Sir Lancelot Holland

To a degree, perhaps, but it is amazing how fast they find it when the enemy delivers a few thousand pounds of scrap iron and remodels their nice ships!

I would suggest trying the maritime museums at Marseilles or Toulon, most of the class were built at Toulon so i'd expect them to have some information beyond the average museums. Some of our more knowledgeable French colleagues, or players with reference works, may, have better information, such as if plans still exist that give the information you require, they should, as all dimensions would have been specified by the shipwrights and designers, certainly the height from keel to mast heads would be there with length beam and draught, failing that height from waterline to mast head plus draught will give mean height, ships in a class varied slightly but not to a great degree. Of course the Devs may know, given the very high standard of modelling, they may of had access to some of the existing plans or drawings and must have got the information from somewhere,

Whether it is a Clan, or, a Flotilla, or, Squadron, Task force, or, fleet, there is a common denominator between them, that is the Battle Ensign under which they sail and fight, usually a variation of the National flag, Multi-national task forces, while nominally sailing under their own National Ensigns also fly the NATO/SEATO flags. I am sure a Russian will correct me, but, I think, during the Soviet Union era, their fleets, when working alongside other 'WarPac' nations may also of had a similar flag to NATO. Also many European Nations have long histories of enmity, Centuries of fighting each other is a difficult 'prejudice' to overcome, it is understandable that many would be happy fighting under 19th century French/ Spanish or British colours, not because they particularly dislike the old enemies, (although there will always be some who may) but, more because it has 'always been so', the glory days of the old world are something a lot people enjoy, and, whether it be a war game set in the Napoleonic era or 20th Century, given a choice, many, would prefer to fight under their own nations colours, or those of an ally. Those who do not are not necessarily against their own nations, they may simply have there own reasons for doing so, just as those who join organisations like the French Foreign Legion often have.

Yes, that would enable clans to purchase what they need, if they require additional space, then, there is encouragement to go out and earn the necessary reals/doubloons to expand the clan dock spaces. Effectively a sound reason to be out in OW , accepting the risks that accompany that in order to further the clan's best interests.

I think this is a good idea, all of us at some point have had our dock spaces cluttered up with ships crafted for someone else, clan dock spaces where the recipient can collect their new ship would help a great deal. It would work better if they were additional dock spaces for clan members, since, it would free up a players own dock spaces which often may be needed for operational ships. Perhaps in addition a small anchorage for larger ships as well, many first rates were often too big to get alongside in smaller ports, but, would often anchor a little way offshore yet still be under the protection of the other ships and port defences, it would have no effect on shallow water ports as they could not get close enough to anchor before grounding anyway. this too would open up dock spaces for smaller ships or create the dockside spaces for clan docks. The Nore and Spithead ( which was often the site of Naval Reviews) were often used for these reasons, no doubt Cadiz and Calais or Brest had a form of 'designated parking' for lineships and visiting ships.

In peace, or war, all sailors have a common enemy, the sea itself. It was wherever possible considered a duty save as many souls as possible and in just about every battle efforts would be made to save friend and foe alike, sometimes even while still under fire. So strong is the conviction that life is paramount among sailors that no captain would knowingly leave survivors in the water unless his ship was in imminent danger, even as late as 1982 and the Falklands conflict where news footage shows the lengths to which sailors go to save men and ships if they can. Even so despite all efforts men are sometimes left in the water, Submariners who don't have room for survivors, in early in WWII would sometimes ensure ships boats had at least a compass, knew where they were and and base course to safety, until it became too dangerous for U-boats to spend too much time surfaced, one commander even signaling the British Admiralty giving them one of his victims position for rescue, the German Admiralty were not impressed by this particular Captain's actions and ordered that such an event would not happen again due to the ability of the Royal Navy to track signals to source. Sadly tragedies happened too, while engaged in picking up survivors from KMS Bismarck a submarine was reported in the area, and HMS Dorsetshire was forced, with great regret, to leave a large number of survivors in the water. The worse case I have heard about, was, the USS Indianapolis, torpedoed after delivering the A-bomb to Tinian losing 300 in the sinking itself, 890 of her crew got away safely into the water, of those, 316 survived after 4 days of persistent shark attacks including her Captain Charles B McVay III who was the only Commander to lose his command and stand Courts Martial for failing to order the abandonment of his ship (acquitted) and hazarding his command for which he was convicted, he was, eventually cleared of all blame in 2001 by Act of Congress and signed off by President Clinton.

It is very probable that these ships were Indian built, HMS Ganges, like, HMS Trincomalee was constructed at Bombay, Oak is not an native wood to India and it would have been prohibitively expensive to export Oak to Bombay so Teak was substituted in it's place. The result would have been faster less well armoured line ships, that may not have fared so well alongside or against traditional Oak builds from Chatham while in the line. They were, if you like to make comparisons a 19th Century Battle- cruiser, with the same strengths and weaknesses.

I actually remember the Iroquis and her sister the Huron, I recall thinking that they were good looking ships with their distinctive 'V' funnel layout, I'm sure that they must have been good sea-keepers with that high Forecastle, but, maybe a little wet aft?

It is interesting to note that the paravanes stowed behind the breakwater are not in lockers, On RN ships they were in order to prevent damage from large waves breaking over the bows, were they originally stowed elsewhere on US ships?

I think that if the attacker knows he can get support within 5 minutes of engaging an enemy then a delaying action is valid, deliberately delaying knowing there is no support and without the intent to fight is not an option. It is one thing if you actually have instructions to delay with the intent of fighting with equal or greater forces, after all, the target still has a chance to escape with speed and invisibility or increase his odds by putting some of the enemy ships out of a good position to get into the fight. It is quite another to engage knowing there is no support and with the sole intent of wasting time, to do so is wrong on so many levels, even, setting aside that such behavior can ruin the playing experience of others, which is counter productive. Consider this: No Officer, or man, shall fail to do his utmost to defeat the enemy under sufferance of death, - Articles of war. This was the article that Admiral Byng was tried and executed under, it is clear and concise, if you engage the enemy without doing all you can to defeat him then that is an offense under law No Officer, or, Man shall recklessly hazard his ship under sufferance of death- Articles of War. This is the opposite, If you engage the enemy knowing he has overwhelming firepower and without prospect of relief by friendly forces then that is an offense under the law, excepting where your orders expressly command you to delay or harass the enemy, or, if to continue the action will result in needless losses then escape or surrender are permitted without fear or favor. The first article would not apply in that instance. No man can do wrong if he lays his ship alongside the enemy- Nelson of Bronte. What Nelson actually means here is that if you engage the enemy closely, and, charges are laid that you hazarded your ship then he will not pursue those charges, but if you cut and run then he will apply the first charge of 'failing to do your utmost'. Those two articles deal with neglect,/cowardice, and all points in between the two, by extension if you grief a ship then either article can be applied, but if you delay a ship under orders the first article cannot apply as you are clearly not expected to defeat the enemy alone, the second may still apply but is very difficult to prosecute as the accused is acting under orders, unless you are very unfortunate you would most likely be acquitted, at the worst the Admiralty would express it's displeasure and the death penalty would not be applied. Should either charge fail, you, cannot be tried under the other, even in military law you may not be tried twice for the same offense. That is how such a case would have been dealt with in real life, the problem in game is that there is no defined regulating structure, how can there be in a sandbox game where pretty much anything goes? Neither can you over regulate without removing a good deal of the fun from the game, the Articles of War cover every single aspect of behavior in peace and war, but, are too rigid to apply in a game without adaptation, also, it may not be desirable to do so, the big question is can ROE's tied to the Articles of War work within a sandbox environment?

This is so very true, I do wonder though if lesser skilled Captains were to use the autoskipper less in combat whether their skills would improve? Like autopilots are there to reduce a pilots workload they still need the ability to fly the aircraft, so, it is, that a Captain should have the skill to sail his ship irrespective of the assistance of the autoskipper. I think that while such devices are useful, they can, if over relied on take a lot of fun out of a game, anyone can land an A320 on autopilot, but it takes practice to land one manually. Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many veteran Captains are capable of fighting an entire battle on manual sails and win against the autoskipper? Or, even an equal also sailing manually, I certainly could not, and, I mean no disrespect to my betters, but, it would certainly be interesting to see!

While upgrades may well be beneficial to specific classes or individual ships they are not a magical cure all, It may be true that HMS Endymion became one of the fastest ships in the Royal Navy because one her Captains exercised his prerogative and altered her sail plan, she could, equally, of become one of the slowest under another Commander. All the upgrades in the world cannot help a Captain who is unskilled, if a captain is unable to sail and fight successfully in a 'vanilla' ship, how on earth can he sail and fight in an upgraded ship? I am not saying that it is a failure of new players, but, more of a system that implies that upgrades are a replacement for even the most basic seamanship and tactical skills, it took decades for an officer to get a command of his own, to learn his craft at sea, yet here we are, commanding and fighting some of the finest ships that ever sailed in months! To become a Villeneuve, a John Paul Jones, a Hardy, or, even an Horatio Nelson took a lifetime of hard work, Captains in game like Hachirouku with his Trincomalee, or, Luciano with his Le Requin, Gregory Rainsborough and his Snows, and, indeed, many others, they did not just jump into those ships and become masters of them overnight, they worked at it, so, the upgrades they use work for them and not against them due to their skill-sets and experience. I am not suggesting that we lash ourselves to our computer chair, spending months at sea, living on weevil infested hard tack and semi-rotten salt pork, just, that we spend a little more time with the basics, and, not thinking those upgrades that will not help us without the basic skills to use them well.

The 'shore party' concept is interesting in that, it could, if modeled right open the door to mini campaigns to take ports culminating in a port battle. If over a period of causing damage to port defences, to the point where the owning clan cannot afford to repair, then, port battles become a case of sinking the defending fleet and landing troops to secure the port. It also opens the door to nuisance raiding which costs the clan to repair damaged defences, but may not necessarily end in a port battle, it would however provide both PVP and structured RVR , it would also provide content for traders to attempt to get supplies into besieged ports in order to repair the defences. The PVE faction could also be involved sinking NPC ships trying to resupply as long as they are willing to accept the risks of interception by players. New players could explore the lower tiers of PVP/RVR by conducting reconnaisance and commerce raiding/transport sinking around the port while learning the inherent risks of interacting with veteran players on their own terms. There could be something in the concept for all players which would not be a bad thing for the game, even pirates could get get in on it, what pirate would not be able to resist picking off merchants and transports from both sides, or a clash with either or both navy's involved?

There was a significant risk on the gun decks that powder spilled in the loading/ priming process could ignite, keeping the decks damp reduced the risk some what as did swabbing the barrels of the guns to extinguish burning powder in the barrels before reloading. Powder bags for the guns were filled on board from barrels in the magazine, and spillage from the bags was inevitable during loading. At close ranges the guns could not be elevated enough to hit sails but there was a risk of burning matter entering the ship via the gun-ports and igniting combustibles on the decks or bulkheads where the hammocks would be stowed during the day. Reducing sail helped to stabilise the ship, there was less heel and pitching making running out, and, aiming the guns easier and more accurate, or as accurate as you can get with no sights!

There were many precautions taken aboard ships to try to prevent fire in combat, the use of sand and water on deck to increase fire resistance, and prevent spilled powder from igniting, furling or reefing the lower courses to prevent the type of sail fires described above which generally started from burning embers from the guns of ships close aboard or even their own guns. Magazine explosions were a fear, also, they were a rare occurrence, there were probably more magazine explosions in the 20th century than in the age of sail, mainly due to poor cordite handling procedures than blind luck, the battle-cruisers at Jutland, and very probably HMS Hood all died primarily to magazine explosions, the film footage of the last moments of both Hood (the sight of Hood exploding 8 miles away from Prinz Eugen is to say the least, both, awe inspiring and blood chilling, that 3 men survived that explosion out of 1500 was little short of a miracle) and Barham show only too well why such events were feared. It was, by gentleman's agreement, the case, that, line-ships would not engage small ships when sailing alone, unless, they were fired upon, in a battle, all were fair game, so it was generally safe to sail Line-ships independently, that it is not in game, is a 20th century value imposed in an 17th/18th century era game, unless, of course, Captains in game are willing to implement such an gentleman's agreement. Ships like Victory took many years to build, were very expensive to run, and, were considered to be a huge investment, such an agreement preserved them, until,they were needed to perform their role in war.

I think much depended on the the Captain and the circumstances, would John Paul Jones have boarded Seraphis if he were not aware that Bonnehomme Richard was already sinking? Certainly, a less aggressive Captain would not have attempted to emulate Nelson's patent boarding Bridge, and, had it of gone disastrously wrong, even his national popularity would not have saved him from a General Courts Martial, as it did, at least once in his career. While these are two well known boarding actions, and, it is easy to attribute motivation in hindsight, as you say, boarding, particularly pirates and Naval Captains eager for the prize money, and possibly the reputation that could, and, often did, ensure promotion in a very slow promotional system, was, the bread and butter of Naval warfare, even as late as 1940 when Captain Philip Vian boarded the supply ship Altmark in Norwegian waters (an act of Piracy, given that Norway was neutral and not yet invaded, authorised by the First Sea Lord himself) from HMS Cossack with his destroyer Flotilla, in the presence of the Royal Norwegian Navy, freeing 299 British seamen captured by the Graf Spee may have been instrumental in his promotion to Rear Admiral, his decoration, a Distinguished Service Order for that action notwithstanding, undoubtedly, receiving 2 bars to his DSO for his attack on a convoy at Egero Light and his Destroyer Flotilla's actions (including the ORP Piorun, a Polish Destroyer, which was part of that Flotilla at the time) against KMS Bismark may also have contributed to that Promotion. Even today, all Navy's still board ships, for various reasons, albeit, less violently, it is routine, bread and butter work, and, almost, never receives recognition in the way it did during the age of sail.

I think it is a sound idea, not only is it historically and technically correct, it also introduces an element of risk too, the loss of the RMS Lusitania came about mainly because her Captain came close inshore to establish his position accurately off of the Old Head of Kinsale, Ireland, after her last transatlantic crossing. In games like Silent Hunter the ability to plot courses for navigation and as a battle plotting table is an integral part of the game, without which, getting around, and, obtaining the information for prosecuting a successful attack would be far more difficult. In Naval Action we do not need a sophisticated battle plot, but, the Navigational component would certainly be useful, especially, if we can obtain a reasonable fix as to where we are compared to the map course +/- the acceptable errors inherent in dead reckoning navigation. The option to turn navigation on or off, should, I think be there, for those who may not wish to use it.

In any naval war there are always some things that you cannot control, no amount of perks, books, or upgrades will help you if the wind and sea are not with you, it is one of the greatest challenges of naval warfare in the age of sail. Now if there was a form dynamic campaign where what you, as a Captain do actually affects 'the war' and your eligibility to command the next rate of warship, then, it is relatively easy for those who wish to progress onto big ships to do so, but you do have to work at it, those who are content to sail in small ships may choose to do so, even as an Admiral, or if you prefer trading, then, that too should be possible, sufficient trade goods/ war supplies permitting. It also provides motivation to go out and sink or protect traders, after all, no clan or nation can fight an aggressive war without supplies or traders, and if you are smart you'll have a trader with reps about somewhere close, it saves a long sail back to port and extends your time at sea hunting, which is what you want to do, and, a trader contracted to an individual, or clan, can still trade, and, sell reps, then deliver those at sea just by using some of his spare hold capacity. Such campaign arcs appear to work well in games like Sturmovik, or Star Trek Online (where getting ganked, even by AI, is a way of life!) No Admiralty ever said "Midshipman Smith, take this nice, new, shiny L'Ocean out, go have fun!" he got whatever prize his Captain deemed fit and worked his way up from there, and then, one day, the Admiralty, and God (in that order by Admiralty decree), may, in their infinite wisdom, just give him that nice, new, shiny L'Ocean. On the way you will have discovered how to sail lateen rig, Schooner rig and square rigged ships, what guns to fit out for what job you want to do, the vices and virtues of your ships, and, those of the enemy, after that it depends on how good your opponent is and the whims of Neptune and Mars! Most of this can be implemented by what is already in game, one just has to think about how best to use what is there, and create what is not within the framework of the game. It is not a magic cure, there is not one of those, it has advantages and disadvantages, and may even be open to exploitation, but, is not one mans exploit another mans ingenuity?

"no need to complicate or make it "special". It's just a sextant, just about every ship had it and I'm pretty sure it was manditory as an officer to know how to use one." Midshipmen were trained to use sextants under the baleful gaze of the ships Master, failure to master the sextant guaranteed failing the Lieutenant's board. Such was the importance of the sextant at sea.

When you look at statistics on leaderboards in games like Silent Hunter your position is secured by tonnage sunk, just as it is in real life, Gunter Prien, Mush Morton, Otto Kretchner all made their names on that basis (although Gunter Prien's mission to Scapa Flow, sinking the Royal Oak was more than sufficient to secure his position as one of the best Submarine commanders around even before he made 'ace' status). Ship too have their own 'leaderboard' s, visit any Royal Naval warship and your guide will show you her battle honours board listing the battles her predecessors fought in, these are the measures of success for ships and their commanders.

if you are not carrying double shot/charge perks will those icons be greyed out? Or, are they becoming general features in game?

Weather conditions frequently played a role in naval battles, night and fog offer an interesting perspective as they work to neither sides real advantage. Close inshore they can provide additional risks such as grounding, or, no port battery support, one cannot aim at what one cannot see, neither would it have been easy for the gunners to see which ship to engage when poor visibility hampers the visual identification of flags, it is also, in part, why today, warships are painted grey, they blend in with fog and the horizon particularly at dawn and in the evening. In low visibility it was very difficult to see any great distance, (even today with radar sailing in fog is high risk, as the inability of the Bridge watch aboard the Stockholm to see, and, accurately plot the position of the Andrea Doria demonstrated, the following collision caused major loss of life) heavy fog or rain could reduce visibility to mere yards, cloud cover could make nights darker, as does the phase of the moon, off-white canvass blends in with fog, so often you'll see your opponent when he is either right on top of you or through lighter patches of fog, if you watched Master and Commander, you, will have seen what I mean, add powder smoke and many battles would be inconclusive, but, then again many battles were just that, were it not for ship board noises, or good instincts, both ships could easily of passed by unnoticed. While I think that low visibility does add depth in game, I suspect that the small advantages, especially for shallow draught vessels, who even in fog may slip away into shallows or coves unnoticed, (Captains who operate in particular areas always have the advantage of knowing the coastlines better) or downwind breaking contact (if possible at the time) may give rise to many complaints of unfairness, just as, the speed of some traders and smaller warships have in the past. On balance, we lose nothing by seeing how it works out, it is, after all, the point of testing.

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

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.

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.