PDA

View Full Version : House Rule - Carronades



David Manley
01-05-2014, 07:34
Chaps, the lack of carronades in the rules has been mentioned here and elsewhere. I thought I'd draft a simple set of additional rules to cover them. Here's a starting suggestion:


Shooting at long range (yellow) - no additional effect


Shooting at medium range (orange) - draw "A" damage chits equal to 1/3 gunnery rounded up in addition to normal damage


Shooting at short range (Red/Purple) - draw "B" damage chits equal to 1/3 gunnery rounded up in addition to normal damage

Comments welcomed :)

fredmiracle
01-05-2014, 10:56
Everything I know about carronades is what I vaguely recall from the issue of S&T containing Fighting Sail that I received at roughly age 11. But didn't mounting carronades involve a tradeoff--giving up longer range firepower to get more throwweight close in?

David Manley
01-05-2014, 11:10
Everything I know about carronades is what I vaguely recall from the issue of S&T containing Fighting Sail that I received at roughly age 11. But didn't mounting carronades involve a tradeoff--giving up longer range firepower to get more throwweight close in?

Not in most cases. Carronades weren't counted as part of the standard ship fit, which is why you see 38 gun frigates mounting 40+ guns, as they shipped extra carronades. They were also lighter than equivalent long guns and were mounted on slides rather than wheeled carriages so they were easier to fit in areas less useful for more traditional pieces.

Some ships though did land all their long guns to give themselves an extremely heavy short range punch. Obviously in these cases there was a penalty in terms of ineffectiveness (sometimes total) at longer ranges.

Diamondback
01-05-2014, 11:44
ISTR that over-carronading contributed to the taking of USS Essex...

This ties in with an idea I had for "ship upgrade" cards--how would we value an extra 4 carronades on, say, a 32 vs. on a 74?

The Mad Hatter
01-05-2014, 12:36
Not sure what my opinion is on what the actual rules should be, but I do feel we do need rules for carronades. They add quite a bit of difference to the way a battle would be fought - do I have a ship that's heavily cannon armed or do I have a significant number of carronades? Tactically I think it would add a lot the game as the carronade ship would be deadly at close range where the weight of shot could just devastate the enemy, while the enemy works to try to stay at longer range to maximize the use of his long guns. Based on my limited playing thus far, I think it'd change a lot of the dynamics of movement and game tactics.

Just my two cents - have to think more about what I think the rules should look like.

Andy Blozinski
01-05-2014, 12:45
If you're trying to simulate a ship that had a handful of carronades to supplement the cannons already there, it's possible that is already included in the different damage chits for range. Ares could verify this. If you're trying to simulate a ship whose primary armament is carronades, then a ship card similar to the captain/crew deck cards would be the best way to implement.

David Manley
01-05-2014, 12:51
I'm fairly sure they aren't. The difference between those with and those without certainly isn't.

I've found the carronade question to be particularly relevant in campaigns. We've runa few in the past where some players have gone carronade crazy and sought any opportunity to rearm their ships, maybe reading too much on the career of the Essex. sometimes its paid off, sometimes it ended as it did for Essex, with an unbalanced armament against someone with longer arms. But it did add something to the campaign, and to the uncertainty when going up against what appeared to be a regular '36 but might not be.....

Whatever we come up with a simple rule addition on a card in the same way as the captain and crew ability cards is probably the thing to aim for. it works well for weapon upgrades in X Wing

Пилот
01-05-2014, 13:10
Mayby simple table, something like

0 - 4, no effect
5 - 8, 1 extra counter for full broadside, otherwise no effect
9 - 12, 2 extra counter for full broadside, otherwise 1 counter

or something similar (this is just example)

And about decreasing of fire power due to losses": each loss would decrease fire power for one level (9-12 becomes 5-8 etc.)

The Mad Hatter
01-05-2014, 13:33
Since I don't have my copy, I can't look at the damage chits, but here's my take.

A ship that has significant carronades (i.e. something that has been armed with 18 cannons and 30 carronades, not a ship with 4 carronades) - you do something like minus one chit at long range, plus one chit at short range. If you really wanted to create more difference, you could do minus two at long range, plus two at short - even halve the long range and double the short if you really wanted. To me, that's the easiest way to do this.

Alternatively you could look at the difference between the chits in A versus B etc. You could even say carronades use a more potent chit level, but only operate at short range. I.e. a ship that has 2/3/2 would use one set of chits for long range damage (a lower damaging chit set) and the highest damaging chit set at short range.

In my mind, keeping it as simple as possible is key. Since the different chits with different loads/ranges are already integral to the game, I'd look there for the solution. Either number of chits or type of chits.

csadn
01-05-2014, 17:05
And for fans of the Russians, there's this freaky beast, the "edinorog" (unicorn): http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgkeysearchdetail.cfm?trg=1&strucID=465573&imageID=1213218&word=Arms%20and%20armor%20--%20Russia%20--%20History&s=3&notword=&d=&c=194&f=2&k=3&lWord=&lField=&sScope=Collection%20Guide&sLevel=&sLabel=Icons%20and%20Images%20of%20Cultures%3A%20Plate%20Books...&total=305&num=140&imgs=20&pNum=&pos=156 ....

David Manley
01-05-2014, 17:07
Yes, but its another weapon that spectacularly failed to make any impression on naval warfare until more developed forms appeared a few decades later (and even then their effects have been rather overstated)

Coog
01-05-2014, 18:24
I would be interested in knowing how the firepower factors for ships were determined to start with, particularly how carronades were figured into the equation. Not having my order yet and being able to have a good look at the game, I'm not sure of how everything balances out. The game may be way too simplified to adjust for gun range and type differences.

The Royal Hajj
01-06-2014, 09:49
David probably has the most experience in this area with both the armament and the game. But I think the range in this game might be to short to effectively differentiate the cannon and carronade ships?

DeRuyter
01-06-2014, 09:54
IMO any campaign or scenario for 1812 lake battles needs specific rules for carronades. Many of the smaller ships, brigs in particular were armed primarily with carronades. Also as was previously mentioned, the USS Essex and an earlier SoL example would be the HMS Glatton (Cpt Bligh in command!).

A prime example of a game effect would be Lake Erie, where the American's being primarily carronade armed had to close the range with the British line while under fire from their long guns. A good play test start might be to exclude long range shots (except bow chasers) from ships armed primarily with carronades.

Eric

Coog
01-06-2014, 12:20
I think I would have firepower numbers for each range based on number of guns for that range. Something like long range for larger long guns only, let's say 12 pounders and larger, medium range for smaller long guns such as 6 and 9 pounders, and short range for carronades. Damage chits would be based on gun size.

csadn
01-06-2014, 14:22
David probably has the most experience in this area with both the armament and the game. But I think the range in this game might be to short to effectively differentiate the cannon and carronade ships?

Given the vagueness of scale in the game (the ships may be 1/1000, but we have no idea how long a turn is), it's hard to tell what ranges actually are. However, cannon fire was generally ineffective past about 200 yards -- not because the cannon couldn't reach, but because aiming tech was near to nonexistent (and coupled to the fact that both gunner and target are moving three-dimensionally...), so really, "range" should be more a matter of "can the gunner hit" rather than "how far does the shot go".

The Royal Hajj
01-06-2014, 14:42
My thinking was more along the lines that if we decide that range should be a stat for the carronades, is there enough difference between the current ranges to make that a viable option?

In game turns, how often are we going to be at long range where carronades (if we limit them to half rang and less) are out of range but the long cannon ships can still effectively attack? In almost all of the games I've seen, the ships end up in close range for 90% of the fighting, or even stuck yard arm to yard arm.

At what point in the Age of Sail did carronades supersede regular cannons?

DeRuyter
01-06-2014, 14:56
My thinking was more along the lines that if we decide that range should be a stat for the carronades, is there enough difference between the current ranges to make that a viable option?

In game turns, how often are we going to be at long range where carronades (if we limit them to half rang and less) are out of range but the long cannon ships can still effectively attack? In almost all of the games I've seen, the ships end up in close range for 90% of the fighting, or even stuck yard arm to yard arm.

At what point in the Age of Sail did carronades supersede regular cannons?

I don't think they ever superseded long guns, rather for larger ships added to the broadside throw weight at close range. Also since they were smaller and lighter they could be mounted higher on the ship, ie; Victory's 68 lb smasher. For smaller (unrated) ships the advantage was the ability to place much heavier weight on the broadside than could be done with long guns. The penalty was in lack of "effective" range.

I think if the Captain knew his opponent was primarily armed with carronades then he could stand off at long range, which is what happened with the USS Essex.

Eric

fredmiracle
01-06-2014, 14:57
Sorry to ask the stupid question, but just to double-check, I presume it has been confirmed that none of the models in the first wave carried carronades at the time they are portrayed?

csadn
01-06-2014, 15:21
At what point in the Age of Sail did carronades supersede regular cannons?

Never -- in fact, as tech advanced, the emphasis was on ever-longer-ranged guns. The problem was not "could the cannon reach"; the problem was "could the gunners hit the target".

DeRuyter
01-06-2014, 15:25
Sorry to ask the stupid question, but just to double-check, I presume it has been confirmed that none of the models in the first wave carried carronades at the time they are portrayed?

Several folks may have researched those ships in particular, it is possible but may be unlikely on the earlier British ships. See this Wikipedia excerpt:

Carronades initially became popular on British merchant ships during the American Revolutionary War. A lightweight gun that needed only a small gun crew and was devastating at short range was a weapon well suited to defending merchant ships against French and American privateers. In the Action of 4 September 1782, the impact of a single carronade broadside fired at close range by the frigate HMS Rainbow under Henry Trollope caused a wounded French captain to capitulate and surrender the Hebe after a short fight.[4]

The Royal Navy was initially reluctant to adopt the guns, mainly due to mistrust of the Carron Company, which had developed a reputation for incompetence and commercial sharp practice.[5] Carronades were not even counted in numbering the guns of a ship. It was Lord Sandwich who eventually started mounting them in place of the light guns on the forecastle and quarterdeck of ships. They soon proved their effectiveness in battle. French gun foundries were unable to produce equivalents for twenty years,[5] so carronades gave British warships a significant tactical advantage during the latter part of the 18th century — though French ships mounted another type of weapon in the same role, the obusier de vaisseau. HMS Victory used the two 68-pounder carronades which she carried on her forecastle to great effect at the Battle of Trafalgar, clearing the gun deck of the Bucentaure by firing a round shot and a keg of 500 musket balls through the Bucentaure's stern windows.

The carronade was initially very successful and widely adopted, and a few experimental ships (for example, HMS Glatton and HMS Rainbow[5]) were fitted with a carronade-only armament. Glatton, a fourth-rate ship with 56 guns, had a more destructive broadside than HMS Victory, a first-rate ship with 100 guns. Although Glatton and Rainbow were both successful in battle, the carronade's lack of range against an opponent who could keep well clear and still use his long guns was an arguable tactical disadvantage of this arrangement.

In the 1810s and 1820s, tactics started to place a greater emphasis on the accuracy of long-range gunfire, and less on the weight of a broadside. Indeed, Captain David Porter of USS Essex complained when the navy replaced his 12-pounder long guns with 32-pounder carronades. The carronade disappeared from the Royal Navy from the 1850s after the development of steel-jacketed cannon by William George Armstrong and Joseph Whitworth. Carronades were nevertheless still used in the American Civil War in the 1860s. The last known use of a carronade in conflict was during the First Boer War. In the siege of Potchefstroom the Boers used 'Ou Griet', an antique carronade mounted on a wagon axle, against the British fort.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carronade

Interesting bit about the English suspicions of the foundry.

Coog
01-06-2014, 16:13
My thinking was more along the lines that if we decide that range should be a stat for the carronades, is there enough difference between the current ranges to make that a viable option?

In game turns, how often are we going to be at long range where carronades (if we limit them to half rang and less) are out of range but the long cannon ships can still effectively attack? In almost all of the games I've seen, the ships end up in close range for 90% of the fighting, or even stuck yard arm to yard arm.

At what point in the Age of Sail did carronades supersede regular cannons?

I think once everyone gets the hang of the movement system and maneuvering their ships better, we could see situations where range would make a difference. I have played in games using other systems where I kept my distance to take advantage of having guns with longer ranges and it does work quite effectively.

I don't know if trying to tinker with the existing SOG combat system would be workable as it might throw the system out of balance. SOG, like WOG, was designed to be a simple game and in doing so gives up detail for simplicity. For those times a more detailed game is desired, we might have to just play a different game.

The Royal Hajj
01-06-2014, 18:17
Okay, I did not think they ever replaced them... so my thoughts would be that they should only be fired at C/D range and use added counters from either the A or B set. Perhaps an easy solution would be to add the current fore/aft number to the standard fire power being dealt by the ship.

So, if we take an undamaged Commerce De Bordeaux, it has a 4-7-4 fire power, a long range full broadside would throw 7 A counters. At short range (should we call this special range since all the ammo there is considered special?) it would throw the 7 for the full broadside and 4 extra B counters (if we decide on B) for the carronades? After taking four boxes of damage, it would throw 5 for the full broadside and an extra 3 for the carronades. This would simplify balancing how many of each type was destroyed as the ship took damage. I would also be ease to add up how many counters you deal out.

Andy Blozinski
01-06-2014, 19:43
Okay, I did not think they ever replaced them... so my thoughts would be that they should only be fired at C/D range and use added counters from either the A or B set. Perhaps an easy solution would be to add the current fore/aft number to the standard fire power being dealt by the ship.

So, if we take an undamaged Commerce De Bordeaux, it has a 4-7-4 fire power, a long range full broadside would throw 7 A counters. At short range (should we call this special range since all the ammo there is considered special?) it would throw the 7 for the full broadside and 4 extra B counters (if we decide on B) for the carronades? After taking four boxes of damage, it would throw 5 for the full broadside and an extra 3 for the carronades. This would simplify balancing how many of each type was destroyed as the ship took damage. I would also be ease to add up how many counters you deal out.

I kind of like that kind of thinking for a reference, but.....
Ya know...on a stern rake that's (17) B counters. We need to be careful not to get too carried away with this stuff.

The Royal Hajj
01-06-2014, 22:24
Yes, rakes could be a problem... but than we can just say that the carronades don't get the extra "rake" counters.

David Manley
01-06-2014, 23:08
Given the vagueness of scale in the game (the ships may be 1/1000, but we have no idea how long a turn is), it's hard to tell what ranges actually are. However, cannon fire was generally ineffective past about 200 yards -- not because the cannon couldn't reach, but because aiming tech was near to nonexistent (and coupled to the fact that both gunner and target are moving three-dimensionally...), so really, "range" should be more a matter of "can the gunner hit" rather than "how far does the shot go".

Maximum range was in the region of 2k-3k yards. Typical effective engagement distances started at about half that, but obviously there was a keenness to bring the range down to "point blank" or less

David Manley
01-06-2014, 23:14
I don't know if trying to tinker with the existing SOG combat system would be workable as it might throw the system out of balance. SOG, like WOG, was designed to be a simple game and in doing so gives up detail for simplicity. For those times a more detailed game is desired, we might have to just play a different game.

for an age of sail game SGN combines an interesting mix of complexity and simplicity. Crew management for example is at the higher end of the complexity scale for an Aos set of rules, yet the gunnery system is remarkably simple and coarse in its coverage. It really is a very interesting combination. that coarseness in the gunnery system opens up many possibilities for modification to develop an expanded system for actions involving only frigates and smaller ships.

Berthier
01-07-2014, 04:48
for an age of sail game SGN combines an interesting mix of complexity and simplicity. Crew management for example is at the higher end of the complexity scale for an Aos set of rules, yet the gunnery system is remarkably simple and coarse in its coverage. It really is a very interesting combination. that coarseness in the gunnery system opens up many possibilities for modification to develop an expanded system for actions involving only frigates and smaller ships.

David are you suggesting the "coarseness" in the gunnery system is a deliberate design intent to allow for later modification, or that's the way it is and it just happens to be amenable to modification?

ie Did you let slip future release information :wink:

The Royal Hajj
01-07-2014, 07:48
Yes, rakes could be a problem... but than we can just say that the carronades don't get the extra "rake" counters.

A simpler way to state this would be: Carronades damage counters are add after all other modifiers. Also, because of the ranking rules (well, mainly because of them) I think carronade damage should be drawn from the A set regardless of range they are shot at. We don't want to make them to powerful or they will supersede the long guns in the game.

fredmiracle
01-07-2014, 11:52
A simpler way to state this would be: Carronades damage counters are add after all other modifiers.

The raking bonus and "first shot" bonus don't compound IIRC, so there would be a precedent for not compounding carronades too...

The Royal Hajj
01-07-2014, 13:12
The raking bonus and "first shot" bonus don't compound IIRC, so there would be a precedent for not compounding carronades too...

it appears they do stack...



When playing with Standard Rules, calculate the effect of the Raking rule and the First Broadside rule independently.

One would figure up the additional counters for the Ranking, add them to the normal shots and do the same for the First Broadside. You would not however, add the Raking shot to the normal ones, than take that total and apply the First Broadside rule to it.

fredmiracle
01-07-2014, 13:32
it appears they do stack...

One would figure up the additional counters for the Ranking, add them to the normal shots and do the same for the First Broadside. You would not however, add the Raking shot to the normal ones, than take that total and apply the First Broadside rule to it.

Yeah, additive but not compounding.

So if you have a gunnery factor of 5, and were firing a a hypothetical 1/3 bonus carronade rule, a first broadside, and a stern rake you would draw 5 + (5/3 = 2) + (5/3 = 2) + (5/2 = 3) = 12 chits, not ((5 + (5/3 = 2) = 7) + (7/3 = 3) = 10) + (10/2 = 5) = 15

The Royal Hajj
01-07-2014, 13:51
Yeah, additive but not compounding.

So if you have a gunnery factor of 5, and were firing a a hypothetical 1/3 bonus carronade rule, a first broadside, and a stern rake you would draw 5 + (5/3 = 2) + (5/3 = 2) + (5/2 = 3) = 12 chits, not ((5 + (5/3 = 2) = 7) + (7/3 = 3) = 10) + (10/2 = 5) = 15

Ah, sorry about that. I misread your "compound" as "combined". I'm still leaning towards just using the the ship's current fore/aft gun number as carronade bonus counters drawn from the A set. Less math involved and rules out raking and first broadside altogether.

But as a bonus number of damage counters, there is no real drawback to sailing a ship with them.... which would lead to everyone sailing with them.

David Manley
01-07-2014, 14:00
David are you suggesting the "coarseness" in the gunnery system is a deliberate design intent to allow for later modification, or that's the way it is and it just happens to be amenable to modification?

ie Did you let slip future release information :wink:

No, the coarseness I'm referring to is in the lack of range in broadside factors that makes it difficult to reflect differences between ships, in particular at the smaller end of the scale. For example, we have the Amazon (32 gun, 12pdr with a Burden of 2, BS of 4), Concorde (32 gun, 12pdr with a burden of 3, BS of 3).

So how do we reflect a 36, 38, 40, or a 44, or a 50, or a 64? Or the difference between a 32 gun frigate with 12pdrs and one with 18pdrs? Between our 32 gun 12pdr frigate (BS4) and our 74 gun SOL (BS6) we have not a lot of scope to split out variations in gunnery so the "buckets" into which frigate and small SOL firepower is going to have to be placed will have to be pretty broad (I'm guessing up to 38s and 40s will have a BS of 4, 44s and 64s a BS of 5, so your Africa / Constitution matchup will probably be just that, at least in terms of firepower).

But what I'm suggesting is that one could put together a very nice small ship variant where (for example) a 24pdr 44 could have a BS of say 8 and a burden of 6, down to a 9pdr 14 gun sloop with a BS of 2 and a burden of 2, and then place other ship types in between with appropriately scaled BS and burden factors. so maybe a 36 gun 18pdr would have a BS of 6 and a burden of 5, whereas a 12pdr equipped ship might be 5 and 5, whilst a small 24 gun 12pdr might be 4 and 4. These are just illustrative numbers, I've not done any calcs to see if they work well but hopefully you get the idea.

fredmiracle
01-07-2014, 14:13
But as a bonus number of damage counters, there is no real drawback to sailing a ship with them.... which would lead to everyone sailing with them.

Yeah, in my apparently mistaken understanding of carronades as a tradeoff, it would have been easier to model--lose factors at longer range, gain factors at closer range.

In a scenario-builder situation you could pay some extra points for carronades. But I think the jury is still out on how (and how well) that system will work.

David Manley
01-07-2014, 14:21
But as a bonus number of damage counters, there is no real drawback to sailing a ship with them.... which would lead to everyone sailing with them.

Which is pretty much exactly what happened eventually, but for a goodly portion of the period covered by the title of the rules, and for most of the earlier period that is getting good coverage in terms of models, that wasn't the case, and there were definite differences between those with and those without.

So you could ship them if they were carried historically, or if one is putting together hypothetical or "tournament" style games you could have them as something a long with enhanced crew and captain abilities that could be purchased to tailor individual ships

The Royal Hajj
01-07-2014, 14:23
As a trade off...

At long range (A) you subtract the current fore/aft guns from your full broadside for having carronades.
At medium range (B down to the C/D range) it as printed on the ship log.
At close range (C/D) you add the fore/aft guns as bonus A damage counters.

That works alright for full broadsides, but not at all for shooting with the fore or aft guns :(

The Royal Hajj
01-07-2014, 14:28
So you could ship them if they were carried historically

Which the majority of people will not know. So t would but to the community to work this out (similar to the Stats Committee over on the Drome?) and post them. If we went this route, we could assign the number and type of damage counter to each ship for its carronades. That might give us the greatest resolution in game terms.

The Royal Hajj
01-07-2014, 14:31
As a trade off...

At long range (A) you subtract the current fore/aft guns from your full broadside for having carronades.
At medium range (B down to the C/D range) it as printed on the ship log.
At close range (C/D) you add the fore/aft guns as bonus A damage counters.

That works alright for full broadsides, but not at all for shooting with the fore or aft guns :(

And if I can quote and reply to my self....

If the notion of less math is thrown out the window, we could use that same long, medium, short principle to the standard 1/3 rule already in the game...

A Range: subtract 1/3 (rounded up) current guns from firing arc
B Range: Normal shots
C/D Range: add 1/3 (rounded up) current guns from firing arc

csadn
01-07-2014, 16:57
Maximum range was in the region of 2k-3k yards. Typical effective engagement distances started at about half that, but obviously there was a keenness to bring the range down to "point blank" or less

That was my point -- as noted in the _Constitution_/_Java_ fracas, Bainbridge let one rip at half-a-mile away (880 yards), and accomplished Nothing. Most accounts of battles, the fighting is maybe 25-50 yards apart, because the inadequacies of targeting made scoring hits much farther out almost impossible.

<- looks at the ever-growing tangle of complication, and wonders if it's really worth bothering

Coog
01-07-2014, 17:15
That was my point -- as noted in the _Constitution_/_Java_ fracas, Bainbridge let one rip at half-a-mile away (880 yards), and accomplished Nothing. Most accounts of battles, the fighting is maybe 25-50 yards apart, because the inadequacies of targeting made scoring hits much farther out almost impossible.

But it did occur...USS United States vs HMS Macedonian...and as far as Bainbridge goes, we've discussed his competence before.


<- looks at the ever-growing tangle of complication, and wonders if it's really worth bothering

It may be just easier to replace the whole gunnery system with something home grown.

Andy Blozinski
01-07-2014, 20:24
As a trade off...

At long range (A) you subtract the current fore/aft guns from your full broadside for having carronades.
At medium range (B down to the C/D range) it as printed on the ship log.
At close range (C/D) you add the fore/aft guns as bonus A damage counters.

That works alright for full broadsides, but not at all for shooting with the fore or aft guns :(
I kinda like this really simple version.

Пилот
01-07-2014, 22:13
Seems fair!

David Manley
01-08-2014, 08:18
But it did occur...USS United States vs HMS Macedonian....

Indeed it did. And remember at Trafalgar the Allied line opened fire at 2200 yards, with effective damage beginning to be inflicted at 1500 yards.

DeRuyter
01-08-2014, 12:30
Indeed it did. And remember at Trafalgar the Allied line opened fire at 2200 yards, with effective damage beginning to be inflicted at 1500 yards.

I think if you look at the larger fleet battles, especially in the 18th century, you'll see that the engagements were at longer ranges, of course they weren't always decisive either!

Some of the effectiveness at longer range also depended on the sea state, very calm at Trafalgar and thus more hits at longer range (or damage to the rigging in this case).

David Manley
01-08-2014, 13:00
I think if you look at the larger fleet battles, especially in the 18th century, you'll see that the engagements were at longer ranges, of course they weren't always decisive either!

Part of the reason for this is the difficulty of manoeuvring a long line of ships effectively. And this is still an issue today. I was involved in an exercise with another navy which included a squadron in line astern engaging a target. Despite several attempts the rearward ships were unable to engage the target at all due to having to conform to the manoeuvres of the squadron as a whole. Poor "tail end charlie" had to sit for over an hour until the serial ran out and we moved on to the next phase of the operation watching the leaders having fun whilst they couldn't bring their weapons to bear.

DeRuyter
01-08-2014, 14:35
Shouldn't this thread be in the "House Rules" forum? Just sayn' :hmmm:

David Manley
01-08-2014, 14:37
Yes of course it should :happy:

The Royal Hajj
01-08-2014, 14:41
Its in there right?

DeRuyter
01-08-2014, 15:45
Now it is. Thanks David! :beer: What about the other thread started in "The Chippy Shop" forum - the Howitzer thread?

Just trying to be ship shape and Bristol fashion! :steer:

David Manley
01-08-2014, 15:51
Just trying to be ship shape and Bristol fashion! :steer:

Best way to be :happy:

csadn
01-08-2014, 18:01
I think if you look at the larger fleet battles, especially in the 18th century, you'll see that the engagements were at longer ranges, of course they weren't always decisive either!

Some of the effectiveness at longer range also depended on the sea state, very calm at Trafalgar and thus more hits at longer range (or damage to the rigging in this case).

Rodger's _The Command of the Ocean_ mentions a British ship (_Defence_?) which took a single hit from a Combined Fleet shot in one of the fighting tops -- the estimation of how far over the firing ship had to be heeled, and how far away it was, in order to accomplish this suggests this hit was what the Mythbusters like to call "Plausible -- but unlikely". :)

And as noted: Longer-range engagements tended to be less decisive; it was the "knife-fight in a phone booth" where the results appeared. (What was it Nelson told his captains? :) )

David Manley
01-08-2014, 22:28
Rodger's _The Command of the Ocean_ mentions a British ship (_Defence_?) which took a single hit from a Combined Fleet shot in one of the fighting tops -- the estimation of how far over the firing ship had to be heeled, and how far away it was, in order to accomplish this suggests this hit was what the Mythbusters like to call "Plausible -- but unlikely". :)

And as noted: Longer-range engagements tended to be less decisive; it was the "knife-fight in a phone booth" where the results appeared. (What was it Nelson told his captains? :) )

when playing FLoB and other rules in the past it has been interesting seeing the approach taken by different players - those who open fire at long range to start causing (limited) damage early, and those who double shot with a touch of grape for good measure, hold their fire to preserve any initial broadside bonusses and try to get up close and personal for a devastating stern rake as their opening shot. If you are playing with decent morale rules against a flakey enemy it can make for a quick victory if done just right.

Diamondback
01-11-2014, 15:03
Actually, I just saw an intriguing theory about Andrea's numbers, which gave me an idea...

Per another poster, the gun numbers are broadside weight in pounds, rounded to nearest 100 and divided by 100. What I'd propose, IF this is correct, is we add up the gun and carronade weights and figure out their draw values separately, then add the CRDE broadside to the guns at S and subtract at L.

By this logic, looking at HMS Victory as an example...
1765 as-built would see a broadside of 1032# from guns, 0 from carronades. Short, Medium, Long standard effect. Full broadside 10 S, 10 M, 10 L.
1779 rearm is 1032# guns, 48# carronades. Carronade weight insignificant, stats unchanged.
1781 rearm is 1032# guns, 80# carronades. Enough CRDE weight for 1 broadside unit. Full broadside 11 S, 10 M, 9 L.
1783 rearm is 1068# guns, 110# carronades. Full broadside 12 S, 11 M, 10 L.
1793 rearm is 1068# guns, 32# carronades. Disregard carronades, full broadside is 11 S, 11 M, 11 L.
1803 rearm is 1080# guns, 32# carronades. Gun gain over 1793 insignificant, still 11 S, 11 M, 11 L.
1805 Trafalgar fit is 1080# guns, 68# carronades. Gain of 1 CRDE draw over 1803. Broadside 12 S, 11 M, 10 L.

Simple and straightforward enough? Also might be good for creating Custom Card logs to give ships a little more variety and "uniqueness" if it works.

David Manley
01-11-2014, 15:20
then add the CRDE broadside to the guns at S and subtract at L.

Why subtract at L? If I had a ship that scored a broadside of 8, and then the ship was refitted and given additional carronades that boosted this to a 9 at S why would I reduce its long range firepower if the long range guns were unchanged? :question:

Diamondback
01-11-2014, 15:25
Fair question--my first thought was to give it as a bonus with full value at Short and half-value rounded up at Medium leaving base guns only at Long, but then I wanted to try for something simpler like what Da Boss had suggested while still tacking toward better fit for historical proportions.

Done this way, the stats above would change to...
1765 as-built full broadside 10 S, 10 M, 10 L.
1779 rearm stats unchanged from '65.
1781 rearm full broadside 11 S, 11 M, 10 L.
1783 rearm full broadside 12 S, 12 M, 11 L.
1793 rearm full broadside is 11 S, 11 M, 11 L.
1803 rearm still 11 S, 11 M, 11 L.
1805 Trafalgar fit broadside 12 S, 12 M, 11 L.

David Manley
01-11-2014, 15:27
Not sure it makes it simpler, but it does make it more questionable :salute:

Diamondback
01-11-2014, 15:33
Second option I outlined sound better?

David Manley
01-11-2014, 15:34
Yup :happy:

DeRuyter
01-11-2014, 16:00
Fair question--my first thought was to give it as a bonus with full value at Short and half-value rounded up at Medium leaving base guns only at Long, but then I wanted to try for something simpler like what Da Boss had suggested while still tacking toward better fit for historical proportions.

Done this way, the stats above would change to...
1765 as-built full broadside 10 S, 10 M, 10 L.
1779 rearm stats unchanged from '65.
1781 rearm full broadside 11 S, 11 M, 10 L.
1783 rearm full broadside 12 S, 12 M, 11 L.
1793 rearm full broadside is 11 S, 11 M, 11 L.
1803 rearm still 11 S, 11 M, 11 L.
1805 Trafalgar fit broadside 12 S, 12 M, 11 L.

So in the game Short range is C/D, medium is 1/2 ruler and long is full ruler?

Berthier
01-11-2014, 18:03
Fair question--my first thought was to give it as a bonus with full value at Short and half-value rounded up at Medium leaving base guns only at Long, but then I wanted to try for something simpler like what Da Boss had suggested while still tacking toward better fit for historical proportions.

Done this way, the stats above would change to...
1765 as-built full broadside 10 S, 10 M, 10 L.
1779 rearm stats unchanged from '65.
1781 rearm full broadside 11 S, 11 M, 10 L.
1783 rearm full broadside 12 S, 12 M, 11 L.
1793 rearm full broadside is 11 S, 11 M, 11 L.
1803 rearm still 11 S, 11 M, 11 L.
1805 Trafalgar fit broadside 12 S, 12 M, 11 L.

Very simple, elegant and more importantly understandable. Like it.

The Mad Hatter
01-11-2014, 18:21
I like the methodology here, can't speak to if that's how they came up with the stats or not!

I'd like to see various ships worked up like this to see how much it changes things. How does it work when you start to get ships with full decks of carronades on them? Does it make some of the heavier frigates who had a significant amount of carronades too vicious? Interesting and simple system, which could yield a lot more variety in the ships (won't know until we work out the numbers for a few more ships).

The Mad Hatter
01-11-2014, 18:33
So looking at one of the heavier frigates out there who carried a significant number of carronades, took a look at an Endymion class 40-gun fifth rates (as designed).

As designed it was equipped with - 28x24pdrs on her upper deck, 16x32pdr carr on her quarterdeck, 2x9pdrs and 4x32pdr carr on her forecastle.

So that would mean she throws 410# of cannon shot, and 640# of carronades. So would that equate to something like 7S / 7M /4L?

If I'm understanding your formula correctly, I'd end up with something in that neighborhood I believe. I just took 400/100 for long, 600/100 and split it between short and medium (adding to what the cannons gave it)? I couldn't figure out the rationale above for when you bumped only short or short and medium, so I just split the adding of carronade weight between the two range bands - 3S and 3M added to the 4 from the cannons.

Diamondback
01-11-2014, 18:59
MH, basically I figured the carronades would be half-use at medium, so Endymion would be more like 10S (4 cannon, 6 carronade), 7M (4 cannon, 3 carronade), 4L (cannon only).

Even if the 1 chit=100# formula is off, we can adjust it proportionally to fit whatever the chits drawn/lbs. shot-weight ratio is.

The Mad Hatter
01-11-2014, 19:11
OK, thanks for the clarification. I'll probably look at a few more ships tonight, just to see how the model works a bit more.

I like that carronade armed ships do get fairly deadly at close range, but that's how I feel ships with carronades over cannons should perform.

I think I'll look at a few more heavier frigates, some 32's, then maybe look at some of the big boys of the line.

Diamondback
01-11-2014, 19:25
For comparison, pre- and post-"carronade crazy" USS Essex:
Before: 26x12# = 156# (2 chits), 16x24#crde = 192# (2 chits), 4 S/3 M/2 L.
After: 6x12# = 36# (0 chits), 40x32#crde = 640# (6 chits), 6 S/3 M/0 L.

After I get some laundry started, I'll see about finding some pre-/post-carronade variants of Wave 1 sculpts, post those and we'll see what the deviation is between "assumed formula" and "SGN standard stats".

The Mad Hatter
01-11-2014, 19:37
OK, picked up Winfield's book and started at the beginning with first rates - found a first rate that was fairly heavily carronade armed, HMS Hibernia.

As designed, she carried 32x32pdrs on her lower deck, 32x24pdrs on her middle deck, 34x18pdrs on her upper deck, 12x32pdr carr on her quarterdeck, 2x18pdr + 4x32pdr carr on her forecastle, and 6x18pdr carr.

Cannon weight = 1,220#, Carronade weight = 310#

So that puts her at roughly - 15S / 14M / 12L

The Mad Hatter
01-11-2014, 20:13
Going back to some of the middle weight ships, I took a look at some of the 74 gun rasee's that were cut down to 58 gun fourth rates and ended up with a lot of carronades. Looked at the Majestic, Saturn, and Goliath as examples.

As designed they were 28x32pdr on lower deck, 28x42pdr carr on upper deck, and 2x12pdr on forecastle.

Cannon weight = 460#, carronade weight = 588#

Which gives us - 11S / 8M / 5L

In trying to "analyze" your formula, I'm really trying to push its boundaries. Find those ships where you go, heck, that doesn't seem right at all. The problem I'm seeing is that this 58-gun fourth rate throws out as much short range firepower as what you calculated for the Victory at many points in her career. So this definitely starts to push the boundary of - does this feel right?

Diamondback
01-11-2014, 20:43
For ranges, I don't know what David was thinking, but I'd think C/D = S, 1/2 ruler = M, full ruler = L should work.

1777 Concorde as-designed: 26x F12# plus 6x F6# = 188 Engl # broadside = 2 S/2 M/2 L.
Concorde as recommissioned into RN: 26x12# plus 6x6# = 174# broadside = same.
Concorde 1793 rearm: 26x12# = 156#, 6x24# crde = 72#, broadside = 3 S/3 M/2 L.
Courageuse 1794 rearm: 26x F12# plus 6x F6# = 188 Engl #, 2x F36# obusier = ???. Haven't figured out how to tackle these...
Hermione 1789 rearm: 26x F12# plus 8x F6# = 194# broadside = 2S/2 M/2 L.

1777 Charmante "Side B cards", as-designed same as Concorde.
HMS Unite, as recommissioned into RN: 26x12# +6x6# = 174#, 4x24#crde = 48#. Insignificant carronade weight, so still 2 S/2 M/2 L.

Temeraire 74's, I'm just going to start with the ingame ships unless I find some diverse variant armaments. F_# is weight in French livre, I've converted final weights to Avordupois/Imperial, and after the "reference design" I'm grouping by expected gun-power.
Baseline armament is 28x F36# plus 30x F18# plus 16x F8#, total 904 Engl #. 9 S/9 M/9 L.
HMS Belleisle, 1800 arm: 30x32# + 30x24# + 4x9# = 858#, carronades 14x32# + 8x24# = 320#, for 12S/10M/9L.
1791 Redoutable, Trafalgar arm & Veteran, 1803 arm: 28x F36# + 30x F24# + 16x F8# = 1003#, 4x F36# crde = 78#, broadside 11 S/10 M/10 L.
1798 UK Northumberland variant, design spec: 30x32# + 30x24# + 6x18# = 894#, carronades 12x32# + 6x18# = 246#, for 11S/10M/9L.
Suffren, 1806 arm (F#, 1.079 Avdp #): 28x36 + 30x18 + 14x8, carronades 10x36, score again 11S/10M/9L.
HMS Impetueux, 1796 arm: 30x32 + 34x18, carronades 18x32 + 6x18, score 11S/10M/8L.
HMS Tigre, date unknown: 28x32 + 34x18, carronades 4x68 + 12x32 + 6x18, score 11S/9M/8L.
HMS Pompee, 1795 arm: 30x32 + 30x18, carronades 16x32 + 8x18, score 11S/9M/8L.
HMS Spartiate, 1803 arm and HMS Genereux, 1800 arm: 28x32# + 34x18# = 754#, 20x32#crde = 320#, broadside is 11 S/9 M/8 L.
HMS Chatham, date unknown: 28x32 + 28x24 + 6x12, carronades 12x32 + 6x18. Stats 11S/9M/8L.
HMS Pompee, date unknown: 30x32# +30x18#, carronades 16x32 + 6x18. Another 11S/9M/8L.
1798 Achille copy design: 30x32 + 36x18, carronades 12x32 + 6x18. Again 11S/9M/8L.
Scipion, 1805 arm: 30x36 + 30x18 + 20x8, carronades 2x18. Carronades discounted by insignificance, 10S/10M/10L.
Hercule, 1797 arm; Magnanime, 1803 arm; Duguay Trouin, 1805 arm: 28x36 + 30x18 + 16x8, crde's 4x36. 10S/9M/9L.
HMS Scipion, 1805 post-cap rearm; HMS Implacable, 1806 arm; HMS Mont Blanc, undated: 30x32, 30x18, 4x12. Crde's 14x32. 10S/9M/8L.
HMS Genoa, undated: 28x32, 30x18, 6x12. Crde's 14x32. 10S/9M/8L.
HMS Donegal, undated: 30x32, 30x18, 16x12. Crde's 8x32. 10S/9M/8L.
HMS Abercrombie and HMS Marengo, both undated: 30x32, 30x18, 10x12. Crde's 10x32. 10S/9M/8L.
HMS Rivoli, undated: 28x32, 32x18, 2x12. Crde's 12x32, 6x18. 10S/9M/7L.
HMS Maida, 1807 arm: 64x24 (regular and Gover's combined). Crde's 14x24. 9S/9M/8L.
HMS Donegal, 1802 arm: 30x32, 30x18, 16x12. Crde's 2x32, 6x18. 9S/9M/8L.
HMS Hercule, 1802 arm: 60x24 (reg/Gover's mixed), crde's 14x24. Basically HMS Maida with two less guns per full gundeck. 9S/8M/7L.
Tabled by obusier question: Spanish Ferme, 1793 arm (Spanish lb.); America, 1794 arm; 1803 Suffren and 1805 Argonaute.

1773 Amazon 32's...
As-designed 26x12# + 6x6# = 174#, 6x18# = 54#. 3 S/3 M/2 L.
HMS Castor 1808 arm: 2x12, 2x6. Guns all but useless by total throw. Crde's 28x32. Broadside 5S/2M/0L.

Slade 74's...
As-designed Bellona: 28x32# + 28x18# + 18x9# = 781# broadside. Game stats 8 S/8 M/8 L.
EDIT 1806 Goliath: 28x24# (lower) +32x24# Gover (upper, QD & FC) = 720#, 14x24#crde = 168#, stats 9S/8M/7L.
EDIT 2 1782-92 Egmont: 28x68#crde (lower) +28x42#crde (upper) + 12x24#crde = 1684# crde broadside, stats 17S/9M/0L.
EDIT 3 1805 Resolution: 28x32# + 28x18# + 2x9# = 709#, 16x32#crde = 256#, stats 10S/9M/7L.

Actually, those kind of numbers make sense given the conventional wisdom... scary-effective for turning hull to toothpicks and crew to hamburger at Halitosis Range, but easily outreached at longer ranges--again, this would fit how Essex's denouement played out IIRC, keep a distance and whittle 'em down while staying safely out of range. And I seem to recall Victory inflicted a nasty hit on a smaller ship at Trafalgar by a stern-rake with just ONE 68# carronade hit...

Coog
01-11-2014, 21:08
Okay, let's see if I have this straight.

Constitution: 32x24#=384, 20x32#crde=320 Broadside is 7S / 5M / 4L

Guerriere: 30x18# + 2x12# =282, 16x32#crde=256 Broadside is 6S / 4M / 3L


















;

Diamondback
01-11-2014, 21:13
Got it... :) Gun counts are total, then divide by two for guns in a broadside.

Coog
01-11-2014, 21:37
USS United States with her 42#crde would have been quite an opponent with a broadside of 8S / 6M / 4L

* For short range on United States I added up the pounds which equaled 822 instead of adding up the factors 5 (462) short and 4 (360) for long which would have given her 9.


Aubrey's HMS Surprise would have numbers somewhat like the USS Essex:

2x4#=0, 34x32#=544 Broadside is 5S / 3M / 0L

Berthier
01-11-2014, 22:12
I haven't received the game yet, but are there any rules for heavy weather rendering the lower gun decks unusable and cutting the gunnery factor for the three and four deckers?

Diamondback
01-11-2014, 22:34
I'd also expect 74's and larger to have that lower-deck issue, maybe 64's and the midsize two-deckers like Serapis too.

Coog
01-11-2014, 22:39
Using Diamondbacks's system, the advantage that carronade armed British ships often had over their French equivalents can be seen. This is actually the same ship, the French corvette Unité rearmed and renamed HMS Surprise after capture.

HMS Surprise: 2x4#=0, 34x32#=544 Broadside is 5S / 3M / 0L

Unité: 24x8# + 8x4#=112# Broadside is 1S / 1M / 1L

fredmiracle
01-12-2014, 01:55
Just wondering--why did throw weight play such a big role in determining destructive potential, vis-a-vis velocity. I seem to recall from high school physics that kinetic energy = mass * velocity ^2. So what made large/slow projectiles more damaging than fast/small ones?

Diamondback
01-12-2014, 02:08
Fred, a good question about an argument that rages to this day, though the modern incarnation is us .45 (handgun)/.308 (rifle) snobs against those deluded 9mm (pistol)/5.56mm (rifle) cultists. LOL

I know this... if my options are to be hit by a pin moving at relativistic velocity, a .22LR, a .45ACP or an Indy 500 racer at track speed, that order's my "ranked preferences" from "least unpleasant" to "most".

I would also expect that heavier projectiles were favored using inertia to keep the projectile on a relatively more accurate flight path, and that after a while the weight of several full broadsides rolling around your decks could have adverse impacts. David, about how many pounds of added crap rolling around would you think it might take to make capsizing or stability problems more likely?

Berthier
01-12-2014, 02:34
I doubt any ship was made unstable by being peppered by round shot, however heavier round shot would create more and larger splinters and even travelling at low speed can do catastophic damage. In reading of Napoleonic battles on land I recall several accounts of a foot being lost to a cannonball that was bouncing quite slowly along the ground. It is about momentum and surface area and being able to transfer the momentum to damage the target. A very small super high velocity particle will go through and through but impart less damage to the receiver than a larger slower one.

David Manley
01-12-2014, 06:06
Dan has it right there. Kinetic energy is only really useful in a round if you can effectively couple that KE into the target. Low velocity rounds would bounce off of "plug" in the target (which was an issue with explosive shells up until the 1860s as the fuse would often be plugged or dislodged and rendered ineffective). High velocity rounds would tend to punch through - think "Tom and Jerry" cookie cutters - causing some spalling or splintering behind; slower rounds tend to cause "scabbing" in steel plates and bigger fragments over a wider extent of the panel that the round is passing through; so in many cases the lower velocity round actually has a greater effect when looked at from at a fragmentation perspective.

David Manley
01-12-2014, 06:08
I doubt any ship was made unstable by being peppered by round shot,

Incredibly unlikely. During the bombardment at Sevastopol in the Crimean War at least one ship ended the action with over 200 heavy calibre rounds stuck in her sides.

Diamondback
01-12-2014, 17:51
Oh, here's another comparison... pre-razee HMS Goliath, before and after the fitting of carronades and Gover's guns. (As I understand it, a Gover was a midlength gun that traveled on a carronade-style slide, but also stowed parallel to the hull side rather than across the beam like normal guns.

Raw Threedecks data:
1781/10/19 Broadside Weight = 781 Imperial Pound ( 354.1835 kg) BWAS-1793
Lower Gun Deck 28 British 32-Pounder
Upper Gun Deck 28 British 18-Pounder
Quarterdeck 14 British 9-Pounder
Forecastle 4 British 9-Pounder
1806/12/29 Broadside Weight = 888 Imperial Pound ( 402.708 kg) BWAS-1793
Lower Gun Deck 28 British 24-Pounder
Upper Gun Deck 28 British 24-Pounder (Gover)
Quarterdeck 2 British 24-Pounder (Gover)
Quarterdeck 10 British 24-Pound Carronade
Forecastle 4 British 24-Pound Carronade
Forecastle 2 British 24-Pounder (Gover)
It's interesting to note that every single gun aboard uses the same ammo... an early attempt at standardizing things to simplify resupply?

As built is a 781# throw, or 8S/8M/8L. 1806 is 720# of guns (including those new Govers) and 168# of carronades, for a 9S/8M/7L broadside. Also, since weapons were generally not evenly distributed between quarterdeck and forecastle, usually heavier in the QD, that suggests to me an aft-half broadside should generally be heavier than a fore-half... but that's a discussion for another thread.

EDIT: Here's another interesting variation... Egmont went All Carronade All The Time from 1782-92, then reverted to her original load. Stats edited above under the Bellonas... As we can see, Egmont is a beast at Bad Breath Distance, but gets made a Cellblock Girlfriend at long range, whole Goliath is a more balanced trade-off.

Give me a little time to edit it, and I'll post a Broadside Calculator spreadsheet in the files section.

The Mad Hatter
01-12-2014, 18:46
Interesting, you came up with different numbers for the razee'd Goliath. I based my calculations on "as designed plans" for those three ships, looks like you may have done it based on as built?

Interesting that it ended up being all 24-pound guns....

Per your statement on the Gover's - they were initially designed to replace long 18 pounders with lighter 24 pounders and did initially have a patented slide style carriage design. The carriage however had a lot of flaws in the design and ultimately didn't hold up well to repeated use. I think by 1806 most Gover carriages were being replaced with normal gun carriages as the opportunity arose. I don't know anything about the stowage being parallel to the hull (may have been)?

Diamondback
01-12-2014, 18:57
Ryan, that's Goliath before razeeing (didn't get the Big Chopdown until '13), while she was still a 74. Some ships changed armaments more frequently than their crewmembers changed skivvies... LOL

The Mad Hatter
01-12-2014, 19:05
Ahhh - I thought you were looking at the pre/post razee'd Goliath.

Diamondback
01-13-2014, 18:22
Update: I sent my calculator off to Andrea asking for a review, I'll post it as soon as I hear from him if it gets a sign-off on tool and concepts. :)

Currently it only has Victory and the Slade 74 variants listed above, next round I'll add the Temeraire variants, maybe see if I can find a few interesting British fit-outs. (Wikipedia lists HMS Revenge and HMS Milford as both being built to the lines of Impetueux in the List of RN SOL's even though they're credited to Henslow and Barralier respectively on their own pages... and while their statistics are within the ranges seen for the Temeraire class I'm not sure about them not having drawings to work from. Don't want to risk an F-14 vs. MiG-31 kind of comparison after all...)

Diamondback
01-16-2014, 00:13
Further update, tweaked the proposed formula a little again. At this point, I'm working with Short = (Combined Gun and Carronade Total Weight)/100, Medium = (Gun Weight + 1/2 Carronade Weight)/100, Long = Gun Only, rather than converting them to chit numbers separately. I think this model is slightly more accurate...

Also, will add some Temeraire variants above in a few minutes. Have more than I'm posting, but there are some that still need the question of how to handle a quad of 36# obusiers addressed, so I'm tabling those.

Diamondback
01-16-2014, 17:27
Added the Temeraires I have and an Amazon. Just for fun and comparison, on this scale, if I'm remembering right that they weigh 2700#, a broadside from USS New Jersey of main guns only is like 122 chits--more demolition in one shell than in some entire First Rates' combined P and S broadsides.