Naval Battles in DarthMod Empire are...

[♔Drewoid13♔]

hey green tea, good point! I'll pass this along.

Your logic is infallible in your comparison of land and naval cannons. The runs were basically the same except for the mount the barrel sat on.

A practical fact check shows:

Demi-cannon were capable of firing these heavy metal balls with such force that they could penetrate more than a meter of solid oak, from a distance of 90 m (300 ft), and could dismast even the largest ships at close range.[66]

and

is the smoothbore 12 pounder Napoleon, which was renowned for its sturdiness, reliability, firepower, flexibility, relatively light weight, and range of 1,700 m (5,600 ft).[72]

(credit to wikipedia and the cited articles)

[♔Darmoth♔]

I have one suggestion. I tried a Mod for Napoleon, and the ships had a cannon range of I think 800 (the largest, slowest ships with the biggest cannons had the highest range, while sloops etc. had the lowest). I suggest that you try that too with this mod. My experience was that naval battles are just much, much better. Usually in sea battles, the AI forms a line with the "ships of the line" (and it has a historical reason why they were called so), but after some time, the AI line breaks and they all try to move between the players line. There is no reason why the AI should do that- usually, this is the moment in which the AI has lost the battle. Instead of shooting back, they catch broadsides with their front, and even if some make it (badly damaged) through the players line, they get destroyed by the cannons on the other side. And this is also annoying, because they often block the path of the players ships, or burn/explode and take the players ships with them. It reminds me a little bit of the melee bug. But this erratic behaviour by the AI usually comes when the distance between the combattants is too low. Higher cannon range could solve that problem. I hope that you (Darth) or someone who works on a submod tries this. And I think it is entirely okay to give ships a better range, land cannons got also changed (from 400- vanilla to 800-Darth). If a cannon on land (that is moved by men) can shoot that far, a heavier cannon on a ship should be able to do the same.

That's a good point. I had wondered about the range myself...

[Steeltrap]

By the time of Trafalgar the Brit fleet was proficient at firing effectively at 1 mile.

The '500' range in ETW is a fiction, as is much of the game's portrayal of the period.

[♔Drewoid13♔]

hey steeltrap, do you have a source for that? I had done a quick search and came up with a effective distance of 1000 feet, but a mile seems quite exceptional for this era...if not a bit improbable I daresay I'd love to read a source behind that though.

[green tea]

I have no time now, maybe when I am back I can search for a book- or you can do it yourself. On google books I once found a book, written by a prussian general before the war with Napoleon (around 1800). He wrote this book for young artillery officers to study. In it it was written that small cannons on land can fire more than 1000 meters, and that the range is usually only limited by the ability of the officer to spot where the cannonball went down. If the enemy is in a forest 600 meters away and you don´t see what you shoot at, it is pointless to shoot 1000 meters since you hit nothing. On sea, that may be entirely different since there are usually no obstacles (like woods or mountains), and ships are much larger than a group of men marching in column or line.

[♔Darmoth♔]

After a bit of research I came up with some interesting facts...

The HMS Victory we all know and love was equipped with 30 32-lber Blomefield cannons. The maximum range of the naval cannons were primarily restricted by the size of the gun port, so the elevations may seem small but make a huge difference.

At zero degrees elevation, a shot from one of these would be effective to 400 yards. At one degree of elevation it could achieve 820 yards. Two degrees, 1,200, and three degrees 1,500 yards. Other interesting tibits, the muzzle velocity for the standard load and charge was 1,600 feet per second. At 400 yards it could penetrate 42 inches of solid oak, while at 1,000 yards it could only penetrate a mere 31.5 inches of solid oak. Also interesting the hull of HMS Victory was only 2 feet thick at the water line.

Those were only what I found listed, it's quite possible given wind conditions and further elevation they'd go farther than that. Also this was just an example of one type of British naval cannon... I'm more than sure it varied for different nations, but I'd assume it would be similar. Oh, 1,500 yards is about 3/4ths a mile... so almost there.

EDIT: Darmoth sleepy now.

[♔Drewoid13♔]

According to http://www.bonps.org/gun_02.htm, the nappy smoothbore of 1857 range was "at 5 degree elevation was 1619 yards. (One mile equals 1760 yards.)"

[♔Drewoid13♔]

I have one suggestion. I tried a Mod for Napoleon, and the ships had a cannon range of I think 800 (the largest, slowest ships with the biggest cannons had the highest range, while sloops etc. had the lowest). I suggest that you try that too with this mod. My experience was that naval battles are just much, much better. Usually in sea battles, the AI forms a line with the "ships of the line" (and it has a historical reason why they were called so), but after some time, the AI line breaks and they all try to move between the players line. There is no reason why the AI should do that- usually, this is the moment in which the AI has lost the battle. Instead of shooting back, they catch broadsides with their front, and even if some make it (badly damaged) through the players line, they get destroyed by the cannons on the other side. And this is also annoying, because they often block the path of the players ships, or burn/explode and take the players ships with them. It reminds me a little bit of the melee bug. But this erratic behaviour by the AI usually comes when the distance between the combattants is too low. Higher cannon range could solve that problem. I hope that you (Darth) or someone who works on a submod tries this. And I think it is entirely okay to give ships a better range, land cannons got also changed (from 400- vanilla to 800-Darth). If a cannon on land (that is moved by men) can shoot that far, a heavier cannon on a ship should be able to do the same.

Greentea, in light of your post, I extended my research into cannon ranges, specifically the Victory's 32lb guns. Read it in the spoiler towards the bottom of this post http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...98#post7361498

[♔Mandelus♔]

By the time of Trafalgar the Brit fleet was proficient at firing effectively at 1 mile.

The '500' range in ETW is a fiction, as is much of the game's portrayal of the period.

Well, with the view of the landware specialist as I am, I must say it could be possible. Large canons from 24pdr onwards were able to shoot about 2.500m with a core shoot and maximum elevation.
So firing 1 mile = 1.600m could be possible but I see 2 problems:

a) because firing out of an hatch the needing high elevation could be a problem
b) even when this was no problem ... in a distance of about 1 mile the ships were not able to hit a target as large as the Trafalgar Square in London, maybe 2 or 3 balls will do. So firing on such a distance was totally useless at least

[♔Darmoth♔]

True that maximum range and maximum accurate range are shoes of another foot all together!

[♔Drewoid13♔]

Mandelus and Darmoth, check out my link in post 168. I did an extensive calculations test showing it is possible!

[♔Darmoth♔]

Mandelus and Darmoth, check out my link in post 168. I did an extensive calculations test showing it is possible!

I read that, very impressive research, I only meant to imply that while those ranges can definitely be reached, how accurate would they be?

I am in total agreement however, that increased range on naval cannons would be more realistic and is certainly worth testing. I think it might even open up new tactics that were actually used historically to the player and AI both.

[♔Mandelus♔]

Sure, but effective at this range in term do they even hit something not only by chance? This is the question.
On landwar it is quite possible, but the effective range where the gunner could realy targeting something was maximum 300m. As higher the distance gets, the chance was more the factor ...
The only exceptions were mortars and howitzers because they shoot therway and were other targeting.
Also remeber that at ships the guns fired from a moving platform which goes because of waves up and down, left and right ....

[♔Drewoid13♔]

Considering the Victory would sight her guns based off the enemy ships top mast, top deck, and hull (long range, medium range, point blank), its possible that damage could be caused (torn sail, random chap w/o a head...). The loss in velocity and resultant force wouldn't breech anyone's hull, but would carry a fear factor depending on the situation (poor merchant thought he could get away ). As to the ships rocking, this could/was an advantage! since the guns could only elevate so high before making a new gun port for itself, a rocking ship could easily gain range by the increased angle.

Without rifling, I'd say no, their accuracy at such a range would be crap. Taking into account resistance, winds, powder quality, and timing, the odds of hitting a ship at a mile out is slim at best. Not to say luck couldn't play a part!

"Effective" is of itself an ambiguous term, and not defined in any of the literature I've read, so each to his own imagination, no?

As to mortars and howitzers, unless they were using explosive shot (or exploding grape/canister shot), a round shot would have not more success at hitting a ship at range than the long gun! Since the same degrading problems apply.

[♔Mandelus♔]

Considering the Victory would sight her guns based off the enemy ships top mast, top deck, and hull (long range, medium range, point blank), its possible that damage could be caused (torn sail, random chap w/o a head...). The loss in velocity and resultant force wouldn't breech anyone's hull, but would carry a fear factor depending on the situation (poor merchant thought he could get away ). As to the ships rocking, this could/was an advantage! since the guns could only elevate so high before making a new gun port for itself, a rocking ship could easily gain range by the increased angle.

Without rifling, I'd say no, their accuracy at such a range would be crap. Taking into account resistance, winds, powder quality, and timing, the odds of hitting a ship at a mile out is slim at best. Not to say luck couldn't play a part!

"Effective" is of itself an ambiguous term, and not defined in any of the literature I've read, so each to his own imagination, no?

As to mortars and howitzers, unless they were using explosive shot (or exploding grape/canister shot), a round shot would have not more success at hitting a ship at range than the long gun! Since the same degrading problems apply.

Rifled guns will bring of course ahigher accuracy in aiming and hitting, but here we have the saem problem as always, that such guns werein age of ETW rare and not common, neither on sea or land. The real starting of rifled cannons starts first in mid 19. century and at US civil war were most cannons the "Napoleon" smoothbar of brass or iron.
Naval area was there a little bit faster at all, no doubts, but at the age of ETW and NTW there was no dramatic change or difference to landwarfare.
Effective is of course a flexible term and hard to definy, but we can take the bunch of informations about it and create a basic picture. The keyword is as with the musket the massive fire of much weapons to the same time and / or over a long time to the target. Simpel to say: As more weapons fire to the same targets and as longer they do, the chance to hit more will rise.

Finally:
Yes mortars and howitzer were not very accurate with the angle fire and the high trajectory at least. This is the reason why mortar and rocket ships are my "public enemy no. 1" (beside the steamships) in the game because they are 100% trash and pointless and only rediculous. Both were 100% siege weapons for naval sieges and were never ever used in a naval battle ships vs. ships! Even at calm sea they will never hit any enemy ship as they do in the game.
To say it clear: These ships must be kicked totally out of the game because only crap and should be replaced by something other.

[loony]

yesterday lost an equal see battle. twice.
won only on the third go.
the frenchies simply refuse to sink or surrender, despite being in RED health and demasted.

also, somehow each shot by the AI destroyes 2-3 cannons. my shot =0. wtf?
whem i won in the third go the last ship to surrender was admiral's fifth rate with red hull on both sides and 2 masts (out of 3) down.

and yes, to sink a ship with grapeshot it has to be point blank and it does not work on anything above a fourth rate and you have to have hull at least a little damaged to get the desired effect.

[Tango12345]

What were you playing on? Hard battle difficulty or Very Hard?

[♔Drewoid13♔]

Simpel to say: As more weapons fire to the same targets and as longer they do, the chance to hit more will rise.

Mandelus, I do love seeing the 18th century's version of Spray and Pray!

I don't dispute your assertion about rifling. It would have made the cannon very difficult to load as well since the round shot would twist with the grooves when muzzle loaded. Same problem GB riflemen had, no?

I do say steamships should be removed, and I've shown they're unrealistic for the game. Bomb ketchs and rocket ships though I'm more ok with. I have NEVER seen the AI build them, and I hardly use them myself. So to me, their inclusion doesn't bother me one way or the other. if naval sieges were possible, I'd see a use for them, as you said. But, like a 120 gun broadside at a mile out, fire enough rockets or shells into the air and you're bound to hit something! I can see rockets being less useful (and rarely working) since the tech was still so new at the time. Idk, i'm going back and forth writing this. The bomb ketch is ok, the shell makes it effective; although they weren't used in major naval engagements (and they really do little in ETW anyway), its one of those things that can stay, leave the player with options (which i'm fanatically in favour of), and then remove them if a better ship class can take its place (which i haven't found one)

[♔Drewoid13♔]

yesterday lost an equal see battle. twice.
won only on the third go.
the frenchies simply refuse to sink or surrender, despite being in RED health and demasted.

also, somehow each shot by the AI destroyes 2-3 cannons. my shot =0. wtf?
whem i won in the third go the last ship to surrender was admiral's fifth rate with red hull on both sides and 2 masts (out of 3) down.

and yes, to sink a ship with grapeshot it has to be point blank and it does not work on anything above a fourth rate and you have to have hull at least a little damaged to get the desired effect.

keep in mind that wind has a factor! did you have the wind to your back?

I did notice a problem here and its something we hope a naval mod will fix (hence the call for research in a diff thread) and I hope to personally do some beta testing on this. thanks for the report!

[♔Darmoth♔]

I must say I enjoy the noisy, messy buggers too much to simply get rid of steamships... would it be possible to restrict them to the late campaign? That might make some happy at least. Personally considering after turn one, military and industrial research becomes a-historical anyway in Empire I have no real problem with the steamships.