Gun Battery Upgrades

[Sir. Cunningham]

Whilst I know that we'll be able to customize the size/poundage of our ship's armament ingame, I think it would be nice if we could also upgrade/improve our armaments further in a 100% realistic manner.

 

Below are some suggestions for possible gun battery upgrades that could be acquired or purchased ingame. More can be added if others have any suggestions.

 

Gunlocks

Effect: Significant increase in accuracy (esp. in rough seas) & a modest decrease in loading times

 

 

Tangent & dispart sights

Effect: Noticable increase in accuracy (esp. at long range)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even burn gunpowder

Effect: Noticable increase in shot power & range (roughly 15%)

 

 

Source of Illustrations & Texts: 

Broke of the Shannon: and the War of 1812  by Tim Voelcker

[akd]

In my opinion, the current gunnery system in game imparts the benefits of tangent and dispart sights and a central director. We already fight our ships more like Broke than traditional captains. The accuracy we can achieve in game is so far beyond what was typical at the time, I'd be hesitant to push it up much further.

However, gun locks and powder upgrades could have practical implications, the former reducing the overall time for a broadside but with a chance of misfire, and the latter reducing range dispersion and/or increasing velocity.

[Sir. Cunningham]

In my opinion, the current gunnery system in game imparts the benefits of tangent and dispart sights and a central director. We already fight our ships more like Broke than traditional captains. The accuracy we can achieve in game is so far beyond what was typical at the time, I'd be hesitant to push it up much further.

However, gun locks and powder upgrades could have practical implications, the former reducing the overall time for a broadside but with a chance of misfire, and the latter reducing range dispersion and/or increasing velocity.

 

The accuracy we currently see ingame seems to realistically reflect what was achieveable with both gunlocks & tangent/dispart sights (something the British were using wholesale from 1815 onwards), whilst single captains had been using it long before this time, so perhaps ships should start out with a lower accuracy whilst with the upgrades be able to achieve the current accuracy?

 

As for the even-burn gunpowder, this would naturally also aid in accuracy somewhat by providing consistency, and according to tests conducted at the time increase the max range of the cannon by 15.3%, which naturally also means higher penetriation power.

 

Another possible upgrade 

[Johny Reb]

In my opinion, the current gunnery system in game imparts the benefits of tangent and dispart sights and a central director. We already fight our ships more like Broke than traditional captains. The accuracy we can achieve in game is so far beyond what was typical at the time, I'd be hesitant to push it up much further.

However, gun locks and powder upgrades could have practical implications, the former reducing the overall time for a broadside but with a chance of misfire, and the latter reducing range dispersion and/or increasing velocity.

Although historically accurate I would make exceptions in the game for the following reason. The fights are so dang long. Most fights are at least a half hour and if any chase occurs then its quite easy to reach the hour mark. Having powders and gun improvements that increase accuracy will help in this area so I think it should be looked into.

[Sir. Cunningham]

The accuracy we see ingame atm actually seems very realistic for a ship who's armament was equipped with gunlocks & tangent/dispart sights. The question is wether accuracy should start out this good, or wether all players should be forced to start out with less accurate gun batteries using linestock & match and point aiming.

[BungeeLemming]

I highly doubt that the game's accuracy is anywhere near to historical accuracy.

You can have the best sights, the best flintlock and what not.

But you are still shooting a smoothbore gun with cannonballs wich are not a 100% fit in the bore and are not formed in a perfect curve/ball.

 

There is a reason why the fighting was done at point blanc. Thats about 50 meters at most.

The ability to reload quickly was much more important than the accuracy of the crew since you wont hit shit at long distances.

 

Ingame we have a good balance. We can hit at distances but we can not hit every shot. the broadside is scattered quite a bit.

btw: distances are exeeding 1km. I think the moment you see the enemy's name aboth them is a bit furher than a kilometer.

[Sir. Cunningham]

Abit on the training of crew as well as the importance of the gunlock:

[Sir. Cunningham]

I highly doubt that the game's accuracy is anywhere near to historical accuracy.

You can have the best sights, the best flintlock and what not.

But you are still shooting a smoothbore gun with cannonballs wich are not a 100% fit in the bore and are not formed in a perfect curve/ball.

 

There is a reason why the fighting was done at point blanc. Thats about 50 meters at most.

The ability to reload quickly was much more important than the accuracy of the crew since you wont hit shit at long distances.

 

Ingame we have a good balance. We can hit at distances but we can not hit every shot. the broadside is scattered quite a bit.

btw: distances are exeeding 1km. I think the moment you see the enemy's name aboth them is a bit furher than a kilometer.

 

Actually when equipped with the gunlock consistent hits with a good percentage of the shots from a broadside could be made at rather long distances, and even more so when equipped with the tangent/dispart sights. Effective fire  out to 1 km against a large slow moving target on a calm day was definitely possible with these systems, albeit you'd obviously need a number of ranging shots first, after which point a good crew could probably place shots within a ship of the line sized target 20% of the time. So with these systems, out of a broadside of say 50 guns, you could expect that on average probably 10 rounds would hit the mark at 1 km - AFTER having gauged the range via a good number of ranging shots first naturally and in calm seas.

 

Infact according to period documentation 50 yards was grapeshot distance, where'as th effective range of broadside fire was listed as a little over 1000 yards.

[akd]

Although historically accurate I would make exceptions in the game for the following reason. The fights are so dang long. Most fights are at least a half hour and if any chase occurs then its quite easy to reach the hour mark. Having powders and gun improvements that increase accuracy will help in this area so I think it should be looked into.

I disagree. The more you facilitate long-range gunnery, the more you will see fights devolve into long-range gunnery duels with the only maneuver consisting of edging in and out of max range. If gunnery at max range is effective, you will see fewer short-range fights involving more maneuver, the sorts of fights that can result in decisive outcomes more quickly.

[BungeeLemming]

[...]The middle-of-the-range culverin was 5-1/2" calibre (about a 20pdr), with a range of 460 yards (420m) point-blank, and 2650 yards when elevated by 10�. This implies a muzzle velocity of at least 865 fps, or 590 mph.[...]

http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/cannon.htm

 

[...]The Naval Artillery had unheard of range of about 2,000 yards (meters) by this time. Of course most engagements were fought at under 1,000 yards and sometimes within pistol shot (25 to 50 yards)[...]

Distances were often described by reference to various of the ships guns, so a pistol shot was 25 to 30 yards, a musket shot about 200 yards and a gunshot about 1000 yards. At such close ranges the power of penetration of roundshot was impressive, at 30 yards an 18 pound shot would penetrate four oak planks 32.5 inches thick (just under 1 meter thick), hurling a shower of splinters up to thirty yards. At 300 yards range a 32 pounder firing grapeshot could penetrate 5 inches of fir planking and 4 of oak.[...]

http://www.angelfire.com/realm3/caribbeantales/ships_weapons.html

 

[...]The maximum effective range of a 24-pounder was about 1200 yards. The usual engagement range, however, was much closer. CONSTITUTION engaged HMS Guerriere in 1812 at about 25 to 50 yards.[...]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/sail-armament.htm

 

these are the ones I found by simply google-ing.

 

I know I exaggerated with 50 yards beeing the effective range. But fact is every shipfight ended at very short distances. Depending on shipsize and fleetsize its only a matter of time at wich the formations/ ship(s) are at close range.

And even when they say 1000yards was still effective. That means a 24 pounder could still penetrate planking. There was nothing said about accuracy in the few pages I skimmed

[Sir. Cunningham]

Bungee,

 

The effective range of a gun is usually the distance at which it is reasonable to expect a hit a good percentage of the time if the aim is true, whilst the pointblank range is the distance at which the gun will generally hit what it is directly aimed at the great majority of the time. 

 

The problem at sea however was actually aiming the gun and timing when to fire it depending on the roll of the ship, and before the introduction of the gunlock firing mechanism & tangent/dispart sighting systems this limited the effective range of naval armaments to only about 300-400 yards. This proved a big problem for the allied Spanish/French fleet during the Battle of Trafalgar where they were significantly offset by having to rely on the old linestock & match firing method and no real way to keep track of aim right before firing (the gun capt. had to step aside to fire the gun, and even then there was a delay from ignition to firing)

 

The introduction of the gunlock and instant flash quill however dramatically changed this as the gun could now be both safely aimed from behind, and crucially, fired at the exact moment when the gun/sight lined up with the target, dramatically increasing the general accuracy and therefore effective range to beyond even 1000 yards.

 

The old tactics of the past still reigned supreme however, esp. as the capture of ships and their goods was more important than sinking them, and naturally because standing back and engaging in a long range duel would only increase the risk of significantly increasing your own losses. Therefore outmaneuvering and getting in close so as to fire a few devastaing broadsides, preferably before the other guy could respond, after which a boarding could be attempted, was by far the safest bet - providing you had the wind in your favor of course. As such the usual broadside duels took place at a rather close 100 yards.

[Baggywrinkle]

I'm for encouraging gameplay and battles that don't devolve into kiting. If it takes 'artificial' tweaking, like reducing gun ranges from real figures, to support realistic (and so fun, more skill based, and good looking) behaviour then it doesn't worry me.

I am worried by things like gun upgrades though. I know people love the customising thing, the feeling of personality etc it gives, but all this kind of upgrade does is make new players uncompetitive. Straight up improvements will be used by everyone who knows about and can afford them, which won't include those starting out. It would just provide another advantage to already experienced and competant players. No thanks

Baggy

[Sir. Cunningham]

From about 1815 onwards live fire exercises were usually carried out at 300-400 yards against 4x4 ft canvas targets, at which range the effect of a broadside was devastating:

 

Such accuracy was possible with the introduction of the gunlock & tangent/dispart sight system, vastly increasing the effective range of broadside fire, something that improved even further in 1815 with the adoption of the fire director method intially pioneered by Broke in 1812.  

[Sir. Cunningham]

Soon after Broke's pioneering work on improving naval gunnery the Royal Navy slowly started to adopt his methods & innovations, which would soon begin to show spectacular results. 

 

An example of many was the Battle of Valparaiso in 1814 where the American frigate USS Essex was battered into submission by accurate long range fire from the British frigate HMS Pheobe, suffering some 58 dead & 66 wounded. British losses were 5 men dead and 10 wounded.

 

 

Below is an illustration of the director fire method pioneered by Broke.

[Sir. Cunningham]

I'm for encouraging gameplay and battles that don't devolve into kiting. If it takes 'artificial' tweaking, like reducing gun ranges from real figures, to support realistic (and so fun, more skill based, and good looking) behaviour then it doesn't worry me.

I am worried by things like gun upgrades though. I know people love the customising thing, the feeling of personality etc it gives, but all this kind of upgrade does is make new players uncompetitive. Straight up improvements will be used by everyone who knows about and can afford them, which won't include those starting out. It would just provide another advantage to already experienced and competant players. No thanks

Baggy

 

First of all these upgrades shouldn't be overly expensive, and secondly the toturial should make new players aware of what parts of a ship can be upgraded in the game. That way you're sure that new players know that they always have a choice of saving up for a new ship or upgrade their current one. 

 

Either way if the money isn't spent on ship upgrades then it'll just be spent on bigger and better ships, in which case a newbie in his small starting ship will be just as much at a disadvantage against a veteran player in his long earned 3rd rate.  Therefore I really don't see a problem with realistic purchasable upgrades, as they will merely be an alternative to buying an entirely new ship.

 

Finally new players should be encouraged to practice against NPCs before actively seeking out to confront other players in the open world. Because nomatter the upgrades, a complete newcomer likely won't stand a chance against an experienced player in a completely vanilla ship. 

[Baggywrinkle]

Literally identical to the discussions on the Flying Labs forums at the same point in PotBS' development. Ended up coming across to me as overly 'gamey' once it was implemented.

I'm happy to see the hints from the devs that they agree with the suggestions made by myself and others that players shouldn't be able to buy warships. By signing up to a navy you become entitled to be assigned to a ship. It strikes me as entirely appropriate that national warships may be coppered, or fitted with flintlocks etc. It doesn't strike me as appropriate to buy such things, any more than it does to buy a warship. The other issue is the huge time period covered by NA. How do we deal with 'historical' upgrades in such a context?

I'm aware personal fitouts paid for by captains did, very very occasionally, happen (I countered the wonderfully knowledgeable Marion van Ghent on the matter)...but I haven't yet thought of a way to make such a thing useful and fun in game.

Baggy