akd
-
Posts
2,801 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by akd
-
-
Is this the same Pavel?We are selecting between St Pavel (80 guns) - Russia
http://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=21416
Listed there as 90 guns. Very interesting that Russian ships-of-the-line carried a small number of howitzers (edinorog) on lower (1-pood / 48-lb) and upper (1/2-pood / 24-lb) gun decks..
-
These older ships carried 24-pounders on their lower decks. If the devs are looking for something to fit in between the Bellona and Victory, the ship will probably need to be of later origin. This is why just looking at number of guns or rate is not particularly useful. Size of ship and broadside weight are better points of comparison.Second Rate according to the British is 3 gun decks and 90-98guns
Russian
Lesnoe - 90 guns - launched 1718
Gangut - 90/92 guns - launched 1719
Fridrikhshtadt - 90/96 guns - launched 1720
Swedish
Drottning Ulrika Eleonora - 86 guns - claimed to be a second rate
http://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=10857
-
"Stunning" (nonsense term and "stun lock" even more so; would be better described as "shock") should not be tied to angle of fire or type of shot, but to crew loss. If a ship suffers a broadside that kills X% of crew in less than X seconds, it should suffer a morale hit that could have all sorts of effects, including a period of shock followed by recovery. What type of shot does the killing and what angle it comes from is irrelevant (although obviously raking with grape is the most likely to kill large numbers of crew).
As BlouBulle points out, it would probably be best to track crew loss for individual guns and apply morale effects on gunnery on a per gun basis, but I'm not sure if the game is really tracking where in the ship crew are hit.
But the game needs a morale system for various aspects of gameplay and this should just be integrated into that system.
-
1
-
-
Rolling broadside are completely necessary for raking fire.
Yet our current broadsides are probably much more reflective of the number of shots that would actually strike the target. Given increased damage and "weak" stern hull, do we really want every shot in a broadside going into the stern? It seems to me that even with a reduced number of shots hitting, we still get much larger numbers of crew killed, which should be the primary advantage of a raking broadside.
-
nation specific advantages were not genetic, they were the product of decisions that were made by the nations and their navies. That is up to the players in game. If players want a France that rivals England in the realm of gunnery, French players should train up their crews and invest in the best technology.
-
3
-
-
Why does best point need to be shown? Just let people discover on their own. Plus, they might incorporate minor variations even within a class, which would be something else to discover via gameplay.
Agree entirely that the arc should show the "dead zone" rather than an arbitrary "downwind zone." But again, I think this should be very fuzzy and allow players to learn on their own just how far upwind their ship can point. Maybe one arc for square-rigs and another for fore-and-aft rigs?
-
Yes, but catching frigates was about speed, not handling / maneuverability so much. There is no doubt that larger ships could out run smaller ships, especially in high seas.
Surprise was a small frigate in her day. There is a whole class (or several classes) of frigates between Surprise and Trincomallee that is not in the game. Trincomallee is a heavy frigate. Constitution could be described as a super-frigate.
-
Yes, some line ships handled very well, others terribly. Now, the problem there is that historical anecdotes on handling may have nothing to do with speed and radius of turn. They may have been much more focused on other factors of handling, especially safety at sea. "Maneuverability" in the sense we are talking about in game was probably a lesser factor in day to day operations and most confrontations between fleets.
I don't really know enough about the technical aspects of design to comment on whether there was anything about the design of line ships that would make them less maneuverable. However, I would imagine that height of hull above the water would have a big effect with all that surface area to catch wind. Many of the very large line ships were made excessively tall in order to pack in as many guns as possible (and possible purely to be visually imposing) and suffered accordingly in their handling characteristics. Possibly this is partly why razees where remarked to have very good sailing qualities. Also, 74s were noted to have a very good balance of firepower and handling, which suggests to me that larger designs must have often sacrificed something for their firepower.
-
I wonder what other functions an in game historical chronometer could help with?
Timing your own broadsides? (So you could see changes based on crew skill improvements, etc.) However, I would hope for some variability in broadside reloading times so that chronometers could not be gamily exploited to time enemy broadsides down to the second. Fog of War makes for better combat.
Coordinating maneuvers?
Timing mortar bomb fuzes would be hardcore.
-
Let's be civil here. Arisu a long term tester will be warned in private.
Now
The main problem with spread is that having realistic pistol shot distance kills options and kills tactics
Carronades disappeared exactly because of accurate long 18 and 24 lb guns used by French and us captains
Staying at Longer range should be a viable tactic.
Staying at mid-range should be viable tactic with skilled player gunnery and long guns. Increasing range (vertical) dispersion would not make it nonviable, as broadsides aimed at the correct range (found through a combination of ranging shots and skill in estimating range) would still have the vast majority of shots connect with the target. A few would fall short, some would hit lower-hull, some mid-hull, some upper hull, and a few would go through rigging. In some ways it could make gunnery more effective at these ranges as a small mistake would be less absolute, but skilled gunnery (finding just the right range) would still be rewarded (the skilled gunner would aim such that no shots fall short, most shots go into hull and a few more shots fly high through rigging). The goal here would only be to increase vertical dispersion such that very few shots in the "spread" short and long of the target connect directly with the hull at ranges achievable by max gun elevation plus heel.
I personally think horizontal (left-right) dispersion is okay currently, so long as additional mechanisms aren't added to converge fire of all cannons on a single point.
-
1
-
-
No ship carried a spare lower masts because it would have been pointless. They wouldn't be able to replace a lower mast at sea. The only thing that could be done is to replace the lower mast with a much less effective "jury rigged" mast that would not be able to carry as much sail or additional upper masts. That is why people think that if the entire mast (including lower mast) comes down, it should not be instantly and completely repaired.Repair visuals are fine for a computer game.
Nice try.
Lets not waste time fiction and just use facts. We can prove everything with have in the game by written research or references. if you argue them provide scans of sources.
Ships were carrying spare yards, mast parts and canvas. Very often.
-
I think the terms "historical" and "famous" are getting confused here. There are plenty of historical plans for ships of great variety that were never famous. There is no need for fantasy ships, and it would introduce a host of problems. Sticking with historical designs tends to be self-balancing as they were all made with a consistent set of real world limitations.
-
I would like to be able to "lock fire" so that I can look around the ship in order to check course, maintain formation and avoid collision.
Hold ALT key to look around without affecting aim.
-
It's different than the normal sail settings. Fairly slow setting, but the sails set should offer good maneuverability especially with manual yard control. Hopefully in future the setting will have additional benefits, including lower chance of fires.
-
16+ knots? That seems insane.
I would like to see an option for her to have quarterdeck stern chasers, or maybe an separate "early" Leda class frigate made by modifying the model. In this painting of Pomone, first of the Leda class, you can see chase ports:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/HMS_Pomone.jpg
-
The gun elevation may have been fixed, but the deck of the ship was not, so in reality the actual elevation (and apparent aimpoint) was continuously moving and shifting. This means that shooting accurately at long range was not just inputting the correct elevation, but also the finesse and timing involved in compensating for movement and delayed ignition. It was more about gut instinct than inputting a rigid and repeatable elevation setting that could then be fired consistently shot to shot. In fact, accurate shooting at long range in the era was probably largely nonexistent, or at least exceptional.
However, we have a hybrid system that partially compensates for ship motion and gives us a stabilized aimpoint except when elevation is near the limits and the limits are shifting because of ship motion. In my opinion, the current finesse required with the mouse, especially at long range, is a good substitute for the many complicating factors totally absent from the game, especially continuous ship motion. It adds an element of art to gunnery instead of making a purely mechanical system in which you input elevation changes, adjust and then fire like a bot. It is not easy, but it is not hard either and accurate shooting at long range is far from exceptional. It might even possibly be routine after some practice (although there may be those who just never "get it"). But yes, sometimes you miss due to carelessness and/or misjudgment. Happens to me frequently.
My biggest fear for the game is that there will be continuous calls to make the gunnery system easier and facilitate shooting at the longest ranges, to make it a certain and predictable process, and that eventually the devs will submit and start adding in more visual aids and additional "aim stabilization." I hope it is resisted as it would be totally contrary to the spirit of the era and would probably not improve gameplay at all. Small ships would never be able to escape larger ships. Battles might always devolve into long, slow attritional exchanges of fire at max range.
-
3
-
-
Phool, you need to use SPACEBAR to fire single guns to test range.
-
The cannons with sights only had so because the Captain of the ship invested in them. Obviously one of the most famous Captains for doing that was Capt. Broke who invested a great deal of money in them being fitted to his guns.
And that was very late in the era. And Broke faced many gunnery challenges completely missing from the game. He would have loved to have had the Naval Action gunnery system at his command. All guns coordinated in bearing and elevation at the twitch of a finger right up until the second before firing? Sure! Ability to disregard smoke? That would be fine. Nearly full broadsides landing on target at max range with several days of practice? Oh, yes please.
-
I would at least like to have a camera option that is anchored to the quarterdeck, allowing you to feel movement of the ship directly (with some dampening to account for body's compensation for ship movement).
-
If your structural integrity (hull) is reduced to zero on a side, you start flooding. Not a huge fan of this mechanic myself, but it certainly makes ships sink fast, especially if they are raked.
-
[ and ] are for full left and right broadsides, respectively.
More specifically they fire the full broadside straight out of the side of the ship with no elevation. This can be useful, for example, if you sail between two enemy ships at very close range and want to fire into both simultaneously without entering aiming mode. The disadvantage is you get no visual indication of your field of fire.
-
While in gunnery view, you can hold ALT to switch back to normal view and look around your ship. When you release ALT you will return to gunnery view and your aiming will not be reset.
-
2
-
-
Destraex, can you update your first post with the additional commands I noted:
B
[
]
-
Press "B" to toggle battle sails "on/off" (will switch from your W/S sail setting).
"[" and "]" - fire the left or right broadside at pointblank (level) elevation and straight out the side when not in aiming mode.
f1 f2 f3 f4 to lock a deck for firing
press again to unlock (red crosses indicate lock)
Note that red crosses on a deck can also indicate:
-the deck is not able to fire at current aiming point elevation / range because the guns can't elevate any further. (You will see this frequently if you carry both carronades and long guns on a broadside).
-the deck is below the waterline due to flooding and/or heel.
Ship request - 2nd rate
in Ships of the line
Posted
Guillaume Tell would be a great choice for a 80-gun third rate. You could of course go with the name of any of her sisters as well.