Surrender did not exist

[Skully]

TL;DR Surrender, as we have it in game right now, did not exist.

 

(It's a bit of a story, so I first want to sort things out in general discussions before going with full fledged suggestions.)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesapeake%E2%80%93Leopard_Affair

 

In the Age of Sail one would strike ones colours/ensign in a token of submission.

 

Against the British this was completely free of charge.

18th Century King's Regulations:

"When any of His Majesty's Ships shall meet with any Ship or Ships belonging to any Foreign Prince or State, within His Majesty's Seas, (which extend to Cape Finisterre) it is expected that the said Foreign Ships do strike their Topsail, and take in their Flag, in Acknowledgement of His Majesty's Sovereignty in those Seas; and if any shall refuse or offer to resist, it is enjoined to all Flag Officers and Commanders to use their utmost Endeavours to compel them thereto, and not suffer any Dishonour to be done to His Majesty. And if any of His Majesty's Subjects shall so much forget their Duty, as to omit striking their Topsail in passing by His Majesty's Ships, the Name of the Ship and Master, and from whence, and whither bound, together with Affidavits of the Fact, are to be sent up to the Secretary of the Admiralty, in order to their being proceeded against in the Admiralty Court. And it is to be observed, That in His Majesty's Seas, His Majesty's Ships are in no wise to strike to any; and that in other Parts, no Ship of His Majesty's is to strike her Flag or Topsail to any Foreigner, unless such Foreign Ship shall have first struck, or at the same time strike her Flag or Top-sail to His Majesty's Ship."

"The practice was not disputed because England levied no duties on ships passing through the Dover straits, but only insisted on the salute, which cost nothing."

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/xf-nvtd.html#dip

 

With the introduction of the Queen's Regulations, this changed to gun salutes. Leading to the awkward incidents with the French.

 

The French didn't (and still don't) even understand the concept of surrendering. They gave the wrong form of gun salutes, turned the ensign up-side-down etc. In essence they only "abandonner le combat" to withdraw for croissants and wine. Hence we still have the term "Ruse de guerre".

 

Anyway, my point is that getting a ship out of a surrender is unrealistic. In reality a captain would strike his colours after which the attacking parting would come over under the white flag to parley. Usually by putting an officer in a jolly boat to row over to the enemy ship, assert it has really surrendered, have a cup of tea, while discussing terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parley

 

So if we really want to go the full mile, then we need to add an option to strike your colours.

 

It can then be followed by either paying your way out of battle (levy duties).

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15314-allow-trading-between-combatants-in-the-battle-instance/

 

Or still an actual boarding. But your next step would be a costly affair crew wise.

In the event of a merchant, you did not want to capture the merchant. Why slaughter a chicken when you want to have many eggs.

For a warship you would have to deal with its crew as well. In most instances the goal was simply to turn back the enemy. (But that is boring as hell, so we should kill, murder and maim. )

 

This should also tie into the diplomatic patch, in which a rogue clan can ignore the striking of colours and board (or kill) the opposing ship. We would need the option in Parliament though to court martial clans and/or individuals.

[SoulPYTHON]

If u were a pirate in that time, and the ship had been in a fairly good state u wanted most likely to sell it in port and press certain crew into service and sell the rest off as slaves

Edited July 23, 2016 by SoulPYTHON

[OlavDeng2]

I wont comment on the rest, but regarding the merchant. You very much so want the merchant for the followign reasons:

 

1. if you only took the loot your allready space limited war ship would be even fuller

 

2. You want that sick prize money.

 

so historically, merchantships were captured, prize crew sent to ship, ship sent to home.

[VonVolks]

As far as I was aware, striking / saluting the RN in open waters was a sign of respect demanded by the Brits to show their "sovereignty of the seas" as you say. It was just an "acknowledgement" with no impact on the ship (unless they didnt do it).

 

Striking in actual battle was a totally different matter, and indicated a surrender of your ship.

[Hethwill]

There were two big ammendments to the Articles of War, right at the Revolutionairy Wars and at the Peace of Amiens.

 

Also there were various common international rules, one of them being warning shots versus transports and traders, second being purposedly ramming and crossing athwart and provoke catastrophic loss of life.

 

Can you play by these simple rules or everything must be total war ?

[Skully]

so historically, merchantships were captured, prize crew sent to ship, ship sent to home.

Okay, you got me.

Boarding was of particular importance in the 17th and 18th centuries' guerre du course, or commerce raiding, as well as to privateers and pirates. Because naval crews were paid prize money for bringing back enemy merchant shipping and cargoes intact, it was preferable to capture such ships rather than sink them, which ultimately required boarding, with or without a preliminary artillery duel. Privateers and pirates found boarding even more necessary, as both depended entirely on capturing merchant vessels for their livelihood, under the wageless system of "no purchase, no pay."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_boarding#History

I think the keywords are "which ultimately required boarding".

 

Prizes were keenly sought, for the value of a captured ship was often such that a crew could make a year's pay for a few hours' fighting. Hence boarding and hand-to-hand fighting remained common long after naval cannons developed the ability to sink the enemy from afar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_money

So hence without any boarding action there is no ship to be caught.

Unless the defender agrees to it (/does not defend his ship). A court-martial offense.

On a warship it would not be uncommon for a captain to nail the colours. And thus fight until sinking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nailing_the_colours

Ultimately you would bring your capture to the Prize Court and make your case. And, if found a legal capture, usually the owners would buy back ship and crew.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_court

Only in cases where the ship was actually valuable to the captor (for whatever reason), would it be enlisted.

Hence after the payoff, you would usually find the merchant sailing back home (probably empty) under its original flag and captain.

I rather want to point out with this topic that the outcome of an engagement was usually not what people think it is (or should be).

Edited July 23, 2016 by Skully

[Seaside]

The part that makes me wonder is the need to reduce a merchant to zero hull or zero crew in order to capture it.

With the exception of an Indiaman or other well armed merchant I would think an average merchant ship would  surrender once a true warship got within Gun range of it.

Or perhaps wait til the first shot is fired to save face.

In fact this would likely be true of warships as well if the odds were too great.

I doubt a brig would fight a 1st rate - in fact my understanding is that it would be considered rude to even try and a waste of life.

[Skully]

Haha, that last sentence is ill-phrased, because I think we should ultimately go for a mechanic and reward system that promotes good gameplay.

Not necessarily historically accurate. Although some mechanics, like a Parley Payoff can be thought of an extension of the Price Court.

And already the historical British Royal Navy is showing much more chivalry. (/me ducks)

[Cpt Blackthorne]

I wont comment on the rest, but regarding the merchant. You very much so want the merchant for the followign reasons:

 

1. if you only took the loot your allready space limited war ship would be even fuller

 

2. You want that sick prize money.

 

so historically, merchantships were captured, prize crew sent to ship, ship sent to home.

The Whydah, i.e.

[Skully]

The Whydah, i.e.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whydah_Gally#Pirate_ship

Good find. We need one more: a merchant captured by a national without a true fight to assess the consequences of such an action.

Edited July 23, 2016 by Skully

[Skully]

PS. Bellamy actually traded one of his ships for the Whydah.

In a gesture of goodwill toward Captain Prince who had surrendered without a struggle—and who in any case may have been favorably known by reputation to the pirate crew—Bellamy gave Sultana to Prince, along with £20 in silver and gold.

[akd]

On a warship it would not be uncommon for a captain to nail the colours. And thus fight until sinking.

https://en.wikipedia...ing_the_colours

Please establish that this was common. The one case I can think of the ended with the captain surrendering (striking his colors) anyways. Nailing the colors was probably more a symbolic pre-battle motivator than an actual commitment.

Also, you are deeply confusing a number of issues in regards to actual surrender in battle and other customs of the sea.

[Skully]

Please establish that this was common. The one case I can think of the ended with the captain surrendering (striking his colors) anyways. Nailing the colors was probably more a symbolic pre-battle motivator than an actual commitment.

I can easily cite two cases:

• Commodore James Barron of the USS Chesapeake struck his colours premature and was subsequently removed from command in his court-martial.
• Captain Dacras of HMS Guerriere was deemed justified, during his court-martial, in surrendering his ship to save the remaining crew.

HMS Guerriere did not survive the encounter with USS Constitution.

Also, you are deeply confusing a number of issues in regards to actual surrender in battle and other customs of the sea.

Please enlighten me.

[akd]

I can easily cite two cases:

• Commodore James Barron of the USS Chesapeake struck his colours premature and was subsequently removed from command in his court-martial.

He was not removed from his command for premature surrender but for inadequately preparing his ship.

Captain Dacras of HMS Guerriere was deemed justified, during his court-martial, in surrendering his ship to save the remaining crew.HMS Guerriere did not survive the encounter with USS Constitution.

Dacras struck his colors and the Americans burned his mostly wrecked ship after accepting the surrender and taking all the surrendered crew aboard their own ship. What is the relevance?

And AFAIK, neither case involved a captain nailing his colors to the mast in a commitment to never surrender. You were asked to establish that nailing the colors to the mast and fighting until the ship and her crew were utterly destroyed was "not uncommon."

[Cpt Blackthorne]

Maybe I'm not understanding the OP, but just throwing this out there...if surrender did not happen, then how were so many ships captured?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_captured_in_the_19th_century

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Parley?  The victorious Captain didn't send over an officer to say "hmm....we'll stop fighting if you pay us X or do Y", the officer came over and either the ship had struck and submitted to him, or the officer was mistaken and rowed back, at which point the ships would continue to pound each other.  Taking a prize crew over meant the battle was flat out over, period.  No terms, no negotiation, you struck because if you didn't, you were likely going to sink and/or kill the rest of your crew in a pointless battle against a ship that had won.

 

The prize courts didn't return merchant ships to the enemy.  That defeats the ENTIRE purpose of resource denial.  Those ships would likely be sold off to companies in the capturing nation to use, or bought into the service if the Navy needed such a ship for supply or other logistical purposes.  Returning a captured merchant ship to its original owner would have been asinine in a time of war.  In fact, quite often, if the ship was operating far away from friendly bases, the captured ship would be burned after the remaining crew was taken off so as not to further weaken the victorious ship's crew further by sending people off in the prize.  A total anathema to the idea that after capture a ship was simply returned to its owners.

 

Parley might be a viable gameplay mechanic for pirates, but I think your ideas are entirely unhistorical and make very little sense with regards to nation v nation battles.

[Prater]

I think Maturin meant to post this here. If not, well, it still applies.

 

Striking your colors was an unconditional surrender in wartime. There was no real parley. In practice, it was the victor's responsibility to take possession of the ship, and vessels often 'un-surrendered' when they found their opponents too disabled or distracted to send an officer over in a boat.

 

So it's really a 'stop shooting me' signal.

[Skully]

He was not removed from his command for premature surrender but for inadequately preparing his ship.

Hereford Journal, August 1807, news report of the court-martial against Commodore James Barron:

You ought to have nailed your colours to the mast, and have fought whilst a timber remained on your ship.

Must be a difference in interpretation.

 

Dacras struck his colors and the Americans burned his mostly wrecked ship after accepting the surrender and taking all the surrendered crew aboard their own ship. What is the relevance?

And AFAIK, neither case involved a captain nailing his colors to the mast in a commitment to never surrender. You were asked to establish that nailing the colors to the mast and fighting until the ship and her crew were utterly destroyed was "not uncommon."

Ah yes, I interpreted your reply wrongly. I thought you wanted nailing the colours to be established as common practice for all of us.

You are right, it merrily expresses a willingness to fight to the last man. In reality you can still strike at any time.

My point is, when you strike the colours beyond reparations of your ship, the ship is lost.

[akd]

Hereford Journal, August 1807, news report of the court-martial against Commodore James Barron:

Must be a difference in interpretation.

 

 

Who made this statement quoted in an English newspaper, or was it the opinion of the English author?  Regardless, it was a deeply flawed court-martial, and:

 

 

The most serious charge lodged against him, and the only one of which he was found guilty, was his neglect to clear his ship for action when faced with the probability of an engagement.

 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4249673?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[Qwolf]

I haven't spent the time to research this issue as deeply as others, but the Aubrey Maturin series, widely regarded as historically reliable,  has the following scenarios:

 

1.  Warship is trapped by bigger French warships. Tries its best to flee.  It cannot flee, Aubrey strikes his colors and the French take the ship and the crew.   Not a single shot fired by the HMS Sophie and Aubrey.  Aubrey and his crew exchanged after being treated well.

 

2.  Aubrey sails a warship that was captured, and then employed by the British Navy.

 

3.  Aubrey approaches a merchantman who quickly strike his colors after warning shots.  The ship is taken as a prize.  After the striking of colors there was no battle....it was over once the colors were struck.

 

4.  Aubrey attacks a much bigger Spanish frigate by boarding her.  Once the boarding action is clearly going to be won by Aubrey, the ship strikes its colors and the crews of both sides cease fighting.  The ship was taken as a prize.

 

5.  Aubrey engages an equal ship in a violent battle that could go either way, a last minute broadside that destroys a mast that forces the opponent to strike her colors (or be sunk with all hands).  Ship taken as a prize. 

 

Moreover, a solid surrender mechanic isn't going to destroy gameplay, its going to add to it. Always fighting until the death is just silly, historically inaccurate, and arcade-like.  I would hold any captain that wisely surrendered in high esteem.  Of course, as in real life, some will surrender too early, and some will surrender too late or not at all.  But its just another layer of realism and decision making added to the game.  Since the surrender (by striking colors in battle) of a floating ship and her cargo was the ultimate goal in real life, and frankly should be the ultimate goal in the game (you win the battle AND get the prize), XP should awarded at the same level as a kill.   Imagine a real life captain returning to explain to his admiral that he could have just taken the surrendered ship, but instead sunk it?  Court Martial!  Or a captain explaining (if he is still alive) he could have saved his valuable crew and officers but did not.  Court Martial!

[Ledinis]

Preposterous !!!!! Next thing you'll try to convince us is that ships could not hyper jump out of danger after their hyper drive did not suffer any damage for 10 minutes or that they indeed did not produce an unlimited number of cannon balls on board the ship from thin air. This post is complete heresy !!!! 

[maturin]

Anyway, my point is that getting a ship out of a surrender is unrealistic. In reality a captain would strike his colours after which the attacking parting would come over under the white flag to parley.

 

Striking your colors was an unconditional surrender in wartime. There was no real parley. In practice, it was the victor's responsibility to take possession of the ship, and vessels often 'un-surrendered' when they found their opponents too disabled or distracted to send an officer over in a boat.

 

So it's really a 'stop shooting me' signal.

[maturin]

 

You ought to have nailed your colours to the mast, and have fought whilst a timber remained on your ship.

Must be a difference in interpretation.

So your strongest evidence for captains nailing colors to the mast is a scenario where the captain didn't do so?

 

What's more, this is the U.S. Navy we are talking about, with a very short history. So we can say with confidence that before 1807, no U.S. captain ever fought to the death. Except for that frigate that spontaneously exploded.

[Skully]

Parley?  The victorious Captain didn't send over an officer to say "hmm....we'll stop fighting if you pay us X or do Y", the officer came over and either the ship had struck and submitted to him, or the officer was mistaken and rowed back, at which point the ships would continue to pound each other.  Taking a prize crew over meant the battle was flat out over, period.  No terms, no negotiation, you struck because if you didn't, you were likely going to sink and/or kill the rest of your crew in a pointless battle against a ship that had won.

 

The prize courts didn't return merchant ships to the enemy.  That defeats the ENTIRE purpose of resource denial.  Those ships would likely be sold off to companies in the capturing nation to use, or bought into the service if the Navy needed such a ship for supply or other logistical purposes.  Returning a captured merchant ship to its original owner would have been asinine in a time of war.  In fact, quite often, if the ship was operating far away from friendly bases, the captured ship would be burned after the remaining crew was taken off so as not to further weaken the victorious ship's crew further by sending people off in the prize.  A total anathema to the idea that after capture a ship was simply returned to its owners.

 

Parley might be a viable gameplay mechanic for pirates, but I think your ideas are entirely unhistorical and make very little sense with regards to nation v nation battles.

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0957646127

His fears were confirmed when, after four days in convoy together, he received a signal to bring the Swallow alongside the Harlequin who promptly ran out her guns when he did so. Effard was ordered by Captain Fayrer to bring his ship's papers aboard the Harlequin at once or he would give the order to open fire.

I will say, it was negotiating at the gun point.

Job set off at once for Liverpool, taking with him sufficient cash for Thomas Effard and the rest of the crew. On arrival, he at once appoined an agent to procure the vessel's release before travelling on by land and sea to Cork.

Job being the original owner of the Swallow.

It's actually quite an interesting story in its total.

[Skully]

I would even go as far as to say that one year ago, the understanding of striking colours was much better.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/2193-striking-colors-and-surrendering/?p=110200

And at Belize, this is actually what I did.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15270-pvp1-june-16th-a-victory-at-belize/

Although I must admit I did keep my top-sail up and my ensign flying.