Constitution buff proposal

[Licinio Chiavari]

The super heavy frigate Constitution is at the moment plain broken.

Turn rate is 2.37 (almost on par with a Bucetaure - 2nd rate! - being at 2.33) and inferior to all 3rd rates (Wasa Bellona and 3rd being at 3.06 2.79 and 2.79)... not talking about 4th rates (Wappen Agamennon and Inger being at 3.60 and 3.04). So, having a far lower broadside there is not reason using her in place of 3-4 rates turnrate wise.

Speed wise she sits at 11.69 with all frigates (5th rates) being between 12.66/7 - Cerberus/Renomee and 12.01 of Indefetigable). So again: no sense using her in place of a standard frigate speed wise.

I'd propose to:

Move her speed to 12.00-12.10 (making her on par with slowest frigate - Indefetigable);

Move her turn rate to 3.00 (making her superior or on par with 3rd rates and slightly inferior to 4th rates).

This way she could try to keep a brawl battle on 3rd rates, get outturned by 4th and 5th rates, be faster than 4th rates, slower and less nimble than 5th, still being well more tough.

Making a scheme =

Speed: 5th rates > Constitution > 4th/3rd rates => she cant outrun frigates but can outrun bigger ships

Turn: 5th rates > 4th rates > Constitution > 3rd rates => she cant outturn same rate or smaller ships, still she can outturn full SoLs

Toughness: 3rd rates > Constitution > 4th rates > 5th rates => she can outlast 4th rates but not 3rd rates

Broadside: 3rd rates > 4th rates > Constitution > 5th rates => she hits harder than other frigs but not 3rd/4th rates

 

I challenge anyone saying such a ship would be OP. I'd say she'll be a nice mid range (not shining nor crappy) in all categories.

I'd like Devs opinion on this rebalacing of a nerfed to death ship.

Regads.

 

[Jean Ribault]

Well something needs to be done.  Great ship that needs to fit in, as you pointed out nicely.

[Thonys]

well i agree, it now is just only computer server cache data to only get dusty , just like the 800k forged papers

you can remove it safely....

this ship has been nerfed so often you never get to know this ship ..even though it is a museum piece and we sail and we/ you can look at it for days 

Type:	44-gun frigate
Tonnage:	1,576[5]
Displacement:	2,200 tons[5]
Length:	304 ft (93 m) bowsprit to spanker[6] 207 ft (63 m) billet head to taffrail[6] 175 ft (53 m) at waterline[2]
Beam:	43 ft 6 in (13.26 m)
Height:	foremast: 198 ft (60 m) mainmast: 220 ft (67 m) mizzenmast: 172.5 ft (52.6 m)[2]
Draft:	21 ft (6.4 m) forward 23 ft (7.0 m) aft[5]
Depth of hold:	14 ft 3 in (4.34 m)[1]
Decks:	Orlop, Berth, Gun, Spar
Propulsion:	Sail (three masts, ship rig)
Sail plan:	42,710 sq ft (3,968 m2) on three masts[2]
Speed:	13 knots (24 km/h; 15 mph) [7]
Boats & landing craft carried:	1 × 36 ft (11 m) longboat 2 × 30 ft (9.1 m) cutters 2 × 28 ft (8.5 m) whaleboats 1 × 28 ft (8.5 m) gig 1 × 22 ft (6.7 m) jolly boat 1 × 14 ft (4.3 m) punt[2]
Complement:	450 including 55 Marines and 30 boys (1797)[2]
Armament:	30 × 24-pounder (11 kg) long gun 20 × 32-pounder (15 kg) carronade 2 × 24-pounder (11 kg) bow

just a fresh reminder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution)

"      Move her speed to 12.00-12.10 (making her on par with slowest frigate - Indefetigable); "

it should go faster .......the landing boats are not fitted to the vessel " 13.5 knots  lol

besides that i don,t like the compromise you make with the other vessels in the game it does not do right to the vessel

 

from me to,.... regads .

Edited February 5, 2018 by Thonys

[Licinio Chiavari]

1 hour ago, Thonys said:

"      Move her speed to 12.00-12.10 (making her on par with slowest frigate - Indefetigable); "

it should go faster .......the landing boats are not fitted to the vessel " 13.5 knots  lol

besides that i don,t like the compromise you make with the other vessels in the game it does not do right to the vessel

I know. Still...

a.) asking a LO/WO Connie "flying" @13 kts will make her SUPER op granted how woods works ingame. So not a good idea (not going to happen ever... and rightfully).

b.) making her faster than other frigates... I think would call for subsequent nerf.

c.) my solution is not aimed to make her justice thinking what she was (and is). My solution is making her a viable ship in this game gtanted the usual "rock/scissor/paper" scheme.

With datas at the moment... as you rightfully stated, it's only filling computer cache having no role, no ups, no pros... only the outmost and blindest love makes some captains still using her.

I'd like to know Devs opinion on this regard... if they think she has a meaning as a ship in this game in this moment (and we can say the same for the Frigate or the Essex honestly... still, with so many different 5th rate options, this is less an issue game wise and a far less issue "flavour" wise).

 

Edited February 5, 2018 by Licinio Chiavari
typo

[victor]

I support the proposal of the OP

[Fluffy Fishy]

Constitution should probably not be changed much from its current state of the game her current sailing model seems very fair to her true design, Constitution shouldn't receive a magic boost to turning because her design just doesn't really allow for that. If we are going to balance her she shouldn't stand out against the sailing model as a giant red herring that gets a big boost because people want her to be artificially good. Interesting mention for the Bucentaure earlier in the original post too, mainly because she is more nerfed in the game in reality than constitution is, with her waterline length in game stats being quite dramatically cruel, giving her a much longer hull than what was historical, where as Constitution receives a nice little buff to her historical values already, where she is 1.5m shorter than she should be at the water. Please do not underestimate the sheer size of Constitution to ships of the era, where she is longer than a lot of 1st rates, with a hull dimensions and draft similar to a heavier end 3rd rate.

If you are going to buff constitution the best thing to do is extend what she is good at slightly, make her a little faster and a fair bit tougher, leaving her with a significant structure boost putting her in similar placement to some of the 3rd rates. This would make her a pretty good ship for duking things out in a straight line, but quite vulnerable on the turn, further enhanced by her heavy broadside. She should be able to pick her fights and play cat and mouse to utilise her heavy broadside and make the most of her decent speed and strong structure. Giving her the ability to out smaller profile ships like 3rd rates and even the 2nd rates seems a bit silly, because right now the reality is she is the 4th longest ship in the game.

For some extra reference on turning here is the table that has been floated around on these forums a few times.

[victor]

13 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

If you buff the constitutition turn rate, do the same with length ships as Ocean and Bucentaure.

Game balance is not only a matter of historical accuracy and "true design". Balance in a ship combat game means tewaking the stats in a way that every ship has its own role in a combat scenario.

No one complains about Ocean and Bucentaure turn rate, since they are SOLs, with more hull and firepower. They fill the role of slow gun platforms perfectly and so people use them. 

A heavy frigate like consti shall out turn (and outrun) SOLs, or it's simply a useless ship in the game. 

Edited February 5, 2018 by victor

[victor]

2 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

I complain.

well you are one of the few, while almost every player that used in the past (and stills tries to use now) a connie complains about it.

Edited February 5, 2018 by victor

[Licinio Chiavari]

56 minutes ago, Fluffy Fishy said:

Constitution should probably not be changed much from its current state of the game her current sailing model seems very fair to her true design, Constitution shouldn't receive a magic boost to turning because her design just doesn't really allow for that. If we are going to balance her she shouldn't stand out against the sailing model as a giant red herring that gets a big boost because people want her to be artificially good. Interesting mention for the Bucentaure earlier in the original post too, mainly because she is more nerfed in the game in reality than constitution is, with her waterline length in game stats being quite dramatically cruel, giving her a much longer hull than what was historical, where as Constitution receives a nice little buff to her historical values already, where she is 1.5m shorter than she should be at the water. Please do not underestimate the sheer size of Constitution to ships of the era, where she is longer than a lot of 1st rates, with a hull dimensions and draft similar to a heavier end 3rd rate.

If you are going to buff constitution the best thing to do is extend what she is good at slightly, make her a little faster and a fair bit tougher, leaving her with a significant structure boost putting her in similar placement to some of the 3rd rates. This would make her a pretty good ship for duking things out in a straight line, but quite vulnerable on the turn, further enhanced by her heavy broadside. She should be able to pick her fights and play cat and mouse to utilise her heavy broadside and make the most of her decent speed and strong structure. Giving her the ability to out smaller profile ships like 3rd rates and even the 2nd rates seems a bit silly, because right now the reality is she is the 4th longest ship in the game.

For some extra reference on turning here is the table that has been floated around on these forums a few times.

Much appreciated reply... and nice re-post of this table.

My proposal wanted to be, as stated elsewhere, not historical or engineering wise sound, still game wise acceptable.

Turn rate in this game, respect of true 1800 combat, is far more important, granted that in truth during the completion of a tack (that could last over 10 minutes) a ship was able to fire 5-10 times. Ingame the time ratio between firing and turning is far different... The good part we got a faster paced combat, a more manouvering combat (90% of age of sails, aside getting the upper hand, were side to side to the death...) the "bad" in this case is that manouvrability has a different weight making a ship good or bad.

Fluffy's idea is good. Still this should mean, IF we/devs want to give Constitution a role, may be a slight buff to toughness but more importantly a bigger buff to speed, setting Connie on par with fast frigates... on the contrary, my target range of 12-12.1 kts with the same turnrate will not solve the issue.

Admin/Ink opinions? should we stop using Constitution altogether? have we an hope?

 

[maturin]

1 hour ago, Fluffy Fishy said:

Some of the Waterline Length values are definitely wrong (L'Hermione, Renommee), and I still have no idea what 'Weight' means.

Either Wasa or Agamemnon have screwed-up length values as well. Probably Wasa.

[Fluffy Fishy]

22 minutes ago, maturin said:

Some of the Waterline Length values are definitely wrong (L'Hermione, Renommee), and I still have no idea what 'Weight' means.

I noticed the whole waterline length thing too, but I guess it just shows the compromises between gameplay and history, where the devs only follow rough historical values. Weight seems vaguely associated with displacement, at least as far as I can tell as it seems the numbers most closely associated with the values given in that column. Going back to waterline length there are a lot of errors when comparing to historical values, the one that screams out to me loudest is actually Bucentaure which is somehow almost as long as what I understand as the ship's longest points of measurement, between the cabin on the stern and the full prow (not including sprit), being just over 59m, while her waterline length is a staggering 48m. Turn rate seems a somewhat artificial value based on what I imagine is W/L and weight, whilst I believe yard power is the square area of sail in comparison to another value, maybe draft? Again I'm not sure what specifically. Square vs Jibs is easy enough to understand, as is Acceleration vs Deceleration.

If you know more about the values and their meanings please do elaborate, I've been trying to make sense of the table since it first appeared.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Fluffy Fishy

[admin]

1 hour ago, Fluffy Fishy said:

I noticed the whole waterline length thing too, but I guess it just shows the compromises between gameplay and history, where the devs only follow rough historical values. Weight seems vaguely associated with displacement, at least as far as I can tell as it seems the numbers most closely associated with the values given in that column. Going back to waterline length there are a lot of errors when comparing to historical values, the one that screams out to me loudest is actually Bucentaure which is somehow almost as long as what I understand as the ship's longest points of measurement, between the cabin on the stern and the full prow (not including sprit), being just over 59m, while her waterline length is a staggering 48m. Turn rate seems a somewhat artificial value based on what I imagine is W/L and weight, whilst I believe yard power is the square area of sail in comparison to another value, maybe draft? Again I'm not sure what specifically. Square vs Jibs is easy enough to understand, as is Acceleration vs Deceleration.

If you know more about the chart please do elaborate, I've been trying to make sense of the chart since it first appeared.

Waterline length is an in game waterline length. It not a traditional waterline for 2 reasons.

• The table waterline is the in game waterline. We are interested in the in game hull speed and thus measure the in game waterline (how ship would sail and turn with this waterline)
• The real waterline could shift up and down depending on the cargo and you would get different measurements. 

The game lengths will always and proper because 

All ship's dimensions are as correct and proper as the blueprint used to build the ship. If multiple blueprints with different measurements exist, we are not making the judgement call. We pick the BP that helps the artist the most. Using multiple blueprints to make a ship usually causes problems with final inspections and usually cause artists heads to roll (for example ports are all different on all blueprints and lines are mostly different too), so artists use ONE and ONE ONLY blueprint. 

There is of course a route for the very picky captains (especially those who are familiar with the model and have some knowledge of naval architecture so they can get original builder papers and draw great blueprints out of them). 

 

[Malachi]

29 minutes ago, maturin said:

 

Either Wasa or Agamemnon have screwed-up length values as well. Probably Wasa.

 

Hm...they were pretty short, 157' on the gundeck when measured according the british method IIRC. For comparison, thats a bit larger than french 18-pounder frigate like La Revolutionnaire.

[Licinio Chiavari]

57 minutes ago, admin said:

Waterline length is an in game waterline length. It not a traditional waterline for 2 reasons.

• The table waterline is the in game waterline. We are interested in the in game hull speed and thus measure the in game waterline (how ship would sail and turn with this waterline)
• The real waterline could shift up and down depending on the cargo and you would get different measurements. 

The game lengths will always and proper because (despite what some captains say)

All ship's dimensions are as correct and proper as the blueprint used to build the ship. If multiple blueprints with different measurements exist, we are not making the judgement calls. We pick the BP that helps the artist the most. Using multiple blueprints to make a ship usually causes problems with final inspections and usually cause artists heads to roll (for example ports are all different on all blueprints and lines are mostly different too), so artists use ONE and ONE ONLY blueprint. 



 

Still not a word on topic 

[Bragan Benigaris]

12 hours ago, Fluffy Fishy said:

With the waterline lenght, the amazing amount of Jib Sails and her length/width ratio she shoud have a better upwind performance than she with the current sailing profile has. And this may be the best solution to make her unique. With this she can't outturn SOLs, but perhaps, with some refits out-tack. Also with a good performance on beam reach and a little higher on wind she could outrun heavier units, and with her braodside and toughness fight everything smaller (5th rates).  Not an easy to handle ship, but with potential for experienced captains.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Bragan Benigaris
corrected typo

[Thonys]

20 minutes ago, Bragan Benigaris said:

With the waterline lenght, the amazing amount of Jib Sails and her length/width ratio she shoud have a better upwind performance than she with the current sailing profile has. And this may be the best solution to make her unique. With this she can't outturn SOLs, but perhaps, with some refits out-tack. Also with a good performance on beam reach and a little higher on wind she could outrun heavier units, and with her braodside and toughness fight everything smaller (5th rates).  Not an easy to handle ship, but with potential for experienced captains.

i agree, if it goes with the fleet, it is a almost 30 degrees(upwards) shut down and sails away backwards from the pursuit .

kinda lame 

the captain was a cowart they say in the tavern (not that the captain was a cowart but, you will understand)

its a bit like: drunken tales on a sober sailor ...

[victor]

12 hours ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

Still not a word on topic 

And that's even more strange since some time ago Admins told in another similar thread that that they "love" Connie.