90 gun ship is too weak compared to the 74 gunner :(

[Silent Gent~]

Hello everyone,

Thank you for having me. First off, I want to say I absolutely love the game...

But I noticed something that bothered me and is WAY wrong. The 86 gun second rate ( which should be 90 or 98 guns instead ) is weaker than the 74 gunner! This is a MAJOR discrepancy.

90 gun vessels carried 32 or 36 pounders on the gundeck, 18 poundrs on the middle deck, and 12 pounders on the upper deck, while 74 gunners typically carried 32 pounders on the lower deck, with some minor nations only having 24 pounder on the lower deck such as Denmark and Sweden- the upper deck consisting of 18 pounders. NOTE: it was NOT until the late 18th century that 74 gunners began carrying 24 pounders on the upper deck.

Is anything being done about this to fix this?

Thanks so much! I'm so happy to be here, and to learn, and share with the rest of the forum.

SilentGent

Here is the data for the Sandwich class 90-gun ship of the line, note the armament:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandwic...ip_of_the_line

And here is the London and Neptune class, 90 AND 98 gun 2nd rate ships of the line, again note the armament and do the math:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...ip_of_the_line

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune...ip_of_the_line


NOW, look at contemporary 74 gunners, and you be the judge...

Alfred class 74 gun ships of the line:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_...ip_of_the_line

Even ships made in 1800 were STILL carrying 18- pounder cannons on the upper gun deck, and NOT 24-pounders.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repulse...ip_of_the_line

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

Its pretty doubtful...

[Silent Gent~]

Its pretty doubtful...

It's a shame... The 2nd rates were supposed to be stronger than the 74 gunners, thats why they were flagships in the major naval battles such as The Battle of Malaga, and especially in foreign stations where 1st rates could not be sparred, like the "Battle of the Cheasapeake."

If you would like to really do the ships historically accurate for ALL navies, check this out:

http://www.sailingwarships.com/

[l33tl4m3r]

I'll bookmark this thread and see what I can do, as I have done little in the way of historical corrections for the navies as of yet.

[Silent Gent~]

I'll bookmark this thread and see what I can do, as I have done little in the way of historical corrections for the navies as of yet.

That's awesome! There's alot of work that needs to be done to properly ballance the units. I'm ready to assist you in any way I can. I am a history major too by the way...

Silent Gent

PS, sorry for double post


And yes, the HMS Sandwich was named for the Earl of Sandwhich, the First Sea Lord and the inventor of the Sandwich.

[Otherside]

lol HMS Sandwich

[tskhdawson]

lol HMS Sandwich

You have to remember the food was named after the peerage, which was named after the place. Therefore, I suspect the ship was named after the place, which was and still is common for warships.

First rates where huge slow and unwieldy floating fortresses, whist 3rd rates where the perfect balance between speed/maneuverability and firepower. 2nd rates couldn't really achieve either, they where outgunned by 1st rates and out maneuvered by 3rd rates and therefore pretty useless, which is why (a) Battleship fleets consisted mostly of 3rd rates and 1st rates, and (b) something which is not very good is considered 'second rate'.

[Geordie-warlord]

You have to remember the food was named after the peerage, which was named after the place. Therefore, I suspect the ship was named after the place, which was and still is common for warships.

First rates where huge slow and unwieldy floating fortresses, whist 3rd rates where the perfect balance between speed/maneuverability and firepower. 2nd rates couldn't really achieve either, they where outgunned by 1st rates and out maneuvered by 3rd rates and therefore pretty useless, which is why (a) Battleship fleets consisted mostly of 3rd rates and 1st rates, and (b) something which is not very good is considered 'second rate'.

nice one......it was thinking along the same lines...or "rates"..lol

[Gabriel Anton]

Those links provided actually prove why the 74 gun ship based on the French design was so good.

Against other Ships of the Line, only the very heavy guns are the effective weapons for causing significant damage to an enemies hull. These are the 'primary' guns. And a 90 gun ship carried roughly the same amount as the 74, around 28. One of the reasons the larger ships were built only by the few, and used for command and control. The extra weight of fire in the smaller caliber weapons was not nearly enough to compensate for reduced speed and maneuverability.

And sure there were 24 pounder weapons being used on the upper gun deck. In fact, the most numerous capital ship ever built no less , lol , being built well before 1800.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%A9...ip_of_the_line

[Silent Gent~]

An excellent point, and notice that the 74 gunners you have pointed out were French and not English. And yes I agree that the "standard" British 74 gunner had better speed and maneuverability, but the fact of the matter remains that if you compare the broadside weight of an English 74 to an English 90 gunner, the 90 gunner throws more metal.

An even better point is why the French focused on the 80 gunners which were pierced for 32 guns on the lower deck, being 36-pounders that outclassed the 32-gunners of the British, and 32 24 pounder on the upper gun deck. With ships like these, the French rightfully decided NOT to build 3 deck 90 gunners and instead focused on the more powerful 80 gunners which could outfight a standard British 90 gunner. It is interesting to note that the British did NOT build 80 gun 2 deckers until 1793 with the HMS Caesar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Caesar_(1793)

BTW, I firmly believe we should have the 80- gunners in the game.

[NovaColonel]

My main fleets usually consist of second raters and some carronade frigates - a setup which is quite effective... So what's so bad about the 2-raters?

[Shigawire]

There's a lot more that needs to be corrected with the naval battles.

1) Cannon firing arcs are too wide, each cannon shouldn't be possible to rotate within the ship's hull more than a 20 degree arc.

2) Cannon fire too accurately. This is connected with problem 1. Were problem 1 corrected, the accuracy would be naturally hampered. This leads to people playing naval battles using exclusively "fire at will" - and leads to unnatural outcomes in naval battles.