Four Masted ships

[DeathGenie]

Four masted ships

 

Most four masted ships weren't built until the mid 19th century, but there were large galleons (often in the Spanish treasure fleets) with 4 masts during this time period, along with a few Vaisseaux (French Ship of the line style) made with four masts, In 1801 the first four masted Barque ships were made,  not to mention a small number of Asian ships that had 4-5 masts that were made leading up to the first Opium war (not the Zheng He treasure ships). Will we be seeing any ships of these sorts? It would be quite interesting to see them as a bit of a rarity, considering until the 1830s-1850s four masted ships weren't common.

 

 

Four Masted English Galleon

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/English_Galleon_Model.jpg

Four masted Barque

http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Ships/Fourmast_ships/Invention(1801).html

[OlavDeng2]

If you make a thread in the ship yard and find ships of the period with plans, i dont see why not however do note there are many ships in the work and it will take a while before any come to fruitation.

[maturin]

Galleons with a 4th (Bonaventure) mast are out of period.

 

That 4-masted privateer sounds interesting, but of course there are no images of it, nor descriptions of its rig.

 

 

I was surprised to learn that there were actually 3-masted schooners in the 18th century, with mizzen masts like a ship.

[Mirones]

well we roughly know her dimensions:

Her dimensions were 44,80×8,22 meters [147'×27'] and tonnage 486 44/94 GRT and c440 NRT. Rigged with royal sails.

 

that makes er as wide as Ontarion but twice as long.

very intressting indeed.

[Haratik]

Painting purportedly of the L'Invention:

[DeathGenie]

If you make a thread in the ship yard and find ships of the period with plans, i dont see why not however do note there are many ships in the work and it will take a while before any come to fruitation.

 

Good Idea, I spent a few hours researching to make sure I was posting correct information, I'd need to find plans

 

Galleons with a 4th (Bonaventure) mast are out of period.

 

That 4-masted privateer sounds interesting, but of course there are no images of it, nor descriptions of its rig.

 

 

I was surprised to learn that there were actually 3-masted schooners in the 18th century, with mizzen masts like a ship.

 

Yeah the 3-masted schooners and 2-masted schooners were developed relatively early, took some hundred and fifty years for someone to think to put a fourth mast on there, and yeah the galleons that were in use in this period, were mostly either manila galleons, which were all three masted, or other large trading galleons, the few four masted ones were for the most part decommissioned, as with any ship type however there were still a few around, some in the hands of pirates, some in the hands of merchants that couldn't afford a newer faster ship, would be interesting to see as a very rare ship

[Brigand]

introducing 4-masted ships would put us on the slippery slope with regard to the 'tech-tree'. The wish to populate the line up of available units with special, unique, exotic and/or ahead-of-its-time designs does not do the era justice. In fact, it makes the image painted of the era chosen weaker: a pale image of what it was like in reality. It is a slippery slope, because once you introduce one of those strangers, it opens the door for other exotic design to be introduced. There are quite some games out there that fell into this trap (not uncommonly because of the need for 'premium' content). Upon introduction of the new units people are exited, a month later people realise the game is losing its appeal.

 

The most immersive games are the ones that stay true to their choices. Introducing one of a kind designs into a game where everybody can than sail them (having only one sinlge ship of a certain type sailing around per sever is a huge waste of development budget) makes the one of a kind designs the common sight. This hurts authenticity. What is more: nothing is gained -other than visual diversity- by introducing these experimental designs: we can still have a wide range of available variations in sailing capacity without them.

 

As such, I would propose to leave those unique, ahead of their time, designs be. Let's instead focus on getting those common designs which are still lacking (for example the lugger, a vessel most famous for smuggling) and see if those can make it into the game.

 

Cheers,

Brigand

[LeBoiteux]

introducing 4-masted ships would put us on the slippery slope with regard to the 'tech-tree'. The wish to populate the line up of available units with special, unique, exotic and/or ahead-of-its-time designs does not do the era justice. In fact, it makes the image painted of the era chosen weaker: a pale image of what it was like in reality. It is a slippery slope, because once you introduce one of those strangers, it opens the door for other exotic design to be introduced. There are quite some games out there that fell into this trap (not uncommonly because of the need for 'premium' content). Upon introduction of the new units people are exited, a month later people realise the game is losing its appeal.

 

The most immersive games are the ones that stay true to their choices. Introducing one of a kind designs into a game where everybody can than sail them (having only one sinlge ship of a certain type sailing around per sever is a huge waste of development budget) makes the one of a kind designs the common sight. This hurts authenticity. What is more: nothing is gained -other than visual diversity- by introducing these experimental designs: we can still have a wide range of available variations in sailing capacity without them.

 

As such, I would propose to leave those unique, ahead of their time, designs be. Let's instead focus on getting those common designs which are still lacking (for example the lugger, a vessel most famous for smuggling) and see if those can make it into the game.

 

Cheers,

Brigand

I don't really get what you mean. 

 

As long as this vessel isn't a kind a supersonic rocket with extraordinary features (in terms of speed, maneuverability and gun power), but a plan vessel with normal speed and performances that can be implemented ingame without creating imbalanced gameplay, there's no problem.

 

For example, she has only 28-guns : 26-guns of 6-pdr and 2 carronade of 12-pdr. http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/7327-discussion-player-ship-selection-1st-half-2016/?p=144268

 

Don't know her speed or her other features, though... Maybe she's a fast one but shouldn't her sails need more crew ? Isn't she less manoeuvrable than 3 masted ships ? I don't know. However, she certainly has faults.

 

If her uniqueness rely mostly on her looks (4 masts instead of 1, 2, 3) and if an advantage (speed ?) can be balanced by other disadvantages, she and other ships in the same position should be implemented in game, shouldn't they ? Could be also a great premium.

 

I guess we need to know more about her features before deciding. There's a book with plans (in french, maybe translated in english) about her and other similar french ships :

 

Demerliac, Nomenclature des navires français de 1800 à 1815, p.285, N°2274., says:

"Son plan a été publié dans "Les Clippers Français" de Claude et Jacqueline Briot page 18."

I don't have the book but it's easy to find, e.g. here:

http://www.amazon.fr/Clippers-français-histoire-voiliers-commerce/dp/2353570518/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1447180923&sr=8-1&keywords=les+clippers+francais

 

Concerning the importance of implementing more common design ships such as luggers, brigantines, barks... I totally agree with you but both kinds of ships have their importance in NA.

Edited November 11, 2015 by LeBoiteux

[Brigand]

What I mean to say is that the game has been set at a timeline of 1690-1790 preferred. Having 4-masted ships sail around would hurt that image. As I mentioned, other than visual spice, the exotic designs add nothing game-play wise, while at deluding the image of the era 1690 - 1790.

 

~Brigand

[LeBoiteux]

Always that long-running story about what the time frame is...

Two time frames (a "preferred" one and an extended one) may be too many.

But they do mean one thing : that NA devs may  be less interested in creating one precise and historical image of the era 1690 - 1790 than putting together ships that can sail and fight against each other without imbalanced gameplay, even if their building date are 1820 or cough *1600*. Their concern seems to be more gameplay-oriented and yours more historical. (However, I can't talk in their name of course).

I like both approaches.

Edited November 11, 2015 by LeBoiteux

[maturin]

Always that long-running story about what the time frame is...

Two time frames (a "preferred" one and an extended one) may be too many.

But they do mean one thing : that NA devs may  be less interested in creating one precise and historical image of the era 1690 - 1790 than putting together ships that can sail and fight against each other without imbalanced gameplay, even if their building date are 1820 or cough *1600*. Their concern seems to be more gameplay-oriented and yours more historical. (However, I can't talk in their name of course).

I like both approaches.

 

The most balanced gameplay would result from a ship lineup confined to a single decade, obviously.

 

You can't balance Leander or Newcastle (two-decker "frigates" from the early 1800s) against the 1600 First Rates who would be utterly massacred by them.

[LeBoiteux]

The most balanced gameplay would result from a ship lineup confined to a single decade, obviously.

You can't balance Leander or Newcastle (two-decker "frigates" from the early 1800s) against the 1600 First Rates who would be utterly massacred by them.

Oh, my... ! Do you really mean that NA devs aren't fanatical about historicity and that they have favored fun and diversity over it ! In a game ? I quit.

[Mirones]

i see no problem with them because they sailed at the same time this paticular one 1801  4 years before trafalgar and it also servers as educational part.

wich makes here intressting. and she was most of the time used as trader even trough she was meant to be an privateer but 210crew is expensiv being private.

[DeathGenie]

What I mean to say is that the game has been set at a timeline of 1690-1790 preferred. Having 4-masted ships sail around would hurt that image. As I mentioned, other than visual spice, the exotic designs add nothing game-play wise, while at deluding the image of the era 1690 - 1790.

 

~Brigand

 

Didn't realize this would cause an uproar, the main ship that I wanted was the four masted ship we've been referencing (L'Invention), the others such as the galleon were more so to show that ships like that did exist and weren't uncommon. I assumed the time period to be between mid 1700s to early 1800s due to Trafalgar being in 1805, This ship specifically I wanted to bring attention to was commissioned in 1799 and launched in 1801, its the early development of the next generation of ships. Something that would be interesting and add a bit to the era, not take away from it.  

[Brigand]

Didn't realize this would cause an uproar, the main ship that I wanted was the four masted ship we've been referencing (L'Invention), the others such as the galleon were more so to show that ships like that did exist and weren't uncommon. I assumed the time period to be between mid 1700s to early 1800s due to Trafalgar being in 1805, This ship specifically I wanted to bring attention to was commissioned in 1799 and launched in 1801, its the early development of the next generation of ships. Something that would be interesting and add a bit to the era, not take away from it.  

 

I'm sorry for the uproar, it was me who hijacked your topic.

 

There is no point in denying the fact that those early developments, of the next generation of ships, sailed around at the closing of the 18th century, they existed and were build. However, at the same time, they were the exeption rather than the norm. A game like Naval Action tries to portray the era as it was. But since it is not possible to add each and every ship that ever existed to a game, the selection of ships for the game needs to be a good representation of what was a common sight. Since experimental, ahead of its time designs were exceptional for their time and because it is a waste of development budget to create a ship and then artificially limit the number of copies you allow to be in the game* because of their historical rarity, I think the game's development budget could better be spend at creating other interesting ships which were more typical of the time period.

 

*) The one thing I could see designs like this shine, is as unique ships handed out as a 'gold medal' rewards for the winner of some future live event. But for now, I haven't heard of any ideas for events like this from Game Labs. Who knows, maybe in the future?

 

anyhow, I'll let this thread turn back to its original topic and refrain from posting offtopic here again :-)

 

Cheers,

Brigand

[Haratik]

introducing 4-masted ships would put us on the slippery slope with regard to the 'tech-tree'. The wish to populate the line up of available units with special, unique, exotic and/or ahead-of-its-time designs does not do the era justice. In fact, it makes the image painted of the era chosen weaker: a pale image of what it was like in reality. It is a slippery slope, because once you introduce one of those strangers, it opens the door for other exotic design to be introduced. There are quite some games out there that fell into this trap (not uncommonly because of the need for 'premium' content). Upon introduction of the new units people are exited, a month later people realise the game is losing its appeal.

 

The most immersive games are the ones that stay true to their choices. Introducing one of a kind designs into a game where everybody can than sail them (having only one sinlge ship of a certain type sailing around per sever is a huge waste of development budget) makes the one of a kind designs the common sight. This hurts authenticity. What is more: nothing is gained -other than visual diversity- by introducing these experimental designs: we can still have a wide range of available variations in sailing capacity without them.

 

As such, I would propose to leave those unique, ahead of their time, designs be. Let's instead focus on getting those common designs which are still lacking (for example the lugger, a vessel most famous for smuggling) and see if those can make it into the game.

 

Cheers,

Brigand

 

That would be like saying the USS Constitution (due to her construction) shouldn't be in the game.

 

What I mean to say is that the game has been set at a timeline of 1690-1790 preferred. Having 4-masted ships sail around would hurt that image. As I mentioned, other than visual spice, the exotic designs add nothing game-play wise, while at deluding the image of the era 1690 - 1790.

 

~Brigand

 

And yet I've seen no such thing said by the admins, only by the moderators, what gives?  If the timeline for presenting designs is 1600-1830, what's to prevent ships from the 130 years missing in your timeline from being in the game?  I can understand for the sake of balance, but doubtless the timelines for various ship designs overlapped.  L'Invention, despite being a revolutionary design, was still chased down and captured by a pair of frigates based off of designs dating 1778 and 1794.  I'm not saying we should introduce something like the ships of the line created at a later time with their shell guns, but this ship was definitely within the timeline, she was, how do they say it, "before her time".

Edited November 12, 2015 by Hairy Fishnuts

[maturin]

 

That would be like saying the USS Constitution (due to her construction) shouldn't be in the game.

Nice try. Constitution was famous and influential in her own time, immediately sparking an arms race and fleet of imitators.

 

 

 

If the timeline for presenting designs is 1600-1830, what's to prevent ships from the 130 years missing in your timeline from being in the game?

The 1600-1830 timeline is meaningless. It is just hot air until the devs actually make the foolish decision to add a 1600s galleon or 1830s paddle steamer.

 

 

If the game was going to have hundreds of ships, no one would complain about L'Invention. We just don't want her sucking resources from something more worthy.

[Brigand]

What I mean to say is that the game has been set at a timeline of 1690-1790 preferred. Having 4-masted ships sail around would hurt that image. As I mentioned, other than visual spice, the exotic designs add nothing game-play wise, while at deluding the image of the era 1690 - 1790.

~Brigand

And yet I've seen no such thing said by the admins, only by the moderators, what gives?  (...)

 

 

 

We moderators only echo information given by admin; the best information we have on the time frame is:

 

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. Where many feel that 1830 is stretching it.

Ships currently confirmed to be in the game range from 1715 (Ингерманланд/Ingermanland) to 1820 (Меркурий/Mercury).

Hope this helps,

~Brigand

[DeathGenie]

I'm sorry for the uproar, it was me who hijacked your topic.

 

There is no point in denying the fact that those early developments, of the next generation of ships, sailed around at the closing of the 18th century, they existed and were build. However, at the same time, they were the exeption rather than the norm. A game like Naval Action tries to portray the era as it was. But since it is not possible to add each and every ship that ever existed to a game, the selection of ships for the game needs to be a good representation of what was a common sight. Since experimental, ahead of its time designs were exceptional for their time and because it is a waste of development budget to create a ship and then artificially limit the number of copies you allow to be in the game* because of their historical rarity, I think the game's development budget could better be spend at creating other interesting ships which were more typical of the time period.

 

*) The one thing I could see designs like this shine, is as unique ships handed out as a 'gold medal' rewards for the winner of some future live event. But for now, I haven't heard of any ideas for events like this from Game Labs. Who knows, maybe in the future?

 

anyhow, I'll let this thread turn back to its original topic and refrain from posting offtopic here again :-)

 

Cheers,

Brigand

 

To be fair the Trincomalee is also in the same... boat.. pun intended, as L'Invention. Very few Leda class frigates were made, and all of them were made in 1805-1830, and many were not used until 1840+ another example of new tech that wasn't very common I don't think the devs are overly worried about exceptions from the norm because of this. Ships like this are added because it increases the number of ships to choose from if everyone sailed the same ship it would be a bit more boring. You aren't really off topic here, its mostly a discussion about if these ships would fit in.

 

L'Invention is a privater ship, the first modern with four masts in 1799.

One deck with 28-guns: 26-guns of 6-pdr and 2 carronade of 12-pdr.

133´ of lenght and lean frame. Simple decor style of frigates of the late eighteenth century.

 

 

In another topic Surcof posted these plans, not sure where he got them he didn't say, anyone who can read these plans think they look about right compared to the specs listed on: http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Ships/Fourmast_ships/Invention(1801).html ?

There may also be plans for this ship in the book "Index of fast sailing ships: their Design and Construction, 1775-1875 by David R. MacGregor" if anyone has a copy of this book. A bit of research online led me to that book but I cannot find an online copy of it.

Edited November 13, 2015 by DeathGenie

[Haratik]

Nice try. Constitution was famous and influential in her own time, immediately sparking an arms race and fleet of imitators.

 

Oh so ships have to be famous and influential to be in this game?  Please, stop while you're ahead, it's almost laughable now.  smh

 

This game is still in early early development.  Hopefully a few years down the road (provided we get that far), there will be enough love to go around and we don't have to deal with only a decade's worth of shipbuilding in this game (that would be incredibly boring).

Edited November 13, 2015 by Hairy Fishnuts

[Surcouf]

In another topic Surcof posted these plans, not sure where he got them he didn't say, anyone who can read these plans think they look about right compared to the specs listed on: http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Ships/Fourmast_ships/Invention(1801).html ?

This plan comes from G. Delacroix. He Made a preliminary study on this ship for an monograph.

The date of the plan can be misleading sometimes, more precise plans are drawn after build to maintain the plans in registers.

This is the case of many copies of plans.

And these plans are generally dates when copying, not date of original plan.

[maturin]

Very few Leda class frigates were made,

Whaaaat? They were, like, the largest British frigate class. Probably the most mass-produced warship design of the era.

 

Oh so ships have to be famous and influential to be in this game? Please, stop while you're ahead, it's almost laughable now. smh

Have you even glanced at the current lineup of ships?

Every single rated vessel besides Pavel and Bellona has a claim to fame. Ontario, Niagara and Lynx made headlines within our lifetime. Mercury is legendary. Endymion, Amsterdam and most other planned vessels are also well-known. We only get obscure vessels when there is a gap that needs filling and a certain class that needs typifying. Each vessel needs to be able to stand in for dozens or hundreds more. It's called priorities.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Henry d'Esterre Darby
Removal of personal attack.

[Haratik]

Yes, the important ships are getting priority, I won't deny that, but eventually, people are going to want variety.  They're going to get tired of looking at the same old lines, the same old stern, the same old number of guns, and they're going to want something different.  The way you go on, it'll be like PotCO where there's a small number of set ships in the game rather than a game like PotBS where there were easily 50 or more designs in the game.  I'd rather variety and rarity over ships that are already well known and legendary.  Ships that have plans that are easy to obtain should, imo, be saved for later, while ships whose plans were rather more difficult to obtain should get some attention.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Henry d'Esterre Darby
Removal of personal attack/nonconstructive language.

[Prater]

To be fair the Trincomalee is also in the same... boat.. pun intended, as L'Invention. Very few Leda class frigates were made, and all of them were made in 1805-1830, and many were not used until 1840+ another example of new tech that wasn't very common I don't think the devs are overly worried about exceptions from the norm because of this. Ships like this are added because it increases the number of ships to choose from if everyone sailed the same ship it would be a bit more boring. You aren't really off topic here, its mostly a discussion about if these ships would fit in.

In another topic Surcof posted these plans, not sure where he got them he didn't say, anyone who can read these plans think they look about right compared to the specs listed on: http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Ships/Fourmast_ships/Invention(1801).html ?

There may also be plans for this ship in the book "Index of fast sailing ships: their Design and Construction, 1775-1875 by David R. MacGregor" if anyone has a copy of this book. A bit of research online led me to that book but I cannot find an online copy of it.

The point is that Trincomalee, which the Leda class actually had a decent amount built, is representative of a lot of different ships and classes - the 38 gun 18lb frigate. Even the United States class had 3 ships plus all the 44 gun Superfrigates they inspired to be built, even into the 1830s. And the French claim that their heavy 40 gun frigates were the predecessors to the American Superfrigates.

Most of the ships in game have the same general characteristics that were generally universal among the ships of the same type. There weren't extremely drastic differences. An extra 100' + mast is pretty drastic/extremely obvious difference. How many ships of the time period had this? If there are 20 ships in game and this is one of them, that is representative of 5% of the ships in naval action. I'm fine with it if all in-game nations get fleshed out (have several ships of different classes/types) first.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Gentlemen, please disagree with each other respectfully, without using charged language designed to insult.

 

Thank you.