Sir Lancelot Holland

Do You think, like the poster, sinking pixels in outrageously overwhelming odds and deeming nations inadequate makes a man? A man is judged by his behaviour and his beliefs not by mouthing off over pixels, not by showing contempt for the weak, not by needless cruelty Your values are different from mine, that is fair enough we are all entitled to an opinion, but those who show little regard for human dignity in a game will certainly not do so in real life.

Then you go out there, fight in a ship that you know wont even scratch your opponent's paintwork, knowing there is nothing to be done because you have already lost. The American Commander put to sea with what he had, made his decisions based on what he had and what was best for his nation, he is damned by fools who do not have a clue about his position, strategy or tactics, his nation derided because so called men were denied their so very easy victory. Go on, you go out there against all the odds, prove you are a man. We the Brits sailed across the map to help an enemy, much of the talk was not of victory, but of how we would be going home in Cutters, comparisons were made to the Light Brigade at Balaklava, we made our decision, we stood by it, we showed compassion for our enemy like real men just by going. Your comment disrespects every man who has worn a uniform, every man who cried for his mother while bleeding out from wounds, every man who drowned trying to save his ship and shipmates in flooding compartments, You go to a disaster zone, spend six hours digging out a five year old for her to die in your arms and not cry for the waste of life, you tell me how I am not a man, that there is no hope for me, I at least have respect and compassion for those who cannot help themselves, one of the hallmarks of real men.

There are two sides of a coin, the other side of this coin is: do you consider taking a vital region away from a nation whom you outnumber 2-1 in SOL's to be fun? Is it fun to demolish a ragtag and bobtailed collection of Frigates manned by captains who know they have not a hope of winning? No? Then why do it? The Gulf war has a stop line, would it have affected the Americans? Yes it would, but not half as much as taking chunks of the Eastern seaboard, ensuring that they cannot get out from under. Don't get me wrong but in truth no party involved in this are angels, not the Pirates, US or GB. You say that a 'complete lack of confidence and going screw it' was their sole motivation. You are utterly and completely wrong, Their field commander made the only decision he could in the circumstance's, does he throw away not only the dozen or so 1st rates and his country with them, or does he take the unpalatable decision to lose a vital region, build up his forces and fight another day, which would you choose? We the Brits, were asked to help, The US sacrificed their pride on the altar of war doing so, Many Americans must have wondered, given we are at war, would the Brits honour their word or put them out of their misery? Well, we came, we honoured our word, and we will finish taking the Gulf and there it should end, until the next time, Maybe a stronger more confident America will arise from the ashes, I hope so.

From the other perspective Sir, your opponents were a Brig? A Surprise and a Connie, The commander of the Brig exercised his prerogative not to unduly risk his command and crew and retired. So you were actually fighting two ships. The original intent was a holding action, to keep you in place until ships of greater firepower could deal with you. The nature of the battles outside made it apparent that no such help would be forthcoming early on in the action. Indeed it was a running battle down a decent length of US Eastern seaboard. In all honesty I expected to go home in a cutter, It was apparent which ship you felt was the greater threat to you and I fully expected full broadsides if you were given the opportunity to do so, you were and you did, I expected far more damage than I received and am thankful that due to the fortunes of war I did not. The battle went full term which is unusual, the Commander of the Connie and I achieved what we were expected to do, and to your good fortune no ships were available to finish what was started. Despite the Salt scattered around regarding the PB it was a 'fun' battle and like many such battles was inconclusive. Mistakes were made on both sides Sir, but then such is war. In so far as the fight went it was a good fight and ended better than we expected for both sides. May fair winds and a following sea be with you Sir.

There are many valid points raised here, addressing those would go a long way to making NA the 'go to' game for Napoleonic naval warfare. One point that seems to be missing is incentive. Why spend a lot of time, gold and effort building ships, learning how to sail and fight them only to find there is no incentive to do so? Port battles for the sake of Port battles gets stale very quickly, yes they are fun and partly provides incentive, they have a place but where is the incentive to take a fleet to sea and fight the classical sea battle, the celebrated mix of line and general chase where ships of all rates have a place and function? Find that and I think you will grow from a Napoleonic shoot 'em up' to a real game of Napoleonic naval warfare.

You may well be right, which is a pity since it makes a smugglers role almost valueless.

Smuggling during the Napoleonic era was rampant, Some of the richest families in Britain (and I suspect in France too) made their money smuggling. It's why Customs and Excise was created to stop them. Smugglers irrespective of nationality were at risk from both Britain and France and cutters of both nations were heavily involved in interdiction of smugglers. Smugglers would not even consider low value cargos, They would carry high value cargos, lace, Cognac, Rum ect. They were of course not above doing the odd job for the government on the quiet too, landing agents or against them by landing aristocrats escaping the terror in France. In game if a trader has enough nerve he can be of great service to himself, White Oak, Live Oak and other scarce mats can command huge prices sold privately, or to clans even in small nations, Indeed the removal of nationality temporarily while smuggling would provide PVP targets, increase risk and profitability for smugglers, and provide for the smaller nations clans and even individuals a fighting chance of getting the more scarce mats. Like your friendly, neighbourhood Pirate he is both every ones enemy and their friend, for a price!

Those who have watched programmes like Black Sails or Hornblower would have noticed the ships under reduced sail, the lower courses clewed up at battle sails if you wish to call it such in battle. There are reasons for this, firstly it reduces the risk of fire, at the ranges battles were fought at, often musket range or less burning embers from cannons could start fires both on deck and in the lower courses. Secondly a slower moving ship is more stable, less heel and roll, the rate at which you get pitch and yaw is also slower offering better accuracy, in part this led to the Royal navy's doctrine of putting a greater weight of shot into the air in the shortest possible time than the enemy, a practice that 100 years later would see the death of British battlecruisers at Jutland and the Denmark Strait. The firing of Broadsides also would upset trim, pushing the ship sideways and adding to the natural roll pitch and yaw on the ocean, where as firing as the cannons bore onto the target, walking down the gun decks would obtain more hits and reduce upswing. Stabilisation of guns and prediction of where shells had to go to hit the target really only began to come into play with the introduction of steam, turreted guns and greater ranges of engagement, something that those who also play with the steel behemoths of 20th century are fully aware, even then it was very much hit and miss!

No sir, If we said that the two engaged ships were broadside to each other under battle sails and manoeuvring they would be moving away from the original site of the battle. it is unlikely that under battle sails they would be making more than @ 8 knts in 3 hours they will have travelled @24 nautical miles probably a little less as they will have making turns to attempt to gain or keep the wind gauge. The ship entering the battle would be carrying as much sail as she can to get into the battle, if she is astern of the fight then she has a 4 knot overtake speed and at 12 knots would travel 36 nautical miles, so if she was 10 miles behind and the battle has moved 24 miles in a little under 3 hours the ship will have caught up with the battle and be @ 24 miles from where the battle began. If damage to sails and rigging are taken into consideration, or one or both ships have been dismasted then the over taking vessel will take less time to catch up and the distance from the start of the battle will be shorter. Think of it as travelling on a road, you are 10 kph faster than the car ahead, eventually you will catch up, when you catch up to him neither car will be at the same position that they started from, but further down the road.

Your sight range in the open world is 30-40 miles. In real life it takes a bit of time for a ship to travel this distance. In a Surprise @ 12knts you are looking at a bit over 3 hours sailing, even if the wind was with you and at best point of sail you would be just about half way to the battle before it times out in game, In reality the battle may still be going on at 3 hours, many battles ran considerably longer. We would all agree that 3,6, or 12 hour battles are simply not practical, if we were to say that a ship inside a 10 mile circle could, dependent on wind, make it to the battle site in time to be effective would that be more reasonable?

No Sir you are not supposed to 'put up' with it, or cower at intimidation, be it perceived or genuine, on that I will not make judgement, for it is not my place to do so. It is good to see also the spirit of the Marquis is alive and well within the French. It is very possible that you and other French commentators may be right about the Vikings, one thing is very certain, one day my own nation will have to fight them, it is inevitable. It is equally certain that it would be in France's best interests that we do so sooner rather than later, but given the strength of feeling between GB and France there will be little chance of formal agreements, an informal armed neutrality in relation to French issues with the Vikings perhaps, maybe even a small benefit to France in the long term through British actions. So sir, go fight the Vikings, do all you can, it is really all that you can do. I wish you luck, a strong stand by France is of course, good for France, it is also tactically, possibly strategically, good for my own people.

I do not expect France to be impressed, neither do I expect France to win, should they actually do so then it will be a Gallic shrug, a quiet C'est la vie and well, ok, I got that one wrong . I will say though I do admire your confidence, but, if confidence grows into arrogance it will cost France dearly, as it has done many times before.

Maybe so Sir, but if the Vikings are half as good as they were pre-patch the French may find themselves joining the Spanish on the endangered species list.

Only a nation of fools would subject themselves to a multiple front war, as France knows only too well.

A reasonable and commonsense arrangement, please add Oaks ad agreeing tot he terms.

Pierre, there is nothing wrong with that, this is a game, it is for fun and if it makes you unhappy, or it is not fun for you then it is right and proper to question it, It has to be right for you. Now I may seem to be uncaring, even cavalier in accepting the risks in a virtual arena, in my youth I maintained aircraft which had but one purpose, the wholesale killing of human beings in a steel tube 100 metres beneath the sea. Those people would have had the sole intention of starving my family, killing those who bring the food for them to survive, of killing me and my shipmates to prevent us killing him, his friends and family back in his home country. Such is the reality of war, such are the reasons for checking your conscience in at the front desk and collecting it when it is over to start agonising over the rights and wrongs of your actions. None of what I said about real war applies in a game, it is just that, a game, no one starves, no one dies, it may be true that some feel the loss of a ship they worked so hard to craft, she may have been a veteran of several battles and even I get close to some ships if they have served me well. Before you decide what you choose to do with this game consider this, you are not fighting a person, you are fighting a ship, a ship that is trying to destroy your ship, remove the humanity from the equation and it is pixels killing pixels, no need for conscience, no need for guilt in any form. relax, enjoy the challenge, win, lose or draw. Who knows, you may find playing easier.

Thank you for the warning Sir.

I see the logic at work here, I do however have questions, How in the name of Neptune's beard are we to Identify these solo players? Are Spanish AI to be considered to be Iroquois Confederacy ships? I wish the Iroquois Confederacy fair winds and a following sea. Until such time as my Admiralty instructs me how to proceed in this matter I feel that restraint in attacking IC ships is required.

Hello Pierre, Writing posts in an unfamiliar language is always difficult, indeed were I to attempt this in French I would no doubt end up with a similar post. I think you are trying to tell us that you were trading in Swedish waters, that you had just left the port when a Swede caught you. You went back into the port and stayed inside the port for 4 hours. You left the port again and was caught again by the same player and his friend in an Agamemnon. You feel that this is an unfair fight. Is that a correct view of the events? Perhaps a kind Frenchman would translate for me, It would be unfair to comment further on his post if my interpretation of what Pierre is trying to say is incorrect.

There is a very wide gulf between the act of surrender today and in the 19th century, the code of honour by which navies fought in this period died in the 20th century. That code actually permitted surrender despite the risks of prosecution under the Articles of War, For any Captain to have surrendered his sword and struck his nations colours the situation would have been beyond salvation, few captains ever fought on to the total annihilation of his crew, Every American knows of John Paul Jones and the Bonne Homme Richarde, many Brits have good cause to remember too. "Sir, I have not yet begun to fight!" In response to the offer of terms for his surrender ring down the years and are in the finest traditions of the Continental Navy, the father of the United States Navy. Indeed it was the Captain of HMS Seraphis who surrendered when his position became untenable. No man in either Navy would have condemned either Captain or the men under command for the way they carried out their duty. I actually like the proposal, it reflects the code of honour of the time, while a Captain would not have released a prize in such manner as his Courts Martial would be assured, I think that particular detail could be overlooked, in favour of a discretional choice on the part of the victorious Captain. Perhaps such acts of compassion and adherence to such an archaic code of honour will reduce some of the vitriolic garbage spouted in chat and occasionally on these forums.

It occurs to me that there are a number of small clans in every nation that cannot participate fully in the game, it may be that they cannot afford to at this point, or that their interests lay more in trading or crafting. Why not allow them to 'Adopt' new players either specifically for larger clans or for the type of role the new player wants play? As long as the new player is trained to an acceptable standard for the role to be undertaken, with a reasoned syllabus (much like military academies) culminating in raising of hostility and perhaps a minor port battle for experience which would relieve in part (not completely, but for maybe the first one or two actions) veterans having to over protect inexperienced players distracting them from their objectives. It would at the very least benefit smaller clans, traders, crafters and the fighting clans who all get something from it, most of all it would benefit the new player who may go on to benefit the clan he eventually moves on to. Perhaps it is an idea that clans or councils could discuss the idea and if acceptable, decide on suitable recompense and what they could expect from a small clan should they choose to add training to their clans activities.

Yes sir, in the best conditions that would be so, but conditions are seldom at their best, haze, fog, low cloud all limit visual range, the height of the viewer also limits visual range, the sighting range from a Snow is considerably less than that of a Victory. You speak of having the sun at your back, what of the lookout who is looking to the up sun side of the ship? His view is restricted by the brightness of the sun itself, indeed should he look directly at the sun or near to it he gets dazzled and is ineffective for several minutes, or even fails to see the sail coming over the horizon. At 16 miles a ship is very small, (at 15 miles the spotters aboard Hood could not tell the difference between a cruiser and a battleship, In fact Capt. Leach of the Prince of Wales had to query the target and point out the error to Capt. Kerr aboard Hood to refer the matter to Adm. Holland, Adm. Lutjens aboard Bismark thought he was facing two cruisers until just before Hood opened fire) if visible you may only see the upper masts, you certainly would not see frigates at those ranges, though a ship of the line may be possible, the hull could take hours to come over the horizon if the wind is not good. As demonstrated the role of a lookout is more complex and demanding than at first sight. After a while the eyes get tired especially while viewing at long distances, it's why lookouts were changed more frequently than other watch keepers, at sea things can also appear to be something they are not, low lying cloud can and has been mistaken for land. One of the best illustrations of failure to see an object until it was too late occurred on a clear night with calm seas, and according to some, rare conditions which proved to be RMS Titanic's undoing. Some also say that a lookout lower down in the bows may have seen her nemesis sooner rather than later. While Naval fire control stations and radar are beyond the scope of the topic it would be fair to say the main sighting equipment was mounted high on the foremasts, and on top of the after structure so they could see beyond the horizon as seen from the deck, even then a ship was more likely to spotted by a lookout lower down first since spotting tops were only manned at action stations. Even with Radar ships collide, run aground for various reasons, the Captains of those ships were not AFK, they may not have been on the bridge or quarter-deck but they were 100% dependent on their lookouts to warn them of impending danger. Now I do accept that in a game you cannot model everything, maybe you should not even if you could, but a good lookout and the reports they issued were a fundamental and vital part of ship board life. Having sighting reports does not, nor has it ever meant that every man from the Captain down does not have a duty to keep one eye open for the safety of his ship and crewmates, that means that you should still keep a good watch and that sighting reports are an aid to, not a replacement for a good lookout.

Fine, perhaps a reduction of visual range is in order since the view is from deck level if you cannot get reports from the watch keeper in the maintop where visibility is greatest, where is the point in spotting ships at deck level at ranges when only the lookout would see them from the main top?

Indeed, you pretty much have it. Ships often carried more than one ships bell, the main ships bell which would count off half hours during the watches with single and double strikes, odd numbers being on the half hour even on the hour, It also functioned as an alarm for fires or other emergencies at sea by continuous ringing. There would also be a lookouts bell in the maintop which the lookouts manned as the highest manned point in the ship giving maximum visual range, traditionally it was rung three times to attract attention on the Main deck before making the sighting report, (those who have watched Titanic will have seen how the system worked). The Idea of showing the position of ships in sight on the hud is a good one, seamen of that age who stood lookout were at the least Able Seamen, with many years of service, they would easily be able to define a ships nationality by the cut of their sails, all would recognise ships they had served aboard or in company with from considerable distances so I think coloured ticks would reflect that knowledge on the hud, The only criticism I would have is in heavily travelled waters where the hud may become a little cluttered.