Search the Community

current Iron Plate armor uses the US 1945 class B armor as a standard for quality 1 armor this means that 10 inches armor is 10 inches of effective armor (1 inch of us 1945 B steel is essentially 1 inch of RHA armor aka rolled homogeneous armor which is used as the standard for 1 inch thickness to 1 inch effectiveness) in reality Iron Plate had an effective thickness modifier of 0.5 to 0.55 so 1 inch of Iron plate armor would be 0.5 inches of effective thickness this meant a 10 inch iron plate is in effect only 5 inches of effective armor this means all types of armor in game over-performs by at-least 150% armor such as Krupp IV over-performs by 200% 240% if you account for 40% weight saving (a 1 inch armor plate of Krupp IV in game is equivelant to 2 inches of what would be the best quality battleship armor created in ww2 (around 1 quality in real life while in game is 200% more effective than quality 1 armor aka quality 2) (quality armor means how much effective thickness it gets from its actual thickness for example a quality 3 plate would have 3 inches of effective armor from a 1 inch thick piece of armor while a quality 1 piece of armor would have 1 inch of effective thickness from a 1 inch thick plate) this DOES NOT account for the fact armor gets lighter which was not the case in real life the density of steel armor remained at around 7750kg m^3 (yes you can do various things to it but generally armor weight remained the same) the current armor stats are as follows KruppIV -40% weight +300% cost +100% strength SHOULD BE around cost 100% strength +10% KruppIII -35% weight +220% cost +90% strength SHOULD BE around cost 70% strength 0% KruppII -30% weight +160% cost +80% strength SHOULD BE around cost 50% strength -10% kruppI -25% weight +100% cost +70 strength SHOULD BE around cost +40% -14 strength -2% chance to shatter ap shells -5 ricochet angle of incomming shell Harvey (nickel steel version) -15% weight +50% costs +45% strength SHOULD BE around+ 12% cost -26% strength - 10% ricochet angle of incomming shell due to low brinell - 15% chance to shatter AP shells due to low tensile strength Nickel-steel -5% weight +25% cost +40% strength SHOULD BE around cost +5-8% strength -30% strength -16% ricochet angle of incomming shell due to low brinell -15% chance to shatter ap shells due too low tensile strength Compound: +5% cost +35% strength SHOULD BE around cost + 5% strength -35% +10% chance to shatter projectiles due to high tensile strength (introduced in 1876 so yeah ancient and horrible armor quality) - Iron plate -15% hull form +65% hull weight -25% armor weight (all types) -50% armor weight (belt, belt extended) SHOULD BE around -15% hull form (lets assume Iron armor back then was harder to shape properly) (IRON ARMOR DOES NOT increase the hull weight or reduce armor weight)-50% strength -30% ricochet angle of incomming shells due to low brinell hardness -50% chance to shatter AP shells due to the low tensile strength looks a bit complicated but the new armor would essentially have these characteristics Krupp IV cost 80% strength +10% Krupp III cost 50% strength -4% Krupp II cost 40% strength -10% Krupp I cost +25% -18 strength -2% chance to shatter ap shells -5 ricochet angle of incomming shell Harvey +12% cost -21% strength - 10% ricochet angle of incomming shell - 15% chance to shatter AP shells Nickel-steel cost +5-8% strength -26% strength -16% ricochet angle of incomming shell -15% chance to shatter ap shells Compound cost + 5% strength -30% +10% chance to shatter projectiles Iron plate -15% hull form -50% strength -30% ricochet angle of incomming shells -50% chance to shatter AP shells source used to determine armor values and effects http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php#Japanese_Vickers_Hardened_Non-Cemented_Face-Hardened_Armor_(VH) the less hard in brinell the armor is the more likely a shell wont ricochet off the armor the less tensile strength the more likely an ap shell is to not shatter on the armor this was mostly done to diversify and make a bigger difference out of the different types of armor in reality the effects would be less pronounced (specifically ricochet chance) than in real life (though shatter chance is quite realistic) what effect do these changes have on armor in general in general would improve the realism of the game while greatly increasing gun penetration for AP shells on top of this it would reduce the tendency to go bow in and charge enemy battleships until almost point blank range to effectively penetrate enemy armor it would reduce the tendency for large ships to fire high explosive shells when they shouldn't and would reduce what can only be described as an HE meta final conclusion armor is currently overperforming to various degrees this would make armor effectiveness realistic for the thickness compared to the currently super effective armor we have in game which overperforms by extreme amounts

Is there a limit for penetration buffs like there is for speed? Rattlesnake figure + Almeria Superior Gunpowder + Guacata Superior Gunpowder + Treatise on Making Saltpeter stack up to a +20% penetration buff in theory. Anyone wanna load AP shells instead of balls?

I've been working on and mathing over a subject that's been bothering me for quite a while - Cannon Penetration. Specifically, Carronades and how their penetration drops off to 0 at extreme ranges, so it got me thinking. Could one really stop a 42-pound iron ball that's been flying through the air for 1000m by...holding up a piece of paper? Noooo, that's silly. Therefore, I'd like to introduce a concept I like to call Minimum Penetration. Min Pen should be identical for shots of identical size, no matter what sort of gun they're fired from. Min Pen is based on the terminal velocity of an iron sphere of a specific mass in free-fall for an indefinite period of time. As I was pondering this subject, I said to myself, "You know, I'm sure the devs have a formula in the background that they tweak for this sort of thing, but it isn't readily apparent and carronades don't seem to follow a simple mathematical model." So, I devised a plan. Two alternate models for cannon penetration, easily adjustable based on the minimum (infinite-range) penetration, maximum (gun barrel againt hull) penetration, and the distance at which the devs want the weapon to have a pen value halfway between min and max. Edit/Update: After far too many hours than is healthy, I've updated things. I dropped the previous "Falloff" model as it was a little silly and had zero chance of being adopted. Instead, I have done extensive research on the internal and external ballistics of cannons and cannon balls for a "Historical" model that should more closely fit a realism-based scenario. The Epic Spreadsheet of Epic The above sheet shows current values, Exponential Decay, and "Historical" models as well as data on relative penetration based on kinetic energy divided by projected area. I arbitrarily set 4 pdrs to pen through 5cm of wood in a free fall, which seems reasonable to me, but this is easily adjustable with the data present After lots of research, I finally was able to simply calculate the hypothetical oak penetration, at terminal velocity, of the various weights of cannon rounds. The key is that minimum penetration is solely dependent upon the mass of the iron ball - 42pd carronades and 42pd long guns will have the same minimum penetration at hypothetical infinite range. I have two models here. The first is a gamey, Exponential model that has, as Gamelabs does, all guns of the same type lose energy at the same rate, and has Carronades' initial penetration equal to Long guns of half their caliber. The second is a "Historical" model that attempts to more accurately model internal and external ballistics. In the Exponential Model, I attempted to adhere to the theme of Gamelabs design - long guns maintaining energy over long ranges, Carronades dropping off quickly, and medium guns somewhere in between. Here, Medium cannons have 5% less 0m-Pen compared to Long guns of the same caliber, and Carronades have the same 0m-pen as a Long cannon half its caliber. The horizontal lines are for reference, from top down, Victory mast thickness, Connie mast thickness, Actual physical diameter of the HMS Victory's lower mainmast, and the current thickness of the Victory's hull. It's clear that even using this model that, while any gun is capable of damaging a 1st-rate's hull if the ship is close enough (Privateer swarm ftw), being able to deal effective damage to the masts of a 1st-rate is nigh-impossible; ONLY 42-pounders at close range (and 68pd Carros at sneezing distance) are able to pen through the thickness of those masts. The advantage of this model is that it keeps carronades short-ranged in all regards and clearly defines roles for guns. The disadvantage is that it can make using carronades, and even medium guns in some cases, frustrating at anything more than a stone's throw from an enemy ships. The Historical model attempts to more accurately simulate both external and internal ballistics. With this model, Long guns are 20 calibers in length and use a 1/4 charge-to-shot ratio. Medium guns (historically termed Short cannons) are 16 calibers in length and use a 1/5 charge-to-shot ratio and have a 10% lower muzzle velocity than Longs. Carronades are only 8 calibers in length and use a 1/12 charge-to-shot ratio but have much tighter windage that results in a higher-than-expected muzzle velocity for such a lower charge. This winds up with Carros having about a 30% lower muzzle velocity than long guns of the same caliber, but curiously about the same muzzle energy as a long gun of half their caliber (even though it's a little less penetrating potential since the same energy is being distributed over a larger projected area). Here, Carronades are slightly less effective at point-blank range, but it treats, externally, all shot of the same size the in the same manner - a 42 pound ball will lose energy flying through the air at the same rate (as a proportion of its velocity) as any other 42-pound ball. However, larger shot maintains its energy better over distance (since the shot's mass increases as a cube of radius, while its projected area only increases as a square of radius) and thus will lose penetrating potential slower than smaller long guns. It can be readily seen that guns of the same caliber, regardless of type, decay to the same minimum penetration value at extreme range. With this model, accuracy becomes much more important; long guns are the kings of this, while medium guns have a little more dispersion and slightly reduced muzzle velocity and carronades are not very accurate at all. Carronades, while having the potential to reach the same range as a long gun (due to the capacity for higher gun elevation), it will not only strike with less force, but a higher impact angle (which significantly reduces the effective impact energy). Large carronades fired at range, if aimed well with decent accuracy mods, might be acceptable for chaining sails or raining grape onto weather decks, but little else. The Comparison chart shows existing 42pdrs in red, Exponential model guns in green, and Historical model guns in blue. Obviously, no concrete data is available for shots beyond 1km with the current values. Personally, I am a fan of the Historical model that I've concocted here. It makes Carronades much more of a skill weapon - high damage potential with very low accuracy. A skilled captain could, potentially, out-damage a similar ship at medium range with carronades. While this treatise does not address cannon damage, my initial thoughts are that damage and reload should be adjusted so that cannons of the same caliber do the same damage, but different types of cannons have faster reload times. E.g. 50 damage for 42-pound shot, 72 seconds for a 42-Long, 64 seconds for a 42-Short, and 48 seconds for a 42-Carro. Edit: It is this way mostly, already, just some minor tweaks and fine-tuning. The other issue at hand is mast thickness. Hull thickness is more or less acceptable (a few outliers, like the Constitution), but Masts are far and away far too thick to avoid "demasting at range". A general rule of thumb to go by is that the lower main mast should be no thicker than 4/3rds the hull thickness. By this logic, the thickest that a Victory's main mast should be is 100cm. This means that, even with the Historical model, all but 42-pd carronades will have trouble demasting a Vic, while Long 12s and Medium 24s should be up to the task, albeit at very close range. However, that doesn't mean they should be necessarily easy to demast. Lower mast sections were quite tough. While this thickness should be dropped to less than 100cm, the mast HP should be buffed easily 50% for lower mast sections, and 25% for mid-sections with the lower mast thickness. One amusing side effect of the Historical model is that the 68pd-smashers would actually retain more penetrating potential outside 1200m - but good luck hitting anything, let alone hitting it square enough to do significant damage.