Joe Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) Just curious if the Connie was given a faster reload based on their ammunition being lead encased negating the need to swab the gun? I haven't timed it so I don't know if it's there. Edited March 10, 2015 by Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Rodney Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) As the state of the game is now I'd say no, as the reload is based on the type of cannon/carronade you have mounted. Did the Connie always had that type of ammunition? I think enclosed cartridges for cannons where developed later, so maybe it is possible that she was supplied with these at some later point in her combat career. Edited March 10, 2015 by George Rodney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted March 10, 2015 Author Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) My source says that the lead cased charge was used from the start of the war of 1812 and allowed for a higher rate of fire when the Connie and HMS Guerreie (forgive the spelling it's late and I can't remember how it's spelled) had their fight. On page 383 of the book "Six Frigates" it mentions the speculation that the lopsided victories by the American super frigates might have been from lead sheathed powder charges. I'm looking now for more information but this being so ancient and arcane it's not easy digging info up. Edited March 10, 2015 by Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_Wiener_Von_Snitzel Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 no they should not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crankey Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) The issue isn't should the connie get the ammunition, as the game will be open on which ships any player can have from any nation. The question is should that ammunition be available to all players. (We certainly wouldn't want a pay to win ammo imho) With regards to her victory over HMS Guerriere, in my opinion the weight of her broadside has more to do with the victory than the few seconds they may have saved per reload. The Constitution was a larger different class of ship but it was labelled a 5th rate as 4th rated ships had 2 decks, although she had the performance and lethality of a single deck 4th Rate SOL. Edited March 10, 2015 by Crankey 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileus Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 If we can track down the faster reload to ammunition, then no, Connie should not get a faster reload. It's not a "ship" that reloads faster, it's the ammunition that is faster to reload. Keep it that way, or scrap the whole idea. It's all about player agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Connor Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Joe, do you have that source for lead cased ammo? I've only been able to find one (slightly dubious looking and lacking in detail) source mentioning it. As for Constitution vs Guerriere, Constitution was in effect a 3rd rate sized ship with a 4th rate's armament fighting a 5th rate. The result shouldn't have been unexpected, just the Royal Navy had got rather arrogant after so many victories over the French/Spanish and it took 3 harsh lessons before they worked out that throwing a 300 man 1000 ton frigate up against a 450 man 1500 ton frigate wasn't a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted March 10, 2015 Author Share Posted March 10, 2015 Ok I found another quote about the lead sleeves, here it is from a French source historie de fregates We have before remarked upon the great care and expense bestowed by the Americans in equipping their few ships of war. As one important instance may he adduced, the substitution of fine sheet-lead for cartridges, instead of flannel or paper. This gives a decided advantage in action, an advantage almost equal to one gun in three ; for, as a sheet-lead cartridge will hardly ever leave a particle of itself behind, there is no necessity to spunge the gun, and very seldom any to worm it : operations that, with paper or flannel cartridges, must be attended to every time the gun is fired. The advantage of quick firing, no one can dispute ; any more than, from the explanation just given, the facility with which it can be practised by means of the sheet-lead cartridge. The principal objection against the use of this kind of cartridge in the British navy is its expense: another may be, that it causes the powder to get damp. The last objection is obviated by filling no more cartridges than will serve for present use ; and, should more be wanted, the Americans have always spare hands enough to fill them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted March 10, 2015 Author Share Posted March 10, 2015 I'm reading the Constitutions log books for the 1811-1812 period. Found cryptic notes about gunners making cylinders for long guns..."21st of August gunners making cylinders" could these be the thin lead cylinders for the powder? Another longer one on the 26th of June 1812 26 Jun 1812 Filling cylinders: 9 broadsides at 8 lbs, 11 at 7, 15 at 6, and 4 of half-charges for drill in the main magazine; 8 broadsides at 2 7/8 lbs, 9 at 2 5/8, 21 at 2 3/8, 12 at 2 1/2, and 4 at 3 lb for drill in the forward magazine. Also 4020 musket cartridges (335 bundles) and 3264 (272 bundles) for pistols. Cylinders filled from 98 large and 110 small barrels of powder. Thirty bundles of cylinders received. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaleMemes Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Well it certainly seems that this ammunition was used and that it did increase the rate of fire considerably. If so, I believe this should be reflected in game. Question, does anyone know if other countries used this ammunition at all? If not, I would recommend that the ammunition only be purchasable in US controlled ports, and to players with a healthy relationship with the US. I doubt it would be extremely popular anyway as I don't think it comes in extremely large calibers, and because of the high cost making it very expensive to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 It doesn't sound like a secret American technology, just a more expensive way to make charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austrum Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 At some point you have to think about game balance instead of historical ammo load out. I say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thonar Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) I dislike the idea of it as a kind of "Gold-Ammo", thus I would, personally, reject any kind of idea going in this direction. Otherwise I see following problems: 1. As producables by all players they will become too common in usage. 2. They seem to be used only during the end/ after the end of the time-frame so their implementation is for me already questional, especially when we have ships that are nearly 100 years older ingame So, when they are implemented, than only under following rules, I would say:1. Available to all ships 2. Player produced, consumable and expensive 3. Limited amount of salvos (5-8 maybe, like repairs, maybe a bit more) Edited March 10, 2015 by Thonar 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeRuyter Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) Well it certainly seems that this ammunition was used and that it did increase the rate of fire considerably. If so, I believe this should be reflected in game. Question, does anyone know if other countries used this ammunition at all? If not, I would recommend that the ammunition only be purchasable in US controlled ports, and to players with a healthy relationship with the US. I doubt it would be extremely popular anyway as I don't think it comes in extremely large calibers, and because of the high cost making it very expensive to use. Well IMO the question is how much of the increased rate of fire was due to the lead cartridge vs. the crew skill and training? After all your the source is French who regularly were out shot by the British (rate of fire). Also swabbing is only one small step in the process of reloading the gun. Edited March 10, 2015 by DeRuyter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prater Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) As an American player I don't think we need a faster reload rate for the Constitution. All we need is increased armor in my opinion, and I will be very grateful if we get the armor thickness we (TDA) are asking for. Edited March 10, 2015 by Prater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaleMemes Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 As much as I like the idea, as DeRuyter and Prater made good points. I don't think we have any data on the subject to make accurate predictions of how helpful it was, and the constitution needs better armor, the firepower seems perfectly adequate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thonar Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Somebody said the Constitution had an armor-rating of 50, but should have 150 (what, when I remember correctly, was confirmed by an admin), does somebody knows more about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prater Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Coni has 250. Trinc had 50 but should have been 150. They fixed this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thonar Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Coni has 250. Trinc had 50 but should have been 150. They fixed this. Ahh, ok, thanks for the info, couldn't remember correctly as it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKPyrate Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 My opinion is not to give any particular ship an advantage out of the gate, beyond its sailing qualities/armament potential. However, in the open world, it would be easy to have more expensive ammunition available that might give an advantage to those who are fortunate in trading. I am against using real money for these advantages, but have no problem with it being in-game currency. It would be similar to paying for those larger cannons instead of the standard ones when purchasing a new ship. The technology was obviously available during the latter time frame of this game, so it would make sense to have a bonus for those who wish to spend their money on it instead of saving for a larger ship or hiring a more experienced officer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crankey Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I don't see a reason why any 'in period' article, cannon, sail material, gun charge etc etc shouldn't make it into the game. However it should always have a suitable in game 'cost' associated. Firing 1/3 faster sounds a little far fetched tbh. Most crews of an 'average' gunnery skill, could reload a 32 lber 3 in every 5 minutes, Elite crews could fire 1 round a minute. green crews maybe 1 1/2 shots every 5 minutes. I'm not certain how many steps lead cased charges would save but here is a brilliant little link for loading a cannon http://www.3fgburner.net/cannon1.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKPyrate Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 The idea with the lead cased charges is that they wouldn't have to sponge the bore, as a spark won't eat through the lead casing as it would a more flammable material. It would save some time for sure, just as flintlocks would, or improved sights would improve accuracy at longer ranges. I would love to see some of these things implemented, but at an in game cost (definitely not an out of pocket cost, as far as I'm concerned). So, if you feel that the slight advantage in battle is worth it, then by all means spend the coin. If you're focusing more on building a trading empire and rely on well armed consorts in a convoy, then it's probably not worth it. However, the more options we have at customizing our own ships, from armament to paint schemes, figureheads and names, the better! Heck, having an option of "adding" royals to a rig at a cost would be nice too. Many merchants didn't even have t'gallants because the speed wasn't worth the cost for of the extra rigging and crew. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ingerad Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 As folks have said it's an ammo, not the ship. There is no reason someone else couldn't use it. Put it in the game if you want fine, but just let it be a more expensive variation of ammo. But yeah, definitely not for real cash, in game currency only please. Pay to win is something to be avoided at all costs. Especially as the current model is built around us purchasing the game first. Extras like fancy ships or avatar options are fine. In general as long as it doesn't effect game play. Also restricting it to US captains only is kinda silly as there is no evidence that it was a US proprietary technology. The US used it because they had only a handful of warships so they could afford to splurge a bit. The Royal Navy however had tons of ships and to equip them all like this would have been monstrously expensive. And yes, I say this as an American lol. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totoche Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 The speed of reload of guns or carronades depends of many factors! 1/ guns or carronades, guns are longer to load carronades where lighter for the same calibre so easier to server. 2/ the training of the crew or it experience. English crews did train with real ammo a sea targets, French did not and US it depended of finance and importance of mission! 3/ the calibre of the guns/carronades. Weight of powder (propellant) and of the projectile itself. 4/ the weather in a heavy sea it is more difficult to reload than in a calm one. 5/ the fatigue of the crew after an hour or two most crew where exhausted. Then time of reload did suffer. Do not forget some ships where also under crewed. 6/ the age of the ship? The most recent ships have more ergonomically made combat positions than old ships where often weapons (guns) where more heavy! So you see there are many variables to take in consideration. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueMyChin Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Personally, if it was ever used I would love it in game. The more options and variations the merrier. However, it would seem that it wasn't ever used in service. Merely as a test by William Jones and that quote above was from an English Lawyer, William James, not a Frenchman (William Jones... William James...? *pull suspicious face*) Upon further digging I found this, the true source of the quote above by William James, the lawyer. It's basically an attempt to clear blame on the part of the Guerriere's seamen, though he repeatedly claims it not to be...Here is the quote from above (highlighted) but I've also specifically left in the succeeding paragraphs as it offers some context as to why he might be exaggerating the truth about it's effectiveness (or simply making it up) .... not only that, but because it's actually hilarious... ...and he goes on to talk about the size of the ships also being 'unfair', the amount of guns being 'unfair' etc. etc. The only stuff I could find form an American source was correspondence relating to the suggestion by William Jones, the captain that it might be used but they leave the matter open while accepting outright the other ideas put forward. The expense was said to be the sticking point in the first link and if they were initially told it could be "manufactured at an expense that will not exceed that of flannel or that of paper cartridges" we might be looking at the reason they never took up the suggesting in the end. I would hate to write off something that could (IMO) improve the game on the back of so few sources, but ultimitley what more can we do. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now