The Great Balancing of The 4ths

[Fluffy Fishy]

The forums have been alive with this kind of topic for weeks now, pretty much ever since the rebalance, with the hottest topics mainly centring around Constitution and Wasa, while realistically its worth looking at the whole class together, especially how its very easy to see that there are really 3 classes of 4th rate, where Wasa is clearly the best ship, followed by agamemnon, while Constitution, Ingermanland and Wapen are sulking at the bottom, even to the point that Ingermanland and Wapen are only seen on very special occasions by enthusiasts, whilst Constitution users are basically only sailing her because there's a lot of enthusiasm and national pride for the ship which transfers into the game, despite her being objectively worse than Wasa and Aggy.

What I propose is looking at the whole situation through the eyes of history to then extrapolate and create a more even balance on the whole, hopefully benefiting gameplay with a much more interesting choice between the group as a whole.

• Wasa:
  Wasa is as most people know fairly undisputed as the best ship in the game right now, if she were in another game she would be banned from tournaments and receive all kinds of other checks on her. Historically as I understand her she is a weird hybrid of data taken from the ship itself, mixed with some data taken from a slightly larger sister ship but using the Chapman plans, this leaves her as a bizarre complement where she retains the ideal sailing characteristics of the original 1778 Wasa, which were fairly exceptional, but then is paired with the 64 guns and heavier calibre of her sister ship.
  To balance her, I'd like to see her characteristics left fairly as they are, but then change her armament down to 24lbs as is pretty standard across the 4th rate board, I'd also like to see her thickness reduced slightly to reflect the fact she by no stretch had the same thickness as the much bulkier built Agamemnon or Constitution. Ideally I'd like to see her reduced down to her proper 60 guns too, but that might be a big ask.
• Agamemnon:
  The Ardent class were numerous and bulky, built to be good in a scrap but their sailing characteristics weren't particularly great, as was typical from most of their contemporary 64s, where the ratio between length and waist just left them in a pretty poor position for sailing when compared to frigates and 74s, which was part of the reason they were phased out over the later 18th century. Agamemnon herself was well revered due to her success under Nelson, but generally considered typical of the Ardent ships.
  Balancing Agamemnon depends really on what you do with the other ships in the class, I think she could potentially take a little speed hit, but in general she just needs to be thicker and more sturdy than Wasa, whilst also remaining the less mobile ship of the two.
• Constitution:
  The much revered and famous "Old Iron Sides" being one of the best examples of ships we are still lucky enough to have in the modern world, historically the most successful US ship of the period and the only current "in service" ship of the US navy to have ever sunk another ship in combat. Trying to find factual information about her is somewhat difficult, mainly due to the massive amount of propaganda and pride centred around her as a national symbol. While its a bit controversial of a statement I feel like her sailing characteristics are fairly well covered in the current build. She has access to carronades in a much meatier form than the other 4th rates, potentially leaving her with a much heftier broadside than the other 4ths, so is pretty well covered on these things but something to keep in mind is the sheer beastly size of her, while based on some of the theory behind contemporary 74s, she is just massive, larger than most 74s, even competing with some first rates such as the 1745 establishment HMS Royal George, and the later HMS Royal Sovereign in terms of length, draft and displacement (although she maintains a notably thinner waist).
  The appropriate balancing I'd personally call for Constitution is leaving her turn rate where it is and giving her a significant boost to structure or  a little more thickness, I'd personally go for structure though, at least taking her towards the typical 3rd rate range, maybe even going beyond Bellona to a mid point between her and Pavel, I'd also pump up her speed a little bit so she can push through her current disastrous problem of getting stuck in tack.
• Ingermanland:
  I'm not too savvy on the history of Ingermanland, she seems mostly put in the game due to the fact that the devs seem to drive a little bit extra attention towards Russia during the time period, which is fair enough. From what the Wikia says, she was supposed to be a pretty fast ship, at least for her time. Her main issue being the way that she is basically a dinosaur by the standards of the majority of the ships in the game, being built in 1715.
  To make her more viable it would be nice to give her a little all round boost mainly for gameplay, currently she is a bit paper thin, both in terms of structure and thickness, she does have the benefit of the 32lbs and it would be nice to see her able to apply these a bit more, so perhaps give her a moderate speed boost too.
• Wapen von Hamburg:
  Similarly to Ingermanland I'm not too familiar with her, again she was built as a bit of a tribute ship mainly because of the large number of Germans who own the game. She is also similar to Ingermanland in the way she is one of the older ships, this time 1722 so doesn't benefit from the next 50 or so years of naval technology.
  I'd treat her in the same kind of boat when it comes to balancing her too, she just needs a little push in all directions, her turn rate makes her easily the most nimble of the higher end ships, it would just be nice to see her have a little general stat boost elsewhere so she could perform a little better overall and actually acheive something once she gets to the fray.

These suggestions would hopefully lead to a more diverse choices in the game in terms of solo and port action, giving players an actual choice, something the game does pretty well in 5th and 6ths but seems to lose when you get into the 4th-1st rates. You can of course diversify the BR a little too, but on the whole I'd rather see more of a natural ship diversity gained through play styles and real player choices that make a difference to what people personally like to sail than a slightly forced arbitrary value like BR, even though BR is very necessary part of the game.

I hope this somewhat brings together what I have read on the forums and discord over the past few weeks, mostly between the Constitution and Wasa and puts a few more positive pieces on the table as a whole. Thank you as ever for reading

Edited January 21, 2018 by Fluffy Fishy

[Slim McSauce]

The quality of PVP has gone down substantially with the introduction of the Wasa. Before ships had roles, for a good fleet you needed a good mix of these ships. Now it's all Wasa from OW to PBs. It's pretty disgusting how long it's remained the overly meta ship when the fix is as simple as raising the BR and lowering its armament as a 4th rate, or raising its BR and rate, keeping armament and giving it more 3rd rate sailing qualities.

 

[pietjenoob]

I do agree with Fluffy on this. The 4th rates besides the current sailing rebalance also get a proper BR rebalance. What i personally like to see is thag the current 4th rate maybe pulled apart or in a distinct SoL-class and a Frigate-class/rate. So for example that the Sols 46 gun Monnikkendam (1782) or 54 gun Prinses Frederika Louisa Wilhemina (1779) are not put in a 5th rate class. And a dedicated frigate like some 56 gun of the Royal Navy are put in 4th rates

Edited January 21, 2018 by pietjenoob

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

The quality of PVP has gone down substantially with the introduction of the Wasa. Before ships had roles, for a good fleet you needed a good mix of these ships. Now it's all Wasa from OW to PBs. It's pretty disgusting how long it's remained the overly meta ship when the fix is as simple as raising the BR and lowering its armament as a 4th rate, or raising its BR and rate, keeping armament and giving it more 3rd rate sailing qualities.

 

The quality of PvP has nothing to do with the Wasa - the reinforcementzones basically makes all the other ships untenable since you have to wait untill the enemy has enough ships to feel confident in tagging you.. Basically the reverse of a ganking..

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Fluffy Fishy said:

I hope this somewhat brings together what I have read on the forums and discord over the past few weeks, mostly between the Constitution and Wasa and puts a few more positive pieces on the table as a whole. Thank you as ever for reading

Excellent post sir!

[Slim McSauce]

24 minutes ago, Bearwall said:

The quality of PvP has nothing to do with the Wasa - the reinforcementzones basically makes all the other ships untenable since you have to wait untill the enemy has enough ships to feel confident in tagging you.. Basically the reverse of a ganking..

That's a result of lack of PVP mechanics outside of PBs to draw people out. Also a lack of focused area PVP where people who want to PVP can go, instead of capitals which the devs have made pretty clear they don't want to be the center of OW PVP.

Wasa actually directly affects PVP when everyone is forced to use it to be competitive. There's a reason why everyone is using it over all the other ships. It's plain better and nations without wasas won't fight you because its suicide with how easy wasas are to use in any role.

[Cmdr RideZ]

https://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=10979

24/18/6 pd cannons.

[Cmdr RideZ]

I took a copy from that google docs that had all full rigged ship stats but don't have link to the original doc here.

I assume weight is affecting to sailing performance.

Weight should also affect to hull HP.  Weight divided by size should give good point to approximate hull HP.  More decks you have, higher the ship, less weight per deck, less hp per deck, less hull HP.

Connie is a 2 decker, Agamemnon is a 3 decker.  Agamemnon weights less than Connie.  Connie has 90 more hull HP, based on wiki.  Connie has bad sailing qualities because of its weight?

We could make Connie the old ironsides and give it more thickness and HP.  Another option would be to estimate how much lighter it would be if it had been made from Oak, then use this weight for sailing qualities.

In the end when we build LO ships, it actually could directly affect to ship weight and sailing performance. More realistic way to simulate different wood types?

[maturin]

8 hours ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

https://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=10979

24/18/6 pd cannons.

The ship we have in-game is the 'Kronprins Gustav Adolph', which led to the Wasa-class.

https://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=10981

Note the slightly larger dimensions and 36(!) pounder guns (not 32s).

 

Quote

Weight should also affect to hull HP.  Weight divided by size should give good point to approximate hull HP.  More decks you have, higher the ship, less weight per deck, less hp per deck, less hull HP.

This is backwards when you really think about it. IRL ships were defeated not by threatening the structural integrity of their hulls, but by subduing the fighting spirit of the men inside the hulls. A cannon ball cares little how heavy the target is, so the smaller ship will suffer more hits in a smaller area, and casualties among the crew will also be concentrated, leading to more morale failures. With an extra gun deck, you need to fire more guns to achieve the same effect. That's why the British used those awful 98-gun 2nd Rates. They had more 'hitpoints' and had a powerful psychological effect.

And LO/WO Constitution proves definitively that a heavy ship is not necessarily a slow one. IRL a large ship is a fast ship.

[admin]

19 minutes ago, maturin said:

The ship we have in-game is the 'Kronprins Gustav Adolph', which led to the Wasa-class.

https://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=10981

Note the slightly larger dimensions and 36(!) pounder guns (not 32s).

 

indeed

perhaps we should just rename wasa as GUSTAV ADOLF classing it as 3rd rate as promised
and adding the same ship with a different paint with wasa's lower  calibers as WASA 

[HachiRoku]

15 minutes ago, admin said:

indeed

perhaps we should just rename wasa as GUSTAV ADOLF classing it as 3rd rate as promised
and adding the same ship with a different paint with wasa's lower  calibers as WASA 

I hate seeing everyone in fir fir Wasa but I don't believe making its guns a lower caliber is good  Fix the BR for now  Who cares what the rating is as the BR is the only relevant part. A good ship in real life should be good in a game too. Noone complains that an F-22 is overpowered compared to an F-4 in flight sims. Wasa is not overpowed compared to bellona. Bellona has more mast thickness and will smash WASA imo. The Bellona and Wasa are the real competitors once the BR is changed. Please Fix BR first and then we can see what the story is. 

One thing and this is really important. We need 20% marines for 1-3th rates because some people do not have book of 5 rings and wasa can have more marines than a victory i think. 10% Marines should be available for 4-5th rates too. Let the players choose between 10 or 20%

Edited January 22, 2018 by HachiRoku

[H2O]

30 minutes ago, admin said:

indeed

perhaps we should just rename wasa as GUSTAV ADOLF classing it as 3rd rate as promised
and adding the same ship with a different paint with wasa's lower  calibers as WASA 

Sounds good , but when are we going to get updates? What is going on? 

[Corona Lisa]

32 minutes ago, admin said:

indeed

perhaps we should just rename wasa as GUSTAV ADOLF classing it as 3rd rate as promised
and adding the same ship with a different paint with wasa's lower  calibers as WASA 

A bit offtopic, but any plans to change thickness/penetration anytime soon?

[H2O]

7 minutes ago, Jon Snow lets go said:

A bit offtopic, but any plans to change thickness/penetration anytime soon?

There wasn't even any updates for this year and future of NA and you asking that?

[Corona Lisa]

1 minute ago, H2O said:

There wasn't even any updates for this year and future of NA and you asking that?

This year is 22 days old

[admin]

38 minutes ago, HachiRoku said:

One thing and this is really important. We need 20% marines for 1-3th rates because some people do not have book of 5 rings and wasa can have more marines than a victory i think. 10% Marines should be available for 4-5th rates too. Let the players choose between 10 or 20%

ok

[H2O]

36 minutes ago, Jon Snow lets go said:

This year is 22 days old

You are right that is almost one month without news! I guess I will have to visit a review page soon. 

[Cmdr RideZ]

1 hour ago, maturin said:

This is backwards when you really think about it. IRL ships were defeated not by threatening the structural integrity of their hulls, but by subduing the fighting spirit of the men inside the hulls. A cannon ball cares little how heavy the target is, so the smaller ship will suffer more hits in a smaller area, and casualties among the crew will also be concentrated, leading to more morale failures. With an extra gun deck, you need to fire more guns to achieve the same effect. That's why the British used those awful 98-gun 2nd Rates. They had more 'hitpoints' and had a powerful psychological effect.

And LO/WO Constitution proves definitively that a heavy ship is not necessarily a slow one. IRL a large ship is a fast ship.

I did not want to say that Connie should be slow.  Actually how I have understood it from age of sail documentaries (for dummies), stronger the hull faster top speed you can achieve.

Weight at least partially defines how much and how thick wood was used?

LO is thick and heavy.  Connie is a heavy ship.  If weight is a number that matters in physics simulator, Connie is probably penalized here.

Connie turn rate is worse than for ships that are heavier and longer.  Dont know what is the theory for the current rate.

In that google docs, I think devs released it at some point..

Bellona weight 2420

Connie weight 2240

Bellona has 3 decks and room for 32pd + 24pd cannons.

What could explain Connies weight?

[Slim McSauce]

2 hours ago, HachiRoku said:

I hate seeing everyone in fir fir Wasa but I don't believe making its guns a lower caliber is good  Fix the BR for now  Who cares what the rating is as the BR is the only relevant part.

That's quite literally the fix until they create the new ship. Are you suggesting to keep the Wasa unrealistically OP as a 4th rate? The rating affects every single mod, not just marines.

[HachiRoku]

3 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

That's quite literally the fix until they create the new ship. Are you suggesting to keep the Wasa unrealistically OP as a 4th rate? The rating affects every single mod, not just marines.

Fair enough. Then rate her as a 3rd rate. Rating as no meaning anyway since different nations in different times had different ratings.

[Teutonic]

2 hours ago, admin said:

ok

I added it somewhere else but I am fully in support for the Wasa to be considered a Lineship class ship in the game SOLELY for the purpose of all the knowledge slots to be considered 1st-3rd rate bonuses.

The oppressive nature of the Wasa is not only the guns, sailing profile, and BR....but also that the bonuses it gets from books are all considered 4-5th rate bonuses.

so @HachiRoku is right
extra hammocks? 5% (1-3) instead of 10% (4-5).
marines? 10% (1-3) instead of 20% (4-5).

6 minutes ago, HachiRoku said:

Fair enough. Then rate her as a 3rd rate. Rating as no meaning anyway since different nations in different times had different ratings.

 

Ratting has no meaning except for the book bonuses

Edited January 22, 2018 by Teutonic

[Slim McSauce]

7 minutes ago, HachiRoku said:

Fair enough. Then rate her as a 3rd rate. Rating as no meaning anyway since different nations in different times had different ratings.

Great. I think we're all in agreement then that the current Wasa should be classed properly as a 3rd rate, giving the less prominent (1-3rd) rate skill books. 

It will serve well as the light 3rd rate to the Bellonas heavy status and can keep most of its qualities. Only thing necessary is a BR raise to a fair 350-380 and nerf to its speed putting it more aline with the other 3rd rates, a -0.3knt in speed would put it .3 knts in front of the Bellona and the Wasa would serve as THE heavy SOL chaser. 

No longer will the Wasa overly interfere with light ship engagements and PBs. It will very much stay in its lane in terms as a light, heavy ship chaser where it belongs 

Edited January 22, 2018 by Slim Jimmerson

[Doug Maoz]

29 minutes ago, Coraline Vodka said:

It's 6 front and 4 rear chasers will forever make it a Chase boat and very favored in pvp

I'm honestly not sure why a OW-viable ship with 10 chasers was introduced. Before the Wasa, the most chasers you could realistically have on an OW ship is 6 total (Surprise and Ingermanland). Wappen is not used in OW, neither is Ocean.

10 chasers seem like too much.

[Fluffy Fishy]

4 hours ago, maturin said:

The ship we have in-game is the 'Kronprins Gustav Adolph', which led to the Wasa-class.

I'm a little confused here, wasn't Wasa built in 1778, where Gustav Adolph was built in 1782 as a slightly larger variant, surely the Wasa is still the lead ship of the class in this circumstance as the first to be built of her plans, that being said I'm by no means experienced in Swedish shipbuilding so I may have things wrong. Either way it seems somewhat bad of Game-Labs to name a ship after a different ship, there is a responsibility to try to accurately portray history as for a lot of people this game is probably as deep as they will ever look into 18th/19th Century naval history.

 

3 hours ago, maturin said:

That's why the British used those awful 98-gun 2nd Rates. They had more 'hitpoints' and had a powerful psychological effect.

And LO/WO Constitution proves definitively that a heavy ship is not necessarily a slow one. IRL a large ship is a fast ship.

At the risk of taking this a little off topic, what's wrong with the 98 gun second rates? They are lovely ships, more agile than first rates, cheaper to build and commission and could pretty much do the vast majority of jobs a first rate could do, there was a reason large 2nd rates were so popular within the Royal navy, The Neptune class is so iconic too.

Bringing this back on topic, the Constitution is living proof that size has less to do with things than hull form and how much cloth a ship can safely use, although there are obvious limitations of strain weights of wood that only allow for so much of a large ship.

 

3 hours ago, admin said:

perhaps we should just rename wasa as GUSTAV ADOLF classing it as 3rd rate as promised
and adding the same ship with a different paint with wasa's lower  calibers as WASA 

If you are going to do this please make the ships more than just a palate swap, I'd much rather just see the ship renamed and re-classed as a 3rd rate without a Wasa than another dubiously authentic ship, I personally get very frustrated with the continued over gunning of each ship Gustav Adolf is supposedly a 62 while Wasa is a 60, it seems such a shame to produce more ships that stray from their typical load outs, even then Gustav was reduced to a 60 anyway to maintain her large armament. Either this or make gun weight have a much larger affect on performance.

 

2 hours ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

I did not want to say that Connie should be slow.  Actually how I have understood it from age of sail documentaries (for dummies), stronger the hull faster top speed you can achieve.

Weight at least partially defines how much and how thick wood was used?

LO is thick and heavy.  Connie is a heavy ship.  If weight is a number that matters in physics simulator, Connie is probably penalized here.

Connie turn rate is worse than for ships that are heavier and longer.  Dont know what is the theory for the current rate.

In that google docs, I think devs released it at some point..

Bellona weight 2420

Connie weight 2240

Bellona has 3 decks and room for 32pd + 24pd cannons.

What could explain Connies weight?

Mainly her size, referring you up to my original post I pointed out that constitution was just massive, that and her dense live oak framing made for her to just be a very heavy ship, not that really makes any real difference as a raw fact on its own. The other things to look at are just how close knitted her vertical frames are, they are almost to the point where they are another layer of planking which shows how heavily she was built in general which all adds to the weight. I'd almost be tempted to say her weight in the game stats are actually too low at this point where they have been balanced a bit in her favour, which is fine because its a game not a simulator but just don't underestimate how massive she actually is.

This is the reason behind like I explained earlier I reckon she should keep her fairly poor turn rate but receive a nice healthy boost to structure

[Slim McSauce]

6 minutes ago, Doug Maoz said:

I'm honestly not sure why a OW-viable ship with 10 chasers was introduced. Before the Wasa, the most chasers you could realistically have on an OW ship is 6 total (Surprise and Ingermanland). Wappen is not used in OW, neither is Ocean.

As an OW viable ship, no it doesn't make sense. As a niche SOL tagger/support ship yeah it could fit well with the importance of tagging and demobilizing.

But a 3rd rate being used to solo pirate OW, pretty laughable. Not that it IS possible, but that its the most viable way.