Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

American SOL's what might we see?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This.   I want to fight with Temeraires and Bellonas, Tonnants and Neptunes, the Santisima and the Victory. Leda, Lively, Hebe, United States, Constellation class frigates, Cruizer and Cherokee clas

Please don't go the World of Tanks route with fantasy stuff that never got past a drawing board.   There are so many interesting ships that actually sailed and fought that I really hope these will t

Beautiful age of sail vessels will be made in game. We will never cross the 1830-40 metal hulls line (or steam vessels).  Chapman yacht (in game) only existed on paper, we plan to add more vessels fr

Posted Images

Neat. Look at this

http://www.ussohio.org/ohio_006.htm

That seems like a far more sensible gun configuration than these silly sol we get with tiny useless guns on their upper decks.

I really hate to be an america fanboy, but it seems to me looking at this and the constitution that the characteristic design tendencies of american ships can be said to be... well... superior.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The USS Ohio built in 1817 - 1820 should qualify - it carried 104 guns!

 

Isn't the time frame 1600 - 1820?

Without wanting to be a pedant, isn't "launched 30 May, 1820" outside of the time frame by exactly 5 months?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the time frame 1600 - 1820?

Without wanting to be a pedant, isn't "launched 30 May, 1820" outside of the time frame by exactly 5 months?

 

 

True, but so was the Mercury Brig then, launched May 7, 1820 :D

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_brig_Mercury

 

P.s.  My thoughts are that maybe someday long down the road an American SOL could be added to the game, but currently we have so many other ships that should be added first.  We area also getting another 1st rate, and I'd rather see us get more 74s than add in an American sol to that list so that we have 4 1st rates but only 1 third rate.  Aren't most people advocating that 1st rates should be rare?  So why is it the class with the most numerous of ships apart from the unrated vessels?

Edited by Prater
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no issue with any rate of ships being in game. I only hope that the cost of building and maintaining these larger vessels are reflected in game. This for of checks and balance's assures somewhat that everyone doesn't just build all first rates and a victory is parked in every port. Not to mention raw resources required to build these ships is another factor. the consti required around 60 acres of fully grown oak and pine all one to construct her. The ability to find and harvest that much prime timber for a ship is no small task especially using 17th century tech (ant no chain saws or skid loaders back then).

Link to post
Share on other sites

And then she never even put to sea for a decade.

 

Actually that's what "Launched" means isn't it ? .....

 

 

Isn't the time frame 1600 - 1820?

Without wanting to be a pedant, isn't "launched 30 May, 1820" outside of the time frame by exactly 5 months?

 

I seem to recall the devs stated "about" 1820, But the Brits seem to want it kicked on a technicality rather than have to face the best ship of the line from the age of sail?

 

And wouldn't the phrase "1600 - 1820" mean from the beginning of 1600 (1/1/1600) to the end of 1820 (12/31/1820)? seems it was launched 7 months BEFORE the end of the period - by my count. :)

Edited by ampaholic
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the time frame 1600 - 1820?

Without wanting to be a pedant, isn't "launched 30 May, 1820" outside of the time frame by exactly 5 months?

With the disclaimer that I am not a master bureaucrat...

The expiration dates on my credit card always run through the month it expires, and it doesn't really expire until the 1st of the following month.

So with that same kind of reasoning, 1820 as an end date would mean that anything in 1820 is fair game, its only ships launched January first 1821 and beyond that are out of that time frame.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually that's what "Launched" means isn't it ? .....

 

 

 

I seem to recall the devs stated "about" 1820, But the Brits seem to want it kicked on a technicality rather than have to face the best ship of the line from the age of sail?

 

And wouldn't the phrase "1600 - 1820" mean from the beginning of 1600 (1/1/1600) to the end of 1820 (12/31/1820)? seems it was launched 7 months BEFORE the end of the period - by my count. :)

'Put to sea' means 'to embark on a sea voyage.' (Collins Dictionary)

 

She sat in ordinary (at a wharf) for an entire generation, with no men, no stores, and probably short of guns and spars. Then she was rebuilt, outfitted with an armament that would be impossible during the Napoleonic wars and given extensive refits, finally sailing with the paint scheme of an obese zebra. Ohio is out of place among the game's other ships, and never took part in a real battle.

 

At the end of the day that timescale is meaningless. We all know that the 1600 end of the scale is in all likelihood going to be quietly dropped. Ships are chosen based on the needs of balance, their popularity and aesthetic qualities. Can be included is very different from should.

 

I await the aggrieved accusations of anti-American conspiracy, along with assumptions as to my nationality.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

'Put to sea' means 'to embark on a sea voyage.' (Collins Dictionary)

 

She sat in ordinary (at a wharf) for an entire generation, with no men, no stores, and probably short of guns and spars. Then she was rebuilt, outfitted with an armament that would be impossible during the Napoleonic wars and given extensive refits, finally sailing with the paint scheme of an obese zebra. Ohio is out of place among the game's other ships, and never took part in a real battle.

 

At the end of the day that timescale is meaningless. We all know that the 1600 end of the scale is in all likelihood going to be quietly dropped. Ships are chosen based on the needs of balance, their popularity and aesthetic qualities. Can be included is very different from should.

 

I await the aggrieved accusations of anti-American conspiracy, along with assumptions as to my nationality.

 

Well, I certainly not going to question your knowledge of what "exactly" the Ohio did after it was "launched" since you speak with such authority like you were there to see it towed strait over to a warf and stripped of it's guns and spars etc.

 

I'm sure you have extensive references to support such an "authoritative" exposition?

 

If it wasn't for your "authoritative" account of what "must" have happened - I would naturally assume it had been taken out for sea trials as was customary in that day and age - perhaps under sail even?

Edited by ampaholic
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

like you were there to see it towed strait over to a warf and stripped of it's guns and spars etc.

That's what 'in ordinary' means.

 

She was neither commissioned nor armed until 1838. I know this because I am so incredibly authoritative that I see through the veil of time to watch history as it occurs.

 

 

Pointless sniping aside, does anyone have any information on her configuration when she was built? Since she was referred to as a 74-gun ship, I wonder whether the midships guns and bulwarks were added after her 1838 refit. At which point they likely ruined her looks in the other ways as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But she was built, her structure was complete, her design was realized.

 

What would a more authentic 1820 set of guns have been? Im pretty sure the kinds of guns that one site reports were all in use at the time. Was there sufficient metalurgical progress in those 18 years that would have allowed the guns to be made significantly lighter thus making an 1820 version of the same weapons too heavy for her?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And if the Ohio is to be excluded simply because it didn't sail enough after it was built - let's go ahead and add USS North Carolina.
 

 

USS North Carolina was a 74-gun ship of the line in the United States Navy. One of the "nine ships to rate not less than 74 guns each" authorized by Congress on 29 April 1816, she was laid down in 1818 by the Philadelphia Navy Yard, launched on 7 September 1820, and fitted out in the Norfolk Navy Yard. Master Commandant Charles W. Morgan was assigned to North Carolina as her first commanding officer on 24 June 1824.

While nominally a 74-gun ship, a popular size at the time, North Carolina was actually pierced (had gunports) for 102 guns, and probably originally mounted ninety-four 42-pounder (19 kg) and 32-pounder (15 kg) cannons. In 1845, she had fifty-six 42-pounders (19 kg), twenty-six 32-pounders (15 kg), and eight 8 in (200 mm) cannons, for a total of 90.

 

And BTW - that stalwart of the game HMS Victory spent her first 13 years in "ordinary" - so that in itself should be no stigma.

Edited by ampaholic
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see a problem with adding US 1st rates.
 
They may not have seen combat but, the way I see it, Naval Action is simulating a time period not a specific battle or war. If the ship existed inside that timeframe I think it's fair game for us to be able to sail it.
 
Besides... they look pretty dang cool (yes I know that picture isn't in the timeframe)  ;)

post-6958-0-41636000-1424999956_thumb.jpg

Edited by B24LIBERATOR
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohio is out of place among the game's other ships, and never took part in a real battle.

 

And then she never even put to sea for a decade.

Well if your going to go with that argument, the Trincomalee didn't participate in any REAL battle either. By your arguments so far her only valid reason for being available is that she was ordered to be built in 1812 and wasn't launched till 1817.

The Victory was ordered on 1758 and wasn't completed until 1765. Since, in 1765 there was no use for her she was demasted, roofed and put in ordinary for 13 years. The Victory, in ordinary for 13 years as soon as she was launched. No different then the Ohio. If your going to run with an argument of ships not putting to sea for years, please have some consistency.

Though they weren't American SoL's having the likes of the French Ocean(1790) and the Orient(1791) would be good. Both 118 guns, they could fill the gap nicely between the Victory and the Santi. The Orient was the ship that exploded brilliantly at the Battle of the Nile :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if your going to go with that argument, the Trincomalee didn't participate in any REAL battle either. By your arguments so far her only valid reason for being available is that she was ordered to be built in 1812 and wasn't launched till 1817.

The Victory was ordered on 1758 and wasn't completed until 1765. Since, in 1765 there was no use for her she was demasted, roofed and put in ordinary for 13 years. The Victory, in ordinary for 13 years as soon as she was launched. No different then the Ohio. If your going to run with an argument of ships not putting to sea for years, please have some consistency.

Trincomalee is a Leda-class frigate. Ships that are virtually identical to her took part in many battles, including one of the most legendary frigate duels in naval history (the Shannon vs the Chesapeake. I imagine the devs would have built Shannon if she were still around as a museum ship today.

And as should be perfectly obvious, the amount of time a ship spends in ordinary has no bearing on whether it should be included in the game. What matters is whether the ship actually sailed during the period of the game, took part in historical events, and fits the atmosphere and technology of the time. USS Ohio is to a Napoleonic SoL what Lincoln's tophat is to Washington's tricorn.

The American SoLs don't fit. They are significantly more modern than their Napoleonic counterparts, and you can see the technological gap starting to yawn. The game should not have uber ships if it can help it. Constitution and the Leda class already make life difficult for less advanced vessels. But of course it would be a crime not to include them.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I read somewhere that the Pennsylvania had rifled guns. That would be a tremendous advantage I would think. With that being said, the game is basically playing out the, "what ifs" and if it was possible that American(and by that, meaning they were built in time) Sol could have sailed during the time frame imposed by the admins then I think we need to consider them. I would probably favor unrealistically nerfing the guns simply for the sake of game play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1820 is not the definitive cut-off-date.

The 1830 date appeared several times.

And again, what Admin said in the 1st page of this very topic :

 

Beautiful age of sail vessels will be made in game. We will never cross the 1830-40 metal hulls line (or steam vessels). 

Chapman yacht (in game) only existed on paper, we plan to add more vessels from the Chapman drawings. Same could happen with the US designed ships. 

Btw admin, i have one question :

Could a ship laid down before 1830 and launched after 1830 (or 1840) appear ingame as long as it does not benefit from the steam, metal hull and so on, if it is built as it was supposed to be at the laid down date ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We definitely stop at 1820 mark yes. +-5 years.

Initial model line up range from 1680 till 1820.

Going earlier than that might make line battles look strange (with old galleons alongside modern 2nd rates)

In the Player selected ship 2015 - Suggestions-thread, @admin mentioned:

1600-1830 hard limit

1690-1790 preferred

 

And many feel that 1830 is stretching it. The thing is, around 1820, naval architecture and warfare went through a rapid change, which very quickly made sailing ships of war obsolete. The more you push towards the end of the quoted period, the more you make the game Naval Action, and all the ship currently in it, obsolete as well.

 

~Brigand

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...