Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Fluffy Fishy

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Fluffy Fishy

  1. 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.
  2. 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:
  3. Can you please remind me when Spain was ever great in the first place?
  4. 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
  5. How will they compare to the difficulty level from that patch in 2016(?) where the AI was ramped up to be a tougher fight than most humans? I'd love to see that level of difficulty return, especially as their AI model is refined to behave in a more natural way.
  6. I'm quite concerned about the 6 chase guns, it seems a bit much considering her size. Surely 4 is plenty and much more balanced with the rest of the line up. In terms of the rest of her she seems fairly nicely placed although I'm sure the ability to redeem a 4th rate a day is going to have a fairly dramatic effect on the game world, at least there will be more combat. One thing I do love though is her paint scheme, she's quite the sight to behold. Send some love to whoever designed her please. 😍
  7. If you want it to be accurate you would only be able to equip limited number of edinorogs on specific decks, as far as I can remember only a couple of ships were experimentally equipped with them on a full gun deck for a fairly short period of time. Also if I remember correctly the ships armed with these spectacular weapons were all much larger than Cherubim, the smallest of which would be roughly the Russian equivalents to Endymion, Indefatigable and Constitution. Typically speaking they would just be deployed in assignments of about 6-10 on ships of the line. There's no real reason to restrict them to a specific national ship because there's nothing really holding them back from being deployed on theoretical foreign ships captured by the Russians. Ideally if you want to change them to being most accurate in terms of deployment they should just replace carronades on the top decks of the largest ships and probably lose some of their historical prowess and just behave somewhat like a long carronade, even despite their historically high accuracy at long ranges. Alternatively keeping them more accurate to how they performed youd need to be able to mount a few of them on your main gun decks while still relying on using a majority of standard guns. Victory before she was reduced to 32s.
  8. We have removed your meme for being too sexy and relevant - Moderation Team 😎
  9. Under the Mediterranean definition of frigate that's entirely possible, only the lame nations from the north say otherwise and who listens to them anyway. Don't let your dreams just be dreams.
  10. When will someone finally outline the difference between a corvette and a sloop of war 😭
  11. I heard it had she sorts ranging from about 2-12 pounders which was pretty common amongst pirates, you arm with what you can get. but maybe he means this beast of a racebuilt galleon? She's got 46 guns: 20 x 36lb 18 x 24lb 8 x 3lb Broadside weight of 588lb (266.71kg) With the armament she has she's a pretty competitive ship tbf and she looks suspiciously like the generic shipwreck model 🤔 Thats before you even consider the undead crew, she'd be a giant killer in boarding and a hefty opponent in any instance.
  12. A bit off topic but its curious how much more chunky the improved Wasa class is compared to the original 1777 design. Wasa Class: Improved Wasa Class:
  13. Its time to jump on the bandwagon
  14. I honestly don't remember where I found the information, the original post took me about 2-3 days of fairly heavy research during summer of last year trying to dig out some pretty specialised information for Concordia (1772), Dolphin (1784), Grampus (1782), Rättvisan (1783) and Fama (1784). It was a pretty difficult project at the time and I didn't really keep any records of source material I used because I was fairly sure I wouldn't need it again, sorry. Its fairly well known Chapman took a lot of building practises and ideas from his time in England but what he didn't take was the British standard for overbuilding the bulky British brawlers especially the more famous 64s such as Agamemnon weren't something that seemed to translate into Sweden, which is largely why as you point out Adolph could hit 11kn with heavy arms where as Agamemnon struggled to find anything much beyond around 9kn with such similar hydraulic lines. I was unaware that this was the case. its not something that really stuck out to me when I was researching the original post, especially as the picture I was presenting the information for doesn't really show much of a difference in gun port height with the examples shown despite being to scale, but perhaps its because the study is comparing rather similar ships. Thank you for bringing it up though. Original picture and post can be found here here:
  15. Don't make the mistake of suggesting 4th rate is a consistent term. Almost every navy that had 4th rates as part of their rating system defined them as something completely different depending on the navy in question and the time period involved. Simply taking the British evolution of 4th rate over the age of sail it meant crewed by 100-120 men to the end definition of 50-69 guns. You see some pretty striking comparisons between nations too, with France having 44-50 guns for the majority of the Age of Sail while smaller nations like Venice a fourth rate was less than 38 guns. The point made by some nations keeping 4th rates as battleships kind of depends significantly on the 4th rate in question, especially once the inflation of "frigates" meant that you quite often had 50 or even 60 gunners which were by no means built for the line, while you also have a number of examples of purpose built battleships of the same armaments. Naval rating systems are something modern perspective builds too much emphasis on when comparing ships, the whole system was much more built as a loose way of defining funding, general role, equipping and crewing for administration purposes rather than a straight definition of what the ship was capable of. All ships of the line suffered in heavy seas, frigates were defined as weatherly due to the fact their main gun decks were situated notably higher out the water than a standard ship of the line .
  16. Its become clear there is a bit of kickback surrounding Rättvisan and its status as and announced DLC ship. While I'm not interested in going into the debate over whether its going to be positive or negative as a game design choice to include a large ship as part of the DLC roster its probably worth clearing a few things up and help people understand what the ship is, her role and where she stands in the general sense of herself historically. Here is a piece i wrote about 8 months ago as part of a general comparison taken from a picture in the book Das Erbe Der Serenissima by Dr Karl Klaus Korner during my general research for the Fama thread I have built up over my years playing NA. It offers some fairly basic information about the ship and a good starting point for people to understand her. Lets start talking about her role and rating. Sweden has a long and impressive naval history when it comes to ship design and general projective ability for their sea power, they relied on quality design work so as to be able to defend from their main military threat, Russia. What Sweden wasn't however was a first rate naval power, which arguably Russia was, they are clearly a second rate nation when it comes to their navy, and as such had to behave in a way that was fitting, clearly not having such significant resources as the largest European navies. They did however make up for this with some pretty impressive innovations, such as the original 24lb frigate. The designs of Swedish ships were well regarded by other nations upon capture and Chapman, the designer of Rättvisan, is one of the period's most celebrated naval architects. Rättvisan is within the Swedish Navy rated as a 3rd rate, and as such she was part of the main battleship role, even as a 62 as Sweden had less resources to build and maintain the typical 74s of the Period, we also need to remember that the naval rating system of the period was simply a tool of rough role definition and funding administration, which defined how many men the ships were to be crewed by, what support and what jobs the ship was best suited for, which varied significantly from nation to nation. NA takes their rough guide of the rating system from a fairly late rendition of the British Royal navy, which from 1760 onwards classes 64s as 3rd rates, and 1817 onwards 70+ as 3rds, which on paper at least leaves Rättvisan as a solid 4th rate. There is however the classic issue with gamelabs design choices is that when modelling ships for the game they tend to up-gun them fairly significantly and skew things up a little, classic examples of this include Rättvisan's half sister Wasa, who bizarrely appears as a 64 rather than a 60 and Bucentaure who has squeezed in 88 guns. I'm also fairly sure I saw it mentioned that Rättvisan would be a 70 gunner which would push her into the 3rd rates, despite her typical service being as a 62 and 64 gun ship. Her general performance was well known as a good sailor which can be easily cross referenced as it was agreed by each of the nations who commissioned her. her hull is very similar to Agamemnon and the Ardent class built by Britain but she was also more lightly constructed so as to be significantly faster and a little more than the similar Ardent class 64s, it also meant she could carry a significantly heavier armament including a main deck of Swedish and even Russian 36s which gave her a broadside of 352kg under Swedish wartime service and a staggering 400kg during her time with the Russians, which was far greater than the typical British 64 firing around 270kg, again arguably pushing her into NA 3rd rate territory especially as she should really be able to load 36s, which don't really have any distinction against loading 42s in the current game state. However she also took a much lighter peacetime load out to make the most of her sailing qualities, a point that brings some impressive versatility to her design as realistically its incredibly difficult to build a ship to behave how you want it with two very different set ups. As a ship if balanced to her historical build she should be a light-medium hull strength and thickness with a nasty broadside behind her. She should sail well but with obvious significant drawbacks in agility when armed with her heaviest 36lb armaments and realistically she should behave depending on that armament she is given, which is what she was designed and built to do. Part of what makes this discussion so blurry is the fact as a ship she was specifically supposed to bridge the gap between Line ship and Heavy Cruiser. Armed with her wartime armament she is most realistically a 3rd rate Ship of the Line but during peacetime she sits solidly in the Cruising heavy 4th rate. She's an impressive design and a real credit to the ability of Chapman I hope this helps shed a bit more light on the ship and hopefully smooth over discussions a little in what seems like a fairly heated environment right now. As ever thank you for reading .
  17. I would gladly make some time to do a bit of testing. I'll have to keep an eye out for the thread to pop 🙂
  18. After having a few words with some people like @Malachi, @LeBoiteux and @Haratik I'd like to open up the discussion started on another thread looking at the relevance and legacy of the various architects of the period. There are a few household names that resonate with people with all levels of knowledge of the design basis of the period, The various people like Sane, Hunt, Chapman, Humphreys, Slade etc. but there are also people who are less well known who's work made great strides in technology or thought of the period, people like Seppings, Ollivier, Coulomb jnr. etc. I personally consider Slade as the most notable architect of the period for his designs and tinkering with the ships that for many people define the period, no other shipwright can claim to have as many of their designs present at the major battles of the era and Victory, often considered the finest 1st rate of the period is unmistakably the most recognisable ship of the line in history. When it comes to personal preference I prefer Sane to Slade for actual designs, with some of the most extensive production designs in history with Temererie and Pallas. My personal favourite naval Architect of the Age of sail has to be the fairly unknown Andrea Gallina for his work coming up with the first super frigate, the Sant' Andrea in 1724 starting off the 6 designs of ships under the fregata grossa rating, designs that while relatively unknown to most people defined Venetian naval prowess of the period. I'm curious who people consider to be the most iconic naval scientists and architects of the period, what ships they designed and the impacts they made. Who stands out to you and why? If you can include examples of their work, plans, treatises, models or any visual aids that would be great but any reasoning and discussion on the topic would be fantastic as a part of looking at an area not often given too much attention in the study of naval history.
  19. I honestly don't see what's so special about Chapman, as far as I can tell he only feels relevant thanks to the widespread printing of Architectura Navalis. I don't know enough about Jorge Juan but Blaise Ollivier is a good call, its something we could probably discuss in great detail in another thread. My quick thoughts are that I actually prefer Sane as an architect but personal ideology would have to still go to Andrea Gallina for the first super frigate as my favourite. Despite my opinions I still consider Slade to be the best and the icon of architecture of the age of sail era.
  20. British dominance at sea is more to do with advances in complementary technology than naval design or building. They built sturdier ships better suited for brawling, they also built ships that had greater stores for longer voyage time at the expense of handling qualities. The sturdy building meant lower maintenance costs and less need for constant repair, which meant the Royal Navy could commission more ships at one time. You see this in the post capture lives of French and Spanish ships they were often brought into service but for shorter time than their home built counterparts. When it came to actual design, while they had Slade who is no doubt the greatest naval architect of the age of sail the vast majority of their hydraulic line work was done by examining French and Spanish captures while Britain worked on advancing their naval technology in other ways, most notably the carronade and copper plating, which were technologies that vastly expanded the firepower of smaller ships and longevity of deployment respectively. The answer to these technologies was met with the rather lacklustre French obusier, and vastly inferior copper sheathing. These two technologies were the real reason Britain could compete while outnumbered 3-1 in the American revolutionary war. The difficulties in the war of 1812 are quite overstated, mainly thanks to US propaganda drawing attention to a handful of minor victories where larger US ships preyed on smaller British ships but were captured and defeated when the odds were even. Typically the great duels of the conflict we remember today are a small number of actions where the 50+ gun 24 pounder ships of the US navy outfought 38 gun 18 pounder frigates of Britain. Its also something to take into account the sheer cost of these US ships, being much larger and over 3x more expensive than the ships they captured, with build and fitting costs more akin to the heaviest ships of the European navies with the cost of the famous USS Constitution being higher than the 100 gun British first rates HMS Royal George and Victory. Britain's ability to range in the Mediterranean was mainly thanks to Britain controlling key points within the basin, Gibraltar, The Balaeric islands, Malta etc but basing rights in Naples was also necessary. Venetian neutrality wasn't really too important, the city was still producing some of the most forward thinking designs and doctrines of the period but had clearly fallen to a 2nd rate naval power by the 18th century, although roughly akin to Sweden in projective ability. British domination of the Oceans was mainly due to internal struggles within its competitors, The Dutch fell first, while an incredible force during the late 17th century the Dutch navy struggled to remain prominent in the 18th. Spain became too inward focussed struggling to maintain its extensive colonies, spreading its naval force thinly throughout the gains they made in the colonial era sapping funding and knocked out of the top spot thanks to the lack of homeland wood supplies and the damage caused by the wars of spanish succession and the 7 years war. France did well to maintain its navy but really it destroyed itself, beheading its most experienced admirals in the revolution and suffering strings of defeats during the Napoleonic wars, they also suffered greatly from the British blockades of which the most notable was Brest, something they never really recovered from giving the sea resoundingly to the British who maintained dominion of the seas until 1914.
  21. The article you posted is a curious one, it doesn't seem very well researched and has a lot of inaccurate pop history in it, The frigate evolved from construction methods during the 16th century centred around galleys, not galleons, they also have a fair bit of their design ancestry involved in the larger galleass, especially as it was the galleass which was the first type of ship to be designed with scientific principles. Frigates began their history in Italy, then were adopted by Spain and then through them The Netherlands, France and England. Its also probably worth pointing out that Britain didn't build the finest frigates but they did typically build the most sturdy, while the best all round frigates were the ones built in France or the Italian states, with France taking most of the spotlight as one of the major naval nations of the era. Something that does strike me as surprising with frigates is that they aren't actually much more economical than ships of the line when it comes to build and maintenance cost, they do however benefit from lower crewing costs which could actually range quite wildly during the period with typical 74s costing anywhere in the region of £35,000-£65,000 + a fitting cost of anywhere between £10,000-£25,000 while Frigates could cost anywhere between £20,000-£50,000 with fitting costs typically around £7,500-£20,000, where the lower end of costings was dominated by the 26-32 gun ships. Its also probably worth pointing out that Britain didn't really dominate the seas until the mid to late 18th century, with power mainly residing in France and Spain, who could field larger and better supplied navies until the 7 years war when things started to turn, even during the American war for independence the British navy was outnumbered by both the French and Spanish fleets and were roughly outnumbered 3-1 during the conflict. Hope this helps
  22. That goes too far the other way for me, I'm quite picky with ship aesthetics. My favourite ships are all from the 1780s. I'm most fond of designs from this period when the waist is fairly enclosed but still a feature. It doesn't really matter if its a frigate or a line ship either I just like a nice bulwark without the enclosed design of spardecks which I think look a bit square and blocky but I don't like the lego pirate ship vibe either 😄
  23. I don't normally like spardecks but I really like this one, its such a shame she's out of period for NA.
  24. I have spent the last few days dipping into Battlefield Gothic: Armada 2, it will be interesting to see how these two games compare, although no doubt I much prefer the age of sail setting to the Warhammer world, I have no interest in warhammer its just what looks like one of the few tactical "naval" combat games on the market right now. I'd be interested to hear if the dev team here has played any Battlefield Gothic and what they have liked, disliked and how it might inspire features of Ultimate Admiral. I have to say I find the broadsides in space quite satisfying, although I don't like the more gimmicky parts of Armada 2 like the extra powerful abilities. I'm also not a great fan of the campaign urgency mechanic or the lack of a grand campaign but its not the end of the world. Its still an enjoyable experience if you like the kind of game, even though I don't care the slightest for Warhammer lore or world building. I doubt I wouldn't drop Armada 2 in a hearbeat to play a good age of sail naval combat game so I'm still itching for ultimate admiral news
  • Create New...