Damage Model

[Barberouge]

PvP isn't a tedious activity which should be given incentives. People play PvP because the PvP gameplay is good. But I agree the stakes shouldn't prevent players from enjoying PvP. Maybe it's too early to discuss more precise stakes, since it also depends on the strenght of the ships (price/strength curve).

 

It also depends on how we would craft ships: will that be exciting, or AFK travels ? What would be the kind of cost of high-end ships ? In PotBS, sinking high-end ships was an economic victory, and if done with low-end ships, great fun ! But the cost was long PvE grinding and hauling from point A to B. I believe in stakes which cost time as long as we spent this time having fun.

[admin]

PvP isn't a tedious activity which should be given incentives. People play PvP because the PvP gameplay is good. But I agree the stakes shouldn't prevent players from enjoying PvP. Maybe it's too early to discuss more precise stakes, since it also depends on the strenght of the ships (price/strength curve).

 

It also depends on how we would craft ships: will that be exciting, or AFK travels ? What would be the kind of cost of high-end ships ? In PotBS, sinking high-end ships was an economic victory, and if done with low-end ships, great fun ! But the cost was long PvE grinding and hauling from point A to B. I believe in stakes which cost time as long as we spent this time having fun.

 

Don't get me wrong. The loss is a great motivator and we acknowledge that. We will try to find balance and we know it will be a hard task requiring a lot of iterations during betas. 

[Duskguy]

Just off top of my head I would have at least three horizontal sections and three vertical sections per side and as said before have front/rear attacks do mostly crew/cannon damage with slight possibility of water damage.

What this would do is separate the ship in sections (from the side) of front, middle, rear for how the ship takes on water (vertical dividers) and starts to list as well as top, waterline and below waterline sections (horizontal dividers) to simulate what takes which percentage of damage and causes sinking.

A hit at the waterline could cause flooding when the waves hit it and/or when the ship starts to list to that side. This hit would do equal portions damage to crew/cannon and hull.

A hit below the waterline would do mostly hull damage and if strong enough to go through, cause leaks. It would do little to no damage to crew/cannons.

Above the water line would do mostly crew/cannon damage without effecting the integrity of the ship much.

A fourth level could be applied for sails/rigging.

The front to back would dictate how the ship starts to sink and what is damaged. Attacks to the rear are more likely to damage the rudder than a hit to the center while a hit to the front could cause leaks due to the forward movement of the ship.

With the front/rear damage, a hit to the center at the waterline would more likely hit the rudder tackle than a hit to the top outside rear. And a hit the front center at the waterline is more likely to cause gradual leaking due to the ship's sailing than a hit below the waterline.

On my phone so apologies for any bad grammar, but thought this would be a simpler way than calculating every shot's exact hit location and instead use sectors to gauge damage.

[ZdzisDyrma]

Hi all,

 

What you think about diffrent DM? I know that "health" strip is easy to do and cleary for players but I prefer War Thunder damage model. Ship with hit boxes it's what i want . IMO fighting is more interesting and not so providently. 

PS. Sorry for my english
Greets
 

[maturin]

I really hope we have a damage model where HP means very little, and am sort of worried about apparent hitpoint bars shown in screenshots.

 

The only way hitpoints can work is if there are dozens of them. The mainmast, for example, should have integrity tracked for the timber itself, and then the standing rigging that supports it. The only hitpoints a hull can have is the amount of water in the hold and the rate of leakage. Sails can have hitpoints based on the number and size of holes in them. And remember that 6-pounders will do nothing at all to the broadside of a battleship.

 

If it takes too many system resources to make simulation-style damage models, then at least create a probability-based system, assigning damage to rigging, guns and (the very few) crucial control element in the hull whenever shots pass nearby.

[Rudi Starnberg]

Component based damage modeling is obviously vastly more desireable than simple hit points, and I'd be very suprised indeed if we don't see it for this game.

[William the Drake]

If I recall correctly, there is some discussion on this, and that the devs are leaning away from the common "Hitpoints" setup to a more realistic damage gradient.

 

I'll try to find the post, but I specifically remember the devs stating that even the possibilities of "Lucky shots" will be thrown in: the stray cannon ball that finds its way to the ship's magazine, or one that destroys the rudder.

 

They also want to avoid having one broadside of the ship destroyed only to have the player flip to the other, fully functional one.

 

EDIT:

 

I do believe this is the post: Sinking a Ship

 

There is discussion on damage and how it is derived, as well as the admin responding to "HP is bad" references. Hope this helps

[maturin]

They also want to avoid having one broadside of the ship destroyed only to have the player flip to the other, fully functional one.

That's good, because in game terms, only the highest-level crews are disciplined enough to fight both sides of the ship, and suddenly switching sides takes a lot of coordination. Also, a hull full of holes doesn't really offer that much less protection than an intact hull. Sure, the grapeshot will get in easier, but the normal roundshot will just have less material to make shrapnel with. What really matters is whether you've got guns dismounted.

[hotet]

What should be the penalty of having your ship sunk? Obviously this would depend on the type of game it will be (which I understand is a bit undecided as of yet).

 

In my opinion you should not be able to lose your ship. There should however be a penalty in the lines of a repair cost (for the time and material spent at the ship yard), and you should obviously respawn at the dock.

 

In regards to the damage model I'd say the component model is the best and most realistic way. Losing your main mast should obviously not sink your ship but merely cripple it. Hitting certain points (like the galley or powder stores) could trigger a fire or even an explosion if (un)lucky.

[maturin]

Bumping this thread to stick my oar in an old debate.

 

 

 

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) 

This is really wrong, in my opinion. If the larboard side of the ship loses a lot of guns, then you should show the starboard side. If the larboard side if full of holes and lets grapeshot in, then you should show the starboard side.

 

But other than that, it DOES NOT MATTER.

 

Realistically, roundshot penetrating a hull would disable cannons on both sides of the ship, without a big difference. In some situations, both sides of the hull would be penetrated. And leaks happen on a per-hole basis, so there's no progressive damage that can accumulate based on what side they are one. A ship with 6 shot-holes below the waterline on the larboard side and 6 on the starboard side will leak just as fast as a ship with 12 holes on the starboard side. (Assuming no heel angle.)

 

This is the realistic objection. But I know you want to hear about why gameplay will be ruined. So here goes.

 

The most realistic, interesting and thrilling maneuver you can make is to charge down from windward on a foe, cut across their bow or stern, raking them, and then take up the leeward position close by, preventing them from fleeing. Or sail circles around them, hammering them from every angle.

In POTBS, this would get you killed because it meant splitting your fire between different sides of the enemy vessel, essentially wasting your shots. So a realistic, skill-based tactics that is fun to execute is ruined by a bad damage model not based in reality.

 

Roundshot destroys guns and kills men. It does this from any angle. You do not need to concentrate fire on part of a vessel to accomplish this. So in a sense, ships do have one big hitpoint bar. It's called men. And another hitpoint bar for the number of guns. (We'll leave the rig out of this.) Holes below the waterline leak no matter what side they are on. This like bleeding instead of hitpoint. The integrity of individual bits of planking isn't really important.

 

It is even preferable to cover the whole target in shot holes from every angle. Accomplishing this leads to more fluid gameplay with more maneuvers, more skill, more excitement. If you read any part of my post, read the preceding sentence.

 

If you make it necessary to concentrate fire on one side of a ship only, you make maneuvers and raking fire a losing tactic. You force ships to sail alongside one another and not move or maneuver. All battles will be the same, a repetitive slugging match until one side loses.

 

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

    

   This is a false feature. It is false because it is unrealistic. These vessels would not heel while leaking because there are no internal compartments that are watertight. Water will immediately run down into the bilges and accumulate from there, leveling out. So there is no need to waste resources coding this. (Once the ship begins to founder, it will lose stability and anything can happen.)

[Brigand]

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

This doesn't strike me as realistic, nor good for gameplay. There where no watertight compartments in the age of sail, so a hole below the waterline will allow water to flow in. The flow of water will fill the whole of the ship (lowest point first) and likely ruin your cargo in the process. Nothing in the construction of the hull would make the water stay on one side, or prevent it from sloshing around.

~Brigand

[Barberouge]

Maturin, part of what you propose is already described in this thread.

 

 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. 

 

 

I can't say more, but some of the rest is also already covered. No worries

[Baggywrinkle]

Gents, lack of watertight compartments makes stability worse not better when taking on water. Any heel from the rig, any rolling from sea state etc is made massively worse. Maybe not a concern in the heat of battle, but a huge worry on the way home damaged. And with tons of water moving round, stuff gets damaged.

I've just the once been on vessel dangerously full of water - I wasn't worried about sinking, but I was hugely worried by the prospect of her rolling, the water shifting, exacerbating the angle and putting not just the rail but the hatches under the pish, downflooding and then sinking too fast to do much about it.

Just sayin'

Baggy

[maturin]

Gents, lack of watertight compartments makes stability worse not better when taking on water.

How can that be? Having all your flooding on one side of the keel seems a lot worse than having it level in the bilge, no matter how much it sloshes around.

Lack of watertight compartments make you flood more, which then of course is going to be worse for stability. (Although I swear I read something by my dad the naval architect, mentioning that a flooded bilge can be like ballast at times. Stability is an attribute with a hundred different contextual meanings and components, of course. Rolling a lot or being crank doesn't even mean you're more likely to capsize.)

 

Anyways, modeling all that requires a detailed stability simulation with a lot detail and flailing about and unpredictability.

 

You won't see a ship develop a steady list to port simply because the hole is on that side. If she rolls, then that's because of the sea-state and her own movement and windage, not so much the water.

 

It's probably easiest to have ships with flooding stay more or less stable until the point of no return, at which point they can flop all over the place.

 

Edit: Or the ship just suffers from increase rolling in general, mostly to leeward.

[Marion van Ghent]

Well! I started reading this thread from a helpful link in another topic and was hesitating to necro it... but Maturin did so anyway, and pretty much captures my reactions as well 

 

So I'll divert briefly to the issue of crew surrendering without the player being able to stop it. It could, and did, happen. It was actually a significant mechanic in AoSII; speaking personally, I liked that feature. It added a certain unpredictability to the game, and while occasionally you'd be slapped with a huge whiskey-tango-foxtrot, for me most of the time it added to the edge-of-my-seat aspect of the game -- can I get one more broadside out of this failing ship? or will my opponent squeeze it off first and my crew say it's over?

 

That said, AoSII had no consequences, win or lose. Naval Action is potentially different. So IMO it would be best to provide negative consequences for refusing to surrender if the crew is on the point of mutiny about it -- IF one loses the action. Say recruiting crew becomes harder, morale lower, or crew quality suffers until you get a few victories to wash away the stain of your stubbornness. BUT -- the opposite if you pull it off!

 

To close off on-topic, I feel:

 

1) A balance needs to be struck between full realism and practicality;

2) Such balance can be achieved by balancing how damage accrues and affects a ship's crew, rigging, manoeuverability, and fighting capacity;

3) Listing should not feature much if at all;

4) Crews should have a limited capacity for damage control (pumps, field repairs), and dedicating crew to that should take away from manoeuverability;*

5) In the end, ships should rarely sink; the player should be compelled to surrender, rather than seeing her ship scuppered.

 

*Because for the most part, gun crews were effectively dedicated to the task, trained specifically for it, and only reassigned in the heat of battle out of dire necessity. Broadly speaking, pumps would be manned by able seamen and ship's boys, who would otherwise be tending the rigging -- therefor pulling them off the ropes would hamper a ship's response in handling. That opens up an optional, special trade-off between guns and pumps should a captain deem it necessary, but it should not be the default.

[Marion van Ghent]

Gents, lack of watertight compartments makes stability worse not better when taking on water. Any heel from the rig, any rolling from sea state etc is made massively worse. Maybe not a concern in the heat of battle, but a huge worry on the way home damaged. And with tons of water moving round, stuff gets damaged.

 

Very quickly, I think you make our point whilst attempting to disagree   Rolling IS a significant risk and made worse by taking on water -- but a ship of this era heels more because of the wind pressure on hull and sails, and not because water is flooding one side of the ship. Come about and you'll heel the other way -- barring your ballast, cargo, or other heavy things having gotten shuffled over due to the ship heeling over in the first place!

[Baggywrinkle]

Yup Marion, I'm with the general gist of thread, just not the 'there are no watertight bulkheads therefore flooding isn't an issue' non-sequitur. Maturin, think of the water just as the weight. Limiting the extremes of weight distrubtion limits the adverse effect that weight can have on vessel heel/pitch angle. That's what makes these bulkheads a legal requirements in every commercial vessel of any notable size (well, that and fire containment) in just about every flag state. Same applies to the dangers of cargo shifting etc. I'm not saying water in the bilge makes you sink, or even heel. I am saying that the stability danger comes from tens of tons galivanting about the place. The great guns lashed in place a not a worry, great guns on the loose however...

But back to the topic, I'm with all those above who are pushing for detail and depth above gamey shorthand mechanics. When combat flight sims are tracking every bullet, and the damage each causes to any number of modelled systems, surely the same is possible in the 'simpler' combat of the age of sail. I genuinely think it can only improve the game.

Can I also quickly say that sailing is really easy, this idea mentioned on the first page of it being inherently 'too hard for gamers' if it were accurately modelled is spurious at best. Sure sailing well and pulling of precise or complex manoeuvres takes some experience, but the basics are as basic as anything else in any other game.

Baggy

[Brigand]

What maturin and I where arguing was not that water inside the ship isn't a problem (it is, it should be outside and stay there) but that it is not realistic that the vessel will lean to the side where the holes are in the hull (as was suggested in the OP). My understanding is that leaning to the side where the leak is suggests partial flooding. Since there where no watertight bulkheads, there would be equal flooding everywhere.

~Brigand

[Baggywrinkle]

I'm with you in general mate, just think some assumptions are off a bit: there are plenty enough obstructions to hold water predominantly on one side, and once a list starts it's unlikely to go away whilst flooding continues.

A vessel on an even keel to start with I would expect to settle on an even keel if scuttled maybe 8 times out of ten. If listing initially I would expect to see her go down with that list.

Baggy

[Brigand]

Of interest for the discussion on the sinking of ships:
 
The History and Development of Ships' Bilge Pumps, 1500-1840; Thesis by Thomas James Oertling
 
Especially Chapter II 'Of Leaks and Men' is interesting to read.
 
~Brigand

[admin]

Age of sail ships did not lean to the sides as much as the WW2 ships, which had compartments.

[Baggywrinkle]

...but when they did they sank. Thanks for that Brigand, slowly downloading and look forward to reading it - I've got a bit of a thing for manual bilge pumps!

Baggy

[tater]

I dislike the general hit points method. I think if any "zones" are used, the critical placement is below the waterline, above the waterline. Between wind and water, where the ship gets holed below the waterline due to heeling is a principle way a ship takes on water. The ship would settle generally, as there is no port/starboard compartmentalization. All this said, sinking was (and should be) not all that common a thing. Ships tended to strike well before they sank, and a principle incentive was to take a ship as a prize anyway. Marion says it very well above a ways.

 

As for penalties, I don't think that penalties should be slight. If the goal is to role-play the skipper, what is the point if he is immortal? Any navy character is of a minimal rank to get a ship anyway, so you die, and start over with an unrated ship (I think small actions would be the most interesting anyway, frankly). That or you take over a junior officer (which is an incentive to groom your crew as a player to have a good group of people to choose from). All that said, if a ship is lost, there can at least be mechanisms for the caption to survive to get a new command, be repatriated, escape, whatever. I still think there should be a chance he simply gets killed, too. Being awesome didn't make Nelson immortal

[Brigand]

there will be no classes and only nationality

 

There will be no Navy Characters or Merchant Characters or whatever else pre-fit classes. Instead, there will be the Character and how she builds her Career (reputation permitting).

~Brigand

[admin]

That's good, because in game terms, only the highest-level crews are disciplined enough to fight both sides of the ship, and suddenly switching sides takes a lot of coordination. Also, a hull full of holes doesn't really offer that much less protection than an intact hull. Sure, the grapeshot will get in easier, but the normal roundshot will just have less material to make shrapnel with. What really matters is whether you've got guns dismounted.

 

good point

Would it be good idea to lower crew damage a bit if the side of the ship is very badly damaged? Though.. we never saw references with fully open broadside of the ship with all planking destroyed.