Essex vs Frigate balance

[Cragger]

What? The privateer on plate XXXIII certainly doesn´t have anything in common with af Chapman´s hemmemas or turumas.

 

 

That transom on the plan by the model company is anything but british. There are other oddities as the wheel behind the mizzen mast and the steeve of the bow sprit that would disqualify her immediately as a british built frigate.

 

Never said it was historically British. Just made to look like your typical 'frigate' which most layman see as British (captured French) designs. Chapman drew lines for a lot of ships that were never built. The base is one of these. 

[BungeeLemming]

Point I see:

 

Essex has more sail area than the Frigate.

The two vessels are about the same length. (I still think the essex is a tit longer but I have no data at hand atm)

 

Cherubim is wider than the Essex.

-> Lenght to beam ratio is in favor of the Essex.

 

Hence I say the Essex should be a faster ship than the Frigate.

[Malachi]

Hm, let´s have a look at ships which managed 13,5 or 14 knots and their length-to-breadth ratio:

 

Endymion:                                   :    3,73

Bellona-class                               :   3, 90

Niger/Alarm-class                        :    3,55

Lively-class                                 :    3,89

Diana                                          :    4,15

Dunira                                         :    3,83

Vestal                                          :    3,57

Forte/Egyptienne                        :    3,90

Leander                                      :    3,94

Newcastle                                   :     3,86

Renommée                                 :     3,74

 

Dimensions for Essex and the 'Frigate'

 

138' 7'' / 37' 3'' / 3,73               145' 6'' / 38' /  3,83

 

See the point I´m trying to make? The length-to-breadth ratio is no reliable indicator for speed. Same goes for the sail area, as we don´t know if the ship could actually carry her sails in medium or heavy conditions.

 

Just made to look like your typical 'frigate' which most layman see as British (captured French) designs. Chapman drew lines for a lot of ships that were never built. The base is one of these.

 

 

 

You wrote 'british style stern' which it is most definitely not. The 'The "Frigate" is a Chapman design for a small shallow draft warship designed like a ship of the line for the fjords of Sweden' part is also not correct, that´s all I wanted to say. Chapman´s Architectura Navalis and Treatise about Shipbuilding were meant as a showcase for his newly developed parabola method and that it could be used to design a wide range of vessels, from huge merchant ships to small cutters and has nothing to do with his work for the swedish navy.

 

By the way, Essex's ingame armament is as far removed from reality as is Rattlesnake´s speed. 18-pounders in the battery and 12-pounders on the weather deck...come on.

[CaptVonGunn]

who carries 12 pdrs on an Essex? 32 pd Caros both decks and get in close.. BOOM next

[_Masterviolin]

who carries 12 pdrs on an Essex? 32 pd Caros both decks and get in close.. BOOM next

I do! I use mediums, as I sometimes participate in fleet actions and hence find myself fighting line engagements (as in medium battles, not actual line battles w. ships of the line of course! ) or shooting at distance amongst my clanmates. I like the 12pdrs on the weatherdeck for that reason- the range. However, I don't use longs- don't like bogging down crew, increasing reload time and slowing the ship down just for a bit of range and penetration. Not that the long guns aren't good, but they don't personally align with the way I play. 

 

I do think the carronades are powerful, but that requires some close range play. This is very logical with ships like the wonderful Surprise, that can maneuver and sail to keep close to an opponent, but I think they become ineffective with larger ships like the Essex, in which it's much more difficult to pull it off without forcing a close broadside-broadside action. The worst is that if you don't have the weather gauge, you're effectively screwed, as you can't get close at all before getting shot to bits.

[Kanay]

I too use the 12 longs, before the new penetration mechanic patch I used to load the ship in full 12pd's, under-gunning the bottom deck from 18 to 12's and turning it into a machine gun beast, having all guns reloading faster, both decks ready at the same time and using less crew to reload,  carronades are good for pve against AI only , in a fight against a player you will have lost half your sails before getting in range to unload your first broadside of carronades ... 

[_Masterviolin]

Point I see:

 

Essex has more sail area than the Frigate.

The two vessels are about the same length. (I still think the essex is a tit longer but I have no data at hand atm)

 

Cherubim is wider than the Essex.

-> Lenght to beam ratio is in favor of the Essex.

 

Hence I say the Essex should be a faster ship than the Frigate.

I wholly agree. I actually thought that if the speed was so low for a ship with such a massive, massive sail rig for her size, the drawback in speed must have came from the weight of her armor.

 

I think that either of the two should be done:

 

-Essex should gain a boost in her side structure

-Essex should gain a boost in her speed.

[maturin]

Essex has more sail area than the Frigate.

 

 

Hence I say the Essex should be a faster ship than the Frigate.

Given similar vessels, small differences in sail area mean little.

 

For every given vessel, there is an ideal amount of sail area for the weather conditions and circumstances. Sail area (rig size) was determined by formulas, and these formulas often produced poor results because of vagaries of hullform and trim. Less could be more. This can be seen by the fact that sometimes frigates suffered damage to spars, only to sail faster under their jury rig than they did under full sail.

[Malachi]

This can be seen by the fact that sometimes frigates were suffered damage to spars, only to sail faster under their jury rig than they did under full sail.

 

 

And some frigates had a (much) better performance as troopships with reduced mast and spar dimensions.

[Kanay]

One thing abnormal is the 2 ships having the same exact 4600 hp value for sails , the rest starts to becomes too complex for me who is not a specialist of ships :/

[Idle Champion]

Frigate vs Essex balance is one thing - the buff for the Frigate needlessly puts Belle Poule in the shade with more structure and sail HP for Frigate compared to Belle Poule, which had always been the tankier of the two.

 

Meanwhile, Essex remains a ship that doesn't quite line up with a niche - 18s and 12s with no chase guns suggests it should be a heavy broadside specialist, but it can't match Trincomalee in a straight broadside match on firepower or defences. It doesn't quite work as a battlecruiser, since a more flexible ship with bow chasers makes a better tagger and it doesn't have the crew or resilience to stay in the line of battle for long. In a duel against the Frigate, however, I'd still back the Essex: the Frigate has the advantage in turn rate and sailing flexibility over the Essex, but a whole bunch of disadvantages - broadside weight, effective broadside at range versus masts or side planking, and crew size.