Damage model and mechanics

[Sea Archer]

During the last weeks I experiencend some really quick dismastings. This shortens the battle a lot and is therefore no real fun in my eyes, neither for the dismasted nor the dismasting player.

I took my time to think it over and how this issue might be solved, along with some other issue I do not like, which is the sinking of ships, that recieved a lot of hits far above the water line and the hull structure collapes, although the ship must have been completely fine near and below the waterline.

 

I created a graphic showing how I would like to see the different damage zones.

1. Below the water line there is the leakage zone, where every penetrating hit will cause a leak and hull damage.
2. Above the water line there should be a zone where penetrating hits shall cause damage in the lower hull, which is what we have now. As soon as the lower hull is completely down, the ship will sink. This area shall have the thickest armor of the ship.
3. There shall be three damage zones in the upper hull. The number of damage zones shall be the same as the number of masts. If you want to demast a ship, this zones have to be taken down, since they simulate the standing rigging (contain the fixation of the shrouds). Only when one zone (port or starboard) is down and the mast recieved enough hits, the mast will be lost. The damage model for the upper masts shall remain as now. These upper hull zones shall have a reduced armor thickness compared to the lower hull. Of course crew damage shall be increased when the armor is gone. But the three upper zones shall have no influence on the hull structure, even if they are all completely down, the ship shall not sink.

 

Please let me know your opinion.

 

[Fluffy Fishy]

This seems very similar to the system they use in World of Warships, I do quite like their system and to be honest think it would work a lot better in naval action than it does with modern ships, I'd also like to see some kind of hull integrity shown where it becomes very difficult to sink a ship if you only hit the upper hull, my only concern about this system is that the AI might have to be programmed to deal with it in a way that doesn't make PVE terrible, especially with the new PVE mechanics.

Good suggestion

[maturin]

Quote

The system is far more complex than that already.   The thing is a ship, real ship, is strong as long as all of its parts are together, but quite fragile once they come apart.   So it is logical for a ship to start to sink if the upper hull takes a great deal of damage.  As it is the strong ring that holds the lower frame parts and planks together.  With out it the ship starts to flex more, which causes leaks and buckling.  Which is VERY bad for a ship.   

It's a gameplay mechanic that isn't consistent with anything in history, so please don't try to retroactively justify it. The devs tried a more realistic system but it created gameplay problems.

No warship ever sank in combat without being holed at the waterline.

You can smash the entire top two decks off a wooden ship and it still float just fine.

[Angus McGregor]

2 hours ago, maturin said:

No warship ever sank in combat without being holed at the waterline.

You can smash the entire top two decks off a wooden ship and it still float just fine.

Not sure that can be said with certainty, but the idea is supported for SOLs at least by the account of the Redoubtable at Trafalgar. Pounded by the Victory and Temeraire plus a 2 decker until it looked like floating debris. the rear structure completely smashed.  It had leaks but didn't sink until overcome by a storm the following day.

[maturin]

4 hours ago, Angus McGregor said:

Not sure that can be said with certainty, but the idea is supported for SOLs at least by the account of the Redoubtable at Trafalgar. Pounded by the Victory and Temeraire plus a 2 decker until it looked like floating debris. the rear structure completely smashed.  It had leaks but didn't sink until overcome by a storm the following day.

Exactly. The most horrific battle damage ever recorded in the Age of Sail and it still takes a fierce gale to sink the ship, with shattered pumps and a skeleton crew.

 

Also, Redoutable suffered from unusual damage in that Temeraire(?) managed to shoot a broadside into the hold by depressing the guns at close range.

[Sir William Hargood]

16 hours ago, maturin said:

You can smash the entire top two decks off a wooden ship and it still float just fine.

 

9 hours ago, maturin said:

Exactly. The most horrific battle damage ever recorded in the Age of Sail and it still takes a fierce gale to sink the ship, with shattered pumps and a skeleton crew.

I sincerely doubt any of these statements have any measure of truth in them. Suffice to say that ships sinking in battle is relatively rare and it is doubtful there is sufficient forensic evidence to say that those that did was purely through being holed below the waterline or from open seams due to structural damage. Its far more conceivable that through sufficient pounding of the upper works the ships structure as a whole would weaken and the seams would open . This has been documented during the battle of Gravelines of the Spanish Armada 1588 where two ships were sufficiently pounded in such a fashion and sank. Thereafter surviving Spanish ships battled with open seams and required unconventional "binding" of their hulls to keep it together. (Hawsers wrapped around the hulls and drawn taught. Well documented.) And who would say that the French frigate Sérieuse sank at the Battle of the Nile sank as a result from being holed below the waterline or from open seams or a combination of both. I would have expected more insight from a Naval Scientist than to make such absolute statements. Perhaps you merely forgot that wooden ships have seams that can spring and allow the ocean in.

[maturin]

Countless primary sources refer to ships being holed between wind and water. No historical text talks about ships sinking due to damage above the waterline.

The only reason you're talking about open seams is because a videogame in 2015 came up with an idea for gameplay balancing. That which is asserted without evidence can be summarily dismissed.

Logic dictates that any ship that has received enormous damage to the hull in general will also have suffered damage to the waterline. To assert that you know exactly how a ship sank in battle given scanty references is egregiously dishonest.

 

Wrapping hawsers around hulls is a measure to stiffen an old, weak ship, not a means of battle damage control. If the crew had time after the battle to affect such a measure, then it is only further proof that above-waterline damage is not an immediate threat to a ship. Of course having serious damage to gundeck-level scantlings will harm a ship's structural integrity and make it foolish to expose the vessel to the elements without significant repair. But it is akin to rotten walls and shingles on a house. The threat of collapse or foundering is not imminent.

 

Quote

And who would say that the French frigate Sérieuse sank at the Battle of the Nile sank as a result from being holed below the waterline or from open seams or a combination of both.

So you are talking about sympathetic damage to seams from the shockwaves of shot impacting the hull multiple meters from the seam itself. There is no reputable source which allows you to claim that such a phenomenon ever actually occurred. 

So no, we can't say whether the dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor or lung cancer. But I know which side I'm on.

[maturin]

Quote

What I am trying to say is... IT IS A GAME.

Me too.

So let's call game mechanics what they are, and not try to impose game mechanics on history.

[Sea Archer]

Well, after the discussion about sinking or not sinking ships due to damage above the water line, what do you think of my idea?

[maturin]

5 minutes ago, Sea Archer said:

Well, after the discussion about sinking or not sinking ships due to damage above the water line, what do you think of my idea?

I like it, but it's far too late in development to overhauling the damage model and core combat.

[Angus McGregor]

2 minutes ago, Sea Archer said:

Well, after the discussion about sinking or not sinking ships due to damage above the water line, what do you think of my idea?

LOL - nicely played sir. I do agree with your analysis of the situation but...

It is a game, and the captains involved have no 'skin' in the outcome, unlike their RL counterparts. A real captain would not/could not order his men to fight to the death. I suspect the cumulative damage that causes leaks that sink the ship are just a means to force an end to the battle.

Would morale tracking be better that could cause the crew to mutiny (and surrender) if pushed too far? I would be just as happy with that (maybe more), but it's likely way too late in the day to try to shoehorn that mechanic into NA now. I'll just say I was surprised right off when NA didn't have a working crew morale component - AT ALL. Yes there's one in boarding but it doesn't seem to work as I'd expect a lot of the time. Enemy crew morale reaches zero and they just keep fighting...wth?

Crew provisions, disease, morale and trade winds are 'features' I've liked very much about other single-player Caribbean Age of Sail games. But I don't moan about it here because that's not what NA is.

[Sir William Hargood]

On 07/12/2016 at 4:21 PM, maturin said:

Countless primary sources refer to ships being holed between wind and water. No historical text talks about ships sinking due to damage above the waterline. I never said that. I was referring to consequential damage below the waterline due to damage received to the structure above. You do know that seams are below the waterline too.

The only reason you're talking about open seams is because a videogame in 2015 came up with an idea for gameplay balancing. Can you substantiate that. I've never even heard of that game, so I agree with: That which is asserted without evidence can be summarily dismissed. So therefor I challenge you to provide the necessary evidence for:   "You can smash the entire top two decks off a wooden ship and it still float just fine." if not then: "That which is asserted without evidence can be summarily dismissed."

Logic dictates that any ship that has received enormous damage to the hull in general will also have suffered damage to the waterline. Agreed and as such Logic also dictates "that through sufficient pounding of the upper works the ships structure as a whole would weaken and the seams would open." I would also venture that holes received below the waterline would also result in seams opening...a far more challenging thing to plug in the heat of battle than a round hole wouldn't you say...To assert that you know exactly how a ship sank in battle given scanty references is egregiously dishonest. Agreed and therefor I refer to "No warship ever sank in combat without being holed at the waterline. You can smash the entire top two decks off a wooden ship and it still float just fine."

I would also venture that there would exist no contemporary forensic analysis disseminating between shipping water through cannon holes or associated leaking seams below the waterline. I dispute your statement: "You can smash the entire top two decks off a wooden ship and it still float just fine."

I didn't say ships didn't sink because of being holed below the waterline...but I also didn't say ships can't sink with their entire top two decks smashed off and that they would still float just fine. The following again comes to mind: That which is asserted without evidence can be summarily dismissed.

Wrapping hawsers around hulls is a measure to stiffen an old, weak ship, not a means of battle damage control. If the crew had time after the battle to affect such a measure, then it is only further proof that above-waterline damage is not an immediate threat to a ship. Of course having serious damage to gundeck-level scantlings will harm a ship's structural integrity and make it foolish to expose the vessel to the elements without significant repair. But it is akin to rotten walls and shingles on a house. The threat of collapse or foundering is not imminent. I suggest you research your historical texts in a bit more detail with regards to the events after the Battle of Gravelines and the quest to get the remaining Spanish Ships home. 1588

So you are talking about sympathetic damage to seams from the shockwaves of shot impacting the hull multiple meters from the seam itself. There is no reputable source which allows you to claim that such a phenomenon ever actually occurred. May I use your argument when you fail to present evidence: "Logic dictates that any ship that has received enormous damage to the hull in general will also have suffered damage...

So no, we can't say whether the dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor or lung cancer. But I know which side I'm on. Just read the above.

My response in red above.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Sir William Hargood

[maturin]

Quote

You can smash the entire top two decks off a wooden ship and it still float just fine.

Yes, congratulations on disproving the obvious hyperbole. But you can knock off the upper half of a ship without harming those poor wilting violet seams that you are so concerned about. That's what a razee is. Removing an entire deck or more without any harm to the structural fabric of the ship. Pirates did it at sea.

The only difference is that a saw is used instead of a projectile. So apparently you are imagining that the projectile creates damaging shockwaves that propagate from the impact point throughout the entire hull, with remote effects multiple meters distant, which dislodge planks below the waterline.

Wood does not work like this in relation to shockwaves and projectiles. These aren't main battle tanks with homogenous armor plating. A stone fort that is battered by cannonfire will collapse. A fort of palmetto logs simply absorbs the punishment.

Lieste recently made a post about how timber hulls respond to gunfire. TLDR; the wood simply crushes to pulp, and two shot-holes in close proximity have very little interaction with each other. Shot-holes are usually smaller than the projectile that made them. That's the exact opposite of the lethal shockwaves you hint at.

 

Quote

Logic also dictates "that through sufficient pounding of the upper works the ships structure as a whole would weaken and the seams would open."

No, that's the nonsense that you made up on the spot, which I'm dismissing for want of evidence.

And I'll remind you that we're talking about lethal battle damage here. We're talking about ships foundering despite efforts to save them, not a trickle of water. Wooden ships are always leaking through those very same seams, even if new and undamaged. We're also talking about actually feasible battle damage. If you bombarded a ship with 150mm howitzer shells, I'm the thing would eventually leak.

 

Quote

I suggest you research your historical texts in a bit more detail with regards to the events after the Battle of Gravelines and the quest to get the remaining Spanish Ships home. 1588

If the texts supported your position, you would have quoted them here, rather than make vague hints. It's not the other person's job to research and prove your arguments!

[Sir William Hargood]

"The San Marcos, which had fought steadily since early morning, was so battered that 3 heavy cables had to be wound around her hull to keep it from splitting apart." The Armada by Bryce Walker, ISBN 7054 0634 2