Barberouge

Wagner ofc Ship riding FTW ! The question should be are we more the helicopter style or the surf style ? Although a possibility for players to tune the art style would be great. Maybe modding some game files ?

The possibility to watch important battles without participating to them could be a nice addition. With free camera.

I thought you were speaking about tunable mechanics rather than inherent tactics. For sure in a sailing and cannons fighting game, the tactics should always come out as about the same: line fighting i.e. blocks and focus fire, maneuvers to take the wind advantage, charges... But those are tactics that are difficult to have effects on regarding playing difficulty (except maybe tuning the overall speed of the fights). The tunable mechanics though, such as ship management, can easily change the playing difficulty. I think PotBS had quite a simple fighting environment. To increase the difficulty, they created complex skills. I don't think the environment mechanics and the fighting tactics can be separated regarding PvP difficulty. They are linked and reinforce each other. Basically NA will feature at least almost the same environment as PotBS: different maps with sea and land, ship physics depending on wind, wind direction changes, different ships in the battle, customisable ships creating more diversity. What won't be in NA as we saw them in PotBS are skills. But in NA there are already some differences from PotBS, such as collision damage. This one will bring a huge change in fighting difficulty. Remember how many times our ships collided with no consequences ? This will be over, group sailing will require more attention. And there will be much more environment mechanics differences, such as shoals, sinking mechanics, maybe more weather changes such as wind force, swell, also friendly fire and so on... So as the global environment mechanics will be more rich, I think the ship management could be more simple. Where PotBS had simple environment and complex skills, NA could have complex environment but more simple ship management. The steep learning curve of PvP will still be there, but the first approach should be more rookie friendly. Also there won't be PvE levelling as in PotBS, players will be able to join PvP battles from the get go. Also there are other ways to avoid rookie - veterans encounters that would badly hurt rookies.

Just finished my first Rome II session. Played Arverni, Carthage, Pontus and Rome campaigns. The game was very bad (bugged AI) at launch but got better patch after patch. The UI isn't as good as it should and the game lacks features from previous opuses. But some new features are good (army tree, province system, diplomatical options) and the game is more historically accurate. It still lacks a bit of immersion (like CJFlint said videos were awsome, and also family trees were fun). The biggest flaw is the lack of challenge. I had to choose a family giving negative diplomatical reputation, and conquer remote territories from the beginning to eventually face some difficulties. In previous opuses, just playing in legendary promised great challenge, and required a good knowledge of the game and hardcore management. So the launch was a disaster, but in some months the game should be very good. Still not the great Total War everyone was expecting.

I'd favor quite a long camera range though. After changing the PotBS camera range limit, my gaming experience improved so much. Because of the tactical improvement I have to say, but also because of the movie feeling. I didn't zoom out very far, but the basic range was just too limited. Crows nest view would be awsome.

Hey Karl I remember devs speaking about a hardcore sailing simulator mode. In normal mode I'd favor ship management complexity aswell as long as it doesn't interfere too much with group tactical gameplay. The rookie friendly / complexity dilemma could be circumvented IMO by proposing different ship management levels.

Greek fire wasn't used of course, it's just that Blackie's proposals about fire ships and bomb ketches made me remember some comics. If by branders you mean position lights, I think it would be an interesting feature if there are night battles. In dark night battles (with clouds hiding the moon), the ships could even become untargetable when they would be far enough. We would just see lights (given the captains would light the branders). If those battles wouldn't happen too often, the feature would be nice. In the comics I used to read (again), a captain being chased by frigates during a dark night put the long boat next to the stern of his brick, and turned off the position light of the ship at the same time as he turned on a light in the top of the long boat mast. The pursuers chased the drifting long boat and the brick escaped. (I'm not saying this should be in the game ) If by branders you mean fire ships, they would be interesting aswell. Not many maps have been proposed yet, but some could include channels in which fire ships could be deadly with appropriate wind conditions. I think post #11 (4.) and #14 are pretty much spot on. The question remains whether a player could manage 2 ships at the same time, or just give orders to an NPC ship.

I agree everything shouldn't be displayed to other players. Whether the state of a ship can be accurately displayed on the ship model, I don't know. Although I'd prefer having schematics (which ease remembering which ship took damage 5 minutes ago - that would have been done by officers in reality) rather than having to use the spyglass to determine the planking and waterline state of every possible target. I think I'd be fine with an absolute accuracy display giving the speed at different points of sail. If we hadn't that information, I could make a ship travel between 2 stopped ships and take a stopwatch. What's the point of testing things that could be directly given ? But the best speed could vary depending on weather conditions: numbers complexity rather than no numbers. There should be other factors which require skill than knowing the best point of sail by experience, which is after all quite a simple knowledge. In a combat situation (which is the most interesting part IMO), whatever which numbers are given, it is not possible to judge a situation based on numbers only. There are so many numbers, that relying on actual experience is a better way to achieve victory. Numbers just give a better understanding. There is a bit of numbers knowledge and experience, and a lot of visual experience. Sailing in reality might be compared to an art, but not in a video game where the reality is shortcut.

This is the main battle view. The yellow point is where the player puts the mouse cursor, determining the azimuth (horizontal aiming and horizontal correction) and the base height (vertical aiming). If he just clicks, the balls travel by the red arrow (on water). If he holds the button and puts the cursor to the top, the red notches appear. When he releases the button, determining the height "angle" (vertical correction), the balls travel by the green arrow (possibly on target). The player chooses the azimuth and the height correction depending on the distance, the wind direction and strength, the estimated ship speed and cannonballs travel time. The vertical arcs (not in the picture) could be determined by the cannons maximum angles and the ship list.

Just to clarify. They were 4 reasons why I proposed this shooting system with a precise aiming system: 1. I thought you were looking for a more simple system than a fully ballistic one (which takes a lot of bandwidth) 2. The system you spoke about in another thread featured vertical aiming (the exact target distance being known by players) but not horizontal aiming. If an aiming system has to be interesting regarding gameplay, there can't be only vertical aiming if we know the distance, and distance can't be the only changing parameter. That's why I proposed to add horizontal aiming and wind strength and direction (which could be added later ofc). 3. You spoke about setting a precise vertical angle. On a side note, I think that if we can aim with different lists and with different poundages at the same time, notches would be more accurate than angles. I thought you wanted to introduce a specific aiming view whose use would have been required for each shot. That specific aiming view would have featured list, roll and pitch control, which would IMO be unrealistic and uninteresting. In the aiming system I proposed, the "aiming" can be done from the main battle view: we can keep an eye on the battle while shooting. 4. When the target is close enough, the aiming system I proposed enables to aim for a specific part of a ship, which opens tactical shooting options. But basically I'm fine with no skillful aiming at all. Also, adding a delay for more accurate shots is nice.

What would happen if there wouldn't be enough crew to fulfill all the "Fixed" parts ? A simple priority system could be created: clicking on a name means that this part has a higher priority. If there isn't enough crew for all the "Fixed Priority", more precise priority numbers could be chosen. That would be a preparation for when there would be very few crew left. Also (from another thread), The theorical close-hauled angle could be known, but the real close-hauled angle could depend on the wind steadiness, the sea state and the helmsman skill. Skilled helmsmen could actually make quite a big difference when closing on the wind. If the player can't set a precise point of sail angle (no numbers), then luffing would be a bet: the more a player heads up, the more the ship gains on windward - up to the point where the sails flap and the ship takes a speed drop.

This picture illustrates the crew allocation schematics: The "Fixed" amount represents where the player wants his crew to be when there isn't enough for all parts (right mouse button hold and set ?). The "Current" amount represents where the player wants his crew to be when there is more than enough. He can drag available crew amounts from a part to another (left mouse button hold, set and drag ?). A frigate vs frigate would be more about setting the "Fixed" amounts and focusing on the maneuvers. A SoL vs SoL would be more about dragging the required amount to focus on reload or to prepare for important maneuvers. EDIT: added the Injured and Dead informations.

It seems the reason why it wasn't used wasn't about technical limitations, but knowledge of the principle and also especially moral: that period was about lace wars, not the total war of the 20th century. Greek fire shouldn't have been used as a flame thrower, but as a flammable that would be fired afterwards. A good wind would have diminished the risks. Whatever, implementing it in a game would just require to set up a balanced risk/reward.

As it is not a sailing simulator, gameplay should be looked at. That's a tough question because we don't know the physics. I guess there are acceleration, deceleration, turning deceleration, speed, turn rate acceleration, turn rate ? (those are some PotBS ship moving parameters). The fact that the sails are automatically managed (the crew sets the best sails depending on the situation) doesn't help here, because the sailing performance depended on the crew allocated to specific sails. So let's have a look at history to begin with. History and full realism Turning basically didn't require to change any sail area if it wasn't a wear (turning with the wind) or a tack (turning through the wind), it only required sails adjustment. Wearing required a lot of sails adjusting and with strong wind, some sails lowering. Tacking required a lot of sails adjusting, lowering and backwinding the foresails. Also decreasing the sail area to be faster was sometimes needed, because the ships lost speed when the list was too high. Being as fast as possible required constant sails adjustments, especially after turns (even small ones). Each ship had its specific hull and rigging shapes, and their associated maneuverability depending on the sea and weather conditions. Managing the sails of one or another was very different. Most of the square-rigged ships were very difficult to tack and sometimes to wear aswell. Sometimes tacking required to bear away to gain speed and then head back up for the turn. What were the crew actions on sails ? I could see four: trim (sheet in/ease off), furl/unfurl, lower/hoist, reef (to mention the more simple ones). Let's say furling/unfurling is part of lowering/hoisting. When were those three actions performed ? Sailing straight: a sailing boat never goes straight, the helmsman had to change the rudder depending on the ship, the sea and the wind changes. Sailing at set course: if there was a perfect sails adjustment at given weather conditions, finding this adjustment required skill and time. It required trimming mostly. But if the wind (direction or strenght) changed, it required reefing and lowering/hoisting aswell. Changing the speed required all three actions. Turning (from running to close-hauled): if taking wind from a side instead of the rear made the ship list too much , it could be dangerous for the rigging or could decrease the best speed. Then reefing or lowering the sails was needed. But trimming was the most performed action. With big ships, changing the sails during a turn was sometimes needed to make that turn easier. Wearing: with a big ship, wearing required to prepare the sails for the maneuver. If the wind was strong, some sails were lowered before the maneuver and hoisted after. A lot of trimming on all the rigging was needed. Tacking: with every ship, that maneuver was the most demanding. It required constant and well-timed trimming, lowering, back-winding and hoisting. Realism feeling and gameplay As it is not a fully realistic sailing simulator, the square-rigged ships we will sail would be like having a diesel. In reality a bad wave, a gust, a mistake during important maneuvers (tacking or wearing) just made the ship unmaneuverable, the rudder not responding and the ship staying upwind or drifting for minutes. Those ships were bricks. So we consider that individual sail management (that appear on the screen but a player can't have effect on) doesn't directly affect the physics. The players actions are the amount of speed wanted (speed bar) and the rudder (rudder bar). We saw that to get a sailing system that gives some realism feeling, sailing and turning performance for a given ship should change depending on crew allocation, officers skill, point of sail and weather conditions. So it's difficult to propose curves as simple as for reloading. The curves aren't precise, they just show the possible effects that could be applied. Maybe tracking whether a ship passes its close-hauled angle, 180° or 0° should be required to apply some effects (such as for example rigging damage when the sail area is too high for the wind strength, or time limited sailing performance drop). Once again, optimum/maximum could be skipped for simplification. Turn Rate Acceleration should receive some lack of crew effects aswell. I'm not sure about Turn Rates. Also whether specific effects should be applied at different points of sail (to simulate tacks and wears) depends on the physics. If an effect which is applied independently from the point of sail gives the feeling that crew lacking maneuvers lead to enough slowness, there is no need to add specific point of sail effects. Pirate crews need more rum rations, but they can take more ofc

Speaking about crew allocation gameplay, like it has been said in another thread: to avoid a click fest gameplay, the system shouldn't require to change the allocation too often. The system should make an allocation change being required to prepare for a maneuver, after a maneuver or after a shot. Speaking about optimum/maximum, maybe this differentiation should be skipped at least in the beginning. The only situation where the differentiation might make sense, is in the sails allocation: the more men that pull a rope, the faster a sail would be hoisted. But if the maximum is the optimum, the system would be more simple.

I prefer a few misunderstandings if they come along with open communication, rather than over polished communication that doesn't mean anything. A great Age of Sail game can be very different from one perspective to another, but I like the fact that you explain the reasoning of your choices.

There shouldn't be one crew focus, but crew allocation. We could separate into minimum / undermanned / optimum / overmanned / maximum. There was an optimal number of men for each cannon, usually 14 for a 36-pounder. Only one man at a time can clean the stock, put the power, put the cannonball etc... So sending more won't change the reload speed. If there aren't at least a few men, the cannon would take ages to be reloaded if even it could. Then there should be other parameters that affect how fast the actions are performed, like morale, health, tiredness, officers skill. Experience might be tricky to balance though. Cannons allocation should be separated into each battery. Survival should be separated into port/starboard. A fourth allocation type could be firing muskets or preparing a boarding. And the unallocated crew should be hiding somewhere. A player should be able to quickly set a fixed number of crewmen in each allocation that he estimates as most important (right mouse button click ?), and spread the rest on what he estimates as still useful (left mouse button holded ?). Maybe something like selecting an allocation, holding the mouse button to choose a number, and dragging that number to another part. Sailing performance is a more tough one because it depends on the game physics. More to come later.

I found this: http://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mariner/vol13/tnm_13_4_29-39.pdf It seems most of the warships had terrible close-hauled angle (67° or more). As fleets had the close-hauled angle of the worse one, they rarely managed to gain winward progress by sailing into the wind only. They usually relied on wind changes or currents. Also tacking required skilled crew, calm sea and good breeze. Otherwise it was preferable to wear (jibe), because a failed tack would put a ship more leeward.

I found this: http://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mariner/vol13/tnm_13_4_29-39.pdf It seems "there are examples of exceptional ships, such as the Unicorn class of 28-gun frigates from 1747 which were renowned for being able to tack in their own length" (p35). And "the very best ships, such as the Niger class of 32-gun frigates from 1757, would only wear in four times the ship's length" (p38).

The time before sinking might seem too much. But players could estimate it with water flow and water in the hull. Although I'm not sure the knowledge of time before sinking would create a numbers game: there are so many other parameters that can't be anticipated. Broadside to broadside shooting would be a numbers game, but not when ships move. What you call "graphical representation" is what I called "schematics". But I get what you mean and I agree numbers aren't always a good thing. Although like you said, a captain could realistically get informations: damaged parts, leaks, level of the water in the hull, how this level is increasing, waterline outside of the ship, plumb line. Like compass or sextant for navigation. Speed should be known because captains used speed logs. A player should know how fast overall his ship sails at different wind angles, but the sea conditions could change that. However, the precise best wind angle shouldn't be able to be set, because the wind actually lightly changed, and the roll/pitch changed the sails reaction. As long as the course to wind angle is analogically set, the technic of sailing couldn't be broken by numbers. Also an eye should be kept on the possibility for players to actually test how things work out. Those who got the information would then have an advantage over those who wouldn't. I'm usually a supporter of giving informations. What makes a game is not the knowledge of numbers, but the experience and smartness of how to use those numbers.

1. History I've been reading something about how cannons were managed. The captain orders were about: - what type of cannonballs to load and where to shoot - when the batteries would be fired "Load round shots, double charge, shoot at tack, right to steerage" The master gunner orders were about: - the distance - the list "Load round shots, double charge, shoot at tack, point at 300m, no list, right to steerage" The piece chiefs actions were about (depending on the previous informations, the wind, the relative motion predictions): - the azimuth (with the carriage tackles) - the backsight adjustment (with a handspike lever and a focus wedge) Then the piece chiefs had to decide when to shoot exactly. At long ranges they had to choose the right moment depending on the ships actual positions, the roll and the pitch. Thus pieces weren't always fired at the same time. 2. Features overview That brings us to ask how aiming should be represented, from the captain to the piece chief. I think a fully realistic system wouldn't work well, but if "skill" has to be needed to aim, a PotBS system should be complexified. PotBS had a system that although simple was effective: 3 general types of ammo (sails shots, hull shots, crew shots), 2 types of zone (sails or hull). Depending on the ammo type, the aiming zone was automatically detected. A ship had different defense values for the sails and the hull, and the shooter had accuracy (to counter distance) and target tracking (to counter speed and relative motion). Whatever the zone that was hit, each ammo type featured a % of damage to sails, hull or crew. The number of cannons destroyed was proportional to the hull damage. Introducing aiming with a damage system that isn't fully realistic seems difficult (no full ballistic system). Basically, the potential parameters are: - the initial propulsion of the balls - the speed and deceleration of the balls - the weight of the balls - distance - wind direction and its force - list - roll and pitch And the possible player actions: - powder charge - cannonballs type - azimuth with its limitations - backsight adjustment with its limitations - when to shoot a cannon individually Ranges can be separated: - long range where the balls deflection due to gravity and wind affect the impact zone - mid range where the balls deflection is negligible - short range where aiming at the rigging becomes impossible, or all the cannons of a battery can't shoot at the same point And features can be: - skipped because requiring too much bandwidth - coded because adding to the gameplay - skipped because not interesting for players - driven by players 3. Possible tools I'm not a coding expert, but to avoid a full ballistic system, shortcuts have to be found. A ship is 2 cubes. One for the sails, one for the hull. Each cannon emplacement is known on the hull cube. Depending on the maximum horizontal and vertical orientations of each cannon, the game knows if a cannon has the possibility to shoot somewhere. The possible impact zone of a broadside is like a cube but with bigger edges at distance. The target is a point. If some of the cannons of a battery can shoot at the point, the theorical impact zone is a point. If only some of the selected batteries can shoot at the point, the theorical impact zone is a vertical line (all the remaining batteries pointing as close as possible to the point). The player can choose to shoot all the batteries or only those that can shoot at the point. The real impact zone is an ellipse, but only one trajectory is calculated, and then the number of hits on a ship cube depends on other parameters than the ballistic curve of each shot (like accuracy). 4. A possible shooting system I'm not a supporter of a special realistic aiming view, because it would only add to the immersion feeling, but would complicate the cannons management and break realism with no tactical gameplay advantage. Not to mention the cannons were actually differently placed in lenght and height. Also it's better to see the batteries being fired from distance (for movie feeling). I'd rather see an intuitive system: a player selects a broadside, a battery or multiple batteries, and the azimuth arcs would be shown on the screen. When the player puts his mouse somewhere, the cursor indicates the batteries that can hit the point. The targeted point could be on the sea, or anywhere on the cubes of a ship. That point would represent where the balls would hit if the shots were instant and direct. If needed (i.e. at longer ranges), the player would have to apply an azimuth correction (directly with the cursor) and a height correction (a "vertical angle" scheme would appear when holding the mouse button or using the mouse roll). However, the height correction wouldn't represent the backsight adjustment, but the overall correction that each piece chief would apply. There would be notches rather than angles. Such system would feature: - skipped because requiring too much bandwidth: full ballistic system - coded because adding to gameplay: the initial propulsion of one ball, the speed and deceleration of one ball, the weight of one ball, wind direction and its force, distance, list (as a lean of the target cubes) - skipped because not interesting for players: list (as a shooting parameter), roll and pitch, precise backsight adjustment, when to shoot a cannon individually - driven by players: powder charge, cannonballs type, azimuth, overall height adjustment Also when zooming in, the view would almost be an aiming view. The accuracy value (driving the number of actual hits) could vary depending on many parameters such as distance, crew skill...

Now more complexity can be added. The goal here is not to create a realistic system, but a system that will provide a more interesting gameplay. Once again, how aiming is done doesn't matter. To simplify, there would be no underwater shots and no longitudinal leaning. 1. Draft A ship is a rectangle. When it's empty the draft is the smallest. When it sinks it's because it reached its maximum draft. The maximum draft directly depends on the weight. The weight of the ship depends on its equipment (cannons, cargo...) and the water that leaked. Let's say the maximum draft difference is 2m. The actual waterline is at 1m (middle), thus only the upper part of the planking that could touch water can take hits. The ship takes a broadside that destroys 10% of its planking integrity. The upper part is at 90% integrity, the lower part at 100%. By the hand of god, the ship weights and its draft is increased by 20cm (1.2m waterline). Because the upper part now touches water, the ship starts leaking. There is 20% of the upper part under water, and 10% is destroyed. The water flow is 150m² * 20% * 10% * 2m/s = 6m³/s. Now let's say the ship was at 50cm waterline when it got shot. 66% went to the upper part, 33% to the lower part. The upper part is at 94% integrity, the lower part at 97%. Then its draft is increased by 1m (1.5m waterline). The waterflow is: ( 150m² * 100% * 6% * 2m/s ) + ( 150m² * 50% * 3% * 2m/s ) = 225m³/s. Pray or swim 2. Leaning Whatever where leaning comes from, what is important is that the height of the planking that could touch water would vary. We still need the maximum height to apply the % to the upper or lower part. This formula would work: H = tan A * ( L + ( ΔD / sin A ) ) with Height of the planking, maximum Angle of leaning, Width of the ship and ΔD as maximum Draft difference. This formula calculates the maximum height of the planking that could touch water (i.e. from minimum draft to maximum draft, at maximum angle). Let's say the max angle of leaning is 20°, the width 10m, the max draft difference 2m. Thus the max height is 5.8m, so the lower part is 2.9m and the upper one aswell. The actual angle is 15° and the actual waterline 50cm. The wind is coming from starboard and the shots aswell. The total height of the planking that is out of water is: tan 15° * ( 10 + ( 1.5 / sin 15° ) ) = 4.2m. So the full upper part is out of water, and 45% of the lower part. After the shot, 7% of the upper part is destroyed and 3% of the lower one. Then the ship has to tack, and sails with the wind from port. The total height of the planking that is under water is tan 15° ( 10 + ( 0.5 / sin 15° ) ) = 3.2m. So the full lower part is in water, and 10% of the upper part.The water flow is ( 150m² * 10% * 7% * 2m/s ) + ( 150m² * 100% * 3% * 2m/s ) = 111m³/s. There is just too much water flow and the leaning is starting to increase because of the water in the hull. The ship turns again and repairs. 3. Weather No more numbers are needed. With a simple separation of the waterline planking, a lot of tactical options have been created. The ship representation would have to be modified to let players know how their ship would be damaged. The system isn't perfect but it makes for a good base, and it requires so few calculations compared to a full realistic system. Then new features can be added to polish it, such as below waterline shots. If you want to include waves you can add waves average height calculations. Wind force and direction changes could be good features aswell, making the maps always interesting.

Then we can bring a little bit of complexity. Whether a player can aim at different parts of the hull, how he would aim doesn't matter. To every battery fired corresponds a number of shots that hit the masts, the gundecks or the waterline. We got a HP bar that represents the average area of the waterline planking (the smaller the HP bar, the bigger the area that is open to water i.e. destroyed). 4 bars actually. How to link that HP bar to the flow of water actually entering into the hull ? Let's use %. 1. Water flow Let's define some numbers to ease the process. The starboard waterline planking area is 300m². It has taken a broadside that destroyed 10% of its HP bar (this is a lot). The waterline planking has 2 parts: one part is under water, the other is above water. This is not represented by HP bars, but it is what actually happens. 20% of the overall waterline planking is under water, 80% is above water. 10% of the under water area is destroyed, and 10% of the above water area is destroyed aswell. The above water area doesn't matter regarding the flow of water entering the hull. The destroyed under water area is: 300m² * 20% * 10% = 6m². The speed of the water is 2m/s. Thus the water flow entering the starboard side of the hull is 6 * 2 = 12m³/s. Let's say the under water part of a hull is a half cylinder with volume = ( π * w² * l ) / 2. If the width of the hull is 8m and its lenght 50m, the volume of the hull is ( π * 5² * 50 ) / 2 = 5026m³. The hull will take 5026 / 12 = 419s (7min) to be full of water. 2. Consequences Then we can say a ship looses 1% of its acceleration, turning acceleration and speed for every % of the hull filled with water. The more water, the less sailing caracteristics. But at 25% of the hull filled with water, the ship will sink. In the example, after taking this broadside that destroyed 10% of the waterline planking, the ship will sink after 7min * 25% = 1min45s. We can also say a ship will lean at 15° when it sinks. That gives a 0.6° leaning for every % of the hull filled with water. We can say that pumps can put 1m³/s out of the hull. Thus the ship will sink after 1min54s instead of 1min45s. We can say carpenters can repair 6m²/min of the waterline planking. The 10% destroyed waterline planking will be repaired in 1min. It has to be separated into ticks (let's say one tick per second). I won't calculate it here. If you link this sinking system with the damage system I explained in my previous post (#26, i.e. resistance bar + integrity bar), if I'm not mistaken this is almost exactly the example you described in your OP. 3. Hull representation Now let's have a look at what would be interesting to be shown to the players, i.e. the hull representation. Some informations can be known (numbers), but the informations that have to be quickly understood could be shown (schematics). Representing the integrity of the waterline planking (HP bar) doesn't really matter. What information would it give to a player to see that 10% of the planking is destroyed ? The resistance of the waterline planking (resistance bar) is more interesting though, because the player would see if this side can still take damage before loosing too much integrity. What a player wants to see is how fast water enters the hull (water flow) and how much water is already in the hull. What he wants to know is especially how much time he's got before sinking. Thus here is how I would represent the hull: - schematics: planking resistance, water flow, water in the hull - numbers: planking integrity, time before sinking

Yes I understood that, but what I meant was: in a sandbox game with no historical evolution, what's the point of including a ship model if its razee type is clearly better than the obsolete original ? Same goes with construction: what's the point of introducing a badly built ship ? But as I like the razee principle (not number and poundage of cannons only, but upper works), maybe a player could build either an original ship model, or a model with less forecastles/deck. It would be a tradeoff rather than a clearly better ship.

If you're interested in a damage model which could represent the resistance of the planking and the average holes, PotBS featured quite a good one. The PotBS armor would represent the NA planking resistance (depth, density), and the PotBS structure would represent the NA planking integrity (holes or not). Instead of having to destroy the structure to make the powder chamber explode (PotBS), the ship would start leaking water as soon as the planking would have lost some hit points. In PotBS there were 4 HP bars aswell (armor) and a structure bar. Damage was calculated shot per shot. The single shot damage depended on the basic damage of a poundage and the distance. A simple lerp was applied: from 100% damage at min range to 50% at max range. Each ammo type also had its specific hull/sails/crew damage. The number of hits depended on the distance aswell, but 2 lerps were applied (with specific tables). From min to mid range, the lerp was slow. From mid to max range the lerp was sharper, making the broadsides less and less dangerous at longer ranges. Each ammo type also changed the range (max and mid) of a battery: round shots had 100% range, grape shots only 30%. If the overall accuracy was less than 100%, a random hits number was generated. 2 parameters made the hull stronger: "damage reduction" (DR) which protected from a fixed amount of shot damage, and then "damage resistance" which removed a % of the damage. DR was applied to armor damage only, but resistance was applied to both armor and structure (and each resistance value could be different). DR was also directly related to the remaining armor %: if the base DR was 6 and armor was at 50%, the applied DR was 3. And there was another parameter called "resistance penetration": the bigger the poundage, the less resistance could be taken into account (with specific tables depending on range: min, mid and max range penetration values with lerps in between). The effective damage of a hit was split between armor and structure depending also on the remaining armor %, but differently than DR: as long as armor wasn't completely destroyed (0%), at least 25% of the effective damage was directed to armor. At 100% armor, 100% of the damage was taken by armor. At 0.001% armor, 25% was taken by armor and 75% went to structure. At 0% armor, the full 100% damage went to structure. That seems a bit complicated, but made for a realistic feeling when firing and enabled players to setup optimal fighting range. If there are only 4 parts and lateral leaning, you just have to remove damage resistance (maybe ?), put some other structure HP bars (one for each part of the planking), apply Digby's waterline shots % and you're done.