new types of ammunition?

[jasyaryar]

hello all,thinking about the different types of ammo available , I think would be nice to implement explosive barrels (mine) and incendiary ammunition type catapult , simply to use the barrels, exchange completely the approach of battle, and especially would force change tactics and routines during the battle, it goes without saying that the sound would be brutal and graphic, imagine a boat burning effect after a night battle, then espectacular. the best option would be limited to a certain number this type of ammunition, to avoid falling into new routines / tactics in battle.

[Destraex]

Shore batteries used "hot shot" and some nations used fire ships.

But I have never heard of catapults and explosive barrels being used?

 

I think some ships used rockets and howitzers but they were to support landings.

 

Ammunition types that are pretty standard are:

* Double shot (two round shot loaded in the one barrel at once)

* Round shot

* chain shot or bar shot (for taking out sails)

* Cannister or grape shot - for anti personel

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/sail-ammo.htm

[maturin]

Not unless I can also recruit the cast of Donkey Kong to fight on my forecastle.

[Feretier]

Shore batteries used "hot shot" and some nations used fire ships.

But I have never heard of catapults and explosive barrels being used?

 

I think some ships used rockets and howitzers but they were to support landings.

 

Ammunition types that are pretty standard are:

* Double shot (two round shot loaded in the one barrel at once)

* Round shot

* chain shot or bar shot (for taking out sails)

* Cannister or grape shot - for anti personel

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/sail-ammo.htm

 

Double shot , so that is what i have seen in the videos! I've never read anything like that.

It sound like it is the best way to damage your barrel, miss your target or worst waste ammunitions !

[maturin]

Yeah, it must have been pretty janky.

 

Sources report that it was a good way to have your shot bounce off the enemy's hull.

[Mirones]

specialy on sail shot and anti crewshot there are somany diffrent versions its hard to make them any diffrent from each other

[Destraex]

Double shot is recorded as one of the most time consuming shot to load and what a lot of crews yet to enter battle took the time to load for the first volley.

Cannot remember the source but it would have been about the British navy during nelsons time. I don't really have much on other periods.

[Feretier]

 How does those double shoots perform ingame ?

[BungeeLemming]

double shot == double damage..

very literally. But it results in a very small range.

max range for long 24pd = 1200. double shot-->250 meters

[admin]

double shot == double damage..

very literally. But it results in a very small range.

max range for long 24pd = 1200. double shot-->250 meters

 

we plan to add increased loading time for double shot for testing next patch

[Feretier]

double shot == double damage..

very literally. But it results in a very small range.

max range for long 24pd = 1200. double shot-->250 meters

 

         

Arg, i say arg. It feels ... OP.

 

EDIT:

 

we plan to add increased loading time for double shot for testing next patch

 

Good, and maybe less accuracy ?

[Ink]

we plan to add increased loading time for double shot for testing next patch

nice, here is the quote:

"108. There is some difference, particularly with heavy guns, in the times required for loading with single and with double shot ; and when vessels are engaged so closely as to be within double shot action ; when, con sequently, the most rapid firing should take place, it is evidently of the utmost importance to reduce as much as possible the time of loading. Other things being equal, a ship which can, in the shortest time, give a second broadside, will have a great advantage over her opponent ; and, in order to effect this, it is recommended to have ready a few rounds of double shot sewed up in thin canvas, with a little oakum between the shot, and the whole secured by a line passed round between them, no wadding being used."

 

So it is better to model some double shots broasides without any notable changes in loading times, lets say 3(maybe 5, but I think 3 is better) broadsides, then the loading is going to increase.

 

it woulbe be nice to also include a progressive reloading, if a player uses only double shots for a certain amount of instant broadsides, lets say, after 3 broadises, the loading is increased to x % for the remaining broadsides, then to each next instant broadside loading is also increasing to x%*y coef. of the last, due  to fatigue.

 

Imo, for the moment it is ok to have just first solution, the second one can be done in the future

[BungeeLemming]

Ammo racks you mean, ink. And we have them modeled on our ships already(without function).

 

An idea came to my mind:

What if we have about 10 shots in those racks. When these ammoracks are empty the crew has to fetch the roundshot from below the decks wich will increase reload times.

So we have around 10 broadsides wich reload reasonably quick. When loading double shot this number is reduced to 5 broadsides.(obviously)

 

Ofc the crew can restore these cannonballs on deck when they have nothing to do.

For instance if I had a fight and won it. Now I am heading back a few miles to my teammate who is still strugeling with some other foes.

When I still have my crew to gunnery stations they may fetch ammunitin from below. (after a few minutes not firing).

And when I come intot he fight I have a slight reload-"buff" compared to the ships firing for a long time.

[akd]

Other crew members would be replenishing shot and powder as needed. Gun crews would never stop fighting the guns and walk away to fetch more supplies in the middle of a battle. If you want reloading to slow over time, crew condition (fatigue and dead/wounded) is the proper dynamic.

[BungeeLemming]

as far as I am concerned theres always one crewman fetching the cannonball.

Gunpowder is beeing fetched by the powdermonkeys.

So.. the guy getting the ammo has 10 rounds wich he does not have to run for the ball.

 

Its nothing wrong with my conclutions. But your right its not a very good suggestion.

Crew fatigue is more likely the way to go

[Destraex]

Bungee I think what he is saying is that the ball boy does not wait until the rack is empty to go below for refills and would not be part of the actual gun crew but a supporting man that refills all the racks of all crews?

 

I wonder if racks are something that can be added as an option you can configure your ship with?

[Feretier]

nice, here is the quote:

"108. There is some difference, particularly with heavy guns, in the times required for loading with single and with double shot ; and when vessels are engaged so closely as to be within double shot action ; when, con sequently, the most rapid firing should take place, it is evidently of the utmost importance to reduce as much as possible the time of loading. Other things being equal, a ship which can, in the shortest time, give a second broadside, will have a great advantage over her opponent ; and, in order to effect this, it is recommended to have ready a few rounds of double shot sewed up in thin canvas, with a little oakum between the shot, and the whole secured by a line passed round between them, no wadding being used."

 

So it is better to model some double shots broasides without any notable changes in loading times, lets say 3(maybe 5, but I think 3 is better) broadsides, then the loading is going to increase.

 

it woulbe be nice to also include a progressive reloading, if a player uses only double shots for a certain amount of instant broadsides, lets say, after 3 broadises, the loading is increased to x % for the remaining broadsides, then to each next instant broadside loading is also increasing to x%*y coef. of the last, due  to fatigue.

 

Imo, for the moment it is ok to have just first solution, the second one can be done in the future

 

May i know where did you get that quote from ?

[Ink]

sure,

 

 

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.

pp. 82-84

 

So since if in general there were 100 shots per gun ratio, 3 or 5 doubles shots without increased reload time seems ok to me

[jasyaryar]

A little history 

 

The idea is old as gunpowder; however, there were many problems to achieve an effective and reliable naval mine. The naval mine as explosive device was similar to Granada or landmine on general considerations, with a small but important difference must operate continuously in one of the worst environments. The sea water is extremely corrosive to metal, because all minerals hauling; temperature changes do likewise, as the constant movement. 

 

The first naval mines were rough, huge and doubly dangerous instruments. The land minefields are marked by engineers on maps, so that friendly troops know to avoid them. However, the most precarious naval mines were little more than masses of explosives with fuses contact. Wandering adrift, could impact any vessel, whether friend or foe, military or civilian. 

 

As in other cases, there is written evidence that the Chinese were the first to think of the creation of naval mines practices, to the sixteenth century. These were simple boxes sealed with weather systems, which were lit after wandering in the stream. Apparently other systems included a more effective system: from the coast, a man ambushed tossed the box, which contained a spark wheel system like some muskets. Pulling the rope, the sparks burned gunpowder.

 

These early mines, however, must not have caused much damage, although a great psychological effect. In the West its use was not much later. The first prototype Rabbards registered belongs to Ralph, who presented his design to Queen Elizabeth I of England in 1574. At that time also a Dutch inventor Cornelius Drebbel name did the same with King Charles I of England, and there is evidence that argues that such weapons were tested in the siege of La Rochelle in 1627, in British hands. 

 

However, it would be the other side of the Atlantic where the first naval mines practices would be used. Designed by David Bushnell, were simply sealed boxes filled with gunpowder, floating towards the enemy with the flow and ignited if bumped against something. And he used precisely in the American War of Independence, against the British. 

 

At that time the British were not with him also because the Russians used their naval mines against them in the Crimea. In 1812 a Russian engineer Pavel Shilling name had developed a device that detonated by electric circuit, and in 1854 similar models damaged three British ships.

 

im sorry,but i think the naval mines existe from the 15 century..

[Johny Reb]

I don't think the existence of them is whats at stake. The use of them was practically non-existent. Should we have submarines? They also existed in Revolutionary war times. I think we need to consider how they would effect the realism of the battle in this game. Although I understand that Naval Action sea warfare is never going to be like real life fights, it still does a great job at representing age of sail combat. But if these fights are filled with catapulted barrels then it will ruin the immersion the game has atm and turn it into a fanciful game with almost no realistic feel.

 

I would prefer for us to focus on more common unique warfare like hot shot from forts, Mortar ships, harbor defenses.

 

You also left out a large section of history and that is the Civil War. Torpedoes (water mines) were used extensively in this war and it is where the famous line "damn the torpedoes. full speed ahead" comes from

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

We have the four options, 1-ball solid shot, chained double shot, double shot and buckshot.

 

Ordnance from the 18th century and forth up to the impact fuse also included the manual fuse explosive shell. Mainly used by the mortar crews but also in carronades and any large enough calibre. Correct ?

 

Will we see this possibility in the future ? How effective were they in reality and how extensive was its use in naval operations is something I intend to investigate further but given than all kinds of ammo were used to "try to lit a fire" on the enemy ship my guess is that it was indeed used, along with red hot iron shot.

 

Are there any plans to extend the ordnance available after the damage model 4.0 is implemented ?

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

I'm not entirely sure any ships except for mortar brigs (which only used them in mortars) used explosive shells in their cannon during the period that is being modeled here.  The mortar-brig has been developed for the game, but is currently pulled for rebalancing - it has the round you mention.

 

So the question at hand is - did any ships use fused, explosive rounds in their cannon during the time period the game is reflecting?  If so, what are the cons and dangers that will balance such a round to prevent it being the "go-to" round for everyone, all the time?

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Yes, and above all it is a game and the "merry go round ordnance type" for all is a very pertinent excuse to use or not to use it regarding game design. I for one would prefer not to have it if there is no other way to balance it.We don't have limited ammo so yes, it could become an issue.

I will go through some borrowed literature and see what can I find for sure.

[ChainsawEcosse]

Make them set the fuse manually as well, they were marked to the nearest second IIRC.    Also some chance of them not going off at all.  I wouldn't be keen on it for all ships, just those that historically used is as a matter of course.  There are other ordnance options missing too, double Ball with grape on top (when double ball just isn't enough...) bar shot, heavy grape....

 

I would keep fused rounds limited to mortars, nice differentiator, not sure there is enough historical widespread use as a precedent for anything else.

 

again just my tuppence worth,

 

Cheers,

 

Alan

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

The loss of a cannon crew in the Army ( shell explodes inside barrel ) as opposed to the loss of an entire ship was the main concern it seems. So we can assume this was rather the exception.

Several episodes feature naval howitzers, not mortars, and explosive shells are indicated but cannot find any specific use for them chronicled.Some references made of ships against forts bombardment, and makes sense having the mortars, but ship to ship didn't see anything yet.

 

Funnily enough killing the crew is more effective than sinking the ship and many second-hand sources point to the direction where very few ships were sunk with most ships surrendering or being simply overrun and having their crew shot to pieces. Think that some of the major and well known battles testify to this, Trafalgar, with 21 captured and 1(!) actually destroyed(?).

 

So... it is a game, okay. As I said in my very first post the naval action at this age never caught my full interest, but given my liking for some sort of balance between game and History, we are relying more on shot from afar than actual close shot and crew massacres.

 

Sorry for derailing a bit.