Naval Balance in 1.4: Demasting

[Darthey]

Played about with the new balancing this afternoon, the fight was a 2nd Rate and a 5th Rate against my 4th Rate and two 5th Rates; something of an even fight.

Only it wasn't.

Me, starting downwind, lined up to rake him as he approached with chain. As the 5th rate came into range all three ships fired...and all three of his masts collapsed.

Fair enough, I though. A 5th Rate shouldn't have so much mast strength.

On came the 2nd Rate, and the exact same thing happened. One volley from each ship, and she was demasted and helpless.

I don't know if this is a side effect from increasing the accuracy of smaller ships, but I'm amazed it made it through beta-testing. These smaller ships should be using their long accurate guns and speed to fight beyond the larger ships range, not rendering them helpless with ease before they fire a shot.

[Jack Aubrey KB,MP,JP,FRS]

I used a sloop to dismast a 2nd rate but all three masts were standing but had lost manuevarability.

[IDF]

I also noticed a significant increase in the efectiveness of chainshot. I kind of like it though, it appears to be truly lethal only when you're able to cross the t of the target ship and when its sails are unfurled. This gives incentives for standard line fighting and makes "going straight at 'em" a risky endeavour (but with a huge payoff if you manage to get into a firing position with a functioning ship), which is how it should be.

[Darthey]

Just had a 5th Rate vs 5th Rate scrap. Moved for the wind, the AI tacked down towards me. As we came up on broadside he fired first with chain; took down my mainmast and killed my captain in the first volley. I returned fire with chain, but against his lowered sails (sailing into the wind) scored no masts.

My ship floundered, and he sailed right across my bow and took out another mast with his second volley. My ship surrendered.

That might have been a lucky first volley, but please. If it is going to be this easy to demast ships upwind of you then there is no point manoeuvring to gain the weather gauge at all.

[OldCrowWhiskey]

I also noticed a significant increase in the efectiveness of chainshot. I kind of like it though, it appears to be truly lethal only when you're able to cross the t of the target ship and when its sails are unfurled. This gives incentives for standard line fighting and makes "going straight at 'em" a risky endeavour (but with a huge payoff if you manage to get into a firing position with a functioning ship), which is how it should be.

I'm in love with the new naval balance. It's so much more natural now. The big ships turn much slower than the small ships making them finally relevant to the mid-late game. Chain shot actually works! Even the BAI seems a bit smarter and more organized. Loving it loving it loving it

[Darthey]

But chainshot taking out masts that easily is completely unrealistic. The effect of chainshot was usually to cut rigging and sails. Why would naval battles go on for entire days if disabling ones opponent was so simple?

Right now I auto-resolved against two french frigates with a 5th rate, a 4th rate and a 2nd rate. I lost, and lost the 2nd rate to boot. This has become all kinds of screwed up.

[snurresprett]

Chainshot would not be able to cut a mast by itself... but if the chainshot cuts away the rigging supporting the mast then, believe me, that mast is going nowhere but down! The spider's web of stays, backstays and shrouds is not there for decorative purposes.

BTW multi-day naval battles were few and far between. The only one I can think of right now was the Four Day's Battle, and that was during one of the Dutch-British wars. While fleets might spend days maneuvering for advantage prior to battle, the actual shooting was usually done with in a single day.

[gsd503]

I posted a pic with one of this a while back, it is one of my main issues with the new patch http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=297694

I don't know if the chain shot damage is realistic or not but at the moment it means you can pull off unimaginable naval victories against the AI on any difficuly level due the AIs willingness to sail straight towards your ships. Basically when I see a enemy fleet approaching all I think about is how I'm gona spend the prize money. I really think this needs some sort of hotfix to fix the behaviour of the AI. It changes the whole nature of the game (for the worse)

[UlteriorModem]

The concept of chain shot was to wrap around the rigging and spars and foul the rigging.

Not tear down the spars only a well placed round shot should do that on larger ships.

[Slaists]

Currently, chainshot is the only shot type I use. I suspect, it is a tad overpowered, especially since the AI seems to ignore it preferring the round shot. In my latest naval battle my single sloop was cornered (while blockading a port) by 4 enemy brigs. I decided not to auto-lose, but see what it would look like in the battle. My single sloop demasted and captured all 4 brigs while not getting a scratch...

[Darthey]

I've seen larger AI ships use chain.

A word of warning; auto-resolve can't handle these changes well. I've had three sloops get attacked by three enemy capital ships, and win. I've also sent a 4th rate, a 5th rate and a 2nd rate against a pair of frigates and loose, with the 2nd rate captured. God knows what's up with the mechanics.

[wulfgar610]

Looking at the DB projectile tables. Chain shot damage from cannon varies from 4 for the lighter cannon, to 5 for the large cannon.
However the "long range" cannon the frigates and sloop ships use. All have a damage factor of 8.

I can't recall what chain shot was before. But frigates and small ships get twice the damage factor on chain shot that the SOL's do.

More creative BS from CA I guess?

[OldCrowWhiskey]

They made the smaller ships relevant. Like it was back then, it's now essential to use a mix of naval assets - spamming 2nd rates is no longer a good strategy. Thank god.

Even if the small ships have more powerful chain shot, they have less total cannons with which to make a hit. One volley from a capital ship can take out half or more of a frigate's cannons on one side. While they may be slightly overpowered at the moment, I completely understand the reasoning because it rewards naval variety.

[drake546]

They made the smaller ships relevant. Like it was back then, it's now essential to use a mix of naval assets - spamming 2nd rates is no longer a good strategy. Thank god.

Even if the small ships have more powerful chain shot, they have less total cannons with which to make a hit. One volley from a capital ship can take out half or more of a frigate's cannons on one side. While they may be slightly overpowered at the moment, I completely understand the reasoning because it rewards naval variety.

No, that is not how it was back then.



Not a single ship under 64 guns even engaged the French. They're not meant for use in battle because they're too damn fragile, they're inaccurate gun platforms, and they did not carry cannon large enough to have a meaningful range.

If CA wants the naval battles to be inaccurate to make them more "fun," then whatever. But I don't think I'd enjoy having my Aegis cruisers get sunk by a ski boat any more than I enjoy sloops and brigs having any sort of effect on ships of the line. Small vessels should stay the hell out of the way of those larger vessels.

Naval variety was not important in this era from a battle perspective, it was important from a strategic perspective. Smaller vessels were cheaper, and were used in tasks where it wasn't worth sending a ship of the line. Escort duty, anti piracy, courier runs, those are jobs for sloops and brigs (and even frigates). In game terms, they should be carrying agents and clearing trade routes of pirates (who should also only have sloops and brigs generally, with the occasional sixth or fifth rate).

Battle formation is a job for a ship of the line, which is why they're called Ships of the line.

In my opinion CA should have simply given the small vessels greater range on the campaign map than other ships, to represent that they need less supply. This would still be inaccurate, but it would allow them to actually serve the purpose they did historically. They'd also need to be incapable of carrying large numbers of troops, but that is an entirely different set of issues with the current game.

[wulfgar610]

The reason there isn't naval variety is small ships are so expensive compared to the larger ships. And this is not even historically accurate. A 2nd rate would historically require 7x the crew and cost 7x as much to build as a sloop. The same was even more true for running costs. In game the ratio is 5x. The HMS Victory spent it's first decade in mothballs because they couldn't afford to run it.

Part of the reason is in the ship models there is always 2 crew per cannon. Historically a 32 pounder weighed 3.5 tons and would need something on the order of a dozen men to man it efficiently. A 6 pounder would need 4 men at best. Some of the lighter carronades would only need 2 or 3 men.

In game the manpower is reduced in scale. In land battles the ratio is 1 figure per 5 actual men.

But the stuff with chain shot is nonsense. There is no evidence chain shot was used that often. Ship guns could only hit another ship firing point blank. That means the 300 meters of flat trajectory. Chain shot would lose accuracy at much shorter distances than that.

But if CA wants smaller ships used.......then why are they more expensive than they were in history? In the vanilla game they are simply not cost effective. I don't use them much, because they are too expensive. Where as actually I'd prefer to have one to protect each port. With others scouting the oceans. And some in battle to pursue fleeing larger ships. In my modded game I lowered the costs on them and used them because they were cost effective.

Historically 300 ton a river or brig sloop carried 100 to 120 men. A 1900 ton 2nd rate would carry over 700 men. Historically there was up to 4 small ships to 1 SOL in wartime.

Historically SOL's had poor range until the end of the Napoleonic wars. They couldn't carry the on board supplies required for long distance voyages. And stress on the hull made them un-seaworthy at a much faster rate. Frigates were especially designed for long distance voyages.

The largest ship on the high seas was the 50 and most were smaller frigates. But on the strategic map SOL's go as far per turn as small ships.

Cost and range are two things CA could change.

[drake546]

Those are really good points Wulf, CA could easily increase their strategic range and decrease the cost and give them a much stronger purpose.

They'd also be a lot more useful as scouts if the Fog of War didn't get removed by trade routes.

[wulfgar610]

Those are really good points Wulf, CA could easily increase their strategic range and decrease the cost and give them a much stronger purpose.

They'd also be a lot more useful as scouts if the Fog of War didn't get removed by trade routes.

There's still plenty of FOG outside the trade routes. I've had enemy fleets hide in the FOG. I tried to find them by splitting up the SOL's. This proved to not be a good idea , when the enemy fleet would jump one ship on it's own.
I needed cheap expendables for the scouting. So I modded down the costs of the Brigs and Sloops and then I tend to use them. What's the point of a Brig that cost 170 per turn, when I can have a 6th rate for an extra 60 points per turn?

I modded down the damage from chain shot from 10 and 8....down the 3. And reduced chain shot range from 500 and 400 to 300 and 250.

Blasted away at a 5th rate with several ships om chain and not one mast came down.

[caralampio]

There's still plenty of FOG outside the trade routes. I've had enemy fleets hide in the FOG. I tried to find them by splitting up the SOL's. This proved to not be a good idea , when the enemy fleet would jump one ship on it's own.
I needed cheap expendables for the scouting. So I modded down the costs of the Brigs and Sloops and then I tend to use them. What's the point of a Brig that cost 170 per turn, when I can have a 6th rate for an extra 60 points per turn?

I modded down the damage from chain shot from 10 and 8....down the 3. And reduced chain shot range from 500 and 400 to 300 and 250.

Blasted away at a 5th rate with several ships om chain and not one mast came down.

In which section does one make these changes?

[Bernhardt]

You reverted all naval changes? Don´t think that is reaaaaly necessary, only chain shot deserves a correction. Some people said hulls seem frailer too, but to me it´s not very different from 1.3.

Oh yeah, 5th rates rule! that´s why it´s so good to play as the UK. And BTW naval dominance is more important than ever.

[caralampio]

You reverted all naval changes? Don´t think that is reaaaaly necessary, only chain shot deserves a correction. Some people said hulls seem frailer too, but to me it´s not very different from 1.3.

Oh yeah, 5th rates rule! that´s why it´s so good to play as the UK. And BTW naval dominance is more important than ever.

Reverting everything was a PITA. Extensive changes were made, and many of them lacked any logic. Hulls were frailer, roundshot stronger (which resulted in ships being sunk or exploding real fast), all naval units had considerably lowered morale (probably to make them surrender as soon as they were demasted), the tiny ships were faster, very accurate, their chainshot was very powerful. The larger ships were made less accurate. Reloading skill was vastly increased especially for small ships. OTOH the chainshot damage of large ships had been lowered considerably (there was practically an exchange of values between large and small ships).

I was happy with things as they worked before, so I went back in time to that status. Now, if I only could fix the melee bug...