Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

Hello Everyone. I wanted to tell/ask something. The time frame of ships in-game/that are possible to be in game are ships that are build in 1690-1820. This means we will get lots of 18th century ships , gotta love them. Dont get me wrong , i love 18th century ships , they look awesome , the sailing is amazing. They all have something great. Gotta love those ships. But what i was wondering: Why not make the time frame a little...wider? With this "wider" effect i mean: 17th century ships. 

Reason: I personally love the 18th century ships , they are awesome in all kinds of ways. They are natural beauties. All kinds of 18th century ship-rates have their own benefit. Its great. But.. as some other people have explained in other Topics , lots of 18th century ships look the same. With this i dont mean the collour , but the design. Example: We got the L'Ocean , beautiful ship , i sailed with it and fought with it , its amazing. Its such a lovely ship. Then theres the Santisima Trinidad , same thing , i love the look of it , its great in battle , lots of cannons , amazing. But here's were my point joins in: the design of both ships is pretty simillair. Again , dont think i dont like the 18th century designs , i think they are amazing. But because they look so simillair and we have lots of those kinds of ships , i would love to see some other kids of designs. This is one of the reasons why i love the 5th rate ship of the line: La Renommee. It has kind of the same design , but the back is way different. And i think its gorgeous. Same thing with The Ingermanland , i love the ship even more because its a different kind of design. Especially in the back. Ofcourse , how a ship looks is not the only thing that matters , how their abilities proof in battle and in sailing is a very import example too. Ofcourse , 18th century ships were more developed , but 17th century ships are good in sailing. Looking at the fact of how a ship reacts on the sea , doesnt really matter in this case. But i would love to see 17th century ships in-game. I will take some examples to show you.

Le Soleil Royal (1670)

Soleil_Royal_2.thumb.jpg.ccecc8f6e363b4d2e44c518fee5ed71d.jpg

 I choose the photo of the back , because the back is were it matters about most in this Topic. Just look at this ship. Its beautiful and very different from the ships we have in game right now. And for those who want a back story , its their too.

Back Story: She was build in Brest between 1668 and 1670 by engineer Laurent Hubac. She was launched in 1669 and stayed in Brest harbour for years.She was recommissioned with 112 guns and 1200 men when the Nine years war broke out in 1688 as the flagship of the escadre du Ponant (squadron of the West). She was said to be a good sailing ship and her decorations were amongst the most beautiful and elaborate of all baroque flagships. The emblem of the "sun" had been chosen by Louis XIV as his personal symbol.

One more example:

Seven Provinces (Zeven Provinciën) 1665-1694

Model.thumb.jpg.bbc73e0235734ef1821d2783bc977738.jpg

I got the same reason for the photo from the back: Matters the most in this Topic. Just look at her.. she is beautiful. The Seven provinces is my personal favorite ship. She looks stunning , has lots of cannons , and sails like she rules over the seven seas. But thats not all.. she has one hell of a back story too.

Back Story: The Seven Provinces was a line ship of 'de Admiraliteit van de Maze' with  80 cannons on board , the name was also writen as: '7 provinciën'. The ship had a lenght of 163 foot and was 43 foot wide , and had a cavity of 16,5 foot. The men were with more then 420. The ship was build in 1664-1665 on admiral site at the 'HaringVliet' of Rotterdam. The builder of the ship was: Salomon Jansz van den Tempel. It began her carreer as flagship of  viceadmiraal Aert Jansse Van Ness. After that it became the flag ship of luitenant-admiraal Michiel Adriaenszoon de Ruyter (1666-1674). She fought at 'de Vierdaagse zeeslag' at  North Foreland (1666). She also fought at the 'Tweedagse zeeslag' (1666) , and at 'Toch van Chatham' (1667). And in the seccond English war. The ship also fought at 'Slag bij Solebay' (1672) , the 'dubbele slag bij Schooneveld' and at the 'Slag bij Kijkduin' (1673). In 1674 it went on expidition under controll of Admiral Michiel de Ruyter. After the death [ kiling of the Prince of orange] of Admiral michiel de ruyter it became the flag ship of Schout-Bij-Nacht Jan Van Brakel in 1678. In 1691 Johan snellen got the ship under controll. He died the same year on board. It also participated in the English/Dutch fleet in 1691 under the command of Edward Russel. In 1692 it got shot by the french and it caused a leak in the battle of Barfleur en La Hougue , the ship sailed back to port. After that it got sold in 1694. This is the reason i call her... unsikable , because she has never bin sunk ;).

So why not 'wide' the time frame out to the 17th century:D

Edited by GreatTimo
  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow , the seven provinces has one beautiful and interesting back story. Amazing. And i agree with you , 17th century ships in game would be awesome. :D 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bart Smith said:

I gladly see them in Europe map expansion at some future😉

That is one great idea! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Vernon Merrill said:

Because "balance"...

 

If you mean balance in the meaning of ship balance , i understand why you say this. Still... we have lots of 18th century ships , which makes sense and they are beautiful. But i dont see how there would be unbalancment wen 17th century ships would be able to join in too. Yes... there would be the double amount of ships for vote-ship poll options.. but its all about what the people want. If they want 5 17th century ships in the poll and 15 18th century ships , then its their choise. I dont see how it would work against anyone :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, because even a 2nd rate from the 17th would be utterly destroyed by an average 18-lb.'er frigate from the early 19th century.  Sailing attributes, construction and gun construction and accuracy had developed so much in the time-frame.  It's kind of like a automobile race between a F1 car and a model T...  

Edited by Vernon Merrill
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unfortunate reality is we have ships for 150 years past the Soleil Royal (picking on it as an example) and ship design and armament improved dramatically in that time period. A 74 like the Bellona from the late 18th century is going to outgun the 104-gun French ship, much less the equivalent rating like Victory or taking into account things like dramatically improved (read: bigger) rigs, better seakeeping, etc. That is the balance mentioned and why 17th century ships don't work.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, GreatTimo said:

If you mean balance in the meaning of ship balance , i understand why you say this. 

ship balance indeed, in terms of :

  • broadside weight (1st Rate Le Soleil Royal with 110 guns is the equivalent of in-game 2nd Rate Pavel with 82 guns) as ships got more and more powerful with time
  • speed, strength...

However, I'd really like to a new map or a dedicated zone in the current map for older ships (XVIIth to early-XVIIIth century).

Edited by LeBoiteux
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Vernon Merrill said:

Well, because even a 2nd rate from the 17th would be utterly destroyed by an average 18-lb.'er frigate from the early 19th century.  Sailing attributes, construction and gun construction and accuracy had developed so much in the time-frame.  It's kind of like a automobile race between a F1 car and a model T...  

I'm sorry but I have to beg to differ: your statement is seriously a bridge too far. I have yet to see in the historic record any average frigate taking on any Ship of the Line baring perhaps 4th and 5th rates. Most if not all English 2nd rate Ships of the Line of 90 guns of the latter 17th century carried 32 pounders as main armament and 18 pounders on the middle gundeck. Gun technology was virtually unchanged between then and Trafalgar with perhaps the exception of the flintlock firing mechanism. Frigates were never designed to withstand the pounding of Ships of the Line, regardless of era, hence the term. They could hold their own in a line of battle where Frigates could not. And I am sorry I do not buy the: but the frigate can outsail and outmaneuver any man o' war. Naval Action excludes entirely the impact of Marines at the rails and the hell they would rain down on any frigate's weather decks reducing maneuverability to wishful thinking...and all it would take in one broadside...(refer French Frigate at The Nile)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess we can agree to disagree...  First point would be the huge development around 1740 of "solid casting" and boring of guns as opposed to casting around a solid piece for the barrel.   This greatly improved strength and reduced windage, which allowed for greater range and accuracy.    Secondly, a well-sailed ship could certainly outmaneuver a larger opponent and minimize the risk of a larger broadside weight.   Numerous after-action reports and ships-logs refer to a captain attempting to stay on an opponent's "quarter"...

I have a hard time believing any early 19th century frigate captain would do anything except lick his lips with delight if he was to face a ship with a design and construction of 200 years earlier.  

 

But yes, I can agree, to a degree, that whether you get hit by a musket ball or a modern armor-piercing round, dead is dead.   I'm sure it would still behoove any captain to avoid a larger opponent with more men.

Edited by Vernon Merrill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The development you refer to principally revolved around cast iron guns, which cost far less than those of bronze. It was immensely expensive to fit a fleet with bronze guns which were far superior to iron guns, hence the need to change. The previous HMS Victory was the last Capital Ship to be exclusively fitted with bronze guns. The 17th century period in question though was the realm bronze guns and master gun founders. When, like the ships, the guns were works of art. The age of evolution in gun founding evolved around standardization, and mass production, away with the unnecessary decorations and improvements in cast iron quality. Essentially the gun tubes differed little. The proportions remained essentially the same as can be attested in the various Treatise on Artillery, many available as google books. The elaborate names giving way to the standardized poundage system with the ideal cannon caliber remaining 25 to the bore. I in turn would love to see Blake or Monck's look of surprise at such audacity, and then to proceed to proficiently dispatch them.

Edited by Sir William Hargood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vernon Merrill said:

I'm sure it would still behoove any captain to avoid a larger opponent with more men.

Indeed, you would more than likely be shot for endangering the property of the king. Such wanton recklessness is rather frowned upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sir William Hargood said:

I'm sorry but I have to beg to differ: your statement is seriously a bridge too far. I have yet to see in the historic record any average frigate taking on any Ship of the Line baring perhaps 4th and 5th rates. Most if not all English 2nd rate Ships of the Line of 90 guns of the latter 17th century carried 32 pounders as main armament and 18 pounders on the middle gundeck. Gun technology was virtually unchanged between then and Trafalgar with perhaps the exception of the flintlock firing mechanism. Frigates were never designed to withstand the pounding of Ships of the Line, regardless of era, hence the term. They could hold their own in a line of battle where Frigates could not. And I am sorry I do not buy the: but the frigate can outsail and outmaneuver any man o' war. Naval Action excludes entirely the impact of Marines at the rails and the hell they would rain down on any frigate's weather decks reducing maneuverability to wishful thinking...and all it would take in one broadside...(refer French Frigate at The Nile)

 

3 hours ago, LeBoiteux said:

ship balance indeed, in terms of :

  • broadside weight (1st Rate Le Soleil Royal with 110 guns is the equivalent of in-game 2nd Rate Pavel with 82 guns) as ships got more and more powerful with time
  • speed, strength...

However, I'd really like to a new map or a dedicated zone in the current map for older ships (XVIIth to early-XVIIIth century).

 

3 hours ago, Talos said:

The unfortunate reality is we have ships for 150 years past the Soleil Royal (picking on it as an example) and ship design and armament improved dramatically in that time period. A 74 like the Bellona from the late 18th century is going to outgun the 104-gun French ship, much less the equivalent rating like Victory or taking into account things like dramatically improved (read: bigger) rigs, better seakeeping, etc. That is the balance mentioned and why 17th century ships don't work.

 

3 hours ago, Vernon Merrill said:

Well, because even a 2nd rate from the 17th would be utterly destroyed by an average 18-lb.'er frigate from the early 19th century.  Sailing attributes, construction and gun construction and accuracy had developed so much in the time-frame.  It's kind of like a automobile race between a F1 car and a model T...  

Looking at the reactions , i understand know why 17th centurys ships cant be in the same area with 18th century ships. Thanks. But what would be amazing , as you guys say , make a special map for naval action. And for naval action legends , wen you pick a 17th century ships , you can only go in battle with other 17th century ships.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly speaking I would simply just love to see in some form or another a window for the Naval Wars of the Second half of the seventeenth century...the great battles of the Second and Third Anglo dutch Wars and the Battles of Barfleur and La Hogue. In fact that could even work in a co-op single player iteration of this game similar to Total War Empire/Napoleon. In fact the Ingermanland has the same lines as ships of that period.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sir William Hargood said:

Frankly speaking I would simply just love to see in some form or another a window for the Naval Wars of the Second half of the seventeenth century...the great battles of the Second and Third Anglo dutch Wars and the Battles of Barfleur and La Hogue. In fact that could even work in a co-op single player iteration of this game similar to Total War Empire/Napoleon. In fact the Ingermanland has the same lines as ships of that period.

I totally agree. That would be awesome :D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all i am new here, and not playing this game, but i wonder why Schout-bij-nacht, vice Admiral, Admiral, Constantijn Johan Wolterbeek isn`t mentioned anywhere ?

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantijn_Johan_Wolterbeek

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Constantijn-Johan-Wolterbeek-1766-1845-van-adelborst-tot-admiraal-maritieme-biografie-van-een-achttiende-eeuwse-marineofficier/527827857240899

http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/archief/ead/index/pagina/3/eadid/1.01.47.19

Ships he sailed Z.M Tromp, Z.M Maze, Z.M de Koninklijke Hollander, Bellona, Zeehond, Juno, Johan de Wit, Eurydice, Chattam

he has my special interest as he is family, i noticed i have more family that had high ranks... 

gr Rob 

Edited by Rob4005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...