maturin

Так, вы все только говорили про поведение парус, или про качку корабля тоже? Наоборот, парус больше калышится при слабом ветре. Если ветер достаточно, паруса регулируют качку корабля и поэтому волнение не так много будет влиять на них. А говоря о видеоигре, если целый корабль качает в штурме (как и будет в игре, кстати), тогда уже не стоит мучиться о поведении парусов. Реальность здесь слишком сложна. При сильним ветре, парус может стоить как листок железа, или двигаться как флаг. Я даже не знаю, как у меня мнение про движение парусов. На одной стороне объяснение admin более корректно чем требования других. Но на другом стороне, игра сразу дает впечатление что паруса и ткани немного мертвые. Сложность в том, что мы говорим про очень маленькое, тонкое движение. Говорим о том, как 15 метов ткани калшится лишь 20 саниметров. Тоже есть нуансы размера, и иллюзия громадных паруса на маленьком экране. То что естественно выглядет в реальности бывает странным в игре. Иногда надо исправить реальность немного. В любом случае, такая ерунда как в Empire или АС4 не будет. Если паруса сильно и высоко калышится, что-то не так с кораблем. Но я все таки надеюсь, что поведение парусов еще WIP. Если вам не нравится, ищите клипе. Только не с яхтами, блин.

Wow. Now that is a source. Kudos. There are some very nice range estimates for the effectiveness of double shot (which apparently has penetration problems). It also appears that 32 pounders can penetrate a LOT of oak even at extreme range, and ricochets makes shooting through water pretty much impossible. The author also tacitly states that it was common practice to minimize powder charges in close combat (because of the perceived effectiveness of low velocity shot that just penetrates).

Hmmn, I was under the impression that tallship outfits usually made their volunteers pay for the privilege, assuming they don't have the very rare skillset you can boast, Ryan. I couldn't even get a stipend-paying job on the little schooners that do daysails out in the harbor unless I paid $40,000 for a semester at sea. I sort of feel like I've missed the boat on the whole traditional sail thing.

Are hits under the waterline even really possible? Shot could conceivably travel through a foot or two of water and pierce a thinner sort of hull, but it is almost bound to ricochet at that angle.

Funny you should show up, modernknight. Because not seconds ago I was fruitlessly trying to research a question you might be able to help with. It regards terminal ballistics of roundshot, quite relevant to the thread. There are two things that I have read: 1) In close combat gunners used lower powder charges in order avoid penetrating both sides of the enemy vessel (supposedly allowing to ball to ricochet around the deck and cause additional mayhem instead of smashing right through). It is possible that the explanation of rationale here is incorrect, and they were just trying to save on powder, reload time and above all barrel heat. 2) Carronades were so destructive not just because of the large diameter shot, but also because of the low velocity. It was apparently thought that low velocity shot (so long as it was able to penetrate the hull) would create larger holes and more splinters. This makes some amount of intuitive sense to me, but is also surprising, given what I've heard about bullet wounds. So is it plausible that an overpenetrating 24lb ball going slower will smash up more timber? This second idea justifies the first one. I read one of your forum posts referring to higher velocity shot doing more damage, but maybe you were talking in game terms. Powder charge could be conceivably be a game feature, customizing your gunners' activities. Or if high charge always corresponds to long range and low charge always corresponds to short range, then it could be automated. In that case, long range fights would consume more expensive powder and increase the danger of overheated guns.

http://io9.com/a-map-of-19th-century-shipping-routes-and-nothing-else-1495012998

Can anyone else get me a "hell no!" And the powder magazine is underwater.

Багдад во время каникул не нужен в игре.

Это сказка, я ручаюсь. Обычный моряк уже способен выдумкам, и в битве были тысячи лгунов. А если пуля горячее ядр (как разумеется), тогда ядро не может поджечь ничего. Обычная пуля даже не может поджечь бензин. Я особенно против того, что мои верхные паруса вдруг горят.

That's already the case with heel limits on gun elevation. Anyways, the leeward fleet can always switch direction, or heave to, or simply slow down. Also, the advantage was one of the factors in choosing windward vs leeward positions historically.

Согласен. Кроме того, я некогда не читал, что стреляли только картечью, и надолго. Картечь надо использовать перед абордажом, или для raking fire. Один или два раза, между залпами обычных ядров. Постепенно убивать все экипаж катечью--неправильно. Это особый инструмент для нескольких случаев, а не основое оружие.

ABSO-lutely. And again, this is realism and gameplay in harmony. It means we don't have to constantly worry about the remote chance of exploding, except in situations where death is a possibility anyways.

Обальдеть. And the rest, too, about waterline changes... hardcore. I coincidentally just wrote a post about this. In short, the current problem is that shots that strike the stern or bow hitbox from any angle count as raking fire and do large amounts of crew damage. So even if I fire from an angle where the shot would only break the captain's windows, or clip the quarter (corner) of the hull, it registers as raking fire. There's nothing special about shooting at the stern (rudder aside), unless the angle of impact allows the ball to travel down the length of the deck. Enfilade is everything. Theses are very complicated topics that no one here will have much valid experience or knowledge of. Our theories are worth less without actual real-life testing. So these mechanics are more open to being freely balanced for gameplay purposes. Nevertheless, I have a few points. Leaks: As we all know, sinking is slow. Flooding occurs through shot-holes. It doesn't matter if you have ten holes to starboard and two to port, or if all twelve holes are on the starboard side. They all let in water based on their diameter. The exception is if the shot-hole is in the bow. Then ship speed would increase flooding, most likely. Or at least make repairs less effective. Maybe speed increases flooding risk across the board, who knows. Furthermore, shot holes can start or stop flooding based on heel angle. I think that this is the most important flooding mechanic. If you take the Constitution, she can heel enough to put her ports under. After a long battle, that means that she could suddenly start flooding through dozens or scores of holes by switching tacks, even if none of the damage was actually below the waterline. Alternately, if she was sinking from damage to the starboard side, she could start sailing away on a starboard tack to bring those holes up out of the water and pump. This would be a dynamic, completely naturalistic repair buff. It's exactly what you guys want to do when you talk about a game without magic POTBS skills. It also provides a realistic implementation of the current 'face unarmored broadside to enemy' mechanic. I would like to see an independent hitbox for the gundeck. If a shot hits below a frigate's gundeck and above the waterline, it essentially does no harm. It hits a part of the ship where there are no crew and no guns. On the other hand, it creates a hole that could start flooding if the ship sets full sail while close-hauled in higher winds. So instead of damaging the ship's ability to fight, you limit her ability to maneuver, because she will flood. The best way to escape from a more powerful ship that has brought you to close action? Send every ball at the waterline and run away upwind on the proper tack. If she tries to chase, she will start to flood and slow down too much to chase you. Doing that in a game would make me feel so fucking smart. Fires: Main point is that the magazine is located under the waterline. This is common sense for all rational ship designers. If anyone knows of exceptions, please correct me. So there are no lucky shots that hit the magazine. In game terms, I envision fires as being similar to flooding, albeit more terrifying. They destroy your ship if left unchecked, but can be brought under control if you drop out of the fight to deal with them. There should also probably be too kinds: Rig fires: sails are fairly flammable, and standing rigging is coated with tar, making it a real tinderbox. One thing I will say about Empire TW is that it had pretty rigging fires. The crew would probably be able to cut away the masts and save the ship from being engulfed entirely. In the game, rigging fires should most often be caused by the courses catching fire from muzzle blasts. That will teach people to use their battles sails! Or alternately, you can set the enemy on fire by engaging at point blank (and here I mean less than 10 meters), because the burning gun wadding can fly over onto the enemy vessel. Deck fires: These are the ones that can rage uncontrolled and reach the magazine. I'm not really sure what the biggest rick factors are. Fallen sails can lie over gun barrels and ignite, but this is difficult to implement. If cartridges are stored on-deck, that would be a risk, but I don't know whether that was done. One thing I do know is that guns could burst open and explode if they overheated. That would be a fire-starter and massively disruptive to the operation of the whole deck. If you fire your guns uninterruptedly for many broadsides, there could start being gun malfunctions (dismountings or explosions). But maybe that's too harsh on players. If you like the gameplay consequences of dynamic damage, go for it. I know I have argued for the first item, but realistically, I don't think the difference will every be a big one. If you look at that famous carronade video, even after extreme damage taken from 32lb carronades, the hull of the imaginary Niagara is still almost entirely intact. 6-inch holes don't amount to much. Also, you wouldn't want to pump using the floodwater in your own hold. It would be full of grime and debris and would clog the pumps. I guess a bucket brigade could use it. More hull damage=weaker masts is the best idea. Shot will inevitably strike the chainplates and shrouds, which extend down below the gunports, weakening the masts. I would even say that it should be next to impossible to destroy lower masts (on heavy ships) until the hulls are shot up and shrouds cut. Sacrifice some realism for balance by using realism as an excuse! And that would mitigate the impossibility of replacing lower masts, which should not be possible, despite your aversion to permanent damage. (May I suggest jury rigs?) This is the one thing I'm confused about. Every leak will be near the waterline because roundshot doesn't go through water (and your ballistics simulation makes them sink instantly). Unless we're talking about rowboats, weapons in this era simply weren't powerful enough to destroy a ship structurally. Is this a game-balance thing, to put a hard limit on the amount of fire a ship can take?

Um, yikes?

Я вижу в первом видео красивый закат и дальше--сплошная гадость. Упасть при качке легко, когда корабль ходит скоростью гидроцикла. И зачем человек-то всегда стоить на планшире под огнем? Он хочет умирать? Пркатически все дает ощущение, что нет никакого корабля, ни парусов, ни риска смерти. Напалмовое шоу.

Well if you're interested in Rediker's book about ordinary Jack Tar, check out Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea.

Yeah, the Treasure Island connection is just a really cute idea. Too bad John Silver is absolutely unsufferable. For the young version of one of the most beloved fictional pirates ever... what a git. Anyways, the finale was a typical mix of good and goofy. The final battle had some Master and Commander-worthy moments in it, even if the other half didn't look right. I especially liked the last scene on the island. Edit: Barberouge, have you read the book that diagram is from (by the way, what do the years signify?)? I read another Redicker book in a class, and it was quite good.

Exactly what Ryan said. ^ Wind force is vital. It's very troubling to hear otherwise. It creates so much necessary detail for gameplay, and prevents the repetitive, predictable encounters of POTBS. But of course, in a game reality needs to be adjusted. So we can just pretend that we are all lucky captains who never run into the doldrums. A minimum wind speed is an acceptable compromise, so that players aren't becalmed entirely. But I REALLY hope that on top of that minimum, we will see a full spectrum of windspeeds, from a breeze up to a gale. As I have said several times before, windspeed is a very important factor, because it can turn a slow ship into a fast one. This in itself will mitigate phenomena such as 'failboats' and 'gankboats' from POTBS, where players know that no one will ever be able to catch them. If the weather suddenly makes their sloop or corvette an easy prize for a 74 gunner, they will think hard about that choice.

It will be very difficult to get either of these craft stuck in irons, and making sternway while tacking is probably unheard-of. AFAIK, backing fore-and-aft sails to go backwards isn't really feasible. In terms of gameplay, you would need to adapt the yard control scheme. On a sloop or cutter, for example, Z/C could control the mainsail (gaff), while Q/E could control the headsails. Or perhaps the Q/E could control the square sails, if it was a type of cutter with a square mainsail as well. (http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091227225437/potbs/images/a/a6/Mediator_Cutter_400.jpg) Note that if you have Q/E control the headsails, they will only have half as much rotation. That is, the jib will move from parallel with the keel, out to leeward. But you can't really haul it out to windward, except for a few degrees. (So really, you could add headsail control to ALL vessels with only one additional keybind.) Schooners would probably just use the yard controls for the two main gaff sails. I don't think there were that many three or four-masted schooners in the era of the game. When running dead downwind with a fore-and-aft rigged vessel, you will want to use manual yard controls to let the sails go 'wing and wing.' This would the optimal trim, and something that autoskipper shouldn't do. (http://www.photoseed.com/uploads/2012/02/06/single-wing-and-wing.jpg) I don't know how much you plan to implement heavy weather. But because sloops and schooners rely on a small number of very large sails, they are not as well-equipped to deal with extreme conditions (even without going into hull design). So their performance in high winds will suffer more, than that of a square rigger.

We're pretty bored; you can ask any questions here too.

But why? It's just a trivial thing to memorize that will confuse the newbs. The reason I disparage this idea (besides it being something of a false feature), is that it doesn't fit with the rudder control we already have. You are not the helmsman in this game. Not even 10% of the art of steering is modeled. You control your vessel exactly like a videogame car, and that's the way it should be, because I would never want to have use two buttons on a keyboard to mimic a wheel or a tiller. In real life, it's all about force feedback, holding against the pressure, constant adjustments and reading the ship. Especially when sailing upwind or in heavy weather, steering is an art. We were all sailing a traditional spit-rigged dory last summer and none of use could get the damn thing pointed into the wind. Except my dad, who designed her, who probably did 20 degrees better than us. And he has a story about sailing a staysail schooner to Bermuda in high winds, and finding the right heading to steer by listening for a particular popping noise as the maintopmast began to strain. But in the game it's all perfectly straight lines, with no input from the ship or wind. It would require a full-fledged sailing simulator do much else. We just assume that we have very good helmsmen. So A and D don't control the helm, they just tell the helmsman whether you want to swing left or right.

They weren't illuminating, though. Not much white phosphorus or parachutes kicking around 18th century ships for analogues of modern illumination artillery rounds. If it was too dark to see the enemy, you just shouldn't be fighting. I guess you could make the enemy shin blue for a few seconds if you aim the flare right, but it won't help you much, except to read the name on the stern. Flares were for signalling. Sudden stabs of light in the dark tend to look best in games anyways. Most "nighttime" maps in games and movies are lit up so garishly that it's more like late afternoon in Vegas. When you're crawling through a pitch-black forest in ArmA and an automatic grenade launcher starts raining down on you, now that's drama. And something more like what we can expect with hundreds of muzzle flashes in this game.

There's definitely nothing like that. But fireships or Congreve rockets would be a pretty sight. The latter weren't actually at all effective except psychologically, so you know it was impressive to watch them.

Ships in this period (except Chinese junks) didn't have watertight compartments, so the flooding would even out in the bilge and rise from there. Theoretically, they would sink on an even keel, but in practice stability would go to pot and there would be plenty of wallowing depending on sea state and if there was sail set. I don't like how sinking ships in this game put their sails away and stop moving in order to sink. Who would bother to furl sails in such a situation? 'Sailing under' is actually one of the top ways a vessel can founder.

But when you make death a factor of six or seven numbers, plus randomness and various contingencies, the human brain can no longer understand the numbers, and it begins to seem completely natural and non-mathematical. When ships sink slooooowly based on specific leak-causing hits, and can be kept afloat almost indefinitely if the crew abandons the guns, or when ships often lose the ability to fight because of crew morale, fires, or destroyed rigging... When it all happens differently every time and each ship is different, then no one will complain about the hitpoints working silently in the background.