The "extra long" long guns and why we should get rid of them

[Sir. Cunningham]

We take all serious requests seriously and researched this topic in depth (again)

Unfortunately Sir Cunningham we would like to keep the long/short mechanic

 

Multiple resources showing that there was difference between short and long guns

• Main are "Frigate of Napoleonic Wars" http://www.amazon.com/Frigates-Napoleonic-Wars-Robert-Gardiner/dp/1557502889
• and Treatise on Naval Gunnery https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_PK50sbOOfjUC

In Treatise there is a whole chapter on long vs short differences: pointing to a significant difference even at point blank range (200 yards for short guns vs 275 yards for long guns with 0 elevation). And also proving that our decision to code lower damage for long guns is correct. (higher speed of projectile on average generated less splinters)

 

Aaah but you've misunderstood me, this was never about Long vs Short guns, it was about long (ingame medium) vs extra long Long guns, as I assume you will be bringing actual short guns to the game as well as pr. an earlier statement 

 

What I've been trying to get across is that the length of the longest and the shortest guns refered to as "Long guns" was usually less than half a foot - i.e. a minimal difference that had zero impact on the muzzle velocity.  

 

I am well aware that there existed extra short versions of certain gun designs, but these were not refered to as long guns but rather as short guns. The Spanish were in particular fond of these instead of carronades.

 

So in final my suggestion is and has always been that you should get rid of one of the three regular gun classes (short, medium, long) and restrict the gun choice to Long, Short & Carronades  as there was no such thing as medium guns 

[Sir. Cunningham]

Cited as a reference is the old book "A Treatise on Naval Gunnery", but it only touches on the subject of Short vs Long Guns, specifically citing the difference between a 24 pdr of 9 ft 6 inches in length VS one of 6 ft 6 inches in length, i.e. a short gun (even shorter than a Congreve gun) vs a standard navy Long gun. 

 

So there's no discrepency with what I've said in there really, eventhough one must remember this was a book written in the early 1800's.

 

As for the other book "Frigates of Napoleonic Wars", I do not own it but I'm sure it's the same, i.e. a matter of short and long guns being compared to highlight their respective merits.

 

Either way I really think we should listen to what the American professor John F. Guilmartin Jr. says on this matter as I'm sure he's read & researched all there is to be read & research on this matter   It's really his words I have been trying spread all this time

[Sir. Cunningham]

The British std. during the Napoleonic wars:

 

Difference between the longest and the shortest 24-42 pdr gun = 0.4 to 1 ft. All defined as long guns and all featuring similar muzzle velocities.

 

The std. length of a 18 to 42 pdr long gun made in accordance with the Bloomfield design was 9 ft 6 in, which was standardized within the Royal Navy. The French standardized the size of their naval iron long guns even further, usually having just one type of each caliber/poundage gun, and arrived at roughly the same std. lengths = 9.5 to 10 ft

 

By comparison the famous Congreve guns were noticably shorter, such as the 24 & 32 pdr Congreve at 7 ft 6 in, but this gun never entered std. service with the navy and Congreve's design was only used for a few coastal batteries.