Damage model 2.0

[Brigand]

Hits between wind and water may count as hits below. I think that eases things out. (draw a line where hits count as taking on water)

 

I would really be a sad monkey if hits between wind and water would all be treated the same. It would take away the tactics/necessity to sail on a tack that keeps the damaged side windward as to keep those holes from taking in water while at the same time making the work of the carpenter and his mates a lot more easy.

 

~Brigand

[BungeeLemming]

well hmm your right.

So we can seperate the hull intwo:

UNDER the water and

between wind and water. -> affection on heel.

 

sorry I did forget this feature. I edit my intial post.

[maturin]

Are hits under the waterline even really possible? Shot could conceivably travel through a foot or two of water and pierce a thinner sort of hull, but it is almost bound to ricochet at that angle.

[BungeeLemming]

well its possible in stormy wheaters. huge waves exhibit the underwater-hull.

In light weater I doubt they appear.

Shots wich fall short will ricoché from the water and hit upper parts of a ship.

Balls with low speeds will sink in the water. Such underwater hits wich "fly through the water" are impossible.

To sum it up: such hits are in fact between wind and water.

 

This question is good..

[Månis]

I really like the ideas, especially the fire ones. Perhaps there should be some kind of restrictions to firedamage and explosions so the ship doesnt go down after 10 secs into a battle just because an enemy scored a lucky hit or something.  

 

 

 

After a sharp turn under too much sail she capsized, causing her gunpowder magazine to ignite and explode, blowing off most of the bow structure. She sank quickly, taking about 800 men and over 100 guns with her.  Only 40 people survived the explosion, one of them was major Sparrfeldt. When the Kronan exploded, he got thrown over two enemy ships and landed unharmed in the sails of a swedish ship.  I wonder if he bought a ticket at the lottery afterwards.

[Brigand]

Are hits under the waterline even really possible? Shot could conceivably travel through a foot or two of water and pierce a thinner sort of hull, but it is almost bound to ricochet at that angle.

 

I first thought along the same lines as you did here, but then I realised that certain holes can be below the waterline: Imagine you have a hit between wind and water and started sinking a bit. Due to the increased draft, the hit that was previously between wind and water is now below the waterline and takes in water, no matter the tack.

 

~Brigand

[Johny Reb]

So what if the damage bars were rearranged differently......

 

Each facing acted in reverse of the common model. These bars wouldn't be damage bars at all but a representation of how much water that side is letting in. So at the beginning of the fight, with no damage, the armor facings would be empty. As damage increases during the fight those bars would begin to fill, representing the amount of water coming through the holes on that side. Repairs can then be made to the sides letting in the most water. Repairs could be more efficient on a tack that raises those shot holes above the waterline because they would be easier to plug and less efficient when repairing them while they are submerged.

 

The buoyancy bar would act as designed now, a representation of a critical loss of buoyancy leading to a ship that sinks.

 

Shots above the waterline have no damage bars but they affect the number of crew, cannon, and masts, giving them meaning as well.

[Ink]

What do you think is it somehow possible to implement formulas decribed in the "A Treatise on Naval Gunnery" by Howard Douglas (1855) book? Or somehow make a similar ingame proportions? I've found some intresting stuff about penetration of the shoot:

First we have to determine the initial velocity of a shoot [Art.68 pp. 46 and 47(the formula)], or a double shoot [art.101, pp.77and 78(the last two formulas)] (also, Art.163 for experemental values, [pp.128 and 129], then the velocity at the time of impact [Art.59-60, pp.36-38 (there are 3 formulas to pick] and also Art.75 [pp.51and 52], then we are able to determine the depth of penetration into oak by Art.79 formula C [pp.55 and 56(the formula)]. Also, the 16-th table of Appendix d[p.582] shows us penetration values. Art.158-159[pp.123-125] are about shot behaviour after penetrating and Art.160-162 [pp.125-128] are about the penetration of shot into water.

Art 66 [pp.43 and 44] is about the ideal quanity of the charge. Also, art. 107-108 [pp.82-84] are quite intresting, as the rest of the book.

[maturin]

Wow. Now that is a source. Kudos.

 

There are some very nice range estimates for the effectiveness of double shot (which apparently has penetration problems). It also appears that 32 pounders can penetrate a LOT of oak even at extreme range, and ricochets makes shooting through water pretty much impossible.

 

The author also tacitly states that it was common practice to minimize powder charges in close combat (because of the perceived effectiveness of low velocity shot that just penetrates).

[Johny Reb]

Yes nice source. I also noted that balls ricocheting off water still carries enough force to penetrate a hull or start planks, at least with higher calibers.

[Ink]

Also, there is some info on pp. 285 - 287 about moral effects produced on the crew during the action.

 

The only drawback of the book is that it was created in the mid of the 19-th century so there are lots of innovations in gunnery in comprasion with the begining of the century but that is not a big problem for formulas usage I guess

[maturin]

Happily, though, the muzzle velocities of the 32 pounder they were using were not dramatically higher than 18th century cannon.

[Barberouge]

I agree with what's been said about heeling, fires, unrepairable lower masts, speed affecting the water flow, crew debuffs, and powder charges.

 

Sinking

I like the differentiation between overall hull disintegration and waterline leaks, and their associated waterflow and plugging mechanics. About collision and especially entangling, I'd love to see realistic rigging damage (for example, the bowsprit would get a collision hitbox).

 

Also about leaks, the sea should be modelised as waves going more or less high along the planking. To calculate the water flow, you could use formulas including the sea state, the ship size, the ship draught and the heeling.

 

Surrenders
I like the automation which prevents bad behaviors. A problem that could arise is: what happens when a ship surrenders before the end of a battle ? If the outcomes aren't known yet, which side would take the prize and what would the player do ? Also I'd favor a player decision regarding surrenders. The incentives and the battle situation would create a meaningful choice.

 

Damage principles
About dynamism, there could be a differentiation between resistance and integrity. I don't know how you intend to deal with the damage system exactly regarding hit boxes, real damage and UI representation. But including resistance (a mix between thickness and density) would enable to simulate the armor of the planking or of any hit box. The mast resistance would depend on masts, hull and standing rigging.

 

Hitboxes

To favor skill over luck, the hit boxes shouldn't be too small, and the resistances not too low. To Pierrick's Christmas rocket could be added decks and other internal hull structure, standing rigging and running rigging. I agree with crew moving between hitboxes, and associated UI and controls.

 

Each hitbox would have its resistance, integrity and effects. The fires could start below the upper deck, on the upper deck or on a sail, and at the back, middle or front of the ship - and it would spread realistically. Maybe the rigging and the sails could get the same hitbox. I wouldn't mind the damage effects to be tuned around gameplay (as the animations would be realistic).

 

Permanent damage
Permanent damage is fine IMO. Lack of repairs is some kind of permanent damage. The interest of repairs regarding gameplay, is the choice of when to use them. This could be simulated by sending some crew to repair any damaged part. But regarding realism, repairs just give a feeling. Thus if the stats are correctly setup, permanent damage shouldn't degrade the gaming experience (for example, the integrity of the lower mast would be increased to be balanced during a whole battle).

 

So I'd favor a 4th category of unrepairable modules. This category would include killed crew, lower masts, cannons, and everything which would have run out of repairs. And adding a 5th category of "damaged but not broken" would enable to show resistance on the UI.

 

 

I agree with multiple effects happening when a ship would be heavily damaged, creating a nice looking (chain of explosions, masts breaking, sink heeling etc). Also, damage from hand guns and grenades would be nice.

 

I agree with the difficulty lying in controls and UI.

[maturin]

Seamanship in the age of sail has some excellent facts about shipboard fires that are very easily implemented in-game.

 

Basically, the ship was maneuvered so that the fire was on the leeward side, because the fire will spread with the wind.

 

So if the foremast is on fire, you sail downwind. If the mizzen is aflame, you heave to with the bow pointing upwind. The same goes for fires below decks. If your starboard side is on fire, you should sail on a larboard tack (water from the pumps will flow downhill and pool where the fire is). Closing the gunports will also prevent fanning of below-decks flames.

[weirdguy]

Ok, age of sail ships actually rarely sank.  They normally surrendered.

 

I think in Naval Action there should be more than one way to "die" as it were.

 

1.  Sink.  Ok, they do sometimes sink.  I don't see any reason to actually remove that.

2.  Burn.  The ship catches fire and burns for a while, THEN sinks.

3.  Explode.  Some sort of accidental fire reaches into the powder magazine, and the thing explodes.

4.  Capsize.  Just another sinking animation, just roll over first, then sinks.

5.  Strike colors.  The crew gives up, put's up the white flag.

 

I also think it would be nice to see more animation for the "death" of a ship and have crewmen jump overboard into the ocean, or even just some rowboats floating away from the ship.  From what I have seen there just isn't enough distinction between a ship in action and one that is "dead".

[Admiral]

Do not forget that what you're playing is only alpha, made this way to test ship combat solely. The primary reason why all ships sink is that the only purpose of gameplay so far is to survive and sink the whole enemy fleet.

[Pheasent Plucker]

Just snowballing the idea in my head but that all crew (inc Captain) you can hire and they can also die in combat,

 

Crew lose all commanding officers, Morale drops and surrender occurs?

 

I am not sure whats planned tho

[admin]

sinking will be more diverse in the future..

 

1) fires and explosions

2) slower sinking in general and with multiple types of heeling and listing when going down

3) when economy will be added it will become a bit closer to real life - people will try to capture not to sink.