Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Sir Lancelot Holland

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

313 Excellent

About Sir Lancelot Holland

  • Rank
    Junior Lieutenant

Recent Profile Visitors

973 profile views
  1. Sir Lancelot Holland

    Hercules OW Spam

    While generally speaking, command of Frigate Squadrons would be set at Post Captain/Captain and the command of individual ships from Lt. to Commander, the operation of more than one Frigate squadron in an area would require a Commodore, so seeing a Broad Pennant hoisted on a Frigate was, and, still is, very possible. Rear and Vice Admirals would command 3rd and Second rate squadrons and an Admiral 1st rates, Admirals of the fleet were titled, and in a fleet action if the Admiral of the fleet fell the next equal rank highest on the Navy List took command as Admiral of the fleet, just as Collingwood (he was the Commander of the second line and next in seniority) did at Trafalgar, or, the most senior flag officer below. It actually sounds more complicated than it is, everyone knew the chain of command, and the system worked through every rank level, so a Midshipman (with the entitlement to to be called Captain, until, a senior Qualified Officer could be appointed, or, his Admiral granted a battlefield promotion to Lt, with, or, without his own command) could command his ship if all the Officers above him were killed or injured, it even worked at seaman level, Boy Seaman Jack Cornwell VC was left in command of his gun by virtue of him being the sole survivor of his gun crew, despite being mortally wounded, he managed to get several rounds off at the enemy, alone, despite his wounds, which, lead to the award of a posthumous Victoria Cross. The system is recognised across all services as well as internationally, it maintains the chain of command that is so vital in operating fleets, and, warfare in general.
  2. Sir Lancelot Holland

    No Names During Battle

    Communication even between enemies is, I think, beneficial, not so much the salty insults, but, often in combat enemies do talk to each other in game, some offer advice, a few occasionally apologise, some maintain a cordial relationship during the fight, some throw in a little banter, although, the line between banter and insult can sometimes be paper thin. When we had communication between 'enemies' in OW we could exchange pleasantries, or not, then, go our own way if we chose, yes, it was abused by some, but, national, global chat and battle chat is also abused to a degree, we all have a choices, we can participate, or we can hit the ignore button, a far more practical solution than removal. Many of us have friends in the 'enemy' camp, people we have sailed with in clan or nation, and, know as well as can be expected online, who, we are unable to talk with unless we meet in battle. While it is true that in reality Captains knew their opponents, either by reputation or in person, knew what ships they commanded at any given time via the naval scuttlebutt system, such familiarity is not fully possible in game. Reading even national flags can be difficult at long range, or, if edge on, (is that Red/White striped flag an American, or, a British East Indiaman?) and, with lots of smoke around in large melee battles the first indication it's an enemy, could be the shot tearing your ship apart! So some compromise has to be made, hence name tags. Reputation can be a fearsome thing, did Villeneuve think "sacre bleu, it's Nelson" maybe he did, maybe not, but he went in there and did what was expected of him. Had the day gone differently he may have been dining with Nelson aboard L'Redoutable before Nelson's incarceration somewhere in Spain or France. When one has a reputation your opponent knows what to expect, not so with someone of lesser repute, people tend to fear the unknown far more than a known quantity, in open waters there is no way of knowing, often, by the time you find out,(especially with inexperienced players) you may already be sunk, but, then again, even the most skilled and highly reputed Captains have bad days once in a while
  3. Sir Lancelot Holland

    Can we get Just our flags on OW?

    It was common to see ships returning with their prize flying both the victor's and the vanquished nations colours, the victors flag over the vanquished from the Gaff hoist. This denoted the victors supremacy and showed the fleet that the ship was a prize and from which nation it was captured from. It is the reason that national flags are always flown at an equal height and never both on the same flag pole one over another.
  4. Sir Lancelot Holland

    Bow guns for frigates without?

    http://thepirateking.com/historical/cannon_deck.htm The logistics of shipping a 6lb cannon with a barrel weight of around 1000lbs (even a 2lber weighed in at 600lbs) without carriage, would have been difficult especially with with heel on a ship or a heavy sea running. The evolution of shipping cannons on deck gave rise to expression 'loose cannon' if control was lost heavy damage and injuries could be caused so Captains would have been reluctant to move them often, preference would have been for cannon permanently placed as chasers which was not always possible. That said, the majority of Captains would rather have chasers permanently sited if they could be fitted, and if a ship had gunports for chasers then generally at some point in the ships life they would have been carried. The USS Essex is listed as having been able to carry 2 x 9 lb or 2 X 32 lb Carronades as bow chasers, she does not do so in game, perhaps, because she only ever carried them after the Royal Navy captured her, placing her in service briefly as HMS Essex, interestingly she was mainly Carro armed with a couple of 12lb longs in U.S service, were she armed with a serious 12/32 lb long/carro mix, she may of fared better against the long gun armed frigate and sloop that caught her. She is, I feel, much underused, and the only real complaint I've heard regarding her is the lack of chasers, she would, also, I think have been handicapped by the lack of Chasers during the Barbary Coast wars as she would have been expected to fight Xebecs.
  5. It's possible, it may be that there was an issue with the launch so she was launched two days late. Ship launches do not always run smoothly and on several occasions ships have even sunk at launch.
  6. Now this really is curious, It seems that the United Kingdom and Russia had a somewhat hot and cold relationship even back then: Relations 1553–1792[edit] Russian embassy in London, 1662 Old English Court in Moscow – headquarters of the Muscovy Company and residence of English ambassadors in the 17th century The Kingdom of England and Tsardom of Russia established relations in 1553 when English navigator Richard Chancellor arrived in Arkhangelsk – at which time Mary I ruled England and Ivan the Terrible ruled Russia. He returned to England and was sent back to Russia in 1555, the same year the Muscovy Company was established. The Muscovy Company held a monopoly over trade between England and Russia until 1698. Tsar Alexei was outraged by the execution of King Charles I of England in 1649, and expelled all English traders and residents from Russia in retaliation.[4] In 1697–1698 during the Grand Embassy of Peter I the Russian tsar visited England for three months. He improved relations and learned the best new technology especially regarding ships and navigation.[5] Russia depicted as a bear and Britain as a lion eying off an Afghan in the Great Game. The Kingdom of Great Britain (1707–1800) and later the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1800–1922) had increasingly important ties with the Russian Empire (1721–1917), after Tsar Peter I brought Russia into European affairs and declared himself an emperor. From the 1720s Peter invited British engineers to Saint Petersburg, leading to the establishment of a small but commercially influential Anglo-Russian expatriate merchant community from 1730 to 1921. During the series of general European wars of the 18th century, the two empires found themselves as sometime allies and sometime enemies. The two states fought on the same side during War of the Austrian Succession(1740–48), but on opposite sides during Seven Years' War (1756–63), although did not at any time engage in the field. Ochakov issue[edit] Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger was alarmed at Russian expansion in Crimea in the 1780s at the expense of his Ottoman ally.[6] He tried to get Parliamentary support for reversing it. In peace talks with the Ottomans, Russia refused to return the key Ochakov fortress. Pitt wanted to threaten military retaliation. However Russia's ambassador Semyon Vorontsov organised Pitt's enemies and launched a public opinion campaign. Pitt won the vote so narrowly that he gave up and Vorontsov secured a renewal of the commercial treaty between Britain and Russia.[7][8] Relations: 1792–1917[edit] The outbreak of the French Revolution and its attendant wars temporarily united constitutionalist Britain and autocratic Russia in an ideological alliance against French republicanism. Britain and Russia attempted to halt the French but the failure of their joint invasion of the Netherlands in 1799 precipitated a change in attitudes. Britain occupied Malta, while the Emperor Paul I of Russia was Grand Master of the Knights Hospitaller. That led to the never-executed Indian March of Paul, which was a secret project of a planned allied Russo-French expedition against the British possessions in India. The two countries fought each other (albeit only with some very limited naval combat) during the Anglo-Russian War (1807–12), after which Britain and Russia became allies against Napoleon in the Napoleonic Wars. They both played major cooperative roles at the Congress of Vienna in 1814-1815. I cannot conceive of any reason why three French ships built allegedly at Valletta would be turned over to a nation with whom the UK may called upon to fight in short order, there clearly is no formal agreement in the works here. A more likely fit is that the painting is actually St Petersburg and the the ships were never French to begin with, but why would the location be claimed to be Valletta? It is clear that Emperor Paul I had eyes on Malta, and, Malta has been the Key to the central Mediterranean, just as Gibraltar is the key to Atlantic Ocean. However Holding Malta would not be of use for a campaign in India, not when the only way out is through the straits of Gibraltar. Perhaps there is a mis-translation somewhere, maybe the ships were built in Russia for the Knights Hospitalier hence the Russian and Maltese flags, in which case the building you refer to may well be the St.Petersberg Admiralty building.
  7. From 1798 to 1800 Malta was in the hands of the French, In 1800 the Maltese rebelled against France, upon a request for assistance by the maltese Nelson fleet blockaded Malta forcing a surrender in 1800. The three ships were built by the French and were captured when Valletta fell, it is very probable that the ships were turned over to the Russians as part of a larger alliance deal. There was certainly animosity between Russia and France which ended with Napoleons disastrous 1812 Russian Campaign.
  8. Sir Lancelot Holland

    what a waste

    During the late 1940's and 50's many ships were disposed of at Bikini Atoll during the Atomic/nuclear bomb test phases, KMS Prinz Eugen, veteran of the Denmark Strait, and, later the Channel dash, was among them, Having survived two atomic bombs she was towed to Kwajalein where she finally capsized, her stern can still be seen above water there. In 1978 her port Propeller was removed from the wreck site to be placed as a naval memorial at Kiel.
  9. Sir Lancelot Holland

    He buys salt to help other players

    Neolithic Man was farming salt , 4000 years Before Christ, they understood the preservative qualities of salt which was traded and used as a preservative. .
  10. Sir Lancelot Holland

    what a waste

    To be fair HMS Implacable's general condition was far worse than that of HMS Victory, which even before WWII was the ceremonial office of C-in-C Home Fleet so she was kept looking in good condition. WWII had cost Great Britain a colossal amount of money and that all of the costs of lend/lease had yet to be paid, (which was still being paid off at the turn of the new Millennium) it is not really surprising that HM Govt did not want to spend a great deal of money restoring her. There is a huge difference in the costs of restoring a Frigate and a ship of the line, footfall for both Victory and Trincomalee is quite high and the money raised by visitors appears to be sufficient to make them economically viable, as part of the National Museum of the Royal Navy HMS Trincomalee, HMS Caroline, ( A C-class Light Cruiser and the last survivor from the Battle of Jutland) HMS/m Alliance and HMS Victory are partly sponsored by the Admiralty and partly public subscription in the form of a trust/registered charity (unlike the Clipper Cutty Sark which is a private venture, the tragic fire during her last refit ensures that she will be out of business for some time unless public subscription saves her), all four ships are either technically commissioned or have Admiralty dispensation to fly the White Ensign. HMS Belfast is not a part of this group, she is part of the Imperial War Museum, while no longer in commission she has dispensation from the Admiralty to continue flying her White Ensign.
  11. Sir Lancelot Holland

    The time has come to make pirates hardcore choice.

    I think Pirates should be what they actually were, Mostly they were men who did not care for the status quo, they valued their independence, yet could and did work together as the occasion demanded, often operating from bays or coves but able and willing to sell their illicit gains in Nassau and Port Royale to the extent, that, for a while, those ports were almost no go zones! No Pirate cared about the flag a ship wore, British, French, Spanish, or American, they were merely a source of income for them. Life was harsher for those of the brethren of the sea, they had their own code of honour which was ruthlessly enforced, equal to the enforcement of the Articles of War in all navy's of the day, duelling and double crossing was rife, just as it was in 'civilised society', Indeed, the real difference was every sail was a threat to them, sometimes even their own, every sail was an opportunity to make money, the money they made was, of course, free of any form of taxation as they they owed no allegiance to any nation, which is why they could not be permitted to successfully hold territory, They lived outside of the law, outside of what was deemed civilised, when caught, they could expect little by way of mercy, the only way to escape the hangman was to be female and with child as Anne Bonney and Mary Reade did, Mary Reade died in prison but Anne Bonney simply disappeared without trace she was never hanged, nor, is there any record of her death in prison, or, seek amnesty before you were caught as many did for a brief time. The terms of living as a Pirate does not make one hardcore or softcore, it makes you a Pirate, and, to be a Pirate, the game should permit you to live and act as such.
  12. Sir Lancelot Holland

    Better Ships for All!

    Projection of sea power was not the only consideration when assigning ships for deployment, 1st and 2nd rates were rarely seen outside of the Channel and Mediterranean fleets due to the huge manpower and economical costs of running them. For those reasons alone, when the Royal Navy conducted the round the world cruise in the 1930's they assigned HMS Repulse and HMS Hood, as battlecruisers, they demonstrated the power of 15" guns with the economy of a cruiser in terms of fuel and range. A similar cruise in 1800's would most likely have been assigned to a pair of 3rd rates, more likely just one with a pair of Frigates, the cost would have been roughly equal to sending HMS Victory alone even in times of peace. Then, as now, control of the sea lanes was a very expensive business, the assignment of ships reflected that cost and the value of the assignment to National interests. In game the clans have no formal budget provided by the nation, if they can afford to replace 1st rates then they will send them as the most powerful units available to them, if they cannot then either the battle will be somewhat one sided or the less powerful side will rely more on skill, tactics and or numbers. Either way it will be at the level that the clans involved can afford, and, sometimes, even the biggest ships, the best navy's are beaten by the underdog! I think on balance, the more realistic deployment of ships as you have outlined would actually benefit the game more in the long term.
  13. Sir Lancelot Holland


    While not a shanty in the strict sense of the term, Hearts of Oak is still the 'Regimental march' of the Canadian Defence Forces (Maritime)/ Forces Canadiennes Maritime, The Royal Australian Navy (Although, they may have changed that today) and the Royal Navy. The words are from an era when the wooden ships and iron men of the Royal Navy literally did rule the waves, and while 'Pax Britannica' has long faded into history, the song itself, lives on in three continents and is part of the cultural heritage of the men, women, of those services, and, the nations where it is played.
  14. Sir Lancelot Holland


    A Judy was a Lady of the night, after six to nine months at sea most unmarried (and more than a few married ones) Sailors availed themselves of their talents.
  15. Sir Lancelot Holland

    Rubbing Damage needs to Return

    Generally speaking, where a large ship collides with a smaller ship the Captain of the smaller ship has made a mistake, it is the responsibility of overtaking ships to give way, and, smaller more maneuverable ships are more able to avoid collisions at sea where larger ships are involved, (the exception being that a steam ship gives way to a sailing ship) It may of course be that suction will pull a smaller ship in if they get close enough, see White Star v Admiralty 1912, it's why Replenishment at sea is a risky business. Mass and Velocity usually dictate the level of damage to both ships, with the smaller ship suffering more at higher speed, damage to sails and rigging is inevitable, as is a degree of flooding, (unless the speed was very low) more so with smaller ships. Any collision would have resulted in either an attempt at boarding, or, an attempt to disengage while damage was assessed and emergency repairs organised, it took time and manpower to patch under waterline damage, they had to use canvass over large holes or at least slow down to reduce water intake to a level where the pumps could cope and more effective repairs could be made. How do we employ this information in game without a lot of drama? There are mathematical formulae that are quite detailed and it is possible to determine if a ship will founder or not, Thomas Andrews, an Harland and Wolfe Engineer, worked out Titanic would float for about 2 and a half hours, his calculations were tragically accurate, Capt E J Smith was aware of that within an hour of the collision. The Captain of the Andrea Doria would have known much more quickly without such calculations, and, that it would be very fast. On balance, I think given that most Captains in game will lose ships on a regular basis in combat, loss, through collision, or, natural causes could be, simply, too much, even, if realistically, it would be the logical outcome of such a collision. Sometimes, in games, it is better to put aside cold hard reality, in favour of playability.