Why are is the 3rd rate strictly worse than the Bellona and why is the St Pavel strictly worse than the Bucentaure?

[Yar Matey]

Srsly devs?  I was looking at the stats of the St. Pavel compared to the new Bucantaure, and it is superior in every way.  It has more side thickness, more hull strength, its faster, gets better guns on the top deck and gets more guns overall, and has the same turn rate!  Could you at the very least make the Pavel faster and have better turning?  

 

No one is going to build Pavels and 3rd rates once they unlock the Bucanture and Bellona.  

 

At least give the Pavel and 3rd rate some redeeming quality, like more speed and turn rate.

 

 

[Cragger]

The 3rd rate Is well a placeholder that is no longer needed.  It's literally the Bellona with different textures and performs sailing wise identical to the Bellona, while having only a marginally better firepower then the Ingermanland. 32lb carronades on the quarter deck but the Ingermanland's 32lb long guns out do the 3rd Rate 24's.

 

I'm hoping that they will introduce another 3rd rate that's under the Bellona to replace the 3rd rate with some day.

 

Also the Bucentaure in real life with a 80 gun 3rd rate. Game labs decided to give her a few more guns and make her a non standard 2nd rate (When 2nd rate was actually 90-98 guns on 3 gun decks)

[maturin]

 

Also the Bucentaure in real life with a 80 gun 3rd rate. Game labs decided to give her a few more guns and make her a non standard 2nd rate (When 2nd rate was actually 90-98 guns on 3 gun decks)

Why are you applying the silly, arbitrary British rating system to a French ship?

 

Bucentaure the "Third Rate" mounted a heavier broadside than Victory did at Trafalgar. Even the smaller 80-gun ships had more firepower than British 98s.

 

 

Game labs decided to give her a few more guns

They armed the bride ports, that's all. Same deal with Cerberus and many other ships.

[Vernon Merrill]

Srsly devs? I was looking at the stats of the St. Pavel compared to the new Bucantaure, and it is superior in every way. It has more side thickness, more hull strength, its faster, gets better guns on the top deck and gets more guns overall, and has the same turn rate! Could you at the very least make the Pavel faster and have better turning?

No one is going to build Pavels and 3rd rates once they unlock the Bucanture and Bellona.

At least give the Pavel and 3rd rate some redeeming quality, like more speed and turn rate.

Ummmm, because they are two different ships. Why not just give everyone a Connie that can carry 3000 tons of trade goods and sail 15 knots if you want all the ships to be equal??

[Cragger]

Why are you applying the silly, arbitrary British rating system to a French ship?

 

Bucentaure the "Third Rate" mounted a heavier broadside than Victory did at Trafalgar. Even the smaller 80-gun ships had more firepower than British 98s.

 

They armed the bride ports, that's all. Same deal with Cerberus and many other ships.

 

1. The RN system is the standard used by history especially involving the Western European navies of the era

 

2. The Victory was a lot older then the Bucentaure, no surprise she mounted less broadside weight. 

 

Ratings were done on construction (number of gun decks) and number of guns. Both of us know that.

 

Otherwise the HMS Foudroyant 1798 would be a 1st rate instead of a 80 gun third rate build by Britain. Same broadside weight as Victory nearly the same tons burthen. A foot different in beam and length.

 

The Bucentaure was a 3rd rate, top of the limits of them and a very powerful one, but still a 3rd rate. The game itself uses this "silly,arbitrary British rating system" to a large extend so to say I can't use it is rather odd. 

[maturin]

1. The RN system is the standard used by history especially involving the Western European navies of the era

The French had their own system. In which 80-gun ships are the second-highest rank.

 

Bucentaure's broadside also dwarfs that of a contemporary British 98-gunner.

 

 

The game itself uses this "silly,arbitrary British rating system" to a large extend so to say I can't use it is rather odd.

The game substantially modifies it to be more rational. I've never heard of a Seventh Rate.

[Jean LaPointe]

The 3rd rate Is well a placeholder that is no longer needed. It's literally the Bellona with different textures and performs sailing wise identical to the Bellona, while having only a marginally better firepower then the Ingermanland. 32lb carronades on the quarter deck but the Ingermanland's 32lb long guns out do the 3rd Rate 24's.

I'm hoping that they will introduce another 3rd rate that's under the Bellona to replace the 3rd rate with some day.

Also the Bucentaure in real life with a 80 gun 3rd rate. Game labs decided to give her a few more guns and make her a non standard 2nd rate (When 2nd rate was actually 90-98 guns on 3 gun decks)

Gun rates and number of decks changed during that century, 1701 -1800.

"From 1670, the Second Rank was defined as ships of the line carrying from 56 up to 70 carriage guns; in 1683 this was redefined as ships carrying from 64 to 74 guns, and by 1710 even 64-gun ships had been reduced to the Third Rate. Most Second Rank ships were two-decked vessels, i.e. carrying two complete gundecks, usually plus a few smaller carriage guns mounted on the gaillards; however, the Second Rank initially also included thirteen smaller three-deckers (French Navy) launched up until 1682, after which all three-deckers were First Rates."

Ship size, number of guns during "X" year, number of decks and national identity dictated what the ships rating was for that time. It was not a hard fast rule but a fluid design over the years that kept changing what was the rate of the ship. Much like a razee that was a 74 two decker at first then cut down to a single gun deck heavy Frigate, going from 3rd rate to 4th rate. Changes were made all the time.

In short an 80 gun ship can be two decks as how the French designed their 2nd rates from about mid 1700's.

Much of the ship design changes were created by the French during the first half of the 18th century. The British used captured French ships as a model for new British designs. Economics played a great part in ship design of the time, much like we see today in our modern navies.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Jean LaPointe

[Cragger]

 

The game substantially modifies it to be more rational. I've never heard of a Seventh Rate.

 

Personally I would not call it modified to be more rational. While calling the 'unrates' seventh rate is mostly a change of syntax it pushes the Cerberus and Renomee up to 5th rates which they were not in their actual service life and are in no ways even close to 'power' as the other 5th rates.

 

However, I realize that we are in our discussion taking this thread off track from the original context of why the '3rd' is even around in the game anymore being a 'gimped' version of the Bellona.  As such I will gladly accept that the Bucentaure in the French system was a 2nd rate, and well as that it is close to the 1800+ 84 gun 2nd rates the British even built.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Cragger

[Jean LaPointe]

However, I realize that we are in our discussion taking this thread off track from the original context of why the '3rd' is even around in the game anymore being a 'gimped' version of the Bellona.  As such I will gladly accept that in the French system it was a 2nd rate, and well as that it is close to the 1800+ 84 gun 2nd rates the British even built.

As mentioned before. Design changes were made all the time. The French Temeraire class 74-gun Sol had 97 ships in this class. The years this design was incorporated their were changes made between the first and last vessels built. Simular is the appearance but improvements made by over all design or by shipyard contractor made differences in each ship over the life span of this class. The differences between the 3rd rate and Bellona makes these minor differences a real factor for the game.

I do not believe one was gimped on purpose, but rather encompassing changes of the 3rd rate in the Bellona.

[TheAmerican]

The rating of a ship, whether it's a 1st rate or 5th, is pointless gents. the only thing that matters is the battle rating the devs give each ship. Battle ratings are on a per ship basis, if I'm not mistaken, not per ship class. All they need to do in order to balance ships is change the battle rating of each ship. Aleternativley, they could make some ships cheaper to produce than others.

On the flip side, some ships underperformed, and others brought new design elements to the table that put them ahead of the competition. Not all ships were created equal!

[Fastidius]

well i suppose the argument comes about because of things like navy briig,merc snow & rattler  And connie,inger,india

 

 

In 4ths you have trader/Tank/DPS

 

in 6ths you have Brig as tank Snow as balanced and Merc/Rattlers as DPS.

 

In 3rds you have Bad & Good. as bellona is better guns better armmour and better agility......

 

it is a fair question.  I'd buff the armour on a 3rd to make it the tank and have the bellona as the def.

 

In 1sts you sorta have the same thing with Vic as tank and santi as DPS however it isnt DPS against the same rate ship so not sure if thats quite right.

 

admittedly this is a gave vs reality argument so it is a question to the devs as to do you want the rates to be comparable or a progression......and dependanton the answer if thats the case then 5ths need to be split to small and big since there is a clear difference between trinc/essex   and reno/cerb   

 

It also makes sence for there to be another rank or 2 for crafters as 9*5 = 45....splitting 5ths to 2 tiers makes 50 levels make more sence....    bear in mind that m 9 = 7 millitary and 2 trader tiers....(indiaman is counted as a militaryfor this )

Edited August 3, 2016 by Fastidius

[akd]

rank =! equal.  full stop.

[Idle Champion]

the only thing that matters is the battle rating the devs give each ship. Battle ratings are on a per ship basis, if I'm not mistaken, not per ship class. 

 

With the battle rating victory condition in port battles, BR values aren't all created equal. The recent BR tweak for Pavel and Bucentaure, putting them both on 630, is a clear indicator of this. Bucentaure has the heavier broadside by cannons and carronades, the more effective weather deck guns, the bigger crew - even before its speed and turning comes in it is quite simply the more powerful ship and the old 700 vs. 600 BR reflected this. Hopefully once the port battles change there can be an overall finessing of BR.

 

The Diet Bellona, on the other hand, is my least favourite ship. There's no distinctive flavour, no hole card that gives her an advantage over Bellona, just a weaker ship with identical sailing that feels like a placeholder.

[akd]

3rd rate is meant to be generic, entry level (lightly-armed) 3rd rate. I'm sure there will more be rank 3 ships in future. Some may be better than Bellona in every way.

[TheAmerican]

With the battle rating victory condition in port battles, BR values aren't all created equal. The recent BR tweak for Pavel and Bucentaure, putting them both on 630, is a clear indicator of this. Bucentaure has the heavier broadside by cannons and carronades, the more effective weather deck guns, the bigger crew - even before its speed and turning comes in it is quite simply the more powerful ship and the old 700 vs. 600 BR reflected this. Hopefully once the port battles change there can be an overall finessing of BR.

The Diet Bellona, on the other hand, is my least favourite ship. There's no distinctive flavour, no hole card that gives her an advantage over Bellona, just a weaker ship with identical sailing that feels like a placeholder.

I understand what you are saying, but the Bucentaur was just put into the game. You gotta give the tiny dev team a bit of time to work out the bugs! I was just stating that the BR system is mainly the dictator of PBs, and once it's dialed in, I think will work quite well.

[Prater]

well i suppose the argument comes about because of things like navy briig,merc snow & rattler And connie,inger,india

In 4ths you have trader/Tank/DPS

in 6ths you have Brig as tank Snow as balanced and Merc/Rattlers as DPS.

In 3rds you have Bad & Good. as bellona is better guns better armmour and better agility......

it is a fair question. I'd buff the armour on a 3rd to make it the tank and have the bellona as the def.

In 1sts you sorta have the same thing with Vic as tank and santi as DPS however it isnt DPS against the same rate ship so not sure if thats quite right.

admittedly this is a gave vs reality argument so it is a question to the devs as to do you want the rates to be comparable or a progression......and dependanton the answer if thats the case then 5ths need to be split to small and big since there is a clear difference between trinc/essex and reno/cerb

It also makes sence for there to be another rank or 2 for crafters as 9*5 = 45....splitting 5ths to 2 tiers makes 50 levels make more sence.... bear in mind that m 9 = 7 millitary and 2 trader tiers....(indiaman is counted as a militaryfor this )

Tank? Dps? What is this, wows or wot? None of these terms really apply to naval action. The brig is the tank of the 6th rates? The navy brig has more hp and possibly more thickness. I think the rattler has more hp than the nbrig, and the heavy rattler will probably be tougher. 4th rates we have a tank and dps? No, you have old slow 4th rate sol vs newer semi fast not quite as heavily armed super frigate. 3rd rates you have an entry class and an upgraded version.

The only time dps matters is in a line fight, but it isn't just dps because penetration plays a major roll as well. Otherwise dps has no role, because sail first shoot second. Maneuvering and damage mitigation negates dps. Damage mitigation being very important in your term of tanking. A "non tank" can "tank" better than "tanks" with damage mitigation. As for dps, I've seen with my own eyes a surprise out damage two bellonas.

[Bulwyf]

Hopefully the suggestion to balance ships is never taken up, ships historically were different and should be in the game. If they were ever to balance the ships as you say I would cease to play as Naval action would become just like WOWS and other mediocre games. Vive la difference!!!

Edited August 4, 2016 by Bulwyf

[Tyrdael]

Hopefully the suggestion to balance ships is never taken up, ships historically were different and should be in the game. If they were ever to balance the ships as you say I would cease to play as Naval action would become just like WOWS and other mediocre games. Vive la difference!!!

^this. MinMaxer should use the FOTM ship, the others what they like imho. No balancing against each other, just balancing of the combat mechanics.

[TheAmerican]

Tank? Dps? What is this, wows or wot? None of these terms really apply to naval action.

Well said Prater.

[Yar Matey]

Hopefully the suggestion to balance ships is never taken up, ships historically were different and should be in the game. If they were ever to balance the ships as you say I would cease to play as Naval action would become just like WOWS and other mediocre games. Vive la difference!!!

 

I respectful disagree and here is why:

 

Ships should be uniquely different, but they should be different in ways that make sense. 

 

Lets look at the Bellona and the 3rd rate and compare them side by side:

 

The Bellona gets more side structure, 1000 more hit points, and has thicker structure at 73 cm vs 71 cm.  The Bellona also gets bigger guns on the 2 lower decks.  So let me ask you this, does it make sence that the Bellona has the same max speed and the same turning rate as a 3rd rate?  No it absolutely makes no sense whatsoever.  The Bellona is a heavier ship which would effect its max speed and its turn rate considering that the ships are identical shape wise.  It would make sense that a 3rd rate would be more maneuverable and faster, so why not give the 3rd rate a turning buff and a speed buff?  Instead of having a max speed of 11.18 KN, it could be given a top speed of 11.25 Kn and instead of having a turn rate of 2.31 seconds, make it 2.15 seconds.  This is a change that makes sense. 

 

I believe a similar thing should be done for the Pavel and the Bucentaure.  A ship with more side structure and thicker armor with bigger and more guns should have lower maneuverability and speed compared to similar ships of its rate. 

[TheAmerican]

I respectful disagree and here is why:

Ships should be uniquely different, but they should be different in ways that make sense.

Lets look at the Bellona and the 3rd rate and compare them side by side:

The Bellona gets more side structure, 1000 more hit points, and has thicker structure at 73 cm vs 71 cm. The Bellona also gets bigger guns on the 2 lower decks. So let me ask you this, does it make sence that the Bellona has the same max speed and the same turning rate as a 3rd rate? No it absolutely makes no sense whatsoever. The Bellona is a heavier ship which would effect its max speed and its turn rate considering that the ships are identical shape wise. It would make sense that a 3rd rate would be more maneuverable and faster, so why not give the 3rd rate a turning buff and a speed buff? Instead of having a max speed of 11.18 KN, it could be given a top speed of 11.25 Kn and instead of having a turn rate of 2.31 seconds, make it 2.15 seconds. This is a change that makes sense.

I believe a similar thing should be done for the Pavel and the Bucentaure. A ship with more side structure and thicker armor with bigger and more guns should have lower maneuverability and speed compared to similar ships of its rate.

As some of said, the generic 3rd rate is a simple place holder. It'll eventually be replaced by a vast majority of different 3rd rates made by countless navies. If I'm not mistaken, the 3rd rate was the bread and butter of navies in the day, and there are nearly endless supplies of different designs that the devs can whose from.

And really, some designs were better than others. If we make each ship the same as the next, why even put more than one ship per class in the game?

[maturin]

 

 

The Bellona gets more side structure, 1000 more hit points, and has thicker structure at 73 cm vs 71 cm.  The Bellona also gets bigger guns on the 2 lower decks.  So let me ask you this, does it make sence that the Bellona has the same max speed and the same turning rate as a 3rd rate?  No it absolutely makes no sense whatsoever.  The Bellona is a heavier ship which would effect its max speed and its turn rate considering that the ships are identical shape wise.  It would make sense that a 3rd rate would be more maneuverable and faster, so why not give the 3rd rate a turning buff and a speed buff?  Instead of having a max speed of 11.18 KN, it could be given a top speed of 11.25 Kn and instead of having a turn rate of 2.31 seconds, make it 2.15 seconds.  This is a change that makes sense. 

Bellona and 3rd Rate use the same model because the latter is a placeholder.

 

They're not supposed to be the same exact hull shape. A superior design will be faster even if it is heavier.

[Yar Matey]

As some of said, the generic 3rd rate is a simple place holder. It'll eventually be replaced by a vast majority of different 3rd rates made by countless navies. If I'm not mistaken, the 3rd rate was the bread and butter of navies in the day, and there are nearly endless supplies of different designs that the devs can whose from.

And really, some designs were better than others. If we make each ship the same as the next, why even put more than one ship per class in the game?

 

 

Bellona and 3rd Rate use the same model because the latter is a placeholder.

 

They're not supposed to be the same exact hull shape. A superior design will be faster even if it is heavier.

 

You guys are missing the point entirely.  I understand that the 3rd rate is just a placeholder, but it is what is in the game now to play with, and as it stands, there is no circumstance where anyone would ever want to pilot this ship because it is strictly worse than the Bellona.

 

Same thing is going to happen to the St. Pavel.  No one will ever want one of these now that we have the Bucentaure.  The St. Pavel has no redeeming quality over the Bucentaure because it is strictly worse then the Bucentaure in every way, and thus, the St.  Pavel will never get built by players because no one is going to want this ship.  Since the Bucentaure has more side armor, thickness, and more guns at the very least, make the St. Pavel a faster ship with a faster turn rate. 

Edited August 4, 2016 by Ultravis

[Vernon Merrill]

What you are trying to say is that a 3rd rate cannot beat a Bellona....  and that is patently false.  There is no reason to "Nerf" or "buff" ships, especially as more examples of each class are introduced.  There is already too many "bordering on" gamey "perks" and mods that enable ships to be "tanky" or "DPS" machine guns...   

 

The "Nerfing" or "Buffing" should be primarily between the captain's ears...

[Prater]

I have 2 junk 74s.  I would sail them over a Bellona because 1.  I don't have a Bellona.  2.  If my nation needs ships in a PB.  3.  They are cheap.