Defining a Common Goal

[Bill Bones]

<!--quoteo(post=144815:date=Apr 7 2006, 06:30 PM:name=Galliente)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Galliente @ Apr 7 2006, 06:30 PM) [snapback]144815[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Well I have to agree with Bones here. One of the reasons wood was a good material is because it, upon impact, did not 'explode' or 'splinter', it just made a hole (well if it was a quality wood which it usually was) and imagine how hard it is to hit more than 1 person with a ~20 cm iron ball. The fact is, th balls didn't explode. To be honest, I don't think 'Bombs' shoud be in the game either. Or at least they should be made a lot stonger and have like 25% chance of exploding inside cannon (losing the cannon and like 5 crew)- what else woudl a hollow ball of black powder do?, so it would make people think twice about their usage (like frigates vs MoWs, one bomb broadside would cause hell of a damage, but would cripple both ships). That could be used as an effective strategy with faster ships - run, fire, evade, board. No more the dull 'Argh where is ye broadside!' on a crawling SotL dogfight.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Well, I just refer to historical sources about casualties in a major battle... nothing close to the cataclismic 80, 90 and 95% losses we can see in POTC.

Anyway, the effect of a ball depended upon several factors. With enough speed, a ball would ricochet through wood (and do a hole). A hard wood or a thick plank would stop a ball and break to splinters in the process. A slow ball would break to splinters most woods. A ball hitting an anchor would explode into bits. A ball hitting a gun would break the gun and explode to pieces. It was usual to reduce the gunpowder charge in close quarters combat to prevent the balls from just ricocheting the target, rather with less gunpowder charge the balls where slower and would produce the desired deadly rain of splinters.

Also, when speaking about casualties, it was common practice to consider "wounded" only the crew members who couldn't return to their duty after visiting the sickbay.

It all reduces to: "IMO, we should fix the casualty counter and the surrender system so that there where far less casualties and they where far more demoralizing".

 

[Merciless Mark]

80, 90% losses? i never suffer those kind of losses unless getting raked at least twice with 24-32 pounders.

Btw an intreasting note, one of the ships involved in the battle of lake Erie in the war of 1812 actually suffered around 85% casualties.

 

[skull]

hmmm,Billl Bones,gotta ask ye mate,85 to 90% losses in POTC game?Thar be some factors to consider,difficulty level yer play'n,perks for ship defence,I 'ave te ask ye mate cause I sail with a sloop ur a schooner,sometimes Skelly Bobs Gunboat,it makes no matter,I'd sink em all.cause I'd be hav'n a luv fer booty <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen1.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="icon_mrgreen1.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/par-ty.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="par-ty.gif" />

By the way this is off topic,belongs under gameplay, sorry Pieter,couldn't resist throw'n me 2 doubloons in <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/whistling.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="whistling.gif" />

 

[Galliente]

I lost 85% of my crew in 3 broadsides from the new Hispaniola fort (which is preety fast) with a Ship of the Line. My defence is lvl 9 (officers ftw) and have Advanced Ship Defence trained. Playing on average difficulty. I just think that it may be a *bit* over-rated.
And yeah Bones I corrected my post you quoted a bit in the 2nd one.

 

[ronlosey]

The damage model does seem to move kind of fast. I believe that was in another thread.

Historical ships seldom just sank. Often they were "totaled", to coin a term from the insurance industry. Even those usually did not have the crew totally wiped out. Just the threat of getting raked at close range was usually enough to make most captains give. Anybody in their right mind is going to surrender long before sitting through more than one round of that.

Again, there was another thread on this. I also suggested some numbers earlier, but so far nobody has plugged them in to see how it plays. And, well, I'm just not computer literate enough to jump on that big of a project myself - if I did, somebody would spend more time debugging my mess than if they did it themselves the first time.

Ron

 

[Merciless Mark]

I guess the easiest mode in Build/Post build is probally the most realistic atm, i rarley sink other ships, they all surrender usually before their sunk.

 

[kblack]

The surrender feature is going in that direction, although, IMHO, needs a little bit tweaking/Improvement

- The morale of military ships should not drop too easily
- The military ships should only start to check for surrender either when sinking, or when without sails and enemy in position to rake them
<blockquote>Historically, to surrender a ship under other circumstances, will mean a "war counsel"</blockquote>
- The pirate ships will only surrender when same circunstamces as military, and no escape possible.
<blockquote>I mean, if catched they are going by sure to be hanged... </blockquote>
- The pirate ships should start to flee really easily

Well, thats my opinion


<!--quoteo(post=144880:date=Apr 8 2006, 11:24 AM:name=Ron Losey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ron Losey @ Apr 8 2006, 11:24 AM) [snapback]144880[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
The damage model does seem to move kind of fast. I believe that was in another thread.

Historical ships seldom just sank. Often they were "totaled", to coin a term from the insurance industry. Even those usually did not have the crew totally wiped out. Just the threat of getting raked at close range was usually enough to make most captains give. Anybody in their right mind is going to surrender long before sitting through more than one round of that.

Again, there was another thread on this. I also suggested some numbers earlier, but so far nobody has plugged them in to see how it plays. And, well, I'm just not computer literate enough to jump on that big of a project myself - if I did, somebody would spend more time debugging my mess than if they did it themselves the first time.

Ron
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


<!--quoteo(post=144889:date=Apr 8 2006, 12:07 PM:name=Merciless Mark)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Merciless Mark @ Apr 8 2006, 12:07 PM) [snapback]144889[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I guess the easiest mode in Build/Post build is probally the most realistic atm, i rarley sink other ships, they all surrender usually before their sunk.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

 

[Cpt Fabris]

<!--quoteo(post=144892:date=Apr 8 2006, 11:22 AM:name=kblack)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kblack @ Apr 8 2006, 11:22 AM) [snapback]144892[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
The surrender feature is going in that direction, although, IMHO, needs a little bit tweaking/Improvement

- The morale of military ships should not drop too easily
- The military ships should only start to check for surrender either when sinking, or when without sails and enemy in position to rake them
<blockquote>Historically, to surrender a ship under other circumstances, will mean a "war counsel"</blockquote>
- The pirate ships will only surrender when same circunstamces as military, and no escape possible.
<blockquote>I mean, if catched they are going by sure to be hanged... </blockquote>
- The pirate ships should start to flee really easily
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Might be worth considering that legislation in 1721 (8 Geo I, c.24, 1721) stated that anyone who did not defend their ship would be met with loss of wages and six-months in jail, or death if shown to have aided pirates. It also promises rewards for those injured or killed whilst defending their ship. It suggests that even on merchant vessels, there might have been incentives to not surrender so easily. I suppose they might if the captain and any officers were dead. The ordinary seaman wasn't going to care much...but the merchant captain would be in a spot of bother with the merchant company if they gave up all their goods without mustering a defence. Perhaps the surrender settings shouldn't be made such that too many civvy ships give up without a fight?

The pirates definately ought to flee a lot. Though only if outnumbered, badly damaged or facing military vessels as real pirates didn't want to fight the Royal Navy (bizarely the 1721 legislation suggests a fair number of military pirate hunters weren't keen to find pirates either and just traded instead).
There's a pdf with the text of the 1721 Piracy Act (repealed) here it seems: <a href="http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/db_1804/20030118-3692/pdf/db_1804.pdf" target="_blank">Piracy Act 1721</a>
For the defense of ships bit see pages 8 and 9 of the pdf (actual not the marked pages)

 

[Merciless Mark]

<!--quoteo(post=144906:date=Apr 8 2006, 02:01 PM:name=Cpt Fabris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cpt Fabris @ Apr 8 2006, 02:01 PM) [snapback]144906[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
<!--quoteo(post=144892:date=Apr 8 2006, 11:22 AM:name=kblack)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kblack @ Apr 8 2006, 11:22 AM) [snapback]144892[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
The surrender feature is going in that direction, although, IMHO, needs a little bit tweaking/Improvement

- The morale of military ships should not drop too easily
- The military ships should only start to check for surrender either when sinking, or when without sails and enemy in position to rake them
<blockquote>Historically, to surrender a ship under other circumstances, will mean a "war counsel"</blockquote>
- The pirate ships will only surrender when same circunstamces as military, and no escape possible.
<blockquote>I mean, if catched they are going by sure to be hanged... </blockquote>
- The pirate ships should start to flee really easily
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Might be worth considering that legislation in 1721 (8 Geo I, c.24, 1721) stated that anyone who did not defend their ship would be met with loss of wages and six-months in jail, or death if shown to have aided pirates. It suggests that even on merchant vessels, there might have been incentives to not surrender so easily. I suppose they might if the captain and any officers were dead. The ordinary seaman wasn't going to care much...but the merchant captain would be in a spot of bother with the merchant company if they gave up all their goods without mustering a defence. Perhaps the surrender settings shouldn't be made such that too many civvy ships give up without a fight?

The pirates definately ought to flee a lot. Though only if outnumbered, badly damaged or facing military vessels as real pirates didn't want to fight the Royal Navy (bizarely the 1721 legislation suggests a fair number of military pirate hunters weren't keen to find pirates either and just traded instead).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Despite the legislation its a fact that merchants would most at the time surrender. to resist otherwise would be suecide and regulations be damned i doubt a merchant captain would want to commit suecide

 

[Cpt Fabris]

<!--quoteo(post=144907:date=Apr 8 2006, 01:11 PM:name=Merciless Mark)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Merciless Mark @ Apr 8 2006, 01:11 PM) [snapback]144907[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Despite the legislation its a fact that merchants would most at the time surrender. to resist otherwise would be suecide and regulations be damned i doubt a merchant captain would want to commit suecide
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Actually there's some evidence that the fate of the captain depended upon how he treated his crew. The quartermaster of the pirate ship would ask the crew about their 'usage' by the captain and officers. If shown to have been treated well then the captain would be left alive, unharmed and on odd ocassions given his ship and at least some of the pilfered goods back. At least so I read from the last pirate book I read by Marcus Rediker, 'Villains of all nations'...has some nice stories from accounts by captured merchant and slaver captains who were let go.

 

[ronlosey]

On surrendering "easily" - define "easy". You're in a wood ship, and somebody puts a dozen cannonballs through the hull. Bits of wood and metal are flying about, blood everywhere. By the end of one good broadside, everybody on the deck is bleeding. A few are seriously wounded, some critically. Even the ones who are not listed as "wounded" are sitting in the floor pulling wood splinters the size of daggers out of thier bodies, or trying to get the seriously injured to the surgeon, and fighting back is the least of their concerns. Everything that was on the deck is shreaded. The walls are painted with blood. It's pretty obvious that he's sitting 300 yards off your bow reloading for another round of the same. Just about anything is easier than waiting to take another volley of that.

If you surrended easily, we won't pay you. Doesn't sound like much incentive. If it was "If you surrender, we will have your entire family executed" - that would change morale a bit. As it is, that legislation would encourage them to take one good broadside before surrendering, instead of giving up the first time they saw a black flag. (Black flag was navy flag code for "no quarter" - that anyone offering any resistance at all would be killed. The "Jolly Roger" was just some people getting creative with that theme. My brother, who just got out of the U.S. Marines, says U.S. Navy ships still carry the "No Quarter" flag, even though the Geneva Convention forbids them to use it.) Anyway, define "easy".

There's a good story on this page: <a href="http://www.nelsonsnavy.co.uk/engagement.html" target="_blank">http://www.nelsonsnavy.co.uk/engagement.html</a>

It's War of 1812 - a little later than our time period, but it makes the point. It's a first-hand account of what it looked like on the gun deck. It didn't take a lot of cannon fire to make a mess.

Ron

 

[Bill Bones]

<!--quoteo(post=144833:date=Apr 7 2006, 10:19 PM:name=Merciless Mark)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Merciless Mark @ Apr 7 2006, 10:19 PM) [snapback]144833[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
80, 90% losses? i never suffer those kind of losses unless getting raked at least twice with 24-32 pounders.

Btw an intreasting note, one of the ships involved in the battle of lake Erie in the war of 1812 actually suffered around 85% casualties.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Wel, I usually don't get such losses, but I am a fan of makin' 'em eat grapes... yet it's ludicrous to have a frigate shooting back at your Manowar with only 2 crew still alive. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/whistling.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="whistling.gif" /> Or a corvette who hadn't enough to be reduced to 8 crew by my schooner and her 9-pounders, and yet they had the morale to fight back me?

ITOH, merchants are pleasingly easy to surrender once their escort gets beaten.

 

[Cpt Fabris]

<!--quoteo(post=144943:date=Apr 8 2006, 10:56 PM:name=Ron Losey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ron Losey @ Apr 8 2006, 10:56 PM) [snapback]144943[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
If you surrended easily, we won't pay you. Doesn't sound like much incentive. If it was "If you surrender, we will have your entire family executed" - that would change morale a bit. As it is, that legislation would encourage them to take one good broadside before surrendering, instead of giving up the first time they saw a black flag.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not being paid might seem insignificant but then it must be considered in the economic context of the time. In the years after the War of Spanish Succession the navy massively cut back on its numbers of employed sailors causing mass unemployment in seamen. If you were 'lucky' enough to have got a job on a merchant ship and weren't badly treated by the captain would you want to forfeit your wages and likely your job when there were so many other unemployed sailors to replace you with?
It does seem apparent that merchant crews weren't keen to fight pirates, and indeed a fair proportion of seamen would be only too happy to join the pirate crews if possible, to escape the harsh conditions on board their own ship and exercise some control over their lives. The legislation more likely refers to captains and any other officers as normal crew it seems weren't always paid on time, in full or at all, and the shipboard discipline beloved of the navy and merchant navy should have kept the crew inline (in theory at least). I suppose it also depends on how the admiralty defined aiding pirates. Really it depends who made the decision to fight or surrender. A captain might have cause to want to fight if not flee, especially if he was known to the pirates or suspected his crew would accuse him of barbarity. The crew if able might decide to surrender more quickly, or aid the pirates.


<!--quoteo(post=144943:date=Apr 8 2006, 10:56 PM:name=Ron Losey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ron Losey @ Apr 8 2006, 10:56 PM) [snapback]144943[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
(Black flag was navy flag code for "no quarter" - that anyone offering any resistance at all would be killed. The "Jolly Roger" was just some people getting creative with that theme. My brother, who just got out of the U.S. Marines, says U.S. Navy ships still carry the "No Quarter" flag, even though the Geneva Convention forbids them to use it.) Anyway, define "easy".
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've read accounts of pirates using black and red flags. The black flag being the announcement that they were pirates and enquiring whether the target ship would surrender without a fight. If not then the red flag meaning no quarter given might be raised at which point it was up to the pirates whether to harm the captain and crew upon boarding. Again, according the Rediker's book if the crew defended the ship and gave good account of the captain then he might be spared. Might depend upon the losses suffered by the pirates however. We ought not to fall into the trap of believing the stories of pirate barbarity as being necessarily truthful. Both the pirates themselves, their victims and the authorities had reason to invent, spread and perpetuate such stories/myths.

 

[Merciless Mark]

I think we need to look at crew and functionality

like either have so that some guns wont fire if theres too little crew or ship cant control sails as easily.

or something like a dialouge saying: You dont have enough gun crew left, to you want to reassign other crewmembers to the task? Selecting yes would decrease ship performance but reman all the guns, selecting no would mean loss of firepower but maintain maneuvrability.

 

[ronlosey]

Crew would be shifted around all the time anyway. However, the point is very valid. Reload time and coordination of fire should drop fast as crew was removed from the gun deck (either casualties, or because they had to fight fire or something). If you only have three guys on the gun deck, they're either going to have to reload only one gun, or else try to reload every gun on the deck by themselves (12 guns x 2 minutes a gun...).

Sails were rolled up, not down. You should be able to make sail rather quickly even with limited crew, but rolling one up would be a pain. Turning would be worse - if you have to angle the sails, that takes guys on a winch. If you don't have the guys, just turning the rudder is going to cut your speed badly until they can get the sails realigned.

That's a change that would make sense. Who thinks they can code that one?

Ron

 

[ronlosey]

Flag codes of the 1300's used red flags to mean "No Quarter". Later flag codes used the red banner to mean general defiance or aggression (or sometimes just general emergency), and the black to indicate No Quarter. This code system is still used in modern navy signals, although the Geneva Convention forbids them to use the black flag. (My brother, talking to a navy signalman on board the U.S.S. Whidbey Island: Holding a black flag - "Can you think of a situation where we would use this?" Signalman: "I would rather not.")

I can find more references on that eventually, if anyone cares. However, there is a reference in a letter by a Captain John Sowers Brooks, dating to the Texas Revolution 1836, specifically stating that Santa Ana "hoisted a black flag as an indication that they will show no quarter".

Chances are likely that most of the pirates had no intention of carrying out a threat of "No Quarter" - they wanted the ship, cargo, and possibly the crew for themselves. It would be the Navy ships and pirate hunters that would try to frighten pirates into fleeing with threats of "no quarter" - especially if they were facing multiple pirate ships, and trying to scatter them so they could be engaged individually. The pirates generally wanted to send a signal of "stand down or we will fire", in the serious hope that their enemy would surrender without a fight. "No quarter" does not really deliver that message - on the contrary, it rather suggests that you might as well fight. The only possible use pirates would have for a black flag would be to scare away navy ships or pirate hunters. ("Mess with us, and we will send your heads back to your governor in a sack.") The chances of capturing one of those was pretty small anyway.

--------------------------

As for economic threats and morale, the threat of being unemployed matters little when your ship is being turned to toothpicks around you. Underpaid sailors are not likely to care. You can worry about economics if you live that long. Piracy (both then and now), and terrorism and armed robbery in general, depend on this point.

Ron

 

[kblack]

<!--quoteo(post=145036:date=Apr 9 2006, 10:54 PM:name=Merciless Mark)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Merciless Mark @ Apr 9 2006, 10:54 PM) [snapback]145036[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I think we need to look at crew and functionality

like either have so that some guns wont fire if theres too little crew or ship cant control sails as easily.

or something like a dialouge saying: You dont have enough gun crew left, to you want to reassign other crewmembers to the task? Selecting yes would decrease ship performance but reman all the guns, selecting no would mean loss of firepower but maintain maneuvrability.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

IIRC, the percentage of crew is taken in account when deciding the time to reload.... if you have just a token crew, you'll take ages to reload.... not checked empirically, but pretty sure to have seen some code about it.

No idea about time to turn and crew numbers relationship.

But the load of the ships is taken in account to determine speed and turning.

Kblack.

 

[Merciless Mark]

<!--quoteo(post=145103:date=Apr 10 2006, 04:33 PM:name=kblack)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kblack @ Apr 10 2006, 04:33 PM) [snapback]145103[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
<!--quoteo(post=145036:date=Apr 9 2006, 10:54 PM:name=Merciless Mark)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Merciless Mark @ Apr 9 2006, 10:54 PM) [snapback]145036[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I think we need to look at crew and functionality

like either have so that some guns wont fire if theres too little crew or ship cant control sails as easily.

or something like a dialouge saying: You dont have enough gun crew left, to you want to reassign other crewmembers to the task? Selecting yes would decrease ship performance but reman all the guns, selecting no would mean loss of firepower but maintain maneuvrability.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

IIRC, the percentage of crew is taken in account when deciding the time to reload.... if you have just a token crew, you'll take ages to reload.... not checked empirically, but pretty sure to have seen some code about it.

No idea about time to turn and crew numbers relationship.

But the load of the ships is taken in account to determine speed and turning.

Kblack.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

true, but think about it, if it was reality do you think the crew would load one cannon and move over to the next and load it and then fire? or would they stay at their post on the assigned cannon and battle on. think about it, if you stay at the cannon you will be able to crank out a faster rate of fire than moving from gun to gun. and how would the streched thin guncrew fire all the guns in a broadside especially if theres less gun crew than men, no i like my idea, but thats just me.

 

[Cpt Fabris]

<!--quoteo(post=145036:date=Apr 9 2006, 10:54 PM:name=Merciless Mark)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Merciless Mark @ Apr 9 2006, 10:54 PM) [snapback]145036[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I think we need to look at crew and functionality like either have so that some guns wont fire if theres too little crew or ship cant control sails as easily.
or something like a dialouge saying: You dont have enough gun crew left, to you want to reassign other crewmembers to the task? Selecting yes would decrease ship performance but reman all the guns, selecting no would mean loss of firepower but maintain maneuvrability.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds very like that in Meier's Pirates! that works pretty well. Thing is though, when the cannons on ships are destructible anyway and prone to being lost really quite often (as a result of criticals?) is it actually needed for number of crew to play a part? If you're ship is so badly hit that you don't have many crew left, wouldn't you have already lost a significant proportion of the cannons to damage anyway?
Or has your tinkering with via the cannonfx mod reduced the effect/number of criticals.

 

[Merciless Mark]

<!--quoteo(post=145109:date=Apr 10 2006, 05:49 PM:name=Cpt Fabris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cpt Fabris @ Apr 10 2006, 05:49 PM) [snapback]145109[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
<!--quoteo(post=145036:date=Apr 9 2006, 10:54 PM:name=Merciless Mark)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Merciless Mark @ Apr 9 2006, 10:54 PM) [snapback]145036[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I think we need to look at crew and functionality like either have so that some guns wont fire if theres too little crew or ship cant control sails as easily.
or something like a dialouge saying: You dont have enough gun crew left, to you want to reassign other crewmembers to the task? Selecting yes would decrease ship performance but reman all the guns, selecting no would mean loss of firepower but maintain maneuvrability.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds very like that in Meier's Pirates! that works pretty well. Thing is though, when the cannons on ships are destructible anyway and prone to being lost really quite often (as a result of criticals?) is it actually needed for number of crew to play a part? If you're ship is so badly hit that you don't have many crew left, wouldn't you have already lost a significant proportion of the cannons to damage anyway?
Or has your tinkering with via the cannonfx mod reduced the effect/number of criticals.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

The criticals and cannon loss are seperate, but yes the critical hits have been significantly reduced. its my end goal to turn it into a powder magazine explosion

I actually was planning for a while to have a flying cannon when they went off but im not shure as how to control the number of times a model is used in one blast