Discussion - Player ship selection 1st Half 2016

[Haratik]

If that is so, then the devs need to narrow their timeline and toss everything else out the window.  The ignorance is damning.

[Prater]

If that is so, then the devs need to narrow their timeline and toss everything else out the window.  The ignorance is damning.

 

The ignorance is damning?

 

What does this  have anything in common with this

 

If the British had a lot of Fluyts or 17th century ships at Pulo Aura, the French wouldn't have mistaken them for modern sols.

[Zeekoning]

The advantage of the fluyt would be it's number of crew.  Unlike other large trading vessels, it requires less crew to sail properly, giving a larger trade ship for those who want to sail their ship without crew penalties due to their rank.

[akd]

The advantage of the fluyt would be it's number of crew.  Unlike other large trading vessels, it requires less crew to sail properly, giving a larger trade ship for those who want to sail their ship without crew penalties due to their rank.

Surely there are more modern forms with the same advantage? I can hardly imagine that the idea of minimizing crew to maximize profit was somehow abandoned in the 18th C.

[SteelSandwich]

Ships sailing to the east and west were heavily crewed. The dutch east- and westindiamen carried around 225-350 crew, depending on time period.

 

Edit:

So i'm fairly sure that principle was let go really fast, since they were prone to pirates.

Safety>profit

Edited October 12, 2015 by SteelSandwich

[Haratik]

The ignorance is damning?

 

What does this  have anything in common with this

 

If the British had a lot of Fluyts or 17th century ships at Pulo Aura, the French wouldn't have mistaken them for modern sols.

 

That wasn't the point I was making, but thanks for so conveniently continuing to display ignorance.

[Prater]

That wasn't the point I was making, but thanks for so conveniently continuing to display ignorance.

 

 

Please, enlighten us with your expertise in the matter, and we will weigh it up with the knowledge of the community experts.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

An alert to those following the Ship Selection thread, the time-frame was adjusted to more correctly reflect the time period used for the 2015 selection.

 

The "correct" time frame is:

1600-1830 hard limit

1690-1790 preferred

 

Thank you.

[Haratik]

Please, enlighten us with your expertise in the matter, and we will weigh it up with the knowledge of the community experts.

 

Read the link on Pulo Aura.  Ship design aside, the merchant vessels were still lightly armed, gunnery skills suspect at best, and slow.  What's the point of adding merchant vessels at all if ship design is the only difference between galleons and fluyts built before this "modern" period, and the merchantmen you profess only fit in this "modern" period.

[Prater]

Read the link on Pulo Aura.  Ship design aside, the merchant vessels were still lightly armed, gunnery skills suspect at best, and slow.  What's the point of adding merchant vessels at all if ship design is the only difference between galleons and fluyts built before this "modern" period, and the merchantmen you profess only fit in this "modern" period.

 

 

What?? "the merchant vessels were still lightly armed, gunnery skills suspect at best, and slow" is not what I am arguing about.

Find some plans for a Dutch Fluyt built between 1740-1820 and I am for it. One built in the 1600s, not at all.

[Haratik]

 

 

What?? "the merchant vessels were still lightly armed, gunnery skills suspect at best, and slow" is not what I am arguing about.

Find some plans for a Dutch Fluyt built between 1740-1820 and I am for it. One built in the 1600s, not at all.

 

It's exactly what I'm debating.  If ship design is your only qualm, then it's a moot point.  Regardless of ship design, the merchants in this game will, hopefully, never be a clutch warship.  They're meant to haul cargo, not fight.  Even if they're armed, they won't stand up to a warship seeking to capture it, not unless they're in numbers, depending on the size of the warship.  I see no reason not to include a fluyt or galleon built in the 1600s if you're worried about how much of a bathtub it looks like.

[maturin]

 

A viking long boat would be good for some pirates, I expect.

No kidding! Some replicas of Viking craft have gone sixteen knots. Pity about that whole being unarmed, though.

 

 

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

 

For the umpteenth time, they looked nothing like the galleons you were thinking of. Just like how the M1 Abrams doesn't look like this, even though they are both called tanks.

 

 

What do the experts say on Fluyts?

As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, the Fluyt's distinctive hullform disappeared the moment the Danes closed the tax loophole in the straits.

 

 

 

The advantage of the fluyt would be it's number of crew.  Unlike other large trading vessels, it requires less crew to sail properly, giving a larger trade ship for those who want to sail their ship without crew penalties due to their rank.

A fluyt would have zero advantage in that regard over any 1700s vessel of similar tonnage. Running rigging was constantly improved throughout the period, and reefing was introduced, so the reverse is more likely.

[Haratik]

Please then, provide an accurate photo or plan of a Manila Galleon, and we can lay the argument to rest.

 

btw, found this photo, caption reads as:

 

The Capture of the Spanish Galleon 'Nuestra Señora de Covadonga', 20 April 1743

 

Look at the date, and look at the stern of that galleon, and tell me a ship like that does not belong in the game.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Hairy Fishnuts

[Prater]

It's exactly what I'm debating.  If ship design is your only qualm, then it's a moot point.  Regardless of ship design, the merchants in this game will, hopefully, never be a clutch warship.  They're meant to haul cargo, not fight.  Even if they're armed, they won't stand up to a warship seeking to capture it, not unless they're in numbers, depending on the size of the warship.  I see no reason not to include a fluyt or galleon built in the 1600s if you're worried about how much of a bathtub it looks like.

So where does the ignorance come in?

[maturin]

 

Look at the date, and look at the stern of that galleon, and tell me a ship like that does not belong in the game.

It COULD belong in the game, because that's not what 98% of humanity thinks of when you say the word galleon. That's a dramatically larger, more modern vessel, a completely ordinary 1730s ship of the line. It has a very high, ornately-carved stern and a spritsail topsail. That's basically the only thing that separates it from Bellona. And we will soon have a very similar ship, the Russian Ingermanland.

 

This is not a galleon. But if you sell it to the Spanish and have it run ferry service across the Pacific, it magically becomes one. Got it?

[Haratik]

I don't like your tone.

 

There's no argument here. You seem to have something unspecified you want to prove in a combative, fact-free way, so I suggest you do the research.

 

 

It COULD belong in the game, because that's not what 98% of humanity thinks of when you say the word galleon. That's a dramatically larger, more modern vessel, a completely ordinary 1730s ship of the line. It has a very high, ornately-carved stern and a spritsail topsail. That's basically the only thing that separates it from Bellona. And we will have a very similar ship, the Russian Ingermanland.

 

That's fine, you can dislike my tone however you like, however you want to read it.

It's funny how you state the facts as if they were indeed facts, but if you had done your research, you'd have found that said galleon was armed with only 36 guns when it was brought to bear by the HMS Centurion, which was part of a fleet under Captain George Anson's command to take the Manila Colony away from the Spanish.  Some ship of the line that was eh?  Some further reading for you:

Captured Galleon

Thanks for assuming I'm part of the 98% of humanity.  I'm glad to be part of the majority with you.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Hairy Fishnuts

[maturin]

 

It's funny how you state the facts as if they were indeed facts, but if you had done your research, you'd have found that said galleon was armed with only 36 guns when it was brought to bear by the HMS Centurion, which was part of a fleet under Captain George Anson's command to take the Manila Colony away from the Spanish.  Some ship of the line that was eh?

A ship of the line with a dozen cannon removed is still a ship of the line. It is a matter of design and construction. You continue to be deliberately slippery in hopes of winning some sort of argument. By that line of reasoning, I suppose you favor putting the Mayflower in the game and calling it a Sixth Rate after mounting the proper armament?

 

I don't need to do research to know who Anson was and what the results of his expedition were.

[Haratik]

A ship of the line with a dozen cannon removed is still a ship of the line. It is a matter of design and construction. You continue to be deliberately slippery in hopes of winning some sort of argument. By that line of reasoning, I suppose you favor putting the Mayflower in the game and calling it a Sixth Rate after mounting the proper armament?

 

I don't need to do research to know who Anson was and what the results of his expedition were.

 

Pardon me for assuming you didn't know a thing about history...woops, I'm sorry, that was exactly the same assumption you've made about me wasn't it?

 

Edit: The galleon itself at 700 tons was smaller than the Centurion but was shockingly unprepared for attack. There were 44 cannon aboard but 12 of those were packed away. The rest were only 6 to 12 pounders and were mounted on exposed decks. There were also 28swivel guns but since the men on the Centurion made no attempt to board these were of little concern and in any case, those manning them would have been killed by the marksmen or the grapeshot.

 

(Never knew a Ship of the Line with a dozen cannon in the hold, and the only cannons mounted on the decks were no bigger than 12lbers.  Talk about a DPM machine!)

Mayflower in the game? Dear sir, you must be joking.  Partake a little less of the wine and focus on the matter at hand please.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Hairy Fishnuts

[Wicked Mouse]

The British weren't using Fluyts.

I'm terribly sorry, good sir, but it is said that (source):

"...its usefulness caused the fluyt to gain such popularity that similar designs were soon developed by seagoing competitors of the Dutch. For example, the English shipbuilding industry began to adapt the design of the fluyt during the later part of the 17th century as English merchants, seeing how much cheaper the Dutch shipping was, acquired Dutch-built ships that were captured during Anglo-Dutch wars."

The Rise of the English Shipping Industry in the 17th and 18th Centuries by Ralph Davis page 47 to 54 was referenced as the source of this information. I don't have the book, so I cannot verify this.

 

To those that would say that the fluyt is a pure 17th century ship, I'd say this: next to the British also the French adopted the design, as mentioned before. And for example throughout the years they built several named (Le) Loire (named after their largest river). One in 1668, in 1686 and..... in 1720.

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

http://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=15766

More so, searching on Three Decks .org finds 128 ships of the class flûte, ranging from 1690 to 1811.

One in the list is the La Bienvenue.

 

Searching on Fluit it lists 43, of which 13 are from 1701 to 1799. And for flute it finds 14 all ranging from 1720 to 1810.

 

The name of the ship even became for the French synonymous for a reduced armament on a warship to make room for cargo: En flûte as opposed to En guerre.

 

Swedes and Danes also used flutes. For example Analysis of a Swedish ship wreck turned out to be made of oak from around 1700 and a flute called Anna Maria.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Wicked Mouse

[maturin]

WickedMouse, I can't believe you're going to make me say this again. Just because a ship is called a fluyt does not make it one of these! This is precisely the same issue of language and terminology as with galleons.

 

What the 18th century French called a 'fluyt' was nothing more than an armed storeship. It would have little resemblance to the rig and hullform of the classical Dutch fluyt, which was a pure merchant ship. Two seconds on Google told me that the fluyt Loire from 1720 carried 30 guns. This instantly tells you that it has nothing to do with the economical merchantmen of the previous century. You did all this research and stopped short as soon as you thought the facts were on your side. It's exhausting for everyone else in the thread!

 

You want fluyts and galleons from the 18th century? Fine, but they're going to look just like ordinary indiamen and 4th rates.

[Haratik]

Until you can provide some photographic proof of your statements, you're not going to get much in the way of belief of your credibility.

 

"You did all this research and stopped short as soon as you thought the facts were on your side. It's exhausting for everyone else in the thread!"

 

You look in the mirror while you're typing this?

[Zeekoning]

You want fluyts and galleons from the 18th century? Fine, but they're going to look just like ordinary indiamen and 4th rates.

From the 18th century I present the t Fortuyn.  Doesn't look like an indiamen to me.

[akd]

Until you can provide some photographic proof of your statements, you're not going to get much in the way of belief of your credibility.

 

Hear that Maturin: unless you can provide photographs from the 1700s, the word "flute" meant only one thing over 200 years of history.

[Haratik]

Hear that Maturin: unless you can provide photographs from the 1700s, the word "flute" meant only one thing over 200 years of history.

 

That's not what I meant and you know it.  Unless he can provide credible proof of his statements with paintings, drawings, sketches, etc.  Do I really need to spell it out?

[Prater]

I'm terribly sorry, good sir, but it is said that (source):

"...its usefulness caused the fluyt to gain such popularity that similar designs were soon developed by seagoing competitors of the Dutch. For example, the English shipbuilding industry began to adapt the design of the fluyt during the later part of the 17th century as English merchants, seeing how much cheaper the Dutch shipping was, acquired Dutch-built ships that were captured during Anglo-Dutch wars."

The Rise of the English Shipping Industry in the 17th and 18th Centuries by Ralph Davis page 47 to 54 was referenced as the source of this information. I don't have the book, so I cannot verify this.

 

To those that would say that the fluyt is a pure 17th century ship, I'd say this: next to the British also the French adopted the design, as mentioned before. And for example throughout the years they built several named (Le) Loire (named after their largest river). One in 1668, in 1686 and..... in 1720.

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

http://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=15766

More so, searching on Three Decks .org finds 128 ships of the class flûte, ranging from 1690 to 1811.

One in the list is the La Bienvenue.

 

Searching on Fluit it lists 43, of which 13 are from 1701 to 1799. And for flute it finds 14 all ranging from 1720 to 1810.

 

The name of the ship even became for the French synonymous for a reduced armament on a warship to make room for cargo: En flûte as opposed to En guerre.

 

Swedes and Danes also used flutes. For example Analysis of a Swedish ship wreck turned out to be made of oak from around 1700 and a flute called Anna Maria.

Wicked Mouse. So, point to the Fluyt in the British forces at Pulo Aura that we were discussing that you completely tore my comment out of context from.