broadside manning and demasting from being in irons

[hoarmurath]

Two points about things that would bring more realism...

 

First, there is the manning of guns. Most warships had enough men to fully man one broadside only. There should be an action required to tell the men to man the port or starboard broadside, with a cooldown. And only the manned broadside would reload.

 

Second, a ship of this era was at great risk if under sails while being in irons. Crossing the wind was a risky maneuver that could demast a ship. Shouldn't this be included as well for more realism?

[Young]

that is pushing to too far i would say for most on the game play realism scale 

[Snoopy]

[..]

Second, a ship of this era was at great risk if under sails while being in irons. Crossing the wind was a risky maneuver that could demast a ship. Shouldn't this be included as well for more realism?

.. where is the risk? (sudden gales aside)

[hoarmurath]

.. where is the risk? (sudden gales aside)

 

The masts are rigged to resist the wind action from astern, if you stay under sail while in irons, the force of the wind on the sails is enough to break the masts as the rigging doesn't help anymore.

[Snoopy]

If it was so dangerous, wouldn't heaving to be a problem?

[BlueEagleGER]

Both sides are able to reload, just with limited crew number. 5 instead of 10 for a 24pdr.

Atleast that is how it is presented aboard HMS Victory.

[maturin]

If it was so dangerous, wouldn't heaving to be a problem?

Yes. There's nothing at all dangerous about having your nose in the wind unless it is blowing a gale. In moderate conditions you can tack all day with no risk. Of course, if you are likely to suddenly be taken aback and put in irons, it is probably because of rough weather.

Most ships in this game also come with complements that allow them to fight both sides.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

The masts are rigged to resist the wind action from astern, if you stay under sail while in irons, the force of the wind on the sails is enough to break the masts as the rigging doesn't help anymore.

 

As Maturin mentioned, this isn't entirely true.  The rigging is designed with stays and shrouds that hold the masts from all four major directions.  While there are situations where being in irons could create complications, it wasn't a frequent guarantee as you have asserted.

[hoarmurath]

Both sides are able to reload, just with limited crew number. 5 instead of 10 for a 24pdr.

Atleast that is how it is presented aboard HMS Victory.

 

Curious, in all wargames i have from this era, you can load only one broadside at the same time. You can also see it depicted in the movie Master & commander when they do gunnery training. I still have a scan of wooden ships and iron men rules, it's very clear, one broadside reload only. You can fire both, but only reload one. I remember it being the same in heart of oak miniature wargame rules (can't find them right now... ).

[hoarmurath]

As Maturin mentioned, this isn't entirely true.  The rigging is designed with stays and shrouds that hold the masts from all four major directions.  While there are situations where being in irons could create complications, it wasn't a frequent guarantee as you have asserted.

 

This is not how the rigging is modelled, and to be honest, this is not how rigging is depicted in model building. I did a few models of square rigged ships, and the dormant rigging is clearly supporting more the masts from the rear than the front. It's not also how it's described in the miniature rules heart of oak, where being put in irons gives a chance of demasting. As this is the best researched set of wargaming rules for naval warfare in the napoleonic era, and according to my experience in building models of such ships, i think they are right.

[LeeUK]

As much as a lot of us like to see realism in the game, it's generally to an extent. I think we have to be careful with things like this as the wind destroying your masts would basically be a RNG feature, RNG features can be frustrating for gameplay, as it stands turning through the wind is already undesirable, especially in the bigger ships. I am not completely ruling it out, it would just need to be thought out very well and would have to be a very rare occurrence only capable of happening in the strongest of winds.

 

I am uncertain on the broad side suggestion, mostly because I think we are yet to see the game evolve more where combat is concerned as they add and tweak existing ships and play with the combat as a whole, it would certainly add more micro management and the need for planning ahead, it could prove to make things a little more strategic, but again it could also be unnecessary and take a little fun out of the battles. 

 

They are nice suggestions but I feel both of them are perhaps only worth thinking about some time in the distant future when the foundations of the game are complete and polished.

[BungeeLemming]

The rig we see ingame is not 100% accurate.

Still Game-Labs do an awesome job showing us the crazy web of ropes and cables which basically are the most parts of the standing rigging of a sail ship.

 

The standing rigging is mainly focused on widthstanding wind preassure from behind. That we all agree on.

Still there is a menuver called "box hauling" where you desperately make headway in order to tack your ship under the given circumstances. (Its exactly what happens ingame when you tack too slow and start making sternway)

Having wind from them front is not an auto-demast.

 

As long as you dont try such maneuvers in too strong winds (which I cant give you figures of what is "too strong") and as long as you keep an eye on the surface to see incoming gusts you are fine with backing sails and having negative preassure on them.

Sudden changes of wind which take a lot of preassure on them from the opposite direction at which they stand can cause problems.

[maturin]

This is not how the rigging is modelled, and to be honest, this is not how rigging is depicted in model building. I did a few models of square rigged ships, and the dormant rigging is clearly supporting more the masts from the rear than the front.

The single strongest piece of standing rigging on any vessel is the mainstay, which supports the mast from forward and is thicker than your thigh even on a frigate.

It's not also how it's described in the miniature rules heart of oak, where being put in irons gives a chance of demasting. As this is the best researched set of wargaming rules for naval warfare in the napoleonic era, and according to my experience in building models of such ships, i think they are right.

You can't be serious. You keep referring to games and models as sources of knowledge. Try reading actual sources on for size, or talking to actual square-rig sailors. A highly authentic replica of a French frigate just crossed the Atlantic, and they didn't risk dismasting every time they tacked.

The reason for the Hearts of Oak rule is obvious: it's to prevent unrealistic tactics because the movement rules are simplistic and abstracted. For a turnbased miniature game may be well-researched, but it's hard to imagine a medium less suited to representing the intricacies of shiphandling.

[hoarmurath]

Rigging then...

 

I'm saying this as, during battle, i noticed that i was fighting while sailing backward a lot, in fact it helps me turn faster even through wind, and also helps me preventing my opponent from taking the weather gauge too easily. And it's more effective when at full sail, as it is how you will reach the highest negative speed.

 

If you think that this is perfectly normal, you are the one that can't be serious. And i don't only have wargames and movies about this era, but enough books to know that this kind of tactic is unheard of, as we use it. Yet the wargames are the easier to refer as they have already translated that in game term, while in book i would be more looking for anecdotal evidence (or lack thereof), that and the fact mine are all in french and i'm sure you aren't going to read them.

 

Yes, boxhauling, but not under full sails like we do.

[DeRuyter]

This is not how the rigging is modelled, and to be honest, this is not how rigging is depicted in model building. I did a few models of square rigged ships, and the dormant rigging is clearly supporting more the masts from the rear than the front. It's not also how it's described in the miniature rules heart of oak, where being put in irons gives a chance of demasting. As this is the best researched set of wargaming rules for naval warfare in the napoleonic era, and according to my experience in building models of such ships, i think they are right.

I am a miniature gamer and have rigged models as well and I am aware of a number of rules HoO included, that have rules to introduce risk of damage or failure when tacking. Some of the games just have a rule to make it harder to tack period. However the risk of damage was minimal unless the wind was very strong or gusting or you had steep waves arresting the ship's momentum. Ships routinely performed a number of maneuvers, which have been mentioned, tacking, boxhauling, heaving to, that required sails to be backed. I have also sailed on a square rigged ship and performed some of these maneuvers. If there was any significant chance of damage a modern replica wouldn't do the maneuvers because of the costs and potential for crew injury, but they do it.

If you study a rigging diagram you'll see that the standing rigging is set up to support the masts/spars from all directions. Your forestays are tensioned to provide support against pressure from the front. Also your forestay and mainstay are the thickest lines on the ship. There are any numbers of books on the rigging of tall ships real or models. I would recommend Harland's "Seamanship in the Age of Sail" for a highly detailed study of all aspects of sailing square rigged ships.

I am all for implementing rigging damage for carrying too much sail in certain wind conditions, we would just need to have varying wind strength in NA first!!

With respect to the broadside reloading I think it varied by nation and crew complement and some miniatures rules/board games reflect this.

[DeRuyter]

Rigging then...

 

I'm saying this as, during battle, i noticed that i was fighting while sailing backward a lot, in fact it helps me turn faster even through wind, and also helps me preventing my opponent from taking the weather gauge too easily. And it's more effective when at full sail, as it is how you will reach the highest negative speed.

 

If you think that this is perfectly normal, you are the one that can't be serious. And i don't only have wargames and movies about this era, but enough books to know that this kind of tactic is unheard of, as we use it. Yet the wargames are the easier to refer as they have already translated that in game term, while in book i would be more looking for anecdotal evidence (or lack thereof), that and the fact mine are all in french and i'm sure you aren't going to read them.

 

Yes, boxhauling, but not under full sails like we do.

I 'd agree that there is too much use of full sails in NA. I think there is another thread somewhere about turn rate v reload rate which is effecting NA combat as well. Here is a historical example of a ship backing sails on main and mizzen masts to make sternway and prevent an enemy from raking her stern:

http://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/uss-constitutions-battle-record0/uss-constitution-capture-of-cyane-and-levant.html

I would note that full sails were only used during the chase and then some combination of battle sails once in close combat.

[maturin]

Thanks for that link, De Ruyter. I couldn't remember where I had read that.

Anyways, there was also a ship that sailed 800 miles backwards to the Azores, with a broken rudder and a compound fracture in the captain's leg.

[Snoopy]

Rigging then...

 

I'm saying this as, during battle, i noticed that i was fighting while sailing backward a lot, in fact it helps me turn faster even through wind, and also helps me preventing my opponent from taking the weather gauge too easily. And it's more effective when at full sail, as it is how you will reach the highest negative speed.

 

If you think that this is perfectly normal, you are the one that can't be serious. And i don't only have wargames and movies about this era, but enough books to know that this kind of tactic is unheard of, as we use it. Yet the wargames are the easier to refer as they have already translated that in game term, while in book i would be more looking for anecdotal evidence (or lack thereof), that and the fact mine are all in french and i'm sure you aren't going to read them.

 

Yes, boxhauling, but not under full sails like we do.

 

The cool part about this game is that my first impression was the same as yours (wtf backwards?) and there are a few knowledgeable people in here (in this thread, no less) who were able to shed light on this.

Here is a video of a square rigger tacking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxCKGS_bLKI

 

Another good source for noobs like me    (if you ignore the terrible music)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6DZIvMZWzQ

 

It would be cool if we had different wind speeds and not perpetually perfect conditions (and full sails at all times) so you'd need to keep a watchful eye on your sails.

I also agree that, against the AI, sailing backwards is silly but can be effective. It's less of an issue against players who know their trait.

 

You are also right about your other point: there isn't enough crew to fight both sides at full efficiency in RL.

We'll see where the devs strike the balance between realism and playability I guess.

[maturin]

Note from the video:

Notice how they cant rotate the sails at full sail....what a facinating mechanic that would be...

Clewing up the courses is optional, but you can brace yard with the courses set. It just takes more men and more coordination to drag the sheets and tacks around the deck at the precise moment needed.

 

Slower yard rotation above Battle Sails would be nice, of course.

[Hugh Latham]

merchantmen typically have a low number of crew to make trade economical.

[maturin]

Do all the ships have the crew compliment to pull this off tho...or would some of them have issues due to choices made about crew/supplies v time at sea/"undercrewing"

Sure, they would have enough men. On a 74-gun ship, tacking with your courses set requires an extra 58 men. With 293 hands required for the entire operation, that's an increase of 19%. So there would always be enough men, but clearly tacking with your courses and topgallants set would pull even more men from the guns. Basically you would need to be in "sailing mode."

 

I should note that even if you clew up the courses while tacking, you still have to handle all the tacks and sheets. It just won't be simultaneous with all the other parts of the evolution, so you can don't need men dedicated to that task exclusively.

 

And warships never sailed with fewer men by choice, so far as I know. They just couldn't find enough recruits, and in the Napoleonic Wars inevitably had complements that would put us in for steep handling penalties, were it Naval Action.

[hoarmurath]

Sure, they would have enough men. On a 74-gun ship, tacking with your courses set requires an extra 58 men. With 293 hands required for the entire operation, that's an increase of 19%. So there would always be enough men, but clearly tacking with your courses and topgallants set would pull even more men from the guns. Basically you would need to be in "sailing mode."

 

I should note that even if you clew up the courses while tacking, you still have to handle all the tacks and sheets. It just won't be simultaneous with all the other parts of the evolution, so you can don't need men dedicated to that task exclusively.

 

And warships never sailed with fewer men by choice, so far as I know. They just couldn't find enough recruits, and in the Napoleonic Wars inevitably had complements that would put us in for steep handling penalties, were it Naval Action.

 

http://www.musee-marine.fr/programmes_multimedia/vieabord/

 

Number of guncaptains : 37...

Edited August 26, 2015 by hoarmurath

[maturin]

http://www.musee-marine.fr/programmes_multimedia/vieabord/

 

Number of gunmasters : 37...

What? What are you trying to say?

 

Surely you don't imagine that only 37 men are needed to fire the guns....?

[hoarmurath]

You should have taken a look at the site, there's even an english version...

 

What i'm saying is that there's 37 gun captains aboard a 74 guns sol, one gun captain is in charge of one team of gunners. So, on a 74 sol, there's 37 team of gunners, they man one broadside at a time. And i'm not saying it, the national french naval museum is saying it. I'm just saying they are saying it.

Edited August 26, 2015 by hoarmurath

[maturin]

You should have taken a look at the site, there's even an english version...

 

What i'm saying is that there's 37 gun captains aboard a 74 guns sol, one gun captain is in charge of one team of gunners. So, on a 74 sol, there's 37 team of gunners, they man one broadside at a time. And i'm not saying it, the national french naval museum is saying it. I'm just saying they are saying it.

 

And the British only have one gunner with a few mates, plus midshipmen as gun captains. Does that mean British ships should only be able to fire 12 guns at a time? Gee whiz! I bet everyone will play French now!

 

Do the math:

34 gun crews will be less than 400 men. What is everyone else doing?

You either fight one side of the ship and are able to devote many men to maneuvers, or in an intense battle you can take men away from the sails to fight both sides at a reduced level of efficiency. Boudriot (the fellow who wrote that website) even states that a few men from each gun crew can be detached to the opposite broadside to get a head start on reloading it.

 

You don't need a gun captain. Everyone knows what to do. The French just unusual in that they educated their gun captains to be professionals in the craft. But if you are in a melee so intense that you need to fire both broadsides at once, even a blind man will be able to hit the target with no training whatsoever.