The estimable Mr. Tyng proposed: Proposal: Limit the number of rounds that can be fired in a given time period across the ship. For example, the current baseline for a 1st rate is 18 rounds every four seconds. This can be achieved with 18 guns firing at four second intervals or 9 guns firing at two second intervals. Call this factor "Throw Weight" (TW). Limit the maximum fire rate to one round per second for any individual gun (eliminates machine guns). Aggregate firing rates for the model cannot exceed its rated TW. Multi-shot cannons are allowed as long as TW is maintained. For example, a frigate with a TW of 8 (eight rounds max per four seconds) can achieve this with four multi-shot cannons firing 2-round loads every four seconds or two cannons firing 4-round loads every four seconds. To keep the TW math simpler, every cannon must have the same firing rate across the model. Starting from the models center, mounted cannons must be set equidistant along the models broadsides. This eliminates captains concentrating firepower in the rear quadrants for example. Each ship class has a maximum allowable ammo load. All mounted cannons must divide this load equally across all magazines. I think the above does a good job at regulating firepower while leaving the individual captain a wide latitude as to how he/she wants to arm the model. **End of Steve's proposal** I like most of that, but requiring the cannons be spaced equally along the hull could be difficult with masts and sailhandling gear in the way. I've been building Minerva with the plan to mount the guns near the center of the hull, with the sailhandling gear under the deck forward and aft. The chasers were going up front, but I hadn't really thought about how to accomplish that, yet. I agree with Steve that I don't want guns being concentrated a la triple sterns of fast gun fame...
I agree, 5 is the only section that should be changed, just stick with scale gun port locations, but with equal spacing, so if there is say, 12 ports on one side, you couldnt put acannon in the front and rearmost 2 gunports, but could arm the first, fourth, seventh and tenth port, or something similar, dependimg on number of guns allowed and gunport count.
Although it's common sense, it occurs to me that we ought to have a line in there as part 'a' of rule 5 that says all cannons apart from chase armament must fire perpendicular to the centerline (i.e. straight out from the side). Chase armament should fire as nearly as possible to dead ahead or astern.
Also, as I was planning what my cannon layout would be under the proposed scheme, it occurred to me, that one could wind up with 2 chase gun firing at the same rate as the broadsides... I'm okay with it, but it would be possible for someone to mount 2 guns in a bow chase setup firing 4 times per second... I would modify the rule allowing chase guns to refer to a max TW vice max number of guns. So one could get their broadside numbers up by going to a second ROF, but they'd only be able to mount one chase gun (same ROF). If that same person went to a 1 second ROF, they would not get a chase armament, as that would put them with more than 2 TW firing from the bow. I suggest this because I don't want to see a pair of 1 second ROF guns (in effect simulating 8 cannons) tearing up ships from the bow.
I think there was mentioned that there would be a maximum rof of 1 shot per second per cannon, if not, there should be, or you could end up with a ship of the line with machine gun chasers.... On a sidenote, I would love to see a broadside ripple, heh.
Yeah, I saw the minimum-of-1-second ROF part... but TWO chase guns with a 1 sec ROF is 8 shots every four seconds. With a rate of fire comparable to a conventionally fired broadside (8 cannons every 4 secs, equal to a 2nd-Rate ship of the line), there'd be precious little reason to mount a broadside armament or even to try for broadsides. I would like the focus to be more on putting one's ship alongside the enemy than pointing the bulletproof part at them and shredding. If I wanted that, I'd stick to fast gun and build an NC or a KGV.
As I'm thinking a 1st rate for a first AOS build I hadn't thought much about chasers. The way I'd handle chasers is to treat them with their own TW calculation and fire rates. I think the original rules state a max of two chasers on either end so that would equate to a max TW of 2 for the fore or aft chase armament. Firing rates or multi-shot can be anything as long as TW does not exceed 2 (per fore or aft end). Chasers would be allowed to have ROF different from the broadside group but still limited to a max of 1sec ROF. If a captain elects to use chasers, any TW allocated to chasers must be deducted from the broadside group. Chaser examples (TW of 2): Two single-shot, 4sec ROF One single-shot, 2sec ROF Two double-shot, 8sec ROF One double-shot, 4sec ROF One triple-shot, 6sec ROF With the proposed TW rule, it would be a simple matter to open up ammo to other sizes than .177 BB's. Larger ball sizes would be assigned a TW adjustment factor to compensate for the larger ball sizes greater hole making capacity. As TW calculations are getting a bit more complicated, a spreadsheet can be developed to help a captain test different TW setups. It would be beneficial for a firing board to be developed that could be set for different ROF.
Oh man, guys. Steve has fairly accurately summed up my general feelings, that it doesn't really matter how you do it so long as the correct number of rounds are going in the correct direction in the correct amount of time. On the other hand, I'm not thrilled at the idea of introducing different sizes of shot. Different gun sizes adds a level of complexity that I don't think the Age of Sail needs. Once you start adding formulas for the size of guns and the amount of ammunition you can carry, it gets too complex to figure out at the pond without a computer. Big gun carrier rules used to be like that, and it was not worth it. I'm also not thrilled about mandatory even spacing of armed guns, either. I myself was planning to arm the six guns closest to amidships on Constitution, so they're all close enough together that I can operate them on the same elevation control. Not so easy to do when they're spread out even further, and they'd also pose more of a tangle hazard to the sail-control rigging below deck. I must admit that I have never faced the terror of a haymaker or triple sterns, though, so perhaps my perspective will change on that. I can also see the confusion about chasers. Yes, they are limited to two guns in the chaser positions under the current rules, which would translate as no more than 2 TW in the chase positions. They also should, obviously, not have to be uniform with the rest of the armament, given the numerous examples of historical ships mounting different chase guns from their broadsides.
I definately do not want more sizes of projectiles. I am totally cool with no more than 2 TW in the chase positions. I would also like to have broadside armament located closest to the center of each side, for the reasons Carl gives. I was, however planning to mount my cannons in gunports in those locations, but not right on top of each other. With the magazine arrangements and everything, they work out to being in every other gunport, in the 7 gunports near the middle of the ship. Or, if I double the ROF, in the 3 gunports nearest the middle.
I humbly withdraw the spacing and larger shot suggestions. On the guns mounted perpendicular to the center line suggestion. I'd like to suggest something along the lines of: Guns must be mounted perpendicular to the hull where the gun is mounted with the exception of chasers. Chasers are to be mounted as close to parallel to the models centerline as practical. Concentrations of broadside guns in the for or aft positions is not allowed. The broadside arrangement should provide an even shot distribution to the port and starboard of the model with as little bias fore or aft as practicable. FYI, I'm having a lot of fun with this process.
Me too, it'll result in clearer, better rules. Or I hope so The only change I'd ask for in your above post is in the first line, changing it from: 'Guns must be mounted perpendicular to the hull where the gun is mounted with the exception of chasers' To: 'Guns must be mounted perpendicular to the centerline of the hull, with the exception of chasers.' On the real ships, the cannon were mounted in this way to concentrate their fire; if they were perpendicular to the hull surface at any given point, the shot would spread out. This might help French and Spanish navy captains, but is not in keeping with the traditionally excellent gunnery of the Royal Navy.
Not all ships had cannons positioned that way. The plans of the Requin show an arc type cannon positioning. Heh.
I'm no expert on the positioning of cannon on AoS ships and always assumed they would be perpendicular to the hull (unless it was a pivot mount). From an engineering perspective, it would be best if the recoil ropes were the same length on each side and that would typically require perpendicular placement to the hull. I was trying to avoid setting up of KZ's were multiple cannons would be aimed to intersect at one point. To me, that just wouldn't be gentlemenly. Perpendicular to the hull or centerline doesn't really matter to me as either one avoids KZ's. Of course all this is mute if it's decided that KZ's are desirable. If it works out that way then my future HMS Caledonia will have a very nice welcoming center about 3' out on either side!
I'm with you on avoiding KZ's Steve. @Mike - That's because the Frogs couldn't aim well enough to produce a group! May as well shoot in all directions!
Greetings Sailfighter...You have been recruited by the United Kingdom to defend the Channel against Xur and the Ko'Dan/French/Spanish Armada...
If you don't want convergence (and I don't, either), why not just say "no converging broadside guns"? The historical ships did have a limited range that they could aim left or right so it wasn't just aiming the ship and hoping the gunners fired at the right time. If someone has the technical skill to build that into his or her ship, or wants a spread shot instead of a parallel shot, fine by me. I just don't want anyone blowing out quarter-sized holes from one foot away. On the other hand, firing arcs perpendicular and parallel to the centerline are much easier to define than ranges in degrees. I could go either way on this one.
Perhaps define cannon angles to be no more than 5 degrees horizontally from the perpedicular or parallel? There would be some convergence, but further out from the ship. Might even promote slightly longer ranged shooting and prevent tangled rigging.
Here's a thought experiment. So far discussions with TW have been in regards to reducing the number of cannons and increasing the rof. What if we took it the other way around and increased the number of cannon and decreased the rof? Using the 1st rate example of 18 guns every four seconds baseline, what if we increased the guns to thirty six and set the rof to 8sec? In practical use, a 1st rate setup this way could fire a broadside of 18 guns and then wait 8 seconds before doing so again. After that eight seconds the captain could opt to fire only nine guns and then 4sec after that, fire the second nine guns on that side. If he then held off for 8sec, he could then fire all eighteen in a single volley and repeat. If he only fired six guns at a time he could volley fire six guns every 2.66 seconds and still be within TW limits. Opinions?
