Combat Tactic evaluation: Bow Camping

[Juliette LaCroix]

Fellow Captains,

 

I have been pondering the concept of bow camping and its practical viability for a while.

 

Technically bow camping seems to be a better way to tackle an enemy, because holes in the front should be worse than in the back, as (and here I don't know whether the game takes this in consideration) the natural trajectory of the vessel and the way the bow acts on turns should accelerate the speed water flows in. So much for the theory, feel free to correct me if you have the scientific knowledge at hand! I wouldn't mind. 

 

But thats not what I wanted to talk about. The main point of bow camping is to stay in front of your enemy and attack its bow while staying out of their guns reach. The problem I've got with this is, that its much more difficult to stay in front of an enemy than to stay behind him. 

 

If you have a small ship that has a better speed and acceleration than the target, once you are in front of them you can just fall back till you got a shot than speed up and switch side. rinse and repeat. Even this gets much worse as your enemy turns towards you, because you need a significant speed advantage to compensate for the speed their gun arc turns towards you. And there is only so many times you can do this before you are sailing completely upwind. Gaff rigs have an advantage here.

 

The real deal, and I might aswell answer my question myself, is larger square rig ships against each other. 

 

The disadvantages are:

 

• Larger ships turning arcs arent as tight. Also acceleration is problem here
• Every turn you make to get the enemy into your gun arc, they can get an advantage by just staying on their current trajectory. They will naturally be on a course to cross your T.
• With every turn they make in this state your position only gets worse. (although we have to take the wind in consideration here)
• Both points apply if you take a swing beforehand.

So my question if any:

 

Have any of you fine gentlemen ever acomplished a viable application or is the cost-benefit ration always in favor of going for a stern camp? (that would be my opinion) If so, what circumstances has this been under? (speed and size difference armament distance to target, position on wind)

 

Edit clarification: That question aims more at the more close range aspects of bow camping. Kiting the enemy at longe range is not what I'm asking for. Thanks Flip

 

 

best regards

Edited February 24, 2015 by Juliette LaCroix

[OlavDeng2]

The advantage of stern camping isnt only that it is harder to hit you, but you also damage the ship and shoot a lot more crew(in my experiance) due to the lack of armour back there.

[Flip]

Nose camping tends to work at the extreme range of their guns, basically kiting. For example a trinc can go downwind to max range and kite quite well, if the enemy turns to shoot you just run straight out, the only problem is at this range you barely pen and your accuracy doesn't tend to be great if you shooting at the small target that is the bow of the enemy ship. Up close you are better off stern camping. Stern has less armor as well.

[Juliette LaCroix]

Nose camping tends to work at the extreme range of their guns, basically kiting. For example a trinc can go downwind to max range and kite quite well, if the enemy turns to shoot you just run straight out, the only problem is at this range you barely pen and your accuracy doesn't tend to be great if you shooting at the small target that is the bow of the enemy ship. Up close you are better off stern camping. Stern has less armor as well.

 

Well yeah I aware of the armor being less in the back. The accuracy and penetration when kiting is something that botters me too. True I was more aiming at close range with my question.

[Prater]

People can shoot at my bow all day long if they want.  I'd rather them shoot there than anywhere else.  Small section of the ship, 50 less armor thickness than the side, half the hitpoints of the side but less than 25% the size = hard to hit and a lot of hit points for the size.  In fact, I will stop myself (never with dead stop 0% sails but always with my yards and sails) purposefully nosed into their broadside to take a shot there instead of elsewhere.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Prater

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

If you bow camp the field of fire from the pursuer is as wide or tight as he wants, even if you reverse the turn you will be shot. Actually it is more easy to be bow camped in a slow hulk.

 

On the stern quadrant you force your victim to turn whole quadrant thus giving you room and time to manoeuvre out of firing arch.

[Flip]

Well yeah I aware of the armor being less in the back. The accuracy and penetration when kiting is something that botters me too. True I was more aiming at close range with my question.

You have a lot better control over the fights situation of you are behind them. In front of them a lot of things could happen, especially if you are trying to nose kite a square rigger in cutter or Lynx, they will likely catch you at 180 or near it.

[Alex Connor]

Not in any way a viable tactic unless your opponent is largely/completely disabled, the ship being "nose-camped" only has to turn towards your stern as soon as you turn to fire and they will get a broadside on you because both your movement and their movement is then working to put you in their arcs.

[jackplego]

With the new damage model, penetrating the bow will be hard for the fact that bows are angled, therefore shots are more likely to bounce or ricochet off and cause no damage.

[Juliette LaCroix]

Not in any way a viable tactic unless your opponent is largely/completely disabled, the ship being "nose-camped" only has to turn towards your stern as soon as you turn to fire and they will get a broadside on you because both your movement and their movement is then working to put you in their arcs.

 

My point exactly. So I guess we can settle this as a NO

[mouse of war]

I managed this trick once and, if I remember correctly, it was because the enemy ship was also being attacked on one or more sides by my team mates. Perhaps if the target's rudder was shot away it could work or if their foremast was down. But if they are free to manoeuvre then I wouldn't try this tactic.

[Flip]

I managed this trick once and, if I remember correctly, it was because the enemy ship was also being attacked on one or more sides by my team mates. Perhaps if the target's rudder was shot away it could work or if their foremast was down. But if they are free to manoeuvre then I wouldn't try this tactic.

 

It can be a devastating tactic in group fights or large fleet engagements if some ships get on the enemy lines nose, forcing the front ships to turn and engage them. This kinks the enemies line exposing 1 or 2 ships at a time to your entire line. It works even better if you can curl the enemy fleet into the wind so that they lose speed making running out of danger harder for their ships under fire.

[Mr. Doran]

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/b430vo3nbfs9vpj/AACVai-T7n4EF-0M_7J97k_da/A%20Treatise%20on%20Naval%20Action-Mr.%20Doran.pdf?dl=0

[maturin]

Only reason to hang out there is if a swarm of cutters are attacking an SoL, and you are trying not to collide with your allies.

[Austrum]

Well you also have to consider that the new damage model isn't in.  I think from what I have read, they are going to make shots hitting at an angle have less penetration which means shooting at the bow is eventually going to mean hitting the curved prow which will likely deflect the balls with very little damage.    The Stern however is nice and flat, plus you have that vulnerable rudder nicely exposed to damage as well.