Alan Lewrie

Very cool. I was surprised by how little damage was done to the exterior of the hull. Overall that is a pretty clean hole. On the other side that is some nasty flying debris. I'd never thought of the nails. In one of the shots after you can see 2 very large nails sticking out of one of the planks. Those guys have some guts firing an old (rusty) cannon like that, although I notice there was no one standing right there lighting it off.

Oh boy, First low explosives, now early firearms. Now I'm on the international naughty list for sure... Ok. In the most basic terms a musket has an effective range of no more than 100 yards. Beyond that hitting what you are aiming at is nothing but pure chance for anyone but the most proficient marksman. Add to that wind, a moving target and a moving platform (the fighting top isn't exactly motionless...) and realistically I'd say 50 yards is about the best you could hope for. Highly trained marksmen could get off maybe 3 rounds a minute, I'm skeptical about that number and I doubt there would be much aiming done. I would say if two ships are locked, side-by-side marksmen in the tops would come into play. Before that they are just a weapon of chance (in other words, there is a chance they would hit something) While rifled firearms were available in the late 18th century (German Jäger rifles for example or the British Baker rifle) rates of fire were much slower due to the much tighter fit between projectile and barrel. Additionally these were expensive weapons and unlikely to be in wide use by organized military forces (with the exception of specialized units specifically equipped and trained for unconventional combat, as "sharpshooters" were considered unconventional, and somewhat un-gentlemanly...). I can't really speak to swivel guns as I have no experience with them (I've actually fired a Brown Bess long pattern rifle, I'd be hard pressed to hit a man-sized target while standing still at 30 yards...). My general knowledge would lead me to believe that their effective range is more than the musket, but most likely that is due to them most often being loaded with grape (more balls fired=higher likely-hood of a hit).

For anyone interested and close enough to go see her the Whaling Ship Charles W. Morgan has completed a 5 year restoration and has started her 38th voyage (she was moved down the Mystic river to City Pier in New London CT today, first time in 73 years she has moved from Mystic seaport) Information can be found here http://www.mysticseaport.org/38thvoyage/ Fair winds to the Morgan and her crew!

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?

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.

I also vote for a variable wind system. Too much of the essence of an Age of Sail game will be lost with a set wind state.

Boats could be towed astern or dropped with a sea anchor to drift and be picked up by the victor later. Very unusual to clear for action and leave the boats on the tiers.

I'd be willing to lend out the paper books I have. I have the following in paper, Aubrey/Maturin series Bolitho series Hornblower series I also have "Nelson, a dream of glory" John Sugden and "Over the edge of the world" Laurence Bergreen (about Magellan). Drop a line and we can figure out details.

From a painting of the moment Lord Admiral Nelson was shot, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Fall_of_Nelson.jpg They appear to be covered by a canvas. Book cover, http://www.hmssurprise.org/sites/default/files/pictures/covers/postcap2.jpg Also covered in canvas. In this shot if you look carefully you can see the iron stanchion that forms the frame for the netting. From a modeling forum, the discussion calls the exact form into question. http://mediaharmonists.de/bilder/Victory-130725_8916.jpg You are right, tough to find. I suppose it would be easier if cameras were common during the age of sail.... I'll keep poking around.

I think you are right on target with your assesment Brigand. One thing I forgot about is that the actual shot was less likely to bring down an upper mast than the loss of support. Chain shot brings down the stays, gravity and wind bring down your t'gallant mast. In the battle of Trafalgar Victory's fore topsail was holed by over 90 rounds of shot or other projectiles. What I can't find easily is if her upper masts toppled. I do know many ships were dis-masted completely as the engagement was fought under full sail as the wind was dying and Nelson was eager to get up to the French and break their line.

It is widely written (in fiction) that the French tended to aim high (for rigging, sails and spars) using an expanding type shot. The goal was to disable an enemy ship and allow them to control the action by rendering the enemy unable to manoeuvre. In contrast the British tended to aim "twixt wind and water" to cause great damage to hull, guns and personnel rendering the enemy unable to continue the action due to loss of firepower, as well as manpower to fire guns, handle sails, repel boarders etc... While it is merely repeating information read in works of fiction, Dudley Pope for example spent much time reading after action reports from the Royal Navy in order to be as accurate as possible in his fiction. I believe it is generally accepted that chain, bar, expanding bar etc... are all examples of shot intended to do the same job. Perhaps it is just a matter of evolution in arms and reluctance of the old guard to adopt newer ideas, or relative cost per round that saw multiple variants of the same type of shot in use at the same time.

Ok, so I have read many of the Royal Navy based books. Here is a basic overview as I remember them. Aubrey/Maturin series. Fine books, a bit heavy in foreign and archaic languages. Some of the personal life sections get tedious. Still, I've read the entire series at least 3 times. Bolitho (A. Kent). Also good reading. There were many books in this series. A bit harlequin romance at times, but engrossing none the less. Hornblower, a classic and very different from the mini-series that starred Ioan Gruffudd (hint read the 4th book, Hornblower in the crisis last as it has spoilers) Dudley Pope's Lord Ramage. By far the most interesting to me so far (although the constant re-explaining of things gone over before would earn an exasperated sniff from Southwick). These books walk the line between the stuffiness of Aubrey and the lewd Alan Lewrie. Dewey Lambdin's Alan Lewrie. The Ram-cat, 'black' Alan Lewrie. Certainly wouldn't pass for a gentleman in Jack Aubrey's world (and actually a bit pornographic at times) but always a good read. He has you slapping your knee and chortling in mirth quite often. There are many more, as well as excellent works of non-fiction relating to the lives of well known leaders and the ordinary men who go unnoticed and unmentioned. Also, I have to admit that reading on an e-reader helps with translations etc... As much as I like paper it is easier than having a French, Spanish and Latin translator on hand when needed.

I see something that as of yet hasn't been mentioned. There is an omision in this shot of a ship ostensibly cleared for action. Hammocks in the nettings! I figure this is an early "in progress" shot, so I can see why they aren't there yet. It was daily routine to stow the rolled up hammocks in the nets shown here in the morning, or certainly prior to going into battle. Kind of stunk for the average sailor whose belongings and bedding got shot to bits in an action, but is served as an additional barrier to shot and would be a nice detail (as well as adding some protection to "crew" on deck). For that matter, boarding netting and netting strung horizontally over the top deck to catch falling men and spars in action. Ah yes, another detail I have seen. The anchor cable isn't usually passing out the port and tied onto the anchor unless the ship is likely to need to anchor, or anchoring soon. Tough to do as you would have to issue an order an hour or two ahead of time in real world, but could be done in game with a command that automatically made the anchor cable appear when water depth reached a set value.

I'm not sure if all of these would be considered "little things" but here's what comes to mind. Many have been mentioned and discussed already. Consider this me liking the original suggestion. Proper signalling (in the absence of a visible crew on deck a voice saying 'signal from the flag' or 'she's making the private signal' etc... would work) Period correct style of navigation (including vague charts, the need for soundings and celestial navigation). Obviously the player can't be expected to master all of these. Having a button or key to order it to be done would be sufficient. In the case of taking a sighting of the sun, this was an integral part of the Naval day, and was automatically done at mid-day anytime the sun was visible. A ship's master was responsible for navigation and audio or visual reports could provide more depth of information without the player having to pick up a set of dividers, do some spherical geometry and prick the map indicating the ship's supposed position. Being rowed over to the flagship or ashore in the gig Being pipped aboard (again the sounds would do until a visible crew were available) Reading yourself in when given a new ship (the prose of the standard Royal Navy commission makes the hairs on the back if my neck stand up whenever I imagine or hear it being read... "nor you nor any of you may fail as you will answer to the contrary at your peril") Shore emplacements such as batteries, semaphore or signalling towers, and the ability to chose to attack them. I've seen lighthouses mentioned and I will point out that at the outbreak of war all channel markings, obstruction markers, lighthouses etc were shut down, removed or otherwise rendered incapable of aiding the enemy in navagating through dangerous waters. The ability to fortify small islands (when able and appropriate) in support of orders... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Rock I like the idea of only seeing the ship name in the looking glass. Navies kept books of their own, and sometimes enemy ships, with detailed information including structural measurements, armaments and Captains when known. Perhaps once the name was known a key could bring up the page of a book with this info on it. Hails from the lookout (and there should not be a "crow's nest" as mentioned earlier... the lookouts either positioned themselves in the tops or sat on the yard during the day, or were positioned around the ship by night) Proper night glass (low magnification I think, large optics for gathering as much light as possible and image was seen upside down) Clearing for action, including a snazzy drum riff to call everyone's attention to the order. I've seen discussion about yelling and noise, and in one video from another game there was quite a bit of vocal chaos going on. I believe this is historically inaccurate. The ability for orders to be passed from deck to deck, division to division necessitated quiet (excepting the horrific din of cannons firing of course) order. Many captains were known to have total silence on deck included in their standing orders for daily operations. Standing orders. Perhaps you could select 6 or 10 from a long list. This could tie into general ship's morale as well as your character's strengths and weaknesses. Leveling up could allow you to add new orders. Minor ship customisation (paintwork, cabin decorations etc...). That said major changes were frequently prohibited by Admiralty. Certainly changing the length of yards or masts was frowned upon. Swapping out light cannons for heavier ones could have dire consequences relating to stability and structural integrity. Realistic ageing and damage to hull and sails from time and the elements. The need to lay your ship up for repairs after a few 'years' of service, never-mind if you've been in action. That's about all I can think of at the moment. I earnestly hope that you (the developers) work to create a game that captures some of the nuances and minutia of everyday life. Also I would like to see less importance placed on, and influence given to guilds, clans or other real world organisations in guiding the game-play. A great many people who will be drawn to the game dislike the commercial aspects of mmo games where people who setup training macros or have unlimited hours to spend in front of the computer can capitalise from it. Let's keep this game about commanding a ship in the age of sail and *not* about real world profiteering.