Double charge increase hull damage?

[o Barão]

I ask this because when using the tooltip and hover above the double charge it shows: "More damage to the hull." However if i hover the double shot it shows: "15% more more damage than the round shot" & " More damage to the hull." So i am a little confused since i always thought the double charge didn't increase the damage.

 

-So reading this i can assume that: The double shot increases 15% more damage than the regular shot if is used against masts; less damage against sails/crew but 15% more damage + an unknown value(X) if is used against the hull? So it could be something like 25% bonus in damage?

 

-So reading this i can assume that double charge: Can increase a X% value in damge to the hull? What would be the value for X?

 

Can the devs tell me what would be the right numbers for each situation and please improve the tooltip to make the information more easy to understand?

 

 

[o Barão]

2 minutes ago, Audacious said:

Double Shot + Penetration Mod + Reload Mod + Short range and you will eat 3rd rates in a frigate. 

I already eat 3rd rates in a frigate without those mods. I see many player talking here in the forum, and i am glad that they are interested in sharing opinions but still no one came here to explain the exact values for the double charge vs double shot . I am still hoping for some dev to came here and explain to all of us.:(

[Snoopy]

59 minutes ago, Tenet said:

You are on a game forum, the topic is about a gameplay question. You two are literally the ones confusing things. Historical references inspire the game-play, they do not control what we do with the historical tools provided. 

Naval Action is an imaginary world where ships are far more common, and sinking them is far less expensive, and the real value is in the reputation and PvP/RvR results. 

You brought the historical aspect up first: 

2 hours ago, Tenet said:

[..]Double Charge was probably not as common not because more velocity would be less effective, but because it risked rupturing the guns, and used double the powder (a rare and expensive commodity). 

Then we tried to reign in your broad brush of historical 'facts'.

[Tenet]

1 hour ago, Snoopy said:

You brought the historical aspect up first: 

Then we tried to reign in your broad brush of historical 'facts'.

False. Someone brought in a discussion about physics, and I said that the physics have to be tested using period conditions, accurate re-enactment, not just a reference to some Mythbusters episode. I linked a video showcasing just such a test. Then the goal posts started to get moved - speaking about the historical goals of capturing ships, instead of the Naval Action game goal of sinking ships faster, going off topic. Read the thread from the start, and stop the spin. We're done here.

[HachiRoku]

3 hours ago, vazco said:

Second sentence is correct, that's why in warships ships moved from Carronades to long guns - to gain range. Longs on short distance were not as effective as carronades though.

 

A cannonball with too much energy has two disadvantages: 

• it can indeed go through completely, not passing it's energy. It doesn't bounce, doesn't veer. It won't set anything on fire
• more important - cannonballs were causing massive damage through splinters. Faster cannonballs don't cause so much splinters

Mythbusters tested this, I'm not able to quote episode out of my head though. I can be wrong about details of course. Just like with gun ballistics though, having just right amunt of energy is  the most devastating.

its not even the case with guns. More energy is almost always better since you can keep the bullet supersonic so you can make a far more accurate shot. Why do you think rifles are so much more deadlier than pistols? 

And saying to much energy is a disadvantage is just nonsense. The amount of range you gain from a faster projectile is far more important since you can engage at further distances. They couldn't technically achieve this in the past and that is why I dislike double charge. Cannonades were not equipped on ships because they having less range and less penetration is a good thing. If that were the case long guns would have stopped existing when they were invented. Carros were far lighter. Required less crew, had 2 times the firing rate and were far cheaper to produce and maintain. It is a nobrainer to replace long gun frigates with cannonades in this case because of these reasons. It was a compromise that they accepted because of all the other MAJOR advantages. Also if you were really that close in naval combat that you didn't want to over penetrate you would simply use less powder and the issue would be solved. In reality more umpf is far more of an advantage than a mythbusters video. 

[Genevieve Malfleurs]

1 hour ago, HachiRoku said:

its not even the case with guns. More energy is almost always better since you can keep the bullet supersonic so you can make a far more accurate shot. Why do you think rifles are so much more deadlier than pistols? 

And saying to much energy is a disadvantage is just nonsense. The amount of range you gain from a faster projectile is far more important since you can engage at further distances. They couldn't technically achieve this in the past and that is why I dislike double charge. Cannonades were not equipped on ships because they having less range and less penetration is a good thing. If that were the case long guns would have stopped existing when they were invented. Carros were far lighter. Required less crew, had 2 times the firing rate and were far cheaper to produce and maintain. It is a nobrainer to replace long gun frigates with cannonades in this case because of these reasons. It was a compromise that they accepted because of all the other MAJOR advantages. Also if you were really that close in naval combat that you didn't want to over penetrate you would simply use less powder and the issue would be solved. In reality more umpf is far more of an advantage than a mythbusters video. 

energy is a result of velocity and mass. almost all pistol rounds travel supersonic and some high precision rifle rounds are subsonic. precision is gained by barrel length and more important the length your eyes get to aim. Hence the rifle on longer range. the effect on a target: ask a hunter, he'll tell you about the negatives of a too fast projectile.

[HachiRoku]

17 hours ago, Genevieve Malfleurs said:

energy is a result of velocity and mass. almost all pistol rounds travel supersonic and some high precision rifle rounds are subsonic. precision is gained by barrel length and more important the length your eyes get to aim. Hence the rifle on longer range. the effect on a target: ask a hunter, he'll tell you about the negatives of a too fast projectile.

I was not talking about a soft target like a deer. I am quite aware that a 308 is not the preferred round where I live to shoot them. It will do the job however I promise but you will have dear all over the place.

I was talking about the range advantage you gain from a faster projectile. 2 very different things. The faster the projectile, the more accurate it is in general and what you say about barrel length and accuracy is only half the story and by the way you explained it, makes it seem like you don't know what you're talking about. A carbine will have less muzzle velocity than a rifle when firing the same round for example. Barrel length is not just about accuracy because accuracy and muzzle velocity are both the product of a longer barrel. The faster projectile is not influenced by gravity and environmental factors nearly as much as a slower projectile. Newtons first law.... The 556 is a far more accurate round than the 762.  Its muzzle velocity is the main reason for this. I have never fired a 762 so this example is not personal experience. 

Some people prefer subsonic ammo in handguns because of the recoil and that is what makes it more accurate. Its not the actual slower speed that makes it more precise. We could argue about this all day long because everyone has their own opinion on what ammo is the best ammo for them.

Also I am aware that the 556 is designed to be faster than the 762 and will be faster no matter the barrel length but its just an example. So many things play a part in accuracy but you saying velocity plays no part in accuracy is simply nonsense especially because my argument was range based and not accuracy based. Range is basically the most important thing in all kinds of combat. 

Out of curiosity please name the subsonic round you are talking about for high precision shooting you are talking about and then lets compare its range and accuracy to supersonic ammo.

Last but not least keeping a bullet supersonic for as long as possible is crucial for accuracy since when the bullet goes transonic again it will loose all accuracy. Its not that subsonic and supersonic makes a difference aerodynamically but that transonic speeds do. 

[HachiRoku]

23 hours ago, vazco said:

Double-charge doesn't literally mean double the black powder, I think it was 150%, or similar. With double ball, you were also loading more charge (but less than with double charge). Both caused similar higher pressure.

They used less powder with double ball. Double ball was used at extremly close ranges. They are what really caused the major splinter damage. Using the same amount of powder with 2 balls could blow the cannon up. You would create the same internal pressure and it would not be able to escape fast enough so bom bom. 

Edit. Double ball is actually totally unreal in game too. It would break more parts of the ship but would not case more damage. Then again ships didnt have a HP bar in real life so lets give the devs a bit of leeway. 

Edited July 27, 2019 by HachiRoku