• New Horizons on Maelstrom
    Maelstrom New Horizons


    Visit our website www.piratehorizons.com to quickly find download links for the newest versions of our New Horizons mods Beyond New Horizons and Maelstrom New Horizons!

Pre Build 13 Modpack

<!--quoteo(post=172004:date=Nov 17 2006, 10:32 AM:name=Ron Losey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ron Losey @ Nov 17 2006, 10:32 AM) [snapback]172004[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I spent the afternoon messing with this. (Have to teach a class this evening, so I won't get back to it for a bit.) Hull damage on all shot types balances pretty well at about half the default numbers, for all shot types. This allows small to medium ships to take several volleys before they just up and sink like blowing glass bottles out of the river.

...........................

History seemed to think that crew, guns and rigging should suffer WAY more than the chances of actually sinking anything larger than a lifeboat. (That's airplanes that just go down in flames, not sailing ships.) I think it plays better too.

Try it. If you don't like the change, feel free to ignore me. However, I'm serious. It helps.

Ron
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I think Hook is concerned about the ability of small ship(e.g class6) vs larger vessels(e.g class3). Historicaly you just wouldn't want to engage in the encounter(as the smaller vessel) unless you knew you had a battle winning tactic up your sleeve. So i think the balance between allowing the player in smaller ships to go up against the larger ones is a very fine line, and to base it entirely on historical evidence might not actualy 'help' the gameplay?
As is your pretty much not going to trade broadsides in the above ship encounter(as the small ship) - in terms of gameplay you the player has the advantage if you can get in close to board the larger ship. With a bit of boarding experience, due to the limited combat model it can become fairly routine to take on and over power a much larger vessel(which historicaly would have been nie on impossible). So in that respect alone - making you more sinkable vs an enemy(especialy you in a smaller ship) acts as a kind of balance.

I know exactly what your getting at - ships are made of wood, and wood floats, it takes a hell of a lot of cannon balls to 'weigh-down' a ship to sink it, or even crush the hull in the right place to sink it. Still IF you had less sinkings/destoyed ships in the game - that would allow the player many more opportunities to capture - which leads to more ways to make realativly easy money. A problem that is already overbalanced in the game imho.

So even though i love my game realisms and accuracy - they can in the game context cause other issues?

Still if you make any adjustments that you feel increase the enjoyment of ship combat please post them on the ftp or something and we can all have a play with it <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />
 
something about chain shot: it actually did pretty much damage to crew, as it mowed the deck clean like a lawnmower of everything in its path, including lots of crew.
 
I don't see any problems with the way the game works now. Battles play out "FUN" (this is a f**king game afterall), and it has a nice ballance of ships sinking, and some fleeing, and some just having to be boarded. f**king with the numbers so that no one sinks, but all you have is a ghost ship because there are no crews, to me, sounds like making a big boring stupid battle simulator, and not a game.

Whatever you dick around with, make it a god damned toggle, because I don't want it in my game.
 
The only 44 gun ships in the game are the Fearless/Warship1/Warship2 which all have the same specs. This is a 2000 ton ship with 9000 hit points mounting 24 pounders. The 20 gun brig is a 190 ton ship with 1710 hit points mounting 9 pounders.

A sloop, for example, is a 170 ton ship with 1200 hit points mounting 16 six pounders. Not a lot of difference between the 20 gun brig and the sloop.

I wouldn't sail my sloop directly into the broadside of the Fearless where I would get raked at point blank range. I'd *expect* to get sunk in one broadside.

Instead of taking your man of war against a lifeboat, next time try two similar ships. Two warships or two 20 gun brigs. See if the original damge numbers make more sense.

Hook
 
The numbers I described seem to work pretty well. Smaller ships still sink often enough if you hammer them, but you can't just take a stray volley and go down like a stone.

Furthermore, hull condition seems to affect morale - so smaller ships don't surrender after the first cannonball.

The raised crew damage on the round ball gave small but maneuverable ships a slight chance against larger ones - if they could stay on one end or the other, they could pound a heavy ship pretty severely from longer ranges. That also discouraged smaller ships from boarding larger ones - the first volley might not sink them, but it would cut the crew numbers enough to make boarding a heavier ship unlikely.

Chain shot would have been highly damaging to infantry on flat terrain. However, very few surfaces of a ship are flat terrain, for that very reason. Almost everywhere that contains people is behind a lot of oak. Chain and bar shots are designed to create maximum surface area, to shred sailcloth and rope. That means its penetration of wood is poor - that is, after all, exactly the opposite quality of what you want for punching holes in wood. Chain shot should only really be dangerous to anyone working the rigging - and the odds of accidentally clipping someone up there is low.

As for economics balance, the real money is in contraband cargo. Ship captures don't pay that well anyway, thanks to new mods on the resale value of captured ships. However, the changes I proposed do not really change the surrender rate. They do change how many crew are still alive when the ship surrenders (a lot fewer now). And they change how much shot it takes to put somebody out of the game - which works both for and against you in equal quantity.

Anyway, after playing it all afternoon, I don't think this hurts the "fun" factor. If anything, it draws the battles out a little more, which increases the total action of the game (i.e. ratio of combat time to tedium like store menus). I find the ten-second battle (BOOM, he sinks) to be too "space invaders" for my taste, even if history was not a concern.

Anyone wishing to test this, try these:

Goods[GOOD_BALLS].DamageHull = 6.0;
Goods[GOOD_BALLS].DamageRig = 2.0;
Goods[GOOD_BALLS].DamageCrew = 1.5;

Goods[GOOD_GRAPES].DamageHull = 1.0;
Goods[GOOD_GRAPES].DamageRig = 6.0;
Goods[GOOD_GRAPES].DamageCrew = 3.0;

Goods[GOOD_KNIPPELS].DamageHull = 1.0;
Goods[GOOD_KNIPPELS].DamageRig = 10.0;
Goods[GOOD_KNIPPELS].DamageCrew = 1.0;

Goods[GOOD_BOMBS].DamageHull = 7.0;
Goods[GOOD_BOMBS].DamageRig = 3.0;
Goods[GOOD_BOMBS].DamageCrew = 3.5;

Try it before you whine about it. I find it very playable.

Ron

Also - where is the line that controls the sail-to distance, and the distance for random encounters? I can't find it. I'm rather tired of appearing right on top of a hostile ship, like I was just beamed there. I know there's a way to set this, but I can't find it at the moment.
 
InternalSettings.h has what you want. Here are the values I use:

#define SAILTO_DISTANCE1 200.0 // FLOAT - Closest you'll find yourself to enemy when using sailto. Stock is 40.0. Used in AI_Sea.c
#define SAILTO_DISTANCE2 400.0 // FLOAT - Farthest you'll find yourself from enemy when using sailto. Stock is 100.0.

I think the current default is 100 and 200.

Hook
 
thanks for those numbers Ron(edit: +hook!), i'll give em a go <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

(and yes your points on illegal goods is a good one - i've been complaining about it for a while now - and its all due to be 'sorted' in future)
 
<!--quoteo(post=172061:date=Nov 17 2006, 11:17 PM:name=Hook)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hook @ Nov 17 2006, 11:17 PM) [snapback]172061[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
The only 44 gun ships in the game are the Fearless/Warship1/Warship2 which all have the same specs. This is a 2000 ton ship with 9000 hit points mounting 24 pounders. The 20 gun brig is a 190 ton ship with 1710 hit points mounting 9 pounders.

A sloop, for example, is a 170 ton ship with 1200 hit points mounting 16 six pounders. Not a lot of difference between the 20 gun brig and the sloop.

I wouldn't sail my sloop directly into the broadside of the Fearless where I would get raked at point blank range. I'd *expect* to get sunk in one broadside.

Instead of taking your man of war against a lifeboat, next time try two similar ships. Two warships or two 20 gun brigs. See if the original damge numbers make more sense.

Hook
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

The ship I was testing was some kind of frigate. (I would have to reload the game to check.) 18 pound long guns. The pirates I was hammering for the tests were lighter - brigs, xebecs, and such. I was taking that into account. I was also not talking about a rake at point blank most of the time. I was deliberately not using the finest of tactics, as I wanted to see them trade fire, and check my own damage from their guns as well.

One of the deciding factors on my set of numbers was that a couple of 9 pound balls should not really put a noticeable dent in the hull of a frigate. They might be dangerous to a limited number of crew, but the hull damage should not be more than a scratch. When the opposite was true, that was my first tip-off that the hull damage numbers were too high (by about double what they should be).

Lifeboats should not be a threat to frigates. A sloop should not be able to just sink a frigate. If the frigate just sits there and absorbs shot for several minutes, the threat to the crew should still be the worst of it. Sinking a 1500 ton ship with 150 pounds of round ball should not work.

Anyway, with the numbers I posted, ships do still sink. They just have to be wrecked first. They don't sink like they were made of glass.

Try them. Don't anybody whine unless you've tried it. Ignore them if you wish, but do not criticize unless you've tried it. I think they help on almost every aspect.
Ron
 
<!--quoteo(post=172081:date=Nov 18 2006, 12:15 AM:name=Hook)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hook @ Nov 18 2006, 12:15 AM) [snapback]172081[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
InternalSettings.h has what you want. Here are the values I use:

#define SAILTO_DISTANCE1 200.0 // FLOAT - Closest you'll find yourself to enemy when using sailto. Stock is 40.0. Used in AI_Sea.c
#define SAILTO_DISTANCE2 400.0 // FLOAT - Farthest you'll find yourself from enemy when using sailto. Stock is 100.0.

I think the current default is 100 and 200.

Hook
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Then we may have a problem. I just searched the InternalSettings.h file, as distributed with this latest package, and could not find SAILTO_DISTANCE references. Something could be missing.

I mean, I can add them - but the issue is their absence from the released version.

Someone confirm this.
 
I compared the numbers you posted against the numbers in the game.

While I have no real objection to making hull damage less, the increase in crew damage for balls is wildly unlrealistic. You have cut the hull damage in half and multiplied the crew damage by two. This will cause 4 times the crew damage as hull damage. Currently the crew takes damage slightly faster than the hull.

And that encounter you described above, where a single broadside would sink a ship: is it any better to have that same single broadside guaranteed to wipe out the ENTIRE crew? Your numbers will make such things happen even more often.

If these numbers become the build defaults, I'm outta here.

Hook


<!--quoteo(post=172106:date=Nov 17 2006, 10:35 AM:name=Ron Losey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ron Losey @ Nov 17 2006, 10:35 AM) [snapback]172106[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Then we may have a problem. I just searched the InternalSettings.h file, as distributed with this latest package, and could not find SAILTO_DISTANCE references. Something could be missing.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Try line 185 in InternalSettings.h
 
On second thought, look in BuildSettings.h. Those two files are currently undergoing cleanup, and I probably have a newer version than what came with beta 8.

Hook
 
<!--quoteo(post=172128:date=Nov 18 2006, 01:42 AM:name=Hook)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hook @ Nov 18 2006, 01:42 AM) [snapback]172128[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
On second thought, look in BuildSettings.h. Those two files are currently undergoing cleanup, and I probably have a newer version than what came with beta 8.

Hook
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Confirmed that. Don't know how I missed that before - I swear I searched Buildsettings.h earlier, because I thought it was there. (Of course, I forgot exactly what the command was, so it was just a visual scan.)



-------------------------------

Play a couple of rounds with the numbers I described. Watch the ships in the game, not the theoretical numbers. Compare to historical accounts of what a ship looked like after a broadside or two. Also, just check it for playability. The crews will last longer than you think, especially if there is any defense skill at all. (I think that was what I was seeing before - defense skill was having too large an effect on crew damage, and making the men rather cannonball-resistant.) They'll take a lot of casualties if they really get hammered, true, but really wiping out a crew quickly still needs grapeshot (and I did not change crew damage numbers on it). Before you panic or decide that I'm crazy, just test it for yourself - in-game, not on paper.

I won't say my attempt at realism doesn't need some tweaks. I figure 0.75 crew on round shot was way too low - maybe 1.5 is high too. However, round shot damage to crew should certainly be higher than chain when firing through a hull. Maybe they both need to be lowered a bit from my figures. Grapeshot may be a little high as well. I could believe that too. I say the ratio between the various shot types is more historical now, but if the actual numbers across the board need to be shifted slightly ... that's possible.

I'm still playing with it too.
Ron
 
I'm going to test it in the game, but it will have to wait a few days. The power supply in my computer is going out, causing frequent reboots so I can't play for more than a few minutes at a time. That's ok, I knew I'd have to replace it when I bought this brand; been through it 2 or 3 times in the past.

It might be easier to get the various ratios adjusted, then make a multiplier for the damage calculations where the final damage is determined. That way if you want battles to take longer you can adjust one number in one of the settings.h files.

If you think the numbers are bad now, you should have seen it when we reenabled critical hits for balls. You'd get 80 to 120 times normal damage, with around a 15% chance *per ball* of it happening. On average your 44 gun ship would get 3 critical hits per broadside, for around 5000 hull points total if you were armed with 12 pounders. We scaled that back a heck of a lot. I'm not sure if critical hits for ball will be enabled by default in the final version or not, but they won't be one-shot wonders.

A typical very large ship has 15,000 hull hit points. The Black Pearl has 100,000. Keep that in mind when you play with damage numbers.

Personally, I don't see enough diifference to matter whether it takes one or two broadsides to sink a small ship with a large one. How many historical encounters mention large warships battling very small ships? Make your fights between two reasonably matched opponents and tell me if the numbers are more in line with the historical narratives.

Hook
 
Computers that suck - there's a topic I know a lot about. Best of luck getting it fixed.


Hard to just catch equally matched ships by accident. I was mostly trying to base the history and physics off of individual hits - i.e. let them hit me with a couple of 9-pounders, and then check the damage. Take a couple more, check again. Compare to historical narrative of cannonball passing through a gun deck, and extrapolate. Not the most accurate method, but one based on feel more than numbers.

I'm all for a ratio and adjustment option. However, I figure the best way to do that is to start with the most historical "feel" and then adjust from there as desired. Even an adjustable ratio needs a default setting.

Hey, the critical hit thing may offer potential. It might be possible to set the hull damage on all shots to VERY low, but enable criticals. That way, a ball could pass through a board with little more than cosmetic damage. Or, it could hit a weight-carrying beam or below the waterline. Depending on how adjustable that is, it might offer a lot more potential for tweaking. The whole "your ship can take x hits before it sinks" thing is kind of arcade - a little more randomness might help. I had forgot about the criticals. It could be something to consider.

I'll keep playing with it, and see if I can refine those numbers a bit. Computer games are a good way to combat depression - gets my mind off of things.

Ron
 
A good test might be to take a low level character in the standard starting lugger agains the Oiseau. Someone just starting the game will have this encounter early. Before they've learned to power-game the system.

I was never able to sink the Oiseau at the time. I finally found a few ways around that problem, including killing Virgile Boon on land (with the nice bonus that he carried 1,000,000 on him, before the skinflints noticed it and got ahold of the code).

I spend most of my time doing boardings these days. I suspect I could take the Oiseau easily enough now.

About the computer, it's not a problem. Think of it as a "planned outage." I could probably get it repaired under warranty, but they'd keep my computer a week and put the same kind of crappy power supply back in. They're easy enough to change out yourself. The rest of the computer is just fine.

What did you think of the new chainshot code, and the limiting of turning after taking sail damage? I worked a long time to get the chainshot code working the way I wanted. It still has problems on certain ships (the xebec for example) but for most ships it's fun to watch. Given that chainshot actually hits the rigging now, it may be too powerful. I'm waiting to hear back from people on that one.

Hook
 
I haven't worked the chainshot that hard in the tests I was doing. Most of the pirate missions from governors were lighter ships, so matches didn't really last long enough to benefit from extensive chainshot volleys. If the masts got cut, fine, if not it made little difference - the smaller ships just don't last that long (hull, crew, or otherwise).

The code that reduces turn rate for sail damage was great. I love it. It makes attacking a ship's rigging equal something, unlike before when it was mostly cosmetic.

I'm not sure you could make chain shot "too powerful" from a historical standpoint. The French navy thought it was the only way to open an engagement. They were betting you could immobilize a fair number of your enemy's ships in the first couple of volleys, leaving them total sitting ducks - and often as not, they were right. On a close range linear rake, the stuff should bring just about any square-rigged warship to a grinding halt almost immediately. Not enough to end the encounter by itself, but it surely should take the edge off your tactics in a hurry.

I love that part. We're back in action. If we can get a balance where ships float long enough to get pounded, rather than sinking like stones, we'll be set for the sea combat part of the game. Although I think we still need some tweaking, I'm extremely happy with current improvements.

--------------------------

On the power supply, don't get bit by a spider when digging through cobwebs removing the old unit. Spider bites are painful and annoying. Also watch the little tabs on the back of the cards when plugging everything in - I had 52 bleeding scratches from putting in a video card a few months ago. Looked like I was in a terrible fight with an angry kitten. "Yeah, it's just a couple of screws and a plug here... OUCH... YIKES ... HEY! "

Nothing is ever as easy as it seems.
 
Hi, guys could you tell me where to find the lines to edit the changes for damage to hull & crew as I would like to try them out. BY THE WAY TO ALL YOU GUYS WORKING ON THE BUILD MOD MANY THANKS FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK!!!!! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/par-ty.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":cheers" border="0" alt="par-ty.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/keith.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":keith" border="0" alt="keith.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/piratesing.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":shock" border="0" alt="piratesing.gif" />. build 13 look cool not got AOP yet rather have a good game than eye candy. regards all. phil. ok guys found it thanks . hav a good weekend.!!!
 
PSU problems are nasty - especialy due to the need these days for a good stable one that provides the right level of power across the rails(total Watts rating can be misleading), for all the power hungry devices we tend to run on modern pc's(graphics cards esp).

Anyway I build PC's - i tend to like quite ones(and efficient also - not huge power suckers), but then i'm not an FPS power gamer, and i find the Antec range of PSU's very reliable and good value. I recomend them to most people <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

<a href="http://www.antec.com/uk/productDetails.php?ProdID=14451" target="_blank">http://www.antec.com/uk/productDetails.php?ProdID=14451</a>

Is worth a look Hook? If you run alot of 'stuff' on your pc you might want to opt for a more powerfull varient(500W)?

but that one has no trouble at all on my system(Athlon64 2.2Ghz/2Gig Ram/2xHD/Floppy(yeah i still use them!)/DVD-RW/ATI X1600pro GPU). The most i've seen draw in each rail is about 60% of whats available - so i could probably add a more powerfull card with little worry, and/or another HD if needed? Not bad for a 450W.

Good luck with sorting it - just check all the specs fit with your system if your going for a 'home-brew' fitting <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" /> nasty PSU's are a waste of time and what you often get in a 'brand' pc sadly.


Ref Rons damage adjustments - i had a quick(like 10 minute) try of them yesterday, i think probably they need a little adjustment ref crew damage, but i will test more thoroughly today at some point and report what i think.

I'm still concerned about 'giving' the player too many capturable ships? But as this whole line of enquiry is for down the line - i'll take into account that when Officers get re-worked(and start to have min-requirements of them to actualy sail some of the ships etc) it might not be a big problem in that case.

So there is still pleanty to discuss/try out and comment on for the long term imho.
 
Possible new bug... Are we supposed to be able to buy Manowars from QC?

I bought two. (there was a third one, but I didn't have the money <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> )

Given I can't buy them anywhere else, I thought finding them at a small pirate colony was rather odd!
 
what level were you Jonathon? If low level it could be a bug, but if high level(like high enough to buy them in a normal shipyard if it was 'legal') then i think that is probably ok - after all the Pirates are not law abbiding and wont care if HMGov doesnt want 'civillians' to get their hands on the crowns MOW?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top