Shot dispersion

[Crankey]

Hello Devs,

 

We all know why broadsides were fired, it was to put as many shots as possible into a target 'area' where our enemy had the miss-fortune to be.

 

Now, at point blank range, we wouldn't expect many shots to miss if any, as the shot would be flying horizontally to the sea and the enemy would be in the way, but as range increases the broadside would be fired in a higher and higher arc and produce an ever growing area of effect where its shot fell. Caused by many things, poor aim throughout crew and officers, inconsistency in weight of charge, irregularity of cannon ball shape, roll of ship hull etc etc.

 

I have seen so many times every single shot of a long range broadside falling just inches from a ships hull, and at the same time so many long range shots where every single shot hits. There seems to be a little more dispersion left and right than there is near and far.

 

I understand that we need some skill in learning targetting etc, my point isn't that the targetting needs reviewing (Please don't hijack this thread along those lines !) far from it I think the ranging shots, leading and height adjustment mechanics are just fine as they are.

 

My point is that these ships cannon just weren't that accurate, you would expect misses, and the further away, the more misses you would expect. Imagine a huge rough tear drop shape on the ocean where your target ship sits within and the narrow point of the teardrop points at your ship. Hopefully you would judge correctly where the majority of your shots would fall, but even if you judged it wrong, you may catch it with a few shot that were destined to be slightly off centre.

 

I don't know if you plan to add accuracy enhancing features in the release version and reduce accuracy until these are achieved, but for me the shot fall area at range is far smaller than any captains expectations should be.

 

[maturin]

The laser-like accuracy of cannon in the vertical dimension is a nod to playability and skill-based gameplay.

 

Realistic dispersion would get frustrating fast.

 

However, I don't see why we can't get some statistical portion of shots that deviate.

 

Say, at 500m 30% of shots fall short or go long. At 800m, it's 50%. And so on and so forth.

 

This will paradoxically make near misses less frustrating, as you will score a few good hits. Most importantly, long-range kiting becomes less viable.

[admin]

ballistics is under improvement currently. carronades and double shot will no longer look like frogs jumping, some dispersion tuning will also happen. 

[thomas aagaard]

My point is that these ships cannon just weren't that accurate, 

Iam not saying you are wrong, but can you actually back that statement up with sources?

I actually think the other factors you mention is the real problem.

 

Anyway, I do think more spread would be a good idea. Also makes it less frustrating when you aimed just a bit too low and all your rounds hit just short of the target... since some will go long and hit then.

[Freebooter]

Great post by the OP.

 

I would also add that it is immensely frustrating to find that when raking an opponent at close range my crew is too stupid to fire along at the enemy as each gun bears.  Instead I get a spread of shot glancing at an angle or missing entirely when they should really be devastating.

 

As things stand it is better to hit the enemy at the stern quarter rather than at the stern itself.

 

An opponent who allows himself to be stern-raked should be punished for his error.  At present I have no qualms about manouvering so that the enemy gets a free shot at my stern.

[Crankey]

Iam not saying you are wrong, but can you actually back that statement up with sources?

I actually think the other factors you mention is the real problem.

 

Anyway, I do think more spread would be a good idea. Also makes it less frustrating when you aimed just a bit too low and all your rounds hit just short of the target... since some will go long and hit then.

 

I will do my best to find links to appropriate technical data. My knowledge came from a study of the napoleonic navy some 15 years ago. Just as a basic reply, the equipment and ammunition could not be compared to rifled guns and mass produced ammunition of the 'modern' era, Quite often guns were miss-matched at fitting out, with ages and manufacturers varying greatly throughout a ship, basically utilising whatever the dockyards had available. And ammunition that had to have rust knocked off with hammers before being fit for firing could not all be perfectly spherical.. I'm on night shift tonight but will revisit some old sites and even the library to provide info.

[Crankey]

Great post by the OP.

 

I would also add that it is immensely frustrating to find that when raking an opponent at close range my crew is too stupid to fire along at the enemy as each gun bears.  Instead I get a spread of shot glancing at a angle or missing entirely when they should really be devastating.

 

As things stand it is better to hit the enemy at the stern quarter rather than at the stern itself.

 

An opponent who allows himself to be stern-raked should be punished for his error.  At present I have no qualms about manouvering so that the enemy gets a free shot at my stern.

Thankyou Patrick and yes, the only true way to benefit from your stern or bow rake is to be rewarded by all or at least most of your shots to be on target. Either a new order to 'fire as you bear' or possibly an option to concentrate your broadside to a smaller pinpoint accuracy, only useful at short range and in a rake situation, could be introduced.

[Destraex]

I think perhaps a fire as she bares option. Allowing you to fire the first shot from bow and then continuing at a chosen time interval for the rest of the volley one after the other until the stern is reached.

In other words a bow to stern or stern to bow firing option.

 

I guess at the moment you could do this with ranging shots which fire from bow to stern iirc. SPACE SPACE SPACE SPACE SPACE SPACE SPACE SPACE SPACE SPACE  lol

[Sir. Cunningham]

I will do my best to find links to appropriate technical data. My knowledge came from a study of the napoleonic navy some 15 years ago. Just as a basic reply, the equipment and ammunition could not be compared to rifled guns and mass produced ammunition of the 'modern' era, Quite often guns were miss-matched at fitting out, with ages and manufacturers varying greatly throughout a ship, basically utilising whatever the dockyards had available. And ammunition that had to have rust knocked off with hammers before being fit for firing could not all be perfectly spherical.. I'm on night shift tonight but will revisit some old sites and even the library to provide info.

 

Also keep in mind that the RN utilised various equipment that aided their gunnery immensely, such as the gunlock & goose quill which ensured instantanuous discharge of the gunpowder upon triggering, allowing the gun capt. to fire according to the roll of the ship as well as actually aim the gun (with linestock you had to step aside, hence you couldn't aim) greatly increasing accuracy. Later on tangent & dispart sights were also used and was in widespread use from 1815 onwards. 

 

As a result British gunnery was a lot more accurate than that of for example the French during the Napoleonic era, thus one cannot draw conclusions on the general accuracy of naval gunnery based on French tests for example.

 

That having been said we do have a vertical dispersion ingame right now that is about 75-100% less than what it would be in real life, and horizontal dispersion is likely ~50% too small. So I do very much agree that increasing these would make gameplay more realistic and interesting.

[Crankey]

Yes totally agree Sir Cunningham, my own OP would be relevant to all nations gunnery as an over-all observation.

 

The game-side relavence does however come into question for nation specific benefits. Perhaps the advances in gunnery you list are in the background as personal captain rewards, but I'm unconvinced that allowing such historical advantages to be nation specific in any realm v realm confrontations, unless each advancement has an equal and similar or alternative advancement to equal out game play. It is going to be very interesting to see what degree of detail the game takes on board and how it is implimented

[Sir. Cunningham]

I too do not think that nation specific "perks" should be implemented, esp. not to something as crucial as gunnery, that is an area of realism we can do without in the interest of making sure that not everyone flocks to one side/nation.

 

In addition to this: Such equipment (gunlocks, dispart sights etc.) was infact available to any of the major nations back then (infact the French pioneered its use on artillery, it just wasn't embraced by the Navy until well after Trafalgar), thus any captain could equip his ship accordingly IF he was willing to pay for it himself (take Cpt. Broke for example). 

 

Infact I started a thread on the subject here:

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/1799-gun-battery-upgrades/

 

Note: My comment that "the accuracy we currently see ingame seems to realistically reflect what was achieveable with both gunlocks & tangent/dispart sights" was at that point based on a few videos I had seen on youtube and perhaps a few tours in a Lynx, I have since then played the game myself (with bigger more stable ships) and seen that vertical dispersion really is about twice as small as it should be.

[akd]

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.

[Sir. Cunningham]

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.

 

Spot on

[Freebooter]

Far be it from me to give small praise to the fighting qualities of the British tar, but their superiority in comparison to the French and Spanish in the Napoleonic Wars was due to their constant practice and experience.  All nations were brave, but bravery and determination is hampered by lack of skill and practice.  However in earlier periods there was less of a difference in apparent quality probably due to all sides having ships that were often at sea rather than shut up in port at least as far as the English and the French went (I am thinking of the Seven Years War).

[Crankey]

Don't you just love talking about all this 'stuff'   No wonder we're all head over heels about this games potential  

[Chromey]

Devs please add more dispersion to the shots!

[BungeeLemming]

devs just announced their plans for the next testbuild:

see here

[Crankey]

devs just announced their plans for the next testbuild:

see here

 

Greater shot dispersion at range is there ! Woot, I think it will make a great game even greater Fingers crossed I am correct