Sign in to follow this  
Phred

[Cor-FB] CNS Swift

Recommended Posts

The Corrington Naval Ship Swift

DSC08281.JPG

MCRA


  • Class:Armed Sloop
    Speed: 2
    Guns: 2 (6 6-pounders)
    Crew: 2 (13 total crew, 6 able seamen, 4 marines, 2 officers, captain)
    Cargo: 0
    Hull: 1
    Possible Opponents: 1

The Corrington shipwrights have designed a new type of vessel to handle escorts and patrols, the CNS Swift. This cutter is able to out maneuver and outrun any vessel it chooses. Only a couple able seamen are needed to run the sails with its smart rigging. This allows more crew to fight and for the cutter to maintain its maneuverability while in action.

The streamlined hull means that there is little room for cargo, especially after provisions and munitions are considered.

okDSC07926.jpg

okDSC07917.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought we'd work through some of the game mechanics with this example. I will split the first post into another topic for the BoBS forum later. I don't expect to gain anything from MCRA before BoBS is launched.

I was going to have the ship run Escort Duty. I'm filling out the webform right now. :grin: It may contain errors. :look:

I figure the Swift is somewhere between a Cutter and an Armed Sloop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very cool, and a great test post of a MOC, and of the form (which I do still have to tweak -- I don't think we will give them the form's link until 1 January)

Just a quick note, are you proposing a new type of ship to go into the list? Or were you attributing your stats from the MCRA page? This is important, because it might mean I need to rewrite this part.

My intention was to have a set of different ships that already had their stats in the template. This would make it much easier to run, because then we wouldn't have to calculate how much 1 point of each statistic costs in gold (no proofreading a checking would be needed per each vessel)

I originally thought an "ala carte" version of ship creator would be the most fun, but near impossible for us to run without committing even more time to the game. Thus, the "template" was born. I know it is imperfect, but it seems the strongest way to move forward unless we are going to give a lot more time to each ship and rethink values of statistics. (For example, 1 point in cargo might be worth 15DB to build, but 10 points in Cargo is worth a lot more than 150DB because of what can be done with it... actually guns and speed are both better examples, cargo can just be scaled pretty easily.)

BUT... I see your presentation here and I would be remiss in saying that I don't wish we were doing it this way. The customization would be epic -- but... this method also would hurt people with smaller collections as they never could get to a larger ship with larger crew (microbuilds take care of that in the current system... eventually.)

I hope that makes sense... I have been writing about smugglers (for my dissertation) all day and my eyes and brain is numb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick note, are you proposing a new type of ship to go into the list? Or were you attributing your stats from the MCRA page? This is important, because it might mean I need to rewrite this part.

My stats came from the Cutter class of the MCRA page. Should I have used an Armed Sloop instead? A sloop and cutter are basically the same type of vessel. The Guns, Crew, and Cargo were modified. Guns and crew are what the MOC has, and Cargo was removed. I would assume that vessels would have a trade off between cargo capacity or military use. I noticed the form had fewer ships than what was shown in the MCRA page. I added a +1 to Speed as a modifier assuming the small sloop in the form speed was 2.

My intention was to have a set of different ships that already had their stats in the template. This would make it much easier to run, because then we wouldn't have to calculate how much 1 point of each statistic costs in gold (no proofreading a checking would be needed per each vessel)

This would be ideal.

I originally thought an "ala carte" version of ship creator would be the most fun, but near impossible for us to run without committing even more time to the game. Thus, the "template" was born. I know it is imperfect, but it seems the strongest way to move forward unless we are going to give a lot more time to each ship and rethink values of statistics. (For example, 1 point in cargo might be worth 15DB to build, but 10 points in Cargo is worth a lot more than 150DB because of what can be done with it... actually guns and speed are both better examples, cargo can just be scaled pretty easily.)

There could be trade off between crew, cargo, and guns. Crew require fresh water and provisions, guns require rounds and powder, and cargo generates income. Each class of ship could distribute their crew, cargo, and guns.


  • Investing more in crew means more men manning the ship for prize crews or more provisions in longer voyages.
    Investing more in guns means more cannons, ammo, and powder.
    Investing more in cargo means a more lucrative the trade run.

I hope this makes sense. :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I think I see what you did here. I think you may have used that first MCRA form? The one with modifiers? the new one does not have that.... the first one was back when I thought we would be able to do custom ships, but the way the economics worked out it didn't make sense and it was a lot of extra math!!!

The template design was to include fighting ships, trading ships, fast ships and some variations in between. The builder would plug his / her ship into the chart by choosing which type of ship their MOC represented closest to. If we had an application rather than just a form system, I think custom ships would work very well because the computer would be doing all the calculations. Because we would have to take each individually, and check that each player had the right numbers in there every month, it would be just a bit too time consuming. However, I am willing to look for a way to overhaul the system in the next few months to be more compatible with customization. I just think we should run it as is for now, because we will learn a lot from the data over the next three or four months, and probably have a better idea of how to make it more customizable.

I really like what you did at the end though... I wonder if there is a way we could work this in there without making it difficult for the person running the numbers at the end of the month. Like, if we made the cargo number a loose variable that you could either leave in cargo or add to other statistics. We could leave the other three numbers static.

For this ship, since it is built for battle, I would go with war sloop, although I think its stats are more in line with the war brigantine (but missing a mast)

I know that using the actual ship names is probably confusing... should I just change it to "fighting ship level 1, cargo ship level 2, etc... and then let the MOCers just name what type of ship it is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the old form explains some of my confusion. :pir-laugh:

I changed the ship class to War Sloop.

Is this the latest form?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that makes a lot of sense... yeah I only have links to the old form up!!!

I still need to modify the new form, but I will get it up soon.

Finally, should we revert the names of vessels to the generic style to avoid confusion? I like using the names, but recognize that some people will get very upset when someone buys a brig license and their MOC is really a one mast sloop...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Phred for giving me access. I didn't think I was going to offer any input because everything looks pretty good, but Ska brings up an important point. Ship rigging is confusing for many casual viewers/builders, and if you're going to provide names I think they should be correct. Otherwise we're not only missing a good educational opportunity but also potentially adding to the confusion that already exists. Then there's the ship index to consider, for the same reasons. I'll be unimpressed to go digging through the index and find a sloop (using Ska's example) that's identified as a brig by the builder - especially if it's included in the title. If I set sail across the Brick Seas and encounter improperly-identified rigging I'll be tempted to shoot down the mast(s) to correct the error ;-) Seriously though, I really like the idea of generic names. Nothing will be incorrectly labeled unless the builder makes a mistake, it won't be confusing, and experienced builders would be free to label their ships correctly if they want. Regardless of whether you're talking ships, cars, or flowers, I think not having a label is better than having an incorrect one. I for one will have a hard time building something that is listed with incorrect or confusing rigging. Of course the option always exists to add names later, but I'd still provide a generic name too.

As for the vessel above, it looks great Phred. I like the colors, the sails are nice and I'm especially impressed that you didn't feel obligated to build tumblehome sides!

Edited by Captain Dee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I think no label is better than an incorrect one...

default_head_back.gifdefault_iamded_lol.png Sorry. It's just that that could be read two totally opposite ways. default_roflmao.gif Really cracked me up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Phred for giving me access. I didn't think I was going to offer any input because everything looks pretty good, but Ska brings up an important point. Ship rigging is confusing for many casual viewers/builders, and if you're going to provide names I think they should be correct. Otherwise we're not only missing a good educational opportunity but also potentially adding to the confusion that already exists. Then there's the ship index to consider, for the same reasons. I'll be unimpressed to go digging through the index and find a sloop (using Ska's example) that's identified as a brig by the builder - especially if it's included in the title. If I set sail across the Brick Seas and encounter improperly-identified rigging I'll be tempted to shoot down the mast(s) to correct the error ;-) Seriously though, I really like the idea of generic names. Nothing will be incorrectly labeled unless the builder makes a mistake, it won't be confusing, and experienced builders would be free to label their ships correctly if they want. Regardless of whether you're talking ships, cars, or flowers, I think not having a label is better than having an incorrect one. I for one will have a hard time building something that is listed with incorrect or confusing rigging. Of course the option always exists to add names later, but I'd still provide a generic name too.

As for the vessel above, it looks great Phred. I like the colors, the sails are nice and I'm especially impressed that you didn't feel obligated to build tumblehome sides!

Yeah I am starting to feel this way as well. When I first made the list I wanted to connect nautical terms to the ship list, but that is too hard here I think, because half the membership may revolt. Another thing that will need changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.