Discussion - Player ship selection 1st Half 2016

[Arvenski]

I'm with you there, Maturin. My preference seems to be for the warships of the mid-1700s on up through the very early 1800s, anyway. 

[SteelSandwich]

Personally i dont see the issue with older ships. I mean, if you want to sail an old ships you have to take into account that you are easier to take out.

 

The other way around, if you come across an older warship, easy pickings.

No-one forces you to sail those ships you don't deem competitive to the 1810's ships.

[jodgi]

Cavero just posted a Spanish 18 frigate in the main thread. I clicked.

To my untrained eye this hull shape seems interesting. The bottom hull is more tapered from bow to midsection and stern than the trinco, I'm curious how this design affects stiffness, speed and leeway? I could dare suggest the more exposed keel would be good for leeway, maybe not even at the expense of speed or stiffness but just makes the hull less roomy? What do you guys suppose?

Also a very novel (for me) gun deck layout, five pea shooters right at the waterline.

[Malachi]

Nothing really special about that hull shape, just a fine entry and run, looks similiar to french frigates of that era. And those small ports at gundeck level most probably are for ventilation (that´s where crew lived/slept).

Edited October 12, 2015 by Malachi

[jodgi]

Personally i dont see the issue with older ships. I mean, if you want to sail an old ships you have to take into account that you are easier to take out.

 

The other way around, if you come across an older warship, easy pickings.

No-one forces you to sail those ships you don't deem competitive to the 1810's ships.

But should a small team of developers put man-hours into making content no one will use?

[Schuetzengel]

Also a very novel (for me) gun deck layout, five pea shooters right at the waterline.

 

is it sure those are gun ports? looks more like an old designed deck which makes the primary gun deck way up above the waterline

[maturin]

OK, so as I see it, there are three ship types we badly need right now:

4th Rates, large merchant ships and light vessels with unique rigs (brigantine, lugger).

Of these, it may be hard to find the latter type if we avoid the Brits, Americans and French.

Also, IMHO there is no need to choose a Connie competitor at this juncture, because we're getting the Indy. The best equivalents to Connie are French anyhow.

The whole first page is full of beautiful Spanish, Dutch and Danish 4th Rates. I think we should rally behind one of them.

One of Chapman's indiamen would also be excellent, and get us some sorely-needed Swedishness.

Finally I have to mention one thing that gives me pause. National diversity is all well and good, but when it comes to Frigates and SoLs, it is really just the Brits and French that left behind the sailing quality reports that enable us to put some real 'replicas' in the game. So in all honesty, I would rather have more British/French 18-pounder frigates and SoLs. Let the other nations provide merchantmen and lighter craft, for which little information exists anyhow. I will go try and find some sailing reports for Spanish vessels. I know I have one for the three decker Nelson captured.

[jodgi]

Nothing really special about that hull shape...

Huh!?

How disappointing, I was looking forward to an interesting lesson in aquadynamics

Leda:

Flora:

[LeBoiteux]

Just one thing :  I'd like it that this ship selection would be democratic, that is that everyone may propose a ship within the right time period, not just a bunch of naval experts, hardcore gamers or zealous posters (like me ) who'd give themselves a kind of veto and would decide for the best of all what is "useful" and "enjoyable", even if some ships doesn't exactly match their specifications or their aesthetic preferences. 

There'll be a vote anyway.

So let's everyone post their favorite ship as long as she meets requirement.  And let's everybody decide.

That's all. 

Edited October 12, 2015 by LeBoiteux

[SteelSandwich]

But should a small team of developers put man-hours into making content no one will use?

Well, clearly the likes in the other thread indicate that the older are desired.

I don't see that as a sign people won't use them.

 

But i see where you are coming from, i guess it's up to the devs themselves so make the desicion which is acceptable and which ship isnt.

Edited October 12, 2015 by SteelSandwich

[maturin]

Well, clearly the likes in the other thread indicate that the older are desired.

I don't see that as a sign people won't use them.

Once you put in the man-hours to model those monstrous aftercastles, you have to cave in to the legion of whiners who wany them to sail fast.

[Malachi]

On 10/12/2015 at 5:24 PM, jodgi said:

Huh!?

How disappointing, I was looking forward to an interesting lesson in aquadynamics

Leda:

 

Flora:

 

 

 

Not from me, sorry

 

If you compare your two pics with the second pic here

 

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66277.html

 

you´ll see that this one seems to have an even fuller underwater body. Yet this ship was one of the finest sailors in our timeframe and one of the few which reached 14 knots.

The hull shape alone doesn´t make a good sailing ship

 

Left is the body plan for the spanish frigate, right is the one for Winchelsea

 

 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Malachi

[maturin]

Don't write off the plump ones. A sphere has the smallest surface area for a given volume.

Fine ends also aren't so great at keeping water off the deck and your bowsprit out of the water.

Man, we need a Niger-class like that. They would have the best turn rate and be totally unbalanced in the 12-pdr class.

[jodgi]

this ship was one of the finest sailors in our timeframe and one of the few which reached 14 knots.

I DEMAND WINCIE, GOD OF SIALBOOTS NAOW!!11!!

[maturin]

Which is a knot faster than Trinc, btw.

Endymion did it as well, which is why she must never be added, lol.

[jodgi]

Who is this Indy, then?

[maturin]

Who is this Indy, then?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Indefatigable_(1784)

The 24-pdr razee (of Hornblower fame). She also destroyed a French 74-gun ship in conjunction with another frigate, the only such case in history.

[SteelSandwich]

De Rhijn, a dutch 62-gun 2-decker, 1812-1817.

 

 

The rest of the images:

Edited October 12, 2015 by SteelSandwich

[Arvenski]

That would make for quite an ugly ship, if you ask me. 

Edited October 12, 2015 by Arvenski

[Prater]

I'm going to call your bluff on this and ask for a more detailed reason on why they're out of the time period when they were quite well used (and copied!) by many nations, including the English/British.  There's no point in adding the traditional Spanish and Portuguese galleons if Fluyts are not going to be allowed in the game.  You might be able to fill the merchantmen gap with several different East/West Indiaman designs, but there'll be no small amount of hue and cry about the lack of historical designs missing that were the bulk of the Spanish/Portuguese and Dutch trade fleets.

Don't get me wrong, I understand your opinion, they were most definitely dated designs, but they DID operate in the time period, and are still worthy of consideration.

 

 

And you can keep saying it too, as will the devs when they say:

Limitations:

We want to bring ships from underrepresented nations into this voting; thus English/US/French vessels proposals are discouraged. Spanish, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Portuguese, maybe German built ships are encouraged.

 

They won't add another ship of English/American/French origins unless they have no choice, and there's still plenty of fish in the sea.

 

 

Call my bluff?  16th and 17th Century ships, like the Galleon and Fluyts, should not be in the game.  It would be worse than having an M1A2 Abrams and the Mark 1 side by side.  Or how about a ww1 biplane and an f35?  Anyway, how would they fair?  They would be slow ships not able to defend themselves and be extremely easy pickings for the "modern" (in game) late 18th and early 19th century ships.

 

As for dated designs.  The experts say they were done away with in the 1st decade of the 18th Century.  That is the first decade of the 1700s.  The ships we have are dated between the 1740s and 1820s.  Adding ships from the 1600s is a stretch and they would not have been in use almost 100-200 years after their time period.  If we want large merchant ships, we need to look at Indiamen and other "modern" ships.

 

 

 

First thing comes to my mind is, why wast every bellona captain sailing a pavel then?

Because pavels were nearly not used at all, whilst there only advantage was their speed.

 

Why was barely anyone sailing the Pavel and most were choosing the Bellona?  because most people don't know what they are doing.  That advantage of the Pavel that you list is definitely not the only advantage it has.  It is a modern design compared to the Bellona and is superior in many ways.

[Haratik]

stop beating a dead horse Spanish keep the term galleons for their warships where others have switched to Ship of the Line.

 

there was a French Fluyt in the the last poll a very nice build tiny india man similar to the ship on the sternlight WiP Picture

 

I guess the term "Manila Galleons" means nothing to you then, yes?

 

Cavero just posted a Spanish 18 frigate in the main thread. I clicked.

To my untrained eye this hull shape seems interesting. The bottom hull is more tapered from bow to midsection and stern than the trinco, I'm curious how this design affects stiffness, speed and leeway? I could dare suggest the more exposed keel would be good for leeway, maybe not even at the expense of speed or stiffness but just makes the hull less roomy? What do you guys suppose?

Also a very novel (for me) gun deck layout, five pea shooters right at the waterline.

 

To anyone that played the game Pirates of the Burning Sea, this would appear to be the "Bahamut" Pirate refit Bark:

 

I don't have the historical details of the ship, but I do recall that a bark is a type of cargo/merchant/transport vessel with a specific mast and rigging set up.

 

OK, so as I see it, there are three ship types we badly need right now:

4th Rates, large merchant ships and light vessels with unique rigs (brigantine, lugger).

Of these, it may be hard to find the latter type if we avoid the Brits, Americans and French.

Also, IMHO there is no need to choose a Connie competitor at this juncture, because we're getting the Indy. The best equivalents to Connie are French anyhow.

The whole first page is full of beautiful Spanish, Dutch and Danish 4th Rates. I think we should rally behind one of them.

One of Chapman's indiamen would also be excellent, and get us some sorely-needed Swedishness.

Finally I have to mention one thing that gives me pause. National diversity is all well and good, but when it comes to Frigates and the larger SoLs, it is really just the Brits and French that left behind the sailing quality reports that enable us to put some real 'replicas' in the game. So in all honesty, I would rather have more British/French 18-pounder frigates and SoLs. Let the other nations provide merchantmen and lighter craft, for which little information exists anyhow. I will go try and find some sailing reports for Spanish vessels. I know I have one for the three decker Nelson captured.

 

I'm all for selecting merchantmen and 4th rate vessels from the Scandinavian countries.  Spain and Portugal need more representation too, if we can get them.

 

 

 

Call my bluff?  16th and 17th Century ships, like the Galleon and Fluyts, should not be in the game.  It would be worse than having an M1A2 Abrams and the Mark 1 side by side.  Or how about a ww1 biplane and an f35?  Anyway, how would they fair?  They would be slow ships not able to defend themselves and be extremely easy pickings for the "modern" (in game) late 18th and early 19th century ships.

 

As for dated designs.  The experts say they were done away with in the 1st decade of the 18th Century.  That is the first decade of the 1700s.  The ships we have are dated between the 1740s and 1820s.  Adding ships from the 1600s is a stretch and they would not have been in use almost 100-200 years after their time period.  If we want large merchant ships, we need to look at Indiamen and other "modern" ships.

 

 

 

 

Why was barely anyone sailing the Pavel and most were choosing the Bellona?  because most people don't know what they are doing.  That advantage of the Pavel that you list is definitely not the only advantage it has.  It is a modern design compared to the Bellona and is superior in many ways.

 

I'm going to highlight that sentence for you so you can re-read it.  Convoys, do they have any meaning for you? merchant convoys were still in use up until WWII.  Merchant ships of the particular time period we're sailing in were still slow, and while armed, were still easy pickings, even if they put up a show of force, like in the Battle of Pulo Aura.  Please, tell me again why they shouldn't be allowed.  It's like saying "Trincomalees shouldn't be allowed to tag Trader Snows because they're undergunned and easy pickings".

 

Also, I like how people conveniently, and continually ignore the devs when they post the time-line of acceptable ship designs:

 

Ships from the years: 1670-1825 are acceptable.

1730-1790 is preferred

 

Acceptable, not discouraged.

[SteelSandwich]

 

Why was barely anyone sailing the Pavel and most were choosing the Bellona?  because most people don't know what they are doing.  That advantage of the Pavel that you list is definitely not the only advantage it has.  It is a modern design compared to the Bellona and is superior in many ways.

The following statements are really intreaging to me:

-Also keep in mind that speed makes or breaks a ship's usefulness in this game. Just look what happened to the Frigate and the Belle Poule. Belle is so pretty, turns well, is better protected and has more guns than a frig. Frig is slightly faster and has bow chasers so almost all competitive players would pick it instead of the belle.

and:

-Why was barely anyone sailing the Pavel and most were choosing the Bellona?  because most people don't know what they are doing.  That advantage of the Pavel that you list is definitely not the only advantage it has.  It is a modern design compared to the Bellona and is superior in many ways.

 

It might just be my interpretation of this, but doesn't imply that the use of older ships would not make a difference? Since only well-informed people will distinctively chose for the  better/faster ship? A.k.a the rest won't?(therefore would sail older ships)

Edited October 12, 2015 by SteelSandwich

[jodgi]

We don't allow or disallow anything. Please post and vote for anything acceptable.

Just allow us the opinion that putting useless ships in the game seems like suboptimal use of resources.

[SteelSandwich]

i meant no offense with it, just an observation

[Prater]

I guess the term "Manila Galleons" means nothing to you then, yes?

 

 

To anyone that played the game Pirates of the Burning Sea, this would appear to be the

 

 

I'm all for selecting merchantmen and 4th rate vessels from the Scandinavian countries.  Spain and Portugal need more representation too, if we can get them.

 

 

I'm going to highlight that sentence for you so you can re-read it.  Convoys, do they have any meaning for you? merchant convoys were still in use up until WWII.  Merchant ships of the particular time period we're sailing in were still slow, and while armed, were still easy pickings, even if they put up a show of force, like in the Battle of Pulo Aura.  Please, tell me again why they shouldn't be allowed.  It's like saying "Trincomalees shouldn't be allowed to tag Trader Snows because they're undergunned and easy pickings".

 

Also, I like how people conveniently, and continually ignore the devs when they post the time-line of acceptable ship designs:

 

Ships from the years: 1670-1825 are acceptable.

1730-1790 is preferred

 

Acceptable, not discouraged.

 

The battle of Pulo Aura has nothing to do with the argument.  The British weren't using Fluyts.  I am all for merchant ships, I have even posted merchant ships in the poll, but only as long as they are in the time period.  The time period of ships already in the game is 1740s-1820s.  Anything prior to the 1720s and I am strongly against those, as they are outdated and unneeded.

 

"Trincomalees shouldn't be allowed to tag Trader Snows because they're undergunned and easy pickings".

 

This has nothing to do with my argument.  Trincomalees and Trader snows are in the same time period.  Trincomalees and Fluyts are not.  Why don't we include Medieval ships while we are at it?  A viking long boat would be good for some pirates, I expect.  Or how about Game Labs include WW1 infantry in Ultimate General Gettysburg?  That is basically what you are asking.

 

What do the experts say on Fluyts?

 

 

 

I do like Fluyts, they've got a great deal of character and were tremendously important during the 17th century, but have to point out that once the deck width tax loophole was closed (1702 if I remember?) the Fluyt as a type disappeared almost overnight, replaced by wall sided barks (Kattschips and Bootschips).

If the time period was the over done 1600s-early 1700s Caribbean (like every other Age of Sail game), then they would be fine. But this isn't every other age of sail game. It is the first to largely take place between the Seven Years War and the Napoleonic Era and so the ships should reflect that and break the previous mold.