Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Fluffy Fishy

Tester
  • Posts

    1,040
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Fluffy Fishy

  1. Having played a fair few games over the years and having a fair amount of experience playing NA too, I feel like something that is really lacking from the game is a system that represents morale and fatigue of the crew, its long been a staple of other titles, its something I feel would really benefit naval action. There are quite a few games that do these two functions really well, with Creative assembly's Total war being probably the best known use of these type of mechanics, where fresh soldiers fight better, and low morale soldiers trying to run away. The best example I have personally come across using these types of mechanics are probably the Close Combat! series by Matrix Games, and while its not really something that is applicable in the same way to NA, it shows what you can do with a decent system to enhance the game, where low morale soldiers won't take orders and in extreme examples will do their own thing to survive the battle, whilst fatigued soldiers will act more slowly and perform worse in combat in general. It would be really cool to see Fatigue having an effect on crew efficiency, extending the time it takes to do basic tasks like reloading guns and changing sails ect, it should also have a minor effect on reassigning crew, meaning you have to think a bit more about long drawn out fights, picking your shots more carefully not spamming and tiring out your men quickly. It would be good to see it recover but at a slow pace. Meanwhile morale should be a bit more influential on other things like reluctance to board, it should deplete slowly with damage, and take a big hit when you get sent into shock for whatever reason, once it reaches 0 it would be good to see the ship automatically surrender itself, leaving a more realistic environment where combat rarely ended in a sinking, making battlefields not only a more interesting place where you have to manoeuvre around surrendered ships rather than them just sinking and going out of the way but also enabling up potential for fight results similar to HMS Speedy vs El Gamo. It would be great to see Morale or Fatigue make it into the game in a more serious iteration than the current system where crew are endless batteries filled with limitless energy and morale only mattering in boarding action.
  2. If you are going to add more super frigates (and at the risk of being a bit boring and predictable of me) you may as well look more into their conception which means Venice and the fregata grossa rated ships, first theorised as a concept in the 1710s with the first ship being launched in 1724 its a substantial shift in naval thought, its also not unlikely these ships played a more important role in the development of the US fleet than is really written about or documented, it being extremely improbable that the US constitutional delegation in Venice wouldn't have been shown these ships during their prolonged stay trying to uncover what created stable governance and society as part of other smaller tasks within the city, especially looking at maritime trade in the face of adversity, as the USA faced trying to trade in British controlled water similarly to the Venetians in Turkish dominated seas and how the nimble fregata grossa supported the mercantile fleet. Realistically the current crop of heavy frigates isn't bad either, it doesn't really need expanding on that much at least in the short term until we pad out other areas of the game. If you are looking at it from a completionist point of view it makes far more sense to add something the game doesn't currently have which is the trusty old 50 gun ship of the line like famous HMS Leopard, or perhaps something a from the line up of 50s that might be a little more unusual, either way i'd prefer to see something slightly different coming in than another super frigate for now.
  3. I think you misunderstood the point i was making slightly, although it's more likely I just explained it badly. The bulk of the frame is closer to the keel as you say and the woodwork does nearly always taper into thinner cuts as you go higher up the ship but it's not this that causes the problem in itself, live oak is a far heavier framing wood than most, it's something like 20-30% denser than standard oak if I remember correctly which means increased weight of the wood used. The effect of this increase in weight means the ships need to counteract this force otherwise a ship of the same design built from live oak would sit much lower in the water than the exact same build made from standard oak or even more dramatically compared to a softwood ship made of something like pine. To counter this generally speaking the ship would have to either take less ballast, making it more unstable, potentially even limiting the amount of sail that could be used in certain wind conditions, or modify the hull to displace more water either through depth or width which makes it slower overall. Hold space isn't really effected by the type of wood you use unless you are using poor quality wood that needs to be thicker to make up for it's poor structural properties. You don't really see a major change or difference in frames and their effect on hold space until the introduction of iron frames. It's also important to remember that the specialness of the 6 US frigates is quite overstated and distorted due to historical propaganda and that live oak doesn't give a great advantage over oak in frigate or line battles, guns will penetrate live oak without too much bother at the close ranges needed to make cannon fire at sea at all accurate which is something not really represented in naval action. The best part about live oak is it's longevity meaning similarly to teak the ship weather much better which is why we are still lucky enough to be able to visit the gorgeous USS Constitution, it does also have the advantage over teak by not being poisonous too. While we are on the topic of Constitution, feeding back into the hull shape changes, she very much has a typical design modification of a live oak ship, she takes a much deeper draft than would normally be expected of a ship of her size, allowing her to maintain a good centre of gravity below the waterline and increase her stability to make her a relatively fast ship able to carry heavy guns. The difference Constitution would have in her behaviour should she have been made out of oak or even a lighter wood with regards to speed and handling would be astonishing sadly this isnt something naval action really represents either. I hope this helps explain a little better
  4. Realistically speaking diagonal riders should increase speed slightly as there isn't so much drag from hogging, they are one of those things that you can't really balance properly with real world physics, which is why they likely get that trade off they do. Historically speaking both the US diagonals design and the more advanced Seppings method both contributed towards ship speed, they also consumed less resources as a whole, as their frame style created stronger geometric shapes so less materials could be used to get the same effect, or the same materials could be used to get a much stronger hull structure. The other issue is its not particularly difficult to understand as a concept either, so could easily be learned as a technology, balancing with physics and history is kind of a nightmare, which is a bit of a shame. Live oak on the other hand could be balanced a bit more accurately by making ships a bit less stable, the heavier wood mean that their is more weight higher up in the ship, so you are either forced to have less ballast or design a deeper draft. As it currently stands I don't believe drafts change in the game to what you equip and build your ship with, but realistically if you built a ship of the line out of live oak it would need to have a much rounder or deeper hull to support the extra structural weight, therefore the same hull form or ship design would either have to be less stable, modified slightly to give it more buoyancy (leading on to a less streamlined hull and slower ship) or be forced to take a hit on the weight of their guns by either cutting them down to be smaller guns, therefore less accurate, or alternatively just carrying a slightly lower poundage weapon, sadly different gun cuts arent in the game as it currently stands, so you can't get a short 24lb or a cut down 24lb gun, which is a shame for authenticity.
  5. The YouTube channel kings and generals (previously nurrak & phoenix) has just posted a nice video looking at the run up to and the battle of Trafalgar, Its not a bad watch and is part of a longer series looking at the Napoleonic wars in general, while they are only posting trafalgar in this current series they plan to do another shorter video series in the not too distant future looking at the rise of napoleon eventually leading to and including the Egyptian campaign, so we will probably see a video looking at the Battle of Abukir/The Nile not too long away. Anyway Here is the Video, Enjoy .
  6. Furthering on from what Bungee has said, the royal navy was extremely aware of the Napoleonic French dockyard power, similarly to how the US navy reacted to pearl harbour the French were in a position that they could if they so wanted rebuild their fleet, through having control of not only their own major naval yard facilities in Brest, Lorient,Toulon and Rochefort, but also controlled the substantial assets of Genoa, Antwerp, Rotterdam, Venice and Amsterdam, this all combined with the numerous supplies Napoleonic France had access to, such as the black forest thanks to their client state the Rhine Confederacy meant that first rates are the exception. San Josef is actually one of only a handful of first rate ships available at the time, here is a table showing the number of first rates over the Napoleonic period. 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 As you can see in 1805 the Royal navy had access to 6 first rates, in total with 1 being in repair, as far as I can work out the ships in question are Victory (1765), Royal Sovereign (1786), Royal George (1788), Britannia (1762), Ocean (1805), Hibernia (1804) and Ville de Paris (1795). As you can see from the date, Victory and Britannia were dinosaurs by naval standards, despite this Victory is widely regarded as the the technologically most impressive 1st rate built in the 18th century, showing just how much effort was made to really build the best ship possible with the knowledge available at the time as an example of what Bungee stated. San Josefs capture is notable for the British mainly because of her having been forced to surrender with relatively little damage, incredibly rare for a first rate in battle due to their sheer size and high ranking within the fleet making them a target. The damage she did take was mostly in the rigging leaving her in a position to be able to be quickly refitted and then going on to serve the Royal Navy well while they repaired some of their other first rates, then going on to continue active service up until the end of the Napoleonic wars. She became a vital part of protecting the repair and refitting program following Trafalgar. I'd also like to clear up that I don't think Spanish ships are boring as Intrepido has suggested, perhaps it was something that got lost in translation slightly, I certainly hope I haven't offended anyone here as that's not what I set out to do here. I would also like to hope I treat the situation fairly, and hopefully objectively assessing all ships and navies in a well rounded way and that in my own opinion I think Montanes is just one of the less exciting ships in this specific poll. I'd also like to point out that I have thought a lot about what ships I'd personally like to see in the game, having posted a list of suggestions that not only contains Montanes and San Josef but also San Damaso and San Jose, and while I haven't named any 4th rates specifically in the thread there is no doubt a great Spanish ship in that rating bubble. Here is the full thread if you want to have a read.
  7. I'm not sure why John Finchham would say this, of the Spanish ships captured at Trafalgar only a handful survived the battle and the storm afterwards, so would have been impossible to survey many of them. of the few survivors all but San Ildefonso were hulked, which served as a reception hull should they have been as advanced as Fincham suggests in your quote this would not be the case, I'm also not aware of the British copying any Spanish ship designs during this period as was frequent with the French captures. I may have to look into this a little more.
  8. Don't get me wrong, as I said just now, I would love to see 3 or 4 ships but from what I have read so far it looks very much like we are only getting one from the poll, my hope is that the devs have also got a few ideas they are putting out regardless of the democratic outcome of what is going on here, I have a feeling that's not the case though as it seems like other development priorities are far more pressing in their books. You don't need a degree in historical Spanish naval architecture to understand how different cultural shipbuilding works, I'm pretty sure there isn't even a degree level qualification in the subject anyway, the best course I have personally seen is the naval history course offered by the University of Genoa, beyond that you are looking at least at masters thesis or more likely PhD work or more specialised non university courses working with historic dockyards or museums. Spanish and Iberian ships of the period in general are well known for being more lightly constructed than other navies, similarly the Genovese followed a very inter-lapping cultural shipbuilding history as the two nations worked quite closely together through the age of discovery into the age of sail. Spanish ships of the period were simply built to mainly act in convoy escort missions helping protect wealth coming into Spain from their new world empire and colonies. because of this the Spanish tended to build smaller ships, more broadly favouring the 70 gunner over the 74, with both these types of ships being built to more of a speed over distance than combat effectiveness, acting more as a deterrent than anything else, The Spanish fighting navy supported these weaker hulled 70s and 74s with their large first rates usually either 112 or 114 guns which were a little more robust, but again still more fragile than their British and French counterparts. The general lightness of the Spanish 74s made them much better at their day to day activities of trips to the new world and back but made them somewhat vulnerable in combat, they also had a fairly poor turn rate, being made for speed over agility. Looking more into the technological aspect, Spanish shipbuilding was somewhat behind the curve of Britain and France, having suffered greatly in the 30 years war, lost out on investment into their navy, so after this period the Spanish suffered a long period of relative conservatism, this was further solidified by the war of Spanish succession leaving them a bit behind other European navies, which is why you see the vast majority of 18th century advancements happening in Britain and France, where the French tended to perfect sailing ratios, rigging and hullform, while the British spent time advancing hull strength and additional technology like coppering. Generally speaking when comparing Britain France and Spain you see quite a large difference in what they look for in a ship, with Britain building well armoured tough ships that could spend long periods of time at sea at the expense of being a bit slower, while France created some fantastic hull forms, working to make their ships pretty good all rounders and gave them the investment to achieve this, while Spain focussed their more limited budget in creating a navy that supported their commercial interests in the new world over fighting, with lightly armoured, not particularly agile but straight line fast ships. Hope this helps
  9. People have since that post was made asked if there was going to be a ship of each of those ranges and it has been said that its not the case, those are just the requirements for which ever one of the next ships will be added, as far as other posts have said so its going to be either a 32-36, 50-60 or 70-80 not a 32-36 50-60 and 70-80. I would much prefer the idea of adding multiple ships but this time as far as has been announced its not the case, it was also confirmed not too far back that no other ships were being worked on for the game, although hopefully it has changed a little since then, especially as there are now 2 games sharing assets. Montanes isn't a particularly advanced ship technologically, she is a typically light built Spanish 74, Spanish ships being constructed with thinner frames and planking than designs by the French, and much more so than the British. The speed she had at the time of her running was also in part due to her being armed with a compliment of lighter guns combined with copper plating, something as far as I am aware not all Spanish ships had at the time, compared to all Royal Navy ships being not only fitted with but also having a more advanced sheathing. She is fantastic to look at, I don't have any issues with that and I'm not sure where you got that idea from but on a whole it makes so much more sense to add a more typical 70 gun Spanish ship first, they would be fun to play, add more variety and generally be a bit different. Endymion was famous for her speed which was inconsistent compared to the rest of her class by the same design, which is partly why she has such a longer and more interesting history than Severn, Liffey, Liverpool, Glasgow and Forth. She is a great ship but also just a good example of what happens and why Montanes wouldn't get her somewhat dubiously impressive speed. I'm not being impolite or at least that wasn't the intention, I'm just a bit miffed why so many people like Montanes so much, she is a fairly unexciting 74 as things go and is somewhat of a waste of a chance to get a much more interesting ship into the game.
  10. Unless they have changed their mind only one ship will be selected in general, so its not likely to get in at all. if this has changed please correct me with a source . Just a sad poll aiming to get Dutch, Portuguese or Venetian entry that will end in a dull Spanish ship being added, which of course will be OP to start with then people will get annoyed and it will be nerfed and there wont have been much point in her being in the game to begin with, even if it is a nice idea long term to see a 74 of the majority of nations.
  11. Why not make it more representative of 64s as a whole, they had neither the speed not the punch of a 74 which is why they became obsolete, As 50 gun frigates replaced their lighter duties and 74s made their heavier uses redundant. Wasa is crazy overpowered, especially compared to historical values, just because a ship of her class was for a period armed with 32lbs doesn't mean she should be, she should be a 24lb 60 gun 4th rate while Agamemnon should be a fair bit slower in general and constitution should have a notably worse turn rate than Bellona. Please balance with typical values not exceptional, it's like the 15kn 24lb frigate issue again and again
  12. That accounts for a little under half HMS Victory's round shot count and all of her specialist shot, generally speaking peacetime armaments for lineships were about 40 round for each cannon, while wartime armaments basically doubled this number to about 80 per gun, while frigates tended to carry 50 or 100 respectively. In contrast specialist shot historically really quite limited with enough for around 3-5 broadsides with the number not really changing a great deal whether at peace or war. Its also worth pointing out that these numbers are pretty consistent throughout all the European navies, while the US navy stored less round shot in favour of a more privateer style armament containing around 25% of their total ammunition as double headed and around 10% scatter shot, leaving them typically with around 35 shots per gun. To limit the number of shots an in game ship should have you should probably look at how much damage the ships can take, the NA ships are far weaker than historical values suggest, with cannons also loading a little bit faster as there is no account for fatigue or morale in NA so there is no loss over time for crew members who basically operate on peak efficiency of numbers taken from training. Realistically if we want to limit balls we need to think about this aspect as well, so as to not end up with things being skewed either way. Personally I'd like to see repairing being something you can do over time without a kit, more a resource over time, representing spare bits of wood and jury rigging going on around the ship in general, whilst mast repairs are a bit more formal with kits as they are now. when it comes to balls, I'd like to see them restricted to about 40 shots per gun for regular round shot, around 5 chain, and 8 grape, this is more than enough and represents a somewhat broadly based historical descaling to make a meaningful and fun game. Its a bit odd to see people complaining about potentially limited ammunition as a whole, no one complains about limited ammunition in shooting games, they just accept it as part of the behaviour, it also stops people needlessly trying to get for lucky shots and being a little more tactical and precious about their shots as they are a finite resource. Just to end here are the wartime ammunition counts for HMS Victory: Round, 32pdr: 2400. Round, 24pdr: 2800 Round, 12pdr: 4200 Round, 68pdr Carronade: 84 Grape, 32pdr: 90 Grape, 24pdr: 112 Grape, 12prd: 168 Grape, 68pdr carronade: 7 Case shot, 7 Grape in tin. Double headed (Chain/Bar), 32pdr: 90 Double headed, 24 pdr: 84 Double headed, 12pdr: 126 Paper cartridge (Gunpowder), 32pdr: 2580 Paper cartridge, 24pdr: 2996 Paper cartridge, 12pdr: 4728
  13. I saw this article from BBC news just now talking about finding an astrolabe, the earliest form of deep sea navigation. The find is the earliest of its kind, dating back to about 1495-1502. The find was uncovered in the Indian Ocean on the wreck of a a ship named Esmeralda, and was part of a fleet lead by the Famous Vasco da Gama. Its always quite exciting to see discoveries like this, especially as maritime archaeology is such a surprisingly young field. Full Article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41724022?SThisFB Here is an example of a slightly later model of an Astrolabe, showing a little more how it might have looked, and how they were used, somewhat similarly to a sextant later on by measuring angles.
  14. Well I did just stumble across this today
  15. Only because ships are given exceptional characteristics of their class rather than typical values which gives a ridiculous state to attempt to balance, Wasa should be a 60 gun 24 lb ship, not a 64 x 32lb monster, the extra weight of guns and ammunition would make a fair difference to the sailing characteristics although to be fair Agamemnon was a slug in a straight line, so that is pretty inaccurate too. Other stand out inaccurate ships are Heavy Rattlesnake, Bucentaure and Constitution, while most others have the same issue but in a more limited sense. Montañés wouldn't get to 14kn without her copper plates, nor her peacetime armament so the idea she is particularly special is a bit frustrating, it makes far more sense from a design perspective to give Spain a more typical ship of their navy, a 70 gunner. Hopefully if they are going to build Montañés they will balance her a bit better by giving her the typical Spanish design choice of lighter frame and thinner planking.
  16. I imagine part of the problem is their main force was pretty full of galleys and half galleys which tend to be built in large numbers and not recorded in as much detail as larger ships, although doesn't help that from the later half of the 18th century they become landlocked. It's seems to be a general issue with most nations where they simply don't record their smaller naval assets particularly well and as far as I am aware there aren't any bigger ships, similarly to Prussia they know they can't keep up with Sweden and Russia at sea so they work more towards coastal defences, gunboats and floating batteries.
  17. You are getting mixed up with the poundage, Venetian pounds are lighter than most others so when you convert the Venetian weight to English poundage the Venetian 20lb is just under 13.3lb while the Venetian 12lb cannons are equivalent to just below 8lb. so while you would probably most closely model this to having 12lb on the main deck and 9 on the weatherdeck there's no reason why you couldn't just take the French armaments after they were seized. The Constanza 2 class was long gone by the end of the Venetian Republic but the others were rearmed to French weights. Cerere was given 22 x 12lb, 4x 6lb and 6 x 12lb Carronade. Pallade was reamed with 20 x 12lbs, The Palma class ships were given different armaments, Palma was given entirely 8lbs, Bellona was given some old 18lbs, Medusa was converted into a hospital ship and Adria and Austria were equipped with 24 x 12lbs and 10 x 6lbs. I see no reason not to restrict their armament to 12lbs, mainly due to the unusual weighting of Venetian cannons.
  18. Venice has a few, the most fitting to the timeframe of the game are the Constanza 2 class of 28 guns, Cerere Class of 32 guns (not to be confused with the later ship Carere), there is also the 38 gun Palma class but thats slightly outside of the limit and the Pallade class transport frigate of 24 guns. Pallade and Cerere share the same hull form, however the outfitting was quite different, as was the armament. Constanza 2's Dimensions: Max Length: 37.87m Keel Length 32.33m Max Width: 9.91m Bilge Tip: 9.56m Draft 4.52m Armed with (in Venetian pounds) 20 x 20lb (6kg) 8 x 12lb (3.6kg) Ships: Constanza 2 (1757) Tolleranza (1757) Brillante (1778) I'm not aware of any plans for the design, although some may pop up at some point, I may have them anyway just without noticing. Both Cerere's and Pallade's dimensions are: Max Length: 42.42m Keel Length 36.51m Max Width: 11.13m Bilge Tip: 9.56m Draft: 4.95m Cerere was armed with (In Venetian pounds): 24 x 20lb (6kg) 8 x 12lb (3.6kg) Ships: Carere (1794) Aquelia (1804/5) Unnamed, Never completed Pallade was armed with: 24 x 20lb (6kg) Ships: Pallade (1786) Venere (1786) The Plans for both these ships: The Palma Class was built to: Max Length: 42.42m Keel Length: 36.51m Max Width: 11.26m Bilge Tip: 8.06m Draft 5.63m Armament (Venetian pounds): 26 x 20lb (6kg) 12 x 12lb (3.6kg) Ships: Palma (1784) Bellona ( 1788) Medusa (1791) Adria (1803) Austria (1805) I'm currently not quite sure on the plans for Palma, there should be some out there, I don't think they share the same lines as the smaller ships but would be a much similar design, Its something I am really trying hard to work out and track down, sadly with no success so far... Hope this helps
  19. Rif Winfield's latest book French Warships in the Age of Sail 1626 - 1786 is due for release in Europe on October 30th, with 20 days to release I thought others may be interested in preordering or ordering it. Its noted that the book is seemingly unavailable in the US for a little while longer, with its US release destined to be 1st of December. The book is just the latest in a fantastic group of catalogues of ships, their specifications and history and thanks to the sheer scale of the project its not always entirely accurate thanks to the difficulty of working with the resources available, its hard to find a better source at least when it comes to the scale, the books contain some nice naval plans too, and while expensive are a great place to start in naval history. What you can expect from the book is, designs, where it was built or acquired from and a brief service history, some details on hired vessels and they also usually contain at least in some setting some history looking at the broader environment of the era, in this case I would expect looking at French naval dominance of the 17th century, towards their influence over hull form and a little bit about some of the hugely influential naval architects of France. The books cover all sizes of ships, while they tend to look in most detail at the ships of the line and larger frigates they do give time to all the smaller vessels too, especially if they have an influential or interesting history, I imagine this book contains some nice information looking at corvettes for example. A typical page in the series looks like this (from French Warships 1786-1863): The product description reads: Amazon (UK) Link: https://www.amazon.co.uk/French-Warships-Age-Sail-1626/dp/1473893518/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1507648896&sr=1-1 US Link: https://www.amazon.com/French-Warships-Age-Sail-1626-1786/dp/1473893518/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1507648071&sr=8-2&keywords=french+warships Other books in the series cover: French Warships in the Age of Sail 1786 - 1861 British Warships in the Age of Sail 1603 - 1714 British Warships in the Age of Sail 1714-1792 British Warships in the Age of Sail 1793-1817 British Warships in the Age of Sail 1817-1863 Russian Warships in the Age of Sail 1696-1860 Dutch Warships in the Age of Sail 1600 - 1714 The books are all fantastic, and supporting the authors and the publisher of the series, Seaforth is something I feel strongly about. Also Seaforth tend to give away an e-book with most of their orders so you often get 2 for the price of one, they are a great little company producing some hugely valuable reads to anyone interested in the era and subject.
  20. I'm not sure how you could get more accurate than the ships put forward, The best resourced Venetian ships are easily Fama and La Harpe, I spent a long time trying to dig up some information on the Palma class frigates, Muiron would also have been fine but she would have stuck out in the selection being at 44 guns. The posts I and some others like Sella22 have spent weeks researching and writing for Venetian ships have basically boiled down to 5 main options, Muiron, Fama, Laharpe, San Carlo Borromeo and Leon Trionfante. There are also a few smaller ships that can be thought about like Giasone, Enea and Cibelle There are a couple of others which make more difficult because their plans are unnamed, poor quality or lack the needed detail, ships such as San Michele Arcangelo . The other issue is San Carlo Borromeo, San Michele Arcangelo and Leon Trionfante are single hulled, so wouldn't perform in the same way as other ships in the game. The other issue is that La Harpe and Muiron were sat mothballed in ordinary for the majority of their life, only finished after the French occupied the city. So this kind of leaves you with 2 options with 2 sub options, you go for a ship launched within the time frame of the republic which means you either pick a ship with a single hull which will behave quite differently, or you are forced to have Fama, Palma or Pallade (Pallade being a poor choice because she is a support ship) The other option is picking a ship launched after the republic, where you basically get the extra options of Laharpe which would fit into the 74 slot nicely, or Muiron who has a fun history but weren't ever sailed under the Venetian flag. All arrows seem to point to Fama, she is one of the esteemed Fregata grossa rating so nimble and fast with a huge poundage to punch, whilst also being double hulled, and having sailed under Venice, she also has some incredibly high def plans, and a model in the Austrian military museum and best of all she is a beautiful ship. The other option would be Palma, but I still havent found some surviving plans for her, but she would have suited the vote nicely as a 38 gun Frigate, I will see if I can dig up anything else over time. Wildcard maybe ?
  21. While beautifully intricate Venetian viola plays sad songs, today is not the day for the republic. I'm actually pretty stumped who to vote for, I'm not particularly keen on any of the ships here, a lot of them are kind of ugly, although it would be good to finally get some Dutch representation. Leopard and Téméraire should both be in the game by now and we probably shouldn't even be voting for them... Montañés is famous for running away, and arguably her most important part is her copper sheathing, not her design, Wenden is a bit ugly and there are far better examples to pick from for a 70 gun ship, Friderichsværn and Nikolai are kind of ugly, we don't desperately need any more 24lb frigates, we have 3 and potentially still "Kepler" is in the works so that kind of counts Venus out, Princess Real is pretty ugly and modern for my liking, HMS Foudroyant is a nice ship but the 80 gunner of the game should really be Bucentaure even if she currently sits at 88, by that I am left with the Dutch ships Prinses Frederika Louise Wilhelmina, Vrijheid class and the Wreker class, visually I prefer the Vrijheid and Prinses Frederika, although Wreker is probably a more appropriate choice, overall I am leaning towards Vrijheid but it doesn't feel right. I'd like to be properly remindeded of why each ship should make it into the game by someone passionate about it. Please persuade me and others to why vote for a ship
  22. I got recommended this video on youtube today, it talks about some of the chinese shipbuilding and naval history. Its quite an interesting watch, especially about the 160ft square floating fortresses, and the paddle boats. There are also some interesting things I didn't know about things like concrete in treasure ships. Its worth a watch, although I have to say the typical US history documentary narrator annoys me but the interviews with the experts are pretty good. Its worth a watch if you have the time although I'm somewhat dubious about some of the information presented and some of the other things presented are downright wrong but its a good watch all the same. Enjoy
  23. The one we have in the game is from 1722. There is also something to be said about the map, its set somewhere between the American Revolution of 1776 and the Louisiana purchase of 1803, despite the actual time frame of the game being more open when concerned with ships. I beleive they used a map from around 1790 to work from.
  24. This would be so much better, or the poll even having multiple votes from the start, as pointed out earlier in the thread people always seem to lean towards the heavier ships to the detriment of the medium and smaller options and the effect that has on general gameplay, where the world and his wife has a first rate and broadside creep is a real issue in this game and with ships often getting over gunned with no real consequence to performance. Currently again something that has been pointed out before is this poll doesn't quite fit the brief with the national preference to Dutch, Venetian and Portuguese with what looks like the likely outcome of the final poll adding another French or Spanish ship so really the best chance the more niche choices get to rely on is the rare event of a Dev selected wildcard. You might even want to add a 3rd poll containing a second chance to vote for the ship for an unrepresented nation so the nations Admin set out to ask for actually make it in. The other option would be where the Dev/Mod team weight the votes differently so the most unrepresented nations get more points for every vote, say 1.5 or 2 instead of the flat vote. I still stand by my earlier statement where the most voted for ships on this thread probably shouldn't even be something that's being voted on. Sadly all despite all the hard work of the community and mod team, this is probably the least effective of the ship polls I have seen, we shall see what the final poll brings over the next few days, I would assume there is quite a bit of chatter going on behind the scenes on how to fix the triarchy of votes and make things a little more interesting.
  25. No they weren't, they didn't often leave the Mediterranean often, they mainly traded in currents, olives and oil, liquor and honey mostly in the Mediterranean basin but also on a smaller scale in the black sea and Atlantic. But in the same grasp quite a few of the nation's being thrown as what is likely to become options aren't exactly active in the Caribbean either so its not like it actually matters. I assume we will get the Ottomans, Russia, Poland, Prussia Portugal popping on the scene, none of which had a serious presence to the point the knights of Malta had more possessions...
×
×
  • Create New...