Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Tie woods used in ship build with guns weight


Recommended Posts

Warships in the age of sail are nothing more than gun platforms. ( let's exclude trader vessels for the moment being ).

They were designed with usage of certain guns in mind. So the framing, planking and woods to be used all were focused on being able to transport into battle a certain set of guns.

My proposal is this:

- tie the structural strength of the ship - mainly the woods used can reflect this - with the size of the guns than can be equipped.

For example, a USS Constitution built of Live Oak and Oak would be able to carry the heaviest guns for her - the 24's and the 42's. But a Fir and a Teak construct wouldn't be able to carry that heavy armament.

Just an idea of how variety in regards of wood choices may also balance the broadside weight.

Ships were weapon platforms and built as such. That's why some models that tried heavier armaments didn't go too well and had to downgrade them, IRL. ( carronade introduction is a good example of trying to upgun ships that weren't built to carry heavy broadside guns )

And is all about woods chosen in the construction.

So the effect would be:

- we can still choose whatever woods we want with the limitation of the gun sizes the final ship may carry with success.

 

 

  • Like 23
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting suggesting !!! 🙂

'Je vais enfoncer des portes ouvertes', as we say in French :

22 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Warships in the age of sail are nothing more than gun platforms. (...) They were designed with usage of certain guns in mind.

Shouldn't the first consequence be a less massive use of carro in game (full-carro ships) ?

22 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

a USS Constitution built of Live Oak and Oak would be able to carry the heaviest guns for her - the 24's and the 42's. But a Fir and a Teak construct wouldn't be able to carry that heavy armament.

Really, I mean IRL ? (genuine question) 

Edited by LeBoiteux
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where would say teak w/o fall as far as gun penalty? Would this mainly target fir fir, fir teak, and bermuda cedar variants? Im all for screwing over speed built anything tbh :)  

The debate for this one would be pretty brutal.

Edited by Potemkin
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hethwill said:

For example, a USS Constitution built of Live Oak and Oak would be able to carry the heaviest guns for her - the 24's and the 42's. But a Fir and a Teak construct wouldn't be able to carry that heavy armament.

Increase moulded dimensions of timbers = can carry the weight.

When substituting weaker woods, boat designers tell you, (often its right there on the plans), to increase dimensions as necessary to compensate.

 

Better solution: wood type has little/no effect on ship stats at all. LO/WO is +5% HP and Thickness, --5% speed.   Fir/Fir is -5% HP and Thickness, +3% speed.   Simple, historically accurate. No magic or artificial limits.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, William Death said:

When substituting weaker woods, boat designers tell you, (often its right there on the plans), to increase dimensions as necessary to compensate.

But what you are referring to here is in order to maintain the same strength and has nothing to do with speed. If you build a ship out of weaker woods you would have to increase the dimensions and thickness to maintain same strength as a ship built out of stronger woods, but the net weight for both ships will be almost the same. To build a fast ship you have to build out of lighter weaker materials to reduce weight for the same class of vessel and thus the OP suggestion is valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with the concept of this post, I think the easier idea would just be to NERF ALL THE BONUSES AND UPGRADES TO HELL....

The difference in performance between builds is just too ridiculous. 

If you want to sail a 3rd rate, you should NOT get to dictate whether you want to disengage from a 5th rate...

It's to the point of being silly.  AGAIN.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

1st thing: i don't think gun weight should slow down ships, ships are build with them in mind as you said, not as empty hull that get penalized by being equiped, in fact ships would not be seaworthy without guns, or heavy balast would have to be used to replace them.

2nd, i guess you have in mind that a fir/fir bellona should not carry more than nerfed loadout of 24lb/18lb/9lb, but then how the battle rating could be calculated properly ? And how a teak build would not be able to carry the same as a teak/wo, or oak/oak ? Teak is not a soft wood..

What should be done in priority is to boost oak/oak, by giving it at least 3% speed bonus to make it less thrash and help the casuals players. And nerf fir/fir & bermuda acceleration + turn so it only is usefull for traders &  top speed racers, and deserve combat ability (too easy angling).

 

Edited by Baptiste Gallouédec
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hethwill said:

Военные корабли в эпоху парусов - не что иное, как оружейные платформы. (на данный момент исключим суда трейдеров).

Они были разработаны с использованием определенных видов оружия. Таким образом, каркас, опалубка и леса, которые будут использоваться, были сосредоточены на том, чтобы иметь возможность доставить в бой определенный набор орудий.

Мое предложение таково:

- связать конструктивную прочность корабля - в основном это могут использовать используемые леса - с размером оружия, которое можно оборудовать.

Например, конституция USS, построенная из Live Oak и Oak, могла бы нести самые тяжелые орудия для нее - 24-е и 42-е. Но конструкция из пихты и тика не способна нести это тяжелое вооружение.

Просто представление о том, как разнообразие в отношении выбора древесины может также сбалансировать общий вес.

Корабли были оружейными платформами и построены как таковые. Вот почему некоторые модели, которые пытались использовать более тяжелые вооружения, шли не слишком хорошо, и им пришлось понизить их рейтинг, IRL. (Карронаде - хороший пример попытки поднять корабли, которые не были построены, чтобы нести тяжелые орудия)

И все о лесах, выбранных в строительстве.

Так что эффект будет:

- мы по-прежнему можем выбирать любые леса, какие захотим, с ограничением размеров оружия, которое последний корабль может нести с успехом.

 

 

We have repeatedly submitted such a proposal for discussion earlier (at the Russian-speaking forum). This makes sense, in my opinion. However, it is necessary to calculate all formulas well.  
I can be mistaken, but there were already a lot of distortions in the game mechanics, when with the change of some parameters, preferences in the choice of wood for the ship changed.
If you remember the books about sailing ships, in many of us we will find a mention of the fact that not all guns can and should have been put on a certain frigate. In the series of books about Jack Aubrey, there is a moment where the captain wanted to put a heavier long-range cannon. However, the weight of the cannon was threatening the front of the ship and could have caused the shipwreck. And the captain (in the book) refused this idea.
Of course, the heavier cannons should require stronger wood and equipment for the ship. Reinforced wood and set = higher weight of the ship = higher draught of the ship = lower speed and longer acceleration. The impact of a salvo of heavy guns is a certain stress for the structure of the ship.  And if your ship is made of bad wood, then put the powerful cannons = shot a couple of times and then either to the bottom or to repair.
The offer is reasonable and requires the right balance in the calculations, so as not to cause more problems in the game.

(Sorry, my English is bad, so I used a translator.)

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fir don't make your ship faster in real life, fir was just more abondant bc faster to grow, and allowed easier shipbuilding but was less durable (shorter lifetime for the ships) same as live oak didn't make the Constitution a slow Brick, while Santisima  was a slow brick while in mahogany ..

Wood stats in game have very few links with real life, so they just have to be balanced in stats / costs / accessibility, nerfing their broadsides would be too weird imo.

Edited by Baptiste Gallouédec
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Potemkin said:

Im all for screwing over speed built anything

this would indeed be good for balancing the speed and damage each ship can achieve

edit: how do I move a goddamn quote to a post which I want to edit? the quote icon tool is not really helpful at all, because I can't move all info there...

Edited by Captain2Strong
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to offer a different perspective: I'm sure this is all well and good for the PvP server to nerf the speed demons.  But this game has another server - PvE - and on that server practically every ship is already Live Oak/White Oak because that strength is needed against the buffed AI and speed doesn't matter nearly so much.  This proposal would mean you might as well take the other woods - already underused - out of the game entirely as far as PvE is concerned.  The only other solution would be to give speed an actual purpose in PvE, i.e. speed up AI ships, but that might be frustrating for some players.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Archaos said:

But what you are referring to here is in order to maintain the same strength and has nothing to do with speed. If you build a ship out of weaker woods you would have to increase the dimensions and thickness to maintain same strength as a ship built out of stronger woods, but the net weight for both ships will be almost the same. To build a fast ship you have to build out of lighter weaker materials to reduce weight for the same class of vessel and thus the OP suggestion is valid.

No. It doesn't quite work that way. Ships float at a designed waterline. If you make the ship lighter, you add more ballast so it'll still float at that waterline. All building out of a lighter wood does, is make the hull itself lighter. Which means you carry more ballast (or stores/cargo); which brings the center of gravity lower and makes the ship stiffer (sails better). Fluffy Fishy had some more insight into why lighter wood types were sometimes faster the last time this topic came up. Perhaps he'll chime in.

The idea of lighter = faster is something people get in their head and can't get out. Lightening the ship to gain speed (by dumping stores, pumping the fresh water overboard, or dumping the guns) was a last-ditch effort. You didn't just decide "oh, I wanna go faster, let me make my ship lighter" and sail out to sea.

 

As a side note: the fir ships would *theoretically* be able to carry more or slightly heavier cannons, because the extra ballast stowed low would make up for the extra gun weight up high. So the opposite of the original suggestion. :D

 

8 hours ago, Baptiste Gallouédec said:

Fir don't make your ship faster in real life, fir was just more abondant bc faster to grow, and allowed easier shipbuilding but was less durable (shorter lifetime for the ships) same as live oak didn't make the Constitution a slow Brick, while Santisima  was a slow brick while in mahogany ..

Wood stats in game have very few links with real life, so they just have to be balanced in stats / costs / accessibility, nerfing their broadsides would be too weird imo.

^^ This captain gets it. 

If live oak and white oak were available cheaply, all navies would have used it. If fir wasn't so cheap and available, it wouldn't get used much at all. 

Wood shortages were pretty much the biggest driving factor in deciding what to build a ship out of. 

 

 

Again, the best way to balance woods is to nerf the bonuses/negatives so that the bonuses are extremely small. If this is done right, then why make a paper fir/fir ship when a sabicu or oak ship is only a little slower and is tougher? Why make a live oak ship if oak or sabicu is almost as tough and is faster? It'll be the first step in balancing the game less around gear and more around skill. Of course, all of us 'hardcore' RvR and PvP players will get the best woods so we get our 2-5% bonuses over the people using cheaper woods, but the bonuses will no longer be crazy OP. 

And again, artificial choice limits are NOT a balancing tool. What the OP reads like, to me, is this: "You can choose to build a fast Constitution, but it won't be able to fight anything because it'll have less firepower than this live oak Trincomalee." Uh huh. Thats only the illusion of a choice. 

Limiting max gun class to only tanky ships will mean that we all just go to sailing live oak/sailing 4/copper/navy hull/naval clock ships. Even more gear meta, don't worry though, we won't be spamming any more fir/fir Wasas with that meta though. :P

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would prefer to have ships close to their historical counterparts. A ship is designed to displace a certain amount of water. It is all about balancing the center of gravity and the buoyany + wind forces. The ship will displace the same amount of water no matter the wood it is made of. This will lead to the same speed for all vessels.

To incease the speed, you have to reduce water displacement by removing ballast (or other weight). This will increase heeling and you should reduce weight above the waterline, resulting in less or smaller guns.

Historically the wood type may change the ability to bounce shots, lighter wood may be more damaged, but were usually chosen for costs and availability. 

Therefore I propose to have speed of ships only depending on weight (cargo + ballast). So you should be able to choose your ballast, too.

A light ship with heavy guns should heel a lot and capsize at some point, while the heavy and slow ship should be stable and upright in the water.

The wood type should only influence the resistance against enemy shots.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good input.

Teak is and was used a lot on deck flooring. Oak was used practically in all ships even if the outermost board was mahogany.

Speed is not only related to displacement weight but also how the fluid revolves around the hull shapes, amongst other thing. And waterline is not always the same. As an example you can check the cruises of the Essex and refer to the various differences - when she carried cannon, when she carried carronades, etc. There's meters difference.

But the whole idea was game balance. Because in all honesty, in the end of the timeframe of the game, 24pdr frigates were the norm and all nations had them, with more or less success with all types of woods. Some longer, some with more breadth, but all designed to carry that specific set of guns.

Would a Cedar Connie work ? We will never know. She wasn't built. Did the Pomone work ? Was Adriatic Oak and still was the fastest and most powerful frigate at one point. Became a real danger fast and British guaranteed they would capture her to end the threat -AND- to check how she was built. Eventually all heavier frigates ( heavier means in relation to the guns carried, not weight of ship ) became norm.

It was all a race to the heavy guns. From 9pdr to 12, to 18s and eventually to the 24s. Same with ships of the line, but the capability of carrying 42s was achieved faster. ( albeit when a SOL is deemed "fast" it means "fast enough to keep up with the rest of the fleet" :) )

Maybe I didn't think the entire suggestion through in relation to all detailed realism ( although there are notable examples of the contrary, of ships losing their qualities once guns got replaced as counter to the excellent qualities of some ship classes that did indeed perform good with whatever wood - note: dimensions were not exactly the same for all sister ships ;) to balance gravity points, but hey let's look only to the general picture to make a case ).

Thanks for the good input. Disregard the suggestion. It will influence too much certain playstyles and affect too much the established crafting workflow.

Like to see realism ( the ships were designed to carry specific guns ) being brought to bear against a gameplay mechanism (woods choice in game to affect size of guns). 

Hope you do that for other gameplay mechanics as well :); not only when it fits.

o7

Link to post
Share on other sites

first of all.

agree with op and also to ad one factor more

Well, and not only woods to gunweight. 

 

but also to make it more realistic, what about the following :

 

-heavier wood types are harder to repair , because of the weight

-the heavier the wood >  the slower and lesser the repair damage for crew to repair woods

 

for example:  the heavier the guns the more reloading time we got , but i do not see this in the repair wood types....

fir is easy (softer) to handle and carve ,

hard tropical woods are harder to handle and carve .

 

Edited by Thonys
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

56 minutes ago, Thonys said:

the heavier the wood >  the slower and lesser the repair damage for crew to repair woods

Don't we already have too much of fir/fir + Repa meta ?

 

Regarding speed vs guns size, instead of punishing fast builds, i would suggest to instead offer a little something for equiping smaller guns than max possible by making then not count for weight malus.

For exemple => either you niagara is fitted like now with either 9pd cannons or 32pd carro, and equiping them reduce your top speed like it is already the case.

                       => or you equip it with 6pd cannons or 24pd carro, and you get no weight malus for your speed.

That could also help with the 36pd cannons on 42pd gun decks.

 

Sorry it may be a little off topic as the first idea was to nerf the "light woods"

                  

Edited by Baptiste Gallouédec
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...