Search the Community

“My case for the bulge” The absence of torpedo bulges has the strong possibility of sinking Ultimate Admirals Dreadnoughts otherwise historically accurate experience. The main purpose of the torpedo bulge throughout both world wars was to mitigate the damage of a torpedo strike. At this they achieved mixed results but, they were a very important feature of many ships overall defense. Most of the time a torpedo bulge was just an added layer of external armour below the waterline of a ship; no bulge was adequate on its own. It was important that all bulges work in conjunction with bulkheads to maintain the best possible defense. I believe in theory it would be a very achievable goal to implement them in before release. If torpedo bulges are not added, we stand to lose, not only an integral part of the damage model but also a great loss in diversity and realism in aesthetics. If it is therefore not a huge drain on resources to do so I advocate heavily for their implementation. I intend to argue this case here and provide what I think may work as a solution to our battle of the Bulge. The importance of the aesthetic or the visuals should not be discarded. Who doesn’t love a good bulge? Although it may appear to be on the surface an unimportant feature it does in facet effect many zones of interaction. Perhaps most importantly is the damage model, currently torpedo bulges seem to only apply an abstraction of their intended purpose on a ship without affecting the visual narrative of that abstraction. This has a significant impact on immersion and realism. If ships had bulges in reality, those ships could not be accurately duplicated in game. It was one of the most prevalent features of prewar battleships that were refitted to serve in the second world war. We would lose a significant amount of Iconic battleship hulls or worse in my opinion simplify them to the point of unrecognition. As for implementation of the in-game assets I suggest this, a simple few types of generic bulges set up in a similar manner to the hulls, that is to say extendable with displacement. These would then correlate to different bulge types or implemented into game mechanics as the developers see fit. I have included several Pictorial examples of this concept. A lack of bulge would be devastating. There can be no accurate hulls for so many class’s including, New York, Pennsylvania, Littorio, Kongo, Fuso, Nagato, Queen Elizabeth, Revenge, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Tennessee, Ise, etc. These vessels not only represent the pinnacle of their nations navies but are also the most recognizable designs that players will expect to see accurately and realistically rendered in the game. These Iconic designs would not be reproduceable, the possibilities of new designs featuring hulls that never saw them would be extinguished. This ship feature, aside from being practical, is also a great way to provide a huge increase in design capabilities for relatively low labor. In conclusion I think adding torpedo bulges will add considerably to gameplay, immersion, design potential, variety, realism, and aesthetic. For a small amount of effort, a great contribution can made towards making Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts an even more rewarding experience for fans of naval warfare simulation. I do some 3d modeling for mods and my own 3d printing, I was able to model quickly a few Generic Bulge types that may offer some idea to the developers I have also included those models. Here you could either section out parts of the bulge much like how the hulls currently work based on displacement or elongate the bulge horizontally to the displacement size, as the bulge does not need to cover the entire hull this should be achievable. Here is an in game representation of what it might look like on the BC 3 hull I believe. Various images of Torpedo bulges in all their glory. Most older Battleships that saw participated in WW2 saw a few refits and modernizations, almost all had torpedo bulges added at some point. here the new York Class before and after modernization. Again the New York before her bulge Refit. Link to Models: https://www.dropbox.com/s/l1gl05nantywjbm/Torp Bulges.rar?dl=0 References: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.php http://combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_underw.htm http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/34a.htm extensive use of Wikipedia to find refits and dates. Most pre war BBs that were in service during WW2 had bulges. These will be hulls that start in game without bulges and without the need to make entirely new hulls it would be preferential to make attachable bulges.

Okay first off I am no expert on naval gunnery or naval armour. I've already seen multiple people here on the forums display levels of understanding that go far beyond my own, but the issue must be raised and I have seen no one else do so fully yet, so here goes. We need to talk about plunging fire. Historically, ship designers operated within a system known as zone of immunity, or IZ for short. To put IZ in the simplest of terms, a ship's vertical armour (the belt) would be specifically made to resist all shells of a certain calibre up to a certain range and beyond, fx. the Iowa class was designed with a 12.7" belt which was designed to resist 16"/45cal gunfire at ranges exceeding 18,000m, giving her an "inner" zone of immunity limit of 18,000m. In contrast to this, the deck armour would be designed to resist gunfire at certain ranges and below. Again using the Iowa, this would be a 6" main deck plate covered by a 1.5" 'fuze-deck', which was specifically there to set off a given shell's fuze and have it explode before or on contact with the main 6" deck. This 6+1.5" deck theoretically gave her an IZ of 30000m and below against the 16"/45cal. An interesting sidenote here is that this IZ is calculated for the guns of her predecessor the South Dakota class, since for a large part of the design process these were the guns she was expected to carry, and so in contrast to most ships, the Iowa does not actually have an IZ against her own guns readily available, which would otherwise be the norm... but I digress. What's important to take away from this is that a given belt thickness renders you immune to direct fire at a certain range and beyond, whilst deck armour gives you immunity from plunging fire at a certain range and below. The space between your belt's immunity and your deck's immunity is your overall zone of immunity, where neither direct nor plunging fire can penetrate the deck or the belt of your citadel and cause catastrophic damage. You can still take superficial damage of course, but your vitals will remain untouched. What amazed me so much when I began playing this game was that for the most part, this system seemed to be the the core functional armour mechanic in use in game. Give a ship enough belt armour and it becomes immune to direct fire. Give it enough deck armour and it becomes immune to plunging fire. Excellent! But I've been playing for a while now, and have read up a lot on actual armour values from real ships as I played, and it quickly began to strike me just how disproportionately heavy you had to make your deck plates before the desired immunity zone was achieved. Again with the Iowa example, 7.5" total seemed adequate up until the very limits of realistic spotting capabilities, yet if I replicate this in game, even a twelve incher will go right through that at combat ranges going all the way down to 20000m. This unsettled the historical accuracy enthusiast within me, and so I began to run some tests. First, I took things to the extreme. I observed that most naval designers IRL went for a IZ of between slightly under 20000m all the way up to 30000m, and decided to use this as my main parameters for testing. So with that in mind, how thick a deck would you need to create a plunging fire zone of immunity up to 30000m for the biggest guns in the entire game, the mighty 20" with super-heavy shells. Thankfully, the game tells us! Thx devs! So the first image at the bottom of this post is the armour pen data for the 20" Mk.III (latest available) with super-heavy shells (tube powder). As you can see at 30000m it penetrates a whopping 60.1" of total deck armour equivalent. by applying the max allowed bonuses to our armour in game, we can bring it up to a 118% increase by equipping both krupp IV and all-or-nothing armour on our ship. This leaves us with 60.1/218%=27.5" of real deck armour. Mind you the turret face of the Yamato was only 26", and that was designed to resist 18" guns at point blank range... so a number above this must surely be far off... yet when I tested it, it bore true. You literally need to put 27.5 inches of deck armour on your ship to resist these shells at 30000m in the game... So there goes the first bit of realism straight out the window, and let me show you why. Let's step away from the Iowa for a second and instead go with the Montana, since she was in fact (and in contrast to her predecessor) rated with an IZ against her own guns, the 16"/50cal Mk.VII. According to wikipedia her belt would have been 16.1" and her decks 2.25" upper and a 7.35" main deck in the same fuze activation arrangement as the Iowas, and contemporary engineers concluded that this gave her an immunity zone between 18000m and 31000m against the improved firepower of her 16"/50cals. Now compare this real world data to my experiment. 2.25+7.35 inches of deck armour (a total of 9.6 inches) could resist 16" super-heavy shells at 31000m. In game however, a 20" SH shell requires 27.5" to stop. That's a threefold increase on the part of the armour required, but only a 1.75 fold increase in shell weight (1928kg vs 3418kg on the 16" and 20" respectively). Let's now scale the experiment down to match the montana's characteristics, by taking the 9.6" figure, running it through the 218% amplification and netting your 20.9" of effective thickness and testing it against the 16" SH shells available in game, you find that it only resists plunging fire from around 18000m and below (rated at 19.3" equivalent pen at 17500m) Which means that if you made the Montana in-game, her zone of immunity would be between 18000m and... well... 18000m. In effect there now is no zone of immunity at all, since plunging fire in-game is somehow just extremely overpowered compared to real life, to the point where an armour protection rated for 31000m doesn't even start to become effective in-game before 18000m, almost half, and incidentaly also almost the exact range where her belt armour would cease to be effective IRL. This is of course very disappointing. The game handles extremely well and feels very realistic in close quarters engagements between cruisers and destroyers, but once you scale it up to battleship sizes the lack of realism on the part of long range gunnery and penetration values just straight up breaks it for me. But being the pathologic guy that I am I decided not to bother and simply up my deck armour to the point where it would artificially create the desired zone of immunity effects, with hilarious results in hidsight. I started regularly designing my battleships with, say, a 14" belt but a 16" deck to achieve the armour protection and IZ of for example the King George V, but then the patches giving severe weight penalties on bulkheads came along and I had to sacrifice more and more vital design features to keep my decks artificially efficient, to the point where my ships had no rudder upgrades, no turret rotation upgrades, barely any torpedo protection, not a single secondary gun and literally 0" of armour on the belt and deck extended, whilst still costing two to three times as much as their historical counterparts both in money spent and weight required. All this of course always fell flat as soon as these designs came up against something like an H class, whose 20" guns still required those ridiculous 27.5" of deck armour to survive at combat ranges. But then during my recent tests after patch 11 I noticed something. I was having a fight with a 15" armed battleship in my own battleship equipped with 14.5" of deck armour, and right around where I calculated that my deck armour would start to become sufficient against that armament, I noticed that shells where hitting my deck and giving me the "penetration" counter, but the damage incurred would be almost comparable to an over-pen. Instead of 90 dmg, I got around 20 dmg, and I immediately likened this to a shell penetrating the upper fuze deck to explode against the main deck, causing limited damage as compared with a "full" penetration. I don't know if this is intentional, but regardless I must highly encourage it. This perfectly simulates the kind of damage a battleship with a separate fuze and main deck would incur at combat ranges. Still enough to be significant, but not enough to be fatal, and this is exactly the kind of protection such armoured decks would have allowed for. The shell still detonates inside the ship, but outside the citadel, causing only moderate damage. Perfect! Now make this universal. Make it the norm, rather than a freak incident that only becomes apparent after 20 test runs. Any hit on a main deck of 8" or thereabout should produce this kind of damage below 30000m, and there should optimally also be choice between going for a single thicker deck plate which might deflect all shells, but which in turn takes all the damage if indeed penetrated, and instead choosing two separate decks which only limit the damage done above the second deck at certain ranges. Secondly, we also need to talk about bulkheads (again). My main issue with bulkheads isn't that they're too heavy or too light, my main issue has to do with simple physics. I ran some more tests, and it appears that a battleship of 109000t displacement has about a 90% chance of receiving over-pens rather than actual pens on unarmoured sections of the hull with max bulkheads, meaning that when a battleship grade gun hits the extended deck (which for test purposes was left on 0" thickness) the shell goes right through and does next to nothing. If this experiment is then repeated on a ship with low bulkheads (anything from many to minimum) the shell almost always penetrates and does full damage. I find this confusing. Logically, the less bulkheads you have in the way, the higher the chance of over-pens, because once a shell strikes a bulkhead, it tends to detonate, since those are heavily armoured, often as heavily as the main belt of the ship in question. Instead what we get is the lower the bulkhead setting, the higher the chance of shell detonation as opposed to over-pens. Again, what am I missing here? Shouldn't a hull saturated with heavy and numerous bulkheads be more rather than less susceptible to in-ship detonations on unarmoured sections of the ship? Again I'm not a naval designer so if I'm coming off as a rough plebeian who doesn't know what he's talking about then please put me in my place and tell me why, it just doesn't seem logical from where I'm at. I find it especially problematic since with the above mentioned mechanics of bulkheads in relation to pen-over-pen dynamics, maximum bulkheads are essentially a necessity that you cannot in good faith downgrade on and still consider your ship competitive. They are now extremely heavy to field on your ships for sure, but the current mechanics surrounding them still makes them an absolute must, and so I find that all my designs are now exercises in how to still make a semi-competent ship around the key feature that is maximum bulkheads, sacrificing everything from firepower to speed to armour (especially deck armour) to keep this essential feature, often ending up with ships that are twice or thrice as heavy and expensive as the ship I'm trying to replicate, either because I had to give it triple it's historical deck armour to give it a similar long range protection characteristic to what it historically had, or by simply sacrifing the extended armour entirely and hoping for maximum bulkheads to give me those over-pens rather than full-pens. So I was wondering, will this be adressed at some point? Is it intentional that deck armour is currently two to three times less efficient than it was historically? Is there a counter to this that I am just not aware of? Are bulkheads just going to be continually nerfed in terms of weight penalties rather than looking at some of the real-life advantages that might come with low bulkhead settings and using them to give lower bulkheads an actual pro in regards to max? Finally I'd like to give you my current example of a semi-competitive 1940s era battleship, to really ram home the point. The second picture below is my current build, my current design for a US super-Iowa. maximum bulkheads, long range, maximum displacement (109000t or about two yamatos worth) and 30 knots of speed. This baby costs a whopping 236000000$, or 2.3 regular iowas, has zero rudder or turret rotation upgrades because I couldn't spare the weight, also has only a double bottom and lvl 1 torp protection because that isn't important enough either, meaning that it actually has far worse underwater protection than the Iowa herself (3 torp bulkheads, equivalent to lvl 3 protection in game, and a tripple hull bottom). However I'd rather forego it and just keep them completely out of torp range if it buys me a bit of extra long-range protection with the way the game works right now. extended belt and deck are both literally left at 0", which is actually quite historical, but logically shouldn't work with maximum bulkheads, yet somehow it does. She also sports 14.4" of deck armour, which is completely inadequate given the current game mechanics but it was the best I could do, and it will only protect her from her own armament inside of 20000m, giving her an extremely narrow zone of immunity of just 3000m, between roughly 17000 and 20000m once her 14" belt is accounted for. Notice that the deck is heavier than the belt. It is so on all my ships of above cruiser size. The only part of her armour that is adequate within the current mechanics of the game is her turret top armour, which I was able to bop up to 21.4", giving her immunity from direct turrent hits from her own guns up to 27000m and below, which at least begins to seem sufficient from a designer's point of view, though still not ideal, even if you disregard the fact that historical battleships usually made do with less than 10" of top turret armour. Meanwhile, her turret front could be reduced all the way down to 18", again giving her immunity from her own guns up to around 9500m, which is actually more than necessary and I might consider giving her a 16" or even 14" turret face instead to give her more deck and turret top protection to bring her closer to a historical result in terms of effective IZ. This example should make it blatantly clear why the current design parameters are not very realistic. A ship that is theoretically not only capable of but specifically designed for fighting at 20000-30000m currently requires much heavier deck than belt armour to enable it to fight at it's own designated combat ranges, and this is true across all the nations (I find it especially enfuriating to contemplate that german ships of 130000t disp. still cannot hope to equip enough deck armour to give them reasonable zones of immunity even against 18" guns, much less 20"ers). Thus I sincerely hope that deck armour will be addressed in the next patch, and made much more effective than it currently is, and that some thought be put into making maximum bulkheads have some drawback to incentivize people to avoid them, rather than just making them prohibitively heavy and expensive to equip, which doesn't really balance things but just makes all other aspects of the design process more aggravating. because you absolutely still have to have max bulkheads anyway, until some balance is introduced that is, possibly in relation to the max-min pen-over-pen dynamics I outlined above. Thanks for reading, and keep up the good work devs, still an amazing product you're developing in spite of it's flaws.

If this doesn't make sense allow me: the Scharnhorst class had 3x11in gun turrets. These were planned to be replaced with the 2x15in gun turrets which would be used on Bismark and Tirpitz. Same turret ring size. Try doing this ingame. Yeah... why this is a necesary alteration should be self explanatory. So turrets should go Barbette ring>gun caliber>barrel number. Too many barrels in too small a turret? Accuracy and RoF penalties. Length of the guns should also be taken into consideration, not just the bore diameter.

Too me it seems that the armor upgrades in game are a bit drastic. Getting any of the Krupp tier armor makes putting a ton of armor on too easy and it also makes the ships absolutely impenetrable, throwing 500mm of armor with Krupp IV makes the ship only vulnerable to torpedoes and the absolute largest guns. Does anyone else feel the same way? It just feels like smaller weapons even on battle ships, and I dont mean 5 inch guns, i mean the 13-14 inch weapons are just not viable for very long.

Will the game in the future also consider capsizing in addition to the current floatability model? After all if all the water goes only into one side of the ship, it will eventually roll over, even if it could theoretically take in more water and stay afloat. Counterflooding can only go so far. That was why the Yamato was sunk with fewer torpedoes and bombs than Musashi, because the Americans all tried (and mostly succeeded) to attack from the same side.

When playing the new cruiser killer mission, I couldn't help notice how the game makes a 40 knot plus battlecruiser, forcing me to make a 44 knot monster to try and chase them. The game estimates the horsepower at about 355,000HP. AFAIK, even with modern technology, between shaft loading limits and cavitation, we can't practically cram more than 70000HP (like a Nimitz class supercarrier) onto a shaft, and since there are usually a maximum of four shafts, we should be limited to about 280,000HP, at most. Should we put in a similar limit in game, or in the long run limit it by tech level? It would seem to increase realism, it would help guide the AI, and give an incentive to build lighter ships that can go faster (since we are all limited to 280,000HP max).

The OW doesn't seem to let you use yard controls. You can sail directly into the wind without ever ending up in irons. With sails fully reefed, you can turn on a dime, regardless of where the wind is coming from. The speeds in the OW far surpass the speeds listed for the ships, and the speeds seen in combat. I have seen others mention the tedium of traversing the OW. I imagine much of it has to do with how it involves hardly any sailing skill. Here are just a few things that I think would make travel in the OW a game unto itself. Include the sailing mechanics already present in combat. Reefs and rocks that you can see if you look for them, but will tear your hull apart if you miss them. Planning supplies for your crew. Do you take extra in case you don't get to your destination by the time you had planned? Or do you go with the bare minimum that you can get away with so that you can pack more merchandise into your hull, and risk losing crew? Storms! Outrun them if you can, or reef your sails and heave to. Folks sailing broad reach in a storm under full sails will get torn sails, dismasted, or even sail straight down to the ocean floor. Replace the heading indicator and wind arrow with a simple compass. There are plenty of other ways to tell which way the wind blows already in the game. Ocean currents. Contend with the prevailing currents while navigating. Just because you know which way your ship is pointing, doesn't mean that is the direction your ship is going.

Trade and cargo transfer can be done between two ships! Two players, independent of ships type or nation, will be given the option to meet at high seas in OW to trade and transfer cargo ship to ship (STS). Vessels move alongside within their small circles, stop on zero speed and STS-button will be activated. Clicking it will start a 60 seconds countdown. "Get ready cargo gear" will be shown. After that the same trade routine will open as we all know from trade in ports. Players can still watch the horizon but hindered by the trade windows. Trade can only be done between single or leading ships if with fleet. If one of the trading ships is attacked while in this mode the trade window will shut down as if it is canceled and all trading participants will find themselves in battle mode. To reflect the vulnerable state they where caught in, (two ships tied together working hard with cargo gear) the traders will remain dead in water first 2 minutes after start of the battle before they are able to set sails and move. But guns may be fired and all other orders may be given normaly. If the trade is done without any unpleasant interruption players may close trade window and sail on ... bon voyage! This feature shall bring more realism and players freedom to the NA-universe. It could be an occasion for exciting game situations. It will reduce frustration about long trips to deal with other players and nations over far distances if you are free to meet anybody anywhere and only have half the way. It will promote and revive ships traffic and the ingame economy. This will provide more potential of victims for all hunters and raiders. And it could open to play as raider trap or to play the role of a supply ship (tender) for battle fleets and squads providing rum and repairs... it's demanding good navigators. This will help the game to stop drifting more and more towards a world of warships under sails ... Dear DEVS please think about that seriously. Forum members please let me all know your thoughts about this issue... may be i forget to consider something... the devil hides in details.

You recommend yourself as ultra realistic cannon balls game. Doubling on enemy is suppose to be a tactic presumably since balls may entirely pierce through both and any sides of armor of ship, to which end making making damage cross over through all three layers or just one or the other would be ideal so that firing from both sides on a ship isn't a major waste of 2nd ship on your side.

http://www.nelsonandhisworld.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1679 Make cannonballs bounce, it supposedly even extended the range. Likely considered to be measure of gunnery excellence.

English version below. Вкратце: - Формулы риска и вознаграждения в игре все поломаны. Вознаграждение за бои почти не существует, а Боевые Капитаны в огромном невыгодном положении по сравнению с Трейдерами - Запускать Экономику без начальных вливаний это не-реалистично и глупо - ГДЕ ИСТОРИЧЕСКИЕ СТАРТАП ИНВЕСТИЦИИ? - Торговое меню смехотворно плохо разработано с игрой, не играемой без сетевых инструментов. Нет способа сортировки как по производству и по расстояниям (simultaneously). - Экономика, движимая игроками, чрезвычайно раздроблена в зависимости от кланов и регионов, а некоторые регионы имеют огромное преимущество перед другими - Опыт нового игрока ужасен, а "бесплатные корабли" оскорбительно бесполезны без экипировки. Опыт нового игрока, простая арифметика: Загнивание в Базовой Лодке - скучной одиночнои мачте. Первые 12 до 9001 миссий не имеют риска, потому что вы получаете все оборудование бесплатно, а награда - 6000 + 1500 золота за миссию. Ремонтные работы также бесплатны, поэтому вы можете выполнять 3 миссии за один выход ~22К без каких-либо дополнительных затрат. Тогда вы должны получить достаточно денег на 6-й Реит, который обойдется вам в 23К корабля и ~ 70К пушек и ~10К+ за ремонты корпуса. Ваш доход за миссию увеличивается всего до ~ 9000 + 2500 (minus repairs!), а ваш РИСК поднимается до ВСЕГО ПРОГРЕССА, который вы делали раньше. Если вы попали на абордаж или в миссии против двух кораблей, или вы проиграли битву, все ваше ~ ~90K+ золота, корабль и снаряжения потеряно, и вам нужно снова начать с нуля. Зачем рисковать всем когда можно гнобит себя в Базовой Лодке еще 9001 сражений? Вы не можете захватить корабли NPC - весь корабль, мачты которого вы тщательно отстреляли, тщательно взяли на абордаж, часто дает ноль дополнительной прибыли, так как все ее супер дорогие пушки волшебным образом исчезают, а весь корабль оказывается мнимым. Я понимаю причины - чтобы не надувать экономику миссиями. Почему не давать захватывать корабли NPC Fleet в открытом мире, по крайней мере, 6-го уровня или ниже? Почему награда за боевые успехи настолько низкая по сравнению с риском? По сравнению с AFK торговлей? Кто придумал что заставить всех Боевиков подчиниться донату клана или Базовой Лодке - хорошая идея для роста населения открытого мира? English - In brief: - The Risk versus Reward formulas in the game are all messed up. The reward for doing well in battle is near non-existant, with Fighting captains at a huge disadvantage compared to Traders - Starting up a player driven economy without startup capital is ridiculous. Where is the HISTORICAL VENTURE CAPITAL INVESTMENT? - The trading menu is ridiculously poorly designed with game unplayable without offline tools. There is no way to sort by both Production and Lowest-Distance, for example. There is no easy comparison of prices or profit potential. - The player driven economy is extremely broken depending on clans and regions, with some regions at a huge early advantage compared to others - The New Player or Returning Player experience is Horrible and the Redeemable Ships are insultingly useless without cannons Returning player experience: You start out stuck rotting in the Basic Cutter. The first 10-12 missions have No Risk because you get all the equipment for free, and the reward is ~ 6000 + 1500 gold per mission. Repairs are also free, so you can do 3 missions per trip with no extra cost. Then you should get enough money for a 6th rate which costs you ~23K for the ship and ~70K for Cannons and 10K in hull repairs. Your income per mission rises to ONLY ~9000+2500 per mission (minus repairs!), and your RISK rises to the ENTIRE PROGRESS you made before. If you get boarded or unluckily raked in a mission against two ships, or you lose a close fight, your entire ~90K of ship and equipment are lost and you need to start in the Basic Cutter again. You cannot capture NPC ships - the entire ship you carefully de-masted, carefully raked and boarded, can easily provide 0 extra profit, since all her super expensive cannons magically disappear, and the entire ship proves imaginary. I understand the reasons - to avoid inflating the economy - but whey aren't the Open World NPC's capturable, at least the ones of 6th rate or below? Why are the rewards for Combat so low in comparison to the risk? Who thought that forcing all Fighting Captains into Clan donations or Basic Cutter servitude is a good idea to grow the Open World population? This type of "Hunger Game" will lead to the bottom percentile of players constantly burning out and leaving until there is no foundation and no prey for the top percentile to hunt. The result will be starvation for everyone, and a gradual decline. The game needs a growth in player base, not a starvation diet. Learn from EVE and figure this out fast.

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.

This topic about physics of sailing Purpose=More realistic game play 1.)Simple example about Physics While Sailng you must always consider dragging force and lifting force and there is a opposite force which is rudder force.Sail force is forward of hull force by amount 'L', boat will turn downwind unless rudder force is used to correct As you see there is a need for continuous rudder force depends on wind direction and wind force and hull angle and most important of them is sail trim quality(Because Sail trim quailty effects all of them) 2.)İdeas for game content +Adjustable Rudder by degrees(Like ship simulation games,) +Wind Force (Strong Wind, medium wind, gale, etc. İ know there is a topic about wind force) +Sail trim quality(Maybe it can be depends on number of sailing crew, Sailed miles,crew rigging quality, maybe officer ability ) +Speed adjustment depends on rudder positon(higher degrees will decreases speed ) 3.)What İ expected: -Realism -We will not bored while sailing in battles -Harder and mindful battles(harder to create line and staying in line) -Need to consider wind advantage (Captains will not want to lose wind) -Abilty to create advantage from disadvantage situaton(if you have good rigging and assign all your crew to sail then you can reach your max speed while your enemies realoading guns) Exemples 1.)if u set your rudder to 30° it will stay until you change it 1.) if dont set your sails, ship will be turn to the upwind 2.) Ship=Victory Ship=Victory Ship=Victory Wind=Strong from right(90°to the hull) Wind=Strong from right(90°to the hull) Wind=Strong from back right(135°to the hull)(That will decrease angle and aerodynamiclift) Crew on sailing= 300 Crew on sailing= 200 Crew on sailing= 200 Rigging Quality= good Rigging Quality= good Rigging Quality= Bad == == == Expected Speed= 10.1kn Expected Speed= 9.5kn Expected Speed= 10.3kn Expected Rudder Degrees=100 Expected Rudder Degrees=110 Expected Rudder Degrees=115 RUDDER= (left)0__|__ 180(right) (90°is middle) İ try to explain,Sorry for my bad english Kaptann

The game comes across as very realistic, and each update seems to make it even more so. There are some things that jar (and feel more out of place after each update), as they just don't fit, like "clans" instead of "Fleets", or being able to sail by a huge enemy AI fleet with impunity as it never attacks on its own initiative. The way the pirates are now is the same, it just doesn't come across as quite being as realistic as the rest of the game. I have some ideas for pirate benefits, as well as some liabilities that would, I think, (hope) still keep pirates as a faction that people will play, and also be a better fit to the game overall. Benefit: Pirate ships are faster than other player ships Historical basis: Pirates were fanatical about keeping their hulls cleaned, but they lacked shipyards to clean larger ships. Tweak: 5th rate ships and below should keep this benefit, Fourth, and 3rd rate ships should have no benefit, and 2nd and first rate ships would have a minus speed benefit (this also being one reason pirates didn't have larger ships). Benefit: Pirates were better marksmen with guns than even naval marines Historical basis: Pirates had to make landfall and hunt game for food. They had more practice then their military counterparts, and if they didn't become good shots, they went hungry. Tweak: Pirates should have a plus with regards to handguns, and muskets Benefit: Pirates should have a benefit when boarding ships. Historical basis: Everything they did was to ensure ships they wanted to capture would surrender quickly. tweak: Pirates should have boarding bonuses for boarding ships, more so for merchant ships. Liabilities: Pirates didn't have shipyards, even if they did, they wouldn't have naval architects, carpenters, craftsmen, etc. to man the shipyards. Pirates should be limited in the kinds of ships they can craft, offsetting this, they should be able to keep ANY ship they capture. Liability: Pirates didn't have access to brass or iron foundries or casting houses (as per shipyards) Pirates should be limited in their ability to purchase canons above a certain size. Also, pirate gunnery should have a negative modifier above a certain class of cannon as they were challenged to outfit their ships with cannons that were matched sets (another reason they didn't have larger ships like 3rd 2nd and 1st rates). Pirates would be limited to 9 or 12 pound cannons, and large ships (3rd, 2nd and 1st rates) would have negative modifiers to accuracy and damage. If the above were introduced, then pirates would have some significant advantages with regards to 5th rate and lower ships, but would be disadvantaged with 3rd rate and higher ships. More of their ships would be captured ships and fewer would be crafted/purchased, so to be fair, there should be an additional tweak to hit points (or improved damage control...etc) to off set the loss in durability. They would retain an advantage in boarding. 4th rate ships would be on average the same as all other nations. An additional idea would be to allow them easier access to all ports, but have a slight chance of being discovered (in reality, getting caught historically would result in being hung or placed in a gibbet at the ports entrance so all could see the dying pirate, or his corpse)...in game, maybe would result in the loss of the players ship and cargo, or possibly a percentage of wealth in fines (bribes) to escape. I think the above would make pirates a lot more realistic. They gain advantages at the lower level ships, are on par with everyone at the middle levels, but have some disadvantages with larger ships, they lose ship crafting ability, and lose easy access to cannons, but gain the ability to retain all captured ships, including 1st rates. Plus they would have boarding bonuses at all levels. One thing I don't have a suggestion on is fleet size. Pirates only very seldom operated in fleets and then only small groups of ships (up to 3 ships, not very often more than 3). Pirate captains generally didn't submit to another pirates authority, and also there wasn't a huge amount of trust when it came to splitting the spoils afterwards. A large decrease in the amount of prize money and goods could be imposed if the pirates had more than a certain number of ships in a battle but, I can't think of an offset to that (and I did come up with offsets for everything else). As the game is now, it seems pirates have advantages, and no disadvantages and are more like a separate nation than a loose confederation of outlaws. Assuming the game coding would allow the tweaks I'm suggesting, I think the above would make pirates be more like pirates, and still keep them as a viable faction.

Battle ready all the time? I rerally like this game, and the feel of sailing the carribean... however, there is one thing that it lacks.... the differenciation in ships appearance between open world and battle. In the open world have the impression, as if I always sail cleared for action. Gunbs ports are always open, cannons are run out, not boats are visible.... on the other hand huge bright firery lanterns are burning in the middle of an ship to ship engangement.!!?? I really would love to see and think the games reasim would benefit from a few small adjustements on the appearance of the vessels in open world and battle. Imho it would be great if the the following adjustments in the ships apearances could be implemented: Battle: most things are fine as they are, only the lanterns should always be out, as one of the first things every ship of those days did when clearing for battle was to extinguish all fires and lanterns (with exception od some fes, exspecially secured ones in the lower ship). That there are no live or work boats is ok too, as they were mostly cast overboard (if not towed) to lower the risk of splinter injuries. Some small things however that could be done - even so they are not important but would add to the realism. There could be added some chains, which were used to secure the yardarms better than with rope only There could be nettings added which where streched across the weather deck (above the heads of the sailors) to shield them from falling parts of the rigging The hammocks could be put in the nets at the gunale and in the mast platforms, where they were placed to protect the crew and marines from musket fire etc. Add some more crew (Officers on the quarter deck, helmsmen and maybe marines - if they are equipped) Open world: Here on the other hand, the live or work boats should be visibly abord, e.g. hanging at the rear davits and/or palced on the gratings midships. Also the gun ports should be closed and the guns on the weather deck inside, so not protruding, as on the voyage cannons were fixed so that the muzzles were inside the board walls. It would be great to have some crew in the open world too, at least an officer of the watch on the quarter deck and a helmsman, as without, you always have the impression to command a ghost ship! :-) I think this diffeence and the transition from traveling to fighting vessel would add a huge bit to the realism of the game. Thanks for considering and for the good work done on a great game till now!!! Harry McHackou, Commodore

Ahoy Matees! I want to mention a couple observations and suggestions on the sailing mechanics in regards to leeway and currents. LEEWAY I don't know if this has been covered yet and forgive me about lacking clarity in trying to convey but I haven't noticed any LEEWAY (the sideways drift of a ship to leeward of the desired course). When on a beam reach (the wind is coming from the side {65-125 degrees }), my ship should move slightly down wind or leeward. Leeway should increase the more lateral wind there is pushing your sails. Leeway also increases with heel. I know this is a very complex mechanic and not neccessarily neccessary, but it would enhance realism, strategy, and players' appreciation for sailing. DANGER OF LEEWAY: LEE SHORE Also, historically, especially with square-rigged sails, a lee shore was a dreaded thought for sailors. This is when shore is within sight but the wind is headed directly towards it. This is bad because even if a vessel is close hauled, the wind pushes the boat back towards the wind. Sure, the boat may be moving "forward" but in reality the boat is veering and will innevitably head closer to shore and if the wind never changes, would innevitably run aground, despite best possible efforts at tacking. Anchoring is the only hope here. But I digress, it may not be necessary. CURRENT and TIDES Now in the sea trials I have tried to crash into the lighthouse and found that it is not programmed to be crashed into. (I just flew right through it). I know that open world will be the more appropriate time to test the mechanics of running aground and currents. But I just want to reiterate the importance of currents in sailing. Tides and their ebb and flow were crucial to timing when a ship would enter or leave a port efficiently. Also, open water currents would often perplex sailors in navigation and could be a fun addition to long distance travel in the game. I hope this was somewhat clear and I would be happy to try to re-explain.