Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

akd

Tester
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,801

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

 Content Type 

Posts posted by akd

    Dutch Ship Collection (With Plans)

    in National ship and other thematic or special ship collections

    Posted

    Steel, researching a ship and wondering if there is any visual information on her:

    Dutch 44-gun razee frigate Mars. She was laid down as 64-68 Zevenvolden in 1783, but renamed Mars and completed as a razee in 1795. She was present in the line of battle at Camperdown, captured, and became floating battery HMS Vleiter.

    Dutch armament:

    Upperdeck - 26x Dutch 30 pdr (equivalent to British 32 pdr)

    QD/FC - 18x Dutch 18 pdr

    http://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=947

    The Essex

    in Frigates and similar ships

    Posted

    Looking into her armament over her lifetime some more, I think she could have 4x guns added to the forecastle in the following positions:

     

    post-3517-0-65748700-1449684038_thumb.jpg

     

    This addition is consistent with our current model and aligns with her 1800 US armament and 1814 British armament.

     

    Same can be seen in this detail from the painting in the Peabody Essex Museum:

     

    L1080729.JPG

     

    And on several Essex models:

     

    4cb1634972980f87f95743fe18532c26.jpg

     

    gallery_3633_453_81279.jpg

     

    essex-essex-003.jpg

     

    So reduce top deck 12 pdrs to 9 pdr max and add 4x guns.  More historical with no decrease in broadside weight of metal! :)

    • Like 3

    The Essex

    in Frigates and similar ships

    Posted

    Source indicating Essex should (or could) have stern chasers:

    The ship that was captured at Valparaiso looked significantly different then when launched at Salem 14 years earlier. In addition to the previously mentioned amendments, her head had been boarded in, additional gun ports were added (two chasers on Her stern, and the original sixth port on the Quarter Deck).

    And also that she was fitted from the beginning for guns on the forecastle (although did not carry dedicated guns there originally):

    If you look closely at page 4 of the plans (INTERNAL PLANKING BEAM SEQUENCE ) image you’ll see on the two forward posts of the rail that there are rings to rig a gun This would be for the bow chasers when called into action.

    edit: oops, forget to post link:

    http://www.historicships.com/TALLSHIPS/Model%20Shipways/USF%20Essex%20MS2041/Essex%20Manual.pdf

    Arranged Weekend Trafalgars anyone???

    in National news

    Posted

    To modify that further and get a better distribution of changes (more small changes, less frequent individual or collective extreme changes), you could do something like this:

     

    every 5-10 minutes (variable so not entirely predictable):

    50% chance of 0-15° change

    30% chance of 16-30° change

    15% chance of 31-45° change

    4% chance of 46-90° change

    1% chance of 91-180° change

    • Like 4

    The Essex

    in Frigates and similar ships

    Posted

    We build ships according to plans.

    In the British service ship listed 40-42 guns. On most paintings ship has 40 guns. Perhaps they used windows or they had falseboord (nautical term) installed which could support extra cannons.

    But on all drawings and plans there are exactly 40 gun ports. I am not sure where they placed extra guns listed in the wiki.

     

    Perhaps in the middle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Essex_(1799)#/media/File:USS_Essex_I.jpg but it is not backed by any other references and this painting has 48 gunports

     

     

    Understood.  I have not seen her admiralty draught as refitted by the Brits and base my statements on research into US armament.  We know she had 40x 32pdr carronades and 6x 12pdrs at the time of capture.  4 of the 12 pdrs were carried on the QD/FC and the other 2x 12 pdrs were carried on her gundeck.  Presumably these last two were mounted in the foremost two bridle/chase ports on the gun deck.

     

    So, to distribute the known guns in US service (40x 32pdr carronade, 6x 12pdr guns):

     

    Upper Deck: 26x 32 pdr carronade, 2x 12pdr gun (likely in foremost chase/bridle ports that were not always armed with dedicated guns)

    Quarterdeck / Forecastle: 14x 32 pdr carronade, 4x 12pdr gun (some or all of the 12 pdrs may have been carried in chase positions)

     

    There is some nice research into her appearance in US service here: http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/3272-the-two-possible-sterns-of-the-frigate-essex/

     

    But if model is based on the British plans as refit, then I agree with lower total of 42 guns (armament in British service was 26x 18 pdrs on upper deck, 12x 32pdr carronades on QD, 2x 32 pdr carronades and 2x 9 pdr long guns on FC).  In that case, I think what we are missing in game is 4x guns carried on the forecastle (deck 1), which would give 42 guns on the model in game not counting the two foremost guns on the upper deck (deck 2) which the British did not arm with dedicated guns (26x 18pdrs, not 28x 18pdrs).  Possibly like forecastle on this model (I don't know the basis of these plans and don't vouch for their authenticity; as you can see this gives 46 guns, but also conforms to the British armament if we don't count 2x extra guns in the main battery and 2x extra guns in QD stern chase position):

     

    at1HDUL.jpg?1

     

     

    the ships is not tuned properly and currently has max historically possible armament

     

    12lb guns

    18lb guns

     

    and/or 

     

    24lb

    32lb

    carronades

     

    I assume this is for Deck 1 / Deck 2.  If so, the gun combination produces a fairly extreme over-armament, while the carronade combination is under-armed compared to history.  A better approximation of her historical armament would be:

     

    Deck 1: 9lb gun (a full QD of 12pdrs is very heavy for a frigate.  Brits never did that on Essex or other comparable frigates, and Americans only carried 4 up there in combination with carronades.  This is also a problem for Trincomallee, Belle Poule and Frigate.  And note that the original armament of the Essex QD was 10x 6pdr guns.)

    Deck 2: 18lb gun (note, however, that although the British re-armed her with 18s, she never undertook a cruise in British service with this armament.  An argument could be made for 12 pdrs max.)

     

    and / or

     

    Deck 1: 32 pdr carronade (this is what both Brits and Americans principally armed her QD/FC with)

    Deck 2: 32 pdr carronade (her historical armament toward the end of her US service)

     

    That's just the historical take.  Game balance may dictate otherwise.

    The Essex

    in Frigates and similar ships

    Posted

    hmm...armament is not quite historical. Too many broadside guns in main battery (usual, perhaps unavoidable, problem with arming chase / bridle ports as part of broadside in game), too few guns on weather deck.  Missing forward chasers (although connected to, and cancelled out in terms of gun count by, previous issue) and aft chasers (chase ports in quarterdeck).  She should have 46 guns total.  But she is beautiful!

     

    Would appreciate it if you could post the deck class restrictions.

    Arranged Weekend Trafalgars anyone???

    in National news

    Posted

    This means only one thing. We perhaps should stop listening to commenters and should just continue making the game for ourselves the way we - makers - want to play it.

    We had standard wind turning into a predictable direction. It was the request number 1 to randomize it. Let's harvest the fruits first before requesting standard wind back.

    From now on we will not accept feedback on core gameplay factors if it is not thought through and does not provide detailed in depth analysis like it comes from NW on the ship HP, from all points of view (defenders and attackers)

     

    I mean in battle (not OS) and totally random, rather than random variations within X degrees of starting wind (the sort of minor variations that allow skilled players to gain maximum performance by paying attention, but that don't swap the windward position for the leeward position).   To feel most realistic and support rewarding planning and positioning, wind would vary a small number of degrees constantly, and have a decent random chance to make a moderate change (45-90°?) in a typical fight.  This could manifest itself in two forms: small variations in one direction leading to larger change over the course of the battle (wind is slowly veering) or small variations in either direction from starting wind for long period of time (constant wind) followed by chance of veering significantly over short period of time to a new point of origin.  Huge changes (90°+?) in wind direction were rare in battles, and in fact plans and tactics were formed around fairly reliable expectations of the relative position of the wind, even if there was never exact certainty about its point of origin.  And I actually have no problem with huge wind changes in battle, but if they are routine, they are not exciting.  Make them a random, rare factor (perhaps associated with a visual environmental clue) and they would really add something to the game.

     

    OS - ideal would be consistent wind for several days of in-game time (random 1-3), followed by totally random change in direction.  This produces variability (no given journey is always or usually against the wind), but allows players to complete short voyages with relatively consistent wind direction, rather than having to constantly chase veering clockwork wind.  It is also more exciting because there is a random factor that can frustrate plans.

     

    Battle Instance - general direction of wind fixed at start of battle based on OS, with variation as outlined above.  Players can make plans and shape tactics around the wind, which is the terrain of an open sea battle (imagine planning for a land battle where the high ground could randomly become the low ground.  Planning would be pointless and battles would tend to descend into chaotic melee.)  Huge change in wind is rare and dramatic event, stunning all players with the power of the gods. :)

     

     

     

    And its strength is also random. In many cases it could just die down in battle. God and Glory will guide your hand to win the battle despite the wind.

     

    Change in strength is a more a neutral factor (although not entirely) and does not undermine tactics and planning the way totally random direction does.  By that I mean if I have formulated a plan and formation based on a general wind direction, that does not fall apart simply because the strength of the wind changes.  If it dies away entirely, then my plan is paused, not overturned.  Anyways, you have totally rejected the idea of variable wind strength in the past, so I don't know why you are bringing it up.

    Arranged Weekend Trafalgars anyone???

    in National news

    Posted

    So why change things? Sounds like line fighting is difficult, but properly rewarded when executed with skill in the right situations, but the trade-off is time consumed in coordination, potential loss of initiative, and excessivey rigidity. It's not the right tactic for all situations. This another reason Nelson deemphasized maneuvers and prioritized invididual, aggressive action. A team spending all its effort and focus on maintaining a line / executing a complicated maneuver is vulnerable to an opponent getting inside their decision loop. (That said, I do think survivability / repair needs more tweaking, especially huge potential HP spread, but I also think a bigger problem may be crew survival / efficiency. But please do not change accuracy. It is very balanced currently.)

    Also, you don't want to overemphasize distant line fighting and end up removing the need for invididual close action, potentially reducing every fight to a rinse and repeat one tactic wins focus fire duel, where the team with the lee position will almost always prevail. As you note, we've seen battles where a great deal of cohesion was maintained on one or both sides, and battles that quickly devolved into chaotic melee, all without any major change in the core system. Sounds to me like we mainly just need more people to participate in more battles, and more variety in types and conditions of battles, not changes in core mechanics.

     

    Two much more important points:

     

    -you can't really expect players to use formation tactics much in a game that drops players in a clustered mess within gun range of each other.  We really shouldn't focus too much on the dynamics of large group formations until we have some sort of battle commander function that lets players be arranged in formation before battle (and maybe rewarded with points for maintaining formation?).

     

    -line fighting, and age of sail tactics in general, do not mix with random wind changes.  Fleet tactics were almost entirely dependent on relatively consistent wind.

    • Like 2

    Arranged Weekend Trafalgars anyone???

    in National news

    Posted

    Also would like to add this.

    Sometimes feedback despite being reasonable brings unforeseen effects on the fun.

    Current large events look like this

    DikriNM.jpg

    Battles turn into individual melee and small group duels (from 1v1 to 5v5). It is how it was in real life. Maintaining the line is extremely expensive and requires careful planning. Keeping the station also reduces DPS as you don't purse stragglers to finish them off. Nelson understood this and as a result most decisive victories relied on individual skill in a general mess of the battle, not on the line fighting that was ineffective for decisive victories. It is fully replicated in Naval Action line fighting does not bring decisive victories and enemies usually escape.

    To bring tactics back several things must be brought back

    1. Reduced survivability - increase the cost of mistakes and cost of getting out of the line

    2. Nerf of survivability upgrades - increase the cost of mistakes and cost of getting out of the line

    3. Minor increase to speed - increase ability to keep station reduce time required for planning fleet maneuver

    4. Minor increase to turning - increase ability to keep station reduce the time required for long term planning

    5. Increased accuracy - increase ability to deliver damage at long range to make line fighting more effective

    The sad thing is that there are some old timers (like verhoeven, flgibson) who were major proponents of realism and history and pushed hard for more realism. But they don't participate in events for some reason (or participated a lot more during more casual sea trials1)

    PS.

    The first stable group of 10-15 ships with an admiral who is able to force his fleet to keep the line/station and focus fire will win majority of battles (OW or in Ports)

    So why change things? Sounds like line fighting is difficult, but properly rewarded when executed with skill in the right situations, but the trade-off is time consumed in coordination, potential loss of initiative, and excessivey rigidity. It's not the right tactic for all situations. This another reason Nelson deemphasized maneuvers and prioritized invididual, aggressive action. A team spending all its effort and focus on maintaining a line / executing a complicated maneuver is vulnerable to an opponent getting inside their decision loop. (That said, I do think survivability / repair needs more tweaking, especially huge potential HP spread, but I also think a bigger problem may be crew survival / efficiency. But please do not change accuracy. It is very balanced currently.)

    Also, you don't want to overemphasize distant line fighting and end up removing the need for invididual close action, potentially reducing every fight to a rinse and repeat one tactic wins focus fire duel, where the team with the lee position will almost always prevail. As you note, we've seen battles where a great deal of cohesion was maintained on one or both sides, and battles that quickly devolved into chaotic melee, all without any major change in the core system. Sounds to me like we mainly just need more people to participate in more battles, and more variety in types and conditions of battles, not changes in core mechanics.

    • Like 3

    5th-6th Rates Collection (With Plans)

    in Frigates and similar ships

    Posted

    HMS Speedy, unrated brig-sloop (1782). Lord Cochrane's famous command.

    WSpeedy.jpg

    HMS_Speedy.jpg

    Armament: 14x long 4pdrs, 12 swivels (16x French 6pdrs after capture)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Speedy_(1782)#

    Vincejo / HMS Vincejo, Spanish quarterdeck brig (1799).

    WVincejo.jpg

    Armament (in British service): 16x 18pdr carronades on upper gun deck (pierced for 20 guns), 2x 6pdr cannon on quarterdeck (alternatively described as having 18x 18pdr carronades)

    At daylight on May 8th, the Vencejo, 18, Commander John Wesley Wright, found herself becalmed near the mouth of the

    Morbihan, and driven by the ebb close to the Teigneuse rock, off which, for safety, she had to drop anchor. The Vencejo was a quarterdecked and forecastled brig, mounting eighteen 18-pounder carronades, but pierced for twenty guns, and carrying fifty-one men and twenty-four boys. Although more formidable in appearance than in reality, she was of only 277 tons, and was scarcely a fair match for a couple of French gun-brigs. While, nevertheless, she was endeavouring, after she had weighed and warped into the channel, to sweep clear of the coast, she was approached from the mouth of the river by six brigs, each of three guns; six luggers, each of two guns; and five luggers, each of two guns; the total force arrayed against her being seventeen vessels, thirty-five guns (i.e., six long 24-pounders, twenty-four long 18-pounders, and five 36-pounder carronades), and between 700 and 800 men, under Lieutenant Laurent Tourneur. The enemy rowed down within range, and at 8.30 A.M. they began to fire. By 9.30 A.M. they had so decreased their distance that Commander Wright swept his brig broadside on to them. For nearly two hours he engaged them within about a cable's length; but, having his rigging cut to pieces, his hull badly mauled, three of his guns disabled, two men killed, and twelve, including himself, wounded, and most of his armament temporarily put out of action by the fall of the booms, he at length ordered the colours to be struck.

    http://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=7333

    • Like 2

    Venetian/Italian Ship Collection (With Plans)

    in National ship and other thematic or special ship collections

    Posted

    Guns:

    8x14pd on the poopdeck

    2x200pd(!) on the forecastle

    24x40pd in the corridor

    30x20pd on the deck

    6x120pd(!) in the corridor

    Reminder: Venetian lbs =! British lbs., e.g. Venetian 40pdr is equivalent to British 26pdr. Still those denoted with ! appear to be very large weapons. Not sure what they would be circa 1716.

    Edit: threedecks.org says they were shell guns. Possibly the nominal weight is for solid shot, but they only fired much lighter shells?

    Lower Gun Deck 4 Venetian 200-Pounder Shell Gun

    Lower Gun Deck 22 Venitian 40-Pounder

    Upper Gun Deck 4 Venetian 120-Pounder Shell Gun

    Upper Gun Deck 22 Venitian 30-Pounder

    Quarterdeck/Forecastle 16 Venetian 14-Pounder

    Quarterdeck/Forecastle 2 Venetian 14-Pounder Culverin

    'Pandora' 1779 (With Plans)

    in Frigates and similar ships

    Posted

    I don't see how she could have an 1815 armament and complement if she was wrecked in 1791. By the way, this is the ship that was sent to hunt down the HMS Bounty and her mutineers. There is a detailed book on her in the Anatomy of the Ship series. Pretty sure she has been posted here before, so you might want to search and see if you can combine resources.

×
×
  • Create New...