Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Sir Lancelot Holland

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

398 Excellent

About Sir Lancelot Holland

  • Rank
    Junior Lieutenant

Recent Profile Visitors

1,113 profile views
  1. If Naval Action were actually a simulation of 18/19th century warfare with all the stratagems and tactics, a defined set of victory conditions with re-settable default start points then the OP would be correct. However Naval Action is not that, I do not think that was the intent of the Dev's to begin with, more likely their intent was to provide a taste of naval warfare during a period where it has been heavily romanticised in print and on-screen. If I am wrong I am sure Admin will clarify that point of view. In truth naval warfare of the period was tough, if nature did not kill you the enemy would, if not the enemy then your own side may do so for any one of the infractions of the articles of war, it was fought with values that today are obsolete, yet the basic rules have not changed in centuries, from England it took months to get ships on station in the Caribbean, often remaining there for several years at a time, we are fortunate that we don't have to go to the India or Africa stations, and god forbid the Far East stations! How does one take such circumstances and convert them to a playable game that entertains, remains vibrant and close to the conditions of the time? Where fleets could, and, did pass each other without being seen, where the weather could and did make combat extremely difficult causing more losses than combat, where battles ended in stalemate more often than not, and, big fleet actions were rare, Naval Action sees more battles in a week than most Napoleonic Sailors did in a lifetime, even though some of those lives were short and brutal, we have ships that are close to their real life counterparts, with concessions made for play-ability, we do not fight in conditions that are close to those which navy's had to face in the day in terms of weather, or, regulation, if we did the game would be far too frustrating to play, and, at the end of the day, it is a game not a war simulation.
  2. It would work really well for ports in inlets or up river, certainly make some PB's more challenging from a tactical viewpoint. The concept of forward defence and falling back on the guns would make a big difference to light or outnumbered defences, and provide more challenging offensive tactics for attackers as well. One may even see the use of the little used heavy ship batteries where speed and mobility are not major issues.
  3. The common locations for magazines was below the waterline on the Orlop deck, logically close to the centre of the ship so that all cannons could be served in a similar time-frame. There may have been exceptions of course, and, it was not uncommon for powder bags to kept close to the guns for immediate use, (just as small caliber ammunition would be stored on deck in lockers as ready-use until rounds arrived from the 4 or 5 inch magazines). Later turreted ships would find the Cordite and shell rooms beneath the Barbettes below the waterline for easy flooding in the event of fire, The X turret magazine aboard Hood actually went far enough forward as to have been almost under the Captains day cabin and the Admiral's quarters and was the Magazine that exploded first, examination of the wreck suggests that the resulting fire went forward below decks without setting off Y magazine (which was further aft) venting above decks forward of the Mainmast where the explosion appeared to take place from the Prince of Wales viewpoint. True magazine explosions were very uncommon in the Napoleonic era, the best known example being the French 1st rate L'Orient at the Battle of the Nile, while the fire aboard L'Orient started aft, and low down in the hull, British gunfire spread the fire both forward and to the upper decks, the initial fire may well have been kept under control and away from the magazine were the fire not targeted by British ships. The introduction of Cordite, which tended to destabilize over time, and, required a temperature controlled environment meant a severe rise in magazine detonations even when not in action like HMS Vanguard in 1917, It is quite possible that USS Maine may also have been due to a coal bunker fire setting off a powder magazine, like Bretagne the Maine's loss was controversial, and what actually happened in Havana may never be truly resolved. The French Battleship Bretagne, IJNS Yamato, USS Arizona, HMS Barham and HMS Hood are all well known, documented, magazine explosions due to combat as were the British Battle-cruisers at Jutland. The Loss of the Bretagne was particularly controversial, since her loss at Oran, caused by Force H, a British Battle Squadron, created a great deal of bad feeling between France and Great Britain, ironically HMS Hood, which was Admiral Somerville's flagship at Oran, shared her fate less than a year later near the Denmark Straits. Many lesser known ships also suffered the same fate. Overall it does appear that magazine protection and ammunition handling procedures were better in 18th and most of the 19th century than they were in 20th century before the introduction of Cordite in 1889 as the shell propellant of choice.
  4. The Articles of War, which governs daily conduct and behavior in combat, parts of which are read at Sunday Services and at punishment, Port Admiral's or Fleet admiral's instructions (ROE) signal's, Provision's, Ships, and Captain's logs were all part of ships 'library'. I would think that such a book would have to be optional as many people would not want to spend a lot of time on paperwork in a game, those who like to keep a record of where they are going, have been, weather and action reports, or prices, profit and loss what is sold and bought where, would, probably like a log, although, most of the information can be found elsewhere. The idea is good and would bring a touch of authenticity to 'life' at sea for those who have the time and inclination to keep a log.
  5. Privateering at least in the beginning was something of a grey area legally speaking especially where the British were concerned. The likes of Raleigh, Drake, Hawkins, and Frobisher were Officers of the very new Royal Navy in time of war, in times of peace they were known to have operated under letters of Marque signed by Queen Elizabeth I, when it is considered that Pirates were outlaws operating without Letters of Marque and the fact that Queen Elizabeth maintained that they were Royal Navy Officers the claims of Piracy by His Most Catholic Majesty King Philip of Spain may well have credibility for as RN officers they would have been committing an act of war, or, an act of piracy if they did not have letters of Marque! For game purposes however, if you accept that the nations are permanently at war with each other (or all trying to beat GB, depending on your viewpoint lol) then Naval Captains cannot hold a letter of Marque, the Pirates, who in truth should not be a nation per se, (I think a number of Pirates may well prefer a form of Bretheren of the sea, with it's own rules, and, with Letters of Marque as well they could become a unique faction as opposed to a 'Nation'), however, should be able operate under Letters of marque from any nation who chooses to hire them giving them a veneer of legitimacy. There should I think be a time limit on Letters of Marque, perhaps a month with an option to renegotiate a re-issuance of the Letter. This allows the Pirates to change allegiances should they desire to do so. As far as I can tell, under the current Mechanics players under Letters of Marque would be ineligible to enter PB's on behalf of their sponsors, but, nothing restricts them from Screening operations or any other mission that they could legitimately carry out as Pirates.
  6. господа, Я был бы признателен, если бы вы объяснили мне, почему покупка пушек за форт стоит в три раза больше, чем приобретение снаряжения высотой 42 фунта? Хотя я и согласен с тем, что форты - это дорогостоящие предметы для постройки и обслуживания, я не понимаю, почему пушки, которые стоят одинаково, выковывают ли они для форта или корабля, почему я должен купить 200 пушек для форта на 64 пушки? Заранее спасибо, что нашли время из своего плотного графика, чтобы объяснить мне, почему это так. Приношу свои извинения носителям русского языка, если в переводе есть ошибки, русский не является моим родным языком, к сожалению, Google Translate не славится точным переводом синтаксиса и грамматики. Gentlemen, I would appreciate it if you could explain to me why it is that it costs three times the amount to purchase cannons for a fort then it does to outfit a first rate with 42 lb guns? While I accept that forts are expensive items to build and maintain I fail to understand why cannons which cost the same to forge whether for a fort or a ship why I have to purchase 200 cannons for a 64 cannon fort? Thank you, in advance for taking the time from your busy schedule to explain to me why this the case. My apologies to native Russian speakers if there are errors in translation, Russian is not my native language, sadly Google translate is not renowned for its accurate translation of syntax and grammar.
  7. ¿Cometió Villeneuve errores en Trafalgar? Sí, ciertamente lo hizo, no conozco a ningún Oficial en ninguna fuerza militar, de ninguna era que no haya cometido errores, Raglan, Lord Chelmsford, Custer, incluso Wellington, Montgomery y Rommel cometieron errores, ninguno de esos oficiales fue calificado como cobarde por sus errores ¿Era grosero o simplemente arrogante? ¡Más de uno de los oficiales de arriba era más que creíble! Personalmente creo que ambos rasgos son malas cualidades en cualquier persona, sin importarles los oficiales de Flag. Una opinión formada a través de la experiencia y, como cualquier opinión, no necesariamente lo hace un hecho. No digo que tu opinión sea errónea, como tampoco la mía, es solo eso, una opinión. Nuestro Nelson, excelente como era, también era arrogante, su arrogancia debería haberlo visto en los tribunales de guerra en más de una ocasión por desobediencia voluntaria, particularmente después de Copenhague. Negarse a navegar bajo órdenes es Mutiny, del mismo modo que las tripulaciones de HMS Rodney y HMS Hood se amotinaron en 1936 en Invergordon, o, peor aún, podrían interpretarse como cobardías en virtud de los Artículos de Guerra de todas las naciones, una ofensa capital bajo ley militar
  8. Siempre he tenido el mayor respeto por el Almirante Villeneuve, él también podría ser creativo, lo hizo, antes de que Trafalgar no solo rompiera lo que era un bloqueo muy efectivo, sino que lo hizo dos veces, la primera vez incluso llevando a Nelson al Caribe y de regreso a España sin Nelson nunca viendo su flota. Lo más triste de todo fue la forma en que lo trataron después de Trafalgar, ya que lo obligaron a emprender un curso de acción que sabía que no estaba bien aconsejado, sabiendo que en pocos días se le relevaría de su mando y que se le trataría tan mal. por Napoleón Bonaparte por seguir sus órdenes. Realmente siento simpatía por él, un oficial valiente e ingenioso que cumplió con su deber. A diferencia de algunos de mis propios compatriotas, opino que tanto la Armada francesa como la española lucharon bien, con coraje y honor.
  9. Creo que hubo, y de hecho, todavía hay una marcada diferencia entre las doctrinas civil y militar, también hay áreas donde las dos doctrinas se superponen. Por ejemplo, en las circunstancias correctas, tanto los civiles como los militares son capaces de actos de valentía, pero ambos están sujetos a fallas en la moral a pesar del adoctrinamiento en el estilo de vida militar, principalmente, creo, porque la naturaleza humana es lo que es. No sé si la Armada española presionó a los civiles para que entraran en servicio, la Real Armada ciertamente sacó a la gente de las calles para prestar servicio involuntariamente a bordo de los barcos, por lo que ambas doctrinas habrían estado trabajando a bordo del barco al mismo tiempo. Sin embargo, las dificultades de la vida en el mar y la dura disciplina habrían asegurado que la mayoría de los hombres lucharan cuando llegara el momento. El almirante Villeneuve, al igual que Nelson, también habría informado a sus capitanes y, de hecho, al almirante español y sus capitanes sobre lo que esperaba que sucediera, y expuso sus planes para la próxima batalla. Sin embargo, no se les habría dicho a las tripulaciones, lo que hasta cierto punto habría afectado a los hombres, ya que los humanos tienden a temer lo desconocido. La Historia no dice si el Almirante Villeneuve envió algún tipo de señal para elevar la moral como la que espera la Inglaterra de Nelson, o tal vez la doctrina naval francesa puede no haber permitido esto. ¿La doctrina militar hace que los hombres luchen más duro? No estoy seguro de que así sea, después de todo, los Corsarios y Piratas tenían mucho más que perder, si perdían y eran capturados, morirían de todos modos. Los soldados y los marineros militares luchan porque se les enseña a hacerlo, los civiles solo lucharán para sobrevivir, y solo si las circunstancias los obligan a hacerlo, pero cuando luchan, aparte de la falta de entrenamiento y disciplina, hay poca diferencia entre los dos grupos. Mis disculpas si hay errores, el español no es mi idioma nativo y confío en el traductor de Google.
  10. Clearly the revolution was far more complex event than how it is portrayed, at least in British schools. By comparison Great Britain's attempt at republicanism post civil war(s) was a failure, which, led to our current Constitutional Monarchy. Charles I was an absolute Monarch who believed he reigned by divine right, whether Louis XVI believed the same, or not, I do not know, but, as monarchs they held similar traits and took a similar path to their trials and executions. I took you're advice and read a little deeper into the 'old regime', and I think barely scratched the surface of how things were during the reign of the House of Bourbon, it is strange how the histories of France and England are so similar at different times, maybe the French and the English people have more in common that we realise, or care to admit.
  11. As a young Naval Air Mechanic, I talked with an old submariner who's view was there are two types of ship in war, Submarines and targets! I thought he was being over dramatic right up to the moment my carrier was pronounced sunk by a Norwegian boat on exercise, A well trained, determined, crew with confidence in their ship can achieve a great deal is the lesson I took away from that.
  12. Most of the time you would probably be right, many Captain's would strike their colours for the sake of the remaining crew, however some, like John Paul Jones would rather board the enemy knowing his ship is sinking than give up, so it really depends on the caliber of the Captains involved.
  13. Why not have a rating system for crafter's similar to the promotional system? For instance a Crafter can build entry level ships that cater to new and junior players, Shipwrights who build for mid level players and Master Shipwrights who build high end PVP and PB ships to the highest standard. Each level crafts all ships but craft better ships as their rate gets higher, and, can get higher profits by using better materials. These shipwrights could be supplied by traders and ordnance manufacturers of a matching level all of whom can also sell their products to the Admiralty or privately in the shops as well. This would put high value cargo's as well as general trade on the Open Water, offer an incentive for more genuine piracy when Pirates intercept then sell onward or use those cargo's and introduce more realistic commerce warfare by naval forces bringing the game more in line with the functions of pirates, privateers, raiders and navy's while increasing the value of the ports where they operate.
  14. What I should have said was that the similarity was there before the revolution, certainly; the fact that many of the aristocratic families left France before, during and after the Revolution would have had a devastating effect on both the Army and the Navy, at least, until new Officers could be trained and gained experience. I note with interest your figures regarding the Aristocracy at the time of the revolution, here in England we are taught about this era from a British perspective, which, naturally differs from that of the French people, for example the involvement of the Clergy is not mentioned in British history lessons taught in schools, so if I appear to have misconceptions about what happened during a very turbulent time in French history I am happy to stand corrected. I do wonder that if M. Robespierre and his fellow revolutionaries were alive today and could see that the privileged still hold power in every nation, would they ask themselves, if it was all worth while? I do think that the Revolution benefited the French people in many ways, but, that the cost was tragically high among both the Aristocracy and the Citizenry, as is the case with all revolutions.
  15. I think in this respect the composition of the Officer corps of the French Navy was in fact little different from that of the the Royal Navy, an Officer would either be of the aristocracy, or, if not, like Nelson (who was the son of a Norfolk Parson) have patronage from an Officer who was from the aristocracy. That the French, as a nation rebelled against their lawful government and the subsequent terror that followed is no surprise, given the conditions that the common man lived under, indeed, there was always the fear that it could happen in Great Britain too. It was I think more that the fear of the same happening in Great Britain (The regicide of Charles Stuart, King Charles I, after the British civil wars ensured that fear would be always present) that made the Napoleonic wars different to the preceding wars between France and England which were more territorial in nature. While both France and America learned how to live without a monarchy, Great Britain's republican experiment died with Oliver Cromwell, leading to the restoration of King Charles II and a constitutional monarchy. While Napoleon Bonaparte was one of great Generals of his age, his lack of understanding of Naval warfare placed him at a severe disadvantage, as his relationship with Admiral Villeneuve showed, and, may also of contributed to the performance of the French Navy during the Napoleonic era, neither would he be the last national leader to find himself in that position. It should also be remembered that around the same time the still new United States Navy adopted meritocracy in their Officer Corps, that a common man could command troops/sailors effectively without privilege or wealth (although patronage was still an element, backing from a Governor or Senator for scholarships was a requirement at West Point in it's early days, ironically, two of West Point's worst students went on to world wide fame, U.S. Grant became President and G.A. Custer became the youngest General in the Union Army) was an untried concept that sent shock waves throughout the old world.
  • Create New...