Damage model 3.0 - Discussion

[Belphe]

AFAIK the gunports already get closed, there's just no animation for it. So when a port is underwater, its opening is not added to the rate of flooding and the shot-holes are assumed to be the only leaks.

OK, good to know but you must admit that the scene below seems unreal:

 

- Oh my God, here comes a big wave, the captain will perform a sharp turn in a minute and we are already knees deep in... water - lets leave the deck and evacuate upstairs!

And halfway there, with people climbing up the stairs a new order is given:

- No! Wait! The turn is completre, the wave has gone or whatever - back to your stations!!! 

 

And all that within 5 seconds...

 

When flooding of the lowest (or any) deck reaches a certain level it should be sealed off and no shooting should be possible until pumps have lifted it above the waterline level.

[maturin]

Are you talking about flooding from waves and heel, or because the ship has started sinking and settling in the water?

 

Because I don't believe that tall waves have any effect on the operation of the gun deck atm. They are mostly visual.

 

But if heel or loss of buoyancy actually puts a deck underwater, the game considers that the ports close (animations TBA). The crew behind those ports would probably be busy holding them shut and making them more watertight, securing gun tackles, whatever.

 

I think you are imagining that when the waterline has risen to be even with a gunport, that means that the ship has flooded up to that point. Of course, that is not the case. The ship will probably reach the point of no return while the level of internal flooding is still far below the actual waterline. So if you have a hull that's settling lower in the sea, the water than comes in through the ports will actually run down into the hold rather quickly. The ports could be permanently underwater (and closed), but the gundeck itself could merely be wet. So if you then pumped that water out, the ship could rise and return the gundeck to action quickly.

 

Of course, I'm pretty sure that the degree to which ships settle in the water is exaggerated. By the time you've lost eight feet of freeboard you are probably already lost.

[Johny Reb]

Well that is the case. If your deck is awash then it is no longer usable but the definition of awash may be the issue here. A single large wave that passes by does not wash out the lower deck I believe. Only when your ship sits lower in the water due to previous leaks and loss of buoyancy.

[Johny Reb]

A mechanic that I havn't seen but thought was implemented was leaks below the waterline could be present on one tack and reduced on another due to heal. It seems instead that once you are holed below the waterline then those leaks remain until you fix them.

 

In another instance I gave a full broadside into a ship rolling away from me with its "copper" showing and at the top of a wave. (Should have been very vulnerable) Almost half my broadside hit below the waterline yet when the ship dropped back down into the trough no leaks were generated. Yet I was given a broadside at moderate range and on an even keel, I believe, and had 14 leaks generated. (maybe i was rolling more than i thought) So are the leaks created purely by the strike of the ball or is it the strike of the ball X chance to create leak?

[admin]

bumping the topic to have a new discussion on the damage model (hull and sails)

we have reworked the sailing optimized the game a bit. now we want to finalize damage. 

 

please review old suggestions - also you can read old topic on the damage issues called 2.0 http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/727-damage-model-20/?hl=damage

 

provide ideas, feedbacks and suggestions. 

[maturin]

HP of sides represents structural integrity of the whole broadside. When planking is destroyed your ship will take water because your broadside is too shattered to hold water pressure. leaks are different as they represent holes near or below waterline. those can be plugged. but you can't quickly repair if you are taking water through every gap between planking. Thats why there is no indicator for them.

The bold part is an unrealistic feature. It is justified by game balance, but not reality. You can drill six-inch holes in a wooden hull for days on end; it still isn't going to start leaking and falling apart under the waterline. Age of sail weaponry simply couldn't do this sort of structural damage to ships. Not until the introduction of explosive shells.

 

As long as destroying planking causes flooding, the game still has a generic HP system. Leaks caused by low planking HP is analogous to bleeding damage in an RPG or FPS. Furthermore, if ships can easily sink without ever being hit under the waterline, sinking will continue to be the most common result of battle. You will not see your list of outcomes realized:

 

 

1. Ship sinks This will almost always happen first, under the current system.
2. Ship burns out or explodes due to catastrophic chain of powder fires  This should be rare, and only happen due to chaos from high crew/hull damage, especially in close combat when a player has forgotten to use battle sails
3. Ship surrenders due to catastrophic morale loss or captains decision.
4. Ship is boarded and crew surrenders
5. A combination of the above Imho this should be the most common outcome. Crew stop fighting due to casualties and panic, and captain either surrenders, tries to run (#6) or gets boarded (#4)
6. Ship withdraws successfully and escapes

 

The solution is simple to implement but difficult to balance:

Hits above the waterline cannot cause flooding, but attack the crew and guns, destroying the ability of the ship to fight. Ships will eventually become helpless, ready to be boarded and captured. A captain may see his crew lose all will to load and fire the guns, but he can keep himself afloat and limp to safety. IMHO this is more interesting than just watching your ship sink and disconnecting from the battle.

 

 

My earlier thoughts about flooding:

 

Shot holes can start or stop flooding based on heel angle. I think that this is the most important flooding mechanic. If you take the Constitution, she can heel enough to put her ports under. After a long battle, that means that she could suddenly start flooding through dozens or scores of holes by switching tacks, even if none of the damage was actually below the waterline. Alternately, if she was sinking  from damage to the starboard side, she could start sailing away on a starboard tack to bring those holes up out of the water and pump. This would be a dynamic, completely naturalistic repair buff. It's exactly what you guys want to do when you talk about a game without magic POTBS skills.

 

I would like to see an independent hitbox for the area between the gundeck and waterline. If a shot hits below a frigate's gundeck and above the waterline, it essentially does no harm. It hits a part of the ship where there are no crew and no guns. On the other hand, it creates a hole that could start flooding if the ship sets full sail while close-hauled in higher winds. So instead of damaging the ship's ability to fight, you limit her ability to maneuver, because she will flood. The best way to escape from a more powerful ship that has brought you to close action? Send every ball at the waterline and run away upwind on the proper tack. If she tries to chase, she will start to flood and slow down too much to chase you. Doing that in a game would make me feel so fucking smart.

[BrutishVulgarian]

What's with the pumps? Seems like my pumps get damaged all the time. How many pumps did the old ships actually have? How did they work? Was the important pump apparatus under the waterline safe from damage? I don't know anything about old time pumps except those cranks looked really hard on the back.

[maturin]

What's with the pumps? Seems like my pumps get damaged all the time. How many pumps did the old ships actually have? How did they work? Was the important pump apparatus under the waterline safe from damage? I don't know anything about old time pumps except those cranks looked really hard on the back.

If I'm not mistaken, the pumps weren't actually under the waterline, and naval vessels would have at least two. Smaller vessels would even have them on the spar deck. And it's a fairly large construction, seeing as it has to span the whole vertical height of the ship.

 

I like how it works at the moment, with the pumps disabled temporarily and then given basic repairs automatically.

 

Of course, I can't stand the repair system in general, or see how raising a whole mast prevents me from fixing a pump hose.

[Hawke]

Quite alot is being said about the Hull, and as far as that goes I agree with everything Maturin already said. 

 

What about sails though? At the moment trying to take down sails is useless. If I can take my opponent down to below 2k sail integrity and he still makes 10 knots and can perform tacking maneuvers, that's a problem. Or when you knock away someone's entire bowsprit, and his turning is unaffected.

 

I haven't been able to play NA since the big battle Friday, but I didn't notice any changes then. Has any work been done on the sail damage model?  

[maturin]

 Has any work been done on the sail damage model?  

Very little work has been done yet, as admin says.

 

For organization's sake, I will post my Testing Forum ruminations on rig damage:

 

A novel could be written about rigging damage and its possibilities. The thing is, you either restrict yourself to a highly simplified system where the balance will always be arbitrary rather than realistic... or you find yourself forced to create a more detailed damage AND sailing model where we can choose to set and furl sails individually.

 

This is because there is a large variety of ways you can degrade or damage a given sail, besides putting a jagged gash in it or taking down the mast altogether.

 

Imagine a foretopsail on set on its yard. Incoming fire can:

-put shot holes in the sail itself with roundshot or bar or chain, gradually degrading the power of the sail

-bring down the topmast

-shoot the yard in half (these latter two could require multiple hits)

-cut a sheet, causing the sail to billow out with the wind, disabling its ability to drive the ship and forcing it to be furled, lest it shred to pieces (the repair would be quick and cost no consumable resources)

-cut a brace, making the yard impossible to control. When sailing upwind or on a beam reach, the yard would fling itself fore and aft, potentially exerting a strong turning force on the vessel. If left set, the shrouds could be damaged, doing harm to the mast's inegrity. Repair would likewise be a rather simple, quick task. Note that modelling this and the above damage type would require a considerable upgrade to the animations in the game.

-cut a lift or halyard, causing the yard to hang in its chains, probably losing some effectiveness when sailing upwind

-cut the parrel connecting the yard to the mast, allowing the yard to sag forward of the mast or from side to side. Sailing downwind, this isn't such a problem, but closer to the wind, the sail must be lowered or risk damaging its mast. Note that for this and the previous effect, a non-naval ship not prepared for action could see the yard fall down altogether. Topgallant, spritsail and spanker spars would likely not be secured with chain, and could collapse as well.

 

The precise effects are rather simplified, and would be difficult to combine, but there you have it. The idea is less irreversible damage, slowing but not disabling an enemy that is playing well.

 

And then there's standing rigging, the shrouds and stays. Gradual loss of these many ropes could cause masts to collapse under press of sail, depending on the current wind force. Losing a bowsprit could prevent you from setting much sail on the foremast, especially if you are sailing upwind or pitching in heavy seas. Or imagine that you lose most of the starboard shrouds for your mainmast. On a port tack, the mast could do just fine, only for it to topple over when you put the ship on the opposite tack, and stress the damaged support rigging. And remember that the shrouds are fastened to the hull by the chainplates and channels, which are located far below deck level. Shot hitting the hull would be doing significant damage to the standing rigging for the lower masts.

 

Ideally, damage to the larger masts would be gradual, giving players a chance to splice standing rigging and fish masts, both operations that require very little in the way of consumable resources (repairs should be plentiful) but are difficult to accomplish under fire (requiring you to disengage from close combat).

 

Now, I don't for a minute imagine that every rope will have its own hitbox. I think that such detailed damage states should be a matter of probability. Rather than requiring ten hits to destroy each mast or sail, as the game requires at the moment, the above types of damage could be assigned randomly, based on probability and rough shot placement.

 

I think that if there is one area where the game should take the hardcore simulator route, it is with rigging damage. Why? Because the result is absolute mayhem, and it looks awesome!

 

Chainshot could do serious damage to masts without ever touching wood. A good shot, with six feet of chain spread out laterally could cut every back stay on one side, or shred a whole row of shrouds. If the mast was straining under full sail, the sudden release of pressure could snap the mast in two.

 

If the game implements truly detailed damage simulation, then we could track what category of standing rigging (ie, maintopmast shrouds on leeward side) has been damaged. If I knew that I had no leeward shrouds, then I would know not to tack, because then the mast would rely on the damaged rigging for support, and topple over. If the windward shrouds were gone, then I would need to immediately douse topsail and topgallant, or luff the sails by turning the yards to reduce strain on the weakened mast. Then I could use the Repair Rigging button. And then if you lost bowsprit or fore stays, it would be ill-advised to put bow or stern to heavy waves, as you wouldn't want to pitch too much. Tacking or making sternway would also be fatal in that case.

 

If that doesn't sound like a badass freaking game, then I don't know what it. I wish I could code so I could write a damage system like that. Ker-chunk crackle splash, you messed up and tipped twenty tons of wobbling telephone pole-sized pine into the ocean.

[Belphe]

maturin, I enjoy reading your posts. I find them very logical and full of real-life, historical information. I agree with your suggestions 100%.

[akd]

In general in the new damage model test - ships will sink less and become disabled more. 

 

This description seems to be on the right track, but is this implemented currently?  Ships seem to sink very easily, and even concentrating fire high on "Zone C" seems to fairly quickly lead to sinking, while at the same time very little damage is done to crew, cannon and rigging.  In fact, I'm finding it very hard to test damage to rigging, crew and cannon at all.  Is it that "armor" stops most damage from round shot to crew, cannon and rigging until it is reduced to zero, but when reduced to zero the ship sinks almost immediately?  Is the integrity not tracked for each zone separately?  Is the observed behavior a product of the current sea state?

 

For example, I can imagine a situation where a ship is heeling away from the direction of fire and is taking so much shot into Zone B that ports are starting to get battered in and more and more lower deck cannon and crew are lost, but until she changes tack and heels the opposite way, this loss of "integrity" would not lead to her sinking directly.

 

Also, can you provide any more info on sail, mast and rigging damage?  Perhaps a similar diagram?

[Johny Reb]

@maturin

"If the game implements truly detailed damage simulation, then we could track what category of standing rigging (ie, maintopmast shrouds on leeward side) has been damaged. If I knew that I had no leeward shrouds, then I would know not to tack, because then the mast would rely on the damaged rigging for support, and topple over. If the windward shrouds were gone, then I would need to immediately douse topsail and topgallant, or luff the sails by turning the yards to reduce strain on the weakened mast. Then I could use the Repair Rigging button. And then if you lost bowsprit or fore stays, it would be ill-advised to put bow or stern to heavy waves, as you wouldn't want to pitch too much. Tacking or making sternway would also be fatal in that case.

 

If that doesn't sound like a badass freaking game, then I don't know what it. I wish I could code so I could write a damage system like that. Ker-chunk crackle splash, you messed up and tipped twenty tons of wobbling telephone pole-sized pine into the ocean."

 

 

This sounds incredible. I would add that when the mast goes overboard it doesn't just disappear but drags in the water causing the boat to yaw out of control. The "repair" would be "clear debris" or something like that which would reduce reload and other stats until the mast is cut away. Add that big mast floating in the water waiting to puncture or foul up the rudder of your pursuing ship and... I'm starting to shake with joy just thinking about it.

 

Another thought:

In actual naval battles, did the mast come down because they were struck above the deck or because balls passing through the hull damaged the masts down low? I've read that the British didn't aim for the sails but they still took out masts. Trafalgar had many demasted ships at the end if I'm not mistaken yet it was fought at point blank range for the most part.

 

And is there a thread on repairs? If not we should consider making one. I understand you don't like it at all Maturin and I'm with you.

[akd]

Another concern I have about "armor" reduction directly resulting in quick and irrecoverable sinking is raking fire. Raking fire should not directly make a ship more vulnerable to sinking; it should make the ship more vulnerable to loss of crew and cannon as any penetrating shot will pass down the length of the deck (not to mention more vulnerable to rigging and mast damage, since it increases the probability of any single shot coming into contact with multiple parts of the rigging and masts). And of course the weak stern galleries make the ship much more vulnerable to raking penetrations, but this primarily concerns Zone C. Zone B and Zone A are not significantly more vulnerable on the bow and stern than they are on the sides, and in fact might be less vulnerable since there is less overall area between wind and water, and this area is less likely to be exposed by heel.

I'd also like to note that ease of sinking is not just a concern based in devotion to historical reality. I think it has real implications for gameplay, particularly for the dynamics of small ship vs. large ship combat and for potentially accelerating the advantage of the winning side in a fleet battle.

[Belphe]

@maturin

"If the game implements truly detailed damage simulation, then we could track what category of standing rigging (ie, maintopmast shrouds on leeward side) has been damaged. If I knew that I had no leeward shrouds, then I would know not to tack, because then the mast would rely on the damaged rigging for support, and topple over. If the windward shrouds were gone, then I would need to immediately douse topsail and topgallant, or luff the sails by turning the yards to reduce strain on the weakened mast. Then I could use the Repair Rigging button. And then if you lost bowsprit or fore stays, it would be ill-advised to put bow or stern to heavy waves, as you wouldn't want to pitch too much. Tacking or making sternway would also be fatal in that case.

 

If that doesn't sound like a badass freaking game, then I don't know what it. I wish I could code so I could write a damage system like that. Ker-chunk crackle splash, you messed up and tipped twenty tons of wobbling telephone pole-sized pine into the ocean."

 

 

This sounds incredible. I would add that when the mast goes overboard it doesn't just disappear but drags in the water causing the boat to yaw out of control. The "repair" would be "clear debris" or something like that which would reduce reload and other stats until the mast is cut away. Add that big mast floating in the water waiting to puncture or foul up the rudder of your pursuing ship and... I'm starting to shake with joy just thinking about it.

 

Another thought:

In actual naval battles, did the mast come down because they were struck above the deck or because balls passing through the hull damaged the masts down low? I've read that the British didn't aim for the sails but they still took out masts. Trafalgar had many demasted ships at the end if I'm not mistaken yet it was fought at point blank range for the most part.

 

And is there a thread on repairs? If not we should consider making one. I understand you don't like it at all Maturin and I'm with you.

Ohh, I'd love to see all that! And if somebody says this is too complex to model they are wrong. There are flight simulations out there available for PC (Rise of Flight, DCS series) that perform hundreds of calculations regarding the air flow around the wing in real time and how ANY obstruction/deformations influence the lift generation. I suppose all we need to implement a mind-blowing damage model to both the hull and sails are a group of historical experts and coders. It can happen!

[BungeeLemming]

 

Another thought:

In actual naval battles, did the mast come down because they were struck above the deck or because balls passing through the hull damaged the masts down low? I've read that the British didn't aim for the sails but they still took out masts. Trafalgar had many demasted ships at the end if I'm not mistaken yet it was fought at point blank range for the most part.

 

Johny you have to consider all the standing rigging wich will be peppered with grapeshot from carronades standing at the quarterdeck and back.

A mast can be as huge as a meter (or even more) in diameter at decklevel. But the windpreasssure needs to be dealt with by the wants. So if the wants are shredded and sails are up you can easily imagine the stress on the wood.

Also a guns accuracy is only as good as the barrel-bore and the cannonball wich means even when you aim low there will be shots flying high.

[Johny Reb]

Johny you have to consider all the standing rigging wich will be peppered with grapeshot from carronades standing at the quarterdeck and back.

A mast can be as huge as a meter (or even more) in diameter at decklevel. But the windpreasssure needs to be dealt with by the wants. So if the wants are shredded and sails are up you can easily imagine the stress on the wood.

Also a guns accuracy is only as good as the barrel-bore and the cannonball wich means even when you aim low there will be shots flying high.

yeah I guess it was a bad question. Masts generally probably didnt go down because the mast itself was shot away but because the standing rigging was shot away and the wind pressure on the sails took the mast down.

[Cochrane]

Johny you have to consider all the standing rigging wich will be peppered with grapeshot from carronades standing at the quarterdeck and back.

A mast can be as huge as a meter (or even more) in diameter at decklevel. But the windpreasssure needs to be dealt with by the wants. So if the wants are shredded and sails are up you can easily imagine the stress on the wood.

Also a guns accuracy is only as good as the barrel-bore and the cannonball wich means even when you aim low there will be shots flying high.

 

I haven't seen a lot of discussion of effects of rigging damage and dismasting (maybe I'm missing stuff within various damage posts). It would be great if use of chain shot etc. could result in dismasting that has more impact than just reduction in speed and maneuverability. Rigging trailing over the side causing enormous problems (loss of speed, dragging the bow into the wind, covering cannons, starting fires, dragging crew overboard, etc. etc.) had to be cleared by the crew thus abandoning every other task until complete. Has thought been given to this kind of mechanic? 

 

Being chased by a superior enemy and trying for the lucky rigging shot or chasing an inferior, but faster enemy and doing the same could be fun and realistic. Imagine being chased in a storm by a big nasty ship, almost ready to surrender when you knock the foretopmast into the sea, the enemy ship slews to winward, gets pooped and suddenly sinks. So fun!

[Barberouge]

Here's a complete post about rigging damage. Trailing rigging could impair the ship effectiveness, and any damaged rigging could damage other parts if not dealt with ("Free up the rigging !").

 

Sail damage is simplified currently, but loosing a mast would affect the rig balance.

[Cochrane]

Here's a complete post about rigging damage. Trailing rigging could impair the ship effectiveness, and any damaged rigging could damage other parts if not dealt with ("Free up the rigging !").

 

Sail damage is simplified currently, but loosing a mast would affect the rig balance.

 

Awesome. Thanks.

[VEYRON]

belive your on a good track here,,good damage model,,if your squadron is doing things right,,your frigates should be towing you to safety,,and pickoff the enemy wounded, 

[Destraex]

Out of 70 or so ships in the battle of Trafalgar only 1 sunk even though a huge combined French and Spanish fleet was defeated.

How do you propose not to have 100% of the enemy fleet sink in any battle? There needs to be other options like morale causing the ship to become unmanageable/striking colours to surrender/the ship simply becoming unmanageable because it has hardly any guns or crew left/the crew take to their life boats/fires are out of control and the captain orders abandon ship (no choice for the player the AI just does it).

 

A damage model can go a long way to making these conditions real. But the mechanics for the AI deciding to surrender and take matters out of the players hands should happen well before any sinking is considered.

 

Only metal ships go to the bottom so easily when breached.

[r6751]

But all surrendered ships were duly boarded. Unopposed.

I wasn't envisioning or suggesting lots of boarding actions, just the formality of taking control of the enemy vessel. Until then, repair or flight is a possibility for them.

 

The basic idea is sidestepping the dilemma of morale-based auto-surrender by making surrender a player (captain's) choice, while gun crews can still be shot into de-facto submission, leaving the ship near helpless.

 

 

 

I'm not sure I understand the objection. Thirty captured ships is the most decisive result possible. The fleet that has ships combat-capable at the end of the battle gets to mop up. Winner takes all, unless they've been sloppy and let some of their victims slink away (this gives frigates an actual role in fleet battles!).

There is no incentive in the game for any player to surrender right now. There should be. There is no known 'penalty' for being sunk, except the obvious. Perhaps there should be a scoring system that makes a difference to a losing player whether he lowered the flag or got sunk fighting. I don't think the AI should decide the crew will no longer fight. A ship should fight if capable and the decision is made by the captain.

 

A sunk ship is a victory for the winning side/player. A surrendered/boarded ship is not only a victory but a captured and perhaps later useable ship. Likewise, a sunk ship is a loss to the losing side/player, but a surrender/capture is worse - or should be. What incentive is there now for any player to surrender?

 

The concept of a big battle with 30 hulks remaining is interesting, but how many players will be able to stick out the amount of time needed?  I would have to leave such a battle as my time online is limited by my real life. What happens to the battle, to the hulks, when only a few players remain actually involved? What happens to active ships, in a big battle, when real life forces players to log off?

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

There is no incentive in the game for any player to surrender right now. There should be. There is no known 'penalty' for being sunk, except the obvious. Perhaps there should be a scoring system that makes a difference to a losing player whether he lowered the flag or got sunk fighting. I don't think the AI should decide the crew will no longer fight. A ship should fight if capable and the decision is made by the captain.

 

A sunk ship is a victory for the winning side/player. A surrendered/boarded ship is not only a victory but a captured and perhaps later useable ship. Likewise, a sunk ship is a loss to the losing side/player, but a surrender/capture is worse - or should be. What incentive is there now for any player to surrender?

 

The concept of a big battle with 30 hulks remaining is interesting, but how many players will be able to stick out the amount of time needed?  I would have to leave such a battle as my time online is limited by my real life. What happens to the battle, to the hulks, when only a few players remain actually involved? What happens to active ships, in a big battle, when real life forces players to log off?

 

There's no incentive because we're still in Alpha, there's no economy, no open world, no crew system, nothing that really incentivizes a player not to fight to the death.  That's all coming, for now, we test combat!  

[Sharpe]

Destraex has a pretty good point here. Whats a damage system without a morale system and the abillity to surrender?