Damage model 3.0 - Discussion

[admin]

Would like to discuss the final improvement to the damage model 

 

For detailed information on damage in Naval action also read this:

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/727-damage-model-20

 

We want to try the system where ship sinking will depend on leaks positions on the hull.

 

The ship can be visualized like this. Zones are for demonstration purposes - we are tracking exact positions of hits. 

 

Zone A - danger zone - almost every hit there creates a hole in the hull that will generate water. You can hit this zone only when the ship is listed, or when wave position the vessel the right way.

 

Zone B - hits here damage crew and cannons mostly and sometimes create holes. This will create leaks ONLY when you are listing onto the side due to wind or fast turning or other reasons. Guns can't shoot when this zone is in the water. 

 

Zone C - hits here damage crew and cannons. Holes here are mostly safe and will ONLY generate leaks if you are already sinking speeding up your demise. If you are running away to safety when taking water you will have to be carefully watching the direction of wind, because wrong turn will fill you ship with water faster and you pumps might not be enough to take this water out.

 

 

In general in the new damage model test - ships will sink less and become disabled more. 

 

Please share your thoughts on this.

 

[Chunx]

It would be interesting to see how often the ship gets hit in zone A.

Also, I thought I read some where that you would be able to do things like shoot out a ship's rudder. If I am wrong I'm sorry but would that not require it's own hit box? So as not to confuse it with the hull?

[maturin]

Rudder hits can be relegated to probability. The rudder itself is quite massive and can shrug off a lot of punishment. It's hits to the iron fittings, pintles, tiller and steering tackles that count, and such damage could theoretically occur whenever the stern or quarter is under fire. So if you had a rudder hitbox, you wouldn't be modeling reality anyways, and a resource-saving abstraction works just as well.

 

As for the system itself, I doubt there is much to discuss. It's pretty much exactly what people want, I should think. How it's balanced and implemented is what matters now.

 

 тут главное не переборщить и не ускучнить (извините за новое слово) геймплей,

так как гораздо интереснее когда твой корабль пусть и с серьёзными повреждениями

до последнего будет сражаться и затонет в бою,

чем он, выведенный из строя, будет барахтаться в эпицентре боя

Russian appears not to have a word for drifting, so I won't butcher the language by trying to make myself understood.

 

This poster has a point. For most people, sinking ships fighting to the death is more dramatic and interesting than having combatants surrender and sit around the battlefield doing nothing.

 

But it doesn't have to be that way. After all, once you've seen one ship sink, you've seen them all. They create an obstacle for a few moments and then are gone. And the gameplay devolves into a matter of who holds off death 10 seconds longer, giving them the chance to turn on survival mode and declare victory. Plus gamey DPS spikes with focused fire and all that.

 

I envision something else: I want sinking to be uncommon not just for the sake of realism, but so that more interesting mechanics take over. Surrender should be a player action, but dispirited crews will stop fighting without the captain's say-so, rendering a vessel mostly helpless. I'm thinking only occasional gunfire, very low maneuverability and control responsiveness. So instead of sinking ships melting into watery oblivion in a fleet battle, instead you have unmanageable hulks drifting through the formations, causing their own sort of organizational havoc. These defeated players--whether formally surrendered or just incapacitated--can't do much to influence the battle. But they are still all potential prizes! So instead of ships that fight to the death and sink, you have ships taking knockout punches that require killing blows (boarding and capture). A defeated player can be waiting out the victory of his fleet, in which case he can limp to port for a refit. Or he can be trying to slip away before the soon-to-be victors start mopping up and collecting his vessel. The choice between these two actions will be agonizing and thrilling. Do you maximize your chances of survival and risk cowardly desertion from the field of victory? And if a disabled ship drifts out of battle, it can receive assistance from its fellows and re-enter the fray. This introduces so much more tactical logic, where you may want to disengage to revive some of your team.

[Mirones]

i hope that when we are dangerusly low in water that we could ,,beach,, the ship and try to fix the holes there without having to worry about sinking completly. and later just pump out the water untill we are safe to get to the next shipyard.

[Johny Reb]

I envision something else: I want sinking to be uncommon not just for the sake of realism, but so that more interesting mechanics take over. Surrender should be a player action, but dispirited crews will stop fighting without the captain's say-so, rendering a vessel mostly helpless. I'm thinking only occasional gunfire, very low maneuverability and control responsiveness. So instead of sinking ships melting into watery oblivion in a fleet battle, instead you have unmanageable hulks drifting through the formations, causing their own sort of organizational havoc. These defeated players--whether formally surrendered or just incapacitated--can't do much to influence the battle. But they are still all potential prizes! So instead of ships that fight to the death and sink, you have ships taking knockout punches that require killing blows (boarding and capture). A defeated player can be waiting out the victory of his fleet, in which case he can limp to port for a refit. Or he can be trying to slip away before the soon-to-be victors start mopping up and collecting his vessel. The choice between these two actions will be agonizing and thrilling. Do you maximize your chances of survival and risk cowardly desertion from the field of victory? And if a disabled ship drifts out of battle, it can receive assistance from its fellows and re-enter the fray. This introduces so much more tactical logic, where you may want to disengage to revive some of your team.

I like the idea of ships floating around as demasted hulks, which can still be surprisingly effective. I can't imagine they would be drifting all that fast. They wouldnt hinder a running battle for long. What I don't want to see is every fight or even most fights ending in boarding action. Most ship struck before ever being boarded. My reason for not wanting this is simply because I am going to play this game for the ship combat not for running around on deck and swinging the swords. I want that to be in the game but not its main focus.

 

Now a demasted hulk could be left behind in a running battle. That hulk can then attempt a repair that should take quite awhile to perform. Maybe they get enough canvas to make headway and they can try to escape. The opposing fleet (assuming they win) could turn back on the hulks to mop up and force surrenders or board if they want. But here is a problem with that. Will the end of the battle look like 30 demasted ships left in a long line? If so, it doesnt sound like the kind of action I'm looking for. i'd rather more decisive actions.

 

For game play I think sinking should be the goal, but surrendering given an advantage in someway, maybe retainment of crew and morale of the crew. That way you have the action yet a chance to capture a ship if that is your goal.

[Alex Connor]

This damage model is good. Perhaps consider the wooden hull as armor protecting the crew and cannon, as this armor gets damaged each shot will do more damage to the crew and cannon?

 

i hope that when we are dangerously low in water that we could ,,beach,, the ship and try to fix the holes there without having to worry about sinking completely. and later just pump out the water until we are safe to get to the next shipyard.

 

Beaching could be an important tactic. Example, you are getting chased by a stronger force and will be caught. Run the ship aground, now they will not be able to sink you, they would have to send in the boats. Even if the enemy does, it will take some time to get your ship off, perhaps they will have to burn it, or they will decide your ship isn't worth the trouble and leave you. Better yet, ground the ship near a friendly gun battery, they would have to send in the boats and tow you off under fire. Probably too much effort and risk, where if you ship was just anchored under the battery they could cut it out quickly. 

[maturin]

Most ship struck before ever being boarded.

But all surrendered ships were duly boarded. Unopposed.

I wasn't envisioning or suggesting lots of boarding actions, just the formality of taking control of the enemy vessel. Until then, repair or flight is a possibility for them.

 

The basic idea is sidestepping the dilemma of morale-based auto-surrender by making surrender a player (captain's) choice, while gun crews can still be shot into de-facto submission, leaving the ship near helpless.

 

The opposing fleet (assuming they win) could turn back on the hulks to mop up and force surrenders or board if they want. But here is a problem with that. Will the end of the battle look like 30 demasted ships left in a long line? If so, it doesnt sound like the kind of action I'm looking for. i'd rather more decisive actions.

I'm not sure I understand the objection. Thirty captured ships is the most decisive result possible. The fleet that has ships combat-capable at the end of the battle gets to mop up. Winner takes all, unless they've been sloppy and let some of their victims slink away (this gives frigates an actual role in fleet battles!).

[Alex Connor]

 

Winner takes all, unless they've been sloppy and let some of their victims slink away (this gives frigates an actual role in fleet battles!).

Indeed. I hope the damage model is balanced to reflect just how much more powerful a ship of the line is compared to a frigate.

 

Numerous historical examples to demonstrate this. Two 74s confidently attacking 6 french frigates. One 74 capturing 2 modern 18lber frigates. One broadside from a 74 completely dismasting a 32 gun frigate. One 64 attacking 4 spanish frigates, disabling one, driving off the other 3 and securing its prize. Typical practice was that if a frigate was running from and being caught by a ship of the line they would fire a broadside and surrender, or just surrender without firing.

 

Even the Constitution, one of the biggest and most powerful frigates of the age of sail, has not much more than half the firepower of a 74 gun 3rd rate. The more typical large frigates, the 18lb 38s or 40s have about 1/3rd of a 74s firepower, the smaller frigates with 12lb or 9lb main batteries don't even have the weight of fire to contribute to a battle involving ships of the line.

 

So yes, the role of frigates in a fleet battle was scouting, towing damaged allies out of the line of fire and taking the surrenders of disabled enemies.

[BungeeLemming]

May I come back to the actual topic?

ty.:

 

At first This new damage model is just what I was looking for.

I was complaining about the mixture of the old and new system we have right now and this dmge model 3.0 is just what I wanted.

 

All the talk about capping, boarding etc belongs into another thread.

There WERE occations where ships fought until their bitter end.

In a MMO we will sooner or later have players wich generate a certain hatered around them. So others should have the total satisfaction to sink that dude.

Speaking about pirates for example. They will capture and plunder prizes. But the navy hunts them down and either sink or capture them to get them hung.

 

The sinking and damaging model your going for with this idea is the right way IMHO.

 

Modules like rudder and such still exist. So everyone wondering why masts, rudder, pump, powder magazine and all is missing.. its about the sinking and hull damage.

[Ned Loe]

Do not make ship completely disabled. You will make players pissed) No one likes to sit and watch their stern is being camped and you sink hopeless. 

 

Make certain parts of the ship broken/damaged. Every broken/damaged part must have an opposite skill or repair in order to fix it. 

 

Rudder. -50% turn, (rudder patch repair)

 

Mast. -50% speed, (mast patch repair)

 

Hull. +20% more damage taken from enemy shots. (hull patch repair)

[Alex Connor]

This system looks perfect. For other damage zones, I believe already stern shots result in more damage, is this also divided into zones? Shots from behind into the stern gallery would have a very good chance to kill crew and dismount guns, those glass windows and decorative woodwork are very little protection. Below the stern the hull is as normal, no extra damage there, but a possibility to damage the rudder.

 

Although, like maturin said, the rudder isn't that easy to damage. Don't know exact figures but these rudders are huge blocks of wood, could easily weigh 15 tons or more. If you did manage to damage the rudder there would be no way to repair it in battle. More likely to be able to destroy the wheel or cut the lines leading up from the tiller, these would temporarily disable steering.

 

Another damage zone could be the open deck, if you can shoot down onto it then more crew damage, gives taller ships that realistic advantage in close quarters (only reason the British kept building 3 decker 2nd rates instead of the otherwise superior 80 gun 3rd rates that the french built).

 

I've seen masts falling on one hit in the gameplay videos, any plans to break up the masts into their 3 sections? The lower mast at least is quite tough, might withstand multiple hits from big guns, where the topmasts and above are more fragile. Also, would give more stages to a dismasting, not so sudden from intact sails to lost a mast and crippled...

[maturin]

I've seen masts falling on one hit in the gameplay videos, any plans to break up the masts into their 3 sections?

Already done.

[BungeeLemming]

 

Do not make ship completely disabled. You will make players pissed) No one likes to sit and watch their stern is being camped and you sink hopeless. 

 

Make certain parts of the ship broken/damaged. Every broken/damaged part must have an opposite skill or repair in order to fix it. 

 

Rudder. -50% turn, (rudder patch repair)

 

Mast. -50% speed, (mast patch repair)

 

Hull. +20% more damage taken from enemy shots. (hull patch repair)

 

I dont see the point in this..

Why would I engage an enemy without the possibility to sink him?

 

If sinking gets near to reality we have wrecked ships but.. AFLOAT in many times. Big Lineships were surrendered rather than shot to pieces. Those collosal ships have had so much buoyancy that they would not sink easily.

 

Right now we already have a dynamich damage model with all the repairs enabled.

Leaks can be plugged, some damaged armor can be repaired (altho thats VERY unrealistic to bother wich such repairs rather than focusing on dismounted guns).

Matst can be shot and repaired (in action pretty unrealistic but its a game)

 

What I love to see is a falling mast to have a drag-anchor character. So you will have to sent men to cut all the standing rigging loose.

 

edit:

By repairingarmor I dont mean plugging leaks.

I mean the actual armor around. Taking planks to patch the reeling and such things.

I dont think such visuals an astetics were ever done during fightings.

The only possible situation where you improve the damaged armor is when you try to get a good stand for a cannon to work. means you need a tough place wich can widthstand the force of recoiling cannons

[Alan Lewrie]

I like this model. I think it accurately reflects the dangers from shot taken in the respective zones. The damage model should be scaled based on the size of the ship. A brig or cutter will have a thin hull, a liner will have a very thick hull (HMS Victory's hull is up to 2 feet thick at the waterline...). Given that fact any specific cannon (a set size for testing purposes) at a set range will penetrate or damage the different hull types, well differently.

 

There has been some discussion that puzzles me. For example it was just stated that "These colossal ships have (had) so much buoyancy that they would not sink easily". Ok, maybe not easily, however with 100 guns, plus a full load of shot, and tons of other supplies that are heavier than water (to say nothing of the tens of tons of copper and iron fittings, a British 74 took approximately 30 tons of copper fastenings...) it is possible. It depended on the integrity of the decks and hatches between the hold or orlop decks and the gundeck. Pretty much, if the gundeck began to flood it was only a matter of time before the ship foundered.

 

Also (sorry Bungee, it isn't personal) to say that plugging leaks is VERY unrealistic compared with (repairing) dismounted guns is contrary to historical accounts, and mechanics. Damaged guns were rarely repaired during battle as this required using the main yard as a crane and a few dozen (or more) hands to pick up the cannons and set them back on the carriages. The carpenter and his mates on the other hand were actively engaged during battle sounding the well, looking for holes and plugging them ASAP. IT was his duty station and sole responsibility when the ship cleared for action and beat to quarters. I'm hoping you were being sarcastic, or said this tongue in cheek.

 

On to other bits covered in the discussion around 2.0.

Specifically powder and the powder magazine. At the risk of being picked up by big brother and labeled an enemy combatant I have done some studying about black powder and it's properties.

Fire is not the only way to ignite black powder.

To manufacture powder the ingredients are mixed together in a milling process (earliest method was a mortar-and-pestle, eventually large milling wheels were employed). Once the mixing is done, the mixed wet powder (water or alcohols being added to reduce dust and chance of accidental ignition during mixing) is pressed into cakes and left to dry and broken up into grains by hammer or roller. The resulting grains have sharp edges which, during transport, rub against each other and make a fine powder in the barrel or cask. This dust can be ignited by as little as a static discharge. Additionally black powder can be ignited via impact, heat or shock under the right (or wrong) conditions.

(sources for this information are http://www.pyronfo.com/low-order-explosives/the-chemical-and-ballistic-properties-of-black-powder.html and http://www.skylighter.com/skylighter_info_pages/Books/fireworkssafetymanualofca.htm )

 

For these reasons the powder magazine was a heavily reinforced, lead lined box. It was dimly lit through special lanterns that did not open into the magazine. The corridors leading to the magazine were protected by heavy felt curtains that were kept wet during battle. The deck was covered in lead, copper, felt, or other materials to eliminate sparks, personnel entering the magazine were required to wear special shoes that would not spark. The handling was generally done by chain method (think fire buckets) to the outside of the curtains to reduce motion and chance of sparks. Given all this, the chances of an open flame getting to the magazine (located bellow the waterline and along the centerline of the ship) are remote (save the lantern getting hit directly and blowing it's still flaming debris directly into the magazine). So, impact (ball punching through magazine walls) or static discharge become likely culprits in spontaneous magazine explosions. So the random chance model is probably more accurate than a hit box with a set counter.

Either way no one wants to see their ship go "BOOM"

 

To tie 2.0 together with 3.0... Will there be an option to flood the powder magazine? Yes, I really was going somewhere with all that. There is a historical precedence for this action. If a ship were on fire, to the point where the crew available could not contain it, it was prudent to flood the magazine to prevent explosion (and on that, please be careful not to model a massive, supersonic type blast... traditional black powder is a low explosive and does not detonate, it deflagrates... size of the explosion would be proportional to the amount of powder, compactness and rigidity of the magazine, temperature etc...).

The downside is it obviously took the ship out of action and was done as a life saving measure, likely in conjunction with striking the flag.

[Thomas Blackwell]

 

Either way no one wants to see their ship go "BOOM"

 

 

If ships only go boom when the powder explodes, people will go "Woah, cool!" Instead of "Sigh..."

[Morgan]

Although what Alan writes are facts and true (also very good info), always keep in mind that this is a game.

And keep in mind the results of the poll: "Simulation or arcade".

So, the comment of Theodore is very good imho.

[Alex Connor]

Also, the position of the magazine is well below the waterline, all but impossible to hit directly.

 

So IMO magazine explosions should only be the result of a ship burning out of control. Orient at the Nile, Real Carlos and San Hermenegildo at Algeciras Bay, Achille at Trafalgar, etc.

 

Makes better gameplay too, ships blowing up what is effectively a single piece of random luck does not favour skillful play.

[Thomas Blackwell]

Perhaps a bar. A fire that goes unchecked raises the bar. If the bar gets too high, kablewie is immanent. This is off topic however as it is not a part of the 3.0 updated model (but still something to ponder) as far as 3.0 is concerned, I think it is a good step in the right direction.

[Alan Lewrie]

Indeed, I had not realized just how deep down the magaizing usually is. So, direct hit does seem pretty much impossible.

 

A sidebar to the damage model discussion. It seems obvious, but what weight is given to balistics and shot weight in determining the extent of damage done by each hit?

[Johny Reb]

After reading the discussion it seems reasonable to say that in order for a ship to explode then the ship would need to be on fire first. The devs would have to add that feature into the game and create another focus, "firefighting". I would love to see another ship blow in a large ship battle but I'd hate to be the ship that blows. But if it due to me not taking care of a fire in hopes of getting a kill shot on another then I will only be upset with myself and not the game mechanics.

 

I disagree with winds proposition that ships remain maneuverable no matter what. Nothing grates me more in Potbs then a totally demasted hulk spinning at a rate practically equal to my radius of turn. Dont make sailing ships into motorboats.

 

Also, as to sinking vs surrendering. It is my understanding that most of the defeated ships after these major battles were beaten up beyond repair and scuttled. You didn't see Nelson returning with 95% of the combined fleet after the battle so although the ships didn't sink they were in effect destroyed so if for the purpose of the game we see ships sinking more than what was historically accurate than I'm ok with it. It provides drama, a sense of accomplishment, revenge etc that still mimics in its own way that the ship defeated was taken out of service permanently.

 

I am pleased with the damage model.

My question though will be directed at the sinking model. The admin says that a ship struck in the B zone will create leaks when heeling over enough to put that damage below the water line but what about when the ship is slowly taking on water and the ship, in its entirety, is slowly sitting lower in the water. Does this also create extra leaks? I imagine it does but would like to know for sure. If so the ship should sink exponentially quicker the lower it sits in the water as more and more holes drop below the waterline.

[BungeeLemming]

I am sorry to be mistaken.

By repairs on armor I dont mean plugging leaks. I mean to get some planks on shot holes above the waterline.

The only reason one would do that is to improvise a stand for a cannon. (very instable anyways)

 

@Johny Reb:

Nelson didnt come back with many of the ships captured and disabled because of multiple reasons. The one and most obvious is heavy damage.

Second: a storm wich came just a few days after the fightings.

The Brits captured the mighty mighty Satissima Trinidad and tried to trail her. But because of heavy damage and the stormy weather they had to abandon her.

 

Also on the sinking:

 

Zone C - hits here damage crew and cannons. Holes here are mostly safe and will ONLY generate leaks if you are already sinking speeding up your demise.

I guess this goes for Part B, too

[maturin]

If so the ship should sink exponentially quicker the lower it sits in the water as more and more holes drop below the waterline.

With some dampening factors such as slower leaks into already flooded decks and the increased buoyancy of more submerged hull.

[Johny Reb]

@Manis... about armor damage and ship leaks.

 

I look at it this way. The shots below the waterline that cause the leaks that are visualized with the water droplets on the UI are shot holes below the waterline. These are serious leaks that let in alot of water.

 

Armor damage is a generalized indication of the state of the structure. As the ship takes a pounding, boards are stoved in, loosened, cracked, etc. The shocks absorbed by the hull reduce the integrity of its planks even when no shot hole exists. They are lesser leaks but can become significant with further reduction of hull integrity.

 

By looking at the hit box diagram at the beginning of this thread we see that the design is to increase the severity of damage based off of distance from the waterline.

[Belphe]

Why won't we just try to simulate how it all really worked? Why dividing the hull into invisible sections which will be not fair when comparing e.g. 2 with 4 decked ships? Why not treat each ship as one big box with horizontal divisions (decks). The box has buoyancy which makes it float at a certain level creating a waterline. Each hole whether made by a cannonball or being a gunport below the waterline will let in x-number of cubic meters of water per minute to the deck it is in. The buoyancy should (and is, isn't it?) be calculated in real time making the ship sink at a "realistic" pace. Pumps obviously try to do the opposite but may be insufficient against too many holes. People and guns were pretty much on every deck so making some of the decks responsible for sinking MORE then others is "not fair". Making certain gunports unavailable for seconds only when the slightly damaged ship is pitching and rolling on high waves and then making them available again is also very unrealistic. If flooding was heavy the crews were leaving the deck and never used the cannons again. Also, we should be able to close the gunport doors per deck which would slow down the flooding rate and perhaps give the pumps a chance to save the ship. 

[maturin]

AFAIK the gunports already get closed, there's just no animation for it. So when a port is underwater, its opening is not added to the rate of flooding and the shot-holes are assumed to be the only leaks.

 

What I can't figure out is whether the system in the OP is implemented yet or not. Ships still stink every time. It seems to me that you can pound Area C and remove all the red hitpoints. Then the ocean will just invisibly leap into those shot-holes that are fifteen feet in the air, and the ship sinks.