Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

Penetration and gun rebalance - review

Recommended Posts

Penetration, in inches.. given shot weight in lbs Avoirdupois and shot diameter in Henrician English Inches.

Poncelet was one of the French Officers performing experiments at Metz during the early/middle C19th, and this is his formulation of the penetration by shot/shell into a variety of materials valid over the ordnance range of velocity and for a range of materials of use in ship building and fortification.
Didion was a later contributor who with more access to test data refined some of the parameters. The formulation and parameters were still 'state of the art' in the 1970s for penetration of bombs into concrete and earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Hethwill said:

Game balance must simulate realism as a whole, not nitpick what fits. IMO

Game balance must not simulate realism at all. It is a wrong direction and a dead end.

The quote from steam - "Naval Action is a hardcore, realistic, and beautifully detailed naval combat sandbox" with MMO tag. MMO sandbox is about gameplay, economics and balance. 99.9% players do not give a shit about wood hardness, sailing physics, real cannon penetration and all this nonsense posted above. You can rename all cannons to caliber 1, 2, 3, rename all wood to white, black, yellow and so on and no one would care if the game will provide entertaining gameplay, perfect combat balance and live and balanced economy. It is the main issue of this game that devs try to develop irrelevant things connected to "realism" supported by minority on forum instead of fixing core issues. 

If game development is about "realism" than steam description should be changed to something like - this game is similar to MS flight simulator in age of sails. no need in deceiving potential buyers. I even would not ask my money back, let it be, I received my share of fun already. And you can continue to play on server with 10 ppl online who share your beliefs.

Edited by Schnapss
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U want to do some math. K than calculate Plz: 42 PD whight of the Bullet. on 300m per secound. Iron/ steal. Diameter by Airresistance and than the total range... i guess u will be amused... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Knuddel said:

U want to do some math. K than calculate Plz: 42 PD whight of the Bullet. on 300m per secound. Iron/ steal. Diameter by Airresistance and than the total range... i guess u will be amused... 

:) :) You forgot the air density, the wind direction, and the temperature. :) :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Schnapss said:

Game balance must not simulate realism at all. It is a wrong direction and a dead end.

Maybe i explained myself wrong.

When attempting to make a specific mechanic credible in game in regard to RL ( leaving other mechanics untouched leads to odd results ) as opposed to make all mechanics work together as credible as possible ( if changing one aspect, it replicates equally to all others ).

NA is not a simulator, i get that.

Edited by Hethwill
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Aquillas said:

:) :) You forgot the air density, the wind direction, and the temperature. :) :) 

even without that the Results will be that u are on 200m below 160m/sec...

Edited by Knuddel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Knuddel said:

even without that the Results will be that u are on 200m below 160m/sec...

42lb @ 300m/s is only marginally above carronade level performance.
That said, you would never see <160m/s at any range, at 'mortar' elevations you would reach 4030m while at 166m/s+, a minimum velocity at around 163m/s is seen in the vicinity of 20 degrees projection at 3020m, and a 'typical carriage out angle' of 11 degrees would result in ~2050m and 178m/s

Guns would add an 'extra' 750-800m or so, with minimal changes to velocity at the termination. (+10m/s or so at 11 degrees)

NACA drag data for spheres, at various reynolds numbers and mach numbers - note that (sub gun calibre) smaller shot will slow *much* faster, but these are all in the turbulent flow regime with tripped boundary layers down to at least the 6lb gun.

Edited by Lieste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lighter shot loses speed faster even with equivalent suggested charge of 1/3 weight.

Further.

Drop due do gravity is exponential. Batteries did sight "flat" at roughly 1º40', not zero, to make up for the initial drop. Roughly 3-4 feet in the first 200m ( actually 195, 100 toises), rises to 20-23 by 400m (390m 200 toises). ( Boudriot )

Majority of gunnery tests conducted on land or stable ramps. Zero continuous roll.

Point blank for a 8 livres would be 500m.

This is just trajectory and reach, nothing to do speed/energy carried ( which ship composite construction does help to dissipate, is not a slab of steel ).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

                       

3 hours ago, Schnapss said:

Game balance must not simulate realism at all. It is a wrong direction and a dead end.

The quote from steam - "Naval Action is a hardcore, realistic, and beautifully detailed naval combat sandbox" with MMO tag. MMO sandbox is about gameplay, economics and balance. 99.9% players do not give a shit about wood hardness, sailing physics, real cannon penetration and all this nonsense posted above. You can rename all cannons to caliber 1, 2, 3, rename all wood to white, black, yellow and so on and no one would care if the game will provide entertaining gameplay, perfect combat balance and live and balanced economy. It is the main issue of this game that devs try to develop irrelevant things connected to "realism" supported by minority on forum instead of fixing core issues. 

If game development is about "realism" than steam description should be changed to something like - this game is similar to MS flight simulator in age of sails. no need in deceiving potential buyers. I even would not ask my money back, let it be, I received my share of fun already. And you can continue to play on server with 10 ppl online who share your beliefs.

In my experience, most the people who stick with this game are due to the realism and relative historical accuracy, and yes that's what we want.  Within reason of coures.  If you want arcade pirate ships there is sid meyers or sea of thieves.  This is the only realistic tall ship game on the market so don't try to change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/28/2020 at 11:18 AM, Lizzo said:

About what ship are we talking? Historically, line ships (3d rate and upward) were almost unsinkable even after hours of close range broadside exchanges. So I hope we won't see basic cutter penetrating 1st rates at 100m because in my opinion that would be just stupid 

well, you know, devs are going to say that it's normal for 2lb gun to penetrate Ocean hull at 100m.....

first half of 2020 develeopment:

New ships

  1. Redoutable - Imported ship
    • (this month subject to Valve Approval)
  2. Implacable - crafted ship
    • (this month)
  3. Wrecker - crafted ship
    • (February)
  4. HMS Victory Classic Edition  - Admiralty Imported Gift ship
    • 1st half of 2020
  5. Rotterdam - Combat Indiaman
    • 1st half of 2020
  6. Gross ventre refit will return this or next month 
  7. Pandora will become available on Steam for purchase

still no news for those two ... GG devs ! you are on time ! and still no updates for 2nd half of 2020 .... lazy devs ?


devs litterally do what they only want, community feedback is always reduced to silence. I don't count on devs to make the game better actually... and sadly

Edited by Duc De Brabant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Duc De Brabant said:

well, you know, devs are going to say that it's normal for 2lb gun to penetrate Ocean hull at 100m.....

devs litterally do what they only want, community feedback is always reduced to silence. I don't count on devs to make the game better actually... and sadly

Well... a 2lb shot at 100m, from a 'reasonable' muzzle velocity** would penetrate around 20" of oak - sufficient to penetrate *much* of the side of a first rate, though this penetration would have little 'impulse' and little effect on the side - though because of the 'overpenetration' effect, the 9lb gun might only be twice as effective on the near side, or a 32lb carronade five times. The main difference would be the hole size, and the behind target effect on soft targets and on ordnance etc.
While it would indeed be ineffective vs the wales on single hits, and the target size is huge, so multiple hits would to a reasonable approximation be nearly independent, the gun decks, and especially the quarterdeck, f'castle and the bulwarks are not at all heavily built (most ships thin to around 6-9" at the top timber line, at a high estimate - which a 2lb shot should *just* pass at up to 680m).


**(comparable to any 'modern' other gun firing 1/3rd charges) though insufficient evidence exists to the form of 2lb guns to make good estimates, as they were seldom used after the 1580s. The smallest carriage guns on '1700s-1800s' ships being 3lb, and this later being increased to 4lb then 6lb, or with 12lb carronades substituted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we going to see an AI rebalance to reflect this?  Will sinking times be adjusted to allow for looting sunk ships in time?

Currently players have to make extensive use of angling to win a fight against even a same-rate ship of lower BR (i.e., player Redoutable vs AI Wasa) due to the AI's ridiculous reload and aim bonuses.  If angling is going to be less effective, AI needs to have its bonuses reduced - especially elite and privateer AI.

Furthermore, as we'll presumably be engaging in battle at longer distances, we're going to need more time to loot a wreck.  It would also be nice if the looting circle was expanded, as looting in 3rd rate and larger ships can be frustrating.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/28/2020 at 3:44 AM, admin said:

Base un-upgraded thickness for oak
95-100 - lineships/3rd rates
85-90 - 4th rates/frigates
70-75 - 6th rates and unrated
 

Based on these figures, upgrades like Navy Planking, should not give a ship a flat +10 thickness. It should have different values for each ship rating tier or work as %. 

Edited by Never
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what part of carronades are subsonic so have less but lose less penetration is hard to understand.

The penetration at the muzzle is in the ratio of 2:1 for the full charge gun and a carronade (or top shot of the reduce charge and double).
This represents a range difference for equal penetration of 875m
At distance the ratio reduces, - at 700m, it is 3:2 ratio, but the absolute range difference remains 875m

All intermediate power guns fall between these limits, but also will have an absolute difference in penetration based on a constant range offset for all practical trajectory.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/28/2020 at 10:44 AM, admin said:

 

  • Range control. 
    • Every gun will have a role (even 4lb). All guns should be able to penetrate a fully upgraded ship hull and masts at 100m as they could historically. Including smallest calibers.
    •  

 

Actually even a 6 pounder didnt penetrate a lo/wo hull, even below 100 m. The docu used a 6 pdr shot against a model of the "Constitution" hull. 

wo would be penetrated, lo/wo would not.

The experiment was done for "Master and Commander- The true story" docu. I cant access the actual docu atm, but the experiment can also be seen here, around 7:50

 

Edited by Jan van Santen
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is brilliant!

@admin You guys are really on the right track with your most recently announced planned updates and releases, in my opinion. I think it’s going to be a much more historically accurate, nuanced game if the execution lives up to the intention. I’m looking forward to it, even if some changes negate some of the understanding of mechanics and “skills” I’ve developed to date.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2020 at 9:02 PM, Eowulf said:

                       

In my experience, most the people who stick with this game are due to the realism and relative historical accuracy, and yes that's what we want.  Within reason of coures.  If you want arcade pirate ships there is sid meyers or sea of thieves.  This is the only realistic tall ship game on the market so don't try to change that.

Your experience is wrong. Relative historical accuracy means that hypothetical victory should kill any ship of 3rd - 7th rate. We already have a stupid historycal accuracy where 3rd rate ship can be faster then small ships. We already get your beloved "realism" in wood stats:

image.thumb.png.1e8224140df9f6e50c0e18827843d080.png

I hope it's clear without hints what is wrong in this picture. Game balance can be implemented in two ways: when every ship and cannon is useful (EVE online is the perfect example) or your main goal to grind the best and biggest ship (WoW style). And both ways nothing to do with realism and historycal accuracy.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Redman29 said:

Just wanted to point out that Navy guns are not represented on either chart. They are listed on the legend but not the graph. So with Edinorog on old data. 

Navy guns have the same pen as long guns i think, that's why the corresponding graphs overlap 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the original posted graphs, I don't see all the lines - 8 gun types are listed in the key, but only 7 lines of data on the graph...

Leads to confusion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, derekticus said:

On the original posted graphs, I don't see all the lines - 8 gun types are listed in the key, but only 7 lines of data on the graph...

Leads to confusion

Navy guns and Long guns are identical regarding penetration, so both lines are on top of each other.

Edited by Serk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Do you think that now we will have to go for different kind of guns on deck? Long and carros? Engage enemies from distance before going in close combat? 

Edited by Conte D. Catellani

Share this post


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...