Double charge increase hull damage?

[o Barão]

I ask this because when using the tooltip and hover above the double charge it shows: "More damage to the hull." However if i hover the double shot it shows: "15% more more damage than the round shot" & " More damage to the hull." So i am a little confused since i always thought the double charge didn't increase the damage.

 

-So reading this i can assume that: The double shot increases 15% more damage than the regular shot if is used against masts; less damage against sails/crew but 15% more damage + an unknown value(X) if is used against the hull? So it could be something like 25% bonus in damage?

 

-So reading this i can assume that double charge: Can increase a X% value in damge to the hull? What would be the value for X?

 

Can the devs tell me what would be the right numbers for each situation and please improve the tooltip to make the information more easy to understand?

 

 

[William Death]

I’m just gonna throw it out there that, IIRC, it was admin who posted that “double charge” is actually a full charge for the cannon. Most of the time gun crews used half charges to preserve powder, keep the guns cooler, make them last longer, etc.; and it was sufficient to do damage. 

Makes sense. In muzzleloading rifles, we have “target loads” and “hunting loads.” For example, I use about 45 grains for a target load in my .45cal flintlock. If I used it for hunting, I’d use a full charge of about 85-90 grains of powder. I imagine it’s a similar thing with the naval cannons. 

 

In game, it feels like double charge is most effective at taking away that initial HP and structure that is very tough. Then swap to double ball to deal more damage. It seems like once that initial 1/4-1/3 of sides and structure is down, the ships take damage easier. Double ball against a full health ship of similar size doesn’t feel worth using: save it till he’s beat up. And of course, charge is great for demasting, where pen is everything and damage per shot means little.

I really want to see some hard stats numbers. 

[Tenet]

I didn't speak about Double Shot. Sure you can use the same charge, and double the weight of the ammo. You are still containing a similar force (though the barrel pressure may increase due to increased resistance). However, Double-Charge literally means double the black powder, and a much higher pressure.

If you want to generate splinter damage and kill crew, to force surrender and capture an intact ship, then yes, you would use just enough charge. It would also allow you to fire longer (a real concern with prolonged conflict, and dodgy supply lines). 

If you want to sink a ship, which is often the goal in naval action, penetrating both sides of the ship with one shot is literally more damage. You are trying to achieve failure to leaks, or structural failure, so you do not care about splinters. 

Naval Action the game has different economy and priorities from the way Naval Warfare was actually conducted. 

Edited July 26, 2019 by Tenet

[Audacious]

(DC) Double Shot + Penetration Mod + Reload Mod + Turn Mod + 100yards =  eat ships fast.

DS - Damage+ 25%, Penetration - 15%
DC - Penetration + 20%, Damage - 15%, Speed of shot + 10%

So, DS you use at close range with guns that do lots of damage and have DPS (low reload time), or just compensate with mods.

DC you would use at range with long guns like Blomfields that will have better penetration power at higher range while your opponents balls bounce off your hull ;D (sniper mode)

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by Audacious

[Teutonic]

I too hope for a clear answer. as for previous numbers and what it was like

Double Charger
+ 20% penetration
- 10% damage

Double Shot
+ 20% damage
- 10% penetration

It may just be that the mouse over info is being redundant in trying to explain what the type of ammo does.

[HachiRoku]

1 hour ago, Teutonic said:

I too hope for a clear answer. as for previous numbers and what it was like

Double Charger
+ 20% penetration
- 10% damage

Double Shot
+ 20% damage
- 10% penetration

It may just be that the mouse over info is being redundant in trying to explain what the type of ammo does.

I asked this when first noticed it but never got a reply. What I know from previous game versions is that the debufs were removed in a hot patch. The debuffs were only in the previous versions for a week or so. Charge has the same damage as ball and double has the same pen. It would be nice for double to be 2 balls and that each ball had less damage and pen and that charge was removed because even if someone would risk blowing a cannon up with to much charge the damage would increase alot since velocity is way more important to damage. 

I have my doubts with the UI in this case because I never noticed any change. Many game UIs work directly with the file values so misinformation by UI editing oversight is impossible and that is what makes me very uncertain about this. I highly doubt the devs edit all the % stats in the UI manually. In guess you might be able to see if you look into the game translation files of how exactly its done. I couldn't be bothered myself since UIs in modding is something that makes my brain fall asleep :p 

It would be nice however if the devs finally gave us conformation on this because It drives me insane not being sure. 

Edited July 26, 2019 by HachiRoku

[vazco]

11 minutes ago, HachiRoku said:

Charge has the same damage as ball and double has the same pen.

In damage values, maybe. It definitely pens less though, even if because of a different arc.

 

11 minutes ago, HachiRoku said:

the damage would increase alot since velocity is way more important to damage.

Actually more often than not the faster the ball goes, the less damage it causes. There's even a nice Myth Busters episode about this.

[Tenet]

Just now, vazco said:

In damage values, maybe. It definitely pens less though, even if because of a different arc.

 

Actually more often than not the faster the ball goes, the less damage it causes. There's even a nice Myth Busters episode about this.

Please show me the Myth Busters episode about 18th-19th century cannon penetration and damage against ship hulls of various woods. What you probably refer to are tests of Small-Arms Ammo vs. Flesh (ballistic gel or other simulated targets), or some other destruction test that is not directly related.

What happens in ships is not obvious:

- If a round travels too slowly to penetrate, it may still cause splintering damage to crew and equipment.

- If a round travels just fast enough to penetrate the outer hull, it might transfer all energy to the splinters which will cause crew damage and disable guns. 

- If a round travels faster then that, it may penetrate the hull, and then have enough energy to bounce off from other surfaces, causing further crew damage and destroying more fragile equipment. 

- If a round travels even faster, it may penetrate the hull, and then penetrate elements of internal structure or weapons, causing massive damage.

- If a round travels beyond the capabilities of fleets in early 19th century, or if the target ship has a thin hull, you could have over-penetration where the ball pierces the ship right through, causing leaks and structural damage, but potentially not as much crew and damage.

In most of these scenarios, up to the very last, travelling faster resulted in more devastation. At the correct angle, even the last scenario can be deadlier if the ship suffers damage near the water line, with multiple leaks. 

[HachiRoku]

Just now, vazco said:

In damage values, maybe. It definitely pens less though, even if because of a different arc.

 

Correct. 

 

1 minute ago, vazco said:

Actually more often than not the faster the ball goes, the less damage it causes. There's even a nice Myth Busters episode about this.

Physically impossible. The higher the speed the more kinetic energy it has. What I am guessing you mean is if the projectile is designed to not penetrate but to tumble and fragment. If a cannon ball had the power to go in one side of the ship and out the other it would do less damage yes. 

A 1 kg ball doing 1000kph has 2 times more energy than a 2kg ball doing 500kph.  

I don't know exactly what kind of target they were shooting at but I would be very careful when saying that a slower projectile does less damage than a faster one more often than not because that is simply incorrect. 

[Angus MacDuff]

6 minutes ago, Tenet said:

Please show me the Myth Busters episode about 18th-19th century cannon penetration and damage against ship hulls of various woods. What you probably refer to are tests of Small-Arms Ammo vs. Flesh (ballistic gel or other simulated targets), or some other destruction test that is not directly related.

What happens in ships is not obvious:

- If a round travels too slowly to penetrate, it may still cause splintering damage to crew and equipment.

- If a round travels just fast enough to penetrate the outer hull, it might transfer all energy to the splinters which will cause crew damage and disable guns. 

- If a round travels faster then that, it may penetrate the hull, and then have enough energy to bounce off from other surfaces, causing further crew damage and destroying more fragile equipment. 

- If a round travels even faster, it may penetrate the hull, and then penetrate elements of internal structure or weapons, causing massive damage.

- If a round travels beyond the capabilities of fleets in early 19th century, or if the target ship has a thin hull, you could have over-penetration where the ball pierces the ship right through, causing leaks and structural damage, but potentially not as much crew and damage.

In most of these scenarios, up to the very last, travelling faster resulted in more devastation. At the correct angle, even the last scenario can be deadlier if the ship suffers damage near the water line, with multiple leaks. 

I actually saw that episode.  What they discovered is that you want the ball to have just enough energy to penetrate.  The residual energy after penetration allows it to cause damage in the interior of the ship.  Too much velocity causes the ball to exit the other side of the ship, unless you are lucky enough to hit something solid.  Not as likely as you would think in a cleared for action gundeck.  Human flesh is not considered "something solid" in this example.

Edited July 26, 2019 by Angus MacDuff

[Guest]

I feel like the damage model is damage+N= total with N being pentration-thickness.

Thats why the first bit of armor seems to take less overall damage because even when your penetrating the power of the round has been reduced by thickness.

If that's the case then double charge may do more damage than regular shot when the target has more armor even if you are penning both shots.

[Tenet]

6 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

I actually saw that episode.  What they discovered is that you want the ball to have just enough energy to penetrate.  The residual energy after penetration allows it to cause damage in the interior of the ship.  Too much velocity causes the ball to exit the other side of the ship, unless you are lucky enough to hit something solid.  Not as likely as you would think in a cleared for action gundeck.  Human flesh is not considered "something solid" in this example.

Did Mythbusters perform something like this? Can you try to find the video or Episode Name/Number?

[HachiRoku]

11 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

I actually saw that episode.  What they discovered is that you want the ball to have just enough energy to penetrate.  The residual energy after penetration allows it to cause damage in the interior of the ship.  Too much velocity causes the ball to exit the other side of the ship, unless you are lucky enough to hit something solid.  Not as likely as you would think in a cleared for action gundeck.  Human flesh is no considered "something solid" in this example.

Actually this cannot be correct at all. The faster projectile gives you an accuracy and range advantage. The reason ships fought so close in those days because the lacked the velocity and accuracy to do damage at range. So if they had the tech they would dominate. Mythbusters often do experiments  from a certain perspective.  

Edited July 26, 2019 by HachiRoku

[Angus MacDuff]

I don't have that info...just watched the show.  they actually built a section of ship's side armour to a spec and used a small cannon.  As hachi says, greater kinetic energy will cause more damage IF it hits something substantial.  It is more likely however, that a ball will go straight through.

[Angus MacDuff]

1 minute ago, HachiRoku said:

Actually this cannot be correct at all. The faster projectile gives you an accuracy and range advantage. The reason ships fought so close in those days because the lacked the velocity and accuracy to do damage at range. So if they had the tech they would dominate. Mythbusters often do experiments  from a certain perspective.  

Agreed, and they were only doing it within the limit of side armour and generated splinters as a function of velocity.

[Tenet]

I believe that the side of the ship that prevents water from penetrating inside the hull is something substantial. If you aim at the water line, from above, and penetrate two sides of the hull, that ship will have two leaks to repair.

Double Charge was probably not as common not because more velocity would be less effective, but because it risked rupturing the guns, and used double the powder (a rare and expensive commodity). 

[vazco]

16 minutes ago, HachiRoku said:

Actually this cannot be correct at all. The faster projectile gives you an accuracy and range advantage.

Second sentence is correct, that's why in warships ships moved from Carronades to long guns - to gain range. Longs on short distance were not as effective as carronades though.

 

A cannonball with too much energy has two disadvantages: 

• it can indeed go through completely, not passing it's energy. It doesn't bounce, doesn't veer. It won't set anything on fire
• more important - cannonballs were causing massive damage through splinters. Faster cannonballs don't cause so much splinters

Mythbusters tested this, I'm not able to quote episode out of my head though. I can be wrong about details of course. Just like with gun ballistics though, having just right amunt of energy is  the most devastating.

[vazco]

14 minutes ago, Tenet said:

I believe that the side of the ship that prevents water from penetrating inside the hull is something substantial. If you aim at the water line, from above, and penetrate two sides of the hull, that ship will have two leaks to repair.

Actually ships usually surrendered, they didn't sink - not during the battle.

Guns, especially long guns, were designed to be shot with doubles, that's why they were much heavier than carronades, which weren't designed for this.

[ wow, Wikipedia makes me look so intelligent... ]

[Snoopy]

Overpens were a thing in the age of sail, there is at least 1 report during a brawl with 3 ships side by side when gun crews were ordered to reduce charge when firing on their opponent - because a friendly ship was on the other side and hitting them was a concern. This is also evident in the penetration tables of naval cannons of the era, as discussed here. RL ships did not have uniform 70cm armor, it was much less the further up the hull you go.

For wooden sail ship and cannons, I think @vazcois correct - in RL you do more damage if you just about get a penetration, this will maximize the splinter size and the whole the cannon ball will tear. With too much charge the shot has so much kinetic energy it will create smaller splinters and a smaller whole "clean through".

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by Snoopy
spellingses are hard

[Angus MacDuff]

16 minutes ago, Tenet said:

I believe that the side of the ship that prevents water from penetrating inside the hull is something substantial. If you aim at the water line, from above, and penetrate two sides of the hull, that ship will have two leaks to repair.

Double Charge was probably not as common not because more velocity would be less effective, but because it risked rupturing the guns, and used double the powder (a rare and expensive commodity). 

You cant really discuss aiming a canon as if they had a lot of choices.  They normally got as close a possible (sometimes touching) and went for rate of fire.  Longs gave more accuracy, but that is a very subjective thing.  More accuracy at 200 metres is what we're talking here.  As far as double charge is concerned, that is pure gaminess.  RL cannons were not double charged as that increased the odds of a burst gun.  More often, when targets were close...reduced charge and double shot was utilized.  We should probably keep real life out of this...

[Angus MacDuff]

^^Yeah, double shotting with a full charge would be suicide

[vazco]

8 minutes ago, Tenet said:

However, Double-Charge literally means double the black powder, and a much higher pressure.

Double-charge doesn't literally mean double the black powder, I think it was 150%, or similar. With double ball, you were also loading more charge (but less than with double charge). Both caused similar higher pressure.

 

9 minutes ago, Tenet said:

If you want to sink a ship, which is often the goal in naval action

Again, it was never a goal to sink a ship (not that I know of). You simply couldn't do that fast enough and efficiently. A goal was to disable the ship, and make crew surrender.

[Tenet]

Just now, vazco said:

Again, it was never a goal to sink a ship (not that I know of). You simply couldn't do that fast enough and efficiently. A goal was to disable the ship, and make crew surrender.

Naval Action is a different universe than Naval Warfare on Earth, we are simply using the same tools. The statement "cause less damage" is inaccurate. Double Charge causes a different type of damage, it is a different tool. This is the core of the argument. 

Do not apply direct correlation between historical goals and Naval Action goals. 

[Snoopy]

5 minutes ago, Tenet said:

Naval Action is a different universe than Naval Warfare on Earth, we are simply using the same tools. The statement "cause less damage" is inaccurate. Double Charge causes a different type of damage, it is a different tool. This is the core of the argument. 

Do not apply direct correlation between historical goals and Naval Action goals. 

Well it's you who are confusing history and game here, @vazco is right: wooden sailing ships almost never intended to sink each other. Partly because it was impractical to actually do, but also because of prize money, a certain honor based combat etiquette, the fact that sailors couldn't swim etc..

A ship sinking after major battle would be the exception not the norm. If they really intended to sink the other guy as you claim, they were rubbish at it.

[Angus MacDuff]

7 minutes ago, Snoopy said:

A ship sinking after major battle would be the exception not the norm. If they really intended to sink the other guy as you claim, they were rubbish at it.

It's not even an issue of intent to sink.  You just cant sink a wooden ship with little round iron balls that all hit above the water line.  Unless it's L'Orient...that sucker sank.

[Tenet]

16 minutes ago, Snoopy said:

Well it's you who are confusing history and game here

You are on a game forum, the topic is about a gameplay question. You two are literally the ones confusing things. Historical references inspire the game-play, they do not control what we do with the historical tools provided. 

Naval Action is an imaginary world where ships are far more common, and sinking them is far less expensive, and the real value is in the reputation and PvP/RvR results.