• 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!

To-Do list for Build 13

<!--quoteo(post=144575:date=Apr 5 2006, 01:57 AM:name=Pieter Boelen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pieter Boelen @ Apr 5 2006, 01:57 AM) [snapback]144575[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I said: Please DON'T post any new ideas in this thread. We don't need any completely new stuff added. I will not add anything to Build 13 that isn't already in the Post Build 12 mods. I will add in:
1) Bugfixes
2) Improvements of current mods
...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Since I'm new, can we have a list of each item under those broad headings? (1) Post Build 12 Mods, (2) Bugfixes, and (3) Improvements to current Mods.

And, of course, capture those new ideas which will go into future Builds (not in this thread - I can understand that <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/whistling.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":wp" border="0" alt="whistling.gif" />).
 
I don't know what will do under these broad headings. "Post Build 12 Mods" are the mods already in the Post Build 12 modpack. A feature list is on my site, though it isn't entirely complete. "Bugfixes" contain at the very least the bugfix to those *** Crashes To Desktop we've been having the past few weeks. "Improvements of current mods" might contain anything the modders choose to improve. Things included might be the addition of a weapon's officer to handle a lot of weapon-related things aboard your ship for you (such as distributing pistol ammo to the crew and officers).
 
(I think that) the 'tavernbrawls' needs some tweak,
everytime that someone demands you a drink, if you refuse, 4 or 5 guys draw steel!

what about just one or two? and with knives? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":rolleyes:" border="0" alt="rolleyes.gif" />
 
<!--quoteo(post=144643:date=Apr 5 2006, 10:30 AM:name=Pieter Boelen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pieter Boelen @ Apr 5 2006, 10:30 AM) [snapback]144643[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I don't know what will do under these broad headings. "Post Build 12 Mods" are the mods already in the Post Build 12 modpack. A feature list is on my site, though it isn't entirely complete. "Bugfixes" contain at the very least the bugfix to those *** Crashes To Desktop we've been having the past few weeks. "Improvements of current mods" might contain anything the modders choose to improve. Things included might be the addition of a weapon's officer to handle a lot of weapon-related things aboard your ship for you (such as distributing pistol ammo to the crew and officers).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You dissapoint me Pieter, weapons officer? dont you mean.. "Master at arms" <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/whistling.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":wp" border="0" alt="whistling.gif" />
 
I admit to not have spent a great deal of effort in thinking up a name for this officer. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/oops3.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":eek:ops2" border="0" alt="oops3.gif" />
 
for build 13 ofcourse a new background cause i'm getting boared on this 1 and why wont we create or own pictogram
 
<!--quoteo(post=144682:date=Apr 5 2006, 07:37 PM:name=Pieter Boelen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pieter Boelen @ Apr 5 2006, 07:37 PM) [snapback]144682[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I admit to not have spent a great deal of effort in thinking up a name for this officer. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/oops3.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":eek:ops2" border="0" alt="oops3.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I think it should be Master at arms, the old royal navy had em, they were in charge of the boarding weapons. since all other characters are royal navy in origin it is just logical(quartermaster, botswain(bo'sun) and ect)
 
To be technical, "Master at Arms" was a title from the Royal Marines. He was in charge of boarding and landing party weapons, and weapons training, but was otherwise not really considered a "ship" officer. The French used a similar system, where they added "des armes" after a military rank, to indicate he was in charge of combat training and equipment for his group. A few leftovers of this system are still seen in English speaking countries, in terms like "Master Sergeant" and "Gunnery Sergeant", although as far as I know, the French have cleaned those terms from their system.

This is also seen in modern navy use, where ships that carry Marines usually place the marines under their own command structure. The United States is the worst about this, where the Marines are, for all intents and purposes, their own branch of the military.

Again, we still need a ground combat/boarding model where a substantial number of troops could join you, and would stand and shoot like troops of the period. Then a good Master at Arms would be extremely valuable.

Ron
 
<!--quoteo(post=144724:date=Apr 6 2006, 03:13 AM:name=Ron Losey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ron Losey @ Apr 6 2006, 03:13 AM) [snapback]144724[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
To be technical, "Master at Arms" was a title from the Royal Marines. He was in charge of boarding and landing party weapons, and weapons training, but was otherwise not really considered a "ship" officer. The French used a similar system, where they added "des armes" after a military rank, to indicate he was in charge of combat training and equipment for his group. A few leftovers of this system are still seen in English speaking countries, in terms like "Master Sergeant" and "Gunnery Sergeant", although as far as I know, the French have cleaned those terms from their system.

This is also seen in modern navy use, where ships that carry Marines usually place the marines under their own command structure. The United States is the worst about this, where the Marines are, for all intents and purposes, their own branch of the military.

Again, we still need a ground combat/boarding model where a substantial number of troops could join you, and would stand and shoot like troops of the period. Then a good Master at Arms would be extremely valuable.

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

Master at arms is a navy rank, a petty officer
 
From Wikipedia

Master at Arms:

The term has been used in the Royal Navy since the time of King Charles I. Originally the Master-at-Arms was a petty officer who looked after personal arms such as swords and firearms, ensuring they were kept in good order and their ammunition was prepared and ready for use in combat. He also instructed other members of the crew in the use of arms. He later also became responsible for discipline. The Ship's Corporals assisted the Master-at-Arms with his duties.
 
But once again, we need a model where a substantial number of the crew can be seen in the fighting, before such an officer would be useful. If the boarding crew is just your officers, you don't really need a prep sequence - they are probably already armed.

British Royal Marines were fairly well integrated into the ship crew, to the point that they used the same officer designations - i.e. Marine detachments for the ship were under the command of a 'petty officer', an obvious Navy title. American Navy did not - their Marines simply did not take orders from the ship officers. (Still don't - they have their job, and the navy has a different job, and they mostly just try to stay out of each other's way the rest of the time.) Other countries had various levels of interaction between the two. That point likely won't matter in a computer game, where computer characters pretty much do what they are told anyway.

Ron
 
<!--quoteo(post=144798:date=Apr 7 2006, 11:07 AM:name=Ron Losey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ron Losey @ Apr 7 2006, 11:07 AM) [snapback]144798[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
British Royal Marines were fairly well integrated into the ship crew, to the point that they used the same officer designations - i.e. Marine detachments for the ship were under the command of a 'petty officer', an obvious Navy title.
Ron
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with this point. Marines came under the control of a Captain of Marines, whilst on ship(possibly a sergeant on smaller boats). This rank was the equivalent to the naval rank of 1st Lieutenant. As far as I am aware (Imay be wrong), there was no rank of Petty Officer in the marines, it is a purely naval rank. There were however, warrant officers (first and second class) and these were equivalent to the army ranks of Regimental Sergeant Major and Sergeant Major respectively.

This however is probably not the place to discuss points of history, so I am going to start a pole to see if we can get an historical discussion board started where we can all endlessly debate the facts of 17th and 18th C. history.
 
When build 13 is out, plz rename POST Build 13 into Addon for Build 13... this will make it a lot more synoptic for newbies <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />
 
I think that was my earlier point. We need, for game purposes, a land combat model where more of the crew could get involved. That would be good. Were such a model to exist, we would also need combat-oriented officers whose skill would determine the skill level of the crew. What we call that officer, or whose navy organization we use, is purely semantics. I mean, if we call him "Master at Arms" or "Drunken Pirate found under a table", the point is the same. He's still the big angry guy who yells at the crew about how to use a saber and not look like a bunch of Girl Scouts. This is one case where historical realism, specifically whose navy officer model we use or how exactly the command structure was organized, could not possibly matter less.

Now, can somebody come up with such a model before the next Build is ready? Not likely, but it's a worthwhile long-term goal. The "crew on shore" mod is already going in that direction, if we can just make them fight with muskets like combat of that period, instead of charging in with sabers like a bunch of drunken hoodlums.

Ron
 
Pieter, did you get the PM from me?

I uploaded a summary of comments on this thread:

<a href="http://download.yousendit.com/13F776EC7C45586F" target="_blank">http://download.yousendit.com/13F776EC7C45586F</a>

or

<a href="http://www.uploading.com/?get=LEXAYTA1" target="_blank">http://www.uploading.com/?get=LEXAYTA1</a>

Let me know who can do what, what is finished, etc.
 
I think we need faster turn rates for all ships in realistic sailing, it takes forever to turn even a frigate, i just watched Master and commander, and the Surprise had a quite considerable faster turn rate than the frigates in PoTC <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/whistling.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":wp" border="0" alt="whistling.gif" /> even the 44 gun Acheron had faster turn rate.
 
That movie cut out a lot of the time delay, or covered it by shifting the scene (i.e. the ship was still trying to turn, but the camera was turned on a conversation or something). The turn rates are painfully real in POTC now, with the possible exception of very small ships in high wind. (Say, schooner and below in wind over 12 knots, many could probably turn a little tighter.) Speaking of high winds, did you notice how all of the battles in that movie were staged with relatively high wind speeds? That kept the big frigates moving. Convenient that way. Kept the audience from immediately going to sleep.

That said, the difference between frigates and heavier ships could be a little greater - but it's probably the heavier ships that need to be even more immobile.

Ron
 
<!--quoteo(post=145474:date=Apr 14 2006, 02:07 PM:name=devichat)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(devichat @ Apr 14 2006, 02:07 PM) [snapback]145474[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Pieter, did you get the PM from me?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I didn't receive it. I suppose that was because my PM folders were full at the moment. Sorry for that. Thanks for telling me again now. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/doff.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":doff" border="0" alt="doff.gif" />
 
Any updates or responses guys?

I should have some time tomorrow to review the comments and putting names to particular mods.

Who's volunteering to work on which mod? Or who's already working on some mod?
 
I am at the moment working rather hard on the next modpack update, which I am hoping to be able to release this weekend. I'm sorry for not getting back to you; I am being very busy with just making the modpack. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad.gif" />
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top