After-Action Breakwater Discussion

[Warwolf]

cannons can't aim lol, you have to turn the ship

one ballista with fire arrows wrecking shop was realistic

I have to disagree with you on that.
https://www.quora.com/How-exactly-did-aiming-work-on-a-warship-at-the-time-of-sail

 

[bodejodel]

cannons can't aim lol, you have to turn the ship

one ballista with fire arrows wrecking shop was realistic

I'd have to correct you on that one. Ship cannons could actually be aimed individually. It was a bit unwieldy and also not always neccesary because even though cannons had much longer range, between 1000 to 2000 yards or meters, the accuracy at that range was laughable due to the unpredicable trajectory of round shot. The effective range was a couple of hundred meters.
Carronades were actually relatively easy to aim individually. They were often mounted on a fixed undercarrige made to turn left, right, up and down with ease. The range of these smaller cannons was a bit less though. However, naval battles were often fought at around 100 meters from the enemy, so range and accuracy wasn't a real issue. Carronades were accurate enough at that range. You just had to put as much shotweight as possible towards the enemy ship. You'd allways hit something at that range. By aiming your cannons you could fire your broadsides without being directly opposite and parallel to your opponent.

Just out of interest, since I wasn't present during the event, I'm curious on how a ballista would sink a ship?
At what range was this fight taking place?
What kind of ballista was used?

A bucket of water would be enough to put out any fire caused by aflaming ballista arrow, unless it somehow landed right in some gunpowder, which is highly unlikely since ship crews were VERY cautious with gunpowder. Powdermonkey's (young orphans) ferried gunpowder from the powder magazine deep in the ship's hold to the artillery pieces, often as premade cartridges, to minimize the risk of fires and explosions. No gunpowder was stored anywhere near the cannons. I imagine volley after volley of fire arrows would be more effective to eventually set a ship on fire, but the range of those arrows would be far less than the range of either the ballista or cannons.

Ballista's were mainly anti-personell weapons. Quite terrifying and pretty accurate ones too as they could easily kill multiple soldiers, with armor, in one shot. Very effective when wars were fought with huge solid formations of soldiers. Most ballista's were not bigger than a 6-pounder cannon, with some (huge) exceptions shooting up to 3 talent (70-80kg!) projectiles. Still, a 80 kg, low speed projectile would not do anything against a 40-60 cm /15-23 inch wooden hull. The newer, better built hulls could -bounce off- up to 18-pound rounds from close range (that was in the 1800's though, sou outside of the time-scope of HW). The huge ballistae would have needed a crew probably bigger than a gun crew, would not have been able to aim at a moving ship and the rate of fire would have been the same or probably even less than a cannon.

Considering the short distance between Breakwater and the WE remnants of ships I see on the map, it would have taken some really bad marksmanship on both sides to even miss a single shot fired...

Now, a ballista shooting burning barrels or balls of tar or oil... That would strike fear into any captain...

I understand the fact that the cannons might have been nerfed because of the wide array of medieval time periods people play in, but in fact, ballistae were at their best during the Roman empire. The knowledge to build ballistae that good was like many Roman technologies lost in the dark ages.

 

[bodejodel]

I have to disagree with you on that.
https://www.quora.com/How-exactly-did-aiming-work-on-a-warship-at-the-time-of-sail

Wow... I was vigorously typing my wall of text and you snipe me with a link saying the same...

 

[Tempy_]

Wow... I was vigorously typing my wall of text and you snipe me with a link saying the same...

If it matters, I like your wall of text more than the linked one..? c:

 

[Immerael]

I had the same problem I always have in combat RP. There was 50 lines of RP text and by the time I sorted through what was relevant and what wasn't, my characther charged at a man on horse back all of his friends had ran past him, turned around and piked him in the back with a charge. Thus did Simon De'mace die without ever using his mace.

 

[Warwolf]

If it matters, I like your wall of text more than the linked one..? c:

Haha, wont lie. It's what Bode had sent me about the cannon-debate. Felt like sharing it with the rest of you, consider it supporting evidence?

 

[Jazzper]

If it matters, I like your wall of text more than the linked one..? c:

Real points of view have curves

 

[Jazzper]

I quite enjoyed the Mexican standoff Fania had with Aspen and Illthill

 

[Raykaystar]

I'm jealous of all the combat you all got during the siege.

 

[Jazzper]

I'm jealous of all the combat you all got during the siege.

Too bad Azgir could not make it...

 

[Tempy_]

I quite enjoyed the Mexican standoff Fania had with Aspen and Illthill

 

[Jazzper]

Exactly.

 

[NIAH]

I'd have to correct you on that one. Ship cannons could actually be aimed individually. It was a bit unwieldy and also not always neccesary because even though cannons had much longer range, between 1000 to 2000 yards or meters, the accuracy at that range was laughable due to the unpredicable trajectory of round shot. The effective range was a couple of hundred meters.
Carronades were actually relatively easy to aim individually. They were often mounted on a fixed undercarrige made to turn left, right, up and down with ease. The range of these smaller cannons was a bit less though. However, naval battles were often fought at around 100 meters from the enemy, so range and accuracy wasn't a real issue. Carronades were accurate enough at that range. You just had to put as much shotweight as possible towards the enemy ship. You'd allways hit something at that range. By aiming your cannons you could fire your broadsides without being directly opposite and parallel to your opponent.

Just out of interest, since I wasn't present during the event, I'm curious on how a ballista would sink a ship?
At what range was this fight taking place?
What kind of ballista was used?

A bucket of water would be enough to put out any fire caused by aflaming ballista arrow, unless it somehow landed right in some gunpowder, which is highly unlikely since ship crews were VERY cautious with gunpowder. Powdermonkey's (young orphans) ferried gunpowder from the powder magazine deep in the ship's hold to the artillery pieces, often as premade cartridges, to minimize the risk of fires and explosions. No gunpowder was stored anywhere near the cannons. I imagine volley after volley of fire arrows would be more effective to eventually set a ship on fire, but the range of those arrows would be far less than the range of either the ballista or cannons.

Ballista's were mainly anti-personell weapons. Quite terrifying and pretty accurate ones too as they could easily kill multiple soldiers, with armor, in one shot. Very effective when wars were fought with huge solid formations of soldiers. Most ballista's were not bigger than a 6-pounder cannon, with some (huge) exceptions shooting up to 3 talent (70-80kg!) projectiles. Still, a 80 kg, low speed projectile would not do anything against a 40-60 cm /15-23 inch wooden hull. The newer, better built hulls could -bounce off- up to 18-pound rounds from close range (that was in the 1800's though, sou outside of the time-scope of HW). The huge ballistae would have needed a crew probably bigger than a gun crew, would not have been able to aim at a moving ship and the rate of fire would have been the same or probably even less than a cannon.

Considering the short distance between Breakwater and the WE remnants of ships I see on the map, it would have taken some really bad marksmanship on both sides to even miss a single shot fired...

Now, a ballista shooting burning barrels or balls of tar or oil... That would strike fear into any captain...

I understand the fact that the cannons might have been nerfed because of the wide array of medieval time periods people play in, but in fact, ballistae were at their best during the Roman empire. The knowledge to build ballistae that good was like many Roman technologies lost in the dark ages.

They had poured oil and tar in the bay and lit it, which helped on Breakwater's defence. They fired the ballista as the ships had to maneuver around the fire, iirc. Straight up Blackwater Bay.

 

[BoredBrit]

I don't really care if its been said before. That event was bloody sexy. I loved every second I took part in, even if it wasn't exactly invigorating from my char's POV. The whole ordeal /really/ interested me and I'd just like to say thanks to The Courier for letting me sneak into the Swag Castle after died

 

[NIAH]

I just think from the perspective of the more politically inclined, diplomatic characters who had nothing to add to any war, this is seen as more of a setback and for want of a better term, a ball ache.

Now that I've had the chance to reconsider what happened I can see how the decision was made even though on a personal level I don't agree with it. However at this point there's nothing to be done about it.

Excluding that, what I saw of the event looked like it had been handled extremely well. 10/10 to the staff on that front, especially the fire damage.

All of this will certainly generate more role-play, even if it's the kind I can't get involved in. If any future battles are handled as succinctly, you all have a lot to look forward too~

Setback? The Iron Dragon Coalition made Anhald flee. They have no access to the weapons stored in Breakwater. One of their best fighters died. The woods and farms that supplied food are razed. It was quite a victory. The only thing that really changed was some prisoners escaped and still, those prisoners fled for their lives. The battle plan devised succeeded in breaking the city's defense. I don't really think making the enemy flee is a setback, but more of a step towards the goal. But that's just my perspective.

 

[Friosis]

I am worried about the inconsistent nature of rule enforcement and stacf behavior as of late.

Staff almost never use the roll system and then decide the outcome while ignoring both the result of the roll and the realistic scenario, as had happened here. It feels like bias when one person has their high rolls ignored for being unrealistic to the staff, and then next person pulling off something near impossible in real life because of a high roll.

And there are rules about this:
People who log off don't just have their characters dissapear. Telling them "sorry, better luck next time" isn't fair and isn't how the staff have ever handled this issue before.

This kind of inconsistent enforcement has happened several times now, and it's become very concerning.

 

[Paint]

I am worried about the inconsistent nature of rule enforcement and stacf behavior as of late.

Staff almost never use the roll system and then decide the outcome while ignoring both the result of the roll and the realistic scenario, as had happened here. It feels like bias when one person has their high rolls ignored for being unrealistic to the staff, and then next person pulling off something near impossible in real life because of a high roll.

And there are rules about this:
People who log off don't just have their characters dissapear. Telling them "sorry, better luck next time" isn't fair and isn't how the staff have ever handled this issue before.

This kind of inconsistent enforcement has happened several times now, and it's become very concerning.

There is a whole lot of 'what' in this statement, even more so related to the 'Staff almost never use the roll system' and I've read over this and I still don't understand what you're trying to say.

 

[Jazzper]

There is a whole lot of 'what' in this statement, even more so related to the 'Staff almost never use the roll system' and I've read over this and I still don't understand what you're trying to say.

I'm not involved in this myself but I did hear some things.
I believe that at one point there was a case where someone had a high roll and 1-hit killed someone without any momentum, while other people failed real simple actions due to rolls.
Also, I did see that plenty of people rolled and plenty of people didn't.
So I can imagine there was some conflict.

Once more, I'm not involved in this so this is just what I heard

 

[Archbishop]

Rolling has always been a matter of personal choice in hand to hand personal conflict. Some prefer to roll while others believe and trust in their individual RP skills. However, in some instances, namely ranged combat and some combat actions, rolling is the only fair way.

 

[Warwolf]

Rolling has always been a matter of personal choice in hand to hand personal conflict. Some prefer to roll while others believe and trust in their individual RP skills. However, in some instances, namely ranged combat and some combat actions, rolling is the only fair way.

And when one person prefers their characters RP combat skills, and the other person demands rolling? What then? What's the compromise?