Cragger
-
Posts
484 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Cragger
-
-
lol quite a quote from Band of Bros
Yeah I was looking for the quote citation as well
-
Constructed of unseasoned green timber due to wartime demand her service was uneventful and short in french service. Just three years after being taken into service she was found by survey to be rotten beyond fiscal repair and broken up and replaced by the America 1788 a Téméraire type 74 without over double her broadside weight.
Maybe it will get that 12 knot speeds with guns, and the 3rd rate armor will make up for its lack of firepower.
Her green timbers would make giving her more planking strength counter intuitive.
-
A brig (two masted square sail) could turn around 180 with proper sail handling without moving relative position. This was due to the fore and main masts being usually equal distance from the the rotation point of the ship's keel. A ship rig couldn't really manage this due to interference from the main mast onto the mizzen or foremast leading to unavoidable leeway. Brigs (Not brigantine, there is a difference in the two) where very easy and quick to handle a jibe. This trait eventually led to the three masted barquentine which combined the handling efficiency of a brig with the against the wind capability of the schooner while needing far less crew then a ship rig.
Compared to a ship rig (3 masted square sail) there was some negatives. First off being that a Brig carried far less sail area and could not take as heavy a press of sail in heavy winds. Additionally if a mast toppled due to being over pressed, damage to stays or hoops, or etc. Either all the bowsprit jibs would be lost with it or the spanker, and all the stay sails whichever fell. Additionally the other mast if it was not taken by the one that toppled would be significantly weakened due to the loss of the standard rigging between the two. This would make a brig very difficult to manage in any capacity.
-
Frigates operating in pairs. That was the order issued after the first losses of suffered by the British is that frigates would operate in pairs. Constitution wasn't unbeatable, her and her sister ships were built simply to overwhelm any other frigate in single ship action with a competent crew. And ship to ship fights were the norm of the era especially for frigates being as they ranged far and wide as the scouts doing cruising duties. Hence where the term 'cruiser' came from in later eras.
Constitution is so famous because she was able to break out from the British blockade, defeat british warships, and run the blockade back into port three times. Constellation was actually the fastest of the ones built to the same design but never made it out of her blockade.
Chesapeake was significantly smaller and lighter of build then the others due to being altered by Josiah Fox from Humphrey's design (Humphrey's publicly disowned the Chesapeake as his design). President would have been a good example of one of the 'Big Six' originally started by Humphrey's being defeated if she hadn't been so crippled by running into a Sand bar in the harbor mouth due to harbor pilot error and if the Endymion had been able to successfully pursue her.
-
The USS Constitution Museum has posted a video on their Facebook page, giving a very small-scale and simple demonstration of wood types and how they absorb and deflect energy. Using 3 blocks of wood (one spruce, one Live Oak, and one Oak) and 3 (what appear to be) ball bearings, the demonstration shows how well each wood type absorbs and deflects the energy from the falling ball bearings.
What's interesting is that while the spruce clearly shows that it does not absorb much energy, both the live oak and regular oak perform about the same, with the regular oak appearing to perform better, if only by a little bit. Take a look:
You are not drawing the proper conclusions from the video. The spruce absorbs the most energy hence why the hard steel ball bearing does not rebound much as all. The kinetic energy is being transferred to the wood because the spruce is softer and elastically deforms more then the ball bearing. The live oak piece is in the center and rebounds both the highest and longest. This means that it is harder then the others and the ball bearing is retaining more of its energy in the elastic collision and not transferring it to the wood.
-
Q: How many players expressed displeasure with positional reinforcements?
Q: If a player is outmaneuvered in OW, why shouldn't that translate into the battle?
+1 do not re-implement 1.5br limit.
I don't think you understand. It doesn't even require outmanuvering. All it takes right now is a tag, period the end, not even a good one. And then all the slow boats can come up the circle OW and enter the battle surrounding a faster ship, including in front of it.
-
1
-
-
Please announce the change if you commit to it. Many people even to today are not aware that 1.5x BR was even disabled.
-
can you guys confirm that this brings +20 fps boost for everyone?
20fps no. But I will say lowering antriscopy does net a good fps boost on a R280X which I did find unusual as AF is usually not that demanding.
-
she would probably just be sterncamped no problem.
Would be a nasty surprise to those that tried due to the fact that Carracks unlike more modern ships had many guns to the stern
-
140 very small guns by 1715-1830 standards. Still she could be a hilarious fun thing against Brigs and unrates PvE.
-
lesser heel also means lesser exposure of your waterline which means lesser leaks in your weakspots
It's not enough to make it more desirable then speed atm however, that's the point.
Heel is a very important aspect of ships performance in battle.
It's certainly lovely to be 0.5 knots faster than a ship with the stiffness trait. But remember that every time you have to de-power your sails to be able to:
a - Lower the cannons for a close range broadside
b - Deny your adversary the pleasure of shooting into your belly
Heeled away the leaks won't leak and to lower your guns you only need to drop your stay sails for a second.
-
Stiffness mod on a ship now days is pretty much a junk stat. While it does have value in reducing a ships heel speed is always preferred even on ships that heel badly. This can be seen just by looking at the ships for sale at the active ports and it's all stiffness ones counting down due to the lack of desire. Long ago wave action use to influence the vertical dispersion of the guns as they fired but it was removed to make long range shooting easier.
Now I doubt wave action on cannons as they fire will be brought back but I was thinking that if you made stiffness also give a bonus to reduction in dispersion much like pellow's sights that it would make stiffness more desirable and be realistic in an arbitrary way.
-
Chase guns didn't need to be able to converge dead ahead. As they were rarely fired dead ahead. The pursuing ship would always try to maintain the weather gauge to some degree so as not to be sailing into the wind more then the pursued ship. Being dead astern meant the pursued ship could tack to being more with the wind and gain distance. Add to this that chase guns were just an extra, they could potentially shorten a pursuit by hitting a yard or other vital rigging. It's only the game that forces constant damage tagging to prevent magical vanishing acts. In real life ships weren't forced to give distance to pursued ships by turning to fire guns to keep the opponent 'engaged'.
Second thing is no wooden ships armament was ever fixed. Most navies allowed the captain to outfit his ship in whatever way to best accomplish his mission that his funds or prestige allowed. Loops would be cut in railings and gunwales to add chase guns when needed. Forward ones for raiding cruises, aft ones for missions requiring delivery of important messages, persons, or cargo.
-
1
-
-
Any update on this issue getting fixed?
-
For some reason I just cant warm up to these earlier establishment ships... They seem so stubby and honestly are completely outclassed by later ships, even of a lesser rate. I'm all for ship diversity, but maybe more of the period of ~1785-1815
So basically you want everything in Nelson Chequer and royal sails cause that's what that extremely small time period would produce.
-
Not sure of the history of them other than the fact that they came into their own when the Royal Navy bombed the hell out of Copenhagen. Of course that was a city sized target probably harder to miss than hit.
Using it to bomb individual vessels must require, skill, patience, luck and teamwork.
In the hornblower novels there is a part where he coordinates a pair of mortar brigs to bomb a privateer that is taken refuge in an area that hornblowers ships can't go. He uses two mortar ships to fire but also sends a cutter off to get in close and signal back the fall of shot so the mortar crews can make corrections.
Now I know that is just a fictional novel and we are playing a game but ships like mortar brigs must surely require teamwork with other ships in order to have success with them.
Their real life use was against city sized targets or fortifications. Though even there they were more a tool for the patient. The U.S. National Anthem is from a long yet fruitless bombardment of Fort M'Henry by the british using bomb ketches and rockets. Hence the phrases "Bombs bursting in air" and "Rocket's red glare".
When firing shell a mortar not only had the unpredictable trajectory due to air currents as it hung at the apex but also the randomness of the fuse and would burst often well above the target. They could fire solid shot but against forts it really didn't do much good and against a ship, if it did hit it would probably punch through a number of decks, possibly even out the bottom depending on the ship but that wouldn't really be all that threatening to a wooden ship. More annoying then anything as shipped water would damp the powder potentially.
A perfect keel hit from a solid shot from a mortar could cause serious damage I suppose but that's such a long shot. Both figuratively and physically. You'd be better off in the odds firing shell and hoping to cause injuries with shrapnel.
-
3
-
-
Even in the 1860's the mortar shell ships on Hampton Roads did next to nothing due to that lack of accuracy. Just to have a comparison to RL.
From what people been reporting it might be on the spot.
Another example. Union forces shelled the berthed C.S.S. Arkansas all night and only achieved a near hit that killed some crew because of a miss. See the Union forces were actually aiming at where the Arkansas had been berthed at during the day, after sun down her captain slipped her moorings a few hundred yards downstream.
-
Thats exactly what I predicted a few days ago. Just look at Eve they allow free uncomplicated unrestricted PvP and it worked for 10 years and will for more. Don't listen to the crying carebears.
Unrestricted you say.
You know other then relatively safe empire space were attacking players you were not at a declared war with their empire with would you get you insta squashed by the npc responders.
Other then the gates and their focal points and cloaking fields. Other then having the ability to see everyone in local at any time and if they were affiliated with your alliance. "If it ain't blue it's goo, if it's red it's dead." became a saying for a reason.
Yeah.. really unrestricted restrictions.
-
2
-
-
Lol. You can actually see people heading somewhere. You just need to have people outside the drawing distance and be ready to catch lone people because you are giving them very precise information of fleet numbers.
You can but the capitials generally aren't 'important' areas. Assault fleets don't set out from them usually, players there are either doing missions or leaving with empty trade ships to pick things up.
And well, I have little sympathy for people that absent minded mission run thinking the capital is safe
Easiest solution I guess is just make the protection boundary uncrossable for non nation players.
-
was wondering why my long guns would only shoot water.
-
1
-
-
Ultimately we need to find ways to create practical battlefields along front-lines between nations.
Currently the front-lines are often dead zones, so we end up creating PvP hot-spots via Free Towns deep in enemy territory (where we can actually find people to fight).
It's a pretty fundamental flaw in the game right now. So I'm tentatively in favor of a change like this, if it's part of a plan to get people fighting on frontlines.
I agree, I understand the purpose and reason for free towns for cross national trade and access for cornered nations. But I don't think they really serve their intended purpose and instead make it rather time inefficient to harrass and raid in hostile water compared to just sitting at a free town in the middle of hostile zones.
-
Yeah, free towns are supposed to the sorts of lawless frontier places like pirate ports were in reality. (Pirates never tried to stop anyone from docking at Nassau.)
Alternately, it could be impossible to leave large warships docked at an outpost there without the player's presence. Someone will just steal it.
Because it would have been self defeating for them. Captured ships and cargo only have value when you can sell them. Preventing buyers from coming to Nassau would be akin to walmart mugging customers at the door.
-
I totally agree with this.
I know the devs changed it because people accused other people of using alts to attack a trader or other AI ships in front of the harbor to pull an undocking defensive fleet into battle.
But the outcome of the change has this big downside.It was happening so it's a good change. Though I really don't see the intel you can glean except from a nation that's been pushed back to their capital. Certainly no more then can be had just having an alt sit in their nation chat.
-
Ingermanland is from 1715, not outside the time frame. A drawing that included her scantlings would go the furthest in helping her become a reality.
Question of the day - ship rig vs brig rig
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
I don't think the Rattlesnake is a good comparison for brigs. Yes she is very small for a three masted ship but she's built like a frigate. Quarter deck, gangways over the gun deck, forecastle. Her beam to length ratio is high to improve speed as she was designed as a privateer to hunt down trade ships. While brigs in naval service or more general purpose ships and generally had fairly wide beams. They excelled at coming to and from smaller ports with tricky winds due to being able to handle a jibe to turn around in a cove far more able then a schooner.
If you tried to brig rig the Rattlesnake the sail handling would become quite cumbersome due to the spanker interfering with the quarter deck which would likely need to be cut down, setting the main back would require extensive modifications. Snow rig would be more efficient in putting the gaff on the snow mast behind the main but then she'd have been slower with the wind since the spanker would be shadowing the mainsail. Sometimes sail plan is simply determined by other features of the ship themselves.
Ironically Rattlesnake was captured by the two decker HMS Leander 50 because her heavier rigging and spars could press more sail in the weather then Rattlesnake could. Changing to a brig rig would have made her even slower in such conditions due to larger sails and spars being required.