SueMyChin

Here is the full American correspondence between Captain Jones, The American Philosophical Society and the War Department for anyone wanting to read it...

Personally, if it was ever used I would love it in game. The more options and variations the merrier. However, it would seem that it wasn't ever used in service. Merely as a test by William Jones and that quote above was from an English Lawyer, William James, not a Frenchman (William Jones... William James...? *pull suspicious face*) Upon further digging I found this, the true source of the quote above by William James, the lawyer. It's basically an attempt to clear blame on the part of the Guerriere's seamen, though he repeatedly claims it not to be... Here is the quote from above (highlighted) but I've also specifically left in the succeeding paragraphs as it offers some context as to why he might be exaggerating the truth about it's effectiveness (or simply making it up) .... not only that, but because it's actually hilarious... ...and he goes on to talk about the size of the ships also being 'unfair', the amount of guns being 'unfair' etc. etc. The only stuff I could find form an American source was correspondence relating to the suggestion by William Jones, the captain that it might be used but they leave the matter open while accepting outright the other ideas put forward. The expense was said to be the sticking point in the first link and if they were initially told it could be "manufactured at an expense that will not exceed that of flannel or that of paper cartridges" we might be looking at the reason they never took up the suggesting in the end. I would hate to write off something that could (IMO) improve the game on the back of so few sources, but ultimitley what more can we do.

But why propose the 3D representation stuff? Why not ask for a button to press that hides & reveals the HUD on a toggle? I'm not saying we want more HUD, I'm just saying we don;t need the 3D stuff..

..the games that are successful are the ones that do this as little as possible. I fail to see the resoning that "there are aspect of other games that I dislike but I'm forced to do, therefore this one should have similar undesirable aspects". Having an arena mode for casual players or players who simply prefer arena battles and don't want down time between engagements has nothing at all to do with NPCs and grinding. I don't understand where you're coming form with this. I never once said anything about either getting rid of grinding or only engaging NPCs in open world. I simply think for players who want larged pitched battles they will find open world boring. Rather than accommodating them into open world why not give them what they want. There will also be players who don't like large pitch battles. Rather than forcing these players into them (the escort system?) allow them a free open world that doesn't encourage heavy PVP with short down time between engagements. It's not natural, historical (let's see how many people solely focus on the historical accuracy/realism argument and forget everything else I've said) or desirable for many players. 1. I very much doubt someone will pay $40 for a title and completely ignore half of the game because there are two buttons in the menu. If players chose not to play one or the other it's because they prefer one over the other. Forcing them to play both makes no sense and will not generate GL any further revenue considering their payment model. 2. Some players may (I know for a fact that some do) prefer to grind NPCs, why not allow them to do so if they please. I'm not saying NPC is the only way in open world, that's a ridiculous idea but there should be the option to as opposed to forcing PVP on everyone. How would you feel if you were forced to grind NPCs the way you're proposing others should be forced to play arena style gamplay? 3. So if anything leaving the arena as is, with no ties to the open world at all, provides an even more care-free enviroment to learn, yes? 4. If they wanted to do this they could do it easily without forcing players to play both to progress.

It already appears on your HUD so you already know at a glance what state you're in so why is a 3d representation of that information needed? It kind of works in WT as it shows you where shots are coming from (information you would probably know if you were in the tank) but you are able to discern that already in NA so no extra information would be conveyed by it.

Posted this on other thread, though it's just as relevant here too. Re: total weight of carronade vs long guns. it gives some idea as to the number of rounds they would carry for each (and in what ship/deck) too.

Like I said.... You can't reef sails in game. If the sailors are going to run up and furl sails how quickly are they going to have to move considering it takes about 10 seconds to go from full sail to no sail... Given the speed of the game any sailor aloft is going to be redundant sat up there for any length of time and would look stupid if they're to run up and down, as by the time he gets up there he'll have to be coming straight back down again. If players are sailing properly (shivering or backing sails rather than furling every sail to slow down) which, I believe they will be encouraged to do through speed and efficiency at game launch, then there will be no need for sailors aloft. If at some point adding/removing specific sails for certain weather was introduced or if they were to decrease the speed at which sails are furled or even repairing/replacing individual yards after they've be carried away, then maybe it would be viable to have hands running up the shrouds and along the yards but until then, it's completely pointless..

There is often no reason for sailors to run aloft (certain actions like reefing or setting/striking a stun'sail would need hands on the yards but they aren't in the game), most aspects of the 'sailing' can be controlled from the deck. I would imagine this was even more the case during an engagement. I'm sure more/better crew will come in the future but it can't be a priority in pre release.

....Amusingly? It must have been a typo or I've overlooked the dates as it was (now edited) 1813 too. ..and it's the same source. "In a 28 August 1813 letter to Secretary of the Navy William Jones, Captain Thomas Tingey, Commandant of the Washington Navy Yard, recommended that ships load out, for each long gun aboard, 100‑120 rounds of solid shot, 50‑60 stands of grape, and 20‑25 rounds of canister; for carronades, 80‑90 solid shot, 30‑40 grape, and 10‑15 canister." I think they've overestimated the amounts carried for the carronades but it's irrelevant really but it would be interesting if someone could come up with some official figures as I know the RN (at least) kept note of these numbers and subsequent changes to them also.

I found this quote on another forum but it's completely un-sourced so could well be twaddle.. In the Danish Navy, 1775, a 60-gun ship with 24 24-pounder guns, 24 12-pounder guns and 12 8-pounders carried: 1920 cannonball, 240 bar-shot, 120 grapeshot for the 24-pounders 1920 ball, 240 bar and 120 grape for the 12-pounders 960 ball, 120 bar and 60 grape for the 8-pounders. In other words, 80 roundshot, 10 barshot and 5 grapeshot per gun.

"The tables below were calculated based upon a 130-round-per-gun norm because that number equates to the known number of 18‑pounder rounds carried by the ship in June 1812 per the log for its sole gun of that caliber" The quote above suggests the estimate for 32lb carronade and 24lb long guns was made off the back of the ship carrying 130 rounds of 18lb shot per gun. This doesn't really take into account the fact (see below) that they always seemed to take less shot per carronade relative to the long guns. It may well be that these reduced carronade shot amounts were decided upon after the supposed (above) load-out was used but I doubt that they would have ever deemed the need for both carronade and long gun shot to be exactly the same ratio of shot per gun. 1809 60 round shot 10 double or chain shot 10 stands of grape or canister 28 August 1813 (edit) 100‑120 rounds of solid shot 50‑60 stands of grape 20‑25 rounds of canister (Carronade) 80‑90 solid shot 30‑40 grape 10‑15 canister 1 September 1813 100 round 40 grape 5 double-headed (dismantling) shot per long gun of whatever weight (Carronade) 60 round 40 grape 20 canister "In slightly less than two hours, for there had been at least two lulls in the action, Hull’s people had expended 943 rounds of 32- and 24-pounder shot of four types. They represented twenty percent of his 32-pounder inventory and thirteen of his 24-pounder stock. Because mostly double-shotted cannon were used, they had burned up only seven percent of the powder. " Without taking into account that they wouldn't be firing both broadsides at once or the doublle-shotted cannon (mostly because I've always been under the impression you couldn't fire Carronades double-shotted and it's a little ambiguous as to how much of each shot were used) that's roughly 19 shots per gun in "slightly less than two hours". Working at 5 minutes per shot that's about 95 minutes worth of continuous fire. 20 shots per gun in a 2 hour engagement seems plausible to me given half could well have been fired double-shotted. Basically because carronades wouldn't need to (or couldn't) be fired double-shotted you wouldn't need as many shot per carronade as you would per long guns...thoughts?

I was only just reading 'Tars' by Tim Clayton the other week and remembered this snip-it (luckily it's on google Books so I don't have to type it all up) from a chapter about Monmouth's capture of the Foudroyant" Monmouth actually carried 70 guns at the time so it's almost a perfect reference for the numbers offered by Lieste above. At that rate it would have literally taken them days to fire off the 5417 listed as 'channel service load' not to mention the 2130 extra for Foreign Service. Now, I'm not disputing it, I know the RN kept strict records of the numbers which is interesting reading but again I'm just not sure it's going to be relevant in game to be honest. I wonder if the devs have data on average shots fired per engagement in each ship. I bet 50 isn't far off.

Posted this in another thread thought I'd add it to the information already here.. Fact is, the current test doesn't really highlight the benefits of the carronade. It doesn't really take into account sailing qualities of ships with different weight of armament besides a few fractions of knots (which I appreciate isn't relative to final game). The cost of buying and supplying guns isn't accounted for and the number of crew needed to fire them isn't either. Also as it stands they can fire double-shotted, which really should be removed before full launch. Re: Accounting the weight of ammunition as part of the gun weight You're right to suggest that with increase of calibre the weight of ammunition will increase but to what extent will not depend on how much ammunition the 18th century Royal Navy would issue as standard (between 60-70 shot per gun I believe(?)). In game the damage dealt per each shot will not mirror the effective damage dealt in1800 naval combat perfectly, so we may only need to carry half (or double) the amount of shot per gun when the full game launches. If we say end game 50 shot per gun is the recommended load. Going by this table it would take you 35 minutes to fully exhaust those 50 rounds per gun (12lb long guns) if you were to continually fire both broadsides non stop. 41minutes if you were armed with 32lb carronades. I wouldn't imagine needing any more than that and I would suggest that if I were a merchant I wouldn't be wanting to fire half that amount really. The 20 x 12lbs would collectively weigh 63,840lbs (or 31.92 ton) + 50 shot per gun (12,000lb or 6 ton) If he was to swap them out for 18lb carronades... 20 x 18lbs = 22,400lbs (or 11.2 ton) + 50 shot per gun (18,000lb or 9 ton) If he was to swap them out for 24lb carronades... 20 x 24lbs = 29,120lbs (or 14.56 ton) + 50 shot per gun (24,000lb or 12 ton) If he was to swap them out for 32lb carronades... 20 x 32lbs = 39,760lbs (or 19.88 ton) + 50 shot per gun (32,000lb or 16 ton) You're still able to swap out 20x 12lb long guns for 20x 32lb carronades and not increase weight at all going by 50 shot per gun I suppose that where the weight is (gun decks vs shot locker or hold) would play a part but whether the game will account for this too is another thing.

This also wouldn't take into account the wind speed or direction either.

Oh, I agree. Firstly that unless you buy or build the ship yourself you shouldn't be to name it and also that any navy ship should be named by random in advance from a list of names. I would also suggest that before a ship is built that it is referred to by it's class-name (Leda-class, Neptune-class etc.). So in the ship yard click > 'build Leda-class ship'. If you own the ship I would still prefer an extensive list of available names that you can chose from or if you want to use a bespoke name or simply support the game you can add an appropriate name to the list for a fee. Brig's suggestion that only you can use that added name until the ship you name sinks is actually quite nice. If you want your ship to be unique don't let her sink! ....Anything that adds to a players desire not to lose their ship is good in my book but the devs want for lots of battles and limited down time between them is probably going to rule that sort of thing out unfortunately.

When you wrongfully accuse someone of something... ...expect them to refute it. That you can't comprehend why one of the most famous sail ships of the period in which the game is set, a ship which helped shape world history and has captured the imagination of millions of people (basically everything the Ohio isn't) might go some way to explaining why we don't all share your personal preference. Something you'll do well to see Ohio added on the back of alone. I'm done here, thread's going nowhere.

I don't understand what you're suggesting then... Are you suggesting that letting us name our own ships would see more ships with the same name then every ship of the same class having the same name? Or are you saying we give the ships different names but don't get to chose them? How would a ships name be decided in that case?

Haha, ... I'm the last person you could accuse of that. I voted Amsterdam in the ship poll and put forward HMS Endeavour as a ship suggestion, a far worthier candidate than any US built SOL. Posts such as that, flippant though they might be, will only undermine what little substance your argument might have.

Heh Personally, I have no idea who in this thread is American or otherwise and don't really care. I haven't pointed any of my comments at anyone, merely noted that the American Nation did not build and fight in SOL until after the practical time frame of Naval Action, thus "missed the boat". How that is generalising, I have no idea.. I would however note that the name of the thread is American SOL, and throughout the topic has largely focused on adding a SOL simply because it's American and pretty much nothing else. So yeh, I'm not sure what you're getting at calling me out for those comments ...

I would imagine even then there would be less than if you weren't able to rename the ships. Most ships have a class they could be named by default but then there are countless numbers of 'Leda Class' sailing around.. and what would the Constitution be called by default if not the Constitution? 'Super Frigate'?

You could say they missed the boat... Or you might not bother.

Let's say we put aside the 'hard' time-frame of the game, the unrivalled technological advancements compared to what we currently have and the fact it never seen notable service until it was refit about 20 years after anything else it will be fighting against... On what grounds can we justify adding this ship to the game? It's American, made of wood and sailed on water...? If we were struggling for suggestions it might have gotten a look in but it barley meets the criteria on so many levels I don't see why it should even make it into the equation... and I don't even mind the way it looks..

Isn't the time frame 1600 - 1820? Without wanting to be a pedant, isn't "launched 30 May, 1820" outside of the time frame by exactly 5 months?

I just think it's a little elaborate for something like ship naming. I would rather have the option to pay for a name so I can support the game development as well as restrict players... let's call it 'creativity' .... If you know what I'm getting at.

Do you have enough data on ballistics to introduce limited gunnery stores yet? Players choosing a load-out of what shot and amount to take would help prevent the snipe-fest, I bet. It would probably mean battles get closer faster and less shots are fired per battle but they would be likely to end sooner as each shot does more damage.. I