Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Fluffy Fishy

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Fluffy Fishy last won the day on August 26 2018

Fluffy Fishy had the most liked content!


About Fluffy Fishy

  • Birthday July 19

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    : La Arsenale di Venezia
  • Interests
    Venetian History, Maritime History, Martial Arts, Watersports

Recent Profile Visitors

3,761 profile views

Fluffy Fishy's Achievements


Commander (8/13)




Community Answers

  1. I'll be interested when they start to post stuff more than paintings. Saying stuff doesn't make it worthwhile but its nice to see some competition in the market.
  2. On a discussion forum for Europa Universalis 4 talking about the upcoming additions to marines I've just written a lengthy post about numbers of marines as a percentage of force used by a number of nations. There might be some people here who have better experience understanding Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands than me here so I thought I might find some interested parties and post what I have written here in the hope to find some more answers Portugal and England didn't particularly use higher proportions of their total manpower for marines than the other nations mentioned though, The highest is by a clear winner Venice, but even with differentiation in game direction I can't see Castile (Spain), Portugal, Netherlands or Britain really utilising marines to the same extent as the Venetians did. Its probably also worth pointing out Aragon would very likely have been a nation who would clearly have developed a significant marine corps should they not have unified under the Iberian crown. Other nations that possibly need some thought are Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Genoa and formable nations such as Scandinavia, USA and Italy. Taking the Napoleonic wars for example, the peak troop numbers for marines serving was 31,400, while the British Army total consisted of around 250,000. I'm not quite sure if the total number includes the 31,000 marines or not, I'd suspect not as marines typically fell under the navy board. This gives you a percentage of around 12.5%-15% depending on the count for total number of marines, including those attached to ships. Spain as far as I can tell had a total military during the Napoleonic period of about 220,000, of which 12500 were marines, leaving them with at about 5.5% their total military. Meanwhile Venice in the 1790s were maintaining a peacetime military of just under 24000, of which included a force of 5000 marines, leaving them with a total of 20% of their enlisted manpower, There was also a marine reserve pool of 9000 marines who would be called to war quickly leaving a total of 33,000 professional troops increasing the percentage of enlisted manpower to a little shy of 40% being marines. Portugal seems a bit more ambiguous but during the Napoleonic period I frequently see the number of 3 battalions being mentioned, while the Portuguese army was around 35,000. Assuming they are roughly 800-1000 men, that leaves the Portuguese at around 8-10% of their fighting men. I've struggled to find more direct numbers than this, Dutch military during the Napoleonic period (as the Batavian republic) points to being 35,000 men strong at its peak, with no specialised marine corps but some of whom served as unofficial marines as part of the Batavian navy. There's also a record of 1500 Dutch marines landing in the famous Medway raid but no reference to how many "marines" in total. Its probably also worth mentioning that France kept a significant naval marine corps but the numbers would be heavily skewed out of proportion for the Napoleonic period due to the sheer weight of numbers in Napoleon's land based forces so I've not included them for now. Simply put on force percentage example numbers during the Napoleonic period you see: Venice - 20-40% Britain - 12.5-15% Netherlands (Guesstimate around 10%) Portugal - 8-10% Spain - 5-6% I'd also be interested in numbers being more relevant at the heights of naval projection for each nation, so the 16-17th century Portugal and 17th century Netherlands and Spain. Its also curious that a lot of these marine units of the time had further specialisation into artillery warfare, assumedly because it was so vital to provide artillery cover to opposed landings. If my numbers are wrong please correct me.
  3. It concerns me that we are modelling competitiveness with a game released in 2003. Something 16 years old simply shouldn't be a benchmark to be used to judge how effective the game marketing or player retention is although if anything it should be ringing some alarm bells that something so old which also requires an almost full time commitment as well as a monthly subscription is holding on to vastly more players. WoWs however is a completely different experience and probably not the best thing to compare to.
  4. She was a 24 gun ship which puts her at a broadside of 12 guns. The accounts of 1000 guns are most likely either miscommunicated or misunderstood records that relate to her having a crew of around 1000 who would mainly man the fore and aft castles in combat. Her armaments wouldn't have consisted of either basilisk or great bombards but likely more reasonable sized guns that wouldn't be destined to a specific poundage, she would have fired stone shot and each of her guns would have had a unique weighting and projectiles individually crafted for each gun so as to fit with the somewhat mismatched production methods of the era. Most naval bombards of the era had a calibre of about 8-14 inches and took a long time to reload. Its great to see some attention being brought to ships of this period but as a great ship of the early 16th century she wouldn't really have any place in the Age of sail, which didn't begin for almost 150 years after Michael's launch. Thank you for taking the time to research and write the post though. Its always great to see enthusiasm for naval history no matter the era
  5. HMS Leopard is 1790-1814, not 1775-1790, she was being built between 1775-1790 she obviously wasn't an active ship over this time. Interestingly she was constructed at two different dockyards.
  6. I found these pictures of the 18th century Venetian machine gun made by a German re-enactment group from an example they found in a museum. The weapon was built with sea use in mind although historically it mainly saw action around 80 years after its creation in the Italian wars of unification.
  7. She was a 4th rate, simple as. There's really no reason to classify her as anything else. She wasn't however a completely new style of ship, super frigates were born in 1724 and 24lb frigates were first conceived in 1782. You can talk to death about her as a vessel but whether you think she more resembles leopard style 50 gunners, which really she does, or if you are under the illusion she is some kind of groundbreaking frigate design, which as much as the fan-fair like to pretend her to be she really isn't. She is still either a 4th rate 50 gun ship or a 4th rate heavy frigate. She should be a 4th rate.
  8. I wrote this a long time ago, its still relevant; Its probably also worth pointing out that since as far as I understand it gamelabs don't have a systematic process to design ships they hand build each one from the ground up the actual modelling of the ships is such a small part of the work. Modelling is about 10-15% of the total work involved with making a ship into a playable thing, there's also a lot of texture work but the vast majority of the time and money goes into programming the ship and trying to balance it properly. Balance is an eternal problem that if I'm honest GL rarely get right. The game just needs to accept that certain ships should have certain limits, the current roster is also somewhat random and distorted with a vast need for filling out with a lot more variety. The need to create a use for more ships and the realistic balance of the 74 being the most viable compromise between economy, firepower and sailing qualities and should be the most useful battleship in the game, while other heavier/lighter ships should also have meaningful places and be a lot rarer on the waters.
  9. I still can't get over the weird world where the USS Constitution and United States are 3rd rates, They are solid 4th rates and should be balanced accordingly. There is far too much of a lobby trying to push them to be godly ships capable of far more than they were historically both in a combative and sailing sense and the move to make them 3rd rates seems the obvious result of that push to make them much better than they really are. The Idea they both have better health than Wasa and similar structure values to Bellona is just frankly disappointing. The 3 ships should be 4th rates no questions asked, with Endymion being the heaviest 5th.
  10. Not sure what this screenshot really means but the ratings given on these ships kind of scares me a bit I'd assume the numbers next to their name are something like a ship rating, which I'm shocked to see how certain ships are so highly rated, especially essex, constitution and requin.
  11. I bought myself the middle option, I'm downloading it now and I'm looking forwards to giving it a go
  12. If you wanted to do a Venetian DLC you'd have to focus on the career of Angelo Emo, who spent most of his career as a pirate hunter but was the last great admiral of Venice fighting in the Venetian Berber war from 1784 until his death in 1792 after which peace was reestablished. The last Venetian admiral who was Emo's second in command was Tomasso Condulmer who retired from service following the treaty of Leoben, briefly acted as a commander in the resistance to French and Austrian rule but soon gave up as it caused too much misery for the people in the recently annexed lands. Emo isn't really as interesting as a history as Nelson or JPJ, especially as Emo is partly made as significant as he was due to his various reforms and his appointment to Capitano Straordinario delle Navi and then even as Procuratore de Ultra before the senate started to worry about the French Revolution and started to favour Tomasso Condulmer due to Emo's aggressive attitude towards piracy and his costly campaigns in Northern Africa. More realistically I'd prefer to see DLC focussed on the 7 years war or War of Spanish Succession, Especially the 7 years war and its world spanning actions.
  13. This doesn't really work with Constitution as an example, Constitution has far more mass under the water than Agamemnon and Rattvisan, Constitution is slightly thinner but has a much deeper draught. The illusion of Constitution being a much faster ship purely because she is a "frigate" doesn't really make sense. Constitution does have a better sailing ratio but this is only really due to her incredible length as a ship, Comparing hulls, Rattvisan and Agamemnon aren't too dissimilar shapes and aren't really blocky, if anything Constitution is a more square shape than the two ships you are comparing her to who both have some really quite nice hydraulic lines. Measurements: Length Constitution: 63m Agamemnon: 48.77m Rattvisan: 49.6m Width Constitution: 13.26m Agamemnon: 13.44m Rattvisan: 13.59m Draught: Constitution: 7m Agamemnon: 5.19 Rattvisan: 5.79m Tonnage (BM) Constitution: 1576 Agamemnon: 1,383.6 Rattvisan: (Around 1400-1425?) Plans:
  14. Can you please remind me when Spain was ever great in the first place?
  15. While I kind of agree that it would be pretty awesome to have more versatility the Dutch are long past their peak by the game's settings of what appears to be around the 1760s-1805. While its not really the direction the game will take it would be absolutely awesome to have a playable grand campaign where you can pick out from Britain, France, Spain etc. It would likely make for a much more complex project though so I'd much rather have a more focussed highly polished project that I'm anticipating this to be over a more open game that wildly flaps in the wind. Imagine a game playing as a European power projecting your naval supremacy across the world though
  • Create New...