Fix boarding already!

[elessaria]

Originally Posted by Coffey You have the cart before the horse historically speaking. Boarding was the first form of OS battle. Then along came cannons which put a focus on boarding from the front and aft as you say. So then (13th century in think) they started building up the front and aft of the ship hence the names fore castle and aft castle. This was taken directly from the high ground tactical advantage of castles including borrowing the name. You had an advantage in boarding others and not being boarded. The ship was specifically designed not to be boarded from the front and back ends. So boarding from the front or back end was out several hundred years before the era of the game setting. But boarding from the side was still being done because the fire power from the cannons wasn't quite enough to stop it so they controlled it by forcing the boarders to use the lower mid-section of the ship and attacked the boarders from above. This practice of boarding from the broadside as an sea-battle tactic gave way to long range cannons by the later parts of the 16th century. When a few nationals in frigates that had longer range cannons defeated an entire Spanish Armada by kiting them and keeping them at a distance. From that point on, well before the historical time frame of the game, boarding was no longer a viable OS battle tactic period. Ships had the forecastle removed in favor of maneuverability and then later even their aft castles were removed. This also allowed for more guns and heavier guns. They wouldn't have removed the castles if boarding was still being done. It simply would not have occurred to them that the fore castle was messing up the way that the wind blew across the front of the sails. It only occurred to them when one ships fore castle had to be removed because of how damaged it was. That is when they realized it how much it improved the sailing capabilities of the ship. But it took the fire power of the same cannons that rendered boarding useless to discover it. Boarding doesn't belong in this games time setting unless you want to give up on the longer ranged cannons and highly maneuverable ships. Given the state of Av com I would rather not go back to the middle of the 16th century. Don't get me wrong ships were boarded but only after they surrendered or sometimes they were boarded at night and disabled and then defeated the next day and finally they were boarded for inspection. Historically speaking that is.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Seriously none. It wasn't until the era of the ironclad in the 1850s that a ship was heavy enough to be knocked out by enemy action without a total compromise of the hull which cannon fire alone was incapable of delivering. Boarding was the ultimate end of almost every definitive combat action in the entire Age of Sail.

[Targor]

Originally Posted by elessaria You have no idea what you are talking about. Seriously none. It wasn't until the era of the ironclad in the 1850s that a ship was heavy enough to be knocked out by enemy action without a total compromise of the hull which cannon fire alone was incapable of delivering. Boarding was the ultimate end of almost every definitive combat action in the entire Age of Sail.

I really don't feel like arguing with either of the sides, as it doesn't matter.

Whether it was or was not ending up with boarding, it was definately not by t-boning with a very light ship w/o any consequences to that light ship...

[Coffey]

Originally Posted by elessaria You have no idea what you are talking about. Seriously none. It wasn't until the era of the ironclad in the 1850s that a ship was heavy enough to be knocked out by enemy action without a total compromise of the hull which cannon fire alone was incapable of delivering. Boarding was the ultimate end of almost every definitive combat action in the entire Age of Sail.

No idea Huh? I'm not making anything up here. The following is not my words.

The defeat of Spain's Great Armada in 1588 struck the death knell for major fleets geared toward boarding. The Spanish galleons were intended primarily for boarding combat, their contingents of boarding soldiers far outnumbering the English and their decks provided with high castles for suppressive fire. But the Armada proved unable to close with the English vessels, partly because the Spanish castles rendered their ships more sluggish, while Drake and Hawkins stood off and bombarded the Spanish from long range, tearing up their rigging and decimating their crews with the superior firepower of their broadsides. This enabled the outnumbered English fleet to avoid being boarded and prevent a Spanish landing.

My point and my interpretation is that during the time frame of the game(early 17th century) The enemy ship was for the most part already defeated.

Please let me know where you got your information about how people were boarding as the primary means of defeating a ship clear up to the Ironclad era.

As Targor says "it doesn't really matter". But to say "...seriously none" is a bit of an unnecessary exaggeration.

[elessaria]

Originally Posted by Coffey No idea Huh? I'm not making anything up here. The following is not my words.

Your words or not, how many Spanish ships were sunk by the English fleet? If I recall from memory it was 2. And 5 were taken prize by...boarding. Certainly it was the last time a fleet was equipped solely with the intention of fighting deck to deck, but that is not the same thing by a long stretch. At the end of the day, if you wanted to take control of an enemy vessel it meant boarding.

My point and my interpretation is that during the time frame of the game(early 17th century) The enemy ship was for the most part already defeated.

Early 18th century. And I reiterate, until a ship had both sufficient mass to sink readily, and opposition had sufficient firepower to damage underwater hull integrity (both essentially tracable to HMS Warrior in 1860), defeating one in combat either required it to be completely pummelled, or boarded.

Please let me know where you got your information about how people were boarding as the primary means of defeating a ship clear up to the Ironclad era.

I didn't say primary I said ultimate, as in last. For every example you find of a ship striking colours due to inopperability I will find one where it was boarded; from any year between Lepanto and Trafalgar. Look over a list of the most venerated naval engagements of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries and barely one goes by without a boarding action; not to mention the myriad smaller ship-on-ship engagements like Cochrane's.

As to your "few nationals in frigates" kiting an entire armada, if you had actually studied the engagement you would know that not only did the English fleet outnumber the Spanish, they found they needed to close to 100y or less to penetrate the enemy hulls, and only "won" the campaign because they prevented a decisive landing from taking place until the Armada had extended beyond the Channel, whence the prevailing wind forced them to detour around the Isles where they were scattered by storms.

And boarding not belonging in the timeframe, period? The xebec was designed specifically for the purpose in the 1740s, AFTER the game is set...

[BigBJW]

Hello, I'm new to this game (great game) and this forum... but I've been around for a while too.

My only observation about boarding is this - Boarding is the only Consequence Free Combat in the game for the attacker.
In any other type of combat in this game - the looser of the combat suffers consequences for loosing....accept if you initiated boarding.
It has been pointed out on this forum that defending players have beaten the boarding attacker many times over - and always loose in the end BECAUSE the attacker can re initiate boarding combat endlessly and without penalty (no matter how many times the defender wins) - yet if the defender looses - combat is over and the ship is taken.
This hardly seems fair or balanced in anyone's definition.... to board is to ultimately win - no matter how many times you are beaten.
I have read that the attacker doesn't loose his ship because he is simply regrouping - just as the defender is.
Fair enough, but shouldn't the victorious defender AT LEAST get to automatically counter-board the defeated attacker's ship?
That would reward the defender for winning, while penalize the loosing attacker for loosing his boarding attempt wouldn't it?
I'm not crying Broken! - but really, there should be some consequence for attacking someone in boarding and loosing the attempt.

Just my 2c

[Coffey]

Originally Posted by elessaria Your words or not, how many Spanish ships were sunk by the English fleet? If I recall from memory it was 2. And 5 were taken prize by...boarding. Certainly it was the last time a fleet was equipped solely with the intention of fighting deck to deck, but that is not the same thing by a long stretch. At the end of the day, if you wanted to take control of an enemy vessel it meant boarding. Early 18th century. And I reiterate, until a ship had both sufficient mass to sink readily, and opposition had sufficient firepower to damage underwater hull integrity (both essentially tracable to HMS Warrior in 1860), defeating one in combat either required it to be completely pummelled, or boarded. I didn't say primary I said ultimate, as in last. For every example you find of a ship striking colours due to inopperability I will find one where it was boarded; from any year between Lepanto and Trafalgar. Look over a list of the most venerated naval engagements of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries and barely one goes by without a boarding action; not to mention the myriad smaller ship-on-ship engagements like Cochrane's. As to your "few nationals in frigates" kiting an entire armada, if you had actually studied the engagement you would know that not only did the English fleet outnumber the Spanish, they found they needed to close to 100y or less to penetrate the enemy hulls, and only "won" the campaign because they prevented a decisive landing from taking place until the Armada had extended beyond the Channel, whence the prevailing wind forced them to detour around the Isles where they were scattered by storms. And boarding not belonging in the timeframe, period? The xebec was designed specifically for the purpose in the 1740s, AFTER the game is set...

The comment of a few nationals in frigates was clearly an egageration on my part. Thanks to you for the correction.The source I got that from indicated that the brits were out numbered. Which is no excuse just an explanation.
Reading up on the battle more as shown that the brits had greater numbers. To me the point is moot as the reading shows that the brit kited or keep the Spanish at bay. They ran low on ammo as they figured out this new strategy. The battle still validates the argument that boarding is no longer the primary means of defeating the enemy.

I'm just trying to drive home the fact that boarding was not the primary means of defeating the enemy. You are choosing to disregard that point and then telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about. If you want to change the subject from what I'm talking about then post a new reply.

You are clearly making a good argument for leaving boarding in the game as a finisher and I would agree in so long as the ship you are boarding is already pretty much defeated. Their are numerous posts to the effect that boarding is being currently abused as the primary means of defeating the opponent.
A few shots that decimate the crew and or sails. And then bam boarded and finished in short order. It not realistic for this era. This era represent the transition from boarding to superior fire power and maneuverability.

Did they even have Xebec's in the Caribbean. I thought they were in the Mediterranean where they were still using galleons with oars because of the light winds. A consecquence of using oars is that you wouldn't have room for the cannons that would repel ships designed for boarding...Oh never mind I have no idea what I'm talking about again. Seriously none.

[elessaria]

Originally Posted by Coffey Did they even have Xebec's in the Caribbean.

There aren't many examples, but there are examples.

I thought they were in the Mediterranean where they were still using galleons with oars because of the light winds.

Galleases.

A consecquence of using oars is that you wouldn't have room for the cannons that would repel ships designed for boarding...Oh never mind I have no idea what I'm talking about again. Seriously none.

The xebec is an evolution of the galley where (1) the large foreguns were substituted for broadside warfare due to the redundancy of the ram after Lepanto, and (2) the rower decks were removed to make way for gun batteries and the oar banks replaced by sweeps used by the gun crews out of combat. Look at my model of the Arcadia and you will see the holes between gunports that would take the sweeps.

[_Dangermouse_]

Originally Posted by BigBJW Hello, I'm new to this game (great game) and this forum... but I've been around for a while too. My only observation about boarding is this - Boarding is the only Consequence Free Combat in the game for the attacker. In any other type of combat in this game - the looser of the combat suffers consequences for loosing....accept if you initiated boarding. It has been pointed out on this forum that defending players have beaten the boarding attacker many times over - and always loose in the end BECAUSE the attacker can re initiate boarding combat endlessly and without penalty (no matter how many times the defender wins) - yet if the defender looses - combat is over and the ship is taken. This hardly seems fair or balanced in anyone's definition.... to board is to ultimately win - no matter how many times you are beaten. I have read that the attacker doesn't loose his ship because he is simply regrouping - just as the defender is. Fair enough, but shouldn't the victorious defender AT LEAST get to automatically counter-board the defeated attacker's ship? That would reward the defender for winning, while penalize the loosing attacker for loosing his boarding attempt wouldn't it? I'm not crying Broken! - but really, there should be some consequence for attacking someone in boarding and loosing the attempt. Just my 2c

exactly, and thats why boarding is a broken game mechanic,there`s no risk involved it`s a win win situation. if you win the fights over, if you lose you return to your ship to try again,and again,and again, until you eventually win.
If the ship combat mechanics worked the same way boarding does then when your ship got sunk you would respawn back in the battle complete with all your fittings and no loss of a durability,to continue fighting.

I dont even waste my time with the broken avcom and boarding mechanics,if a ship gets close enough and they are intent on boarding, i just abandon ship. the time i save by abandoning ship and avoiding the broken avcom/boarding mechanics, I can use to fleet to earn dabloons to pay for the 1 dura I lost by abandoning ship.