SUGGESTIONS, QUESTIONS, and ANSWERS

[Munrox]

You can also find another great classic book on google books or archive.org: The Naval History of Great Britain 1793 - 1827 by William James. It is a six volumes work. It has some errors and James is not very impartial, but anyway is a great classic and reference work.

You can also read it here:
http://www.pbenyon.plus.com/Naval_History/Index.html

Maybe I should post a list of books (as a bibliography) used as reference to develop Velmad and its scenarios.

[Aaron]

My pleasure. I popped "Royal Navy" in the search box at archive.org and came up with a couple of months worth of reading.

[Munrox]

Good. If you find some interesting data, text or some book specially useful, please tell us.

[Aaron]

You may want to try some Spanish language searches there. I know there are a lot of non-English books there also. I found this one right away which seems to be comparing Trafalgar and Santiago de Cuba: http://www.archive.org/details/trafalgarysantia00mullrich and one that appears to be a Spanish history of the battle http://www.archive.org/details/historiadelcomb00coutgoog. If I see anything that looks up your alley I'll be sure to post it.

I did find an English translation of Benito Perez Galdos' novel about Trafalgar which sounds interesting.

[Mendo]

Thank you Aaron   

I was looking for this book (2 years ago)  in Spain and as result:
- 1 copy was in Seville
- 1 copy in Madrid, at a non-public library (CSIC, "High Conseil of Scientific Researchers" ) and not available for general public.
- 3rd copy in Madrid, which I could read in the "Ortega y Gasset" library. (NOT to take home to read).
- 1 digital copy in Madrid also, only available to be read in a library PC.

It is about British taking (and plundering  ) Manila in 1762. When they arrived, Manila's citizens did not even know that were in war 

http://ia351425.us.archive.org//load_djvu_applet.cgi?file=0/items/sitioyconquista00librgoog/sitioyconquista00librgoog.djvu

[Aaron]

I thought the English knew it wasn't cricket to attack without asking first.  I wish my Spanish was good enough to tackle it. That sounds like a fantastic book.

[Brendan]

Greetings,

I'm in the "world Championships" against both Pacheco and Hoboken ( 1 v. 1 v. 1 ) and was wondering how someone advances? Is it the top score among the three players - or top two scores?

Thanks
Brendan

[Munrox]

Sorry, I forgot editing that thread in the international forum.

One player will pass to the next round, that who wins his both games.

If each one of the 3 players in a group wins 1 game then we will calculate each player's score summing his points and subtracting that of his enemies in both of his games. The two players with highest score will play another game between them (changing sides), and then we will use their 2 games as in an ordinary eliminatory to decide who passes.

[Brendan]

Thank you

Sounds fair to me : )

Brendan

[Brendan]

Greetings,

I have one situation which I'm dealing with now and would like to make a suggestion -


In a game where a ship, because of it's bearing against a force 5 or higher wind, can only fire it's upper deck guns because the lower deck heavy guns are below the water level - still suffers the same fatigue penalty as if it fired it's entire broadside

I understand that 'fatigue' is not just the physical exertion of firing the guns but also the disorder, smoke etc but wouldn't it be fairer that such a ship not suffer the entire fatigue penalty ?

Thanks
Brendan

[Munrox]

Yes, something similar happens when only half broadside is fired.

In your case, it could be a problem if only 5% fatigue was applied. If you sustain a fighting against other ship in that situation, you could fire some consecutive turns, always with only your upper battery. If we apply only 5% because lower deck guns don't fire then your upper deck guns would be shooting continuously suffering half penalization. 

Of course, if you only fire one turn in that situation and then veer and can use your lower deck guns, you would be penalized in exceed. But I think this is preferable to the other case if we think that some work is needed to close lower deck's ports, withdraw guns and secure them, and later open ports again, and move guns.

We have this problem because it is a global value. We should have a value for each deck, or for each half battery in each deck.

Another problem is that currently the game uses integers for fatigue values. They move from 0 to 20, but we show them multiplied by 10, from 0 to 200. So the basic unit is 1 (10%).

[Mingonomou]

That is a good point... however, because of the strong winds the crew should make an extra effort to handle the rigging. This may justify the full penalty.

[Munrox]

Good point Mingonomou. Maybe even guns' crew should make an extra effort if deck is over inclined, like moving guns up a slope. 

[Raimon]

That is a good point... however, because of the strong winds the crew should make an extra effort to handle the rigging. This may justify the full penalty.

If there was this extra difficulty to navigate under strong winds, the extra fatigue should be applied to any ship under that weather, be it firing or not. Well, save those without sails. Anyway, it should be a penalty applied to the use of sails, not to the use of guns.


Raimon

[Mingonomou]

Well, yes, but that is a different question. We can also discuss if always sailing under strong winds merits further penalization (v.gr. +10% each turn, or whatever).

What I meant is that firing without the lower battery because of the wind should have the same increase of "fatigue" than a ship firing with the full battery.
As Brendan said, our "fatigue" is an abstract concept which includes firing guns, handling the rigging, actual fatigue, etc. If a ship fights without the lower battery, the remaining gun crew would be employed in other tasks, maybe in the rigging due to the strong winds or maybe moving the guns up a slope, as Munrox said, or maybe... What is sure is that this guns crew should be not free. In my opinion, that can justify the same increase of "fatigue" in both cases.

Other question/suggestion that may arrise concern the split of the "fatigue" into two factors, that are, "fatigue due to firing the guns" and "fatigue due to handling the rigg", but that most likely will increase the algorithm complexity   . And still both will have large degree of abstraction.