Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

330 Excellent

About Lieste

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

850 profile views
  1. Kingdom Come : Deliverance

    Combat is a relatively slow burn - it requires Henry to learn some things before *you* can use them, and for you to understand and reliably use place and position, and the use of counters and devices. Once you get that, it is fantastic. By far the closest feel of any PC game to swordsmanship - don't let the 'slow' pace fool you, to make 'real time' tactical responses as you would holding a weapon from the feeling of the bind you need the visual path to be slower... and you will get brutalised by those who are even remotely close to you in skill if you treat them with complacence. (sometimes). I study Meyer (Longsword and Dusack) ~ Art of Combat, 1570 and Art of Sword Combat 1568, (Both in translation and print (Foreng trans)) Giganti (Rapier (and companion weapon)) ~ Venetian Rapier, 1606 and The 'Lost' Second Book, 1608 (both in translation and print) Capoferro (Rapier (and companion weapon)) ~ Italain Rapier Combat 1610 (translation and print) And the feeling of making choices and 'adapting' them under pressure is so good. The Visual presentation of place and position, measure and the variety of combat devices that you see used (by and against you and other npcs) is much higher than is common and a fairly decent representation of fencing. Do read the questlog as you go - it summarises what you have just done, what you can *definitely* try doing.. as next steps.
  2. Kingdom Come : Deliverance

    I'm from *before* manuals. Cassette tape in a standard jewel case with paper insert. At best. 15-30 minutes to load a game.. Then the "Golden Age" of big boxes with 100-200 page manuals which were informative and a good read.... Then a small box with a quick start manual of a few dozen pages (at best). Then ... well... The KC:D Codex is smaller than a 'book' would be, but is fairly in depth for an in game resource.
  3. Well the French engaged at ~700-750m using point en blanc fire. That is the aiming using line of metal directly at the point you want to hit. British reports suggest that they failed to adjust aim adequately on closing so fires drifted higher than the aim point when engaging the hull at closer ranges. They were often in single ship actions attempting to complete their strategic mission, while disengaging from RN ships. They failed fairly frequently. The British fired using quarter sights or levelled ordnance and encouraged practice at shorter ranges. (There is a table of aim points in Douglas) The idea that firing was only done inside 100mt against spars and rigging is a made up thing. The issue in game is the pointability of ordnance and its stabilisation relative to the horizon. If the ships had correct pitch, heave, surge, roll and yaw, and the ordnance was 'rigidly' set to the deck with limited, slow and imprecise adjustment of aim. Also a high degree of responsiveness in ship handling (control lag instant to seconds, rather than tens of seconds to minutes), and the rather rapid rates of fire (and sustainability of maximum rates indefinitely).
  4. Questions for the Historians

    The number of crew available and the number of stations (plus spares for rotations home)... plus flexibility of the ships on station. You can send two frigates and continue to scout while chasing a sail... One 3rd rate which has to choose between the chase and remaining on station... Not having a first available... All for the same crew. Manpower was a strongly limiting factor for the armies and navies of the period.
  5. French (and Russian) 36 livre/artillery pound are nearly the weight of shot of the 42lb (39/40lb avoirdupoir). Making this change would result in 'no difference'. French (and Russian) 8 livre/artillery pound ordnance is practically identical to the 9lb.
  6. Updated Mast Thickness/HP Values V2

    Is there a differential between main and mizzen? Commonly the main was much more heavily built than the mizzen - mizzen being ~broadly~ similar to the maintop spar etc. Foremast intermediate but closer to the main in size.
  7. No. Make better life choices... so you don't have to 'git gud'.
  8. 1 Pood cannons imba

    My guess would be a conflation of different claims for different ordnance... and in comparison to different ones than implied too. I could see a 1/4 pood landing gun (8lb (russian artillery) bore), and of carronade type length and weights could be easily handled at such rates. It might be possible even with the 'full' 1/4 pood type (12lb bore), and around the size of a 6lb gun... I doubt it is possible with something the size and weight of a 32lb gun... but with shot significantly heavier, nor with the added requirement to set and trim fuses in shell. While performance 'twice as good' as some types of mortar or howitzer in long range area fire is plausible... I find the claim for 'better than guns' in trajectory and accuracy to be contrary to Douglas' opinion on their merits compared to a gun of the similar weight. I concede the enhanced carry of the large solid shot (but somewhat inferior with shell), and the large shot will naturally cause more injury with a hit, as with Carronades.. It is merely the exaggeration of light weight and extremely good performance beyond what the record suggests which is questioned. The same concerns I have with the absolute superiority/inferiority of carronades in the literature about them, when the truth, as ever lies over a much broader reach of values depending on what is compared and is usually also needing the qualifier 'it depends'.
  9. 1 Pood cannons imba

    Hunting around I can't find anything reliable comparing the Edinorog to common guns. Instead everything reliable seems to compare to Howitzers (which is reasonable, as they are also a form of Gun-Howitzer) or the Mortar (where the Gomer chamber is derived. Here the claims of 'higher' velocity and accuracy seem entirely plausible (though I also note suggestion that French field Howitzers outranged the 1/4 pood Edinorog). There isn't sufficient firing table data in documents I have been able to find to assert anything with confidence, but it doesn't seem likely that the ballistic (trajectory) performance of a low charge ratio heavy shot or low density shell would exceed that of gun ordnance of the same weight. I have little doubt they hit harder - especially with correctly fused and functioning shell. Note they were withdrawn from service and then decades later replaced by British/French style shell guns once they had entered general use - and these were in turn retired for heavier guns of improved performance....
  10. 1 Pood cannons imba

    A 1780 1 pood Edinorog is listed as having an ordnance weight of 170 pood (~55cwt). It fired a 44 trade pound hollow shell, or a 63 trade pound shot from a 7.69" bore... (~39.7lb avoirdupois shell, 56.9lb shot). This is not in any way comparable to a 6lb gun (16.5-24cwt). Nor is the ease of loading a shot/shell heavier than the "impractical" 42lb gun into ordnance broadly the equal in size to a standard 32lb gun comparable. To claim so makes no sense. 1/2 pood one is comparable in weight to a 12lb gun, with a 20lb (avoirdupois) shell and 26lb shot. Maybe this is what you mean.
  11. 1 Pood cannons imba

    How can you 'squeeze' a 54 or 53 cwt, 9'2" ordnance into a slot intended for 18lb or even 24lb guns? This seems wrong. Their solid shot would be 57lb avoirdupois (similar to the British 56lb guns introduced in the early-mid C19th), with an option of 40lb hollow shell. As for 'higher velocity and accuracy' than a gun. I'm unconvinced by that claim. It smacks of the types of claim being made for Congreves and others without any basis in fact, and in truth being excessive recoil causing a trajectory jump and a longer 'first graze' at short ranges despite a lower velocity.
  12. Queen Anne's Revenge

    She was a 6lb ship. Probably 20-22 guns on the gun deck, , maybe a few more in a demi-battery and the rest galliard pieces in the region of 3lb and 1 lb swivels, there, in the waist and in the tops. '40 guns' isn't an official rating, just a listing of an estimate of how many pieces she was carrying, by an 'impressed' non-expert. I haven't seen anything credible suggesting anything over 6lb ordnance (so the Demi battery doesn't look to be a typical 9lb one if present), and the wreck website was cagey about the ratio of the different recovered calibres... and they are (understandably) more excited about the few 6lb pieces they identify, than the smaller pieces which are more 'glossed over'. They would certainly be all over the suggestion of 9lb guns...
  13. Hotfix for patch 14.

    That is what the contemporary (early C19th) experimentations show, and also supports the use of double shot & half charges within musket shot as being entirely valid (until you meet overbuilt Live Oak frigates of course). Note that shots striking water first may lose some velocity. Shot hitting iron fittings may shatter, or have reduced penetration (while affecting more of the side than only the subcalibre shot path). Shot defective in weight by voids will slow faster and penetrate less (but may start a fraction faster). Shot defective in weight by being under-gauge will have defective velocity, reduced range at which they lose a certain amount of velocity beyond the defect, and reduced penetration. Bulk timber isn't exactly the same as plank over frame, and curvature and angling of the face can result in deficiencies in penetration.... but overall iron shot at 7.4 specific gravity wins against timber at 0.4-1.0 specific gravity under most conditions. Excessive penetration yields a shot path you cannot introduce fingers into, and a fine cloud of splinters which are mostly nuisance only. Correctly tuned penetration (or a lucky hit into thicker timbers) gives larger chunks of timber capable of lethal injury and a ragged hole. SoL have thin upperworks, and much more solid waterlines. 22" is around a common frigate of the larger sizes at the waterline. The Vasa 24lb shot testing (with less powerful powder by design) was not resisted by the 18" side at any of the tested velocities (sadly full data and minimum value not given), and only a very low velocity scissor shot lodged in the side.
  14. Hotfix for patch 14.

    Depends on muzzle velocity For a gun of 7.5ft (Frigate and 1st rate Qtr deck @ 1536fps for full charge (1/3rd shot weight)): 1100yds full charge, 1000yds first reduce, 875yds second reduce. Double shot: 475/675 yds for first reduce, 300/525yds for second reduce (second/first ball) 250 for short pattern, 550 long pattern carronade. Penetration parameters for Poncelet penetration equation derived by Didion for spherical iron shot into various materials (including different types of earth, masonry and brick as well as four different timber types), taken in translation from Bashforth's chronograph experimental report.
  15. Hotfix for patch 14.

    The frame is made of one wood, commonly a tough, dense wood which is resistant to rot. Some use cheaper woods, oversized to obtain the same stiffness (and similar weight) to the more common woods. The outer planking is a wood type commonly chosen for toughness and resistance to rot. Can be different below and above the waterline. Inner planking varies more. It can have differences below and 'between and above' the ports on each gun deck, and in the Orlop and Hold. Masts, spars and yards are typically made from low density timbers. For a typical English built ship these would be; Frame, Oak Outerplanking, Oak above, Elm or Oak below the waterline. Inner planking, Oak in the hold and below each port. Fir between and above the ports. Decks, pine or fir. Masts, spars and yards. Spruce, Fir, Birch or Poplar, with Baltic Spruce preferred. Light weight was essential to retain even the indifferent range of stability of a ship, and dimensions were as thin as possible and tapered consistent with carrying of the necessary canvas until typical conditions. As far as I know, only the Fir-built ships, and the US heavy frigates differed substantially from this formula (with the possible substitution of Teak or Mahogany for the Oak framing and outer planking in Indian and Carribean built vessels). The Fir ships have larger timbers, replacing much of the Oak from the standard design of the same type, and the US frigates use Live Oak for the frame alone. Penetration into Oak, 12lb 4" shot, 734ft/s 22" Into Elm, ditto, 29" Into Fir/Birch, ditto, 40" Into Poplar, ditto, 43"