In praise of the game.

**AussieGiant** · 06-14-2009, 18:30

Good topic Elmar Bijlsma.

I also agree, that CA have done an excellent job with the naval action. They should be proud about how little criticism they have received about it. That seems to be the litmus test for whether you have done well or not these days.

**Forward Observer** · 06-14-2009, 20:03

I tend to agree with Zenicetus. There are so many things technically and tactically wrong with the naval battles that I routinely auto resolve all of them.

At the very least--they should have offered choices between a realistic sailing mode and an arcade sailing mode plus maybe an additional choice somewhere between the two extremes.

Cheers

P.S.
It also gripes me to no end that every single square rigger in the game bends a sail that does not belong for the period depicted. There should be no lower course on the mizzenmast---only the spanker (gaff sail) or a stay sail. The lowest yardarm at this level is called the cross jack and its only purpose was as a brace for the mizzen top sail. Only well into the 19th century when the clipper ships were developed for high speed did square riggers begin to have both a lower course and a gaff on the mizzenmast To bend a lower course on the mizzen prior to these types of ships is pretty much like sticking a jet engine on the wings of a WW II spitfire.

**Owen Glyndwr** · 06-15-2009, 05:50

I find that you really have to think of R:TW as a Battles BC kind of thing. Just enough history to make you feel where you are, but ultimately it is cool stuff (sword fights, splodey stuff, i.e. "eye candy") that sells the product, and ultimately, selling the product is what it's all about.

Edit: No offense to any CA guys here, it really would be impractical to do total realism research on these games. (Look at how many man hours go into research for a mod like EB, and you'll soon realize that realism to that level is not profitable when it has to go onto the payroll/release timetable demands from parent companies.)

**AussieGiant** · 06-15-2009, 10:22

I know all the pro's and con's and soap box statements made by all parties based on what I am about to say, so there is no need to go totally ape.

BUT:

The level of armchair criticism is a little hard to swallow sometimes.

I'd really like to see some people at least try to comprehend the requirements and work needed to do some of the things they criticise CA about.

Some attempt at working out just how difficult it would be to "put your money where your mouth is" would be great.

Ok so those of you that can't resist, please commence your rants about being a consumer, paying money, right to criticise, consumer protection, etc etc.

**Turbosatan** · 06-15-2009, 20:51

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

I know all the pro's and con's and soap box statements made by all parties based on what I am about to say, so there is no need to go totally ape.

BUT:

The level of armchair criticism is a little hard to swallow sometimes.

I'd really like to see some people at least try to comprehend the requirements and work needed to do some of the things they criticise CA about.

Some attempt at working out just how difficult it would be to "put your money where your mouth is" would be great.

Ok so those of you that can't resist, please commence your rants about being a consumer, paying money, right to criticise, consumer protection, etc etc.

I love it when you post something like this, it literally saves me five minutes typing almost exactly the same thing, with the proviso that if it was me typing it I'd probably lose my rag thinking about over-privileged whining people & insult someone whilst you are always so polite!

Cheers mate!

PS: Added to which, people are so short-sighted they genuinely cannot see that however "offended" or "alienated" they are -- which of course says more about them than anything, that a computer game could affect them so -- that the changes that they demand & wax so righteous over are things which wouldalienate & offend a much much larger group of people were those features implemented.

Gnaaarrrggghhhhhh.

**Owen Glyndwr** · 06-15-2009, 21:06

Originally Posted by Turbosatan

I love it when you post something like this, it literally saves me five minutes typing almost exactly the same thing, with the proviso that if it was me typing it I'd probably lose my rag thinking about over-privileged whining people & insult someone whilst you are always so polite!

Cheers mate!

PS: Added to which, people are so short-sighted they genuinely cannot see that however "offended" or "alienated" they are -- which of course says more about them than anything, that a computer game could affect them so -- that the changes that they demand & wax so righteous over are things which wouldalienate & offend a much much larger group of people were those features implemented.

Gnaaarrrggghhhhhh.

Well put man! Be happy that we have a product like this at all! Appreciate the time and hard work put into this stuff. And, based off looking at the Daily Update at the Com thread, be happy that they are making a concerted update every day to make this game as good as it possibly can be.

**Razor1952** · 06-16-2009, 02:37

I would like to add my voice to this. I recently intercepted a Barbary Galley with my brig and though it was a lopsided battle I marveled at the beautiful graphics ( even on my laptop) as I boarded the galley and took it as a prize. These small battles allow one to zoom in and enjoy the detail.

**ramela** · 06-15-2009, 12:20

I personally enjoy the naval battles as is, but obviously a big portion of the player base would have more fun with a more realistic system. I would propably enjoy a realistic system less!

It's a tough nut to crack, having customers with opposite wants. :)

**AussieGiant** · 06-15-2009, 14:12

Originally Posted by ramela

I personally enjoy the naval battles as is, but obviously a big portion of the player base would have more fun with a more realistic system. I would propably enjoy a realistic system less!

It's a tough nut to crack, having customers with opposite wants. :)

Totally correct, which puts CA between a rock and a rather hard place.

I completely "get" that you can sail into the wind. I also completely "get" that this should not be the case. CA have explained why, so it should be possible to "move on" and deal with other parts of the naval battle solution.

If someone can get passed that point, I'd say it has been very well done.