Damage Model

[admin]

Hello Everyone;

 

We would like to briefly cover our system for sinking the ship that we are finishing now.

 

1. The ship side armor (wood) has certain amount of HP (hitpoints)


2. Armor is split into right, left, stern and bow armor. So to increase survivability the player will have to maneuver changing broadsides (showing healthier side armor to the enemy) 


3. When HP of side armor is reduced to a certain level (for example 20%) that side start taking water through leaks (DoT) that fills the ship with water


4. This water can be pumped out by the crew (who can do it better if player sends more sailors to survival functions, lowering maneuver and reload


5. Ship will also lean to the side that is leaking


6. When the amount of water taken reaches a certain level it starts an irreversible process of sinking, if the player have spent all repair (e.g. repair kits)


7. Sinking ship can still fight for a certain time (with penalties)


8. When the amount of water reaches a final level the ship goes under

Ship basically can be taken out of combat without it going under; for example some side planking is destroyed, certain % of cannons destroyed and crew killed or injured, BUT because leaks are small ship can still try to fight in a semi-disabled state. (Or player can decide to surrender)

 

We would like to hear your opinion, feedback and constructive critique on this.

[Digby]

I would not have stern and bow "armour", these two aspects of the ship were highly vulnerable to enemy fire, but not in terms of a target to sink them, but in terms of firing cannonshot down the length of the vessel and so disabling more crew and guns than a shot coming inboard through the broadside would. The large glass-paned windows of the stern cabins were easily the most vulnerable part of a ship but firing into them would hardly add anything to contributing to sinking it, it would though disable far more crew on the gundecks.

 

Shots fired along the decks from a bow position were likewise effective at disabling crew and guns, though less so.

 

So shots fired into these two areas do not contribute to sinking the ship at all, or very little, but just do much more damage to crew and guns, stern raking shots more so than bow raking shots. The masts could even be severely weakened by shots striking them where they pass through the lower decks.

 

Also note that stern/bow rakes to be effective need to be done at extremely short range, something under about 100 yards probably so that the gunners can be sure of getting a shot on target. Point blank is obviously best.

 

Please do not use a system of armour/strength and gun HP. Its a horrible system, really crude and cannot replicate reality at all.

 

The concept of "armour" and HP is a really primitive gameplay idea that has been in use in games for decades. With a computer you have the ability now to actually detect where individual shots are travelling and where they strike. Can you not design a system that relies on actual ballistics and where shots fall? You can punch huge holes in a wooden ships side all day and it won't sink, if you're hitting well above the waterline (which is where most shots were aimed). Some stresses will be transmited to the ships structure by any heavy blow so some minor leaks will start after a ship has been hit in most places low in the hull. A ship sinks in a storm often because the pounding and shifting sea is placing undue strains on the hull, opening up seams so that leaking water overcomes the capacity of the pumps.

 

So there would be minor stress and strain that induces leaking from some shots. You need to do calculations on the mass of shot against the thickness of the timbers at the point that shot strikes to determine how much strain/leaking could be caused. A shot punching a hole right through some light scantling is going to look impresive and it'll disable crewmen with splinters but it won't cause leaks. However a 32lb heavy shot thudding against a 2ft thick main sidewall is going to impart stresses deep into the hull. It'll bounce off without going through and hardly appear to do any damage at all, but deep in the structure of the ship, it'll cause stresses that will shift timbers against each other and maybe start leaks.

 

So some shots that seem to be causing impressive damage high up on a vessel's sides should not be doing very much to a ships vitals at all - but they will be disabling many crew. This would be about 80% of all shots hitting (that are fired at the hull - shots at the rigging are not being discussed here - that's a different topic). Crew and guns are what suffer most.

 

Other shots that strike the main timbers will not penetrate - 2ft thick oak will keep out any low-velocity black powder iron shot with ease - though lighter vessels like frigates and sloops would be in serious trouble. This is why sloops and frigates stayed away from ships of the line, because their weight of broadshide stood a high chance of punching through the smaller ships side timbers and letting in water. This might account for another 15% of hits.

So you have shots striking thin upper areas, passing right through gunports or coming down the decks from stern or bow rakes all doing a lot of harm to crew and guns, and possibly having a small chance of striking a mast and weakening the main rig. Almost none of these shots seriously harm a wooden ship. A few leaks, but probably nothing the pumps can't cope with.

 

Then you have shots striking the heavy main timbers which keep them out and don't seem to do much damage but do all have a small cumulative effect on leaking. These shots do zero damage to guns, crew and rig, but harm the water integrity of the hull.

 

You might then get a third kind of shot that strikes very low on the hull side and does not penetrate but where it hits is on or below the waterline so that the effect of its force more directly causes leaks in a more vulnerable area. Here is where the other 5% of shots might strike.

 

Big wooden warships very rarely sank in battle. They were usually so shot about and the rig shot away and unable to manouver, and with so many crew disabled that the surviving officers would strike their colours. There are some beautiful painings of Trafalgar that show French and Spanish ships disabled and helpless but still very much afloat and still fighting. Its generally a rule that the crew of a ship will surrender long before any chance of the ship sinking takes place.

Please make this a feature of your games. The crazy, silly Hollywood crap in Empire: Total War with ships blazing like torches, exploding and sinking everywhere is complete rubbish. Please, please don't make a game as dreadful as that. Fire was very rare, ships almost never burned and the accounts of wooden ships burning at battles are well-known because they were significantly rare, such as L'Orient burning and exploding at the Battle of the Nile in 1798.

Ships did sink - I mentioned above that small ships like sloops, frigates, brigs, etc had such thin wooden walls in compariosn to SoLs that heavy (24lb, 32lb) shot could punch straight through them and sink them within a few minutes, but a frigate fighting a frigate would mean that neither ship had sufficient weight of shot to seriously compromise the integrity of their opponent's hull. And ships of the line pretty much never sank in battle.

 

The mass of the striking shot should be calculated (6lb, 9lb, 12lb, 18lb, 24lb, 32lb, 36lb - all impart a greater and greater impact) against the thickness of the timbers at the point of strike. You don't have to do lots of research to get this data. Every solid shot weight and force is found by simple calculation. Once you get a decent drawing of one ship of each type you wish to use you can use the thicknesses on the different parts across all ships of that type (but add variations such as green timber which the Russians often used), etc. So your game engine will know how powerful every shot is, where it is hitting, the thickness of timber at that point, where the waterline is, what crew are nearby, etc, etc.

 

A proper ballistics and fall of shot model is the only way to do this properly. It'll give you such a superb game as well and will produce authentic results.

So many ships sank after Trafalgar because their hulls were strained and leaking and the subsequent storm placed stresses on the weakened hulls that they could not contain, letting in more water than they would have in an undamaged condition.

So your average Age of Sail combat is about forcing the other crew to give up, more than trying to sink his ship (in fact, you didn't want to sink his ship, you always wanted to take it as a prize and get the prize money - or if you were a pirate, sell the cargo and ransom the passengers).

Work your design on those lines and you'll have a great game.

[admin]

That's all good stuff (some possible some technically impossible we will consider it). We prefer working system in game over ideal system on paper - not everything can be done fast. We will respond in detail to your ideas later once we get more opinions 

 

lets get more opinions please on the system suggested in the topic.

[Digby]

BTW, just so you are aware, Storm Eagle Studios "Distant Guns" series uses an individual shot trajectory and point of strike system in its calculations, so an accurate ballistics system is practical. Their games are set in the 1905 Russo-Japanese War and WWI so the kinds of damage done inboard with an explosive shell are a lot different, but the fundamentals are the same.

 

And their ship to ship combaat is stunning, the damage modelling is excellent, which is another reason to take such a route.

 

Your system described with points 1 thru 8 is fine. It'll work because that exact same system has been used in dozens of games, going right back to board games in the 1970s like "Men of Iron". What I'm saying is that by taking a different approach, something different and ground-breaking (which in itself becomes a strong selling point of the game) you'll get a much better game, far more realistic.

[admin]

BTW, just so you are aware, Storm Eagle Studios "Distant Guns" series uses an individual shot trajectory and point of strike system in its calculations, so an accurate ballistics system is practical. Their games are set in the 1905 Russo-Japanese War and WWI so the kinds of damage done inboard with an explosive shell are a lot different, but the fundamentals are the same.

 

And their ship to ship combaat is stunning, the damage modelling is excellent, which is another reason to take such a route.

 

 

simulating everything does not make the game fun or interesting - it's mostly a combination of factors not only realism. One of the factors is actually a number of players and the community that plays with you..

In this matter we would like to note that if their ship combat was stunning it would probably be on steam most playable games? There are some pretty hardcore simulations on Steam like football manager or arma with a lot more players than distant guns.

[Barberouge]

You said in the Game Introduction thread: "Weather and ship conditions will also affect your aim: a pitching ship due to damage or stormy seas will change the way you fire your broadside." Do you mean that the player himself will have to aim ? Can the captain target a specific part of a ship ? Could you elaborate on that please ?

[admin]

You said in the Game Introduction thread: "Weather and ship conditions will also affect your aim: a pitching ship due to damage or stormy seas will change the way you fire your broadside." Do you mean that the player himself will have to aim ? Can the captain target a specific part of a ship ? Could you elaborate on that please ?

 

• You cannot aim at a particular part of the ship with the broadside especially when you are firing at more than 200 yards. Cannons were very innacurate at that time and most of the combat was done at a shorter range. There are rare examples of large payouts for crews who were able to take the mast down with the lucky shot. 
• Player himself will have to aim: judge distance, enemy relative speed, and provide cannon angle (from 0 to 6 to 15 degrees depending on cannon) and that's it. 
• We will provide short description of the damage model later

 

Digby is suggesting to provide very detailed info for every ball collision with the ship, which could be possible at a later stage once server tech is stabilized. He also offers the example of the modern ship with much smaller number of cannons (less shots to calculate). We now calculate every ball on the server and with 30-40 ships of the line in the battle it might seriously hinder the server, so we prefer to start slow and expand depth as we go. 

 

ps. we use fully authoritative server tech where every calculation, every number, every collision is done on the servers to avoid cheaters, hacking and other things that are ruining PC multiplayer for many.

[Barberouge]

• Player himself will have to aim: judge distance, enemy relative speed, and provide cannon angle (from 0 to 6 to 15 degrees depending on cannon) and that's it. 

1. Both vertically and horizontally ? Degree per degree ?

 

 

• You cannot aim at a particular part of the ship with the broadside especially when you are firing at more than 200 yards.

2. If a player can change vertical or horizontal aiming, wouldn't that change the part of the ship the balls are going to ? Let's say at less than 200 yards.

 

3. Also, how are the graphics affected by a broadside ?

4. Can a player shoot without any target ?

5. Can a player see how the other ships are damaged ?

6. Can a player see the distance to other ships ?

7. I guess aiming is done battery per battery ?

[admin]

1. Both vertically and horizontally ? Degree per degree ?

 

2. If a player can change vertical or horizontal aiming, wouldn't that change the part of the ship the balls are going to ? Let's say at less than 200 yards.

 

3. Also, how are the graphics affected by a broadside ?

4. Can a player shoot without any target ?

5. Can a player see how the other ships are damaged ?

6. Can a player see the distance to other ships ?

7. I guess aiming is done battery per battery ?

 

1. Rougly - you do it with a mouse raising or lowering cannons angle (for all cannons)

2. Horizontal not so much - you have a sector where you can shoot

3. Did not understand the question

4. You can shoot without a target, within a sector - even at a friendly

5. You see their state (right now a HP bar) eventually you will be able to see it visually as well within a couple of months some parts of this system will be done

6. Yes. We assume you are experienced enough to correctly estimate the distance through a looking glass

7. Aiming is done deck by deck (if they some are not reloaded) or by full broadside.

[Adair]

With aiming, it really depended on range and intention.

 

Let's define some terms. Long-range, short-range, and point-blank.

 

Long range is anything from maximum down to two hundred yards. You can direct your crews to fire at sails and rigging OR the hull. That's it. AT BEST! In every account, novel, or document I've ever read, this is the very best one can hope for.

 

At short range, which is less than 200 yards, but greater than 30, you can direct your crews to aim for masts, waterline, rigging, or general hull. Mind you, general hull is mostly to kill cannons, and this is where some of the heaviest armor will come into play.

 

At point-blank range, you'll be limited by elevation, and your fire will often be hampered by smoke, but you can hit almost anything you damn well please with competent gunners. Only something as 'thin' as a mast will be problematic, and only then because of smoke and the general havoc of that range.

 

I am very ,very much in mind with Digby's disdain of 'armor' for raking fire. I very much like the notion that this causes much more crew damage than structural damage. I continue to reiterate that Crew Is Everything. Without them. you have a floating box with sails. Nothing more.

[Barberouge]

Thinking about your answers, one thing comes to mind: is aiming really necessary ? Are we the captain, the master gunner, the battery master gunners, the gunners ? You said managing sails individually was too complicated, and I can understand that: send 10 men on the rigging to hoist the topgallant, send 2 men to position it to 45°... The sails are better automatically managed.

 

So the horizontal aiming would be automatic, but not the vertical aiming ? What about carronades or other topdeck cannons (placed on a pivot) that could have a much wider horizontal angle, that could be directed down to the opponents decks ? How to judge the relative speed if the horizontal angle is automatically adjusted ? What's the point of aiming vertically if we already know the distance ? When I try a ship for the first time, I test the best angle for each battery at each distance, write it on a paper, and read it each time I shoot. That's overcomplicated management, not skill. Also each battery features a specific poundage, each poundage features a specific ballistic curve - so how is it possible to aim with the same angle for the full broadside ?

 

It seems you created the aiming feature with this in mind: "what about shooting a first broadside, and depending on the result correcting the angle ?" I'm not a ballistic professional, or maybe I missed something ? But I have the impression we should only manage the captain decisions: when to shoot a battery and where to aim it (not how to aim it). Also don't forget that in some situations, a full broadside can't be shot. For example, a ship sails perpendicularly very close to the rear of another, trying to hit its stern. When it passes the stern, the cannons have to be shot one after another.

 

1. So I'd rather see a system like that: the player selects a battery (or the full broadside), puts his mouse on a zone somewhere in the ocean, and the battery master gunners do their duty, aiming all the cannons that have a possible angle to that direction. The cursor would change from a point at long ranges to an horizontal bar at shorter ranges. If you really want a "let's correct the angle" situation, there could be an accuracy increase depending on the number of successive same batteries a player would shoot at the (almost) same range.

 

2. If you really want some aiming with skill, the master gunners shouldn't do the angle correction for longer ranges: the mouse cursor pointed on the ocean would indicate the cannons angle without range correction. Then there could be an option to apply a range correction angle battery per battery. But the distance shouldn't be displayed.

 

Please correct me if I missed something.

 

 

1. or 2. would enable what was the purpose of my questions: being able to target a specific part of a ship when it is close enough.

[Barberouge]

I'll try to answer to your original post, but how a ship sinks depends on how the hull model takes damage, and that depends on the damage model. Basically I agree with Digby: your hull model is much too simple. Let's say a system has to be found to avoid a full ballistic system.

 

1. The ship side armor (wood) has certain amount of HP (hitpoints)
2. Armor is split into right, left, stern and bow armor. So to increase survivability the player will have to maneuver changing broadsides (showing healthier side armor to the enemy) 
3. When HP of side armor is reduced to a certain level (for example 20%) that side start taking water through leaks (DoT) that fills the ship with water
4. This water can be pumped out by the crew (who can do it better if player sends more sailors to survival functions, lowering maneuver and reload
5. Ship will also lean to the side that is leaking
6. When the amount of water taken reaches a certain level it starts an irreversible process of sinking, if the player have spent all repair (e.g. repair kits)
7. Sinking ship can still fight for a certain time (with penalties)
8. When the amount of water reaches a final level the ship goes under

 

 

1. Instead of HP, I would call that Planking Area or Planking Integrity.

 

2. If the planking has to be separated, I'd rather put more zones: the bow zone should be able to be hit from the sides. Solution: more horizontal zones.

 

3. First problem: the model you propose isn't realistic. Like Digby said, whether a ship sinks doesn't depend on the overall integrity of the planking, but on the integrity of the planking that touches the water. Solution: more vertical zones. I'm fine with water overall flooding one side (port or starboard), but then what about bow or stern ? (see: more horizontal zones)

 

 

I'm fine with the leaks + DoT + water system.

 

4. I'm not sure too many men could be sent on the pumps. I think each ship had a limited number of pumps, and each pump had a maximum number of men. Sending men to the pumps shouldn't be critical to the other parts of the ship. However, how fast the men pump could depend on their morale and their tiredness.

 

Pump flow in m^3/minute = maximum pump flow * ( moral + tiredness % ) * number of men  / maximum men per pump

 

5. Which could be related to the vertical zones of the planking. Depending on the natural roll, pitch, the swell and the flood lean, more or less damaged planking area would touch the water.

 

6. Second problem: the repairs shouldn't be simulated like in PotBS, i.e. I click and the ship is repaired over time until the cool-down timer is up again. Repairs should be simulated like the pump system. A captain sends more or less men (with no limitation ?) to a part of the ship.

 

Repaired area in m²/minute = maximum repairing rate per man * ( moral + tiredness % ) * number of men

 

There would be a maximum area to be possibly repaired, depending on the wood reserves a ship would carry.

Also some leaks shouldn't be able to be repaired (or at least not as quickly as the basic leaks). The structure itself could be weakened if a beam or a shelf would take lots of hits, requiring more specific wooden pieces. And large leaks would generate such a water flow that simply nailing planks couldn't be possible.

 

7. A ship would see its sailing characteristics diminished depending on the volume of water and the area of the big leaks.

[Marquiz]

 

4. I'm not sure too many men could be sent on the pumps. I think each ship had a limited number of pumps, and each pump had a maximum number of men. Sending men to the pumps shouldn't be critical to the other parts of the ship. However, how fast the men pump could depend on their morale and their tiredness.

 

Pump flow in m^3/minute = maximum pump flow * ( moral + tiredness % ) * number of men  / maximum men per pump

[...]

6. Second problem: the repairs shouldn't be simulated like in PotBS, i.e. I click and the ship is repaired over time until the cool-down timer is up again. Repairs should be simulated like the pump system. A captain sends more or less men (with no limitation ?) to a part of the ship.

 

Repaired area in m²/minute = maximum repairing rate per man * ( moral + tiredness % ) * number of men

 

There would be a maximum area to be possibly repaired, depending on the wood reserves a ship would carry.

Iam fine with this.

Digby wrote a very detail and realistic way ,with cannonballs going thought ship hull but i think spiting hull into sections , horizontal ,and vertical and adding few parameters too each section will be enought for simple symulation game. 

 

So parametrs:

 buoyancy ,planking, hull main structure (beams, columns), crew, equiment on this section,like wise guns ,or other things (cannons, hull patches, gun powder barells ect.) 

1.  planking first ,  if - does shoot bounce or got trought , i bounce ,do nothing , if got trought apply damage to crew from splinters and cannonball

2. if planking is servely damage (50%+ is chance to bleed damage to hull structure (beams, colums, masts other).

3. if structure is servely damge in this section apply damage to all sections connect with this. ( if any of these sections is underwater we got more leaks)

 

4. if shoot is below waterline (got leaks ,, reduced by pumping out water ,but this leaks dont does damage, like cannonball or Dot, but flood ship with water. And this give handicap to all ship sailing charateristic.

5. Each sections have strict buoyancy parametr if flooding is over buoyancy this section is flooded and ship may heel over this side of section. Heel depends on how many section in hull we have on all ship.

Ofc SoL have better buoyancy than frigate and frigate than brig. Because SoL have more sections than frigates.

This is sketch how this damage model might be.

[Barberouge]

 

We now calculate every ball on the server and with 30-40 ships of the line in the battle it might seriously hinder the server, so we prefer to start slow and expand depth as we go.

 

 

The hull view would look like this with a simple bow/stern/port/starboard system:

 

 

Center grey = dry hull volume, center blue = water

 

Brown = planking, white = small leaks, white+black = unrepairable leaks

 

The ship took 2 broadsides on port, repaired but the water continues flowing (still 17% damaged), changed sides, took a single battery on the stern that doesn't require repairs yet, and just took a broadside on starboard.

 

 

 

Also, how to calculate the water flood flow:

 

 

The 17% port damage is spread on the whole side from the "waterline" to the rail. The 15° list is due to natural roll (5°) and the flood lean (10°). It makes for 30% of the side being all the time under water (100% flow), and 20% being either under water or not (rounded to 50% flow), depending on the swell (for example, 2 meters swell).

 

The total side area (from "waterline" to rail, stern to bow) being 300m², damaged by 17% (see picture 1), the average area opened to water is 300 * 0.17 * ( 0.3 + 0.2 * 0.5 ) = 20 m²

 

Water having a speed of 2m/s, the water flow into the hull is 40m^3/s.

 

Numbers are wrong but you get the idea.

 

This enables interesting choices: pump or leak, repair or reload, flood or change tack... The leeward fleet would have an exposed hull zone disadvantage, but the windward fleet may not be able to open its lower gundeck portholes and would have an exposed topdeck. Tactics, tactics

 

With more horizontal and vertical zones, the damage can be split into the bow, the front of the side, the middle of the side, the rear of the side and the stern. And also into under the waterline, from the waterline to the lower gundeck, the lower gundeck, the middeck, the upper deck, the forescastle, the rigging... Making targetting specific zones at close range very interesting. (with cones of damage x,y spreading the balls into near zones)

 

The more zones the more ship schematics needed though. But if the systems are complex enough, the combat will feel fast without breaking the realism effect.

[Barberouge]

How the sea and weather will be modeled will have a major impact on how a ship will sink, and overall on how battles will be fought.

 

A small ship in a medium swell would feel like a big ship in a big swell. A small ship in a big swell would feel like a floating cap. A big ship in a medium swell would have water coming high to its sides without having too much roll/pitch...

 

Will the wind be steady or will there be blows ? Will the swell direction sometimes be different from the wind direction ?

 

I don't have the necessary vocabulary but you get the idea. Build a complex sea/weather model, and the combat sailing could actually be very interesting.

[Digby]

There are some pretty hardcore simulations on Steam like football manager or arma with a lot more players than distant guns.

Just to close this part of the discussion down and I don't want to wander any more off topic but sadly DG had other problems. It had a rather invasive DRM which caused big chunks of the gaming community to distrust the devs and boycott their game and unfortunately the AI was extremely weak. MP play though was superb and it was there that the gunnery and damage models really shone. It was a great pity, since this aspect of the game was brilliant but it was sunk (literally) by other problems quite unrelated to how good the physics engine was.

 

You chose two rather unfair examples to compare it to though, since DG was a niche game by a garage company aimed at wargamers so it was always going to have a small market. Football Manager has a VAST market and ArmAII's sales exploded in May last year when the DayZ mod was released. Football games and zombies have a much wider appeal than WWI warship combat... and considerably more than the Russo-Japanese War!

 

But anyway, enough about DG. But there's lessons to be learned there regarding DRM and good AI.

 

You need not go for a calculation of every shot fired and where it hits if the sheer numbers of shot flying around the battlespace are too high  - and I can well imagine they might be once you get around 8 ships or so in an action. I gave some rough percentages of where shots ought to strike (80% on thin upperworks where the damage falls on crew and guns but ship itself is not injured; 15% main above waterline timbers where apparent damage is minimal, few or no loss to crew and guns but streess cause leaks; 5% shots low on or at waterline where again apparent damage is minimal but leaks are worse). With most of the shots hitting the upperworks in your game calculations and a crew morale check system you should find that most ships will strike their colours before they get near a risk of sinking, so such a system is still a practical proposition even without  a specific ballistics model per shot.

 

As to ships pumps which were hand-cranked as Barberouge was saying, putting more crew onto the pumps would mean you'd have men spare and resting, and not tired ready to take a "shift" on working the pump, so with a number of rested or semi-rested crewmen available the averge speed at which the pumps could be worked would be higher. One group of about 10-12 men would work the pumps in a frenzy, very fast and they'd tire quickly, but then the next set of 10-12 guys would take over. Adding more men adds more "shifts" so each "shift" can rest longer and be more efficient when they take over but you waste many men idle awaiting their "shift", so it becomes a minigame within the game if you like - not always a good thing.

 

I personally would not want to see too much crew- and ship- systems micro-management as the game may be in danger of becoming a click-fest and that would spoil the mood of an age of sail battle. Perhaps a player could have a set of "automanage" buttons to set various tasks to different settings and then forget about it.

 

Sorry... OT, we were talking about a sinking and damage model.

[BullpupBarrie]

I agree with Barberouge, the captain (player) shouldn't be aiming the guns.  Aiming and firing the guns should be down to the individual gunners (i.e. automatic).

 

I realise the desire is to incorporate some skill into the shooting but 90% of the skill should be in laying your ship alongside that of an enemy - in the most advantageous position you can get.  Perhaps the player should have to time the broadsides to coincide with the roll of the ship or something. (Like in Assassins Creed ship combat - don't turn your noses up, if it was slowed down by an order of magnitude, and the developers realised that beating one tough enemy ship is more exciting than two hundred easy ones, it would be a really good reference point for how to make a fun naval game).

 

Whatever system is finally implemented the important thing is to make sure that well practised players are not able to land hits regularly at very long ranges, or we'll end up with extreme range encounters and not the point blank engagements we're after.

 

 

 

Regarding the damage/sinking model, whilst Digby's suggestions are everyone's dream outcome, clearly some compromise is required.

 

I was going to suggest something similar to Barberouge - splitting each ship up into horizontal slices - we could call them decks!  Thus you would have upper gun deck, gun deck, lower gun deck, orlop, hold or something like that for a big ship.  Did ships of this period have watertight compartments?  If not then fore/aft or vertical subdivision is maybe not necessary anyway.

 

I think you just need to separate "armour" from "hitpoints" along the lines outlined above by Marquiz.  "Armour" (I hate that term in this context but it will do) could be a value that has to be penetrated before damage is applied to whatever is on that deck.  For example crew and guns for a gun deck.  You could simulate Digby's 15% of strikes against the larger timbers by just having 15% of all shots that hit having to penetrate a much higher armour value.The armour value itself should indeed slowly degenerate as more and more of the planking is shot away. 

 

Similarly, 5% of shots hitting could be applied to the deck just below the waterline.  Only damage to the deck below the waterline would count for flooding - plus perhaps the next deck up depending on the sea swell.  If someone specifically aims for the waterline then this figure could be raised slightly, but i guess most shots then would strike the water first* so it should end up being much more practical to deliver your shots into the enemy's gun decks and reduce their ability to fight back rather than attempting to actually sink them.

 

Also, please no Hit Point Bars, or at least give me an option to turn them off.  I don't care about being at a disadvantage, I'd just rather not have them.

 

 

*As an aside, does anyone know if skipping/ricochets really happened?  I know they'll be beyond the scope of this game but am just curious having read conflicting info on it.

 

EDIT - posted this just before Digby's last comment.

[Adair]

 

*As an aside, does anyone know if skipping/ricochets really happened?  I know they'll be beyond the scope of this game but am just curious having read conflicting info on it.

 

EDIT - posted this just before Digby's last comment.

 

Oh yes, absolutely. However, every time the ball skipped it lost a lot of energy. 

[admin]

1) We are getting feedback on the terms. "HP is bad" , "Armor is bad", etc. State of the ship's timbers or hull is what then? If you shoot at a ship side for a long time at certain point it will disintegrate to a state where it will not hold cannonballs or water. What we wanted to discuss is the system. not the naming   .

 

2) Full realism systems simulating every plank are not necessary, that is only good for marketing BS that we kind of hate, and it will take much longer to develop and balance. Side planking, timbers, armor (pick the term you like) that does or does not allow the cannonball to go further into the ship and damage cannons, crew and internal modules provides the same result: to show gradual disintegration of the hull, shifting timbers, and other things. Smaller shots will not penetrate it at all, 42lb cannonballs will make this process faster.  

 

On the side note.. we currently simulate every ball, we know where it hits, and how it moves inside the ship. Iron ball can hit the side penetrate the port, destroy the cannon, kill 4 men from the crew, stun the master gunner then hit another cannon on another side of the ship. Sudden wave after you fired can eat half of your broadside at a critical time. Because every ball is calculated you can hit multiple ships with one broadside if they are standing in parallel. 

 

We have the best and most detailed damage system right now for a sailing game. Digby is obvioulsy spoiled (calling our system primitive and crude) and we all would love to know what he plays to see that deep and exciting damage simulator.

 

But this topic was on sinking mechanics - so please stay on topic. 

[Digby]

Full realism systems simulating every plank are not necessary, that is only good for marketing BS that we kind of hate

Every time you post now, I am disliking your attitude towards game development less and less. I can see I made a mistake hoping this game would be what I wanted. In the end far too many devs just want to make money, sometimes even in a seemingly greedy way, and are not committed to designing a great or groundbreaking game.

 

If the game is going to be a WoT clone you can have the ships behave like rubber ducks, because the kinds of players you'll attract won't care.

[Verhoeven]

1) We are getting feedback on the terms. "HP is bad" , "Armor is bad", etc. State of the ship's timbers or hull is what then? If you shoot at a ship side for a long time at certain point it will disintegrate to a state where it will not hold cannonballs or water. What we wanted to discuss is the system. not the naming   .

 

2) Full realism systems simulating every plank are not necessary, that is only good for marketing BS that we kind of hate, and it will take much longer to develop and balance. Side planking, timbers, armor (pick the term you like) that does or does not allow the cannonball to go further into the ship and damage cannons, crew and internal modules provides the same result: to show gradual disintegration of the hull, shifting timbers, and other things. Smaller shots will not penetrate it at all, 42lb cannonballs will make this process faster.  

 

On the side note.. we currently simulate every ball, we know where it hits, and how it moves inside the ship. Iron ball can hit the side penetrate the port, destroy the cannon, kill 4 men from the crew, stun the master gunner then hit another cannon on another side of the ship. Sudden wave after you fired can eat half of your broadside at a critical time. Because every ball is calculated you can hit multiple ships with one broadside if they are standing in parallel. 

 

We have the best and most detailed damage system right now for a sailing game. Digby is obvioulsy spoiled (calling our system primitive and crude) and we all would love to know what he plays to see that deep and exciting damage simulator.

 

But this topic was on sinking mechanics - so please stay on topic. 

 

With all due respect dear Admin. You asked your potential customers to come up with ideas and suggestions. Well they put the effort into it bringing tons of ideas. Be glad with any involvement! Maybe some do not fit in your strategy or the game you have in mind. That is fine. You have to be able to deal with some criticism here. You can not doubt the good intentions all forum members have. And so far I have not seen any forum member behave absurd or disrespectful. But to be honest, I find some of your responsess not very respectful, even some are probably meant in a sarcastic way.

[admin]

Verhoeven

Customer is almost always right. If it happened it never happened on purpose. We are very direct, and with good intentions as well.

[Barberouge]

1) We are getting feedback on the terms. "HP is bad" , "Armor is bad", etc. State of the ship's timbers or hull is what then? If you shoot at a ship side for a long time at certain point it will disintegrate to a state where it will not hold cannonballs or water. What we wanted to discuss is the system. not the naming   .

 

2) Full realism systems simulating every plank are not necessary, that is only good for marketing BS that we kind of hate, and it will take much longer to develop and balance. Side planking, timbers, armor (pick the term you like) that does or does not allow the cannonball to go further into the ship and damage cannons, crew and internal modules provides the same result: to show gradual disintegration of the hull, shifting timbers, and other things. Smaller shots will not penetrate it at all, 42lb cannonballs will make this process faster.  

 

On the side note.. we currently simulate every ball, we know where it hits, and how it moves inside the ship. Iron ball can hit the side penetrate the port, destroy the cannon, kill 4 men from the crew, stun the master gunner then hit another cannon on another side of the ship. Sudden wave after you fired can eat half of your broadside at a critical time. Because every ball is calculated you can hit multiple ships with one broadside if they are standing in parallel. 

 

We have the best and most detailed damage system right now for a sailing game. Digby is obvioulsy spoiled (calling our system primitive and crude) and we all would love to know what he plays to see that deep and exciting damage simulator.

 

But this topic was on sinking mechanics - so please stay on topic. 

 

0) I was going to give more feedback about aiming and hull parts, the armor itself and the balls, and the crew management but that may have been OT. I'm reluctant to create new topics because they could be covered by more precise topics related to the actual state of the game, and I don't want to involve too much blind thinking time. But I like the way the first subjects were discussed in topics created by Admin: Marine Uniforms - Flags, Ensigns, Banners - Clan and Guild Content - Wind and its role - 1 on 1 - Sinking ships. So feel free to create new topics (related to what you are working on, or to what you saw in feeback), so that the forums are shaped in a way that fits you and gives users room to express their feedback without OT. Or would you prefer that the players create new topics ?

 

You can experience the "game" already, you know what you will do, might do or not. It's difficult for us to imagine what sinking could be without imagining what the sea, the weather, the hull, the cannons, the game interface could be.

 

1) The system has been discussed aswell. The names have their importance, especially in a domain where vocabulary is so vast and specific. In your OP, you introduce subjects that aren't directly related to sinking. You said that when the HP hits 20% the ship starts leaking water. But the armor can't be a HP bar. The armor is in fact at least a 2D form with lenght and height (not to mention depth, density or different parts).

 

2) There is full realism but there is PotBS (for example) where there is HP bar and sinking: no aiming, no lean, no water, the ship disappears when the HP is down to 0. The fact that in this game there will be leaks, water and leaning leads to imagining related systems that could create realism feeling and interesting gameplay.

 

 

 

3) So back on sinking only. The armor retains water or doesn't (holes).

 

If there is side leaning, front/rear leaning could be interesting aswell. Whether there is water coming through the holes depends on many parameters. Some holes will always be under water, some will temporarily be under water. To know how much water enters the ship, what is important is when the holes touch water. This is very complex, because the sea (the swell, the waves) is very complex. There are dozens and dozens of states of the sea (like clouds). Let's consider the hull as a half of a cylinder. Here are some possible parameters:

 

- where the holes are

- the lowest level of the water

- the height of the water

- the lateral leaning

- the longitudinal leaning

 

It's up to you to choose some of those parameters, and create formulas. You can choose a lot of parameters, you can choose a few. You can build complex formulas, you can build simple ones. You can choose 4 HP bars, from 20% to 10% the water flow is countered by the pumps, at 10% the ship sinks. The question is: which parameters and formulas will create realism feeling and interesting gameplay ?

 

So here are my questions:

 

a. how did you model the sea ?

b. what do you think about what has already been discussed in this topic concerning the sinking system ? (except terms and full realism)

[BullpupBarrie]

.......On the side note.. we currently simulate every ball, we know where it hits, and how it moves inside the ship. Iron ball can hit the side penetrate the port, destroy the cannon, kill 4 men from the crew, stun the master gunner then hit another cannon on another side of the ship. Sudden wave after you fired can eat half of your broadside at a critical time. Because every ball is calculated you can hit multiple ships with one broadside if they are standing in parallel...........

Well that sounds fantastic actually.

 

Please note for my part I didn't mean "hit points" were necessarily a bad, evil, thing - I just don't want to see bright yellow Hit Point Bars in the user interface so please include an option to turn them off if possible.

 

I think the salient point everyone is trying to make is that simply saying a ship starts to sink when its hitpoints are down to 20% is a big oversimplification.  All the damage might be to the upper decks which won't cause flooding at all, especially in a calm sea (were naval actions really fought in heavy seas anyway?).

 

If you are indeed tracking each hit as mentioned above, how about just recording the number of waterline or lower hits in a separate "below water hits" attribute?  Flooding will only reach critical levels when "below water hits" reaches a certain number?

 

Just a suggestion.

 

EDIT - or you could have an attribute called "seaworthiness" or something, which is reduced by any hits at or below the waterline.  Whether or not each hit would count towards reducing the "seaworthiness" value would depend on some, or all, of the parameters mentioned by Barbarouge above.

[Barberouge]

In PotBS there are skills that make for an important part of the interest of the gameplay. Remove them and the game is so boring.

 

Without skills in Naval Action, something has to be added to create complexity. And I'm not sure aiming at long ranges and crew management could do that.

 

That was the point about a more complex damage-hull-sinking system.