Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

List of ships and other vessels in the game


Brigand
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi Brigand:

 

For your information:

 

Spanish Naval units XVIII Century (Ships building).

 

Lenght: Burgos foot, or simply foot, inches, lines and fingers(dedos):

1f= 0.2786m

12 inches=1 f

16 fingers= 1 f

 

12 lines= 1 inch

 

Vara Castellana= 2.55 m

 

Weight:

Ton= 920.16 Kg

20 Quintal= 1 Ton

2000 Pounds= 1 Ton

32000 Once= 1 Ton

 

Hence: 1 Pound= 460 gr

 

For artillery, any calculation, from any units system will give wrong results if the standard iron density(7850 Kg/m³)  is applied to cannon balls volume.

 

Regards

Edited by IonAguirre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should just call the Privateer 'Lynx, Privateer Version'

updated

 

Weight:

Ton= 920.16 Kg

20 Quintal= 1 Ton

2000 Pounds= 1 Ton

32000 Once= 1 Ton

 

Hence: 1 Pound= 460 gr

 

For artillery, any calculation, from any units system will give wrong results if the standard iron density(7850 Kg/m³)  is applied to cannon balls volume.

 

Hmm, so for naval artillery I should not use the 1 pound = 460 gr ?

 

I'm looking for the Spanish pound as used for the weight of a cannonball. So, for example, a Spanish 18 pounder cannonball would nominally weight ?? grams.

 

~Brigand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me go step by step .......

 

Taking data from a Naval Artillery treatise from XVIII, I got the diameter of each cannon bore.

Translated from traditional units to metrics they are:

36 P --- 174 mm

24 P --- 153 mm

18 P --- 137 mm

12 P --- 120 mm

 

Volumes of balls from those data are:

1866.2, 1243.4, 890.2, 581 cm³ for each caliber.

 

If the standard 7.85 gr/cm³ iron density is used, weights result:

35.37 for 36 pounds

23.92 for 24 pounds

17.4 for 18 pounds

11.56 for 12 pounds

 

The averaged density for balls is around 8.23 gr/cm³, that does not look too bad.

 

It seems I was wrong ¡¡

 

My apologizes, I think I got messed up with the old units.

 

If the clearence between the ball and the bore, with a maximum of 6mm in diameter, is applied, it seems calibers weights and diameters, fit quite well.

 

Regards and apologizes again.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for making me think again on this.

Edited by IonAguirre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hullo gents,

 

With two extremely fast ships (Renommee and Endymion) slated to be added to the game, there is going to be a major shake-up in vessel speed stats.

 

Either Trincomalee is going to be seriously nerfed (the desired outcome), or we will see new frigates that reach 18 knots or more (the disastrous scenario).

 

Now is the time to ruminate on realism vs balance in vessel speeds, so I've thrown together a spreadsheet. The SQR columns contain the vessels' historical speeds, but I need your help filling in the NR (in-game) speed stat columns. If we can get all the data in one place, I will draw up some recommendations for what the in-game stats should be.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1n5-2I5uAGn5dVKhWV7qchabtBSbrc9yh6TH-5SBLDjc/edit?usp=sharing

 

It's not very user-friendly ATM. SQR-CH mean Sailing Quality Report-Closehauled.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will have a tougher time here than I do with demonstrating hull strength, as I have actual hard measurements and I know the densities of the woods used. I was hoping you would undertake this task as it desperately needs to be done. This may come down to comparing captain's logs, but I would love to assist in the research.

 

I think this more than deserves it's own thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I'm just looking for the in-game top speed stats with this particular spreadsheet, lol. To compare it with reality somewhat, and get a fuller picture of what a good balance of realism would be.

 

So far as real top speeds go, we actually have enough sailing quality reports to give a decent picture of the game's frigates. Sort of like a scatterplot of data that you can slot unknown vessels into without being too arbitrary. The SoLs are a big blank spot, but their speeds don't matter too much anyhow. And happily, the lighter vessels have plenty of extant replica analogues that actually get sailed with regularity.

 

Ship's logs are sometimes alright, but usually just provide passage time. And you'll immediately run into the reality that even fast ships in the trade winds tend to average about 6 knots. For game purposes we are interested in their top speeds in ideal conditions (which are probably substantially rougher and windier than what we see in the current OW battle instances, tbh).

 

 

To be honest, I despair of finding much more information online, at least when it comes to sailing quality reports and trustworthy accounts of vessel performance. I'm not hotshot researcher, but the former just don't seem to exist anywhere on the internet. You just find them as visual aids in random books (did you know that the famous old Surprise only made 11 knots?!).

 

What we really need is a heroic Englishman to visit the admiralty archives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is so dissastrous scenario 18 knots or more speed if we already have now 17,5 knt trinco or 15,5 Surprise? I was taught in another thread that real Trinco was around 13 and I see wrote here that Surprise was 11 knots.

 

Why is fine that all actual ships are buffed but faster future ships can't be buffed?

 

19 knots is that bad to my realism oriented eyes like 17,5  for Trinco (or 15,5 Surprise, 14,5 Brig, 15,5 Cutter, etc) and if speed is scaled, well ok I must accept that but then why we can't accept then ships with 18 or more?

 

When we give concessions to gameplay or realism arbitrarily, this stuff happens.

 

Keep all speeds realistic and then not absurd speeds of 19 knts will be show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, I really hope you aren't into religion or politics. Because without the slightest bit of hyperbole, you just formulated a textbook extremist position.

 

You just inferred the following:

  • Any compromise of realism for gameplay is unacceptable, regardless of whether the compromise ruins the feel of 18th-century sailing or not
  • The degree of compromise is unimportant
  • Since we already have some ships that are a few knots too fast, we might as well given the rest of them rocket boosters that propel them at 40 knots

 

It should be pretty obvious what I'm trying to do here, which is put a hard limit on how far speeds can be stretched, while simultaneously bumping Trinc and Surprise back down closer to historical level. I'm also planning to propose that speed differences at the high end should not be proportional, but based on the absolute values of the historical speeds. That is, Endymion should be 0.9 knots faster than Trinc, without having the disparity swell according to some janky +30% system that doesn't actually exist. This will be good for gameplay, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant only that if you want realistic speeds, make realistic speeds, but when you go, with a sort of scaling, the line of fantasy, all is fine, including fantastic speed of 19knots. Nothing to do with politics or religion.

 

When I suggested yesterday a little gameplay adjust, I was named (not for you I think) fantasy and absurd and now when I say keep real speeds I am extremist by the textbook. You speak about trace a line, ok then real speed in real ships is the only line can be traced. This is not OS where something must be done with distances and time compression.

 

And I remember that you spoke about this problem yesterday when I started a case about speed problem when I didn't understood why Trinco runs so fast as 17 knots. You and me, in the end of the day, are in the same boat I think. But I will wait to your suggestion for resolve this and after I will support it or not.

 

 

One solution is put the real speed indicated although the virtual game ship's speed go more fast. "Speedometer" cheating us. That way when Endymion goes to 19,4 you'll see 14,4. Gameplay guys happy and champions of realism happy too.

 

I am not native english speaker and in spanish I can explain you all. But the last part of your post about 30% system...

 

I learn yesterday about the buff speeds in this game and I made two examples where both cases don't fix. Add an absolut number or a %. I never affirmed how the system works (because I don't know), only I was trying understand the explanations that I was reading from other members. Or maybe someone was teasing me...?

 

Someone can be kind and gentle for explain me, please, the actual speed buff system in game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

but when you go, with a sort of scaling, the line of fantasy, all is fine, including fantastic speed of 19knots.

So a Surprise that sails 11.1 knots is just as egregious as a Surprise that travels 19 knots or 30 knots or Mach 2. If that is really your contention, then there's really nothing more to discuss. I rest my case.

 

 

now when I say keep real speeds I am extremist by the textbook

I would like to see real speeds too, but I am realistic and willing to compromise. When you that everything is shit because there is a slight compromise, you are basically arguing that the speeds should get even more unrealistic. If you actually want better speeds, then stop playing for the other team.

 

 

Someone can be kind and gentle for explain me, please, the actual speed buff system in game?

 

As far as we know, the speed numbers you see are real knots, based on the length of a ship's hull. Ships go slightly faster than their real-life counterparts, but there is no consistent buff system. Arbitrarily, most ships get a boost that is around 30%.

 

 

 

One solution is put the real speed indicated although the virtual game ship's speed go more fast. "Speedometer" cheating us. That way when Endymion goes to 19,4 you'll see 14,4. Gameplay guys happy and champions of realism happy too.

I hate the idea of the speedometer lying to us, even if the devs regard it as a useful development tool. I want to see what 12 knots actually feels like. If realism is compromised for gameplay, I would rather know where the change is, rather than having it hidden from us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@  Brigandand co:

 

Isn't the St Paul still a 3rd rate ship of the line?

In the datasheet it is listed as a 2nd rate.

At least when she was launched in 1794 the classification was that way already.

 

- 3rds: beeing 64-84ish (guns)

- 2nds: 90 guns and more

- 1sts: beeing the 100 guns+

 

I checked a few ships such as the bucentaure wich had 84 guns and they are as well listed as 3rd rate ships of the line.

Just to be sure in this regard ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She was built with 90 guns and the Russians considered her a 2nd rate. Rating systems were not universal, or even particularly consistent within a single country. Obviously she could be considered a strong 3rd rate, or a weak 2nd rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you please give me some links to ship plans and or documentation to her?

My google skills let me down on that. I could not find good information about St Paul/Pavel

 

But when shes a 84 gunner I still think she shall be looked at as a 3rd rate.

Devs also compare her with the Bellona in regard of shipstrength (armor/ armament).

They will be a very close match to each other. The two beeing distinctive in their characteristics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People really shouldn't get caught up in nominal rating reflecting actual balance in gameplay. There are old 1st rates that would be handily beaten by a newer 3rd rate. Saying that rates as built should be changed to reflect actual balance in fights will lead to all sorts of confusion.

Just think of rates as an honorific title indicating the status of the ship to her nation when she was built.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WIth 90 guns, the St Paul can be considered as a 2nd rank according to the english Royal Navy classification.

Btw, the Bucentaure has 86 guns : 30 * 36£ / 32 * 24£ / 18 * 12£ + 6 howitzers 36£

 

Indeed the ranks were not universal and changed many time.

I could be wrong, but according to the french ranks at the end of the XVIIIth c, the 80 guns (which was in fact a 86 guns)  was a second rank : 74g, 80g, & 118g.

The french 90 guns and 100 guns only appeared in the 1820's, 1830's.

 

But i guess Surcouf could provide us a lot more useful informations. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dagann, the problem is that we'll get the later variant of the St. Paul with 84 guns (count on the screenshot in the WIP-threat). So it was build as 2nd rate but then some guns were removed, making it- according to the most widley spreat british rating system- a 3rd rate.

Edited by BlueEagleGER
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right.

But is it possible to have different iterations of the same boat, but with different guns numbers corresponding to the different periods of the ship ?

Would be cool. If not possible, it could be a nice suggestion.

 

So the St Paul and the Bucentaure belong to the same level/BR (not talking about rank :D ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Terribly sorry gents for the random and out-of place question, but I noted that the USS/HMS Essex is listed at 42 guns? In contrast, I've owned a book of drawings of her hull, ect since the first grade which lists her, quite clearly as a 32-gun frigate. Was this a typo?

 

I hope this wasn't addressed already, because then I would look most unfavorable...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terribly sorry gents for the random and out-of place question, but I noted that the USS/HMS Essex is listed at 42 guns? In contrast, I've owned a book of drawings of her hull, ect since the first grade which lists her, quite clearly as a 32-gun frigate. Was this a typo?

 

I hope this wasn't addressed already, because then I would look most unfavorable...

Essex carried a total of 42 guns. Gun ratings are arbitrary, based primarily on the strength of the main deck armament.

 

She mounted 26 guns on the main deck, which puts her in the range of a 32- or 36-gun frigate. Then 16 more on quarterdeck and forecastle.

 

By way of explaining the rating, in an earlier decade such a ship may have carried only 6 guns on the quarterdeck, and she really would have been a literal 32-gun ship. Towards the end of the 1700s, navies stretched the armament more than they stretched the size of the ships, and a lot of the new guns weren't counted.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...