Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

Penetration and armor thickness feedback - moderated

Recommended Posts

Its only needs some adjustments to the new system, no need of throwing away all the work done.

 

Another thing, the Santisima was build with some of the best woods available in Cuba and it was famous for being a quite tough ship because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only had a few battle, loving the changes so far, feels much more realistic. 

Loving the new "compacted" HP for 5th rates , much less disparity, no more über auto-win ships (trinco versus frigate for example, ships of same class and same era ...) 

IRL : 

-Combat victory was decided at close range both in frigate fight, and line battle (by breaking the line) 

-Long guns were outdated by napoleonic era, actually medium canon is the technological evolution of long guns. they were used as chaser that is all. 

-Caronades was a decisive techoligical advantage in most of the cases, and some experiment with caronades exclusive ship were very successful. Some battle were lost because of exclusive caronades loadout, but not as much as we think :) , and it was mainly because of a good tactic from the "cannon" ship captain. 

-Most of the naval engagements were inconclusive, both in small actions and large battle, we just only remind the conclusive ones, because they stayed in history. 

-Boarding actions were not common .... but far more than sinking :) 

What we have now : close quater battle decide everything, sinking is very long, and not common, long guns restricted to very skillful tacticians or chasers, boarding can be very rewarding versus a canon engagement ....

All good for me, maybe needing tuning on some penetrations and armor values, but everythingelse feel some much more authentic ... Thank you !  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for realism, but this is just ridiculous.

30-40 mins of bombarding a 3rd rates waterline in my Vic to sink him.

This occured in a 3v3 fleet, and the entire battle took about an hour, and my reward was 37k for sinking the 3rd.

I received hardly any dmg at all. I feel like shots bounce of way too much now.

 

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/262711071501081971/5DCDF98239F20FE2ABCF894FC312F6A18B215C08/?interpolation=lanczos-none&output-format=jpeg&output-quality=95&fit=inside|2048:1152&composite-to=*,*|2048:1152&background-color=black

 

The only real dmg I took was the loss of about 25% of my cannons.

Edited by Brunwulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, guys, realism is extremely relative.  We don't have 5 hours to decide battles.  If you want realism, then we should be finding a way to ban TS and introducing order books and signal flags!  But we can't and so we need to make sure the game is playable.  Naval Action is already a HUGE time sink and with adding the no cargo rule for Teleporting to the capitol, bouncing shots do not help matters.  You will ultimately lose players.  I hope that this will get fixed as I felt the existing damage model was working well in game terms.  Not looking forward to fleeting tonight.....

 

-Ski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liking the patch thus far. Initially had much the same complaint, but after switching to locked sector focus, my bellona was able to penetrate the hull of an AI Victory, when sailing parallel and at about the distance of one ships length, with nearly all 32lb longs, about 3/4ths of 18lb long shots, and 1/9th 9lb long shots. At distance greater than 3 ship lengths, or when using unlocked sector focus, the angle of the shots prevented penetration to all but 1 to 3 shots per broadside.

Imo the current model is wonderful, and simply requires a few slight tweaks along with our improved understanding of how best now to fight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The curves of loss of penetration are too flat at short range, and too steep at long range or for lower length weapons.

The point about carronades is that they had high impulse but lacked penetration at short range compared to the longer guns of a suitable replacement class, but retained more of their impulse and more of their penetration over long ranges - a 9lb gun and a 32lb carronade had essentially the same penetration at the close in fighting ranges (circa 250m).

I get the 32lb gun initially penetrating some 125cm, reducing to 59cm by 435m, and to 33cm by 1076m (odd numbers are the breakpoints of the mach no data) (compare to 127cm reducing to 60cm at 1000m)
A 32lb carronade 59cm initially, ~ 33cm at 638m and 24cm at 1174m (This performance being close to reduced charge double from a long gun). In this case the performance of the gun outside of 435m and the carronade outside of 0m are essentially identical...
Similar patterns would be seen at more similar ranges if comparing a 1/4 and 1/3 charge guns, or guns of different bore length - essentially a small difference in range for a given performance, sustained over the whole range interval.

For guns of different weight shot, the whole curve is scaled both in height and in range by the ratio of shot size to a reasonable approximation.

Of course where a carronade comes out ahead is in impulse - it is initially nearly twice as hard hitting as the 50% superior penetrating 9lb gun, and by 1000m hits almost four times as hard, and penetrates around 50% better than the gun - it's performance is poor though, so neither the gun nor carronade would be very useful at extreme range.

Carronade accuracy is a problem at intermediate ranges - as the line of metal is significantly different to the gun and combined with the high mounting location typical, they tended to shoot long outside of very close ranges if not used by specifically trained gunners.
At long ranges the beaten zone is smaller than for a gun, but so is the error introduced by movement of the platform or errors in pointing, so I doubt there is much difference in accuracy at the respective 'random fire ranges' of guns and carronades.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dps - they have 20% more dps 

Medium guns have better DPS in theory but in practice increased amount of misses and bounces negates the advantage until such a such short distance that carronades become a far superior option anyway. If medium guns had little more theoretical DPS advantage, ballistics that were little closer to long guns (or vice versa) and their aim time was clearly shorter than that of long guns (as they are lighter and should be easier to handle) they could be a more viable option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-Long guns were outdated by napoleonic era, actually medium canon is the technological evolution of long guns. they were used as chaser that is all. 

 

Not true. Long guns were the standard gun used. They fired a 1/3rd charge from a gun of either 'as long as you could fit' or over 18 calibres - most naval guns were rather longer than that, as increased mass reduced recoil energy.

Medium guns were a relatively scarce experiment (I would say 'late' experiment, except that light pattern guns also predate the period). They are characterised by rather light weight of construction, a reduced charge and very close range performance & objectionable recoil. The relative importance of heavy shot weight, and long range fires (where initial velocity is far less important to final impulse/penetration) led to a post-period deployment of all large bore weapons of various weights - the bulk of the rebored 24/18/12/9/6 lb guns forming the 'medium gun' school. Some of these worked tolerably well and became Frigate main battery weapons, others were held in store for some time and then abandoned.

As with "all carronade" armament for rated ships, "all medium gun" (on rated vessels) fits were almost vanishingly rare during the Napoleonic wars, and the majority of users of cuts or light cast guns were used on Merchant vessels as Insurance guns... not intended to see any serious use, and a ship so armed was not suited to even self protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a personal expirience, I just fought with constitutions agains bellonas, we could just not get dmg down. From perhaps 250 distance I could only penetrate for 3-4 hull. Everything else just didnt get into him. We had to board them.

I can only imagen how it is with higher rates. It is good to prevent the long range mast sniping and long range line fights, but I think it also take the ability completly away to sink any ship that is a bit bigger then you are atm.

It is realistic, but realistic is not always good, I just missed to film it, otherwise it probably would have display the situation perfectly

Edited by Manta Scorpion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tested penetration and armor thickness with/against ships from Pickle to Trinco in a few battle with carronade at close range.

I really like it the way it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true. Long guns were the standard gun used. They fired a 1/3rd charge from a gun of either 'as long as you could fit' or over 18 calibres - most naval guns were rather longer than that, as increased mass reduced recoil energy.

Medium guns were a relatively scarce experiment (I would say 'late' experiment, except that light pattern guns also predate the period). They are characterised by rather light weight of construction, a reduced charge and very close range performance & objectionable recoil. The relative importance of heavy shot weight, and long range fires (where initial velocity is far less important to final impulse/penetration) led to a post-period deployment of all large bore weapons of various weights - the bulk of the rebored 24/18/12/9/6 lb guns forming the 'medium gun' school. Some of these worked tolerably well and became Frigate main battery weapons, others were held in store for some time and then abandoned.

As with "all carronade" armament for rated ships, "all medium gun" (on rated vessels) fits were almost vanishingly rare during the Napoleonic wars, and the majority of users of cuts or light cast guns were used on Merchant vessels as Insurance guns... not intended to see any serious use, and a ship so armed was not suited to even self protection.

I remembered that guns tended to reduce in length over the 18th century, and what we had in NA as "long guns" were earlier versions. On most painting you see early 18th ships with very long barrels outside gun ports, and most of the napoléonic drawing show much shorter barrels

I always saw the medium as what you call long guns (standard) , and NA longs as earlier versions. As for caronades I would not say rare, most of 6th rate were exclusive equipped with caronades, and a mix of both on frigate if I am not wrong.

I would not compare the medium guns we have to the light guns of merchant men, and I think they are not represented in game, would need an administrator confirmation on this.

This being said, you seem to me much more expert on the topic than me, thanks for all the details in your answer, very useful!

Edited by trinkof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, I love the idea of the penetration relying on angle, etc, but you have to realize that is not what is happening right now.

 

You have broken the hit boxes/collidables, not just for 'some' guns.  Rounds are consistently looking like a penetration and by all accounts SHOULD be and are not counted from 12, 24 and 42 lb longs as well as 42 lb carronades.

 

Devs, get in a group of 3, mount up in Santisimas/Victories/Pavels and go do a Demon Fleet mission.  After you fire your broadside at their broadside (3rd rate, bellona, constituion, inger etc), use the spyglass and watch how many shots LOOK like they should be pens but do not count at a range of around 200 meters.  It is consistently not registering between 50-75% of shots REGARDLESS of cannon type and poundage.  You will see rather quickly that rounds are PASSING THROUGH the hulls of ships with what should clearly be penetrating shots and are not counted as such... especially near the waterline.  Shots near the waterline are extremely prone to passing THROUGH the ship and landing in water with a visible splash, INSIDE the ship. 

 

Maybe this is just a graphics issue... If it is then that is even worse.  Why would I want to play a game where the 1st rate can't efficiently pen a 3rd rate/connie/inger from 200 yards even if there is no angle(ie flat), except for natural slope to armor, between my ship and theirs?  Any shots taken past 300 yards by any of the guns listed only resulted in maybe 1-3 penetrations at most.  

 

However, I have a distinct feeling this is not a graphics glitch and is indeed a problem with the hitbox/collidables.  Hope to get some clarification on this soon.  

 

Edit: I had multiple broadsides of all 42 lb carronades on my Santi pass through enemy hull at very close range (100-150 yards) and none were penetrating, btw.  They WERE NOT bouncing, but were passing through the ship armor graphically, but were not counted as penetrations, not even 1 out of 17.  This happened with at least 4 to 5 broadsides in 1 battle.

 

Edit:  For real, all of you people who are talking about how great this change is... I feel like I'm taking crazy pills or something.  Has an alternate universe been found on this forum where this patch didn't break combat past 100 yards???

Edited by F4ppinFr3nzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I played several fleet battles in a 3rd Rate now and i love the new damage system! Finally the ships can take a serious beating before sinking, like they should. For me, the loss of cannons is a bit too much. A possible solution was to let the crew repair some of the lost cannons on their own over time without a repair kit, thus decreasing the ship's DPS temporarily rather than giving it a permanent loss of firepower. Thanks for the great work admins!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other post for a suggestion which would go for the realistic and the gameplay sides...

Having a moral value, like in boarding, with the ship surrendering when reaching 0 would make all of this a lot better, and shorter (rather than the sinking issue), while adding realism.

Edited by trinkof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This model is horrible  need to be tuned down by a good 30-40%   now the values are too high

 

 

 

a mercury with 24 caronades shooting a cutter at 5mt  do 5% dmg and sometimes even less.  I just watch a stream of conny vs conny fighting for 1h and half they not have enought dps for kill each other,  it last forever

 

 

and this was tested? by who ? blind ppl?               You lose more cannons then armor, making it even worst since ppl lose even more dps

 

 

A first rate vs first rate was already long and rarely ppl is able to kill all enemy fleet, with this new system is impossible to kill each other, it takes 20-30min for a single first. 

 

 

If you do 1 vs 1 to an npc it will take you 45mins+ to kill a first 

Edited by Lord Vicious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The system is good, but the values are off. I think the armor etc make things much more realistic and fun, however cannonballs have to penetrate more than they currently do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did a test with 2 Santi's today. (In Duel room) 

 

Both Live Oak. 

 

One had mediums + carro's, the other longs. 

 

Sure, if you stay at range then it'll take hours to sink each other. 

 

Get in close (50-100 meters) and you can sink a Santi in 10-15 minutes. 

 

Good or bad for gameplay? I don't know, it seems cool to me! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The system is good, but the values are off. I think the armor etc make things much more realistic and fun, however cannonballs have to penetrate more than they currently do. 

 

it makes the long fights even longer, it takes away the ability to kill bigger ships even if you outskill them and the system was pretty good before. Just the mast sniping was a bit off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, messed around with it some and setting aside whether the thickness or penetration values are correct or not, I see some possible issues:

1. It seems that hulls have been given a max thickness (frame behind planking) continuously down the length of their hull. There are no frame gaps to penetrate. (This makes the Constitution nerf doubly bad, since she had a max hull thickness equivalent to Bellona, but with smaller frame gaps.) So, even assuming everything else is working realistically, you have ships bouncing 100% of shots where in reality only, say, 50% (percentage dependent on frame spacing) would fail to penetrate.

2. Shots that don't penetrate through this thickness seems to almost always bounce regardless of angle, rather than partially-penetrating. While I am not a huge fan of sinking ships by removing integrity above the waterline, a shot that penetrates 70cm and hits a 70cm thickness side at, say, 70° is not going to bounce off. It is going to lodge deep in the structure of the hull. While it won't spray splinters into the interior, or carry through to dismount guns, a deep partial penetration would surely have some effect on integrity. Ricochets / bounces should only really be happening 1.) if a shot has very little energy left before hitting or 2.) hits at a very low angle. Wood is not armor quality steel plate. (Unfortunately I am not aware of any data on critical angles for ricochets of cannonballs off of wood. It was something like less than 7-8° for water.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it makes the long fights even longer, it takes away the ability to kill bigger ships even if you outskill them and the system was pretty good before. Just the mast sniping was a bit off

 

It makes long fights longer because armor and penetration values are off ; with proper guns balancing it can stay equal.

It takes away the ability to kill bigger ships, true. But then values can be adjusted to make it fairer. Long cannons could be used to penetrate superior armor at the cost of seriously reducing DPS for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remembered that guns tended to reduce in length over the 18th century, and what we had in NA as "long guns" were earlier versions. On most painting you see early 18th ships with very long barrels outside gun ports, and most of the napoléonic drawing show much shorter barrels

I always saw the medium as what you call long guns (standard) , and NA longs as earlier versions. As for caronades I would not say rare, most of 6th rate were exclusive equipped with caronades, and a mix of both on frigate if I am not wrong.

I would not compare the medium guns we have to the light guns of merchant men, and I think they are not represented in game, would need an administrator confirmation on this.

This being said, you seem to me much more expert on the topic than me, thanks for all the details in your answer, very useful!

There is minimal difference between a 9ft and a 7.5ft 12lb for example... both fire full charges and obtain nearly indistinguishable performance outside of yard-arm to yard-arm.

About 5% penetration difference at most, reducing to near nothing at longer ranges.

There is a much larger difference between a 9.5ft 32lb 55cwt gun and a 6.5ft 32lb rebore 41cwt. The former fires a 10.66lb charge, the latter only a 5lb charge. This results in around 20% less penetration close in, and a smaller but sustained difference at all ranges.

Of course, there are medium guns with higher and lower length ratios and maximum charges... and some of these are reasonable compromises. All give up the ability to usefully throw double shot - even 32lb from a 9.5ft gun is only useful against a 3d rate within 400 yds, and smaller guns and lighter charges reduce this useful range considerably - perhaps to 'none at all'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has to be changed!  I have heard that people left a port battle that raged on for hours because it took too long..... not good.

 

-Ski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. It seems that hulls have been given a max thickness (frame behind planking) continuously down the length of their hull. There are no frame gaps to penetrate.

Just one reason why randomness is almost always more realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aye took 45 mins to sink connie vs connie and it was close battle to the point were we were both sinking at the end.

Seems a tad too much. No one wants to slug it out for 40+ mins an a 1v1. Reduce the numbers a little more and I think it will work.

 

Also we noticed long / medium range combat is now pointless. Even at medium range with longs, full broadside would often not penetrate at all. Long range was even worse. Had to get very close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×