Collision physics

[Dragonfire]

The picture shown should of caused so many leaks in the bows of those ships with the initial hit and the constant grinding on the armored side of that ship with their bows trying to push that ship with its bulk and not to mention trying to push a larger ships keel acting like anchor and ship weighted down with ballast and cannon sideways like that should result in heavy damage and forward momentum greatly lost to the point of both smaller ships stopped in a short time frame unless they have a hurricane pushing them hard that should be impossible they have no engines to keep momentum up just sail.

 

Damage to the smaller ships should of been heavy with sprung planks or at very least crushed bow with massive leaks hitting an armored side like that.

[Dragonfire]

Show me a man dragging a large plane around with a rope with its landing gear down and sitting on the ground and then i'll agree with your comparison between a small ship hitting a larger one sideways and pushing it for 4 km and a man pulling a plane.

[Crankey]

Loving the discussion thanks guys.

[maturin]

One single man can drag airplain on road just with rope. Its not matter of weight, вut force and resistance.

With the wheels sideways?

[Crankey]

its not about reality. Terrible damage to gameplay in case of friendly ramming. For now its everywhere.

 

Yes for now it is everywhere. Hence my post. There is no cost associated with ramming atm for either player involved.

 

In the end release having a more realistic damage model will enhance the game and encourage players to be more cautious about ramming and the Devs wll no doubt have an economic model that will reflect some kind of cost associated with battle damage. Better to trial the effects in the testing stages.

 

Players will be more thoughtful about their positioning and putting hopefully greater consideration to the cost and risk involved in using their ship as an ancient galley.

 

Game-play won't suffer, in my opinion it will improve as bumper car mentality would be much reduced and being careful of your position in a fleet should enhance fleet tactics.

 

btw I am not proposing that a gentle beam to beam 'rub' should cause any particular damage.

[Reki]

Show me a man dragging a large plane around with a rope with its landing gear down and sitting on the ground and then i'll agree with your comparison between a small ship hitting a larger one sideways and pushing it for 4 km and a man pulling a plane.

http://youtu.be/b_fPmBRrBf8?t=2m37s

 

as i said its about resistance of surrounding place and force. Even small object with sustained force can move large objects with time, because there will be inertia, when moving starts. Water isn't solid. It works just as wheels or like sleigh, but with more resitance than air. thats all

[Dragonfire]

Lol meant landing gear up sorry hence the sitting on the ground my bad

[Crankey]

http://youtu.be/b_fPmBRrBf8?t=2m37s

 

as i said its about resistance of surrounding place and force. Even small object with sustained force can move large objects with time, because there will be inertia, when moving starts. Water isn't solid. It works just as wheels or like sleigh, but with more resitance than air. thats all

lol. I am however of the opinion he didn't pull it very far or very quickly

[Reki]

lol. I am however of the opinion he didn't pull it very far or very quickly

he's human. Humans have limited resources, but wind not. Still he can move so heavy objects when his and object weight is uncomparable

[poosd]

I agree with Cankey's OP.  In a recent battle, in my Surprise, I got so focused on letting loose one of the few doubleshotted broadsides I have had the pleasure to use, that I rammed and completely rolled over an enemy Surprise that was crossing my bow to fire at me.  I hit him, rolled over him, and sank him!  I took some flooding damage, popped all my repairs and went into "Survival Mode" and continued to play the entire length of the battle while the other gentlemen was eliminated.  It was totally my fault due to inattention!  I felt bad about this and said so in my chats to the other player.  I don't believe in ramming, as it is not a realistic tactic for this time period, but I understand that in sea trials the rush to get bigger and better ships make some consider this a valid tactic for now.

 

If the purpose of sea trials is to test fighting concepts, damage models, and ships before incorporating them into a final game format, then ramming needs to dismast or otherwise do more serious and realistic damage a vessel.  I would think that the formulas used would also be able to be used for running aground on reefs, rocks, sandbars and other environmental features.  If they apply and are used for ramming, then new damage models don't need to be created from scratch for environmental damages when they are incorporated into testing.  Also, dismasting and rigging damage caused by non battle-damage events (such as regularly sailing around in a storm map at 100% sail settings ) will make sailing knowledge and skills more valuable.  As it stands now battle sails are pretty useless as are any of the lesser sail setting.  And the speed at which we raise and lower sails, move yards, etc. all the time while firing full broadsides also will effect crew and damage calculations.

 

I guess  I hope that the ramming damage model can be fixed (and include other damage types as well) before a "Final" damage model is locked in place.  Just my 2 cents worth on ramming damage.

 

Thank you,

Dean (poosd)

[Domina Shantotto]

the ships are made of wooden planking something slamming into the side of a ship at high speed 10+ knots will crack, and destroy the planking of even a SOL. the littler ship will probbably be completely unable to be sailed at that point but the SOL would be taking on water as well.  

 

as for cost effectiveness, it just doesn't make sense unless you know you are going down.

 

 

i wonder what Nicholas Audet would do without ram physics

[Poseidon7307]

Dont worry Crankey, i'm with you, i think that the ramming should have an extra damage for who ram

I think i agree it should cause a lot of dmg to the rammer but some dmg depending on where it hit to the receiver

[Don Alvarez]

Don't know if this had been discussed or not, but just in case here goes:

 

I was in two matches recently where I have been rammed by an opposing ship. The first I was in a Trincomalee when I got stuck in irons, and the opponent in similar vessel (Trinc, or Constitution) who was not long to live took advantage and rammed my ship, port side, somewhat forward of midships. It was almost a perfect 90 degree collision when I was dead into the wind. What happened next, my vessel was pushed sideways for about 150-200 meters at I'd estimate a good 4-5 knots while I tried unsuccessfully to disengage. Nothing I did could get my ship to break that 90 degree position, and the ramming ship did not even slow as it pushed me sideways, until it finally sank, and shortly after so did I.

 

I'm no physicist but it seems to me in a collision of two similar ships, one should not be able to push the other sideways through the water more than a handful of meters regardless of how fast it is traveling at impact.

 

Had similar issue this evening in a privateer lynx. I was rammed by an opponent (in same ship) and carried a very unbelievable distance at about a 45 degree angle. We were both moving forward, but when my ship was struck about 1/4 of the way back from the prow, I lost forward progress immediately and then was dragged along my assailant's course for maybe 75-100 meters. At this angle, a ship should probably collide, then slide along the side of the hull past the impact point. Instead, my vessel stuck briefly like it was impaled and drug along, until I dropped my sails and was able to use my rudder to finally work free.

 

it seems to me in these cases superiority of impetus was given to the ramming ship and when this happens the victim can be carried through the water an unrealistic distance at speed. Bellona vs Lynx I can understand. But not two ships of similar mass.

[Hethwill]

Should be calculated as correctly as possible given the computing limitations ( and production constraints ) in regards of physics and ships structure.

[Fuse]

I thought just getting your bowspirit tangled up would be enough to potentially lose a mast. I'm not a historian or sailor, but full speed ramming with no risk to your masts certainly seems far too "gamey".

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Hitting a big enough ship at a good rate of speed puts your masts into jeopardy.  The standing rigging can not take sudden shocks and you run the risk of losing your backstays when you have the shock of hitting another vessel (if it's large enough).

 

That said, sailing across the front of a First Rate in your Snow doesn't mean you break the First Rate's bowsprit at the cost of....nearly nothing.  Added to that, being rammed by a large ship doesn't do nearly enough damage to smaller ships.  If you're hit amidships by a First Rate in a Surprise, you're going to get your entire side stove in and you're going down.  So, if you want to keep knocking off bowsprits and jibbooms when someone in a cutter ducks in front of a Trincomalee and gets rammed, fine, but that Cutter should sink nearly instantly.  That would be a good balance. 

 

There should be a lot of incentive for a Cutter or similar sized craft not to come up near a larger ship's bow and drop all of their sails so they can rake your bows.  There should be a deep seated fear in those Captain's heads that they'll be struck and instantly sunk.

[Don Alvarez]

Thanks for the referral Dragonfire.

 

Please feel free to join/post on this thread with your ideas Don Alvarez/. i totally agree with you and a combined argument is better than smaller fractured ones. o7

 

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/3711-ramming-ships-masts/?hl=ramming

 

Thank you. I only wanted to post this in the sea trials forums because I viewed it more as a problem with broken or missing sailing phyics rather than a question of damage model improvement, so I really only wanted to drill down on the "pushing" effect which to me seemed unrealistic.

 

I'll head over to Suggestions and check it out. 

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Thank you. I only wanted to post this in the sea trials forums because I viewed it more as a problem with broken or missing sailing phyics rather than a question of damage model improvement, so I really only wanted to drill down on the "pushing" effect which to me seemed unrealistic.

 

I'll head over to Suggestions and check it out. 

 

Sorry guys, I merged the threads....backwards.  The link that was referenced is this thread.  I've gotten it sorted out, apologies for the confusion.

[Crankey]

No problem - the discussion that matters

[Dragonfire]

One other thing comes to mind the old rope or oakum treated with pitch or whatever the ship used as caulking would without doubt either crack or in fact fall out due to such massive flexing during a ramming .

Those leaks had to have happened  and been hard to control during such close combat. Can's see a Captain calling for a boarding time out to fix them.

Ships masts flexing in their mounting points must of caused leaks besides just snapping ?

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

I don't believe a mast flexing would have much, if anything, to do with leaking.  The caulking between planks would leak in a heavy sea as the planks warped and worked.  I don't think there was much chance of them falling out so long as the planks themselves remained attached, but it was certainly possible for those planks to be sprung and a leak to develop.  That leak was likely quite manageable though, as when working in a heavy sea, pumps were usually able to keep up with any water the ship was making, and there you'd be talking about the entire hull, not just a small section.

[Don Alvarez]

I think ramming should have pretty catastrophic consequences for both parties, though tempered by their comparative sizes, speeds, angle of attack, etc etc.

 

My thoughts:

 

The Pushing Effect 

I think is bogus. Look at the ships in Henry's signature. Now imagine it going sideways at 6 knots for 150 yards. Mr. Sidestrafe's name suddenly takes on whole new meaning.  

 

Next time your in a swimming pool do an experiment. Take a model boat with you and push it forward. It moves easy, because that is what a displacement hull is designed to do. Now, from a dead stop push it sideways, what happens? It moves with some effort, and it pushes a wave in front of it. Thats what happens in a collision, it forms a compression effect on the opposite side of the ship as the water can't move fast enough out of the way, heaps up on the side of the ship thereby increasing the surface area working against it, and will check its way pretty quick and alot of the energy is going to be absorbed by the timbers of the ships because they will give more easily at the relatively small point of impact than the 15 by 125 foot wall of water on the other side. In my opinion, a ship rammed at a 90 degree angle should only move about 15-20 yards quickly, then drift very slowly as the surroounding water reaches an equilibrium, it will NOT get pushed 150 yards sideways.  Of course, I welcome anyone knowledgeable in physics to disprove that, its just my opinion on what might be the case.

 

Dismasting in a Collision

On collisions of any violence, shrouds and stays are overloaded and they risk breaking. I would venture to say that a ship ramming another head on should nearly always lose some if not all its masts, even at just a medium pace. In all honestly, a lot of us should be carrying away our topmasts on the storm map bobbing about like we do under full sails.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Well written Don, I might add that the mast loss would depend on the size disparity of the ships.  A first rate hitting a cutter at full speed wouldn't feel much - the cutter would be split in half with little effort in my opinion.  On the other hand, hitting a far larger ship, like a Trinco or Constitution would definitely cause a significant shock.

[Brigand]

One thing that seems to be overlooked in this threat is that, in case of a collision, the rigging of both ships got tangled up. There is more than enough evidence of this in battle reports and admiralty discharges.

 

Let's look at an examples, featuring a Cutter and the 74-gun ship Bellona (yes, it is a lot of text, just read it):

 

A Cutter passes too close in front of the bow of a Bellona. The cutter's head sail rigging meets with the Bellona's martingale- and bob-stay which are there to keep the bowsprit and jib boom supported. This creates an awful lot of ropes chafing against each other and possibly getting tangled up a bit. Then the (top) mast and yards of the cutter meet the bowsprit and jib boom of the Bellona. Something will break now. The top mast of the Cutter is the weakest length of wood in this equation and will snap first, no matter what. The fore staysail, jib, topsail, topsail yards and all the attached rigging throws itself down. The Bellona's jib boom is probably the next thing to break, bringing with it the the fore staysail, jib, flying jib and all the attached rigging. All this breaking of wood will make sure the cutter will lose a lot of its forward momentum and the Bellona's bow will be pushed off course a bit, but not all that much. After this collision proper, the two vessels are well and truly entangled. There is no way they are going to separate just by themselves at this point: all involved rigging needs to be cut loose, and it better happen quick! The cutter is now stuck in front of the Bellona's bow, while the Bellona is still moving forward, in other words, the cutter will be run over and almost inevitably be beyond saving, although she can't really sink yet, because she is still roped to the rigging of the Bellona. The Bellona is now in risk of loosing her fore top and top gallant masts, after all: there is a cutter pulling on it with all its desperate might! A frantic whacking at all the lines and ropes involved can save the Bellona's fore top and top gallant masts, but it is going to be a race to make it happen.

 

So, in the case of a cutter passing too close in front of the bow of a Bellona, the outcome would be: the cutter will almost surely sink. The Bellona almost surely loses her jib boom (but most likely still has her bowsprit) and is in serious danger of loosing her fore top and top gallant mast (but not her fore mast itself) and has an awful lot of ropes and pieces of wood flying through the air, which need to be cut loose in order to be able to continue participating in the battle at hand.

And this is why no captain in his right mind would ever risk a collision, safe as an act of desperate martyrdom.

 

Cheers,

Brigand

[Don Alvarez]

Well written Don, I might add that the mast loss would depend on the size disparity of the ships.  A first rate hitting a cutter at full speed wouldn't feel much - the cutter would be split in half with little effort in my opinion.  On the other hand, hitting a far larger ship, like a Trinco or Constitution would definitely cause a significant shock.

 

Their relative masses would definitly play a part. Thought, splitting cutters in half is in my mind within the realm of realism, I think it would require a lot of modeling and right now maybe that development time is best spent elsewhere. The current "capsizing" scenario that happens in game works well enough (I finally saw this happen the other day. I think it was a cutter vs Victory) but the rate the smaller ship sinks needs to be accelerated. Its like the pushing effect, the smaller ship just clings to life for far too long and gets drug way to far than is realistic. Lets say for argument's sake the cutter doesn't break up - the water compression/wave is still going to enact upon it however, and its either going to swamp the ship or flood it through the gunports, and its still going to go down pretty quick.

 

One thing that seems to be overlooked in this threat is that, in case of a collision, the rigging of both ships got tangled up. There is more than enough evidence of this in battle reports and admiralty discharges.

 

Let's look at an examples, featuring a Cutter and the 74-gun ship Bellona (yes, it is a lot of text, just read it):

 

A Cutter passes too close in front of the bow of a Bellona. The cutter's head sail rigging meets with the Bellona's martingale- and bob-stay which are there to keep the bowsprit and jib boom supported. This creates an awful lot of ropes chafing against each other and possibly getting tangled up a bit. Then the (top) mast and yards of the cutter meet the bowsprit and jib boom of the Bellona. Something will break now. The top mast of the Cutter is the weakest length of wood in this equation and will snap first, no matter what. The fore staysail, jib, topsail, topsail yards and all the attached rigging throws itself down. The Bellona's jib boom is probably the next thing to break, bringing with it the the fore staysail, jib, flying jib and all the attached rigging. All this breaking of wood will make sure the cutter will lose a lot of its forward momentum and the Bellona's bow will be pushed off course a bit, but not all that much. After this collision proper, the two vessels are well and truly entangled. There is no way they are going to separate just by themselves at this point: all involved rigging needs to be cut loose, and it better happen quick! The cutter is now stuck in front of the Bellona's bow, while the Bellona is still moving forward, in other words, the cutter will be run over and almost inevitably be beyond saving, although she can't really sink yet, because she is still roped to the rigging of the Bellona. The Bellona is now in risk of loosing her fore top and top gallant masts, after all: there is a cutter pulling on it with all its desperate might! A frantic whacking at all the lines and ropes involved can save the Bellona's fore top and top gallant masts, but it is going to be a race to make it happen.

 

So, in the case of a cutter passing too close in front of the bow of a Bellona, the outcome would be: the cutter will almost surely sink. The Bellona almost surely loses her jib boom (but most likely still has her bowsprit) and is in serious danger of loosing her fore top and top gallant mast (but not her fore mast itself) and has an awful lot of ropes and pieces of wood flying through the air, which need to be cut loose in order to be able to continue participating in the battle at hand.

And this is why no captain in his right mind would ever risk a collision, safe as an act of desperate martyrdom.

 

Cheers,

Brigand

 

Scenario makes sense to me. however, from a developer's standpoint to accurately model every collision that might happen in a collision from falling masts to entangled rigging has got to be a daunting task - hull damage, flood rate, masts falling? Just topmasts? How many?  etc etc. . It may be easier to break it down into just a couple possible scenarios that take place after a collision event. I would say though that I agree with you any ship that suffers dismasting as a result of a collision should almost always become entagled. Why? Because as a general rule, I should think that masts would generally fall toward the direction of the impact, and therefore at least one or more masts is going to topple on the enemy vessel and take whatever rigging down with it as it fell.

 

Consider the ramming ship in a head on scenario. As it collides with the target its forward progress is going to be abruptly checked, the inertia in the masts is going to suddenly overload the backstays, and as they give way the mast(s) will fall forward, right onto the enemy ship.

 

For the ship being rammed at a right angle, the same holds true. If it is rammed on the port side, it will shift violently to starboard, and the inertia of the mast (that was standing still in relation to the ramming vessel) will overload the shrouds on the starbord side, they snap, and the mast falls to port right onto the ramming ship.

 

Both vessels are now hopelessly entangled, and they should not be able to disengage within any reasonable amount of time. There's tons of rigging, spars, etc that need to be cut and cleared away. The ship being rammed in this scenario above has the superior position as it can still bring some of its guns to bear, though in reality the risk of fire right now is very great, especially in the vicinity of fallen cordage, canvas, etc. Cannon fire might easily set all that ablaze and destroy both ships. The ramming ship there is at every disadvantage with only one real recourse -  Its boarding time! Which, bow-on, "For all you new people in the room, is also known as F**king suicide" (to borrow a line from Black Sails)

 

As stated above the the general relation of the two ship's mass also would have a direct correlation on which ship suffers what damage, and how much. The advantage always should go to the heavier ship in every collision scenario.