Fluffy Fishy

Another pretty good video by Military History Visualised, while its not quite as high end as some of the others the channel has published its still a nice little introduction to the thoughts behind the possible invasion of Britain by Napoleon even if the conclusion is pretty easy to assume. Enjoy

This is a short documentary taken from the distant future in a post NA world, when they one day sadly close down the PVP server.

I recently posted a video from you tube looking at how to steer a ship of the line and the mechanics involved with doing so, now there is a second video looking at how to work the anchor. I never really thought about how difficult it was to deal with an anchor until this video showed me, its so easy to think of how casual drawing in the anchor can be in a modern vessel with an electric anchor system. Enjoy

Something I have had on my mind the past week or so is looking more deeply at the figures used to give stats to each ship in the game in the hope of adding value to ship proposals allowing for a rough idea of what we might get added to the game. We have quite a lot of information having been collected now by some incredible dedication from players like Jodgi and Olav Deng. What I would like to achieve here is a better understanding of the statistics in question using the main resources we now have available to try and give any serious proposals, for example the kinds of ships that are going to the selection polls. The main resources as far as I have come across are Jodgi's speed society charts, Olav Deng's wiki and the spreadsheet made up from the values given to the ships in game who I am unsure of the author. Feeding these together with player's actual experiences of ship handling and naval architecture you could probably pull together some pretty accurate predictions of potential ships stats. The main limitations that I can see is for things like hull shape, which isn't easily modelled through mathematics, the other issue I see is discrepancies though actual information on ships, for example displacement tons and burden, or alternatively where ships often get recorded to having different styles of measurements of gun deck length vs total length. So taking rough measurements from these data provided you could slowly fill in gaps for similar sized ships, then extrapolate from there, although another hiccup would be the data used in game doesn't quite reflect historical observations. In an ideal world it would be incredible to see someone very clever designing a little formula to give rough estimates into proposed ships but either way it would be incredible to be able to predict rough statistics for any ships, even if you aren't looking to put them in the game, just for fun purposes or to see how it compares to historical data like admiralty reports. If anyone has any more ideas they can expand on this, or even if they have attempted to do this before I would really love to hear from them, it could be an incredible tool for bringing more information to ship selection polls, but also general interest. The more information we can create the better. Thank you as ever for reading, please share any thoughts you might have on the subject.

This video popped up on my youtube subscriber list, looking at how ships of the line, specifically in this case HMS Victory actually steer, whilst giving quite a nice little visual aid and talking it through in a little detail of the mechanisms at work. while its not the most in depth video its a really nice little introduction to mechanics at play and how ships actually turned port or starboard without mashing the A or S buttons and invariably typing aaaaaaaaaaaaa into nation or battle chat. Enjoy

I noticed the whole waterline length thing too, but I guess it just shows the compromises between gameplay and history, where the devs only follow rough historical values. Weight seems vaguely associated with displacement, at least as far as I can tell as it seems the numbers most closely associated with the values given in that column. Going back to waterline length there are a lot of errors when comparing to historical values, the one that screams out to me loudest is actually Bucentaure which is somehow almost as long as what I understand as the ship's longest points of measurement, between the cabin on the stern and the full prow (not including sprit), being just over 59m, while her waterline length is a staggering 48m. Turn rate seems a somewhat artificial value based on what I imagine is W/L and weight, whilst I believe yard power is the square area of sail in comparison to another value, maybe draft? Again I'm not sure what specifically. Square vs Jibs is easy enough to understand, as is Acceleration vs Deceleration. If you know more about the values and their meanings please do elaborate, I've been trying to make sense of the table since it first appeared.

Constitution should probably not be changed much from its current state of the game her current sailing model seems very fair to her true design, Constitution shouldn't receive a magic boost to turning because her design just doesn't really allow for that. If we are going to balance her she shouldn't stand out against the sailing model as a giant red herring that gets a big boost because people want her to be artificially good. Interesting mention for the Bucentaure earlier in the original post too, mainly because she is more nerfed in the game in reality than constitution is, with her waterline length in game stats being quite dramatically cruel, giving her a much longer hull than what was historical, where as Constitution receives a nice little buff to her historical values already, where she is 1.5m shorter than she should be at the water. Please do not underestimate the sheer size of Constitution to ships of the era, where she is longer than a lot of 1st rates, with a hull dimensions and draft similar to a heavier end 3rd rate. If you are going to buff constitution the best thing to do is extend what she is good at slightly, make her a little faster and a fair bit tougher, leaving her with a significant structure boost putting her in similar placement to some of the 3rd rates. This would make her a pretty good ship for duking things out in a straight line, but quite vulnerable on the turn, further enhanced by her heavy broadside. She should be able to pick her fights and play cat and mouse to utilise her heavy broadside and make the most of her decent speed and strong structure. Giving her the ability to out smaller profile ships like 3rd rates and even the 2nd rates seems a bit silly, because right now the reality is she is the 4th longest ship in the game. For some extra reference on turning here is the table that has been floated around on these forums a few times.

I'm a little confused here, wasn't Wasa built in 1778, where Gustav Adolph was built in 1782 as a slightly larger variant, surely the Wasa is still the lead ship of the class in this circumstance as the first to be built of her plans, that being said I'm by no means experienced in Swedish shipbuilding so I may have things wrong. Either way it seems somewhat bad of Game-Labs to name a ship after a different ship, there is a responsibility to try to accurately portray history as for a lot of people this game is probably as deep as they will ever look into 18th/19th Century naval history. At the risk of taking this a little off topic, what's wrong with the 98 gun second rates? They are lovely ships, more agile than first rates, cheaper to build and commission and could pretty much do the vast majority of jobs a first rate could do, there was a reason large 2nd rates were so popular within the Royal navy, The Neptune class is so iconic too. Bringing this back on topic, the Constitution is living proof that size has less to do with things than hull form and how much cloth a ship can safely use, although there are obvious limitations of strain weights of wood that only allow for so much of a large ship. If you are going to do this please make the ships more than just a palate swap, I'd much rather just see the ship renamed and re-classed as a 3rd rate without a Wasa than another dubiously authentic ship, I personally get very frustrated with the continued over gunning of each ship Gustav Adolf is supposedly a 62 while Wasa is a 60, it seems such a shame to produce more ships that stray from their typical load outs, even then Gustav was reduced to a 60 anyway to maintain her large armament. Either this or make gun weight have a much larger affect on performance. Mainly her size, referring you up to my original post I pointed out that constitution was just massive, that and her dense live oak framing made for her to just be a very heavy ship, not that really makes any real difference as a raw fact on its own. The other things to look at are just how close knitted her vertical frames are, they are almost to the point where they are another layer of planking which shows how heavily she was built in general which all adds to the weight. I'd almost be tempted to say her weight in the game stats are actually too low at this point where they have been balanced a bit in her favour, which is fine because its a game not a simulator but just don't underestimate how massive she actually is. This is the reason behind like I explained earlier I reckon she should keep her fairly poor turn rate but receive a nice healthy boost to structure

The forums have been alive with this kind of topic for weeks now, pretty much ever since the rebalance, with the hottest topics mainly centring around Constitution and Wasa, while realistically its worth looking at the whole class together, especially how its very easy to see that there are really 3 classes of 4th rate, where Wasa is clearly the best ship, followed by agamemnon, while Constitution, Ingermanland and Wapen are sulking at the bottom, even to the point that Ingermanland and Wapen are only seen on very special occasions by enthusiasts, whilst Constitution users are basically only sailing her because there's a lot of enthusiasm and national pride for the ship which transfers into the game, despite her being objectively worse than Wasa and Aggy. What I propose is looking at the whole situation through the eyes of history to then extrapolate and create a more even balance on the whole, hopefully benefiting gameplay with a much more interesting choice between the group as a whole. Wasa: Wasa is as most people know fairly undisputed as the best ship in the game right now, if she were in another game she would be banned from tournaments and receive all kinds of other checks on her. Historically as I understand her she is a weird hybrid of data taken from the ship itself, mixed with some data taken from a slightly larger sister ship but using the Chapman plans, this leaves her as a bizarre complement where she retains the ideal sailing characteristics of the original 1778 Wasa, which were fairly exceptional, but then is paired with the 64 guns and heavier calibre of her sister ship. To balance her, I'd like to see her characteristics left fairly as they are, but then change her armament down to 24lbs as is pretty standard across the 4th rate board, I'd also like to see her thickness reduced slightly to reflect the fact she by no stretch had the same thickness as the much bulkier built Agamemnon or Constitution. Ideally I'd like to see her reduced down to her proper 60 guns too, but that might be a big ask. Agamemnon: The Ardent class were numerous and bulky, built to be good in a scrap but their sailing characteristics weren't particularly great, as was typical from most of their contemporary 64s, where the ratio between length and waist just left them in a pretty poor position for sailing when compared to frigates and 74s, which was part of the reason they were phased out over the later 18th century. Agamemnon herself was well revered due to her success under Nelson, but generally considered typical of the Ardent ships. Balancing Agamemnon depends really on what you do with the other ships in the class, I think she could potentially take a little speed hit, but in general she just needs to be thicker and more sturdy than Wasa, whilst also remaining the less mobile ship of the two. Constitution: The much revered and famous "Old Iron Sides" being one of the best examples of ships we are still lucky enough to have in the modern world, historically the most successful US ship of the period and the only current "in service" ship of the US navy to have ever sunk another ship in combat. Trying to find factual information about her is somewhat difficult, mainly due to the massive amount of propaganda and pride centred around her as a national symbol. While its a bit controversial of a statement I feel like her sailing characteristics are fairly well covered in the current build. She has access to carronades in a much meatier form than the other 4th rates, potentially leaving her with a much heftier broadside than the other 4ths, so is pretty well covered on these things but something to keep in mind is the sheer beastly size of her, while based on some of the theory behind contemporary 74s, she is just massive, larger than most 74s, even competing with some first rates such as the 1745 establishment HMS Royal George, and the later HMS Royal Sovereign in terms of length, draft and displacement (although she maintains a notably thinner waist). The appropriate balancing I'd personally call for Constitution is leaving her turn rate where it is and giving her a significant boost to structure or a little more thickness, I'd personally go for structure though, at least taking her towards the typical 3rd rate range, maybe even going beyond Bellona to a mid point between her and Pavel, I'd also pump up her speed a little bit so she can push through her current disastrous problem of getting stuck in tack. Ingermanland: I'm not too savvy on the history of Ingermanland, she seems mostly put in the game due to the fact that the devs seem to drive a little bit extra attention towards Russia during the time period, which is fair enough. From what the Wikia says, she was supposed to be a pretty fast ship, at least for her time. Her main issue being the way that she is basically a dinosaur by the standards of the majority of the ships in the game, being built in 1715. To make her more viable it would be nice to give her a little all round boost mainly for gameplay, currently she is a bit paper thin, both in terms of structure and thickness, she does have the benefit of the 32lbs and it would be nice to see her able to apply these a bit more, so perhaps give her a moderate speed boost too. Wapen von Hamburg: Similarly to Ingermanland I'm not too familiar with her, again she was built as a bit of a tribute ship mainly because of the large number of Germans who own the game. She is also similar to Ingermanland in the way she is one of the older ships, this time 1722 so doesn't benefit from the next 50 or so years of naval technology. I'd treat her in the same kind of boat when it comes to balancing her too, she just needs a little push in all directions, her turn rate makes her easily the most nimble of the higher end ships, it would just be nice to see her have a little general stat boost elsewhere so she could perform a little better overall and actually acheive something once she gets to the fray. These suggestions would hopefully lead to a more diverse choices in the game in terms of solo and port action, giving players an actual choice, something the game does pretty well in 5th and 6ths but seems to lose when you get into the 4th-1st rates. You can of course diversify the BR a little too, but on the whole I'd rather see more of a natural ship diversity gained through play styles and real player choices that make a difference to what people personally like to sail than a slightly forced arbitrary value like BR, even though BR is very necessary part of the game. I hope this somewhat brings together what I have read on the forums and discord over the past few weeks, mostly between the Constitution and Wasa and puts a few more positive pieces on the table as a whole. Thank you as ever for reading

I have been wanting to write something myself along the lines of this topic for a while now, however I have been deeply pressed for time so have been unable to do so myself, so here is a fantastic essay available on Academia.eu written by Guido Candiani, original link here: https://www.academia.edu/14823890/_The_race_to_the_big_calibres_during_the_first_war_of_Morea_and_Sigismondo_Alberghettis_guns_of_new_invention The Essay is available either free online or as part of a collection of Essays looking at 16th and 17th Century naval artillery in the Mediterranean in the book "Ships and Guns: The Sea Ordnance in Venice and in Europe between the 15th and the 17th Centuries" by a series of authors and edited by Carlo Beltrame and Renato Gianni Ridella. The Essay reads as Follows : The Race to Big Calibres During the First War of Morea and Sigismondo Alberghetti’s Guns of New Invention Guido Candiani Between 1684 and 1699 the Republic of Venice and the Ottoman Empire fought their sixth and penultimate military conflict: the first War of Morea. Following the Venetians’ initial capture of the Peloponnese – thanks to a series of spectacular amphibious assaults led by the Capitano Generale Francesco Morosini – the war was fought almost entirely at sea. In an attempt to break the equilibrium between the two evenly matched fleets, both sides launched efforts to deploy guns of ever larger calibre. It was in this context that the Venetians adopted a new type of cannon, capable of launching explosive projectiles. Gradually deployed throughout the Venetian fleet during the final phase of the war, the newly invented guns were also employed during the final conflict between the Venetians and the Turks (the second War of Morea, 1714–1718). However, in neither case did the new guns offer the Venetian fleet the decisive advantage the Republic had hoped for. In its final phase, the first War of Morea witnessed an intense series of naval battles. Between 1695 and 1698, both the Republic of Venice and the Ottoman Empire sought a decisive victory through the widespread deployment of battle fleets composed of ships of the line. Over the course of four campaigns, the two fleets fought nine major engagements, transforming the Eastern Mediterranean into the most active site of naval conflict on the globe. Nevertheless, it was immediately clear that neither side was capable of scoring a decisive victory over the other – both on account of the intrinsic defensive strength of their respective lines, and because of the inability of the existing guns to breach the thick hulls of the vessels. This stalemate drove the Ottomans and then the Venetians to seek new artillery technologies to tilt the equilibrium in their favour. The Ottomans dusted off the great stone cannons the Sultan’s forces had employed with great success in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Thanks to the lower specific weight of stone compared to that of iron, these older pieces were capable of launching much larger projectiles than ordinary guns, while still maintaining an acceptable weight. In 1697 the Ottomans launched their first three-decker, which boasted three batteries of ordinary cannons of 16, 12, and 7 okka – the first two calibres were slightly greater than the English 40 and 32 pounder, while the third was equivalent to an English 20 pounder. In addition, the ship carried four to six stone cannons rated at 44 okka, and capable of launching a ball with a diameter of perhaps 230 mm (equivalent to a hypothetical English 124 pounder). Other Ottoman ships of the line carried similar pieces, which promised to inflict serious damage to enemy ships, even with only a limited number of direct hits. (Archivio di Stato di Venezia=ASV, PTM, filza 1336, 12.7.1697). The need to match the Turkish stone cannon, drove the Venetians to introduce a gun capable of shooting an explosive projectile on a straight trajectory – in contrast to mortars, which employed a very steep trajectory – and therefore capable of striking a moving target such as an enemy ship. The principal figure in the development of the new guns was Sigismondo Alberghetti, fonditore pubblico (public gunfounder) in the Venetian Arsenal. Alberghetti belonged to a veritable dynasty of artillery casters: his ancestors had been employed in the same capacity by the Republic for nearly two centuries (Morin 1992). With his new invention, Alberghetti assumed a preeminent and highly original place in the world of artillery design and manufacture. The late seventeenth century witnessed a great deal of experimental activity aimed at overcoming the ever-more evident limits of naval guns in the face of stouter hulls. While in the past, the close-quarter nature of most naval engagements had favoured boarding tactics aimed at capturing and burning enemy vessels, the introduction of line tactics had reduced the opportunities for boarding, thereby transforming naval warfare into artillery duels in which traditional guns proved incapable of creating a decisive advantage. To restore power to naval artillery, the Venetians tried several new solutions involving explosive projectiles. Beginning in the 1670s, mortar techniques and technology made significant progress (the Venetians used the new technologies to conquer the Peloponnese). The English and French fleets had also experimented with these technologies, but had abandoned them due to the fear of storing explosive projectiles on board ships at sea (Paixans 1822, 83–84, 88). Alberghetti had first encountered the issue during a journey to England in the early 1680s. He had been sent there to purchase iron guns and to investigate the possibility of learning the techniques necessary to produce them in the Venetian Arsenal. In July 1684 he wrote a letter from London in which he first broached the possibility of employing an iron cannon loaded with a hollow projectile filled with explosives (ASV, Senato Mar, filza 653, 9.8.1684). The French bombardment of Genoa in May of the same year had amply demonstrated the terrible destructive power of such projectiles in coastal bombardments when launched from mortars mounted on galiotes a bombes. The French successes inspired the Venetian founder to consider the possibilities of employing bombs in ship-to-ship combat as well. He proposed building a gun with a Venetian calibre of 120 libbre (equivalent to 212 mm) that could fire a hollow projectile of the same weight as the solid shot from a Venetian 20 libbre, which was roughly equivalent to an English 15 pounder (the Venetians measured the weight of solid balls in libbre sottili instead of grosse). Alberghetti also intended to use a spherical powder chamber, a technology drawn directly from recent advances in mortar design: the spherical chamber allowed the use of a greater charge without the need to increase the thickness of the gun. The more powerful charge together with the lighter projectile would, in Alberghetti’s opinion, allow the construction of a very light and short gun in spite of the large calibre. The new gun would, he claimed, demolish the flanks of enemy ships and provoked explosions and fires below decks. It is the very same concept that would lead to the introduction of the French designer Paixans’ canon-obusier in the 1830s, which would in turn lead to the development of iron hulls to replace traditional wooden ships. Alberghetti’s concept for the projectile called for a cylindrical design: two iron hemispheres joined by a central cylindrical body. The main goal that the Venetian caster had set for the design was that of facilitating the production of the projectile on the lathe, so as to obtain accurately turned projectiles that would reduce the gap between the round and the barrel – the so-called windage – thereby increasing the initial velocity of the projectile and augmenting its accuracy and penetrating power. The cost of turning traditional round balls on the lathe would have been excessive – a perfect round ball was considered one of the masterpieces of lathework – while a cylindrical form could be turned with relative ease and at great savings. The cylindrical design also had the distinct advantage of preventing the projectile from turning about during loading, thus bringing the lit fuse on the round into contact with the propellant charge, with resulting misfires or worse (Alberghetti 1703, 3–4). In this respect Alberghetti’s cylindrical bombs were superior to Paixans’ traditional round balls, which had to be fitted with a wooden sabot (shoe) to prevent their turning about during loading (Paixans 1822, 209). The sabot arrangement scored the barrels of Paixans’ guns, reducing their effective life. Another characteristic that distinguished Alberghetti’s design from Paixans’ was the much greater effective range expected by the Venetian guns, thanks in part to an innovative sighting mechanism. Thus Alberghetti’s innovations were twofold: large calibre pieces capable of firing explosive projectiles and at a far greater effective range with respect to traditional guns. Not only would the enemy suffer from the explosions, but he would not even be in a position to return fire. In this sense, Alberghetti anticipated the British Admiral “Jack” Fisher’s motto “hit first and hit hard” by two centuries. The Venetian Senate – which was always alert to innovations in artillery technology – accepted the proposal and ordered two specially built iron 120 libbre calibre guns from England. Six calibres long and weighing 3,500 Venetian libbre grosse (1670 kg) (far less than ordinary Venetian 20 libbre calibre gun), the new guns were cast under Alberghetti’s supervision in Sussex at the Thomas Western foundry in Ashburnham. Tested in early 1685, they proved to have a range of over five kilometres – confirming the best hopes of their inventor (ASV, Senato Mar, filza 657, 24.3.1685). Alberghetti planned to mount four such guns on every Venetian ship of the line, and an equal number on every great galley, still the pride of the Republic’s battle fleet. Unfortunately for him – and as he himself would often admit – he lacked the essential “talents” for convincing his interlocutors (and his financers for that matter) of the quality of his ideas. Once the guns reached Venice, they lay forgotten in the Arsenal. In large measure, this neglect was due to recent Venetian successes at sea. The Venetian fleet enjoyed an easy supremacy in the early phases of the war, which “put to sleep the industry and art of arms with which one studied how to prevail against enemies.” Moreover, on his return from London, Sigismondo became embroiled in a dispute over how to fuse mortars with a protegé of the influential Capitano Generale Francesco Morosini. Alberghetti came out the loser in the dispute, and more importantly was damaged politically by the encounter. The “cannons of new invention” as they would later be called, lay abandoned in the warehouses, while the Senate shifted its attention to the production of traditional iron guns in the Republic’s mainland territories. The recovery of Ottoman naval power after 1693, the Venetian defeat at Chios in 1695, and most of all the adoption by the Turkish fleet of the great stone cannons, brought the “cannons of new invention” back to mind. In late 1696 – following the limitations shown by the great galleys in the recent battle of Andro – the commander of the galleys requested permission to employ Alberghetti’s guns for the purpose of matching “the fury” of the enemy ships of the line (ASV, PTM, filza 1386, 2.12.1696). In June 1697, the Senate decided to take up the project once again. In the meantime the public founder had conceived of two distinct models of the gun. The first, destined for the great galleys, was a Venetian 200 libbre calibre gun (265 mm), weighing 5,000 libbre grosse (2385 kgs); the second, designed for ships of the line, was the same as the ones cast in England a decade earlier (Venetian 120 libbre/212 mm calibre, 3,500 libbre grosse). Both models were to be cast in bronze in the Arsenal itself, and equipped with two-wheel carriages – perhaps to facilitate repositioning them to achieve superior sweep. In the notes attached to the design, Sigismondo expressly indicated that the guns were intended to contain the Turks who had become “proud and powerful” on the sea (ASV, Senato Mar, filza 735, 14.6.1697). In October 1697, after another inconclusive naval campaign, the Senate approved the casting of the new pieces, and by November a 120 libbre calibre gun was ready for trials. The tests were delayed by bad weather, but were eventually undertaken with great success on 6 December. The noteworthy performance in terms of both range and accuracy was due in large part to the reduction of the windage between projectile and bore. The cannons of new invention had a windage of one tenth of an oncia (2.9 mm) while English guns of the same period achieved no better than a 7.5 mm one. Even the carronades, introduced at the end of the 1770s achieved no better than a 3.7 mm windage (Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana=BNM, ms. it., cl. VII, 1542 (8889), Obiezioni e risoluzioni sulla nuova artiglieria, n. 7; Padfield 1973, 105). The new guns also proved easy to aim, thanks to a novel sighting mechanism mounted over the trunnions that was far easier to use than a traditional artillery quadrant. The results of the trials persuaded the Provveditori alle Artiglierie (the magistracy in charge of the Republic’s entire artillery park) to requisition six of the new guns for every two-deck first-rate ship of 70–80 guns (the largest then in service). After debating the issue, the Senate opted to mount four per ship on a trial basis, and ordered the Arsenal to cast 48 guns for twelve first-rates (ASV, Senato Mar, filza 739, 14.12.1697). Alberghetti, despite the fact that he now enjoyed the support of important members of the patriciate, once again found someone ready to block his path. This time his opposition came from the Englishman Jacob Richards, who had recently been appointed Sergente Generale dell’Artiglieria of the Republic. Richards came from the nation that was proving itself the most dynamic naval power in the world, and yet he still contested Alberghetti’s project. However, it is worth remembering that following the Glorious Revolution, England had entered a conservative period in naval policy that would last until 1740 – and that this political climate influenced Richards’ thinking. He recorded his doubts on paper immediately on his arrival in Venice in June of 1697 and later reiterated them in March of 1698, after the casting of the first forty-eight cannons. Richards stressed the danger of handling explosive projectiles at sea – which had placed an English ship at grave risk during analogous trials – thereby raising similar fears in Venice because several vessels had recently been lost due to unexplained explosions. In addition, the Englishman judged Alberghetti’s cannon too light, and doubted the efficacy of the cylindrical projectiles. He proposed instead spherical shot filled with inert clay instead of dangerous gunpowder (ASV, Senato Mar, filza 735, 14.6.1697; filza 741, 8.3.1698). The Senate decided to hold a trial comparing the traditional spherical loads with the new cylindrical projectiles. The tests were held on 26 March and 12 April, 1698. Once again, the Alberghetti’s munitions emerged as clearly superior. The cylindrical projectiles showed greater range and precision, as well as far lesser barrel scoring that Richards’ spherical shot (ASV, Senato Mar, filza 741, 16.4.1698). Figure 3.1. Drawing of the guns of new invention (above calibre 200, under calibre 120). It can be noticed the cylindrical shells, the two-wheels carriage and the elevating/sighting mechanism (permission Archivio di Stato di Venezia). Despite the fact that thirty-three “cannons of new invention” were immediately dispatched to the Levant, the intervention of the Englishman had delayed not only the availability of the guns, but also of the new munitions. These delays had serious repercussions in terms of the deployment in battle of the new technology. At Nauplion, the Venetians’ most important forward base, they were only able to mount two 120 guns on the topdeck of every first-rate, while the great galleys carried a single 200 on the quarterdeck. Along with the new guns, Venice shipped 600 cylindrical projectiles for the 120s. However, to save time, 289 of them had been manufactured out of stone, and were consequently inert. Stone could be shaped in the Arsenal itself, while the iron projectiles had to be cast in mainland foundries (ASV, Senato Mar, filza 742, 15.5.1698). The delay caused by Richards’ trials also set back the training of crews for the new guns. This last task was assigned to one of Sigismondo’s brothers, Carlo Alberghetti, who would also command the new artillery once it was fully deployed with the fleet. At any event, thanks to the ease of aim and accuracy of the new pieces, the results of the training exceeded even the most optimistic projections. In the general trials undertaken on the Lido on 24 August, almost all the gunners achieved “a success [of aim] unheard of with any sort of artillery tried up until now” (ASV, Senato Mar, filza 767, 16.9.1702; BNM, ms. it., cl. VII, 1542 (8889), Informatione circa li cannoni di nuova invenzione). The Venetian fleet appeared to have found a weapon capable of altering the balance of power on the high seas. The true test arrived at the battle of Mitilenos, fought on 20 September, when twenty Venetian ships of the line – twelve armed with “cannons of new invention”– faced twenty-five Ottoman ships supported by about half-a-dozen corsair vessels. The new weapons performed well, but their impact was not what Sigismondo Alberghetti had hoped. On the flagship Rizzo d’Oro, Sigismondo’s brother Carlo directed the guns with great courage and skill under the watchful eyes of the squadron commander, Daniele (4°) Dolfin, who issued him a certificate of merit. The two other admirals present at the scene, Pietro Duodo and Fabio Bonvicini, declared themselves particularly satisfied with Alberghetti’s cannons. Nevertheless, they also downplayed the innovative nature of the new guns. Dolfin appreciated, above all, the rate of fire, while Duodo noted that the gunners were able to fire very few explosive projectiles because no more than 54 had arrived from Venice due to the delays caused by Richards’ objections. In any case, both Duodo and Bonvicini were contrary to the use of explosive projectiles, because they feared that they could do as much damage to friendly ships as to the enemy (ASV, PTM, filza 1341, 22.9.1698; filza 1337, 26.9.1698; filza 1133, 4.10.1698). Above all, none of the three admirals thought to use the “cannons of new invention” at the great ranges imagined by Sigismondo Alberghetti. Thanks to the sighting system and the consequent ease of aiming the guns, Alberghetti maintained that his guns could hit a ship to a range of two miles (nearly 3,500 m). He placed particular emphasis on the long interval between the aiming of traditional guns and the actual shot – a result of the rigid firing sequence. By contrast he argued, his “cannons of new invention” could actually be manoeuvred and aimed “like muskets” by a mere three-man crew and without any interruption in aiming, thus greatly reducing the time between sighting and firing (Alberghetti 1703, 8). In many ways, the technology anticipated the constant aim system introduced in 1898 by the Englishman Percy Scott, which initiated the most important revolution in shipboard gunnery since the first deployment of guns on ships in the second half of the fifteenth century (Padfield 1973, 211). During the battle of Mitilenos, the limited availability of projectiles and the lack of Alberghetti’s range tables meant that the guns were only employed in traditional close-quarter combat. The eye-witness testimony – including Turkish accounts – record several instances of ships withdrawing with enormous holes above the waterline that had been caused by the new guns of the Rizzo d’Oro. Indeed, the new cylindrical projectiles had penetrated both flanks of the enemy ships. Nevertheless, the close range meant that the projectiles had not entered the near flank at a sufficient angle to penetrate below the waterline of the opposite flank, which would have, in all probability, sunk the target. The straight trajectory, combined with the low resistance offered by the superstructure on both sides of the Turkish hulls also meant that the charged rounds did not detonate inside the ship – an analogous issue to the problem faced by gunners two centuries later when firing piercing munitions against unarmoured targets. Mitilenos ended up being the last battle of the war, which ended in early 1699. The Venetians judged the “cannons of new invention” to be of little use in peacetime and opted to remove them from the fleet and deploy them as shore batteries at home – a direct consequence of the tensions in the Adriatic caused by the War of Spanish Succession (1701–1714). Later, they were warehoused, and once again forgotten. Alberghetti himself died in 1702, which also put an end to a series of trials he had planned for more thorough testing of the guns’ capabilities. The weapons were rediscovered only with the onset of the second War of Morea (1714–1718). Caught unprepared by the Ottoman assault, the Venetians quickly resolved to redeploy the “cannons of new invention” aboard first-rates, and to arm them with both explosive and inert iron projectiles, as well as stone munitions. New trials were conducted with one of the 120 guns, all of which confirmed the ease of loading and the high degree of accuracy even at significant ranges. Moreover, the trials included three explosive rounds whose fuse was lit when the gun was lit. Two of these detonated as expected. The first penetrated the mock hull and set fire to the gun carriages stacked behind it. The second shot set fire to the mock hull itself, a demonstration that particularly impressed the observers. (ASV, Senato Mar, filza 833, 23.2.1715). This time, ships in service also received the 200 libbre calibre guns that had originally been intended for the great galleys. Eight “cannons of new invention” (two 200s and six 120s) became the standard equipment for Venetian first-rates. The guns were put into use on 8 July, 1716 in the Corfù channel during the very first naval engagement of the new war. The battle followed an Ottoman assault on the island by infantry supported by ships. The Venetians had the better of the encounter and successfully relieved the island’s beleaguered fortress. Much of the credit was given to the “cannons of new invention,” even though they only fired inert rounds (ASV, PTM, filza 1339, 13.7.1716). Explosive projectiles were employed in the three major battles fought the following year. Nearly 1,300 cylindrical rounds – both explosive and inert – were expended in these battles, but there was no evidence that the explosive rounds caused particular damage to the enemy fleet. By this time, all agreed that the new guns were too short and too light. The short barrels posed a fire risk when fired against the wind due to sparks from the muzzle blast; while the light weight reduced the firing rate because the guns was not stable on the carriage and had to be manoeuvred back into position between each shot (ASV, PTM, filza 1342, 22.9.1717). It remains an open question – especially in light of the positive reports concerning rate of fire in the earlier war – to what degree these problems were a function of the guns, and to what degree they were due to the lack of experience of the crews firing them. Indeed, a manpower crisis had forced the Venetians to hurriedly recruit inexperienced seamen for the war. The criticisms did not prevent the new guns from being deployed on the new second-rate ships that entered service in 1718. These were 60 gun ships that the Venetians hoped would be capable of serving in the line in wartime and replacing the role of first-rates in peacetime. These new ships carried ten “cannons of new invention” (four 200s and six 120s), as compared to the eight mounted on 70–80 gun first-rates (ASV, Senato Rettori, filza 182, 9.12.1717; Senato Mar, filza 859, 10.2.1718). The new guns were last used in the course of the three day battle of the coast of Cape Matapan between 20 and 22 July, 1718. However, the sources make no specific reference to their performance. After the war the Venetian Senate confirmed the importance of the guns in the eyes of the authorities when it mentioned their utility in a 1725 decree that listed the lessons learned in the war (ASV, Archivio Gradenigo Rio Marin, busta 317, 22.9.1725). The guns continued to be part of the standard armament of Venetian ships of the line until at least the middle of the 18th century. In any case, the Venetian navy did not square off against another fleet for the remainder of the Republic’s existence, and the guns invented by Sigismondo Alberghetti were never used in anger again. In conclusion, it could be argued that the “cannons of new invention” offered the Venetian battle fleet a potentially revolutionary weapon, but that due to conservatism (typical of turn of the 17th-century navies) they did not have the impact that their inventor had predicted and hoped for. Venetian commanders hesitated to use them with explosive munitions and did not fire them at the extended ranges that Alberghetti had designed them for. Consequently, the guns were only fired at the close ranges typical of the day, and mostly with inert projectiles. Under such conditions, the guns were capable of inflicting serious damage to enemy ships, but could not destroy the solid structure of ships of the line. More than a century would pass before explosive rounds would become a mainstay of European fleets. At that time, thanks to the first industrial revolution, explosive munitions will meet a response in the widespread adoption of ironclads, thus initiating a struggle between gun and armour that would last until the definitive abandonment of battleships following the Second World War. Translation by Karl Appuhn, whom the author sincerely thanks. References Alberghetti, S. (1703) Artiglieria Moderna Veneta. Venezia. Morin, M. (1992) Alberghetti. In K. G. Saur (ed.) Allgemeines Kuenstlerlexicon. Die bildenden Kuenstler aller Zeiten und Voelker, 2, 779–784. Muenchen-Leipzig. Padfield, P. (1973) Guns at Sea. London, Evelyn. Paixans, H. J. (1822) Nouvelle Force Maritime. Paris. Here are also a handful of more images taken from the post I made recently from a similar article also on Academia.eu which give a little more of an insight into the design of the weapon. These are taken from the article I posted recently looking at Edinorogs/Unicorns/Licorns and The Tirar Bombe. Full article available here; http://www.academia.edu/15084546/The_Russian_Unicorn_and_the_Venetian_cannone_di_nuova_inventione_ Thank you for reading, I hope it adds some nice insight.

Sorry I have been a little quiet recently, I am enjoying some quiet time away as part of the new year, I am still looking into the subject for you, be it a little slowly due to being away from my main resources. Either way I believe the ship in question your grandfather sailed was a Trabaccolo, they are a small to medium coastal trading ship which was better suited to the lighter mediterranean winds than the traditional northern european sloops and schooners, the trabaccolo also has the benefit of being better on rivers than its northern european counterparts. The Trabaccolo is a venetian design dating back to the 15th century but is still used today, albeit a slightly modernised design. The style of vessel was very popular in the 18th and 19th century Adriatic and more sturdy built vessels were armed as gunboats for port defence, the majority of these ships were constructed and maintained along the slips on the lagoon island of Lido but were also built in large numbers in the coastal ports of what is now Croatia, where your great grandfather might have come in. Here is a fantastic short essay written by the excellent Gilberto Penzo on another trabacciolo (although in italian): http://www.academia.edu/30392589/Il_Rilievo_DI_Imbarcazioni_Storiche And Here is the wiki page for the ship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabaccolo While this sadly isn't information on your great grandfather's specific ship, I hope it goes some way in the right direction before starting to narrow down things, potentially with the name and ship type you could start thinking about contacting the croatian, austrian and italian archives, who if you are lucky might be able to offer some information to dig a little deeper still.

Since the addition of the Edinorog to the game, also known as the Unicorn (English) or Licorne (French) I thought I would share a paper writen by Marco Morin that looks at a bit of detail into what the gun is and what makes it a bit different from standard cannons, the paper also discusses the similarities between it and the Venetian Cannone di Nuova Inventione, which comes to a remarkably similar construction. The article also has a really nice list of references worth checking out to learn a bit more about both types of gun. The full arcitle is either available for download or you can just scroll down to read it here: http://www.academia.edu/15084546/The_Russian_Unicorn_and_the_Venetian_cannone_di_nuova_inventione_ Enjoy

Sadly its a little later than I am used to dealing with but I will gladly give it a go, could we start by you typing out the inscription from the picture please? I can't quite make it out. Also do you know if/what it took back on its return journey? It seems a little odd that it would only take lumber one way without making something on its return trip. I know you said you don't have much information but even little snippets might help more than you might think. Is 1891 the launch date or just the date you have been given from a point of its economic activity? I will try to do what I can for you, but can't promise much sadly. Probably because the ship itself was built/launched in Venice but was registered to having Cres as its home port, which was part of Austrian Croatia so it would have flown the Austro-Hungarian flag rather than the Italian merchant jack. Thanks for the kind words.

This is a surprisingly difficult question to answer, in part due to the fact the game's timeline is roughly 120 years, do you argue about peak ability of navies, average or specific points? The sensible option would probably be to divide the time period up into 3 or 4 parts, depending on whether you are covering the 18th and early 19th or just the 18th, because in my mind at least how naval power operates pre and post Trafalgar is quite significant but in general the whole 18th and 19th century are such a dramatic change as major powers get relegated to secondary status and there is a clear winner in general. The idea gets more interesting as you go further down the list, as the top 5 are fairly clear to me and pretty easy to rank on the whole, although this still looks pretty vague but this is likely due to how open the time period is. Its also important to remember that raw numbers aren't the be all and end all of this, as has been pointed out above, seamanship is important, as are the economic ability to build supply and support a navy, manpower to actually crew it and how effective it is at effective coverage of the maritime assets its meant to protect. In order to give a rough understanding of how I see things I will attempt to list a rough ranking order, although its very difficult to actually give significant ordering, especially the lower down the ranking you go because some navies punch well above their weight others punch under, but its also important to remember that its incredibly rare to see large fleet battles having more than around 30 ships a piece. Britain: There isn't really much doubt about this, they have a strong economy, manpower, technology and shipbuilding facilities, they are the clear "winner" of the period and once they start playing about with having enough large ships to out number the next two strongest navies combined there is no question really, especially as they tended to have a much quicker maintenance than other navies so could operate more ships more of the time delivering a more effective fleet. Britain's main issues were caused by timber shortage and covering such a wide area. France: While France spent the majority of the 17th century almost unchallenged and its quite clear that they were in the second spot for the vast majority of the 18th century, while they offer some great production facilities and some of the most progressive architecture going, their fleet was large and they enjoyed slightly tighter overseas possessions, so could offer better coverage. Its a shame that the political instability of the 1770s-1800s saw the French with supply and seamanship issues despite it being a period where they are slowly building some of the most iconic designs. Spain: Spain is another fairly strong showing, where they are fairly consistent throughout the period even through a lot of political turmoil, offering a consistently strong navy, while their ships aren't as numerous as some of the nations I will put below them they do keep up with technology much better through their own advancements, taking on innovations from captures from Britain and France, they also have a strong working relationship with the Genovese which helped boost them up a little. They also make the most of their new world resources to keep up with nations who were more blessed with local resources. Russia: The Russian navy is perhaps one of the more underrated of the groups, often not thought about but full of some incredibly large and powerful ships, they also enjoyed almost limitless timber supplies and resources in general, which they used to their advantage, building some impressively huge ships and arming them with monstrous guns. The main issue for Russia is fairly clear being that their fleet was split between their 3 coastlines, whilst also being fairly limited in their ability to break out of these areas due to the natural choke points involved without major upset to the local powers making them fairly vulnerable. Russia also suffered some fairly significant technological disadvantages, if it wasn't for these issues they would easily be in 3rd place over Spain. Ottomans: The Ottomans are another one who are fairly underestimated, they had some fairly impressive naval facilities such as their grand arsenals of Gallipoli and Istanbul which were larger and just as capable as most European shipyards. Their fleet was huge, and they frequently built some of the largest ships in existence. They also had the advantage of having overlordship over the powerful Barbary nations, who could offer them better seamen than were available in their own lands but also cause a great strain to shipping with limited diplomatic strain pushed back on themselves. Ottoman's also armed their ships with some massive guns, involved in a minor poundage arms race with Russia, although similarly to Russia they suffered poor technology, and often poorly made ships preferring expendable greenwood creations over properly seasoned wood. The Netherlands: The its no real dispute that the position of the Netherlands changed dramatically over the course of the 18th Century, starting out as one of the strongest contenders they declined fairly heavily due to a mix of issues such as foreign powers becoming jealous of the wealth of the Dutch and especially the VoC, troubles with their timber supplies becoming more unreliable however they maintain a strong position of 6th mainly due to the fact their strong performance during the first half of the 17th century, although the Dutch still kept a strong position over the 2nd half too, managing to keep hold of significant trade possessions. I'm sure Steelsandwich will cover The Netherlands in more detail. Portugal The Portuguese seem to be a fairly solid 7th position, consistently outputting a fairly strong remnant navy although it was really the case that their alliance with Britain was what kept them in a strong position able to, they are the first on this list to not have built a 1st rate warship at some point over the period given. Their strong trade prowess and mercantile fleet leave them in a nice position respectively, although their hands became somewhat tied looking after their massive south American colony of what is now Brazil. Denmark-Norway Denmark-Norway represent a fairly interesting step here, they are notably quite a lot stronger than those below them, having strong seafaring traditions and large ships but being a noticeable step down from those above them, they are probably the first and strongest of the secondary powers and while I'm not too clear on how time affected them they do seem fairly consistently as a strong power, able to maintain a good defensive fleet and control inflow and outflow into the Baltic sea. Venice: It was hard to place 9th and 10th positions, partly because I'm not too clear over Sweden, both nations consistantly punch above their weight effectively challenging much larger naval powers, however I feel like Venice edge ahead of the Swedish. I would put Venice here on account of their incredible seamanship, while the Venetian life at sea wasn't quite the same as it was in the 13th and 14th century there was still a significant marine lifestyle as you would expect in what is basically a floating city, Venetian sailors were much prized in European fleets, taking part as experienced crew in foreign navies. Venice also have their huge advantage, the Venetian arsenal, which although a shadow of its former self by the 18th century it could still easily outperform any other shipyard in the world should the finances be made available. Venice also had a significant advantage over other nations when it comes to Venetian guns, able to comfortably outperform even British cannons. While the Venetian operating fleet was relatively small, they did keep a significant portion of naval power in ordinary, sitting well preserved in the roofed slips of the Arsenal leaving them protected from weather for long periods of time ready to be launched at the drop of a hat. They also had a very strong timber supply from the state woodlands in Montello which was also supplemented with wood and other resources from Istria and Dalmatia. Its also somewhat hard to place Venice in some respects as they developed their own technology quite independently to other European nations, leaving them with some interesting quirks in their architecture and tactics. Its also worth noting that the Venetian state's desire to solve problems through diplomacy rather than warfare caused interesting dynamics into the naval funding, alongside the fact the Venetian government were reluctant to construct or maintain ships beyond 70 guns, preferring to use shock tactics over the more traditional line of battle. Sweden: As I explained just above the 9th and 10th position was very tight for me, I have hopefully delivered as unbiased an account as I could, but there is no doubt that Venice and Sweden are comfortably competing for these two positions together. Sweden benefits from some impressive history, and a strong fleet, with a great level of technology and history built on the blood spilt with the Russians, again I don't know a huge amount about the Swedes but its very obvious they managed to field some strong ships, and were able to adapt and combat the stronger Russian fleet through technological and tactical ability. There is my top 10 anyway, I hope that is more along the lines of what you wanted from the topic, please feel free to expand or criticise the points I have made, I'm certainly no expert on the majority of the navies I have discussed here so if someone knows better please do correct me.

Wasa should really just lose 4 of her broadside guns and have them reduced to 24lbs then she would be fine. There is really no reason to have her as a 64 or have her loading 32lbs, I can't find any evidence for the 64 guns and the 32lb guns are as far as I can make out because they were outfitted onto one of her sister ships for a period, although her sistership was upscaled slightly so is a fair bit larger than wasa herself. Realistically the Wasa in game seems to model a slightly optimistic sailing characteristic while maintaining the heavy hitting of a sluggish bigger sister, its not good for historical accuracy or gameplay. 64s pretty much all had poor sailing ratios too, so they shouldn't outperform the 74s Please nerf her.

It also seems to miss out on ships launched from ordinary on capture. I'm not particularly convinced by the numbers of the site in general, it seems to fall apart a little bit under closer examination. I will drop these charts again to compare to the Sailing warships link, the numbers reflect the British Fleet over the years given. First Rates In Service In Ordinary/Repairing Total 1793 1 4 5 1796 6 0 6 1799 4 2 6 1801 4 2 6 1805 6 1 7 1808 4 2 6 1811 5 2 7 1814 7 0 7 1815 0 8 8 Second Rates In Service In Ordinary/Repairing Total 1793 4 12 16 1796 16 0 16 1799 15 2 17 1801 14 2 16 1805 11 3 14 1808 7 4 11 1811 8 4 12 1814 5 3 8 1815 2 5 7 80 Gun Ships of the Line In Service In Ordinary/Repairing Total 1793 0 1 1 1796 5 0 5 1799 6 1 7 1801 5 3 8 1805 4 2 6 1808 7 0 7 1811 6 1 7 1814 1 4 5 74 Ship of the Line In Service In Ordinary/Repairing Total Large 74 Ship of the Line In Service In Ordinary/Repairing Total 1793 18 40 58 1793 1 2 3 1796 48 8 56 1796 6 2 8 1799 41 8 49 1799 17 3 20 1801 39 11 50 1801 17 3 20 1805 30 13 43 1805 19 5 24 1808 47 4 51 1808 29 1 30 1811 56 6 62 1811 24 4 28 1814 64 3 67 1814 21 9 30 64 Ship of the Line In Service In Ordinary/Repairing Total 1793 2 28 30 1797 28 2 30 1799 22 4 26 1801 21 6 27 1804 8 12 20 1808 19 2 21 1810 11 1 12 1811 9 0 9 1814 1 0 1 50 Gun Ships In Service In Ordinary/Repairing Total 1793 7 5 12 1797 10 2 12 1799 10 0 10 1801 9 1 10 1804 7 3 10 1808 9 0 9 1810 7 0 7 1812 4 1 5 1814 2 2 4 Total Ships in Service First Rates Second Rates 80 guns 74 guns 74 guns (Large) 64 Guns 50 Guns 1793 5 16 1 58 3 30 12 1794 1795 1796 6 16 5 56 8 1797 30 12 1799 6 17 7 49 20 26 10 1801 6 16 8 50 20 27 10 1804 20 10 1805 7 14 6 43 24 1808 6 11 7 51 30 21 9 1810 12 7 1811 7 12 7 62 28 9 1812 5 1814 7 8 5 67 30 1 4 1815 8 7

Some of you may have seen this as it has been around for a while, but I have stumbled across a pretty fun historical cooking channel on Youtube. While the channel goes into quite a lot of depth on 18th century cooking in general not a lot of it is relevant to seaboard life although its full of some great snippets of information that help you understand the social and economical aspects of the more low key parts of history. The channel has some really fun things that more often than not you can cook at home, with some different flavours than is generally experienced in modern day life. The Channel itself is here: https://www.youtube.com/user/jastownsendandson/featured Do have a look for yourselves, there are some really interesting and fantastic recipes collected over the channel.

Howcome? It seems perfectly rational with understating of the politics, economical and military situation presented. Realistically Venice as a neutral nation enjoyed at least good relations with every European power for almost the entirety of the 17th and 18th centuries, to the point that realistically there are only 2 major hick-ups in this 200 year time period, one was the Uskok war, between 1615-18 where the Austrian sponsored Uskok mercenaries started committing acts of piracy along the Adriatic coast, however the war stayed as a small proxy war mainly between the Venetians and Uskok people with a little bit of foreign state sponsorship on both sides. The only other real issue involving potential envelopment in war with western states was during the start of the war of Spanish Succession, where for the first few months it looked incredibly likely that Venice would have been dragged in unwantingly, the threat continued to loom over Venice forcing them to tread incredibly carefully over the first few years of the war. This leaves Venice in a fairly unique position, respected by Western powers their major threats were only really the Ottomans and their protectorates, the Barbary Nations, who continually badgered Venetian trade. The Fregata Grossa was basically born out of this situation, they had to be economical and swift enough to deal with the nimble ships of the Barbary states, but also powerful enough to deal with the potential threat of the Ottoman navy, especially as the surprise attack on Morea in 1714 was incredibly fresh in the minds of Venetian military leaders. Lets also not downplay the huge issue that the Barbary states became, especially during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic period as they more or less gained free reign over Mediterranean piracy to the point that it was the major deployment zone for the vast majority of the US navy between 1801-1812 and 1815-1824 including the deployment of all of the huge USS Independence Class warships, even after these periods the USA kept an incredibly strong hand in the region to try and dissuade the Barbary states from picking on US Merchant shipping with Delaware, Ohio and North Carolina all seeing prolonged service in the region.

Moving away from the previous discussion because of things getting a bit unnecessarily overheated on both sides, its probably best for everyone involved here to draw the line there. Generally speaking the vast majority of the British 5th rate cruisers, tend to resemble the activities of Venetian 3rd rates. The Venetians having 4 standard ratings rather than 6 like the British while typically the Venetian counterparts were also a little more compact than those used by the Atlantic navies, with slightly lower gun counts and general poundage. Generally speaking there wasn't a huge amount of skimping done on weight or storage space in comparison to say France or Spain, only when you compare the ships to the overly bulbous British designs do they look more trimmed down, this is due to the fact if need be there was a deep awareness of the need to deal with long voyages in the hostile Eastern Mediterranean or even being forced to circumnavigate Africa to protect any trade interests in the red sea where Venice maintained their roles as the dominant trade powers of these regions despite them being fairly hostile waters. When it comes to the point I did previously make about supporting peacetime activities of the merchant marine this is largely due to the prominence of the Barbary pirates, especially those from the Bey of Tunis, who would quite frequently operate fairly large 30-40 gun Xebec and Mistic style ships to prey on even the largest merchant vessels, something as far as I can make out that the US had some trouble with dealing with themselves. In a lot of ways the Fregata Grossa group of ships were a direct answer to these threats and as the Barbary threat grew over the 18th Century so did the number of Fregata Grossa to deal with them. The peak of Barbary threat hit in the early 1780s as the French became more and more distracted by their internal problems in the run up to the revolution, meaning that the Barbary states lost a significant check to their power leaving the Venetians forced to eventually declare war on the Bey of Tunis, even at the risk of potentially upsetting the Ottomans, during the conflict the vast majority of these large pirate ships were hunted down by the Venetian navy and their shipyards and docks were completely obliterated to the point the Ottomans forced the Venetians to begrudgingly pay a significant reparation sum during the peace negotiations as it had such a severe effect on the Tunisian economy, the Venetian Barbary War (1784-90) and its results pretty much set up the pieces for the later US Barbary wars, which perhaps might have a much different dynamic had these larger ships and the capacity to build them had not been dealt with a decade or so earlier. The Fregata Grossa being hugely important in peacetime convoy protection and in the conflict with the Barbary states due to their ability to both outsail and outgun their opponents especially when it comes to the largest of the Berber operated ships.

Sigh.... We have been through this all before. I'm not passive aggressively sniping at a sailing ship, I'm methodologically assessing her without the stars and spangles assigned to her by blind nationalism. Broadside weight doesn't have that much to do with a fight in reality, it helps but its not actually the huge influence it is in NA, realistically Constitution doesn't have the manoeuvrability to fight a 50 SoL, especially one of the few 50 SoLs left at the time, consisting of the last and best of their generation slowly being phased out over time. a 64 is another story entirely, the raised fore and aft deck would just sweep down on Constitution, leaving her upper deck as a killing pit and rendering half her broadside almost meaningless. Both these two outfittings are easily capable enough to cause a lot of damage to Constitution too. Scrolling up I see no mention of Constitution being vulnerable or not to 74s. Although I do remember a previous post talking about mast size on the tester service where you were incredibly convinced she could at least hold her own against a 74, I seriously hope that this ridiculous idea has actually changed.... I'm not sure how on earth is calling her her nickname, even suggesting to what she might have been named on her capture, especially by the British press is emotional language? Its not at all, it also has nothing to do with childish Halo 2 insults.... A series of defeats? The USA lost twice the frigates Britain did, they were not only larger, more expensively built and less expendable than the British ships, they were also padded out by victories over 278 privateers. If anything is scandalous to the British its not going to be the occasional loss of single frigate action, especially when the largest navy ships in the region are still intact. Its going to be the loss of around 1000 merchant ships, further made worse by the French privateer influence and how that might affect British morale as a whole knowing their merchant marine wasn't safe, even though reality is they are far safer than their American opponents. The loss of frigates in this circumstance has little to do with the frigates themselves, much more to do with the possibility the larger merchant fleet could be vulnerable. At no point have I suggested the United states doesn't exist... The British reaction to the US frigates is perfectly reasonable on account of both the size and unknown capability of the US frigates, where as there is a clear record of superiority over French frigates, its also something that tells of the decisive numerical advantage the British had in the region, why risk something to the unknown. I am aware of the reaction, it just seems like one of those statements that is blown out of reality wherever you study it, in Britain it seems pretty downplayed, where as in the USA its one of those things that gets blown dramatically out of proportions in the typical way American victories tend to be portrayed. Truth is its probably somewhere in the middle, nowhere near as exaggerated as it appears in America, but a little more shocking than it is portrayed in Britain (which isn't at all). Its also clear that it wasn't such a problem with the slightly smaller US ships, which you can see from Shannon vs Chesapeake, as referenced earlier the only fair action of the war and a decisive British victory. Probably because its something the Devs seem quite averse to put into the game, probably because it largely happens beyond the time frame of the game. Saying that its would be nice to see the game get short and short cut guns, it would be pretty bad game design to allow for 32s on a frigate in general even the 32s on Wasa is a mistake for balance, especially as she's a 64 not a 60 as she should be, but that's a different story. Up gunning the existing fleet doesn't cheapen innovation, but it does allow for a cheap way to slightly inflate the combative ability and should it be deemed somewhat effective then it creates a first step into potentially branching into heavier armament, its also clear that it happened prior to indulging in 24lbs, with the upgunning of a couple of French captures. In all honesty I can't double check my source on the event because I can't remember where I read it, but I believe it was something Henry Peake was toying with before he was replaced, with the experiments returning after Napoleon's defeat. This is taken somewhat out of context, its also something that is fairly clear from a modern perspective, on paper the 44 frigates are pretty beastly, but when you take into account everything else involved with them it becomes a lot more cloudy, where they become pretty ineffective on the whole. The costing of the US frigates is totally ridiculous, both in construction and commissioning, as I pointed out above it would have made far more sense to have built something less over the top. They also suffer other design flaws especially in comparison to similarly costed ships such as the open and vulnerable weatherdeck. Gun for gun they are pretty fantastic, especially compared to their smaller European counterparts, although their wartime success is somewhat limited, which is mainly observable through the Barbary wars and 1812. The whole point of a super frigate was supposed to be as a cost effective way to give stronger support to the merchant marine, mainly in peacetime. For this reason alone you can consider the US frigates are ineffective, so really in conclusion its not so much their combative effectiveness that's the issue with them, its their general oversized construction and the costs involved with that. They do offer some strange quirks but I do like them, they just aren't as special as people seem to make out. Although I know its personal preference but I much prefer the smaller US frigates to the 44s, Essex and such, which now I think about it was another fair fight, and decisive British victory. I do get the feeling that we aren't going to agree on this though, it seems a bit fruitless to keep going with this, it might just be better to agree to disagree.

Its not shabby to portray the lack of potential fight that in real terms constitution would have lost, she's just a speedy frigate that goes fast and turns like a pig. Like it or not, Constitution did avoid larger ships, you were the one that specifically brought up 50s or 64s not me. Although its clear Constitution would have been wrecked in an encounter with either one of these two builds, even more so against a larger tougher opponent like a 74, there is simply no doubt about it, "old iron sides" would be old burnt or even old sold for timber similarly to President and Chesapeake. But at the same point the Swedes, as much as it would be nice to give them the credit, as the ones who really starting using the poundage first, realistically their only influence was the Russians, who would have made that step anyway, their circle of technological feedback is too small, where the first rate navies simply didn't meet the circumstances to copy them. Similarly I wouldn't claim that Venice set the trend for super frigates, just that they came about the idea long before the USA... I'm unaware of there being a large crisis, had it been serious they might have responded by building something that wasn't made cheaply of fir. As far as I am aware there were some experiments with the Leda class in quieter waters, which is part of the reason we can plop 32lb on all decks in game. The majority of the testing was involved with larger ships though such as playing with 74s, although the most famous example is probably the trials with the much larger Caledonia, its also the best documented, either way the royal navy was keen to try and streamline the equipment process by standardising shot within their ships much earlier than you see the official outfitting over the 1820s. If you are going to be a pain about L'indien why not just go the full ridiculous and say everything is a step back from HMS Glatton? Failing that you could accept that the thought process is there before the non issue of what is really the lack of influence the US frigates, which were as I keep having to point out them being largely ineffective. Serapis is not a ship designed for speed or manoeuvrability, she is a pocket SoL you can clearly see that in her lines. The whole point of the Roebuck class was to deliver a cheaper alternative to the 50, which it did somewhat effectively, however it wasn't really worthwhile since they weren't as useful as a frigate, therefore ended up being destined for slightly different tasks, which is why so many of the class quickly became outfitted as support ships. At no point was I being critical of the British designation of their ships, because reality is they are right, it would be interesting to see what the British admiralty would have made of the Venetian style of frigates, but judging that they did tend to fit descriptions of the British fairly well and realistically their super frigate status takes on a different armament from their role as second rate warships the British description works fine anyway. You are trying to argue about something you don't really understand, something I'd happily talk to you about it if you weren't being so abrasive about the whole subject... Those figures are maximum footprint, Roebuck is limited to gundeck/beam, the two different measurement systems leave the Roebuck class similarly sized to only the larger Fama as I previously mentioned. All nations have slight variants on what they call a frigate, especially back then and anyway as I stated above I'm pretty sure that Venice's idea of what a super frigate is meets most expectations by other nations. I'm not sure why you would call America a capitalist pigdog when comparing it to Venice, the USA nicked a lot of ideas on how to be a successful mercantile state from Venice.... The standards don't apply to Venice alone, mainly because the idea of a super frigate is a large frigate, maintaining the speed, agility and costing of a frigate but combining it with a higher broadside power of a larger ship, something that the American's actually did pretty badly, which is why the Venetian Fregata Grossa actually work out to be a much better adaption of the idea as realistically by the point you get to the US styled super frigates you may as well just commission a speed built sleek 74. I'm not really embarrassing myself though am I? I'm not making claims for the universal acceptance that a nation that basically failed in all counts at a naval war some how pretends to be influential over things, over the course of the war of 1812 the USA lost 8 of their 12 frigates, while also losing 278 privateers and over 1400 merchant ships, including the majority of their largest and most important merchant vessels. This in comparison to British losses of the war, which is 4 frigates and just under 1000 merchant ships, especially as Britain could afford these losses, the USA really couldn't. All in all I would say the American theatre was fairly good in understanding the effectiveness of the 24lb Frigate, but not through the US ships, mainly through the feats of ships such as HMS Endymion, meanwhile the other 24lber of the game Indefatigable also served particularly well in Europe. I do really hope you didn't fork out £35k a year for an education, I'd hope for that kind of money you might have picked up some modesty and ability to make judgements on data, not on nationalistic pride for an over celebrated ship, you might also have picked up you can't eat tea too.

Well thats something that you should probably know was nearly impossible to begin with, being there simply weren't any real 64s, the royal navy cut down from 8 to 1 between 1811 and 1814, so yeah, there weren't really a huge number to run away from, again there were only 5 50 gunners in the Royal navy in 1812 and 4 in 1814, there simply aren't many of those size ships to commit to the region. However taking even the peacetime squadrons from 1808 you see 2 SoLs and 9 Frigates in the North American Squadron, 5 SoLs and 10 frigates in the Leeward Islands Squadron, 1 SoL and 15 Frigates in Jamaica Squadron and 4 Frigates in the Nova Scotia squadron. I imagine at least similar numbers during 1812, leaving it very likely that there were SoLs hunting down the US frigates, you should probably also know from your experience that you don't actually have to engage or sight an enemy to run away from it. There is no way that Constitution would be able to or even want to risk fighting a royal navy SoL but it would easily be able to acquire decent intel on their movements. It was really the British and the French that set the trend for 24lb frigates, although other nations had toyed with them as Malachi elegantly points out above, again as Malachi has already pointed out the 24lb is only a short step before the 24lb ships were quickly replaced by 32lbs, something that started taking place as general naval thought before the war of 1812 was even in motion, let alone finished, as navies tended to outfit increasingly more compact 32lb guns on all decks, having started to toy with the idea as early as around 1810, so in some sense the 24lb wasn't really anything to do with anyone they were just the next logical step in frigate outfitting as part of a grander scheme of naval inflation. And I remember answering you fully before on the same subject, the idea that Serapis could be a frigate or not generally comes down to the British Admiralty being a bunch of old farts, not wanting their lovely definitions challenged by slightly different designs, again realistically the definition of frigate does vary from nation to nation but in general they come down to be a collection of ships with lighter armament, higher speed and agility who's main role was to protect and patrol, Serepis' lines and dimensions do reflect more a small 50 style SoL rather than a Frigate if you ask me, something the Venetian ships do not as there is a very clear design distinction between their Galley Fleet, their Frigates, Super Frigates and Ships of the Line. I'm also unsure where the 17th century has come from, or where you even picked that up, but if you want to pick at straws the Venetian concept of what was a super frigate doesn't meet the expectations of what might be covered in another nation, but then when you look at general dimensions it seems to qualify quite nicely, all of which are smaller than the Roebuck class. you are typically looking at ships of about 42-44m around 11.5-12m beam, with a varied armament to what activities they were taking part in and whether they are acting as a super frigate or a second rate warship. Again I would also like to point out due to time restraints and some difficulty with using sources I haven't covered the Fregata Grossa in nearly as much details as I would like to, leaving nearly everyone in a state of ignorance, but giving me a hard time over not providing in depth information over the rating group doesn't make it any less valid, you are welcome to do your own research and I would strongly encourage you to get hold of a copy of Vascelli e fregate della Serenissima if you are actually interested, although its in Italian and as its no longer in print Amazon.com is only selling it at a nice comfortable almost $110, so you may be dissuaded until I get round to posting it myself, which isn't high on my priority list right now either. It was kind of clear from the start this was one of those LOOK AT THE USS CONSTITUTION ISN'T IT AMAZING patriotic nonsense threads which was supposed to flame history into activity rather than actually adding an interesting and worthwhile article to read, I probably shouldn't have got involved in the first place but then the US constitution is a pretty meh ship in reality, only celebrated because sometimes you just have to find the silver lining in a war that truthfully America got wrecked in, despite the British attention being focussed on the much more dangerous threat of France. Never forget, the White House is called the White House because of 1812 and that the general record of the US at sea was pretty abysmal.

Apologies I must have done a special and had them totally mixed up with another class, looking them up properly they are pretty disastrous aren't they Thanks for the correction. I wasn't aware of the Swedes or Russians having 24lb frigates either from your earlier post so thank you for letting me know about those too. Then again its not so surprising the Ruskis had massive cannons, they seem to have a thing for large calibres, maybe it was something to do with their rivalry with the Ottomans. Clearing up the Venice question you had, the Venetians for the most part armed their largest frigates with their 30lb cannons, which converts to about 19.2 British pounds, the exception is the Fama class which had 40lb Venetian guns, which is equivalent to roughly 26.5 British pounds, but Fama does predate Constitutions design by 12 years, and completion by 13 so she does count too, if only I ever got the chance to continually sink Constitution in Fama .

I'm not sure constitution is the best example for making statements about the sailing characteristics of live oak as there is no end to exaggerations around the ship thanks to the nationalism and symbolism that surrounds her, Constitution is neither the first super frigate, the first 24lb frigate or is her diagonal framing particularly unique or special either. Addressing these points individually: Super Frigates - The first super frigates were Venetian, the idea was first theorised around the 1710s, with the 40/56 gun San Andrea drawn up in 1720 and launched in 1724, leaving San Andrea over 70 years ahead of the US Frigates, further more there were 5 classes of super frigate designed by the Venetians 4 of which before the USA was even a country. The Venetian super frigates were also far more cost effective and generally more useful than the large monsters used by the US navy nearly a century later. 24lb Frigates - The first 24lb frigates I have come across are the the French Resistance, Forte and Romaine Classes, also during the same period Britain cut down HMS Anson and HMS Magnanime (both Intrepid class 64s) and HMS Indefatigable (Ardent Class 64) to razee ships, it was realistically these lines, especially the successful Romaine class that set the trend for 24lb Frigates. Diagonal Framing - The cross framing was developed at the same time as Seppings developed his own version independently and before any US frigates had been captured during 1812, it is also noticeable that Seppings and his version of framing was more developed and it was his work that was carried on, not the cross framing used in the US frigates. Is this a discussion on constitution or live oak as a whole? Because realistically there isn't really a very good standard to really take into account when discussing the US ships, they simply avoided encounters with similar size vessels, preferring to pick their battles and bully smaller frigates, the only real encounter I have come across where two ships of similar size have engaged each other was the Chesapeake - Leopard affair, which again is a poor distinction because Chesapeake wasn't set up for battle. The other engagements all involved a US ship of much larger size taking on a smaller British opponent, where the most fair fight was USS Chesapeake vs HMS Shannon, which was a decisive victory for Shannon. The other US ship captured by the British being President, was captured in an unfair fight, both these two ships had a very uninspiring service history under Britain Chesapeake being regarded as well built but nowhere good enough for channel service, and President also serving as a cruising frigate, they were both broken up in the late 1810s. President's lines were later copied more out of politics than out of praise for her design, mainly to remind the USA of their loss in 1815, meanwhile the world moved on with the French setting the new trend of 24lb frigates.