Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Sir Lancelot Holland

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

224 Excellent

About Sir Lancelot Holland

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

826 profile views
  1. Sir Lancelot Holland

    War and Peace

    During King George III's 'mad' phases he was never allowed anywhere near running the country, that was and still is the province of Parliament (for example Queen Elizabeth never said " "Cheeky Argentinians, they've swiped my Falklands Islands, launch Operation Corporate", Constitutional Monarchies do not work that way, the Government decides then they advise her) indeed the American Revolution/ War of Independence was solely a British Government decision with little or no input from His Majesty or the Prince Regent who represented the King during his mad phases. People tend to forget that after the English Civil War and post execution of Charles I, no British Monarch has ruled by divine right, but, by the tolerance of Parliament, even Queen Victoria had to defer to Parliament! It is true of every European Nation that still has a Monarchy that the King or Queen is a figurehead, with no real powers to run their countries, Parliaments who run Constitutional Monarchies do so in the name of their Sovereign, and when they get things wrong, naturally, it's not their fault, but their Sovereign's, in whose name they exercise power (Republics like the USA and France can actually blame their politicians for their actions since they don't have a Royal fall-guy! The best argument for becoming a Republic ever devised). Of course since everything is done in the name of the King, then it is technically an order from the King, even if he was incapable of stringing two sentences together, in that respect then it would actually work in game, especially if you consider that the King says he wants Bermuda, then, the clans, as fleets of His Britannic Majesties navy are they guys who figure out how to get Bermuda and hold it in his name, Nation wise, the only role it plays is that the King says I wish this, and the clans fight under his colours, How and what they do to achieve it is in the hands of the clans. The role players among us have it pretty much right, The actions of the Swedes, the British, the Spanish and up to a point in the timeline the French, the King rules O.K. Even though in reality he does not! Imagine the French Day crew as Royalist and the Night crew as Republican, there we have their difference of opinion, then again, perhaps not.....
  2. Sir Lancelot Holland


    The greatest fear aboard any ship is fire, a major, out of control fire means nowhere to run, nowhere to hide except over the side, those who jumped from the WTC were scared beyond reason, many seamen would react the same way. Certainly if it is believed the fire can be contained and extinguished the crew will remain to fight the fire, if not abandonment is the only option left to them. With regard to no crew would abandon ship in the middle of the sea I would remind you of the Marie Celeste, found abandoned for no apparent reason off of the Azores, to this day her abandonment has never been explained, nor will it ever be, there was no evidence of fire and with a cargo of Alcohol abandoning ship would be a logical step for her Master in that instance. It has been proposed that leakage from the Alcohol barrels prompted the abandonment for fear of an imminent explosion, however this is speculation, no hard and fast information was logged and no survivors were ever found to testify.
  3. Sir Lancelot Holland

    A Strategy & Tactical Build for the US Space Force (USSF)

    Ironically the same can be said for the United Kingdom and France too, the Malaysian Mau Mau uprising, South Africa, in the case of the UK, Vietnam and Algiers for the French, it is a lesson every Nation that has held an Empire had to learn, with great power comes great responsibility, great power is always held in both awe and resentment.
  4. Sir Lancelot Holland

    A Strategy & Tactical Build for the US Space Force (USSF)

    It was never meant to hit fighters, it was meant for the un-escorted Badgers, Backfires and Bears at long ranges before they got into missile firing range, part of a multi layered fleet defence system. Defensive maneuvering was equally effective against Sparrows and Sidewinders for the same reasons you put forward for defeating the Phoenix. Unlike the Vulcan none of those air-frames could behave like a fighter, so the chances were a bit better of hitting them. Even so the Tomcats and Hornets would still have to close and engage supersonic bombers like the Blackjack with Sparrows or less likely Sidewinders, a stern chase they probably would not win due to fuel considerations once the missiles were released, the Badgers and Bears were easier to get at, so Blackjacks were invariably the primary targets for the Tomcats if they could catch them.
  5. Sir Lancelot Holland

    A Strategy & Tactical Build for the US Space Force (USSF)

    I think the concept was sound, in practice however despite the radar/missile/platform working well, it was far from being cost effective, to work it required salvo firing from 200 miles with no guarantee of a sufficient number of hits, although the small reduction of enemy aircraft numbers did mean that for every kill meant that 4 less missiles could be launched at the fleet. With lasers I think given time and the current trend for miniature electronics with high power outputs it may well become a possibility, but as you say it is still some considerable time off yet.
  6. Sir Lancelot Holland

    A Strategy & Tactical Build for the US Space Force (USSF)

    Yes perhaps lasers are the way forward certainly more feasible than a large missile, the Phoenix/Tomcat combination while spectacular and effective proved to be prohibitively expensive.
  7. Sir Lancelot Holland

    A Strategy & Tactical Build for the US Space Force (USSF)

    I think Hachi has it about right, my early years were spent maintaining platforms that kill submarines, and submarines are traceable via noise, magnetic variation, and heat exchange, Satellites are capable of picking up small heat signatures in the oceans, they can detect nuclear power plants and tell if a ship is preparing to go to sea by heat signature alone even if it steam, diesel or electronically driven!
  8. Sir Lancelot Holland

    A Strategy & Tactical Build for the US Space Force (USSF)

    There is to be honest no requirement for space based weapons systems, the fastest way to win a modern technological war is to destroy the Command and Communications structure, once that is gone, cohesion is gone, no centralised strategy can be established or transmitted, all actions would be at a tactical level. Once all electronic signalling is gone, what is left? Line of sight communications? Carrier pidgeons? The pony express? Develop satellite killer missiles, launched from aircraft in the stratosphere, combined with cyberspace technology and it is all over, no communications = no warfare ability, this is why technology is warfare's greatest liability, it's too complex, and the military and political sectors are overdependent on it.
  9. Sir Lancelot Holland

    Paints mechanic

    Indeed, during the inter war years the Far East Squadrons wore a white hull with buff funnels scheme which looked very pretty, I think it is HMS President, moored on the Thames close to HMS Belfast still wears that scheme, also research has shown that the Black/yellow paint scheme worn by HMS Victory was not the colour scheme worn at Trafalgar, at Trafalgar she wore a light pink checkerboard scheme, the latest photographs of Victory show her in this scheme instead of the traditional Black /Yellow checkerboard so familiar to the world at large.
  10. Sir Lancelot Holland

    PVP rewards for ship return to port

    It took years, tens of thousands of £'s, $'s, Reals, to build ships, It was considered by all nations that it was cheaper, more cost and time efficient to capture and reuse ships against their former owners, the cost and time to build ships in game is markedly reduced, there is little or no incentive to capture and reuse ships in the game as long as the emphasis is on VM's and a position on a leader board. Were it not for the Prize system and the hope of accumulating enough prize money for the 'little pub when I leave the sea' or whatever dream (and the threat of execution should they become logged as 'R' in the ships log) they had, kept the poorly paid officers and men of every navy at sea. While promotion depended largely on patronage, performance in battle and the ships captured were the criteria by which Captains and Admirals were judged by their peers, the men under command and the Nation as a whole, and, influenced very heavily their status in society, there was no other way that a son of a Norfolk Preacher could become a Lord, a Peer of the realm and an Admiral, a hero to his nation for 200 years. Even his much maligned opponent Admiral Villeneuve, who not only worked extremely hard to earn his rank and survived the terror of his nation post revolution as well, went through the same process to achieve his station in life only to be humiliated, driven to end his own life by his Emperor, a singular disrespect for a Flag Officer who fought with courage and honour (things that mattered far more in the period the game is set in than they do today) for his nation, whose only failure was to sail on the orders of his Emperor against every shred of experience, and, in full knowledge of the outcome of those orders under the prevailing conditions of that time, also with the full knowledge that his Emperor intended to relieve him of his command, that his replacement was en-route to relieve him. Naval Action is essentially a war game, fought with beautifully rendered and for the most part accurate sailing ships, whose function was solely to destroy the enemy, to protect their nations trade and waters, most of all to survive to fight another day should things not go to plan on that day, the Articles of war, the ROE's were written with that aim in mind, despite the draconian punishments, in part the game reflects that, the capping of enemy ships, the prize system which made the the names and reputations of so many great Captains and Admirals of all nations drove men on to fight in truly horrific conditions, the pride of fighting with, and, for men like Nelson, Villeneuve, John Paul Jones stayed with the rank and file for life, to say I was there, with those great men meant far more than VM's, a place on a leader board, or even that 'little pub', few of those men got their 'little pub' where they would recount their achievements with their Captain, their Admiral, and their ship, even if they did not get their pub their pride was no less, you see that very same pride in the posts in the great battles thread, they tell us they were there when we capped or sunk Christendom (no offense intended), it matters not if it was Trafalgar or Bensalem in game, the incentives should be the same, for the pride is the same, to say I was at Bensalem is no different to saying I was at Trafalgar, excepting that one is historical fact, the other is a battle in a game, To say I was there and receiving a little prize money means a lot more to many people than VM's and a number on a leader board, irrespective of whether they win, lose or draw a battle, for even the losing side sometimes took captured ships home for prize money, they too were there, they too were proud to say I was there.
  11. Sir Lancelot Holland

    Paints mechanic

    I think most people understand that Royal Navy has long used colour schemes and flags to denote fleets or squadrons within those fleets, in order of seniority the RN used RED White and Blue ensigns to denote which fleet a ship belonged to, Admiral's were often said to be an Admiral of the Red for example, even after the advent of steel RN Fleets were distinguished by the shade of grey they wore, Dark Admiralty Grey for the home fleet, Medium Admiralty Grey for the Med, and Light Admiralty Grey for the Far East Fleets. With the anticipated new flags certainly ships of a nation could fly any of the variations of national colours A Fine usage of the old Royalist France and the Revolutionary Tricoleur or one of the many incarnations of the US flag (including the many colourful flags seen during, and after the American Revolution/War of Independence) to denote the region a ship operates from, or her clan. Clans could be distinguished by their painted strakes or checkerboard colours and even clan flags flown in conjunction with National Colours like company flags were. Ship recognition was always a little hit and miss, it could take months before the news that a ship had been captured filtered through the respective fleets ( poor ship recognition was a trait carried over as late as WWII, Admiral Holland spent part of the last six minutes of his life fighting a Cruiser having assumed the lead ship was Bismark when in fact it was the Heavy Cruiser Prinz Eugen, until Capt Leach aboard Prince of Wales very tactfully informed him by signal flag of his error!) In the smoke and confusion of an 19th Century sea battle colours and paint schemes were a quick way of identifying an enemy at close quarters especially after the signal General Chase was hoisted. Often ships of the same class could only be told apart by colour scheme, or by the cut of their rigging, or her figurehead or transom carvings. There will always be mis-identification of ships, especially where colour schemes are similar, it's the nature of warfare that such mistakes occur, even at close quarters, in land battles such errors also happened. Perhaps a selection of paints and flags for each ship and nation should be sold as DLC certainly it would achieve the aim of raising revenue and definitely less controversial than DLC ships, Clans and nations could then make their ships more distinctive even in the smoke of battle.
  12. Sir Lancelot Holland

    Work in progress: Dreadnoughts

    While Jutland was the only fully fledged fleet action of WWI and the controversy over who actually won/lost will never be satisfactorily be decided by Great Britain or Germany, it should be remembered that there were many smaller battles that took place, The Falklands, Dogger Bank, The Bight, all had an impact on strategy one way or another, and all will very probably be the most likely form of battle as opposed to the major fleet battle at Jutland. It is ironic that less than half a century on the same protagonists fought almost a mirror war at sea in the Atlantic and North Sea with the same result. Perhaps it is not surprising since the issues facing both navy's had not changed, neither had the respective positions (in the world order of the time) of both navy's changed at least until 1941. At first glance this game has potential, especially in that ship design may be either historical or a what if scenario, for example if the Battlecruiser design been even slightly modified, and the practice of stockpiling cordite away from the protected areas within the RN for faster reload times been discontinued, would it have changed the battlecruiser loss rate at Jutland? Or even prevented the loss of HMS Hood in a later war? Certainly for whatever reason Great Britain suffered the loss of Battlecruisers far out of proportion to any other navy in world war I and to be honest Beatty may have been wrong, it may never have been the case that there was something wrong with his bloody ships that day, but more likely, the way they were fought.
  13. Sir Lancelot Holland

    Sterncamping realism - possible solution

    This was pretty much how the system worked in real life, every ship carried marines as one of their primary functions was to protect the Captain and officers from mutiny, They also fulfilled a landing party role and were invariably found in the fighting tops (the platforms between mast sections) from which the unknown French Marine ended Nelson's career at Trafalgar. To be honest, unless the ships were locked together, accuracy was poor, smooth bore weapons, that were notoriously inaccurate, muzzle loaded with a long reload time on a platform 30 ft+ from a moving deck made for some interesting weapons skills. I suspect many Captains were more likely to place their faith in the 2lb swivel guns loaded with grape for deck clearance while sniping officers from the fighting tops. In the 18th/19th centuries no small ship Captain would attempt to lay alongside a ship of the line, Sol's were seldom caught out of support distance from other SOL's or Frigates unless they were badly damaged, and any Captain would be aware that if he attempted such a maneuver, he could be risking Courts Martial and a death sentence if it went wrong, and, should he survive. Of course it makes better game play for small ships to try their luck against larger ships and there is not the 'gentleman's agreement' that essentially prohibited a Post Captain from engaging smaller ships unless fired upon by the ship in question in game as existed during the Napoleonic wars.
  14. Sir Lancelot Holland

    Quaker Guns

    "As for OP the only way this would matter is if the OW tag tells you something like, '5th rate 20 guns' a LGV normally but some one with false guns might have '5th Rate 38 guns' Belle Poule. You will give it gun count of ships very simular to the trader ship. NOt sure what ship the Indiaman would match with in game. This would actually work great if we had paints and you could paint that trader ships to look very much like a war ship counter part or even have some paints that made warhsips look like trade ships since that is our only indicater in game is what the ship looks like in the OW. This would be an interesting addition in the game along with false flags (maybe for pirates/privateers) that allow you to look as if you are a national ship of the false flag until you tag the other players ships. Than upon battle start your true flag shows and battle begins. But I can see that so being abused even if it's just a pirate only skill." The British East India company routinely painted their ships hull's to look like warships, they also carried Company Soldiers (or mercenaries if you like) as well as ex navy gunners, those guys were real serious about keeping their cargo's! The use of national flags as a ruse de Guerre has always been legitimate as long as those colours were struck and the fight carried out under the ships real national colours, it was certainly true of 'Q' ships like Pinguin, but not of AMC's like Rawalpindi, even Graf Spee was known to have impersonated a U.S, cruiser and nominally flew the Stars and Stripes as a ruse de guerre, as well as using her sister ships names to confuse the enemy. Such measures date back to this period, and, that being said, Captain Haddock commanding RMS Lusitania (which was according to Janes Fighting Ships was an Armed Merchant Cruiser despite never having carried a gun) during WWI was censured for using Ammercan colours to avoid U-boat attack! Even during WWII for the St. Nazaire raid several lend lease U.S. Destroyers were disguised as German DD's and flew German Naval ensigns until engaged when the White ensigns were broke out and German colours struck. So yes such measures would be legitimate and would definitely add another level of immersion at a tactical level.
  15. Sir Lancelot Holland


    With respect Sir where is the Provocation there? While I agree that the context of the word Bastard held a different meaning in the 19th century and was provocation enough to warrant a duel, and could bar people from the upper echelons of society, today it is pretty much a common phrase due to it's overuse, and, misuse out of context to it's original meaning. It is a sad reflection on today's society that phrases like 'i hope you die of cancer' are considered commonplace, even normal, where one group/person wishes to denigrate another group/person whom they disagree with or dislike, especially when it used by the anti Smoking Industry against those who choose a smoking lifestyle, such comments reflect a mentality that should have died after WWII and the Nuremberg trials, sadly it has not. There is no place either in game, nor in real life, for such cruel and unnecessary comments, a sentiment that I am certain that you, and anyone else with common decency, and tolerence endorse without reservation.