate them. Just the opposite, smashers is how they called the short range, heavy shot weight guns made by the Carron Company (carronades) in the XVIII century. Yes, those were devastating if fired at close range (and useless at longer range), but they weren't culverins at all, and culverins weren't fired in broadsides.

You can't make a generalization here that applies to the entire age of sail. Spain is actually credited with consolidating standard bore and weight sizes in the 16th century. Sweden often gets the credit for this during the times of Gustavus Adolphus. It's true he standardized it for land armies, but it had already been done in the Armies of Prince Maurice during the first decade of the 17th century. However, standardized bore and weight sizes in naval guns were already well established by then.

Even though Spain gets the credit, it was the Netherlands (which were a Spanish possession at the time) where the good guns were being made. Spain and France had horrible foundries and bad ores. They had not figured out the mixtures yet. Those countries imported the vast majority of their guns from the Netherlands. When the Dutch broke away from Spain during their successful 80 year war of rebellion, they established the first Swedish gun works, the German gun works at Asslar/Wetzlar, and Russian gun foundries at Tula. The Dutch were truly the engineers that brought the world the common naval gun standards adopted by every other European nation - including England, for the following two centuries. The Dutch became the great arms traders of the 17th century.

The Dutch produced thousands of Bronze culverines during the 16th and 17th centuries. I have sources that give numbers made by year and factory if desired. Before standardization, odd guns like 50 pounder culverines were even produced in limitted numbers for naval use on the largest Spanish War Galleons of the 16th century. Some of these ships mounted even larger bombards that were more closely related to seige weapons than naval artillery. During the Dutch naval reforms of the first and second Anglo-Dutch Wars (which saw the largest battles in history during the age of sail), it was not unusual for large Dutch galleons to have complete batteries of 24 pounder culverines. These were NOT chasers. They were primary armament.

I have no arguments with what you state for the Eighteenth Century and especially within the Royal Navy, but you cannot apply that to the whole. After all, COAS is set in the year 1665.

BTW I am developing a mod as we speak that is going rather well - that will become a COAS period mod. The first installment GOF: Colonization 1580-1620 is working nicely. I have simply eliminated all the ships outside the era, added Officerpuppies older uniforms, added the older period flags, and thanks to Luke have changed the alliances to match that era. I am doing another now called GOF: The Golden Century 1648-1725 and will do a final one called GOF: Buccaneer's Sunset 1750-1820. As it stands now each mod is a seperate game. We do not know how to bundle them together yet so that you could just pick the era you want to play. My music mod is finished and I'm just waiting for permission to use a couple of the tracks before I release it. For GOF: Bucaneer's Sunset, I'm thinking about having a different music mod that has later music more akin to the Hornblower series. This will give our players that have complained for a long time about the mis-matched out of period ships in the same sand box, what they want. I hope to have the mods all finished by Christmas. Sounds like you would like to play the late era.

MK

Ok you got me. I didn't know this about the spanish war galleons. I have found this Galleon where it says they mounted demi culverins. Is this what you say or there were real culverins too?. I have to read more, i wonder how many of them were mounted on each side, 9-10?
Well i can't deny they got long range guns, just let me explain why i think the effective ranges were much shorter. Many naval battle report i have read of those times tell the same story. Two ships firing at each other from less than 50 yards. There were no long range fights. At least i haven't read any so far. Besides Nelson favorite tactics in Trafalgar, battles of the Nile and of Copenhagen, read this about the frigate Constitution:

"Guerriere opened fire upon entering range of Constitution doing little damage. After a few exchanges of cannon fire between the ships, Captain Hull maneuvered into an advantageous position and brought Constitution to within 25 yards (23 m) of Guerriere. He then ordered a full double-loaded broadside of grape and round shot fired which took out Guerriere's mizzenmast." [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution" ]USS Constitution[/url]

My reasoning is: that happened in the beginning of the XIX century, when naval tactics had been developing for 2-3 centuries. Still a superb designed frigate at the time, engages some british ships and the battles ended at close range. Why should be different in 1600? By logic, guns should be more powerful and accurate after a century of warfare. Why did they evolve in that direction?

Thats what i wanted to mod in the game. Many times I felt like a gun station turning endless in a merry go round when i had to shoot countless broadsides from max range. I didn't like it. And i felt something wasn't working when every hole in the sails means -0,1 knots and every ship in the caribbean has a bunch of long guns. Instead, i like to trade 1-2 broadsides as i get into close range and then i go for a quick pass under the stern from less than 50 yards. I aim for the masts and hope to cut them with one broadside.

I like the idea of COAS period mods. I know i am cheating when i sail a Constitution and i don't like to encounter out of time ships when playing. And yes , i love fast frigates of the late era but i wouldn't mind to play a small ship in a world of galleons, fast galleons and caravels. Count me in

I've changed the range for cannons and culverines and will test them out, a lot of other key things have changed which has a impact of naval battles and will increase the use of tactics. We can't make COAS 100% historically accurate but we can improve its engine slightly to be more accurate and give a much better feeling for the time. Its alway's been my aim to improve tactical naval battles but with as much realism as possible, if the range of the cannons takes away from the tactical side then they need to be changed and so they have for that reason as well as other things.

Sadly its not possible to change what calibures can be mounted where in that you can't define chase guns to be a different calibure to the calibure the ship has mounted. So if you want to mount 24Ibs culverines as chase guns then all guns would need to be 24Ibs, sad but thats the way it is. Ships in the battle of trafalgar did have 42Ibs mounted, the Victory had 2 68Ibs mounted, so we have kept the calibures as close to real as possible. If we could we would change it so small ships wouldn't be able to mount culverines, making it even more realistic, but sadly we haven't been able to do that yet. I do think it is possible though. Maybe even changing it so each ship has 2 seperate enteries for maximum calibures, 1 for cannons and 1 for culverines. Then we could drastically change the mechanic of naval battles.

I'll see how can be done and i'll write to you. The only problem is that all guns in the ship have to be the same type. So if we made a carronade type like the 68 lbs of the Victory, then a ship armed with say 50 of those guns would be a killer at less than 100 yards but defenseless at other ranges. I don't know which of the two i like the least, the all culverins or the all carronades

 

[mk0]

Well there is a way to change that in the game as follows.

Culverines
4, 8 = 400
12, 16 = 450
20, 24 = 500
28, 32 = 550

Cannons
4, 8 = 300
12, 16 = 350
20, 24 = 400
28, 32 = 450
36, 42 = 500
48, 92 = 550


By changing it to the above value's the culverines would have greater range compared to the cannons than they do in GOF 1.1.2, but the calibures would be grouped to reduce overal shot distance and bring all ships closer together the way you like it bringing back into the game tactical disissions to be made that could lead on to victory or loose you the battle. How does this sound to you?

P.S.
Please note 42 and 48Ibs cannons are only seen mounted on MOW's and maybe some quest ships and you can't upgrade to these calibures at Bermuda. While 92Ibs will only ever be seen on the forts and can't be purchased from shipyards any where in the caribbean.

Just for protocol: Iirc, in AoP1, culverins had much longer range than cannons but caused less damage. So the player had to choose, which fighting style he prefers. I wonder, why this got changed. Just for the realism? With your suggestion every player will use cannons in the end.

 

[Luke159]

The culverines was changed for accuracy after all culverines did replace the cannons, the culverines still have downsides, loading times are longer, they have less health so can be destroyed easier than a similar cannon calibure. They also cost more and take up more room from the cargohold (granted the weight difference between cannon and culverine is not fully fixed yet). But culverines might be able to hit tagets further away, do more damage but they have those downsides that could impact on a player's disission to use them and been a merchant runner you might want that extra cargo space so you would use cannons for that reason.

 

[skodarap]

GOF 1.1.x have changed nothing related with that flag, but I don't know if GOF 1.x changed something.

Cheers.
buho (A).

Thanks.

I've tested it with a new game, and it doesn't work. So I guess it must be as you said.

 

[modernknight1]

Ok you got me. I didn't know this about the spanish war galleons. I have found this Galleon where it says they mounted demi culverins. Is this what you say or there were real culverins too?. I have to read more, i wonder how many of them were mounted on each side, 9-10?
Well i can't deny they got long range guns, just let me explain why i think the effective ranges were much shorter. Many naval battle report i have read of those times tell the same story. Two ships firing at each other from less than 50 yards. There were no long range fights. At least i haven't read any so far. Besides Nelson favorite tactics in Trafalgar, battles of the Nile and of Copenhagen, read this about the frigate Constitution:

"Guerriere opened fire upon entering range of Constitution doing little damage. After a few exchanges of cannon fire between the ships, Captain Hull maneuvered into an advantageous position and brought Constitution to within 25 yards (23 m) of Guerriere. He then ordered a full double-loaded broadside of grape and round shot fired which took out Guerriere's mizzenmast." [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution" ]USS Constitution[/url]

My reasoning is: that happened in the beginning of the XIX century, when naval tactics had been developing for 2-3 centuries. Still a superb designed frigate at the time, engages some british ships and the battles ended at close range. Why should be different in 1600? By logic, guns should be more powerful and accurate after a century of warfare. Why did they evolve in that direction?

I

I love this discussion. If you dig a little through the forums you can find looong threads where we've talked about this before. It's nice to see people interested in the historical authenticity. You are a minority Edmaroon and I salute you.

OK, so lets talk about your points. Gun founding technology only improved in two areas over the two hundred years from 1600-1800. The improvements were in Iron casting technology and propellants. All of the best guns were always bronze even into the 19th century. This technology stayed the same. Culverines with a few later exceptions were primarily made of Bronze. Bronze cannon were exhorbitantly expensive to make, and they weighed several times more than a iron cannon of the same size. Iron cannon of the 16th century were unreliable and blew up often. Over the course of the 17th century the best foundries and best areas to mine the best ores were identified and the technology gradually improved throughout the century. The English led the way in this technological development which started under King Henry the Eighth.

In fact once the English started producing dependable iron guns, it was considered a technology/state secret and the sale of these new iron guns to foreign powers was prohibited. Leave it to English entreprenuers to figure out loopholes. The technology was kept secret for less than a decade before ten of the guns were sold to the Dutch who quick sought to learn how the English had achieved this breakthrough. Part of it was that the English iron ores were simply of a higher quality. The largest improved iron guns the English ever built during this age, (specifically in the later half of 18th century) was the 42 pounder cannon. These guns only saw action on the lower decks of the largest British warships. By the end of the century and early into the next most of the warships went back to the 32 pounder, because the 42 was so much more heavy and really didn't offer any noticeable advantage over the 32 pounder(law of diminishing returns and overbore).

On propellant, over the course of the two centuries, better technology was developed in the shaping of the black powder granules to make them burn better/more complete and allowing more oxygen to stay in between granules. This made it so that not as much powder had to be used to achieve the same velocities previously achieved with larger loads of propellant.

So your point is well taken. Technology had improved the gun and range over 200 years, but not by much. Not enough to influence changes in tactics really. But there were some significant differences in how the gun technology caused navies to fight from the 16th to 17th centuries.

So now on to the why did Lord Nelson want to close the distance. Really this is a discussion of tactical evolution. So many historians attribute the "Line ahead" tactics used by navies in Nelson's time to Admiral George Monck and the 17th Century English navy that engaged the Dutch during the 2nd Anglo Dutch War. This simply just is not the case. Its a myth by the uneducated.

Dutch admirals used line ahead tactics in numerous engagements against the Spanish during the first three decades of the 17th century. Why? Because the Dutch found that they could use squadrons of twelve ships or so against much larger Spanish forces that wanted to close and engage. If the wind was against the enemy, it just made good sense to batter them at distance, especially if you had superior artillery, training, and discipline. Indeed during the fight off Gravelines in 1588, the English used their much better, longer ranging artillery against the Spanish ships at stand off distance. Part of the story here that never gets told is that the Dutch had blockaded Parma with their own large rebel fleet, so Medina-Sidona had a choice to make with the choppy weather coming in. Do I attempt to break the Dutch blockade so that I can allow Parma's invasion force to come on board, or do I face the English and wait to see if the Dunkirkers and Oostenders can break the blockade and face the English and see what happens? Well we know what happened. A lot of people don't realize that the English were out of ammunition at the end of the great Armada engagement, and it wasn't English artillery that won the fight, it was fireships that caused the Spanish to panic and cut their cables, scattering the fleet in the worsening weather. However, English artillery did make noticeable damage. In fact one of the major reasons why the English did not pursue the scattered Spanish, is that Admiral Howard was convinced that most Spanish ships were so badly damaged that they would probably sink before they reached a safe port, why - good, noticeable damage from stand-off gunnery.



We know from the accounts of both the English and Dutch narratives of the times that damage was done at range. It really depended upon the conditions and situations. I have no doubt on calm water with low wind and a gunner's quadrant, I could dial in range by simple fine movements of my gun's quadrant wedge and using the exact same portions of powder each load. Discipline, training, and consistency will always give an advantage. This is why we have so many good narratives of fine Dutch gunnery against the Spanish navy at stand off range during the 1620s to 40's. Very rarely did the Dutch lose an engagement against the Spanish and people don't realize how large some of these battles were, or how often the Dutch were outnumbered, but still managed to win. Just look at the classic Battle of the Downs in 1639: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Downs

Now the Dutch were known to be fierce borders and if the conditions favored them, they would often attempt bording over gunnery. This cost them badly during the First Dutch War when they tried to board the English ships. The English had copied the Dutch model and improved it. They could load their guns faster and with more discipline and efficiency than the Dutch, and tore them apart in numerous engagements before they could get to them. They Dutch like the Spanish had large complements of soldiers aboard and knew if they could close they would win. The English ships of the mid 17th century had very few soldiers aboard with much larger compliments of sailors. This was another reason the English gunnery was better.

In Nelsons time, British Marines were far superior both in training and in number to their French and Spanish counterparts. Nelson like other admirals before him knew if the conditions were with him and he enjoyed a tactical advantage, rather than fritter away resources and time in a long gunnery duel (which he would have done if he were at a disadvantage) he wanted to close and destroy and board.

Again one cannot overgeneralize based on limitted historical examples. You must look at the whole. There are hundreds of good historical examples of effective naval gunnery at distance from these times. You just have to dig a little to find them.

MK

 

[Edmaroon]

Very interesting the story about gun technology. Not only they were high secret technology but they were high prized loot after a victorius battle. In the game there are shops selling guns of every size and type but i suspect that in those years it wasn't easy to aquire one normal gun, and it was very rare to see one of the expensive modern guns.

A small correction, bronze guns were lighter than iron ones. Although heavier than iron, bronze was more resistant and needed less metal for the same gun. That's why they were preferred over iron for naval guns, and they were more durable too.

About Nelson there is much to say but i don't want to tire other people. Just to say that i always imagine the tactics at Trafalgar as if it were a a trench battle in WWI. There is a trench full of soldiers firing the heavy bolt action rifles of the period. And some guy decides to assault the trench just running his squad to the middle, jumps in with a sawed off shot gun in each hand and the rest is history. The only problem is how do you get to the trench without being badly wounded. And it's not a very wise election for an admiral unless you know before hand that you will make it because you have spent most of your life on board a warship and you are well aware of how effective or not can be a gun mounted on a ship. It's clear that he wanted to close in and achieve a decisive result, but the way he did it is what is surprising.

I have read the link you post and i see no long range battle in it sorry, but i will search more stories. What i do see is how similar it is to the battle of Gravelines with the spanish armada, which i know well. Many times i read about a big fleet of spanish ships, but they forget to say that many of that ships were cargo ships, full of men, weapons, supplies and even horses. Also in Gravelines many ships were private merchants temporarily expropiated by the king from all over the empire. They were kept in port for many months while the expedition was being prepared. There were warships from all of the empire too (at least they were fully armed), even some heavy galleys from the mediterranean. And to me it's clear that english ships sailed better than spanish but the decisive factor was leadership.

Before the armada was ready, Drake raided the ports of Cadiz and La Coruña with some success and turned back to england. When the big armada set sail they needed 1 month to go from Lisboa to somewhere near La Coruña where they endured the first storm, and another month from there to the middle of Biscay gulf where they met another storm. At that speed they were asking for disaster, no wonder they had to face several storms in summer. Then there is the story (it's uncertain if it happened) that when the armada was finally sailing along the south coast of England the wind was blowing to north and the english couldn`t sail out of port. They say that some spanish captains asked permission to Medina Sidonia to leave formation and attack the english ships trapped in their ports but he denied it. Seeing what happened later i think it was true. Medina Sidonia who didn't want to lead the armada and had no experience at sea, was ordering to keep formation at all times, and they were sailing very close to each other and painfully slow. Later the wind changed and english ships avoided the spanish front warships who wanted to board them, they maneuvered and attacked from the back and the side of the formation. Little damage was done but two ships were lost due to a collision. Next day some english attacked from much closer range than before with little results,and the armada anchored at Calais. That night they sent some fire ships against the tightly packed anchored ships, there was great confusion and many ships cut anchor and dispersed in the channel.

Then i disagree , Medina Sidonia didn't have a choice, he had to give permission to his light ships to attack the dutch blockade, because otherwise Parma troops couldn't be carried to the armada. They had no deep water port which they could use to shelter the armada while they were waiting and time was of the esence. But he denied again and there was a last battle in the channel, where the spanish warships tried to hunt Drake ship, while the english attacked some big galleons from close range hoping to severely damage the spanish. Once more the english probed to be more capable in maneuvering and several ships were lost . Then bad weather forced the english to seek port and the spanish were dispersed and pushed up north, and they ended going around the british isles to return to home.

All in all, i think the most effective ships in both battles were the fire ships, and the most significant detail the greater capacity of maneuver of english ships.

 

[modernknight1]

Interesting additional comments on the Armada and your analogy of the trench warfare applied to Nelson's battles.

Interestingly enough a lot of people don't know about the English Armada the next decade that seized Cadiz attempting to wait for the incoming treasure fleet. At any rate I still contend that stand off artillery played a significant role at the action and many historians agree.

On Nelson, I would also point out that boarding wasn't the only thing the British Marines were good at. Their marksmanship from the fighting tops was also known to be superior and that was a definate edge. It was also well known by that time that the Brits had adopted a strategy of closing and battering while the French aimed at the masts and rigging. If the French had had well trained gunners with significant discipline and drill, Nelson may have never been able to close in those large battles.

So on bronze vs iron - people always make the assumption that bronze guns were lighter, but they weren't. They should be because bronze is denser in casting, but they would cast the guns to be of the same sizes as iron generally, so the bronze guns were heavier. Cast Bronze weighs in at 8700 kg per CM and cast iron at 7850kg per CM. Now if I figured the density into the mix, then I would have a lighter gun of the same strength, but that's why bronze was preferred. So if I wanted the same strength from the iron, I would have to cast a larger heavier gun. So when we are talking about large calibers like 32 pounders, you are indeed correct. The iron guns were heavier, but that's because they were also much bigger than their bronze counterparts in this case. Where you see the heavier iron guns is when you get larger than 18 pounder sizes. The iron had to be cast larger so it could stand the same force as a lesser amount of bronze. So I concede the point in anything larger than 18 pounders, but there was also space to consider. If my ship were a Dutch Frigate of 1690, and I wanted to mount 24 pounders, iron guns would be too big, but bronze guns would not.

Bronze was the prefered material. It was totally resistant to corrosion, especially from sea water, and because of the heavier density the guns would last far longer than iron and never blow up. Old ships being broken up would give up their bronze guns to be used on subsequent generations of ships. It wasn't unusual to see this occur several times. Wrecks have been found with guns aboard that were from almost two centuries prior to the ships build/service dates. Typically Bronze guns cost 14 to 15 times what an iron gun did. That shows you why the European powers were so keen on developing iron alternatives. 1640-1690 was truly the age of the long range bronze culverine. For economic reasons alone, iron began surplanting bronze during the 1680s and by 1700-1725, iron was taking over. This is why you saw culverines disappear as primary armament and this is why they only became chasers into the mid 18th century. For a good discussion of all of this I would reference "Guns, Sails, & Empires: Technological innovation & European Expansion 1400-1700" by Carlo Cipolla. Very good read and reference work. I highly recommend it.

So on the gunnery at stand off, I won't WIKI you to death with poor on line examples. I have many great books with tons of fine examples I can dig out. I think it's sad how everyone focuses on the British navy of the 18th/19th centuries and attributes so much to them when in fact very few new things were actually happening that hadn't happened before and often previously in a much grander and more dramatic fashion. Out of those books I would recommend the following I've read for further research if you are truly interested in how Dutch gunnery at long range with smaller squadrons became a known and effective battle winning way against the Spanish during the early 17th century: "The Dutch in the Caribbean and on the Wild Coast 1580-1680" by Cornelis Goslinga, (you know they seized and held Brazil for forty years - the Spanish/Portugese mounted massive fleets of reconquest - this is an area I cover in depth in my current short story) and also "The Dutch Navy of the 17th and 18th Centuries" by Japp R. Bruijn.

I also recommend you do some searches on the forums to look at some of our previous discussions on this. A lot of coding and testing was done to get the balance we have and none of it was done lightly. Much discussion occurred taking into consideration historical accuracy, contemporary performance data, and even physics.

Happy reading.

MK

 

[Luke159]

When the English was attacking the armada at distance they was using new longer ranged guns and as there ammo started to run low they sent some ships back to get some more supplies, at a distance the armada doesn't look to have been taking much damage but the English way was to blow holes in the ship and kill the crew so although not much damage could be seen it was obvious that wasn't the same for the Spanish crew onboard those ships. Later on Drake decided to have 2 coloms hit each of the points of the cresent and this time the English went in much closer and it was obvious the English was doing much heavier damage at closer range, here's a program for you to watch (its in 6 parts) Battlefield Britain Ep04 Spanish Armada Part 1/6 . We also have to take into account that Drake first sailed off to raid a Spanish ship that was to badly damaged it was left behind by the rest of the armada and later on Lord Howard did the same to some other ships who was to damaged to continue, this shows that at distance the English had damaged some ships just there was so many Spanish ships it was hard to tell exactly how much damage was been done and thats why the English moved in to attack at closer range.

Nelson he used the same tactics he had used in the battle at the battle of the Nile, and i'm sure Nelson knew this was the only real course of action he could take because the English was so few in numbers and needed the dicisiveness to be the key to cause confussion amoungest the French and Spanish combined force and to put as many ships out of action as quickly as possible to even the numbers a little more easily. The English was able to load there guns faster but the Spanish and French wasn't able to practise and there guns was harder to load so the Spanish had practised boarding battles which is where they was strongest in battle. Lets not forget Lord Nelson walked into the metting and drew on a scrap of paper the battle plans, it was simple and effective as seen at the battle of the Nile and was the only true way to stand a chance in victory against the combined forces of France and Spain. The sad thing is even today the Spanish blame villeneuve (spelling) for the desaster.

 

[pirateking]

Question gives in the GOF 1.1.2 Mod the Queen Anne's Revenge as Enemy Ship with Cpt. Blackbeard?

 

[buho]

Question gives in the GOF 1.1.2 Mod the Queen Anne's Revenge as Enemy Ship with Cpt. Blackbeard?

It is like in GOF 1.1.

Cheers.
buho (A).

 

[pirateking]

And that means what?

Gives anywhere a ship model of the queen ann revenge which i can add to gof 1.1.2.

I saw a video on YouTube of GOF 1.2
is that gof 1.1.2 ?

 

[buho]

And that means what?

It means that 1.1.2 have changed nothing related to the Queen Anne's Revenge. Whatever way it is in GOF 1.1 it is unchanged in GOF 1.1.2.

I saw a video on YouTube of GOF 1.2
is that gof 1.1.2 ?

GOF 1.1.2 is not GOF 1.2. GOF 1.2 is still being developed.

Cheers.
buho (A).

 

[pirateking]

Oh yes i saw it, but only the name "queen anne's revenge" but the Ship dosn't look like the queen anne's revenge from Cpt. Blackbeard.
So lets hope they add Cpt. Blackbeard.and the real queen anne's revenge Ship to GOF 1.2.

To all GOF Modders.
Please add Cpt. Blackbeard and the Real Ship Model of queen anne's revenge to GOF 1.2

Co

 

[Luke159]

To all GOF Modders.
Please add Cpt. Blackbeard and the Real Ship Model of queen anne's revenge to GOF 1.2

Co

We will be don't worry.

Is captain BlackBeard in GOF 1.1.2? i don't think he is even in the new work, in fact is there even a BlackBeard character for COAS or POTC ready or been worked on?

 

[pirateking]

To all GOF Modders.
Please add Cpt. Blackbeard and the Real Ship Model of queen anne's revenge to GOF 1.2

Co

We will be don't worry.

Is captain BlackBeard in GOF 1.1.2? i don't think he is even in the new work, in fact is there even a BlackBeard character for COAS or POTC ready or been worked on?

Oh nice to read that you Work on BlackBeard and on the Real Queen Anne's Revenge Ship.

"I mean the Cpt. BlackBeard and Real queen Anne' Revenge ship simply still belong into a pirate's Game."

So please do your Best.

PS: What do you think will GOF 1.2 ready for Release?

Cu
Jack

 

[Luke159]

To all GOF Modders.
Please add Cpt. Blackbeard and the Real Ship Model of queen anne's revenge to GOF 1.2

Co

We will be don't worry.

Is captain BlackBeard in GOF 1.1.2? i don't think he is even in the new work, in fact is there even a BlackBeard character for COAS or POTC ready or been worked on?

Oh nice to read that you Work on BlackBeard and on the Real Queen Anne's Revenge Ship.

"I mean the Cpt. BlackBeard and Real queen Anne' Revenge ship simply still belong into a pirate's Game."

So please do your Best.

PS: What do you think will GOF 1.2 ready for Release?

Cu
Jack

I'm not sure if there is a BlackBeard character ready or been worked on at the moment.

I can't give a time frame for GOF 1.2 because there are still many things to get finished and some bugs to fix, followed by testing. It could be before xmas (don't hold your breath though) or towards April/May of next year. We are working as best we can and hopefully will have GOF 1.2 ready for you guy's soon.

 

[pirateking]

To all GOF Modders.
Please add Cpt. Blackbeard and the Real Ship Model of queen anne's revenge to GOF 1.2

Co

We will be don't worry.

Is captain BlackBeard in GOF 1.1.2? i don't think he is even in the new work, in fact is there even a BlackBeard character for COAS or POTC ready or been worked on?

Oh nice to read that you Work on BlackBeard and on the Real Queen Anne's Revenge Ship.

"I mean the Cpt. BlackBeard and Real queen Anne' Revenge ship simply still belong into a pirate's Game."

So please do your Best.

PS: What do you think will GOF 1.2 ready for Release?

Cu
Jack

I'm not sure if there is a BlackBeard character ready or been worked on at the moment.

I can't give a time frame for GOF 1.2 because there are still many things to get finished and some bugs to fix, followed by testing. It could be before xmas (don't hold your breath though) or towards April/May of next year. We are working as best we can and hopefully will have GOF 1.2 ready for you guy's soon.

Ok nice.

But please keep in mind: A Pirate Game need also Cpt. BlackBeard and Real queen Anne' Revenge ship!

 

[casinostrat]

Hey guys quick question...Does GOF 1.1.2 have Direct Sail modded in? I just recently started using it in the build mod for POTC and am wondering why I didn't use it sooner, since its a great feature!

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Unless I'm very much mistaken, nobody has managed to get DirectSail working in CoAS yet.