a Seadogs/AOP officer system

Aconcagua · Jun 18, 2009

The missing option I'll add - but if posted here, it won't get forgotten...

About fencing being a personal skill, I'm not sure - seems to me as if this is only half of the truth.
Appearently, the party members fight with the skill they personally have, not influenced by my own (at least this has always been my impression...). But if I have low fencing skill myself, but a good fencer in the party, my personal stats show the value of the good fencer. If I actually do use this value, I cannot tell - when I played, I took always the fencing skill part by myself first and had the officers for the other skills - when they had their (planned) skill(s) full, then I gave them fencing, too. Well, I might have some tests, but currently my game is not running due to some bug in my modifications, so I have to get this up again first.

I'll ask pirate_kk - but I wanted to clear first the requirements we do have. Can't imagine pirate to be really happy if we come along with this and that idea, and two weeks later we decide differently...

The names I changed already, but could not test it yet (see above...). They are in RESOURCE/INI/TEXTS/ENGLISH/common.ini. However, I had to rename the file to 'common.c', because I appearently have no right to upload .ini files. At many other places a doctor is referenced, too, but these are doctors ashore, and in these cases I considered it more suitable to leave it. By the way: I have a second INI_ dir - is this left over from installation and can be deleted or is there any sense for it?
View attachment common.c

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pieter Boelen @ Jun 17 2009, 03:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329979"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>True. Maybe a hide/show button?</div>
That sounds better to me. Still I'd like to have the symbol(s) signalling the officer type, coloured if current officer has a corresponding role, greyed out if not - and the button in addition. The state of the button should be remembered, of course - having to switch every time you enter the interface would get quite annoying (if you are the unlucky one preferring the non-default...).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pieter Boelen @ Jun 17 2009, 03:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329979"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Sounds good. So until you assign them a type, they'll be more-or-less off-duty, right? Maybe useful to accompany you ashore though.</div>
Exactly. Not more or less, they ARE. If a player likes to have him as officer, perhaps captain of companion ship or personal party member - completely his own choice (ok, we need the interface changes, of course... then he'll be able to). Apropos personal party: shall these members receive full payment or not? (I personally tend to give them half payment and only consider the officer role - seems to me more realistic - and is easier to handle, too...)

Pieter Boelen · Jun 18, 2009

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 18 2009, 09:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330262"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>About fencing being a personal skill, I'm not sure - seems to me as if this is only half of the truth.
Appearently, the party members fight with the skill they personally have, not influenced by my own (at least this has always been my impression...). But if I have low fencing skill myself, but a good fencer in the party, my personal stats show the value of the good fencer. If I actually do use this value, I cannot tell</div>That sounds really weird. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mybad.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" :facepalm

" border="0" alt="mybad.gif" />

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 18 2009, 09:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330262"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I'll ask pirate_kk - but I wanted to clear first the requirements we do have. Can't imagine pirate to be really happy if we come along with this and that idea, and two weeks later we decide differently...</div>Alright then. If possible, I'd like it if most of the interface-work could be handled as additions to current interfaces, such as added buttons and such.
If you select a different character in F2>Character, then go to Inventory, you'll see the inventory of that character instead.
I wonder if something similar could be done with the ships in F2>Ship and the Passengers interface?
Or in Passengers interface add an "Assign to Ship" and "Assign Function" button for your officers?
And then in F2>Ship show the accumulated skills of each ship's active officers when you select a ship.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 18 2009, 09:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330262"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>However, I had to rename the file to 'common.c', because I appearently have no right to upload .ini files.</div>I have now enabled INI-file as attachments, so you shouldn't need to rename anymore. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/no.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" :no

" border="0" alt="no.gif" />

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 18 2009, 09:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330262"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>That sounds better to me. Still I'd like to have the symbol(s) signalling the officer type, coloured if current officer has a corresponding role, greyed out if not - and the button in addition. The state of the button should be remembered, of course - having to switch every time you enter the interface would get quite annoying (if you are the unlucky one preferring the non-default...).</div>I'll agree with that one. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/yes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" :yes

" border="0" alt="yes.gif" />

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 18 2009, 09:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330262"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Exactly. Not more or less, they ARE. If a player likes to have him as officer, perhaps captain of companion ship or personal party member - completely his own choice (ok, we need the interface changes, of course... then he'll be able to). Apropos personal party: shall these members receive full payment or not? (I personally tend to give them half payment and only consider the officer role - seems to me more realistic - and is easier to handle, too...)</div>Ah; alright then. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen1.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" :cheeky

" border="0" alt="icon_mrgreen1.gif" />
Shore party gets half salary and regular officers full? That sounds about right.
But should an assigned officer who ALSO accompanies you ashore be paid 1.5 x full salary then?

Aconcagua · Jun 18, 2009

I aggree on modifying the interfaces as less as possible - and I aggree easily on the buttons for the role stuff. About the ship button, I have certain doubts. You would have to show then an additional symbol for the officer/passenger to see on which ship he is on - probably best to sort the passengers by ship stationed on. But still it would be easy to lose overview. So, in spite of the extra work and all the risks that go with it, I still prefer the new interface in this case - even if I had to write it by myself.

We would not need to include it in the 'F2' main menu - same as is currently, you would go to ships menu, select ships for exchange, select officers option, and only then, the currently used passengers interface (which is not suitable any more - and will be even less if/when the 'multiple officers requirement' idea is realized) is replaced by the new one. So changes are not too widely spread...

My proposition is based on the passengers view (which will still be used for selecting the officers to be with you ashore), but uses the principle from the items exchange (available from character view). I suppose this way to allow reusing parts of code from these two views.

As intermediate solution, we could leave the current passengers interface (as with the role assignment, which will be, without button, only be available from enc_officers dialog), but in long terms, we'd need the new one.

About shore party: we would have three different solutions:
<ul><li>being in party or not does not influence the payment (preferred by me)</li><li>being in party raises payment
<ul><li>in any case (so off duty party officer receives full, on duty officer receives 1.5 payment)</li><li>if off duty, officer is considered on duty, too, but if already on duty, no change (so for both normal/full payment)</li></ul></li></ul>
Remember that off duty receive half payment in any case. I could imagine, too, adding for being in party instead of 0.5 payment (solution 2) only 0.25, so off duty in party would receive 0.75, on duty 1.25.

Pieter Boelen · Jun 19, 2009

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 18 2009, 09:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330481"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I aggree on modifying the interfaces as less as possible - and I aggree easily on the buttons for the role stuff. About the ship button, I have certain doubts. You would have to show then an additional symbol for the officer/passenger to see on which ship he is on - probably best to sort the passengers by ship stationed on. But still it would be easy to lose overview. So, in spite of the extra work and all the risks that go with it, I still prefer the new interface in this case - even if I had to write it by myself.</div>What if...
You select F2>Passengers without clicking anything else and you'll see all officers and it's listed what ship they're on.
Buttons available: "Assign Role" and "Assign to Ship".
You select F2>Ship and you can select one of your four ships. The "captain stats" shown here is the combined skills of all active officers.
You select Passengers now and only the officers on that ship appear.
But indeed a proper officer handling interface would be preferrable. You idea of using the inventory set-up sounds like a good idea to me.
See attached for a random thought of mine that could probably be improved upon.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 18 2009, 09:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330481"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>About shore party: we would have three different solutions:
<ul><li>being in party or not does not influence the payment (preferred by me)</li><li>being in party raises payment
<ul><li>in any case (so off duty party officer receives full, on duty officer receives 1.5 payment)</li><li>if off duty, officer is considered on duty, too, but if already on duty, no change (so for both normal/full payment)</li></ul></li></ul>
Remember that off duty receive half payment in any case. I could imagine, too, adding for being in party instead of 0.5 payment (solution 2) only 0.25, so off duty in party would receive 0.75, on duty 1.25.</div>Some sort of "shore danger bonus" doesn't sound unfair to me, but I suppose for actual values, we'd need to playtest to see how it works.

BTW: Does anyone think that maybe officers should be able to be killed in sea battles too?

Aconcagua · Jun 19, 2009

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pieter Boelen @ Jun 19 2009, 09:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330695"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>What if...
You select F2>Passengers without clicking anything else and you'll see all officers and it's listed what ship they're on.
Buttons available: "Assign Role" and "Assign to Ship".
You select F2>Ship and you can select one of your four ships. The "captain stats" shown here is the combined skills of all active officers.
You select Passengers now and only the officers on that ship appear.</div>
Uh, that sounds really complicated - new players would need to study a help file first.... This is similar to officers inventory, but to be honest, this part I did not need anytime, either. I had my own inventory, and for the officers, I used the exchange button, as they did not have too many items and I could add or remove one at once...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pieter Boelen @ Jun 19 2009, 09:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330695"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>But indeed a proper officer handling interface would be preferrable. You idea of using the inventory set-up sounds like a good idea to me.
See attached for a random thought of mine that could probably be improved upon.</div>
That looks quite similar to what I tried to "paint" textually in <a href='index.php?act=findpost&pid=329764'>post 19</a>... This is for 'F2' main menu, right? Well, this would then need additional integration there. But I really like it, too. If you just leave the ships away, you get my solution - which, of course, could not be used directly from F2, one would have to go to ships, use the 'transfer between ships' button and then select the officers option (as is in the current version, too). Integration would be easier - just replace one interface with another one (for this reason I rather tend to the "small" solution) - but the handling is less flexible. What about a captured ship? Would you use the same interface (yours) there, too?

Ah, and just notice: a "remove from ship" button is missing, and buttons for assigning and removing the captain himself.

I allowed myself to adapt your draft to my first layout, but with all necessary buttons. I have not included a set captain button - you could set him the same way you select your ashore party by clicking first on the captain's slot and then on the designated captain. Selection could be done then from both the all officers list as well as the ship officer's list - the current captain would get a normal officer on the ship after being replaced. Remove captain would remove all officers, too, of course - this, however, can only be available while capturing a ship (OR: we add a warn dialog "Do you really want to abandon the ship???" before leaving the dialog, if no captain is set - this way one could get rid of some ship not needed any more without ship yard... Ok, cities would not be happy having ship wrecks in the harbour, so we could enable this button only off shore...)

Officers dying in sea fights isn't a bad idea. But we would have to include this in the advanced options - some people would like it, others not. And to be remembered: there is an option to tell an officer not to take part in the next combat. Sense of this was to be able to protect your officer from being killed in action. If he can die anyway... all in vain. Ok, could be a far lesser chance of dying then. Would still have to be discussed.

Pieter Boelen · Jun 19, 2009

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 19 2009, 01:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330743"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Uh, that sounds really complicated - new players would need to study a help file first....</div>Haha! You're probably right. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" :rofl

" border="0" alt="24.gif" />

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 19 2009, 01:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330743"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>This is similar to officers inventory, but to be honest, this part I did not need anytime, either. I had my own inventory, and for the officers, I used the exchange button, as they did not have too many items and I could add or remove one at once...</div>That's indeed where I got the idea from. But the officer inventory system thing is only ever really useful if you manually want to equip them
with something that by default they wouldn't equip, such as the special weapons (borgiablade or grenade or such).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 19 2009, 01:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330743"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>... This is for 'F2' main menu, right? Well, this would then need additional integration there. But I really like it, too. If you just leave the ships away, you get my solution - which, of course, could not be used directly from F2, one would have to go to ships, use the 'transfer between ships' button and then select the officers option (as is in the current version, too).</div>Well, the main F2 menu should remain F2>Character, of course. I was wondering if it maybe could replace the current "Passengers" interface. But I think your suggestion is better.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 19 2009, 01:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330743"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Integration would be easier - just replace one interface with another one (for this reason I rather tend to the "small" solution) - but the handling is less flexible. What about a captured ship? Would you use the same interface (yours) there, too?</div>You mean in the "Capture Ship" screen you get after a boarding? I suppose it should be possible to assign officers there too, right?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 19 2009, 01:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330743"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Ah, and just notice: a "remove from ship" button is missing, and buttons for assigning and removing the captain himself.</div>Absolutely true. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/yes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" :yes

" border="0" alt="yes.gif" />

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 19 2009, 01:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330743"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I allowed myself to adapt your draft to my first layout, but with all necessary buttons. I have not included a set captain button - you could set him the same way you select your ashore party by clicking first on the captain's slot and then on the designated captain. Selection could be done then from both the all officers list as well as the ship officer's list - the current captain would get a normal officer on the ship after being replaced.</div>That sounds pretty good to me. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/doff.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" :doff

" border="0" alt="doff.gif" />

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 19 2009, 01:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330743"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Remove captain would remove all officers, too, of course - this, however, can only be available while capturing a ship (OR: we add a warn dialog "Do you really want to abandon the ship???" before leaving the dialog, if no captain is set - this way one could get rid of some ship not needed any more without ship yard... Ok, cities would not be happy having ship wrecks in the harbour, so we could enable this button only off shore...)</div>Hmm... you'd have to be REALLY desperate to sink your own ship. Better keep it on minimum crew and sell it later, no?
Can you actually sink your own ships already through the F2>Ship interface? I'm not sure... <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":?" border="0" alt="unsure.gif" />

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 19 2009, 01:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330743"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Officers dying in sea fights isn't a bad idea. But we would have to include this in the advanced options - some people would like it, others not.</div>Absolutely agreed. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/yes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" :yes

" border="0" alt="yes.gif" />

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 19 2009, 01:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330743"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>And to be remembered: there is an option to tell an officer not to take part in the next combat. Sense of this was to be able to protect your officer from being killed in action. If he can die anyway... all in vain. Ok, could be a far lesser chance of dying then. Would still have to be discussed.</div>I think that option would become pretty useless anyway.
It was added so you could have, say, a cannoneer contribute his gunning skills while preventing him from following you on boardings.
But that is only relevant if only your three "active" officers contribute their skills. But with the new system, ALL officers will contribute their skills so that's no longer required.
The only officers who would accompany you in boardings are the three you deliberately assigned and if you don't want one of them to accompany you anymore,
you just remove him in F2>passengers and he'll still contribute the skills relevant to his ordinary job.

Peter Willemoes · Jun 19, 2009

If I may suggest something? There was only one boatswain on a ship, as he was the chief of all the quartermasters. They were all in command of each of the ships boats, while the boatswain exclusively handled the captains chalup.
Now, if anyone was in charge of stowing goods("commerce"), it was the secondary officers in command, but we only have the navigator. If anyone was to handle food aboard, it was the chef or the purser, those we dont have either.

It somehow makes sense to me, that the boatswain being the one who is in charge of handling the goods aboard, as the navigator is handling the ship. Just a suggestion, though.

Officers accompaniyng their captain on land is fully compensated like at sea.
In the navy, the captain was their "god", they wanted to be as much around him as they could.
Could be nice, if we had two officer structures like in reality, one for navy and one for merchants/privateers. Those are completely different from eachother.

Aconcagua · Jun 19, 2009

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pieter Boelen @ Jun 19 2009, 01:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330748"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>That's indeed where I got the idea from. But the officer inventory system thing is only ever really useful if you manually want to equip them
with something that by default they wouldn't equip, such as the special weapons (borgiablade or grenade or such).</div>
Ah, that's an interesting point - once gave a compass to an officer for getting sailing +1, but there was no effect - now I know how to get it...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pieter Boelen @ Jun 19 2009, 01:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330748"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Well, the main F2 menu should remain F2>Character, of course. I was wondering if it maybe could replace the current "Passengers" interface. But I think your suggestion is better.</div>
Yes, main is character - but the others are on the same level (you select all of them via the buttons above) - all this together I considered as main menu.

Completely replacing the passengers interface would raise another problem: I use it still for selecting the land crew - so this task would not be covered any more...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pieter Boelen @ Jun 19 2009, 01:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330748"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>You mean in the "Capture Ship" screen you get after a boarding? I suppose it should be possible to assign officers there too, right?</div>
Indeed. This screen is almost the same as for normal ship transfer, and the subscreens ARE the same (and so the officers, too).

Sinking ships is currently not possible (at least never discovered an option for it...) - and on a second thought, it is not necessary either - currently at least. If ship damage would influence sailing speed of the convoy on the sea map interface, too, then you could want to get rid of a too heavily damaged ship, but for now...

Well, true, excluding an officer from boardings is not necessary any more. But ok, we have it - and if someone would like to have his normal officers accompany him ashore (and not having any MAAs at all), he could still do so (perhaps for saving money?)

About the boatswain suggestion:
We have only the 10 skills shown in the interface. If the boatswain shall be responsible for the goods, that would be reflected by assigning him the commerce skill - and we wouldn't have any task for the quarter master any more... Although I almost always advocate for more realism, in this case I'm a little reserved - at least, this proposition seems to me not yet elaborated enough.

The Purser officer type, however, I like. But I'm not sure what duty he could be assigned. Perhaps this: Each ship in dispose of one has food and rum consumption reduced, perhaps up to 75 percent (better rationing, better management of crew needs, etc). Per ship, of course. For bigger ships, one could need more than one purser to get full reduction (see the idea of needing more than one officer for bigger ships). Open problem would then be, however, the purser's skill. As intermediate solution, he could rely on commerce or eventually luck (or both?). Full consumption reduction only only, if the skill is at 10, but he would not contribute this skill to the ship/land crew. But I'm getting off topic now - perhaps we should discuss this idea in a separate topic?

The two officer structures, I like, too, but that could make the game too complicated for the average player. And there would be a lot to clarify, too (When are you merchant, when navy? When do you change the state? What will happen to officers, when changing?).

"Officers on land compensated like at sea". I'd interprete this at first, that we would have to calculate the actual time being ashore (in hours) and add this to the current's month payment. Off duty and on duty officers alike (meaning off duty officers gain only half).
Let's then pretend that the officer's staying at the ship are occupied with other concerns for the ship, so they don't have free time, either - so they have to be compensated, too. Conclusion: Both officers (part of land crew or on ship) receive the same payment (as was already my preference...).

One little problem however: we have dedicated fencers (now called Master at Arms) - and as fencing is a personal skill, any party member will fight with his own skill - ANY, even the player himself (I tested it), although in the ship skill overview, the maximum of captain and officer is shown (perhaps this counts for the sailors?). So I could use any off duty officer, too, to accompany me - not having assigned him any role, save money and still profit from his fencing skills... What do you think of this: If I select an officer who has already a role to accompany me, he'll keep it - if the officer is off duty, he's automatically assigned MAA. Setting an officer in party (or via interface) off duty would then result in removing him from land party, too.

Pieter Boelen · Jun 20, 2009

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PeterWillemoes @ Jun 19 2009, 05:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330837"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>If I may suggest something? There was only one boatswain on a ship, as he was the chief of all the quartermasters. They were all in command of each of the ships boats, while the boatswain exclusively handled the captains chalup.</div>That is absolutely true nowadays; but was it like that in the past too?
If I were to go by the role of quartermasters aboard the Zuiderdam, they're not even officers at all.
Gameplay-wise, I'd say we don't even need characters with that role.

You do make a valid point. Rather than work from the officer types we're having, maybe we should consider the officer types we SHOULD be having?
How about:
- Captain: Contributes all skills
- First Mate: Leadership
- Bosun: Grappling
- Navigator: Sailing
- Purser: Commerce
- Cannoneer: Cannons and Accuracy
- Carpenter: Repair
- Surgeon: Defence
- Master at Arms: Contributes nothing, but can follow you ashore

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 19 2009, 07:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330901"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Ah, that's an interesting point - once gave a compass to an officer for getting sailing +1, but there was no effect - now I know how to get it...</div>That should work. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/yes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" :yes

" border="0" alt="yes.gif" />

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 19 2009, 07:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330901"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Completely replacing the passengers interface would raise another problem: I use it still for selecting the land crew - so this task would not be covered any more...</div>Indeed. As I said, your idea is better anyway, so discard mine. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="

" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 19 2009, 07:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330901"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Sinking ships is currently not possible (at least never discovered an option for it...) - and on a second thought, it is not necessary either - currently at least. If ship damage would influence sailing speed of the convoy on the sea map interface, too, then you could want to get rid of a too heavily damaged ship, but for now...</div>Beats me how we can influence the worldmap though. Not sure what is/isn't possible for that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 19 2009, 07:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330901"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Well, true, excluding an officer from boardings is not necessary any more. But ok, we have it - and if someone would like to have his normal officers accompany him ashore (and not having any MAAs at all), he could still do so (perhaps for saving money?)</div>So officers ashore and not on boardings? We can keep the dialog option in any case.
I suppose killing officers in sea battles is something for the distant future anyway, so we don't yet need to consider that at all. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/no.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" :no

" border="0" alt="no.gif" />

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 19 2009, 07:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330901"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>The two officer structures, I like, too, but that could make the game too complicated for the average player. And there would be a lot to clarify, too (When are you merchant, when navy? When do you change the state? What will happen to officers, when changing?).</div>At the moment, there IS no real navy gameplay in the game. So that's not something we need to consider until we do add that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 19 2009, 07:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330901"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>One little problem however: we have dedicated fencers (now called Master at Arms) - and as fencing is a personal skill, any party member will fight with his own skill - ANY, even the player himself (I tested it), although in the ship skill overview, the maximum of captain and officer is shown (perhaps this counts for the sailors?). So I could use any off duty officer, too, to accompany me - not having assigned him any role, save money and still profit from his fencing skills... What do you think of this: If I select an officer who has already a role to accompany me, he'll keep it - if the officer is off duty, he's automatically assigned MAA. Setting an officer in party (or via interface) off duty would then result in removing him from land party, too.</div>Sounds good to me. So basically:
- Officer does not follow you ashore and is assigned a role - regular pay
- Officer does not follow you ashore and is not assigned a role - half pay
- Officer does follow you ashore and is assigned a role - regular pay
- Officer does follow you ashore and is not assigned a role - regular pay (role changes to "Master At Arms")

Then Master At Arms is not an actual seperate officer type, just any unassigned officer who follows you ashore.
Anyway, I like it. It's simpler than what we were discussion before too.

Aconcagua · Jun 20, 2009

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pieter Boelen @ Jun 20 2009, 04:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331184"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>You do make a valid point. Rather than work from the officer types we're having, maybe we should consider the officer types we SHOULD be having?
How about:
- Captain: Contributes all skills
- First Mate: Leadership
- Bosun: Grappling
- Navigator: Sailing
- Purser: Commerce
- Cannoneer: Cannons and Accuracy
- Carpenter: Repair
- Surgeon: Defence
- Master at Arms: Contributes nothing, but can follow you ashore</div>
Well - isn't that what we had already? Only a new name for the quartermaster ('Purser')...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pieter Boelen @ Jun 20 2009, 04:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331184"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>So basically:
- Officer does not follow you ashore and is assigned a role - regular pay
- Officer does not follow you ashore and is not assigned a role - half pay
- Officer does follow you ashore and is assigned a role - regular pay
- Officer does follow you ashore and is not assigned a role - regular pay (role changes to "Master At Arms")

Then Master At Arms is not an actual seperate officer type, just any unassigned officer who follows you ashore.
Anyway, I like it. It's simpler than what we were discussion before too.</div>
Yes, indeed. What about a potential difference between own fencing skills and those shown in the ship overview (currently, the latter could be higher, if I have an officer with better skills than me). Is there any place where the latter value has an influence? I could imagine the sailors during a boarding fight do use the it. Anybody knows about? If this is so, I'll implement the MAA as an own separate role and let him contribute fencing skill. I still would prefer this in the else case, too (without contribution of fencing then):<ul><li>it would then be the player's choice if he liked an officer being MAA even without beeing in land crew</li><li>I can handle this internally equally to the other ('real') roles</li><li>we are more flexible with regard to potential future changes.</li></ul>

Pieter Boelen · Jun 20, 2009

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 21 2009, 12:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331328"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Well - isn't that what we had already? Only a new name for the quartermaster ('Purser')...</div>Uhm, yes it is. So our current system almost makes sense already. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen1.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" :cheeky

" border="0" alt="icon_mrgreen1.gif" />
Should we limit any officer types to one only? Like the bosun? And First Mate too? Having two First Mates is rather illogical.
BTW: I also added the bosun; did we have a similar type already? I sort-of forgot... <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mybad.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" :facepalm

" border="0" alt="mybad.gif" />

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 21 2009, 12:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331328"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>What about a potential difference between own fencing skills and those shown in the ship overview (currently, the latter could be higher, if I have an officer with better skills than me). Is there any place where the latter value has an influence? I could imagine the sailors during a boarding fight do use the it. Anybody knows about?</div>I'm not aware of any such influence, but it might exist.
For all I know, boarders are generated based on morale and crew size only.

Aconcagua · Jun 21, 2009

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pieter Boelen @ Jun 21 2009, 12:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331330"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Should we limit any officer types to one only? Like the bosun? And First Mate too? Having two First Mates is rather illogical.
BTW: I also added the bosun; did we have a similar type already? I sort-of forgot... <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mybad.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" :facepalm

" border="0" alt="mybad.gif" /></div>
Bosun is just another name for boatswain, see <a href="http://wikipedia" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boatswain</a>.

About limiting officers - then we would need another approach for the multiple officer's idea. I could imagine something as follows:
We keep the officer types we have currently (eventually renamed adequately), these will be the main officers for a certain duty. They will be limited to one per ship. Additionally, for each main officer type we have secondary officers, these could be used to provide the additionally needed skills for the bigger ships - and are not limited. Following PeterWillemoes' idea, the boatswain would be in charge of commerce, and we could have several quarter masters for providing the totally needed commerce skill. Well, I just picked the right skill - for what could we need commerce on companion ships??? I think we should give a sense to this, too, else those officers would be useless on companion ships (perhaps reducing food and rum consumption? some influence on ship's morale? ideas, please...).

The secondary officers would have to be differenciated from the main ones - either by not allowing them to provide perks or, what I would prefer, only provide the corresponding skill(s) half. Additionally, for main officers, I propose a payment factor of 1.5, whereas secondary officers remain at 1.0.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pieter Boelen @ Jun 21 2009, 12:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331330"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not aware of any such influence, but it might exist.
For all I know, boarders are generated based on morale and crew size only.</div>
Suppose, we should clarify this. If there is such an influence, fine, if it is only based on captain's skill, we should base it upon captain and all officer's skill (so, as i plan, only MAA will contribute to this - btw. this will be the only main officer not having a secondary one, but also not being limited to one). If it does not exist, we should introduce a bonus factor (assumed that it can be influenced it at all).

By the way: Do you think it's possible to teach the AI to board other AI ships (which is not done at all currently)? Could be an interesting feature, and it could then make sense to place MAAs and our grappling officers (whichever it will be) in companion ships. These are the two other skills useless for companion ships (could they be used to have some influence on morale there?).

What about sneak/luck? I've never found out how this does influence the game. Can anyone teach me?

Pieter Boelen · Jun 21, 2009

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 21 2009, 11:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331438"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Bosun is just another name for boatswain, see <a href="http://wikipedia" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boatswain</a>.</div>Indeed; I knew that of course. I must've been REALLY stupid last night! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/piratesing.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" :shock

" border="0" alt="piratesing.gif" />

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 21 2009, 11:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331438"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>About limiting officers - then we would need another approach for the multiple officer's idea. I could imagine something as follows:
We keep the officer types we have currently (eventually renamed adequately), these will be the main officers for a certain duty. They will be limited to one per ship. Additionally, for each main officer type we have secondary officers, these could be used to provide the additionally needed skills for the bigger ships - and are not limited. Following PeterWillemoes' idea, the boatswain would be in charge of commerce, and we could have several quarter masters for providing the totally needed commerce skill. Well, I just picked the right skill - for what could we need commerce on companion ships??? I think we should give a sense to this, too, else those officers would be useless on companion ships (perhaps reducing food and rum consumption? some influence on ship's morale? ideas, please...).

The secondary officers would have to be differenciated from the main ones - either by not allowing them to provide perks or, what I would prefer, only provide the corresponding skill(s) half. Additionally, for main officers, I propose a payment factor of 1.5, whereas secondary officers remain at 1.0.</div>Sounds interesting. How much additional work is it to make that happen? Maybe we should start simple first...? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":?" border="0" alt="unsure.gif" />

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 21 2009, 11:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331438"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>By the way: Do you think it's possible to teach the AI to board other AI ships (which is not done at all currently)? Could be an interesting feature, and it could then make sense to place MAAs and our grappling officers (whichever it will be) in companion ships.</div>Pirate_KK was planning to add in that functionality at some point, but he does have a lot on his to-do list, so I don't know when he might get to that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 21 2009, 11:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331438"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>What about sneak/luck? I've never found out how this does influence the game. Can anyone teach me?</div>It's used in many different areas, but I think they're all personal and not shared... <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":?" border="0" alt="unsure.gif" />

Aconcagua · Jun 22, 2009

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pieter Boelen @ Jun 21 2009, 12:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331453"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I must've been REALLY stupid last night! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/piratesing.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" :shock

" border="0" alt="piratesing.gif" /></div>
Don't be so hard with yourself...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pieter Boelen @ Jun 21 2009, 12:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331453"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>How much additional work is it to make that happen? Maybe we should start simple first...? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":?" border="0" alt="unsure.gif" /></div>
We would have to do:
<ul><li>add the new officer type definitions - rather quickly done</li><li>add an additional check to the assignment function, if a main officer type is already occupied, and if so, make the previous main officer a secondary one</li><li>change the dialogs so that we are able to select both types (for not having too many options in the dialog, we might handle this with a new follow up dialog with two options: 'You are fully responsible', 'Support the main officer' - which should only be available if there is already a main officer, of course)</li><li>same for the 'select officer type' button in passengers and new officers exchange view.</li><li>officer's exchange: moving a main officer to a ship (either from own to companion ship or vice versa) already having one must result in making the officer being moved a secondary one </li><li>create new symbols (shown e. g. in characters view). I'm thinking of just keeping the old symbols and adding a gold shimering border for the main officers and a silver shimering one for the secondary officers. The current symbols already have some boarder, it already somehow looks golden - perhaps we can just leave this, copy it for the new one and just modify the boarder. Must be tested, how clearly this can be differentiated.</li><li>optionally: currently, the symbols are shown in character's view only. In passengers view (would be same in new officers exchange), there is no symbol shown, you see the officer's role only by selecting him - then it is shown textually behind the officer's name. For being able to keep a better overview (remember: we will have far more officers than before!), adding such a symbol to the two relevant views (passengers, officer exchange) is probably a good idea.</li><li>optionally: in the two relevant views, sort the officers by the role they keep</li></ul>
However, I suppose this can wait until we get the multiple officers extension for the ships. Until then - as only the maximum value is taken and most officers only contribute one skill anyway, there is not much difference in having the officers limited or not. In a first step, I'll complete the officers without, if I then still find some time, I could already include it in a second step. So just let's see...

But we could already discuss the officer's names.
Leadership: First mate - ?
Fencing: Master at Arms, no secondary
Sailing: Navigator, Pilot
Cannons, Accuracy: Cannoneer, ?
Defense: Surgeon, ?
Grappling: Boatswain, ?
Repair: Carpenter, Sailmaker/?
Commerce: Purser, Quartermaster
Luck: none at all, probably

If we do not find any suitable ranks, we could differentiate only by 1st and 2nd officer.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pieter Boelen @ Jun 21 2009, 12:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331453"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 21 2009, 11:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331438"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>By the way: Do you think it's possible to teach the AI to board other AI ships (which is not done at all currently)? Could be an interesting feature, and it could then make sense to place MAAs and our grappling officers (whichever it will be) in companion ships.</div>Pirate_KK was planning to add in that functionality at some point, but he does have a lot on his to-do list, so I don't know when he might get to that.
</div>
I see - so if we are lucky, we could have it already in final release... If so, probably no need to consider fencing and grappling then, as we'd get some sense for it anyhow. But we might think up something for adding sense to commerce on companion ships.

About luck - I suppose this is not used then on the companion ships - correct? So we wouldn't need an officer contribute it, either (see above).

Pieter Boelen · Jun 22, 2009

Certainly sounds like good ideas to me!

Leadership: First Mate, Second Mate (it might sound weird to have multiple Second Mates, but we had that on the Zuiderdam too)
Sailing: Navigator, Officer Of the Watch (? - Pilot is not regularly part of the ship crew)
Cannons: Multiple Cannoneers would be OK; otherwise, Senior Cannoneer and Junior Cannoneers
Defense: Surgeon, ??? (Senior/Junior again?)
Grappling: Boatswain, Assistant Boatswain (again actual real-life ranks, though there's also just one Assistant Boatswain <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mybad.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" :facepalm

" border="0" alt="mybad.gif" /> )
Repair: Carpenter, Sailmaker: sounds good to me
Commerce: Purser, Quartermaster
Luck: Some sort of mascot/musician or something, maybe? Not at all sure if this is even used anywhere though

I was thinking that to keep the number of different officer types down (don't want to make it TOO complicated),
maybe the assistant/junior officers could contribute more than one skill, but only half?
Eg. Quartermaster could be seen as the leader of a group of crewmembers also in boardings and would thus be able to contribute boarding skill.

In the nautical sense of the word, a quartermaster wouldn't even have much to do with commere at all. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":?" border="0" alt="unsure.gif" />

<b>Quartermaster</b>
1. (military) An officer whose duty is to provide quarters, provisions, storage, clothing, fuel, stationery, and transportation for a regiment or other body of troops, and superintend the supplies.
2. (nautical) A petty officer who attends to the helm, binnacle, signals, and the like, under the direction of the master.
Source: <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quartermaster" target="_blank">http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quartermaster</a>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 22 2009, 11:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331740"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pieter Boelen @ Jun 21 2009, 12:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331453"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I must've been REALLY stupid last night! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/piratesing.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" :shock

" border="0" alt="piratesing.gif" /></div>Don't be so hard with yourself...</div>No, that really WAS stupid. I friggin' sailed as officer-in-training on a cruiseship for ten months! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/boom.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":boom" border="0" alt="boom.gif" />

Aconcagua · Jun 22, 2009

Seems to me as if we'd have first to invent some influence for luck before discussing an officer (could still be assigned, fully or half, the first mate).
Perhaps we could think of more than 3 skill contribution levels (not at all, half, fully) - same way a percentage is possible too (values from 0-n, and in getCharacterSkill division by n - where n could be 10 or 100 - for now, n is just 2...), so we'd be able to do: Officer main skill 100 %, officer secondary skill 50%, junior officer main skill 60%, junior officer secondary skill 30%... Hmm, could get difficult to understand for the player, though...

Quartermaster: Helms, binnacle, signals - not sure if quartermaster could be the one to provide ...SAILING(!). Repair, potentially.

I don't like too much "senior xyz" - if we just have one, let's call him xyz, the others could then be 2nd ones. Or I make another difference - just one: Surgeon, more than one: one is Senior Surgeon, the others are Junior Surgeons.

Having multiple cannoneers, I could aggree. Suppose, however, we'd have to assign higher (double?) values for gunner skills requirement of the ships to make them need enough gunners. Or is this already equilibrated by having the gunners the only officer providing two skills? And why not having several surgeons then, too? (BTW: if having senior and junior, could we call the officers cannoneer and gunners???)

Apropos, fencers: If I have several of them on the ship, too, but not in land crew: What about those raising the fencing skills of the sailors a little?

For the passengers / officers exchange views, I would propose the following:
For each officer rank, we list the junior officer type, if a senior is already available, else the senior. You select the rank by using arrow up/down keys.
If a senior is already available, you can switch the selected role between senior and junior using the arrow left/right keys. Pressing enter selects the officer. Mouse handling: clicking once switches between junior and senior, clicking double selects (or: rightclick switches, left selects).

Pieter Boelen · Jun 22, 2009

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 22 2009, 01:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331760"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Seems to me as if we'd have first to invent some influence for luck before discussing an officer (could still be assigned, fully or half, the first mate).</div>I was thinking for if we DO add an influence. No influence = no officer required, as you said. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/yes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" :yes

" border="0" alt="yes.gif" />

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 22 2009, 01:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331760"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Perhaps we could think of more than 3 skill contribution levels (not at all, half, fully) - same way a percentage is possible too (values from 0-n, and in getCharacterSkill division by n - where n could be 10 or 100 - for now, n is just 2...), so we'd be able to do: Officer main skill 100 %, officer secondary skill 50%, junior officer main skill 60%, junior officer secondary skill 30%... Hmm, could get difficult to understand for the player, though...</div>Indeed; shouldn't make it all too complicated, otherwise the player doesn't understand anymore or doesn't notice.
And in that case, it'd just be a lot of wasted effort on your part, which would be unfortunate to say the least. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mybad.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" :facepalm

" border="0" alt="mybad.gif" />

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 22 2009, 01:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331760"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't like too much "senior xyz" - if we just have one, let's call him xyz, the others could then be 2nd ones. Or I make another difference - just one: Surgeon, more than one: one is Senior Surgeon, the others are Junior Surgeons.</div>"Senior/Junior" officer types are realistic, but I don't much like the naming either. It's being phased out in the Holland America Line case anyway.
I'm wondering if we should go there in the first place. Maybe just keep one officer type for everything; just to keep it simple. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dunno.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" :shrug

" border="0" alt="dunno.gif" />

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 22 2009, 01:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331760"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>BTW: if having senior and junior, could we call the officers cannoneer and gunners???</div>Fine by me.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 22 2009, 01:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331760"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Apropos, fencers: If I have several of them on the ship, too, but not in land crew: What about those raising the fencing skills of the sailors a little?</div>Don't know, truth be told. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dunno.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" :shrug

" border="0" alt="dunno.gif" />

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aconcagua @ Jun 22 2009, 01:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331760"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>For the passengers / officers exchange views, I would propose the following:
For each officer rank, we list the junior officer type, if a senior is already available, else the senior. You select the rank by using arrow up/down keys.
If a senior is already available, you can switch the selected role between senior and junior using the arrow left/right keys. Pressing enter selects the officer. Mouse handling: clicking once switches between junior and senior, clicking double selects (or: rightclick switches, left selects).</div>Sounds alright to me. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/doff.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" :doff

" border="0" alt="doff.gif" />

Aconcagua · Jun 23, 2009

Luck: understood and aggreed.

Percentage: ok, I forget about it, so we just keep none, half and full contribution (much work it would not have been, just adapting some integer values...)

Secondary officers: Already thought about leaving them completely, too. I still like the idea, because I like any kind of realism - but it might get too complicated for the players. An option could be to include this in the advanced options - officer type system:<ul><li>simple:
only the main officer types are used, these are not limited.</li><li>advanced:
main officer types and secondary ones are used, main ones are limited to one per ship, secondary ones one can have as many as wanted. By the way: as the current officer system only uses the maximum value of a skill, and secondary officers only contribute half the value they have (as planned for now), there is little sense for the advanced system without the ships having the new skill requirements. As intermediate step, we could introduce them, but then only as clone of the main ones without difference in skills (perks remain the same anyway...).</li></ul>
Mulitple cannoneers: on a second thought, I think we should keep it the same for each officer type - one senior, multiple juniors - else there is just an additional level of complexity without much benefit, in the end the game would just be harder to understand.

Senior/junior: Realistic, yes, and they ARE fine, if we have BOTH on the ship, but I don't like a senior without having a junior. Could be resolved by an additional check; if only the main officer exists, no prefix, else senior. But I prefer finding two different names for each type (easier to implement...). Ok, so far proposed are:
First mate/Second mate
Navigator/Officer of the Watch
Cannoneer/Gunner
Boatswain/Assistant Boatswain
Surgeon/???
Carpenter/Sailmaker
Purser/Quartermaster

So, only missing now is the secondary for the surgeon. I'm not yet sure about the assistant boatswain - perhaps there's a better alternative? Well, at least we have one already... However, I'm still wondering why wood works only need one person, but the rigs so many... Found the German titles of "Kalfatmeister" and "Kalfatermann" ("kalfatern" = to caulk, only ships, however), if I'm right, this would be "caulk master" and "caulker" in English. Perhaps we should prefer this one. I'm wondering if we could use the sailmaker then somewhere else (quite a pity, that we only have one repair for all - I'd like the idea of having the carpenter for wood and sail, caulk master for wood only and sailmaker for rigs only...). Only skill I could imagine, however, would be sailing. Officer of the Watch would then be free, but I'm struggling with having him below a surgeon - the other way round, perhaps, but if you're in tavern and the officer says "I'm a good Officer of the Watch" - sounds somehow weird... Alternatives for the secondary surgeon could perhaps be: doctor, physician, medic, druggist/apothecary, (male) nurse, orderly, assistant surgeon. Suppose, however, none of these existed on a ship in those days. Was there any other rank somehow in contact with medicine, healing/treating sailors, health in general, sanitation, cleanness? Found on dict.leo.org: corpsman [mil], aidman <i>rare</i> [mil] - used for nautical ranks, too?

Fencers raising fencing skills of sailors: This time it was me not being attentive - rather a modification of a question I asked already. First question was, if there is an influence if we have a (one!) fencer at all. My idea behind it was, having more fencers would result in having even better fencing skills of the sailors. In the end a multiple officers topic again (in these terms: propose the master at arms having a positive influence on fencing skills of the sailors, but not needing them, i. e. not force a player to have them for full functionality of a ship).

Pieter Boelen · Jun 23, 2009

Limited primary officers in Advanced Options sounds good to me, if you're willing to code it.
But maybe just start out with just one type to prevent you from trying to do too much at once.
Anyway, I'll leave that up to you.

For the secundary surgeon position, what if "Physician" is the primary officer position and "Surgeon" the secundary one?
This thought is based on the character of Stephen Maturin in Master and Commander, who was a physician and "better" than an "ordinary" surgeon.

"Assistant Boatswain" still uses a prefix, even though it's not actually "Junior". Personally I'd be inclined to put "Quartermaster" here instead.
But then what is secundary "Purser"? "Human Resource Officer" and "Port Paper Officer" are some terms used on Holland America Line ships.
Not sure if they'd feel at place in a 17th century setting though. Maybe something like "Administrative Cleric"?

I agree having the "Senior" term without a "Junior" does sound weird. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/yes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" :yes

" border="0" alt="yes.gif" />
Also, I reckon that in a tavern, officers would always use their primary role to boast about.
So you'd never heard "I am a good Officer Of the Watch", always "I am a good Navigator".
They all want the primary position of course. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="

" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

Peter Willemoes · Jun 23, 2009

Pieter: I never served an official rank called boatswain, only quartermasters - is it still a used term in modern ships?

Anancaqua:
The boatswain was responsible for storing the supplies. Look it up, if you please.

Being in charge of actual sailing, the first lieutenant was allowed to have a writer - he is often referred to as the guy who take notes on seamen and officers not obeying their orders on deck in Patrick O'Biran's books. Among the office staff on a ship was also the purser, the purser's steward and the captain's clerk. One of the duties of a purser was to serve the captain for at least a year, helping him with the account books - if the captain have not found a clerk. The captain's clerk was often the purser's steward and a young man, ranked as a cadet but was a civilian chosen from the deck.

Also there is no such thing as a "navigator", he was called the "sailing master".

a Seadogs/AOP officer system

Sailor Apprentice

Navigation Officer

Sailor Apprentice

Navigation Officer

Sailor Apprentice

Navigation Officer

Corsair

Sailor Apprentice

Navigation Officer

Sailor Apprentice

Navigation Officer

Sailor Apprentice

Navigation Officer

Sailor Apprentice

Navigation Officer

Sailor Apprentice

Navigation Officer

Sailor Apprentice

Navigation Officer

Corsair