'Small ships' armament - being fair?

[SYN_Bloody-Bandy]

Presenting this data to generate meaningful discussion; I do not wish it to become a flame war, or to be the target of one, because I do not pretend to be a 'source' on the age-of-sail, or even well read. 

 

This came about during discussion of the Gunboat Philadelphia, and the fact it mounted 2 x 9 lbs and 1 x 12 lbs cannon.  It was sunk by a 24 lbs ball.  I got to wonder what had fired the 24 lbs ball that sank the gunboat and stumbled upon the Order of Battle for the British forces of the battle on Lake Champlain, see list below. 

 

On the list are a few ships (not gunboats) that certainly would be equivalent to the 'small ships' we have in Naval Action, but, they mount larger guns than we are currently allowed to carry.  The HMS Inflexible at 80 feet and 180 tonnes carries 18 x 12 lbs. and has an interesting story associated with her build.  Admiral John Schank (1740 – 6 February 1823) was an officer of the British Royal Navy known for his skill in ship construction and mechanical design. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Schank

As a lieutenant in 1776, he was placed in charge of assembling ships to battle the American Revolutionaries on Lake Champlain. In less than six weeks, he constructed HMS Inflexible, which he then commanded as part of a fleet that defeated General Benedict Arnold's fleet in October 1776. His talents as an engineer were applied in General John Burgoyne's expedition to the building of floating bridges.

 

So it appears, or is arguable, that John Schank knew how to build ships.  The fact that the Inflexible was built for action on a freshwater lake may have something to do with it being mounted with larger cannon, however, the buoyancy of a ship on fresh water is not as good as that on salt water, and if you've ever been on the Great Lakes you'll understand that bad weather and big waves (on the order of bad weather on the ocean) are a reality.  Waves get quickly whipped up because of the relatively shallow water.

 

Having small ships with larger armament (nothing outrageous though) would certainly make them more competitive and effective in the open world.  It would of course change their handling and likely top speed, so compromise must be expected.  I think it should be up to the player to decide, rather some arbitrary limit.

 

Are small ships in NA too limited in the size of cannon they are allowed to carry?  What is the logic of the current limitation? 

 

Edited March 21, 2015 by SYN_Bloody-Bandy

[Brigand]

I've long been tempter to start a more or less similar thread, only with the opposite question: most small ships in the game have heavier armament than they originally carried: the yacht, for example, would have most likely carried 3 pounder guns at maximum.

The issue is not limited to the smallest vessels of the game either, for reference see: 50 Shades of Frigate: HMS Surprise.

 

In the case of what you present, I think that the fact that they were build for the great lakes had indeed a lot to do with it. I'm not sure about how bad the weather can get on the lakes, but they are still not an ocean. It is also known that ships build for the great lakes were often build with less freeboard and a shallower draft, a nice illustration of this was posted today: USS Brig Eagle (1814).

Combine their great lake build and requirements with the tendency to mount heavier armament in later years and I think we've got an explanation for the figures you posted.

 

For 'historic discussions' (especially the Nation A vs Nation B ones) and 'historic accurate' games, there is a tendency to find the extreme cases and present them as mainstream (I'm not saying you do, just describing the general pattern). For gameplay purposed, it is all equal. If heavier armament is introduced, larger ships will get stronger 'armour' to compensate. It is a 'balancing' issue which is known to chase its own tail.

 

Having said that, I do think this is an interesting discussion and hope that lots of source materials will be brought to back the topic at hand.

 

Cheers,

Brigand

[SYN_Bloody-Bandy]

Good points. 

 

I hope it is clear, simply advocating that if it was possible to mount larger (but fewer) guns on small ships (and I'm not talking about the biggest, or the next biggest, maybe just the next size up...) and a small ship armed as such had its handling characteristics and seaworthiness negatively impacted, then leave it up to the player to decide and risk the storm map.  LOL. 

 

I also hope it is clear that I am not a player with 'Dirty Harry' syndrome...  I don't even own a hand gun.

[Prater]

I think the Lynx should be able to carry 6 12lbers/longs (3 on each side) as that appears to be her historical armament (keep the 8 4lbers, 6lbers and 12lb carronades).  I think the Privateer is perfect as it is.

 

edit:  The schooners in the list above all have 6lbers.  Only the gunboats and the 3 masted ship have heavier armament.  The only exception is the ketch and that appears to have not done so well in its career.  Didn't make it to the battle because of winds and later sank.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Prater

[admin]

Weaponry is currently limited by

 

1) First by historical limits - if Victory did carry 42lb at some time and it is a hard limit in Naval Action.

2) Second by model of cannons relative to the ship or port size. We currently don't place cannons that do not fit the ports or touch other ship parts. And we don't have time to increase options.

 

That is actually a reason why some ships can carry carronades on stern or don't have chase guns.. - its just cannon models don't fit anywhere.

Once we break the mental model that some guns can be invisible OR can be smaller visually  - the range of weaponry can become fully historical in 24 hours

[Prater]

Those are 2 good reasons.

[Crankey]

Nice topic. To the OP remember that vessels designed for the great lakes have some very stark differences to ocean going vessels.

 

Short voyages = Less cargo weight for provisions and water

Always relatively close to shore = Short dash to safe anchorage so doesn't have to be so weatherly

Generally quieter sea state = freeboard could be afforded to be lower = greater weight carried

 

So add the lower freeboard and less cargo weight needed for stores, improves the weight of military equipment like cannons that can be carried.

 

However - The increased bulkheads and planking weight to carry heavier artillery would add construction complications and in itself consume some of this extra weight you are relying on to carry the heavier armament.

 

The Navies of the game period knew how to make and arm vessels of all sizes and I don't think it would be correct for a player to bend those boundaries beyond rational or historical limits. Though it would of course be nice for sensible bespoke changes to be available.

[maturin]

Many of those up-gunned Great Lakes vessels are frankly just dangerous. The same goes for Baltimore clippers (including Lynx).

Armament aside, you have to be real careful not to get caught in a squall with all your canvas set, or you might get knocked down and never get up.

When it comes on to blow, I suspect that most of these heavy guns ended up in the hold. And in action, I would guess that the vessels were handled more like gunboats than the nimble brawlers in-game. Slow RoF from only one broadside at a time, without many quick maneuvers while reloading.

[Elysion]

I would like to see armament ultimately become much more flexible than it currently is. If the game is going to have ships within a larger time span that would never have actually seen each other, it makes sense to me that limiting things to historical armament is not the way to go about things, the historical armament was obviously the best choice at the time with the options they had.

 

Options is the important word here.

What kind of gun and how many a ship can use should be based on things like this:

1. The weight of the gun (which can be variable for the same size of gun due to different materials/manufacturing techniques - this is a way to make the crafting system important)

2. A maximum weight the ship can equip (can be slightly tweaked for balance purposes since this is a more behind the scenes number and wont feel so strange)

3. A maximum weight per gun deck

4. The number of gun ports the ship has (or reasonably could have. Cutting more if there is room could be part of the customization process of the ship)

5. Ship balance and handling considerations, basically in addition to working with the max weight per ship and max weight per deck, the player also has to try and maintain a favorable weight ratio. There can be a sweet spot for each ships weight ratio, and the more out of line you get with it the worse the ships performance become.

 

The max weight and max weight per deck can also be factored into cargo and provision calculations. The reason im saying max weight per deck as well as a max weight is basically to put a hard cap on just how top heavy someone can make their ship. You could even have it be variable, as you load things onto the lower decks the max weight per higher decks increase.

 

Point is, older ships should be able to 'upgun' themselves to be compettitive with newer ships by using the more modern guns those newer ships used, which will be more powerful as well as lighter due to better material and construction methods. So limiting things to a historical size may be a bad idea if you want ships from 1700 to be side by side with ones from 1800.. But limiting things based purely on weight, which is also not quite as solid and 'present' a stat in most peoples minds will not only allow you to overcome some of the balance issues with old vs new ships, but also let you tweak ship balance some behind the scenes with out it feeling unauthentic.

 

And finally, doing this would naturally allow smaller ships to have bigger guns as well. Perhaps they decide to leave every other gun port empty and upgun the remaining ones, for example. As long as the weight and balance remains ok then anything becomes possible.

[maturin]

 

Once we break the mental model that some guns can be invisible OR can be smaller visually  - the range of weaponry can become fully historical in 24 hours

I certainly don't want invisible guns like POTBS.

 

But aren't all the long guns in the game visually the same size? The 4-pounder and 24-pounders look the same size to me. But maybe this is an illusion.

[CommodoreWesley]

Is the admin suggesting that the current gun models are not in the same scale as the ships are?

 

I have noticed that the gun crews heads will pop up through the deck on the Cerb, therefore that could suggest that we do have a scaling and proportion problem across all the ships...

[Alex Connor]

I think Admin's saying they are correct scale and that the scale would have to be changed to make guns fit in some places?

 

As far as Cerberus goes, its not a gun size problem but rather the deck is too low. I think the modeler copied from the HMS Surprise replica maybe, anyway the quarterdeck and forecastle should all be on the same level, because of the step added to the deck most of the deck is something like 20-24in too low. Also they have decked in the ships waist like one of the later spar-decked frigates, it should be open as shown by this deck plan. 

 

Weather deck plans for Cerberus (Coventry class).

 

Example model of similar frigate, Cerberus would be like this but probably without the small walkways connecting forecastle and quarterdeck.

[Crankey]

I believe game-play should be put before 100% historically accurate gfx and models. Though I doubt anyone would want 32 pounders being represented by 3 pounder cannon, scale wise.

 

We have to be careful what you hope for in regards of cannon being carried compared to the ability of a ships timbers to withstand both its weight above the waterline for stability of the ship and the ships timbers being capable of repeatedly or in extreme cases a single discharge from its chasers or broadside. Putting a few extra ring bolts into the decking and ship sides for extra breechings could only compensate for a certain amount of additional energy generated by the recoil of a cannon.

 

An over-gunned ship could buckle its own deck timbers or even rip itself from its breechings and become a danger to nearby crew and equipment. 

[HMS Scatter]

I think that the small ships shoud have the most amount of cannon that they had in real life.

[Clinch]

I've long been tempter to start a more or less similar thread, only with the opposite question: most small ships in the game have heavier armament than they originally carried: the yacht, for example, would have most likely carried 3 pounder guns at maximum.

The issue is not limited to the smallest vessels of the game either, for reference see: 50 Shades of Frigate: HMS Surprise.

 

In the case of what you present, I think that the fact that they were build for the great lakes had indeed a lot to do with it. I'm not sure about how bad the weather can get on the lakes, but they are still not an ocean. It is also known that ships build for the great lakes were often build with less freeboard and a shallower draft, a nice illustration of this was posted today: USS Brig Eagle (1814).

Combine their great lake build and requirements with the tendency to mount heavier armament in later years and I think we've got an explanation for the figures you posted.

 

For 'historic discussions' (especially the Nation A vs Nation B ones) and 'historic accurate' games, there is a tendency to find the extreme cases and present them as mainstream (I'm not saying you do, just describing the general pattern). For gameplay purposed, it is all equal. If heavier armament is introduced, larger ships will get stronger 'armour' to compensate. It is a 'balancing' issue which is known to chase its own tail.

 

Having said that, I do think this is an interesting discussion and hope that lots of source materials will be brought to back the topic at hand.

 

Cheers,

Brigand

I live on Lake Erie and I have witnessed 16 foot waves. Most heavy winds will produce 7-8 foot rollers though. Just fyi.

[Brigand]

I live on Lake Erie and I have witnessed 16 foot waves. Most heavy winds will produce 7-8 foot rollers though. Just fyi.

 

I know waves on the lakes can be very large. However, they still are quite a lot smaller from what you can find on the open ocean:

 

 

(Note: this shows significant wave height, not maximum.)

 

From what I gather, this is not an exceptional forecast (and they are not even close to the height of so called rogue waves, which at a minimum height are outside the scale provided by this image).

Ships in the age of sail, of course, didn't have a weather forecast, so they would just have to ride it out (or never be heard of again).

 

 

But let's get back to the topic of small ship's armament. Is it too heavy?

 

~Brigand

[kang]

Obviously there'd have to be a limit based on physical size, but, if you could model the weight distribution and recoil and such, you could kind of use that as a limiter.  In other words, yeah you can put 68 pounder carronades on your yacht but the first time you shoot them or if the wind is blowing, you capsize.  Could actually provide a fair amount of humor assuming you could try things out without actually losing your ship.

 

That's assuming a pretty advanced ship model though.

Edited March 24, 2015 by kang

[DazednConfused]

if we are going to be building these ships in game (off plans we buy?) why not be able to slightly modify them?

 

Like has been proposed above - have a hard weight limit per deck - or at additional cost reinforce the decks? using this hard limit you could have larger guns, but say on the narrow surprise if 12dr or over you would have to stagger the guns to allow them free movement (there is no way 12pdr could be opposite each other on this ship when even 9's were pushing it and don't get me started on longs).

 

HOWEVER - if you build your ship for these guns it will be on your head. - will a smaller amount of bigger guns benefit you?

 

I saw in another thread that there was a cry for full carronade ships - again why not? if you want to do this and buy the guns - you will have to live with your ships disadvantages.

 

I think this will allow more individuality in a game where for a long while there may only be a limited amount of ships.

[tigger]

I know waves on the lakes can be very large. However, they still are quite a lot smaller from what you can find on the open ocean:

 

 

(Note: this shows significant wave height, not maximum.)

 

From what I gather, this is not an exceptional forecast (and they are not even close to the height of so called rogue waves, which at a minimum height are outside the scale provided by this image).

Ships in the age of sail, of course, didn't have a weather forecast, so they would just have to ride it out (or never be heard of again).

 

 

But let's get back to the topic of small ship's armament. Is it too heavy?

 

~Brigand

 

I know little about conditions on the great lakes, but someone mentioned that even smaller waves are rollers due to the shallow depth. Wave height, as such, is not a significant danger to sailboats. Tall waves are long and a ship that has cargo well fastened and carries appropriate amount of sail or is heaving to rather than running should have little problems apart from those dealing with the digestive tract. Rolling waves are much more dangerous, even if they are not as tall. Although wide boats with long keels and small sails as we have were presumably very effective at heaving to, such tactics can become dangerous close to lee shore on a lake.

 

(That is just a comment, I'm not arguing that sailing on the great lakes is more dangerous than on open ocean, I really don't know and doubt it's really the case.)

Edited March 24, 2015 by tigger

[Thonar]

I know little about conditions on the great lakes, but someone mentioned that even smaller waves are rollers due to the shallow depth. Wave height, as such, is not a significant danger to sailboats. Tall waves are long and a ship that has cargo well fastened and carries appropriate amount of sail or is heaving to rather than running should have little problems apart from those dealing with the digestive tract. Rolling waves are much more dangerous, even if they are not as tall. Although wide boats with long keels and small sails as we have were presumably very effective at heaving to, such tactics can become dangerous close to lee shore on a lake.

 

(That is just a comment, I'm not arguing that sailing on the great lakes is more dangerous than on open ocean, I really don't know and doubt it's really the case.)

 

I was never on one of the Great Lakes, but the Baltic Sea seems to be relatively comparable.

Some bored mathematician calculated the wave-length of a wave on the Baltic sea and came to a result it is somewhere between 7m to 9m.

As soon as your boat/ ship is longer than the wavelength, you are starting to ride on the waves relatively smoothly and calm. At this moment "rolling waves" aren't as dangerous anymore.

 

Also, 7-8 foot rolling waves and max. height waves of 16 foot, doesn't hold up to the open sea:

7m (around 21 foot) average waves (rolling waves), mid-ocean during a "normal" storm. In extrem stormes rolling waves reach up to 15m (45 foot) height.

And we haven't even started to talk about the above mentioned "Freak-Waves" which can reach height of over 30m (100 foot).

(ok, Freak-Waves also occur on lakes, but the amount of water they can draw energy from is important too, thus they probably never reach the height of mid-ocean freak waves)

 

The open sea is a dangerous place my fellow seamen... lake-shipper and river-boys doesn't have what is needed to survive on the real sea. Neptun doesn't live in lake.

 

PS: The last part is meant to be funny and not offensive.

[maturin]

The Great Lakes are no joke, especially shallow Erie and Lake Superior, which was justly said to 'ape the oceans.' I live on the North Atlantic, but Superior seems so comparably... violent. It never seems to really calm down. The weather changes with incredible speed, even compared to Northern New England. And then the shallower Great Lakes are adept at producing very steep, confused seas that are very dangerous in proportion to their size. So far as I know the Baltic doesn't have the same reputation.

 

But it should be said that most lakes warships would not be particularly seaworthy for bluewater sailing. This isn't because they were built to face fairer conditions, but because they needed such shallow draft, resulting in low freeboard as well. Basically, they were pushing their luck on safety while trying to maximize firepower in an isolated arms race.

 

The current brig Niagara will be undergoing a major refit to increase freeboard considerably, even at the expense of her clipper looks. Otherwise she's always at danger of being caught in a squall and getting knocked down.

[mouse of war]

How about allowing whatever cannons commanders want on their ships? As will physically fit.

 

Should be interesting to see them capsize in the storm maps or even better being shaken to pieces by their own broadsides!!

 

Why not let people make their own decisions? and suffer the consequences of bad ones?

[maturin]

Because that requires more development time than simply limiting armament in vessel config.

 

There's no clear threshold with guns that leads to instant catastrophe when you cross it. You would have to implement randomized gun dismountings and structural damage over time, the latter of which wouldn't matter except in the open world anyhow. And carrying excessively heavy guns is going to affect the vessel performance characteristics that are most difficult to tinker with on the fly: pitch, roll and heel.