Love the profile pic!

In Rulers of the Sea you are always in command. You are the Captain, and the object is to make it feel that way.

There are no other gamers on your ship, it's just you and the crew. And that's the first difference to Naval Action, a present crew. You are on the deck. So actually a perspective on the ship. The second difference. You can't zoom back and see the whole scene from a cinematic view. Ti's all about realism.

You can walk the deck while sailing (probably freely, but we still have to technically design the details of that) or you take the command position, which would usually be on the bridge or poop deck, close to the helmsman. In the command position you are in a first person view, and fixed in that position. Again, no way to zoom out, you'll have to deal with the limitations of view Captains had.

In the command position you can give orders to people around you. The Boatswain for sailing operations. The gunner for gunnery. The Sailing Master for navigation. The Helmsman for course. The Marine Captain for boarding action. Etc. So when you look at them, you get an order menu. When you select the order, the order gets repeated by your duty officer, and men start carrying it out. You can create series of orders once you are more familiar with it, like macro's, so that you can speed up the process.

You command that crew. You don't steer the ship yourself, you don't shoot the cannons yourself, you give orders and your crew then executes. That means that everything happens at a delay. You will have to anticipate, think ahead, if you want a strategic advantage.

The difference is that the action rolls out more like it does in EVE online. So if you have selected an enemy and set upon it, and you gave orders to fire upon them, your crew will start the firing drill, and keep that up until you order a cease fire. So as long as you navigate the ship in the right position, that will be effective. You don't have to keep pressing buttons. You can also order to get into a certain position, as your Helmsman and Boatswain can adjust things themselves. The quality of everything, like the rate and accuracy of firing, the maneuverability and speed of the ship, etc, is determined not by your aiming skills, but by the quality of your crew, each of which you recruit, train, develop, manage.

Although the action is carried out by your crew, and you can give orders and then hang back and see how it plays out, battles are most likely won by not doing that, and applying clever maneuvering. Wind and current matter. Firing at the stern, bow or side matters. Selection of firing targets and ammunition matters. And especially, a well trained crew or a ship in peak condition matters. Preparation and tactics are key. Positioning is everything.

Another difference is that the variety of ships is different. There will be around 50 different ship models with different properties, but the shipbuilders (a gamer career option) can build those with about 20 options of materials and construction. So although you might encounter a 3rd rate ship of the line, and outwardly these look similar, you don't know the actual properties of that ship, let alone the quality of the crew or the state of maintenance. There is no scanner or stat sheet that tells you these things, this is the 18th century. And then there is the skill of the Captain. You can count their 70 guns, maybe get some hints from its behavior, and then you have to hope for the best. Imagine you face a 3rd rate with your Frigate, but you have trained your gunners so well that they have a double rate of fire and more accuracy, you might actually do better than you'd expect.

In summary, Naval Action is much more about action. You can quickly jump into a battle, and you control the ship directly with buttons.

Rulers of the Sea is much more about realism, tactics and strategy. You command your ship and crew. And you can't jump into action either. No quick travel. No drop-in battles. You'll have to hunt. Or be engaged. Or hope your government declares a lot of wars, so there will be more regular fleet action against enemies.

So does that answer your question? And how does this design compare for you to Naval Action?

Thank you for such a length and in-depth response! Yes you completely answered my questions, this design sounds very exciting. Im heavily reminded of the battles described by Patrick O'Brian in his books, which I expect is exactly what you're going for. 

Compared to Naval Action, it sounds much more immersive. The best part about NA is the combat. The ships are very well modeled, and the physics feels good in battles. However it doesn't feel like you are commanding a ship with hundreds of men aboard, it is just you. While I still enjoy NA, the gameplay options are rather limited, and a very slow and strange development path has led to player base issues.

I believe the NA community only began to hear about RotS yesterday, and already I know my group of friends are all excited and ready to try your game. I realize there is still a long way to go, but many of us will watch this development very closely.  For too long it has felt like NA was the only option if you wanted a remotely realistic Age of Sail combat game.

@anthony

Welcome to the fold. I’ve never played or seen NA, but I know a couple of its former players on here the last few days have expressed their dissatisfaction with it.  Get your friends on the forum and social media pages to boost membership! 

@anthony

You are very right, Patrick O'Brian is definitely a big inspiration! Love the books! And so is Naval Action, and in particular, the disappointment that it hasn't managed to become more. There was potential in that project, but it took another turn. I think that all we want, is to immerse ourselves in that history and role play, and feel that 'O'Brian'feeling. That simple really. And not just the Naval Action either, but the whole experience of that era. The full careers and adventures.

I am really happy to see the Naval Action gamers support us! Welcome! We're going for it!

Also a NA player, I am curious how a battles will be initiated. Do you plan to have instances of open world and battles, like in Naval Action, or would the world be one large sandbox like in Atlas? Both have their limitations as with instances it can be difficult to reinforce allies or try to overwhelm opponents; and with an open world it can be problematic when random players try to interfere with important engagements. Both have drastic effects on how battles are initiated and carried out. 

@galt

Welcome!

https://www.rulersofthesea.com/discussions/navy-career/what-will-fleet-battles-look-like/

I think that thread answers your question for the most part.

So presuming you've just read all that:

It's a bit of best worlds. There are no drop-in battles, no fast travel or teleportation (god forbid), and it's a huge ocean. So if you don't do anything, no fleets are easily going to meet.

Battles to disable and blockade ports and big fleet engagements are pre-scheduled. They need to be, because the Squadrons need to know when to be where, and travel takes time, possibly even has to be set so it can take place prior, offline.

In the case of Port attacks it is set one-sided, the enemy won't know (unless it leaks). In the case of fleet battles these are agreed by both Admiralties, and even victory conditions can be attached (in agreement with the respective governments), giving them a larger stake than just loss of life and ships. And of course ships can also meet spontaneously and get engaged in battles.

The advantage of pre-scheduled battles, apart from that gamers know where and when to show up, is that we can also organize the capacity to run them. Technically, we will run the battles (all battles) in a different instance, but in such a way that they also have an appearance to the outside world (so as to keep it connected to the perpetual world). But people that are not involved cannot sail into it and join, they have to sail around the area. (Which is actually easy to make immersive, because even if you as a Captain will want to join a battle, your crew will refuse that order as they are not going to either break navy orders or get involved into battles if that is not their job.)

But do keep in mind that battles in Rulers of the Sea take preparation! You don't just drop in with an empty ship. You need a ship (luckily the Navy will provide you with one), need to recruit a crew, manage them, upkeep your ship, equip and provision, so caring for all that is a big part of the game. If that is not your thing (you have such Captains), you do have officers and petty officers that can take care of parts of those jobs though. If you trust them to do it.

Im a bit confused about the Traveltime from Amsterdam to London, when it takes (only) around 10mins to get from Amstedam to London or back. When in the Channel will happen a Battle, how long People are able to join that Battle. 

Will the Battles close direclty?

Will Captains be able to come from London/Amsterdam to join the Battle what will brake the Immersion from my few. How will it be handled?

In real time in best conditions it woud take around 8-10hours. And a Naval Battle in this time lasts for Hours or days sometimes. So i think the Traveltime is a bit Short but on the other side a Trip from Europe to Amerika has taken around a Month and longer. And we will be able to sail it in a few Hours. What does not sound bad. I know it is Hard to find the right sweetspot from Timecompression and Distances.

@broadreach

Okay, let's see whether I can explain that a bit further.

There is a difference between engagements and battles. In an engagement you are for instance cruising the channel with your Frigate, you see an enemy, and you engage. These are small engagements, and can happen all the time, anywhere.

Battles are scheduled events. Two Admiralies at war agree to meet at a certain location with entire Squadrons or Fleets. Now every gamer in the Squadrons that are committed receives an order to appear. That can for instance be next Saturday at 15:00 at specific coordinates. So all these Captains know where to be, hopefully they can make time, and they will make sure to prepare and travel to the right location. A battle can be as large as two whole fleets meeting, a single fleet can contain 90 ships (5 Squadrons). So that means 180 ships in the battle zone (note: each nation can have 3 fleets at full navy capacity). 

A set battle is a specific area. If you are invited to the battle (a member of the Squadrons invited) you can sail into the battle area from the moment it opens till the moment it closes. Let's say the window for joining the battle is 15 minutes. After that it is closed, no more new ships can enter. If you arrive too late you will not partake, if you arrive early you'll have to wait. If you are in the battle area, and you sail out of it, you also cannot re-enter, you have then effectively retreated. Now the battle will last as long as it takes for one side to be completely defeated by having no more ships in the battle zone left (all either sunk, captured or retreated).

Battle zones that the Admiralties can select always will lie somewhat out of the shipping lanes (optimal trade wind routes), so that they don't form obstructions for other ships. So a battle zone at the narrowest point of the North-Sea channel is not very likely.

Does that answer your questions?

@petersj ,

I am very excited about your game!  I, too, am an ex-Naval Action player, and I am a period tall-ship sailor in real life (US Brig Niagara 🙂 I have long dreamt of a truly authentic age of sail game like the one you propose.

I do, however, have some questions based upon your posts in threads like this one...

Posted by: @petersj

There is a difference between engagements and battles. In an engagement you are for instance cruising the channel with your Frigate, you see an enemy, and you engage. These are small engagements, and can happen all the time, anywhere.

Battles are scheduled events. Two Admiralies at war agree to meet at a certain location with entire Squadrons or Fleets. Now every gamer in the Squadrons that are committed receives an order to appear. That can for instance be next Saturday at 15:00 at specific coordinates. So all these Captains know where to be, hopefully they can make time, and they will make sure to prepare and travel to the right location. A battle can be as large as two whole fleets meeting, a single fleet can contain 90 ships (5 Squadrons). So that means 180 ships in the battle zone (note: each nation can have 3 fleets at full navy capacity). 

A set battle is a specific area. If you are invited to the battle (a member of the Squadrons invited) you can sail into the battle area from the moment it opens till the moment it closes. Let's say the window for joining the battle is 15 minutes. After that it is closed, no more new ships can enter. If you arrive too late you will not partake, if you arrive early you'll have to wait. If you are in the battle area, and you sail out of it, you also cannot re-enter, you have then effectively retreated. Now the battle will last as long as it takes for one side to be completely defeated by having no more ships in the battle zone left (all either sunk, captured or retreated).

Battle zones that the Admiralties can select always will lie somewhat out of the shipping lanes (optimal trade wind routes), so that they don't form obstructions for other ships. So a battle zone at the narrowest point of the North-Sea channel is not very likely.

Does that answer your questions?

I feel like this mechanic could be limiting to realism.  Fleet battles were, after all, not scheduled or reliant upon mutual agreement throughout history.  There are also numerous engagements in which ships have left the battle to return some hours later, and countless where new ships have arrived hours into a battle. 

I think that a better embodiment of the historical fidelity Rulers of the Sea could be achieved with more realistic mechanics... in a game like the one proposed on this website, it would be amazing to have situations where fleets are blown off station, an enemy fleet slips out of port, and there must be a desperate chase and perhaps an ultimate battle... or superior intelligence furnishes one nation with information of a planned invasion (Ireland again? 😉 and they must send a fleet to the supposed landing to intercept them.  I think that this drama is necessary for the international politics and warfare which you plan to include.

I also worry about so many ships being in the same instance.  In Naval Action, battles were limited to 50 ships per side (and my rather beefy system still struggled with it.)  How do you plan to avoid technical difficulties with these massive battles?

Posted by: @petersj

The advantage of pre-scheduled battles, apart from that gamers know where and when to show up, is that we can also organize the capacity to run them. Technically, we will run the battles (all battles) in a different instance, but in such a way that they also have an appearance to the outside world (so as to keep it connected to the perpetual world). But people that are not involved cannot sail into it and join, they have to sail around the area. (Which is actually easy to make immersive, because even if you as a Captain will want to join a battle, your crew will refuse that order as they are not going to either break navy orders or get involved into battles if that is not their job.)

... If that is not your thing (you have such Captains), you do have officers and petty officers that can take care of parts of those jobs though...

You mentioned in another thread that nations must have alliances in order to fight on the same side, though I would imagine that (historically) two ships of non-allied nations at war with a shared opponent would certainly engage that opponent together... I cannot think of any particular examples of this happening during our time period, but I also cannot imagine a captain or crew who would turn from gunfire and risk the possibility of their enemy surviving or even capturing a ship. 

Posted by: @petersj

...You can walk the deck while sailing (probably freely, but we still have to technically design the details of that) or you take the command position, which would usually be on the bridge or poop deck, close to the helmsman. In the command position you are in a first person view, and fixed in that position. Again, no way to zoom out, you'll have to deal with the limitations of view Captains had....

...So when you look at them, you get an order menu. When you select the order, the order gets repeated by your duty officer, and men start carrying it out....

...Firing at the stern, bow or side matters. Selection of firing targets and ammunition matters...

...There will be around 50 different ship models with different properties, but the shipbuilders (a gamer career option) can build those with about 20 options of materials and construction. So although you might encounter a 3rd rate ship of the line, and outwardly these look similar, you don't know the actual properties of that ship, let alone the quality of the crew or the state of maintenance. There is no scanner or stat sheet that tells you these things, this is the 18th century. And then there is the skill of the Captain. You can count their 70 guns, maybe get some hints from its behavior, and then you have to hope for the best. Imagine you face a 3rd rate with your Frigate, but you have trained your gunners so well that they have a double rate of fire and more accuracy, you might actually do better than you'd expect.

 

So does that answer your question? And how does this design compare for you to Naval Action?

Being inspired by the novels of Patrick O'Brian, will we have such flexible viewpoints as Aubrey?  For instance, climbing to the masthead to survey a chase

I have seen the ship of the line vs frigate situation mentioned a few times on this website, which inspires me to ask how many factors you plan to include in the game in naval battles.  It does not seem that with realism in mind mere superior gunnery can allow a frigate to claim victory over a third rate... there are far more variables than count of guns or number of shot put 'downrange.'  I feel that a frigate with three times the firing-rate of a ship of the line still stands little-to-no chance in a broadside-broadside engagement, largely because of the vast differences in hull construction and broadside weight between the ships.

One may well bring to mind the most famous engagement of such proportions, El Gamo vs Speedy, but it must be remembered that this engagement was won in boarding rather than by gunnery.

Thank you for your time, I'm looking forward to hearing your responses!

@sir-john

So, a lot of questions. I am not sure I can all answer them to your satisfaction, but I will do my best!

Firstly, welcome as a sailor of the Niagara, quite a privilege, it seems to me. I have a somewhat nautical background myself.

The thing with people like yourself, that would mostly desire to just take a time machine back in history, and experience the real thing, is that you will find that ultimately every game is going to fall short in some way. So will Rulers of the Sea. We simply can't make the game 100% realistic in a way that is either affordable or playable. We aim to do the best possible job of being a game that stays as close to realism as possible, but the first priority is that it is still a game, and as such, needs to be enjoyable too.

What you suggest would most likely be thoroughly enjoyable to people like yourself and me, the purists. But would probably not connect with the largest part of gamers, that also want to experience action and competition. We are already really stretching the limits with this design, with long travel times, with complete lack of data, with all the activities you have to do before you can even set sail, with all the restrictions of being a commander instead of a helmsman, sailor and gunner rolled into one, like in Naval Action.

I think we stretch it dangerously far, if we stretch it even further, it will no longer be a niche game, it will be a game that very few people will have the patience to play. So there lie the concerns.

Take Naval Action! You already enjoy that! If you see how far we want to drive Rulers of the Sea, compared to Naval Action, I think we manage to push it way out of any ballpark that has existed before for naval game play. Highly experimental. I don't think we are prepared to push that boat out much further than we already do.

So as to the fleet battles: the game map is far too large for what you suggest. Fleets are never going to meet if you don't schedule. There will hardly be any action at all! And that would be entirely realistic, because how often do you think a Royal Navy ship was actually in action during its lifetime? Hardly ever. But we can't expect gamers to play that way. It's the same with a police game. The real life of a police officer is 95% boredom. I can guarantee you that no-one will ever play a realistic police game.

There also needs to be something at stake in a battle, and that is why it needs rules. In real life, if a fleet was destroyed, a country would have lost sea dominance. A ship could take a year to build. But in a game it is not feasible to not allow gamers that lose a ship to get one back fairly quickly. Because which gamer wants to play a game where you are a Captain that for weeks on end doesn't have a ship? So since we do not have that realism, a fleet battle without this game element where you can attach victory rules to a certain event, which requires limitations in time and participants, will just not mean anything or have any real consequences.

Yes, the upside of realistic history is that wonderful feeling of the real experience. But imagine if you were France that has just lost Gibraltar. That's it. Your fleet is gone, you lost that part of the war for good. That is just completely demoralizing for a really long time. That is real life, but that is not a fun game.

So all I can so to that in general: it is not feasible to go for realism first. Playablilty is first, historic realism will always come second. So in certain aspects it will always be a bit 'gamey'.

But you might attach too much importance on the fleet battles. They are arranged by the Admiralty. Ship to ship engagements however will be entirely by chance, unplanned, or maybe planned, who knows? You're on patrol and you encounter an enemy. You are protecting a convoy. You are hunting pirates. Those situations. You're talking about intelligence and intercepts. That can also happen. Imagine a navy sends a Squadron out to attack a port, and their enemy has anticipated this. They can then intercept the enemy Squadron, prevent or delay their attack. I think you might find individual action more common than fleet action.  

The amount of ships in a battle Naval Action struggles with, that probably has more to do with the technical solutions of Naval Action than with your system. There are games that produce fluent gameplay with far more challenging rendering and speed than Naval Action, the technology really doesn't stand in the way there. We have a whole toolbox of tricks to make it technically possible, but that is a completely different and very technical subject, for in another place. Again, one of our advantages here is the pre-planned character of those large engagements. This is similar as how games like EVE Online arrange really big battles (far bigger that we will ever do). And there are also things that we will do different to Naval Action that will make it easier for us. We have different dynamics.

As to the Captain position, no, that will remain fixed in the command position. If we made that a flexible position there are a whole lot of problems to solve that will make it far harder. And in all realism, Jack Aubrey might well have been quite the monkey on board (inspired by Edward Pellew), but in general Captains and Admirals would tend to stay in position on the quarterdeck.

Non allied ships cannot lend aid to each other. There is no Captain discretion in Rulers of the Sea. This is necessary to give Government and Admiralties full control. They have assigned a status to each nation, and that governs what you can do. You don't know what your government thinks of the non-ally you decide to help. Maybe your government wants that non-ally weakened because they intend to declare war on them shortly, and then you go around helping them with your good intentions. If they had wanted you to help this non-ally, they would have made it an ally. Of course you could hover around, and if the non-ally has lost the battle, you could have a go.

It is certainly not impossible that a Frigate wins a battle form a Third Rate ship of the line. Improbably, yes. Best not to try, yes. But Rulers of the Sea is not Naval Action, where it is relatively easy to control your ship. If one Captain is significantly better than the other, and has a better trained crew, they are certainly not without hope. Of course, the chance a Navy would give a Third Rate to a green Captain would not be that great, but it would certainly not be impossible either, gamers might promote friends over quality (big mistake). The quality of the ship itself is important, but the quality of the crew counts in about an equal measure. But what that gives us is a weapons platform of a certain quality. That still leaves the Captain to control what it does. Even a Third Rate has very poor protection at the stern, if a Captain does not know how to maneuver in the wind conditions, that is going to cost a lot of lives.

The reason why this did not happen in history often, is simply because the skill level of Captains were not that radically different. It took years and years of training to become a Captain. But again we return to the same theme: as this is a game, and we can't make gamers play for weeks or months before they get a ship to command, while there will be quite the learning curve to being a good Captain, you will meet very inexperienced Captains. Not to be compared to history.

So could I make you a little happier with my explanations? Or are you still a bit disappointed by the lack of realism?

@petersj

Responses I was hoping for!

As you so rightly suppose, I would love a pure sailing game - but I have plenty of room and hope in my heart for a creative and largely accurate game which attracts more casual players as well 😀 

I certainly did not mean to sound disappointed, my goal was only to clarify some points which I had looked for in your other posts and to understand better what Rulers of the Sea is going to be.  I loved Naval Action in its early days, so you can imagine how I excited I must be for a game which promises to be far more accurate, immersive, educational, and imaginative 😀 

I also ask that you please forgive me if it sounds as though I am trying to change your game... I'm only asking questions on behalf of my friends from Naval Action and as a very interested individual who would like to understand the plans for this game so I can pledge support and encourage my friends to do the same:)

Take Naval Action! You already enjoy that! If you see how far we want to drive Rulers of the Sea, compared to Naval Action, I think we manage to push it way out of any ballpark that has existed before for naval game play. Highly experimental. I don't think we are prepared to push that boat out much further than we already do.

Exactly, I agree completely.  Most of my questions relate to this and understanding the limits you expect to reach

So as to the fleet battles: the game map is far too large for what you suggest. Fleets are never going to meet if you don't schedule. There will hardly be any action at all! And that would be entirely realistic, because how often do you think a Royal Navy ship was actually in action during its lifetime? Hardly ever. But we can't expect gamers to play that way. It's the same with a police game. The real life of a police officer is 95% boredom. I can guarantee you that no-one will ever play a realistic police game.

That is understandable, and I agree that there must be plenty of opportunities for battle.  I would hope to see some sort of scenarios, however, where fleets are given more of a purpose for coming out (for example, troop escort or port capture) which allow all parties involved sufficient notice.  Similar to what you mentioned below with squadrons: "Imagine a navy sends a Squadron out to attack a port, and their enemy has anticipated this. They can then intercept the enemy Squadron, prevent or delay their attack"

I think you are already planning to implement a version of this in the form of blockades?

There also needs to be something at stake in a battle, and that is why it needs rules. In real life, if a fleet was destroyed, a country would have lost sea dominance. A ship could take a year to build. But in a game it is not feasible to not allow gamers that lose a ship to get one back fairly quickly. Because which gamer wants to play a game where you are a Captain that for weeks on end doesn't have a ship? So since we do not have that realism, a fleet battle without this game element where you can attach victory rules to a certain event, which requires limitations in time and participants, will just not mean anything or have any real consequences.

Yes, the upside of realistic history is that wonderful feeling of the real experience. But imagine if you were France that has just lost Gibraltar. That's it. Your fleet is gone, you lost that part of the war for good. That is just completely demoralizing for a really long time. That is real life, but that is not a fun game.

So all I can so to that in general: it is not feasible to go for realism first. Playablilty is first, historic realism will always come second. So in certain aspects it will always be a bit 'gamey'.

I am of the same mind.  How grave do you imagine the consequences of losses will be, then? (ship losses and strategic losses)

But you might attach too much importance on the fleet battles. They are arranged by the Admiralty. Ship to ship engagements however will be entirely by chance, unplanned, or maybe planned, who knows? You're on patrol and you encounter an enemy. You are protecting a convoy. You are hunting pirates. Those situations. You're talking about intelligence and intercepts. That can also happen. Imagine a navy sends a Squadron out to attack a port, and their enemy has anticipated this. They can then intercept the enemy Squadron, prevent or delay their attack. I think you might find individual action more common than fleet action.  

Exciting indeed.  How large, then, can these 'engagements' be?  Or, will they be capped at all?  Conversely, will there be a minimum size for fleet battles?

The amount of ships in a battle Naval Action struggles with, that probably has more to do with the technical solutions of Naval Action than with your system. There are games that produce fluent gameplay with far more challenging rendering and speed than Naval Action, the technology really doesn't stand in the way there. We have a whole toolbox of tricks to make it technically possible, but that is a completely different and very technical subject, for in another place. Again, one of our advantages here is the pre-planned character of those large engagements. This is similar as how games like EVE Online arrange really big battles (far bigger that we will ever do). And there are also things that we will do different to Naval Action that will make it easier for us. We have different dynamics.

Wonderful news for us!

As to the Captain position, no, that will remain fixed in the command position. If we made that a flexible position there are a whole lot of problems to solve that will make it far harder. And in all realism, Jack Aubrey might well have been quite the monkey on board (inspired by Edward Pellew), but in general Captains and Admirals would tend to stay in position on the quarterdeck.

Understandable.  Will there, perhaps, just be the opportunity to switch to a view from the masthead with a telescope or something similar?

Non allied ships cannot lend aid to each other. There is no Captain discretion in Rulers of the Sea. This is necessary to give Government and Admiralties full control. They have assigned a status to each nation, and that governs what you can do. You don't know what your government thinks of the non-ally you decide to help. Maybe your government wants that non-ally weakened because they intend to declare war on them shortly, and then you go around helping them with your good intentions. If they had wanted you to help this non-ally, they would have made it an ally. Of course you could hover around, and if the non-ally has lost the battle, you could have a go.

Will there be a courts-martial system by which negligent, disobedient, or otherwise unsatisfactory captains can be evaluated and checked?

It is certainly not impossible that a Frigate wins a battle form a Third Rate ship of the line. Improbably, yes. Best not to try, yes. But Rulers of the Sea is not Naval Action, where it is relatively easy to control your ship. If one Captain is significantly better than the other, and has a better trained crew, they are certainly not without hope. Of course, the chance a Navy would give a Third Rate to a green Captain would not be that great, but it would certainly not be impossible either, gamers might promote friends over quality (big mistake). The quality of the ship itself is important, but the quality of the crew counts in about an equal measure. But what that gives us is a weapons platform of a certain quality. That still leaves the Captain to control what it does. Even a Third Rate has very poor protection at the stern, if a Captain does not know how to maneuver in the wind conditions, that is going to cost a lot of lives.

The reason why this did not happen in history often, is simply because the skill level of Captains were not that radically different. It took years and years of training to become a Captain. But again we return to the same theme: as this is a game, and we can't make gamers play for weeks or months before they get a ship to command, while there will be quite the learning curve to being a good Captain, you will meet very inexperienced Captains. Not to be compared to history.

I misinterpreted your words, giving in to my fears of an oversimplified system where a basic slugging match might produce the frigate as the victor.  This sounds great, I look forward to it much 

May I ask how complex, exactly, maneuvers will be?  And how true to historical profiles ships will sail?

Thanks for the response!

@sir-john

I really appreciate all your detailed questions, and these can sometimes also lead to adjustments. Only yesterday I agreed with some Polish community members that Gdansk should indeed belong to Poland-Lithuania and not Russia, as they corrected me on a historical fact! So there you go! 😉

But seriously, questions mean that that people are really interested and involved, and that is all we want! So thank you.

Yes, port battles are the other variant of battle that a fleet or a number of Squadrons can be committed to.  

https://www.rulersofthesea.com/gameplay/warfare/sea-warfare/

The difference here is that this is a one-sided planned action, so although pre-planned, the enemy will be (ideally) unaware. If the enemy would know, they might stuff the port full of troops and the harbor full of Squadrons, and the battle would become very hard indeed. So an element of surprise is elemental. A port battle won leads to a port blockaded for 24 hours, and in those hours the Army can land and start a siege to attempt to capture it. A port battle for the Navy is a battle against the fortress, the port Squadron (AI) and any enemy Navy ships present in the port at that time, either controlled by the gamer themselves, or in their absence, by their first officer (AI controlled). However, if the enemy promptly reacts, they can also start pouring additional ships in the battle to reinforce the defense. The difference between the Port battle and the Fleet battle is that in a Port battle, which is in a smaller zone, a limited amount of ships is engaged at one time, and only when one of them leaves the theater, a next one can enter. This way port battles a pretty focused and intense, and also pretty brutal, as taking on a fort is not exactly a pleasant task. So especially the first ships in will have to endure a real pounding. Once the battle is completely cleared of either enemy or friendlies for 5 entire minutes, the battle is won or lost, and as long as it is not, both sides can keep feeding in new participants.

Losses of ships are pretty dire, as they are very expensive to build, and producing a decent warship can take days, depending on the quality of the shipbuilder. So a Navy will both need to have a considerable budget to replace the ships, and find capacity with shipbuilders to build as many as possible simultaneously. So it can take them days, or even weeks, to replenish their strength. In the mean time they can also buy up second hand ships and deploy those, or even commit ship sloops, brigs, etc., to just get some defenses in place. A good Navy will pre-plan for this, so that they can be up to strength faster than their enemy, and resoundingly win the next engagement that way. (but don't forget that any nation, if they can afford it, can have a many as three fleets).

But additionally to these losses, at Fleet battles Governments and Admiralty Boards can set victory conditions. Those are the real prizes of battle. They can determine change in diplomatic status, reparations, even change of possessions. ANd these conditions can be set as reward for the victor of a fleet battle, of even the victor of a series of fleet battles, you could plan a weekly event for instance, if there is a prolonged war. 

There will be no switching to other views I'm afraid. You play the game purely from the perspective of the Captain on the deck. The switching perspectives is just a thing we are very used to in games. So it will be a transition. Captains were on the Quarterdeck because this gave them the best view of the action, but that view could be confusing nevertheless, as sails got in the way, and gunpowder smoke certainly did. You will be in the middle of it, and hopefully have a good sense and memory of where things are and might go. Because there will be times where you lose your bearings.

If I look at Naval Action, a battle does not appear realistic. Firing the cannons produce little puffs of smoke and I can literally see all the engaged ships clearly, and even the horizon. Rulers of the Sea will be very different. You might be in a fleet engagement of many ships, but once cannons start firing you will quickly be in a world of quite poor visibility, and from your deck you will certainly not be able to see the whole action. You can see very well on old paintings how it really looked.

Fleet battles are fought in smoke, with increasing poor visibility as the battle progresses.

As opposed to this:

And yes, there will be a court-martial system, depending on how a Navy and government in a particular country wish to implement this. You should read this thread to understand how that works.

As to the size of fleets: a single fleet can, at its maximum size, consist of 90 ships (and gamers) in 5 Squadrons. So a fleet battle can, at its largest, consist of 180 ships. That is provided the Navy has succeeded in bringing a fleet to its full size, and have managed to get all gamers to appear at the battle, which is probably a bit unlikely. The smallest unit that can be committed by the Admiralty Board is a Squadron of 18 ships. But these planned events of Fleet battles and Port battles are the machinations of full blown war. Much of you Navy career will be spend patrolling, hunting, keeping trade safe. Your nation might not even be at any war at a given time, so small action will be all you can do. 

https://www.rulersofthesea.com/discussions/army-career/senior-command/#post-263

As to how the command system will work, you should read the thread below if you have the patience!

https://www.rulersofthesea.com/discussions/the-sea-sailing-and-ships/ship-types/#post-537

Have fun reading all of that! 

@petersj

Thanks, those plans sound great 😀 

As to the size of fleets

Will 'small' engagements be capped at anything less than 180 ships?

@sir-john

No, I don't think they will be capped. These are technical solutions we still have to make definite choices on, so I don't know exactly what kind of technique we'll use for them (the unscheduled ship vs ship battles) but there should be sufficient technical solutions to run them at any capacity. You need some strategy for what to do when you get traffic that extends the capacity. That also applies to too many visitors in the ports, interiors, etc. We'll be looking for some robust solutions, but the choices in our game architecture make it possible to have those.