an argument for the use of heavy carronades

[Prater]

2 ships out of thousands had 68lbers.  I'm not sure that warrants letting all ships with 18lbers+ having them.

[akd]

i say we break from what was historically used and go with what ships were capable of using.

 

This has already been done with allowing over-arming of many ships in game.  Allowing extreme case or experimental armaments throws off balance unless the devs are willing to go into the nitty gritty of the negatives that led ships to rarely (or only briefly) carry excessive armament.  So far this has not been done, so the heaviest armament is generally the typical armament and must be the basis for balance in the game, although we would be better served if balance were built around typical, historical armament.

[Kaaru62]

how about we look at it from a different angle, that of the open world. assuming that everything from ships to armament will have both a cost and an availability. like you stated, the heavy carronades, the 42 and 68's, were very limited in their supply, coming from only 1 factory. this could easily be recreated in the open world by making the guns hard to find and expensive to buy. add to that the need to acquire all the guns necessary for not just one, but both sides of a gun deck for ship stability before you could mount them. it is easy enough to add requirements like a Surprise with all 42's or Trincomalee with 42's and 68's requiring fixed non-adjustable mounts making you aim by steering and heeling the the ship itself. 

 

using my Surprise as an example cause i know deck 2 has 12 gunports per side. that would mean that i have to acquire 24 very expensive, hard to find guns before i could mount them on my ship. then i go out with my very expensive guns that everyone wants and run across some pirates that would love to take them off my hands. they gang around me and rake my crew with grapeshot then board me and in a single encounter i would lose my precious guns before i even get to use them. worse, if i fight bravely and get sunk, all those guns are gone from the world supply until the small factory can replace them, making them even more valuable. you have the ability to mount the guns, but how wise it is to do it is a different story. again, difficult, but possible.

then there is the argument of pirate ships that we all know are customized ships. a player pirate might prefer to have heavy carronades.

 

if you look at it from the standpoint of the PvP module, i don't see a problem with spawning a Surprise with all 42 pd fixed carronades. it is no different than if i spawn a Santisima at the last second, it will either throw the balance off or not. as far as being overpowered, i don't think so, it might have a devastating broadside, but it will be hard to aim, you will have to use the tactics i like most, driving right next to my target. it will still be just a Surprise, and will sink like a Surprise. so I don't see a problem there either.

[Prater]

Why would you want to see smaller ships being able to make larger ships obsolete?

 

 

It might have the hp of a smaller ship, but it has the bite of an SOL.  Driven right, it will be impossible for an sol to take on such a ship.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Prater

[SueMyChin]

if you are going to have one thing that is not historically accurate ( like ship sailing performance ), then why not have loadouts that are not historically accurate as long as they were possible?.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right and just because one thing is broken (or not fixed yet) doesn't mean we have to break something else.

 

What you're asking for was tested at the time and thought to be impractical so it wasn't taken up. We don't need to give players the ability to try it themselves because all of the disadvantages (after they've been developed, implemented, balanced & tested) would mean it's rarely if ever used and wouldn't be worth the time having the option.

Using your argument we would have ships with furnaces capable of heating shot, explosive shells and HMS Arrow (1796) all of which were thought to be impractical.

 

I don't understand why you think it would be worth the effort really.

[Similon]

I feel compelled to point out that letting a ship get up to speed in 1 minute rather than 15 minutes makes the game playable. It makes no sense to draw a parallel between that and the topic at hand. For either side of the argument.

[maturin]

I feel compelled to point out that letting a ship get up to speed in 1 minute rather than 15 minutes makes the game playable. It makes no sense to draw a parallel between that and the topic at hand. For either side of the argument.

On the other hand it breaks the game by robbing lighter ships of an advantage they deserve realistically. It also ruins many matches by allowing ships to kite from max range and never be caught. Think about that when you resort to the perniciously false dichotomy of realism vs playability.

[AP514]

Yes, this is why Maturin and I have advocated to severe penalties for going to full stop 0% sails.

 

 +1  for me on that...I AGREE 100%.............

[Similon]

On the other hand it breaks the game by robbing lighter ships of an advantage they deserve realistically. It also ruins many matches by allowing ships to kite from max range and never be caught. Think about that when you resort to the perniciously false dichotomy of realism vs playability.

I was arguing against the existence of said false dichotomy...

[BustyLove]

I'm all in favour of being able to creatively arm your ships however you like. within reason.

 

Obviously there needs to be balance and pros and cons to each decision.

 

It's an open world sadbox when all said and done, not "Historical Ship Simulator 2015"

[Sir Darric Vandhelm]

A well sailed post ship (particulary the snow) or small frigate can already put serious hurt on a well sailed SOLs stern. This really isn't required in my humble opinion.

[Oliver H. Perry]

I have to agree with Mr. Vandhelm.  The goal isn't to equip the largest cannon possible (or carronade), and there are extremely good reasons you didn't see this in the real world.  I've been in favor of demanding a greater effect of tophamper (as when you overgun a ship, and the reason that most of the United States' Frigates ended up with 18lb cannon instead of their original 24s) on a ship's performance, through greatly increased heel when under sail, and greatly increased rolling action in the waves - both under sail (at a reduced rate), and when under no sail.