Sir Lancelot Holland

That Vic was not much of a build, but she ran all seven of you around for over 40 minutes, I had a lot of fun with it in that last battle. GG guys, o7

Which is the role Marines were designed for, used in conjunction with Mortar brigs, which already require some form of escort, so why not give the escort a secondary role of landing Marines to help capture the forts?

For the most part Marines were used for limited landings, usually to secure fortifications of important buildings, this usually negated the need for dedicated troop transports. Troop transports were more usually used to reinforce, or swap out units already placed, The loss of troopships and supply ships destined for General Cornwallis played a very significant role in the loss of America, had he of received those, the outcome of the American Revolution may well have been very different. The huge advantage of using marines was that once a combat vessel delivered them they could then return to being a fighting unit in the battle itself, returning to collect their marines later if the Battle was successful. I think the greater use of Marines would be of more practical benefit and certainly a far better use of limited resources.

Conventionally a naval ensign would be hoisted on sighting any ship, and often messages would often be along the lines of: Swedish Warship, British Warship astern/abeam/ahead, Captain requests your Captain repair aboard for talks. For example the cessation of hostilities would sometimes come from an enemy Brig or Frigate carrying the same news to their own fleet. No name, no ship type, no location, and all done on the private message chat channel, It's direct line of sight communication as it would have been done. I am sure that there have been many pleasant conversations between combatant Captains, and more than a few unpleasant ones as well, at the end of the day though we are a single community, sharing a game and not fighting a hot war, A channel that permits conversation between combatants in OW is a good thing in general terms, would it be abused? Sadly yes, but then so is every other form of communication, It is, an unfortunate fact of life that some people cannot behave in a civilised manner.

Pirates became what they were for a wide variety of reasons, most were professional seamen, many time served with national navy's. The difference between privateers and pirates initially was very blurred, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, His Most Catholic Majesty King Philip of Spain maintained that Drake, Raleigh & co. Were not Privateers but pirates, technically they were of course members of the fledgling Royal Navy established by Henry VIII but in times of peace they did resort to privateering, possibly even under letters of marque, a form of plausible deniability. The argument that Pirates were simply unemployed privateers is a strong one since the Crown actually earned a great deal of money from privateering and the temptation to 'cut out the middle man ' was very high. Disaffection and falling out of favour with the Monarch of the day was also a sound reason for going rogue, Sir Walter Raleigh lost his head through such a disagreement. The very nature of piracy ensured there would never be a nation per se, but alliances there were, often fragile and very volatile with a lot of infighting they were none the less reasonably successful, enough to distract the French, Spanish and British from their numerous wars on Eastern side of the Atlantic! Pirates operated without formal structure, without the facilities available to nations, what they needed they took, be it ships, supplies or cargo's, they displayed an amazing business acumen as well, being able to trade almost at will in some ports, both Port Royale and Nassau were fencing stolen goods for a considerable time period along with many smaller port's in the Caribbean. In many ways the recent countries installed in game are more like pirates than the pirates were, no true home, scant ship building and repair facilities, I think that Pirates in game should be what they were, under the conditions that they lived under, Those who choose to be pirate, should be able to live off of their own wits, should be able to sell their skills as they often did, or live as the outcasts that they were in their often brief careers.

You are actually very close to the mark, according to one after action report at least one navigator did exactly that! That said it will never be known whether it was skill or blind luck that the torpedo struck where it did, in all probability it was a combination of both.

Happened in the UK as well.

Broadly speaking, this is correct, I would point out though that Frigates were the maids of all work in the Napoleonic era, with a range of roles that varied from close blockading, escort, message/mail running when Brigs, Sloops or Cutters were not available, to long range patrols and fleet reconnaissance. mainly these roles were suited to mid draught, low crew ships that were fast and well enough armed to counter their opposite numbers in the enemy fleet. Battleships and Battlecruisers were regularly used on convoy duties particularly in Force 'H', where H.M. Ships Hood (which was the Flagship of Force 'H' during the controversial and tragic destruction of part of the French fleet at Oran) , Renown, and Warspite escorted several convoys, H.M.S. Rodney was escorting a convoy to Halifax when diverted to hunt K.M.S. Bismark , H.M.S. Duke of York was providing distant convoy cover when she with the Cruisers Norfolk and Belfast intercepted and sank K.M.S Scharnhorst.

Smuggling has always been a high risk, high profit occupation, some of the UK's richest families made their money smuggling during the Napoleonic Wars, probably more than a few in Europe did so as well! Smugglers, like Pirates were in reality criminals, outlawed by every nation and should be treated as such, such was the amounts of money made by them that the Inland Revenue was formed in the UK to recover the losses to the state and bring to justice those who engaged in smuggling. In times of war smuggling reduced the taxable income needed to prosecute a war, and while there is a temptation to turn a blind eye to smuggling, possibly even a necessity to do so since rare materials are obtained both for clans and nations, those who smuggle high value cargos for profit do neither any good. Perhaps there should be an option to stop, search, then release or confiscate the cargo's of smugglers, it would give the act of smuggling greater meaning in game, those smuggling for clan and nation could in those circumstances keep their cargos, those smuggling purely for profit or of combatant nations would lose them.

During this period heavy reliance was placed on prize money gained from the capture and selling of merchant ships along with their cargo. The pay scales for sailors was abysmally low in all Navies even for Officers. In game this is reflected by the lack of gold and xp if you choose to cap a merchant, the reward becomes the value of the ship and cargo which was split between the Admiralty, officers and crews of all the ships involved in the capture. The only real issue is the value of ship and cargo should exceed the value of sinking it monetarily. So if you want xp then sink it, if you want the gold then cap it, Captain's choice. Commerce Raiding has always been a factor in naval warfare, even as far back as the Phoenicians, while commerce raiding in game has a very limited impact it still maintains a tactical benefit. Of course any Island nation is vulnerable to commerce raiding as most produce comes by sea at that is currently not reflected in game. If for example two or three ships carrying repairs for a PB were lost that would have an impact on the attacking side, like wise if crafting parts and materials were lost at sea that too should have an impact, so perhaps then trader's and the economy should play a greater role in game rather than be viewed as Cinderella.

Thank you for your advice, it is I think good advice, given with good intent. For a so called 'easy nation' life in GB is not a bed of Roses, in all factions there are those who argue, there are those who think their clan has greater entitlement because they are more skilled or bigger, I do not condemn such attitudes they are human nature and as such unavoidable. I am with a small clan, one which is close knit and with whom I enjoy playing, we help out GB where we can, we are also learning as we go along, which means we learn by doing things, we may not be successful by the standards of ports held or the numbers of players we sink, what we do have is though is the will to learn, if we lose then we refit, come back and try again, each time we do a little better, one day our opponents, will tell us we were worth the effort of fighting, When that happens, we know the effort we put in is worth our time, that we earned the respect shown to us.

The same argument could be applied to Jutland, pitching Battlecruisers against Battleships was hardly an intelligent decision either, as was stockpiling cordite where it was vulnerable to fire to achieve a faster rate of fire. Naturally the Admiralty built HMS Hood then went out and did exactly the same thing in 1941! That said, they got up, went back and did the job, as for the Light Brigade the very first thing the Survivors asked was 'are we going back again?' It is that spirit that defines a military force no matter what nation they fight for.

Yes, but such has been the trait in Britain's military for centuries, to the point where Field Marshall Erwin Rommel stated that with the German Officer Corps and British troops he could conquer the world.

The commander at Balaklava may have said the same of the Light Brigade, but within months Sevastopol Fell to the same British, French and Turkish troops. Neither of the two clans that set up PB's in Central America are big clans, they worked hard, earned their place and they went in knowing the odds, they did what they could, with what they had, They did not stand back and let the big clans fight it out as has been the case for so long, they tried, and for that they get labelled Carebears, by some, they are told they are stupid by others, I ask you is that really the best way to encourage PVP and RVR? A simple GG or well done for trying would have been a far better response, unless you are afraid that they will improve and one day start to beat you consistently, Is that the case?

A good explanation, I would add that the Royal Navy tended to train much more than other Navies, the principle was to put a heavier weight of shot in the air than their enemies and hope for a higher hit and damage rate, particularly when it came down to reducing crew numbers, it was faster reloading that achieved that aim. Combat ranges could be as close as Pistol range, and the carnage on and below decks was horrific to say the least. Hit first, hit hard, and keep on hitting was pretty much the gunner's mantra and if they could keep more balls in flight than the enemy then the chances of scoring more hits than the enemy was achievable, the principle was proved to be folly less then a century after the Napoleonic era ended.

Err! No! and neither are they in Kansas! lol.

It is very likely that may have been the case, it would have been a matter of priority to safeguard the Officer cadre by countering the masthead sharpshooters, and, would have been the most logical reaction from the British Marines following Nelson's very public wounding. Given that Nelson had also been urged by Captain Hardy and other officers not to wear his Star of the Garter on his uniform during the battle as it singled him out from other officers on deck, I think Hardy was less than 3 feet from him at the time ( the site being roughly in the centre of the Quarterdeck, if memory serves from my last visit to Victory) which would have been the logical place for the Captain to confer with his Admiral, it could have just as easily been Hardy who got shot as Nelson but for the star which was quite large, distinctive, and easily made out even from aloft.

Certainly RN ships carried a small compliment of Marines, They functioned as guards on the Captains quarters to help prevent mutiny, they formed landing and boarding parties and were normally the sharpshooters up in the rigging tasked with killing off enemy Officers. It is not known for certain, but it may have been a French Marine who shot Nelson, certainly none of the Redoubtable's crew who were captured owned up to being, or indicated who the man was, to be fair one could not blame them, so sadly, the identity of the man who carried out his duty will never be known.

The idea of raids is a good one, I am not sure that they should be a 'lite' version of a PB but something more spontaneous, the hostility I think should be faster than a PB, and enough to give warning that a raid is imminent but not sufficient to be able to set up a screen or rush a dozen ships to the port, the battle should start soon after hostility is raised to represent the difficulty in countering raids. Such raids were generally 'cutting out' raids that permitted capping of ships at their moorings, or under way, to be looted, sunk/taken away. Player defenders who are in port should be allowed into the battle to defend but those who arrive after the battle starts should enter to make up the equivalent BR of the raiding group. This would allow outside PVP between defending arrivals wishing to prevent the escape of the raiders and a covering force to try and help the escape of the raiders. in addition the raiders can claim a percentage of stores inside the port. The raiding group should be smaller than PB fleets, perhaps 4 or 5 ships, to reflect the fact that they would have been part of a blockading squadron, while the covering fleet would represent the blockading fleet itself. The attackers objective would be to safely get their raid group into the port to 'cut out' the AI trader(s) with high value cargo's while defending against the players, and out of the port while the defenders have to sink the raiding group inside the battle, or sink them as they run for home. The scenario is high risk for the attackers given that they face AI, Players and the port batteries, the value of the cargo's should reflect that.

Indeed, Rourkes Drift (including Private Hook who had a reputation for malingering, Lt. Chard, Lt. Bromhead and Cpl Schiess a Swiss National) secured one of the highest number of VC's awarded for a single action (11 in all), the list is long and distinguished.

Thank you. If memory serves there were very few medals awarded anywhere in this time period, the VC was invested as a direct result of courage displayed by the Light Brigade at Balaklava around 1854/5, within a decade the Congressional Medal of Honour had been invested and was certainly awarded during the American Civil War, Thomas W. Custer achieved distinction by earning two, yet achieved less fame than his brother George Armstrong Custer. Some Captains were already Lords and Barons in their own right, some were Knights inherited from family ties. Some, like, Nelson were elevated to the peerage for services rendered to the nation, by Trafalgar he had been a Lord and Baron Bronte for many years. Admirals were often created Lords upon receiving their Broad Pennant as Commodore's, battle honours were typically Earldoms, Baronetcies or the Knights Commander of the order of Bath (KCB) for middle ranking officers and Captains of ships even as junior as Lt. Many European nations had similar ranking systems in place, particularly Monarchies, France I think ceased the practice post revolution and the United States never took it up.

So lets see if I have got you right, you really think that a personal disagreement gives you the right to dishonour men who's actions have gone way beyond the call of duty, many of whom never lived to receive this award, men who died so that you are free to state your opinion, no matter how vile? I have seen much disagreement with your posts, some even as bad as your own, many of whom I disagree with personally, who like all of us depend on the military to defend their right to their opinion, I do not know Gregory, I do not know what heinous crime he has committed in your mind, to be honest, I don't care, but of this I am certain, the holders of the VC and GC were awarded those medals for valour, courage in battle way above what is expected of Great Britain's military, they are men who earned national respect through their actions and not playthings for your personal vendettas. The medals, which were originally forged from the cannons that the Light Brigade rode into at Balaklava, some of whom received the first VC's awarded to British servicemen, defined meaning of courage, and if you are in any doubt as to what is required to earn a VC look up Boy Seaman Jack Cornwall, Wing Commander Guy Gibson, Col. H. Jones, then tell me that your posts are worthy of their actions and what that medal represents.

May I ask you why you are displaying a Victoria Cross with a George Cross ribbon? Don't you think that is just a little insulting to Holders of the both the highest and second highest award holders in the United Kingdoms military?

Yes, you did, it was also our first PB as a clan, we stood our ground where some would run, we left with a 50% casualty rate, and we enjoyed a good clean fight. Thanks for the opportunity, we hope to have learned a good deal from it, until we meet again. o7.