The Chinese Navy-why I build it, views on it and the modern world

Jason2 wrote:I'm glad you've found the discussions interesting. Chinese positions are underplayed in games so the chances to even try out the warship designs haven't been fully explored.

I do find quirky positions add an interesting flavour. I once played Japan (a couple of decades ago) for a while, thinking I could explore the kinds of technologies I wouldn't otherwise have bothered researching, but to be honest after a few turns I found playing in relative isolation a bit boring. I tried to develop the economy, but with it being based on rice, a famine a few turns after I joined wrecked both. After that it just drifted a long for a while and I never really managed to find something in the position which I could latch onto as a reason for persevering. Doing Japanese things would keep honour up, but I couldn't really find a grand purpose/objective - and that was when game turns were much quicker. Chinese technology is more interesting and there is more to research, and we do have your experience as someone who has played China in 2 games and managed to develop aspects. I certainly think that for the right player, more active Chinese or Far East players generally would bring a different flavour to games. Not saying the Spanish Succession is getting a bit stale, but one of the odd things I noticed in G10 was that characters I had introduced based on their historic interests seem to have just been lifted and used in somewhat unhistoric ways. A good example would be Cardinal Tomasi. I asked for him to be sent from Rome because he was the Examiner of Bishops and was sympathetic to the use of the vernacular; historically if there was one man who could have brought some Anglican bishops back to Catholicism, and made the case for a modified Anglican liturgy acceptable to Rome, it would have been him. He was not interested in politics and no more a 'Jacobite' supporter than any other Catholic bishop (though it is safe to say he would not have got on well with the usurper William). But in G10 he appeared as a kind of chaplain to King James, a chaperone to keep him out of trouble - not the kind of role he would have taken on as it would have been a considerable demotion. Does underline that for the game to keep some semblance of history, it does need players who seek to stay broadly within plausible limits, which you are doing with China.

I think in some games Burma and Siam were active, but I don't remember anyone ever trying to play the Malaysian States which could make it more interesting for a Chinese player?

Jason2 wrote:As to naval battles, I think China v England is unlikely, I suspect we would see a conflict with the Dutch or Spanish first. However if we want to go with the "1420" story line, I think we will see Chinese fleets turning up in European-controlled ports in India in the near-ish future. Must admit do have this fantasy of a Chinese fleet visiting London in-game on a friendship visit. Besides, its the time it takes for a Chinese position to build up a fleet that also limits the opportunities for naval warfare. I have been Lord Fong in G9 for six game years and it's taken me that long to build up a fleet of 200 warships (of various sizes), plus 200 liners, but given my initial navy was 0 plus 0 liners...

OK - 6 years afloat and no major disasters along the lines of the Russian navy in G7 is an achievement in itself. I was probably again thinking more of G7 where Spain has rights to trade in China so a Sino-Spanish naval battle seemed unlikely, and the Dutch have been virtually wiped out by my fleet so the few ships they have left could probably be overhauled by a single junk. That is why I wondered about potential conflicts in India being more likely (for non players, in G7 France is at war with Persia with most of the fighting seeming to be around India; if England/Spain starts off again then there is the theoretical risk that Spain repeats her usual tactic of paying 3rd parties to fight her wars for her and bribes China to launch an attack on English colonies). I am certainly not suggesting that England would launch an invasion of China, although if China has yet to build a fleet in G7, perhaps that isn't such a bad idea after all?

Jason2 wrote:On technology sharing, I put it down to a game mechanic, it's simply easier to manage the games if there isn't that automatic sharing even in team positions You have to bear in mind it is quite rare to have more than one Chinese position active at any one time, so who would you be sharing with? In G9 we had about three months a little while back where Shantung was active, played by Roy/Rozwi (and am now trying to work out if someone else is playing Shantung). In G8 we had two positions active for a few years and we had two periods where a third was active...in fact we might have had a wild heady month when four were active. But in G10 there is just an active Kwantung and in G7, as you know, no Chinese positions are active.

On the Kobukson, risk of stating the obvious, in G7 is it worth sending an envoy to Korea and seeing if you can get hold of the technology? I have never played Korea and can only recall one game (G8) where it was an active position-and even then briefly-but I think Korea has more independence than the other Chinese positions. You might be able to do a deal? Hell, if you're really lucky, maybe you will find a Korean King who wants English support so he can break away from the Empire?

I can see how it might be easier administratively not to have automatic sharing of technology, but it would be a good way to ensure that players who join a Chinese position mid-game would not feel inferior to those who have been in for longer. It would remove a potential source of conflict and encourage team play which you feel is essential to Chinese setups. More than any other position Chinese technology is specific to them and as you say does add flavour. I suppose this point is just an expansion on the idea for a separate Chinese rule supplement which puts all the technology together so potential China players would be able to plan what they would do in Chinese terms without looking at it (as I do) as a variant on European technology and then trying to match nearest technology to make sense of it all.

Perhaps I am also thinking of my experience with Japan. It seems that since Kwantung is the only province allowed to trade with foreigners, other Chinese positions are up to a point dependent upon Kwantung's economy and there are limited opportunities for independent diplomacy - can't sign trade agreements with foreigners, Chinese positions might lose honour if they involve themselves in European politics, etc. There is usually some positives to balance the negatives, but I'm struggling to see them, and perhaps that is why there are seldom more than 1 active China position for any significant period. Active players normally means that the rules evolve which in turn should attract more players, etc.

On Kobuksons - I think I've tried twice, but each time it proved impossible - no ships can get close to Korea to allow an emissary to land, all trade has to go through Kwantung, for anyone to get past the Hong I would have to bribe my way across China, and if I was prepared to do all that by the time my man had walked across China and arrived in the capital of Korea (not even sure what that is), he would probably get a Richard 'no', or a "how do you propose to get the Kobukson back to England since no foreign ships are allowed to trade with Korea" ... it is a peculiarly Chinese problem which you may be able to get round as Kwantung, but which is very frustrating from the other side.

Stuart Bailey wrote:About the only clash between Chinese naval forces and European warships from very roughly the Glori period is the invasion on Dutch Taiwan in 1661-1662 by Ming forces seeking a base away from Manchu pressure on the mainland.

Since Zheng's invasion fleet consisted of a reported 900 warships and 50,000 men the Dutch I assume the Dutch were badly outnumbered. But it seems that Dutch ships did engage the invaders at Sea but failed to stop the invasion and later on a Dutch fleet tried to relieve the siege of Fort Zeelandia and a battle took place.

Wonder if a kindly German or Dutch speaker could add extra information?

From the little information you do tend to picture a sort of Far Eastern Spanish Armada which worked, with a huge fleet loaded with troops heading towards its targe. While Dutch gunboats snapped at its heels trying to avoid close combat and try to figure out how to stop them.

Yes ... although the Dutch ships in the 1660s were among the most advanced in the world, a few cruisers against 900 war junks probably wouldn't last long. Oar-propelled armed ships should be able to get into position more easily to rake a smaller number of enemy ships, doing enough damage to sink or board them.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Ref Papa Clement comments about some Junks and western classes being a a design white elephant. I think with a lot depends on the user and what purpose you use them for:

- For instance at the 4 day day battle and the raid on the Medway the Dutch managed to capture some of the Royal Navy's best ships. Probably some of the most most modern and most powerful warships in the world at that date but totally useless to the Dutch due to their deep draft. In the end all they could do was break them up.

Another typically Dutch sneaky trick - sailing in under cover of fog to try and cut out ships in dry dock instead of taking them in a proper battle. But as Stuart says it worked out well in the end because having been greedy, they couldn't use the ships they took. Another example of Dutch stupidity, failing to accept the geographical limits of their position, and ending up just wrecking things for everyone. If memory served they burnt far more than they got away with and far from being a permanent setback for the Royal Navy it justified building many more new ships which were then used to destroy the Dutch fleet in battle. Had they not carried out the raid, it is possible/probable that King Charles would have continued to let the navy rot in dry dock and then when it was really needed, England would have suffered a much greater strategic defeat. At least it forced the English to recognize the value of the navy.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
- As for Lord Fong wanting to spend lots and lots of the Emperor's silver on building western style Lineships I think the Mandarins would be asking
a) Is the spending any use against the Mongols?
b) Can the new Class carry troops/cargo?
c) Is this new class any good at hunting pirates esp in inshore and river waters

& on getting the answers no, no and no will decide that Fong is either mad or is taking back handers from the Ship builders.

Fair enough. I think the broader point about the Chinese navy being seen as troop transports is a good one. Troop transports do benefit from being stable (lower SL levels), and if China is sending hundreds of ships at a time, perhaps this is why speed and flexibility were not as important design considerations as they were in European fleets. Anyone who has seen the size of the Golden Hind set against a warship from 100-150 years later will be amazed how he managed to sail round the world in something so small - compare to the Chinese expeditions in much larger ships and perhaps it is just that the Chinese saw things differently.

However, it should be possible to convince an Emperor of the wisdom of specialist ships: unarmed liners to transport troops, protected by more heavily armed SoL.

Pirate hunting in inshore/river waters would also require a specialist vessel, but as I put in my earlier post, I don't understand how junk-based designs would make good pirate vessels.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
- Think in many ways Junks are tactically more like large European Galleys than the floating Gun batteries of Western European Navies in that they are perfectly designed to take large numbers of fighting men, supplies and guns almost anywhere on the Coast and up rivers. Indeed from a Chinese point of view a lineship can be classed too large, over specialized and not flexible enough to do the jobs they want doing.

On subject of Great and Heavy frigates I think a lot of players agree with Papa Clement that they are a waste of space in a line of battle and standard Frigates make better and faster cruisers for lower costs and fewer recruits. While this is indeed true it is a pity that more people do not consider convoy protection and attack.

Given time and consideration almost all ship classes have a use at sometime and to someone, but for the life of me I can not work out a use for the Cavalry Galley (page 9 advice for Princes)

If Chinese ship design was basically an evolution of junk liners (as the early warships in Europe were an evolution merchant ships loaded with cannons), then this would explain it. In Europe there was an acknowledgement that a separation of transport and warship designs were needed and so specialization made sense. Once the basic longer/thinner warship had evolved, the same basic template was used for corvettes through to SoL, as shipbuilders sought to push the limits of the size of wooden ships to maximize guns, whilst merchant ships could remain wide and stable until the need for faster crossings (tea clippers) to India. For Chinese fleets of 900 ships, what possible enemy would attack them at sea(?), so Stuart could well be right that the Chinese thought of the their navy as a means to transport their army rather than as a way of projecting land power overseas. I think it is pushing the point, though, so criticize the SoL as being over specialized and not flexible enough. It was a revolutionary design which when properly deployed held the Empire together and allowed a small foggy island somewhere off the coast of Europe to control global trade for nearly 200 years. If the Chinese had a fleet of SoL things would surely have worked out very differently.

A gFrg or HFrg could be used on convoy protection, but I suggest that anyone serious enough to hit convoys is going to use more than a single Frg to do it, and 2Frg can easily take out a single gFrg/HFrg. If anything the more heavily protected a convoy is the more likely it is to be worth attacking in force. Historically some of the most interesting engagements were convoy actions rather than full fleet actions. Perhaps it is a feature of the game which is not brought out as much as it should be. The trouble is that once a patrol sights a convoy it has to raise the alarm and send instructions to the rest of the fleet (turn1); by the time the order has then been given to intercept (turn2), the convoy could well have sailed out of range and I have probably wasted enough time sending fleets on wild convoy chases to no effect. In land engagements unless the order has been specifically given to evade or withdraw from combat, scouts can at least maintain contact with the enemy which gives players the opportunity to continue battle over a number of turns. This doesn't seem to happen very often at sea. The one exception which springs to mind is where a fleet is on blockade duty and consequently is ordered to stay in one place. The recent engagement off Bombay in G7 is a good example of this: 9 Dutch SoL tried to attack Bombay, but were driven back by strategically placed English cruisers and FC, so they took up blockade instead. They chose to ride out a storm which prevented an English attack the next month, but the month after English Frg broke the blockade, sank 1 and only 7 managed to get away because the 8th sacrificed itself to hold the cruisers off. 2 Dutch SoL sunk by a handful of English frigates. Since the 7 remaining Dutch SoL are already badly damaged with high sick list and are forced to sail into a monsoon having already taken storm/battle damage, I wouldn't give very high odds on them making it back to a friendly port. The engagement did not go entirely to plan, but given the risk to my frigates, the commander made the right decision to let the weather take care of the enemy rather than pursuing them and risk losing his own ships.

Whilst I can understand the puzzle over cavalry galleys, I suppose the use is to move large numbers of horse in becalmed waters more easily than cramming them into transport galleys? Moving infantry and artillery with galleys doesn't require that many, but the numbers shoot up if trying to move horses. So I suppose for players who want to campaign in becalmed seas, they can feel very smug if they can sneak their army past a blockading fleet? I guess the probability of having cavalry galleys in a port under blockade just when you can use them doesn't come around often enough to justify building them.

My other least favourite types of (basic) western ships include:
1. Yacht - upkeep is the same as raising cost, inherently unstable due to carrying 5x12pdr. If a ruler wants a boat to sail up and down a river in, build an unarmed state barge instead.
2. Lugger - uses 100 recruits to man 8x4pdr; a corvette has the same number of recruits and upkeep but carries 20x12pdr.
3. Galley - notwithstanding earlier remarks about Xebecs, they do seem to have more benefits than galleys.
4. Schooner - incredibly expensive and probably out of period. Advice is not to arm them before stable ship design has been researched, and even then they appear to be more of a vanity project (like yachts) than a serious merchant ship.
5. East Indiamen - this is a controversial one. I can accept that an EiM is more stable than a L, but 1L is actually 10 ships so why not simply convert L to armed liners to gain the armament (if necessary) and then put them in convoys? I'm not sure whether EiM can use their guns when fully loaded, but given the number I have captured as prizes, I suspect not.
6. Frigata - extra length gives extra speed, but poor handling/turning so it seems to be a retrograde design. It is the sort of ship designed to sail out of trouble rather than stand and fight, but any ship dependent upon sail cannot choose the weather. In the wrong conditions a corvette could take a Frigata without trouble, and in LGDR you can be fairly sure the wrong conditions occur frequently.
7. DSoL - in theory these have their use in shallow waters, but a smart Dutch player who has defended his internal towns with FC does not need to waste money on DSoL because anyone who attacks Dutch towns will be in smaller ships more easily driven off by FC. An elongated SoL has a wider turning circle, more structural weakness, and still has 10 fewer guns than a standard SoL. Even a 2-decker SoL will still get stuck in shallow waters, so using it to attack foreign ports in the colonies still carries a lot of risk, not enough to justify building them when the cost is the same as a standard SoL.
8. Galleon/galleass - both of these take huge numbers of recruits and are a rather old design, stable but clumsy.
9. 100-gun SoL - another controversial pick: these monsters push the standard SoL design close to its limits. Adding more guns reduces the space for the crews and supplies, they are expensive to build/maintain, need more sail to compensate so tend to be top-heavy. And in battle they tend to be first in line and first to be blown up. Historically they tended to be vanity vessels which were unpopular with officers and crews. I could build 8SoL for the same number of recruits as 5LSoL; those 8SoL would have 560guns rather than the 500 on the 5LSoL and would cost only £4K more in upkeep. I would much rather have the flexibility of 8 ships than 5 larger ones.

I have managed to find a few references to Chinese naval engagements which might shed some light onto how they used ships tactically:

1521 Battle of Tunmen. The Portuguese, allied with Chinese pirates, encroached on Tunmen and built a fort. They refused to leave so the Emperor sent 50 Junks against 5 Portuguese Caravels (and an unknown number of pirate junks). The Chinese Junks tried to board the Portuguese, but couldn’t get close due to the greater range of the Portuguese guns. Neither could they try to encircle them due to the terrain, so the Chinese admiral, Wang Hong, sent in fire ships to trap the Portuguese. This disrupted their formation and allowed the Chinese to get close enough to board. No Portuguese ship was lost to boarding, but 2 caravels had to be abandoned along with all their pirate junks so they had enough men to sail the other 3. They escaped back to Malacca after strong winds scattered the pursuing Chinese fleet. This is classed as a Chinese victory, but that is perhaps kind given the scale of losses.

1522 Battle of Xicaowan – seems to have been a continuation of the same conflict: Malacca was a tributary state of China and the Emperor didn’t like the idea of Portugal occupying it. Chinese forces were 80 large junks and 220 smaller ships. Portuguese forces were 2 heavy carracks, 2 small carracks, 2 junks (trading ships rather than warships). The Portuguese sought to avoid battle until attacked, but this allowed the Chinese to blockade them and required the Portuguese to fire at longer range to discourage the Chinese from trying to board them. After dumping cargo and taking on water, the heavy carracks cleared a path through the Chinese fleet, firing matchlocks and throwing grenades. One of the small carracks blew up when a powder barrel accidentally exploded. The other small carrack and 1 junk went to the aid of the sailors, but this allowed the Chinese to board and capture all these ships, slaughtering all the crews. The 2 large carracks and the other junk escaped under cover of night back to Malacca. 20 Portuguese cannons and swivel guns were presented to the Emperor who ordered swivel guns to be copied. In 1524 a new fleet of warships was constructed in anticipation of another Portuguese attack, but this fleet was left to decay and the ships either scuttled or captured by pirates. The Portuguese sought to improve relations with China by turning on the pirates and helping defeat a raid of a hundred pirate ships on Macau in 1568.

1633 Battle of Liaoluo Bay. The Dutch had been defeated in a short war 1622-23 against China and had sought based in Taiwan instead. Interestingly the Chinese admiral, Zheng Zhilong, had adapted European technology and his large junks were equipped with English cannon which impressed the Dutch! Unfortunately they didn’t have crews, so the Dutch sailed into Amoy and burnt all but 3. When he rebuilt his fleet (to Chinese design without the European-styled ships the Dutch had burnt), he had 50 large junks and 100 small junks to stop a VOIC/pirate fleet of 8 Dutch warships (described as yachts!) and 50 pirate junks from disrupting trade around Taiwan. Ignoring the pirate junks, Zheng Zhilong used large warjunks as fireships to ram the Dutch. This took them by surprise and cost them 3 warships. The rest fled, which left the Chinese fleet clear to deal with the pirates. Since he had defeated the Dutch using Chinese ships, the European style ships were not rebuilt.

Under the early Qing naval power stagnated. River and coastal naval defence was the responsibility of the waterborne units of the Green Standard Army which were based at Zhenjiang and Hangzhou (which according to the Agema map are part of Shantung). But there is an interesting footnote about Manchuria:

In 1658 the Russian Cossack Onufriy Stepanov sent a small fleet down the Amur river which was met by a Manchu fleet of several dozen ships and driven off. This led to a naval unit established at Jilin in 1661 in case they tried again. Naval units were also added to various Banner garrisons to form the “Eight Banners Navy”. I can't quite get my head around seafaring cossacks, but I guess after this they had more confidence in the swimming ability of their horses rather than risk a scratch-built precursor of the Russian navy. It does look, though, as if by attaching ships to the army and using them to fight along rivers, the Chinese may have viewed the navy as more of a marine service than a separate force at this time. Until ...

1677 the Fujian Fleet was re-established to put an end to the rebellion in Taiwan. The decisive battle was in 1683 (Battle of Penghu). 238 Qing ships (size not noted, but are later described as being larger, better armed and having more ammunition than the enemy) against Taiwan’s 200+ ships of which 120 are described as large battleships, 19 gunships and 60 small battleships. A hurricane disrupted both sides, after which the Qing divided their force into several smaller fleets to distract the Taiwanese fleet and try to capture his port. The Taiwanese had bought cannons from the Dutch, but despite this, Qing forces succeeded. Qing ships had destroyed most of the Taiwanese ships within an hour due to greater weight of fire. Capturing their land base may also have undermined Taiwanese morale as they would not have been able to resupply.

The next reported engagement was in the 1860s against ironclads where the junks made no impression at all!

There seems to be several interesting observations here:
1. Chinese admirals did respect European technology – they knew that in a firefight against western ships they would lose.
2. There was no determination to avoid European technology, though it was never properly tested in battle.
3. Tactically, the Chinese were not very subtle – their objective was paramount, destruction of the enemy secondary after the objective had been achieved. And to do this they would sacrifice men and material, ignoring the cost.
4. Piracy clearly was an issue, but it became a much greater problem when European nations/companies (usually the despicable Dutch) allied with the pirates to break into Chinese trade.
5. The double hulled junk does not seem to have been much use against cannon, but clearly did aid survival in strong winds.
6. In engagements not involving western ships, the Chinese approach seems to have been simply to have more, bigger ships than the enemy, and just keep grinding away at the enemy until they became exhausted. The idea of using ships in the same way as Europeans (as gun platforms) and pounding away at the enemy at a safe distance wasn’t copied even when it was used against Chinese fleets with great effect. Thus tactics didn’t really evolve which seems to be the exact opposite of the way western navies meticulously studied every engagement to try and refine their use of SoL.

It is this final point which I find most extraordinary. Perhaps it is a natural (and unjustified) belief in the superiority of Chinese technology, combined with an Imperial Court which had never experienced naval battles, which fostered such wilful blindness. Don’t know - I am not a China expert. But to persist for such a long time (into the mid-1800s) with policies which were failing when 300 years before they had seen and appreciated the solution doesn’t seem very Chinese to me.

Papa Clement wrote:
It is this final point which I find most extraordinary.  Perhaps it is a natural (and unjustified) belief in the superiority of Chinese technology, combined with an Imperial Court which had never experienced naval battles, which fostered such wilful blindness.  Don’t know - I am not a China expert.  But to persist for such a long time (into the mid-1800s) with policies which were failing when 300 years before they had seen and appreciated the solution doesn’t seem very Chinese to me.

A good summary of the situation, I think it was an inability to accept reality and prefer to dwell in the myth of their own superiority ...and not an attitude limited to the Chinese

Stuart Bailey wrote:

On subject of Great and Heavy frigates I think a lot of players agree with Papa Clement that they are a waste of space in a line of battle and standard Frigates make better and faster cruisers for lower costs and fewer recruits.  While this is indeed true it is a pity that more people do not consider convoy protection and attack.

Given time and consideration almost all ship classes have a use at sometime and to someone, but for the life of me I can not work out a use for the Cavalry Galley (page 9 advice for Princes)

 

I think with Heavy Frigates, perhaps if you're a smaller power with limited income/recruits, they can be seen as a good compromise? Ok, not as good as standard frigates and standard SoLs but if you can't afford a sufficient force of both, you can have one force that does both but not as well? Do agree on convoy protection though, something I used to do in earlier games but have stopped doing of late (though I tend to use fast liners for trade support so at least they are armed).

Do agree on the cavalry galley though!

Jason2 wrote:A good summary of the situation, I think it was an inability to accept reality and prefer to dwell in the myth of their own superiority ...and not an attitude limited to the Chinese

If players accepted reality, the game wouldn't be much fun. It is surely part of the idea of the game that we all hope our nations will exceed their potential under our wise leadership, something which I agree is not limited to Lord Fong and it was not my intention to criticise Lord Fong for championing Chinese superiority if that is the way he is roleplayed.

Jason2 wrote:I think with Heavy Frigates, perhaps if you're a smaller power with limited income/recruits, they can be seen as a good compromise? Ok, not as good as standard frigates and standard SoLs but if you can't afford a sufficient force of both, you can have one force that does both but not as well? Do agree on convoy protection though, something I used to do in earlier games but have stopped doing of late (though I tend to use fast liners for trade support so at least they are armed).

I agree that building a navy with limited annual recruits is hard, but you just have to be smart about which ships you choose. I faced precisely this problem as Venice. There is a sensible minimum number of SoL which can form an effective line of battle and if that number can't be raised or replaced it is better not to have any at all. Since the tactical purpose of a SoL is to stand in line of battle, building HFrg as a small SoL simply invites defeat so I suggest that the same logic applies: don't bother building them. Instead concentrate on Frg or if you need numbers, Corvettes. If you can spare 2,000 recruits/year then you can build up 10Frg or 20Corvettes/year to protect trade. A much better use of the recruits than 4SoL.

Another consideration is storms: if a fleet is mysteriously hit by an Agema storm, ships often sink. If you can only build 4SoL/year with your available recruits it is so disheartening to find that 1 or 2 of them have sunk and you have to start again, whereas if you lose 1-2 cruisers it is more of an inconvenience.

As England I have probably built too many ships, but providing strong backing to the navy also boosts honour in the same way that France gains honour by having a large military. I inherited a rather unbalanced navy when I took on the position and it was several years before I could develop the right mix of technologies to rebuild it in the way I wanted, made harder by being at war. One of the reasons I have a preference for basic SoL and Frg designs is that some of the best performing ships I have are in this class rather than more specialised vessels. I do have a mixture, including captured ships, just to see how they perform in comparison and where they do better if I can incorporate some improvements I do. I have found, though, that many improvements do not merit inclusion and others can cause operational issues. So it is possible to build an effective fleet of basic cruisers which can stand up to much higher specification ships if you use the right tactics and play to the strengths of that particular class of ship.

Think the whole point about ship design is that its a case of the right tool for the Job in hand.

- For the English and blue water navies Galleys, Junks, Galleass and Xebecs and ships/boats with oars are a total waste of time and space.
About the only one you might consider is a Royal Barge to get the Monarch down the Thames to open Parliament. But they are really handy for Med & Baltic powers when everything is becalmed and you are desperate to re-supply, send orders or reinforce. They are also really handy on large rivers like the Danube, Don, Yellow River, Rhine, Volga & on Great lakes.

Personally I think naval warfare on Great Lakes and Rivers is like Convoy warfare something we should see a lot more off in Glori..... Ref Papa Clement comments about seaborne Cossacks on the River Amur it should be noted that in this period Cossacks were mostly not the irregular light lancers of the Crimean War or modern English immagination but were mostly infantry who if they owned horses, dismounted to fight with firearms. Well if you are basically a run away serf with a taste for adventure mounted on a nag would you want to go lance to lance with a Winged Hussar? And one of their favourite pass times was to sail down rivers like the Amur, Volga or down the Dniester/Dnieper and out into the black sea and raid the locals, using their "Chaika" boats. (Think Russ Viking raids with muskets)

These Cossack raids on Ottoman ships and Ports round the Black Sea were such a pain to the Ottomans that they triggered several wars with Russia and Poland and had the Sultan building fortresses like Azov to try to block the mouths to the great rivers and entry to the Black Sea to Cossack raiders.

- Heavy frigates like the English 4th rate and their Spanish counterparts tended to be good sea boats and were used for the donkey work of blockades and for the leading/protection of convoys. Something using 24 pounders can really spoil a Corsairs day.......Ok so your Frigata can run away but taking a prize with it ????? They can also be used to basically pad out the numbers of a fleet. But if you are going to build a fleet of such ships because they are quicker & cheaper and you are in a rush to build up your fleet. You might like to take a look at the battle of Cape Passaro (1718) before taking on 1st & 2nd rates in Glori.

- Schooner..........this may upset Papa Clement but when Spain ended its war with France in G7 and a lot of merchant Spanish sailors got returned the Spanish merchant marine replaced much of its lost tonnage with Biscay rigged Schooners, with copper bottoms and stable design. Spanish shipowners & captains argue to their wives that their new pride and joy makes for faster voyages (so less slaves die, cargo goes off, get paid quicker) and lower insurance premiums. But secretly their wives know that the Biscay rigged Schooner is just the best looking merchant ship in the world. Welcome to G7 and the Spanish Enlightenment under good King Charles and a regime devoted to grace & beauty in all things including shipbuilding......and yes its 1st rates do have State Rooms and the Flag ship of the Spanish Navy has an Ebony dance floor which can be laid on its main deck!drunken:

Hay dont knock it.......Spain has lost very few ships as sea to storms and compared to Spain in certain other games its a very stable Monarchy with very low desertion rates.

- Cavalry Galley - still do not get it! With all of those guns were do the horses go? Is it some special Russian thing.......used as a floating harbour defence or river block to cut off Narva or protect Saint Petersburg or other wet sites were you have no dry land to mount guns on? Has any Baltic players used one?

Stuart Bailey wrote:Think the whole point about ship design is that its a case of the right tool for the Job in hand. For the English and blue water navies Galleys, Junks, Galleass and Xebecs and ships/boats with oars are a total waste of time and space.

Doesn't the first sentence contradict the second? I am willing to concede that oared ships are useful in becalmed waters so if campaigning regularly in the Med it is useful to have a few galleys/Xebecs as part of a fleet. At Cape Passaro (which Stuart mentions later), if there was no wind, the Spanish would have had the edge and may well have defeated the English had they chosen to fight. One of the keys to English naval success is that they are flexible and officers are encouraged to develop new ways of using their ships. Yes a few careers were ruined when things didn't go to plan, but taking calculated risks is part of the ethos of the service. Another notable aspect was that by 1715, political interference in the navy had significantly reduced whereas in other countries they were still trying to reform their fleets to beat the English.

Stuart Bailey wrote:About the only one you might consider is a Royal Barge to get the Monarch down the Thames to open Parliament.

Except in G7 where Parliament normally meets in Warwick.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Personally I think naval warfare on Great Lakes and Rivers is like Convoy warfare something we should see a lot more off in Glori.

I agree it would add a different flavour - don't know if many Russian players would want to mount river campaigns against China or Persia, and since Chinese positions aren't played that often, perhaps there just aren't active players to campaign against in this way. Sending gunboats against Indians in the Americas doesn't sound like much of a contest either.

Stuart Bailey wrote: Ref Papa Clement comments about seaborne Cossacks on the River Amur it should be noted that in this period Cossacks were mostly not the irregular light lancers of the Crimean War or modern English imagination but were mostly infantry who if they owned horses, dismounted to fight with firearms. Well if you are basically a run away serf with a taste for adventure mounted on a nag would you want to go lance to lance with a Winged Hussar? And one of their favourite pass times was to sail down rivers like the Amur, Volga or down the Dniester/Dnieper and out into the black sea and raid the locals, using their "Chaika" boats. (Think Russ Viking raids with muskets)

These Cossack raids on Ottoman ships and Ports round the Black Sea were such a pain to the Ottomans that they triggered several wars with Russia and Poland and had the Sultan building fortresses like Azov to try to block the mouths to the great rivers and entry to the Black Sea to Cossack raiders.

It hadn't occurred to me to think of cossacks as having a Viking heritage, but now you mention it, Stuart, it does bring a different dimension to the Russian navy. Perhaps Russian players who are not as advanced in naval terms as JFlower in G7 could start off with the LDGR equivalent of viking ships and gradually move upwards from there? A few victories would surely do wonders for the morale of Russians at sea?

Stuart Bailey wrote:Heavy frigates like the English 4th rate and their Spanish counterparts tended to be good sea boats and were used for the donkey work of blockades and for the leading/protection of convoys. Something using 24 pounders can really spoil a Corsairs day.......Ok so your Frigata can run away but taking a prize with it ????? They can also be used to basically pad out the numbers of a fleet. But if you are going to build a fleet of such ships because they are quicker & cheaper and you are in a rush to build up your fleet you might like to take a look at the battle of Cape Passaro (1718) before taking on 1st & 2nd rates in Glori.

Not entirely convinced by the example of Cape Passaro. England outnumbered the Spanish who had outdated ships. After being told he wouldn't be able to defeat the Spanish by Cardinal Alberoni (advisor to the King of Spain), Admiral Byng took it upon himself to prove him wrong, started a fight which got out of hand and cost the Spanish their entire fleet. Some would say the Spanish asked for it, and they got what they deserved for doubting the Royal Navy. If there is a lesson here for Spain in G7, I hope it will be heeded.

Corsair tactics are surely hit and run - yes, they may have to lose a few prizes, but they can always take more and unless they are English, few would consider it wise to trade broadsides with ships of a superior armament.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Schooner..........this may upset Papa Clement but when Spain ended its war with France in G7 and a lot of merchant Spanish sailors got returned the Spanish merchant marine replaced much of its lost tonnage with Biscay rigged Schooners, with copper bottoms and stable design. Spanish shipowners & captains argue to their wives that their new pride and joy makes for faster voyages (so less slaves die, cargo goes off, get paid quicker) and lower insurance premiums. But secretly their wives know that the Biscay rigged Schooner is just the best looking merchant ship in the world. Welcome to G7 and the Spanish Enlightenment under good King Charles and a regime devoted to grace & beauty in all things including shipbuilding......and yes its 1st rates do have State Rooms and the Flag ship of the Spanish Navy has an Ebony dance floor which can be laid on its main deck!

Hay don't knock it.......Spain has lost very few ships as sea to storms and compared to Spain in certain other games its a very stable Monarchy with very low desertion rates.

Doesn't upset me at all if old liners are replaced with expensive new schooners: given Spain's habit of provocation in G7, it is highly likely that I will be given an excuse to grab a few of these schooners soon and try them out for myself.

I can see the logic for specialist runs and cargo, but judging by the prizes I have taken, Spain's major trading products are wine, sugar, tobacco, textiles - none of which are perishable. I would assume Spain also trades slaves and spices, but slaves have their own special transport ship which is much cheaper than a schooner. In the context of getting best value for smaller nations who do not have unlimited funds or recruits it seems pointless to me to build a ship costing £20K (with enhancements) instead of a simple L (£3,500).

Will certainly look forward to taking a Spanish 1st Rate with state rooms - somehow I doubt the crew will fight that hard after being forced to endure even more cramped conditions just so extra space can be given over to Spanish grandees. As for ebony dance floors on deck - I had always assumed this was a Stuart joke. Ebony is one of the few woods which is heavy enough to sink in water, which will probably make the flagship unstable. The polished surface will also make it hard for any crew to clear for action without falling over (decks do tend to get wet whilst at sea), so by the time an English corvette has sailed close enough to fire at it, the Spanish flagship will be too busy sending out boats to pick up crew members who have slid overboard to fight back. Perhaps this is why I cannot remember any sightings of this flagship in combat against any of my ships? The Spanish may favour external frippery, but to the English, beauty is in a well designed, well built, well crewed and well commanded ship which has an unblemished combat record. A few holes in the woodwork is a badge of honour.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Cavalry Galley - still do not get it! With all of those guns were do the horses go? Is it some special Russian thing.......used as a floating harbour defence or river block to cut off Narva or protect Saint Petersburg or other wet sites were you have no dry land to mount guns on? Has any Baltic players used one?

Perhaps you should build some cavalry galleys and then try to find a use for them? Are there not rivers in America you could sail horses up?

Is it just me being parnoid or is their a move in games of Glori du Roi towards putting the blame on Spain (rather than say the French or Venice)?

In G9 The little queen (?) and her mother is getting called all sorts or nasty names by about half the powers of Europe and is the subject to a Papal investigation just because she looks nothing like Carlos II. Mind you even I think swapping the Queens baby girl for someone else's baby boy and trying to pass him off as the true King of Spain so the French and others can not apply Salic law in Flanders & Milan is a bit dodgy to say the least (some nasty people would even say its High Treason) and is going to get people wondering what else the Government of Spain might have fibbed about.

In G10 one gets the feeling that the new Government in Madrid is probably looking in horror (or glee?) at a three year back log of letters from Spanish Viceroys and most of the capitals of Europe (getting progressively more annoyed with the final ones sounding like Arnie in the PPI adverts) pleading with Madrid to get G10 out of limbo and actually make a decision.

Think it takes a special type player with a really nasty sence of humour to hold a meeting of the Royal Council behind closed doors and then with most of their fellow players almost breathless with the tension...... come out with declaration on banking regulations!

And now in comments on G7 its lets pick on Spanish Naval design! In defence of Spanish Naval design:

- Most of the Spanish ships at fleet at Cape Passaro were new ships of a modern design built just after the WSS. But these 60 gun Navio were built for long range convoy protection duties particular to Spain such as the silver fleets and the Manilia and Mercury fleets. They were not built to take on English Line ships with 70 to 90 cannon! The English also built many ships of this type including the Nonsuch a powerfull 3rd rate of 60 guns which captured both Forbin and Bart in the 1690's in a famous convoy defence operation (basically the French tried to close and board when the wind dropped - allowing the Nonsuch to pound the French frigates).

- It should be noted that after Cape Passaro later classes of Spanish warships inc those captured and used by the Royal Navy were considered as being large for their class, very durable, good sea boats and were noted for how long they lasted in service. Indeed the Royal Navy which used both French and Spanish built ships in the C18 seems to have preferred the Spanish built ones to the French which were often viewed as fast but a bit fragile (They French tending to build very long but narrow ships by standards of period compared to the shorter and fatter English designs with Spanish somewhere in middle).

In G7 Probably pure fluke.....but I like to think that the ability of a Spanish fleet to sail from Cadiz round Cape Horn and onto Puru without picking up a sickness level shows that their is nothing wrong with G7 Spanish ship design or naval charts. While this is no doubt considered an inferior feet of Navigation to the English fleet which sailed to the far east to attack the Dutch it should also be pointed out that the English have lost 15 Lineships and an Admiral to date in the far east.

- If you have ever seen Nelson's silver wine coolers etc (now at Lloyds of London) you will know that a fancy Cabin were senior Captains and Admirals could entertain their Officiers were not limited to Spain and a fancy cabin is nothing compared to the amount of "baggage" taken on campaign by both French and Ottoman generals. If Louis XIV can take his whole Court to the siege of Mons having fold away dance floor in the ships stores for use in Port does not seem to be that much in the way of baggage.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Is it just me being paranoid or is their a move in games of Glori du Roi towards putting the blame on Spain (rather than say the French or Venice)?

I think it is you being paranoid, though I have lost count of the number of posts you have made where everything seems to be the fault of England(Jacobites), France or Venice, so perhaps it is about time Spain was viewed more realistically. The initial crisis at the start of games is the Spanish Succession, after all, not the English Succession, French Succession or Venetian Succession. Of course I don't know much about G9 and was only briefly in G10, but perhaps after having proved to other players what you can do as Spain, players are now wary of giving Spain the kind of chances they did previously?

Stuart Bailey wrote:
And now in comments on G7 its lets pick on Spanish Naval design!

I was not picking on Spanish naval design - simply reminding you that the comments I made were in reply to Jason2's quite accurate observation of the difficulties of building a navy when recruits/money are constraining factors. Spain in G7 seems to have unlimited financial reserves and 60,000 recruits/year so if you want to indulge your fantasies in building ships with masts decorated with silver and hulls with gold leaf, the whole costing £300,000/ship, then feel free to do so.

Stuart Bailey wrote:In defence of Spanish Naval design:

- Most of the Spanish ships at fleet at Cape Passaro were new ships of a modern design built just after the WSS. But these 60 gun Navio were built for long range convoy protection duties particular to Spain such as the silver fleets and the Manilia and Mercury fleets. They were not built to take on English Line ships with 70 to 90 cannon! The English also built many ships of this type including the Nonsuch a powerful 3rd rate of 60 guns which captured both Forbin and Bart in the 1690's in a famous convoy defence operation (basically the French tried to close and board when the wind dropped - allowing the Nonsuch to pound the French frigates).

- It should be noted that after Cape Passaro later classes of Spanish warships inc those captured and used by the Royal Navy were considered as being large for their class, very durable, good sea boats and were noted for how long they lasted in service. Indeed the Royal Navy which used both French and Spanish built ships in the C18 seems to have preferred the Spanish built ones to the French which were often viewed as fast but a bit fragile (They French tending to build very long but narrow ships by standards of period compared to the shorter and fatter English designs with Spanish somewhere in middle).

According to Wikipedia's writeup, the Nonsuch was not engaged in the Battle of Cape Passaro. The English ships were larger manned by 9,000 sailors, but the Spanish had 10,000 sailors and only 124 fewer guns. The size/names and their fate are as follows:

England (Admiral Sir George Byng)

Barfleur 90 (flag of Admiral Sir George Byng, 1st Captain George Saunders, 2nd Captain Richard Lestock)
Shrewsbury 80 (Vice-Admiral Charles Cornwall, Captain John Balchen)
Dorsetshire 80 (Rear-Admiral George Delaval, Captain John Furzer)
Breda 70 (Barrow Harris)
Burford 70 (Charles Vanbrugh)
Captain 70 (Archibald Hamilton)
Essex 70 (Richard Rowzier)
Grafton 70 (Nicholas Haddock)
Kent 70 (Thomas Mathews)
Lenox 70 (Charles Strickland)
Orford 70 (Edward Falkingham)
Royal Oak 70 (Thomas Kempthorne)
Canterbury 60 (George Walton)
Dreadnought 60 (William Haddock)
Dunkirk 60 (Francis Drake)
Montagu 60 (Thomas Beverley)
Rippon 60 (Christopher O'Brien)
Rupert 60 (Arthur Field)
Superb 60 (Streynsham Master)
Rochester 50 (Joseph Winder)
Argyll 50 (Conningsby Norbury)
Charles Galley 44 (Philip Vanbrugh)

Total was 1 of 90 guns, 2 of 80 guns, 9 of 70 guns, 7 of 60 guns, 2 of 50 guns, 1 of 44 guns. The British fleet also comprised 6 smaller vessels – the fireships Garland (Samuel Atkins) and Griffin (Humphrey Orme), the storeship Success (Francis Knighton), the hospital ship Looe (Timothy Splaine), the bomb-ketch Basilisk (John Hubbard) and an unnamed bomb tender.


Spain (Vice-Admiral Don José Antonio de Gaztañeta)

Real San Felipe (El Real) 74 (flag) – Captured by Superbe and Kent, blew up after being towed to Mahon
Principe de Asturias 70 (Rear-Admiral Don Fernando Chacón) – Captured by Breda and Captain
San Juan Bautista 60 (Don Francisco Guerrero) – Escaped to Malta.
San Luis 60 (Rear-Admiral Don Balthasar de Guevara) – Escaped to Malta.
San Pedro 60 (Don Antonio de Arizaga) – Escaped
San Carlos 60 (Prince de Chalois) – Captured by Kent
Real Mazi (El Real) 60 (Rear-Admiral Marquiss de Mari) – Captured by Canterbury's division
San Fernando 60 (Rear-Admiral George Cammock) – Escaped to Malta
Santa Isabel(la) / San Isabel 60 (Don Andrea Reggio) – Captured by Dorsetshire
Santa Rosa 60 (Don Antonio González) – Captured by Orford
Perla de España 54 (Don Gabriel de Alderete) – Escaped to Malta
San Isidro 46 (Don Manuel de Villavicencio) – Captured by Canterbury's division
Hermione 44 (Don Rodrigo de Torres) – Escaped, but then burnt at Messina
Volante 44 (Don Antonio Escudero) – Captured by Montagu and Rupert
Esperanza 46 (Don Juan Maria Delfin) – Burnt to avoid capture
Juno 36 (Don Pedro Moyano) – Captured by Essex
Sorpresa 36 (Don Miguel de Sada, count of Clavijo) – Captured by Canterbury's division
Galera 30 (Don Francisco Álvarez Barreiro) – Escaped
Castilla 30 (Don Francisco de Liaño) – Escaped
Conde de Tolosa 30 (Don José de Goycoechea) – Escaped, but then captured at Messina
Tigre 26 (M Cavaigne) – Captured
Aguila 24 (Don Lucas Masnata) – Captured by Canterbury's division
San Francisco d'Assis 22 – Escaped
San Fernando Menor 20 – Escaped
San Juan Menor 20 (Don Ignacio Valevale) – Escaped, but captured later
Flecha 18 (Don Juan Papagena) – Escaped

Total was one 74-gun, 1 70-gun, 8 60-gun, 1 54-gun, 2 46-gun, 2 44-gun, 2 36-gun, 3 30-gun, one 26-gun, one 24-gun, one 22-gun, two 20-gun, and one 18-gun. The Spanish fleet also included three bomb ships, a fireship, one ordnance store ship, three ordinary store ships, a settee, and seven galleys.


I am quite happy to concede that the Spanish ships were smaller with fewer guns, but the battle occurred after a Spanish advisor (Cardinal Alberoni) unwisely challenged the capabilities of the Royal Navy and duly paid the price.

I don't see why any of this should be controversial when you originally quoted the Battle of Cape Passaro to support your approach to ship design.

Spanish ships were indeed solidly built, but handling suffered. French ships were renowned for superior handling. English ships compromised in both aspects, and of course captured ships were used by all sides where they could be, real life navies not having the unlimited resources of G7 Spain.

[quote="Stuart Bailey" 

- Cavalry Galley - still do not get it!  With all of those guns were do the horses go?  Is it some special Russian thing.......used as a floating harbour defence or river block to cut off Narva or protect Saint Petersburg or other wet sites were you have no dry land to mount guns on?  Has any Baltic players used one? [/quote]

Look its simple Russians do much better with horses than boats, so calling it something that sounds horsey will make Russian Nobles think they are getting command of a Cavalry regiment rather than a boat, plus because its on the river, its easier to recover the bodies when they sink.

Could well be Russian navies  secret weapon.....?

Or it could just be a horse transporter.

After all,ships use camels to traverse shallow harbours, & they aren't really maritime creatures.

So obviously navy jargon isn't supposed to make sense.

After all that trouble with the brass monkey may well need to call the RSPCA

J Flower wrote:

Stuart Bailey wrote: 

- Cavalry Galley - still do not get it!  With all of those guns were do the horses go?  Is it some special Russian thing.......used as a floating harbour defence or river block to cut off Narva or protect Saint Petersburg or other wet sites were you have no dry land to mount guns on?  Has any Baltic players used one?

Look its simple Russians do much better with horses than boats, so calling it something that sounds horsey will make Russian Nobles think they are getting command of a Cavalry regiment rather than a boat, plus because its on the river, its easier to recover the bodies when they sink.

Could well be Russian navies  secret weapon.....?

Or it could just be a horse transporter.

After all,ships use camels to traverse shallow harbours, & they aren't really maritime creatures.

So obviously navy jargon isn't supposed to make sense.

After all that trouble with the brass monkey may well need to call the RSPCA

Sounds clear enough to me - a horse transporter with a name to appeal to Russians.

Just as an exercise to see how the Ratings system for ships fits in with Agema ship names, this comparison might be helpful:

English Rating	Guns	Decks	Agema Equivalent	Comments
1st Rate	100+	3	LSoL	Full 3-deckers did have some height advantage over 2-deckers, but were a larger target.
2nd Rate	90-98	3 (2.1/2)	LSoL	The 2nd rate was only counted as a separate class in the British Navy.  French/Spanish navies counted these as 1st rates.  They were not full 3-deckers as they only had half a 3rd deck which left them somewhat unbalanced with poor handling.
3rd Rate	64-80	2	SoL	By far the most widely built class, 2 decks with better handling/speed.  Different gun configurations were normal so the Agema standardisation on 70-gun is a good compromise.  In the late 18th century, the French navy standardised on 74-gunners which as a design was particularly elegant and well favoured.
4th Rate	46-60	2	HFrg/gFrg	Smaller/shorter/older 2-deckers were still described as SoL until 1756 when any ship with fewer than 50 guns was deemed not strong enough to stand in line of battle.  They did, however, have some use as flagships, hospital ships or for convoy protection.  This class also included some upgunned EiM.
5th Rate	40	2	Frg	The description Frigate covered all 2-decker ships of about 40 guns, though there could be as few as 26 heavier guns with the rest being light guns.
6th Rate	20-30		Corvette	The configuration of those ships with less than 30 guns is much more flexible with some having only a single deck. Ships with under 20 guns were not rated.

The ratings system did evolve as ships increased in size/guns/crew, so this is what it was c.1700.  French/Spanish ratings did not use 2nd rate, so their 2nd rates are the equivalent of British 3rd rates.  Spanish 1st rates tended to have significantly more than 100 guns and I think the largest ships built were Spanish.

4th Rate is the hardest category to match to Agema ships because theoretically DSoL, HFrg and GFrg would all fit into this rating.  This is perhaps unfair because DSoL were designed to be full 2-decked SoL, just of a shallow draught.

In games when I have been building ships I have not stuck closely to the ratings system but have sought simplification and standardisation which were actually hallmarks of the French fleet rather than the English one.  The English navy tended to build ships more frequently than the French and tweaked the designs so there were fewer numbers of each design.  The French tended to prefer a single optimal design which also made it (theoretically) easier for them to sail as a fleet and maintain line of battle without having to worry about slight handling differences of each ship in the fleet.  The 74-gun SoL was increasingly standard after 1756 for both French and English fleets with the more cumbersome 1st/2nd rates being reserved as flagships - they were deemed too expensive to send to the colonies for general service.

Loved Papa Clement posts on Cape Passaro and on the English rating system.

Would point out that if one just looks at the numbers of guns and ships employed at Cape Passaro and in the battles of the Anglo-Dutch wars is will underplay the English advantage. The standard 60 gun ships of the San Fernando class designed and built by Gaztaneta which were the first truely modern Spanish war ships carried twenty four 18 pounders on the first gun deck, twenty six 12 pounders on the second deck and ten small 6 pounders on the forecastle and quarterdeck.

A English 70 or even a 60 gun Line Ship at Cape Passaro might have only a small advantage in number of guns or even none at all. But she would have had a substantial advantage in weight of shot. In the earlier Anglo-Dutch wars which I am interested in the love of the English for big guns and the difference in weight of shot was even more marked. With the Dutch ships mounting and counting large numbers of light guns three pounders and the like as anti crew weapons, while the English did not even bother to count such "pop guns".

During the rest of the C18 Spanish warship design switched between French and English styles but as well as many fast 50 to 60 gun Navios for trade protection (which just do not fit in with Agema at all well) they also built many out and out line ships. Interestingly the largest of them the 130 gun Santisima Trinidad was designed by an Englishman in Havanna Mateo (Matthew) Mullan and was built by his son Ignacio......Matthew married a Spanish lady in Cadiz in 1754 but Ignacio seems to be from an earlier marriage.

In G7 have gone the Spanish drift towards bigger ships and also with a warm fluffy free trading Spain.......which puts out a warm welcome to all sorts of people.....who like the HEIC marry local girls and sign up to the Havanna chamber of commerce. Basically, like the Russia of Peter the Great but with less snow and better wine!

As for the "Cavalry Galley" according to the write up its a two decked barge with no means of propulsion and 40 Cannon (24 pounders) so were the hell do you fit the horses??? Even diddy little Russian horses! Wonder if you got a Galley to tow it into position is it just a totally misnamed (lost in translation from the Russian?) floating gun battery? If towed on to a sand bank so it can not sink and with non of these new fangled sail's and ropes to confuse people could be perfect for the Russian Navy. And is it a 5th rate?

Stuart Bailey wrote:Loved Papa Clement posts on Cape Passaro and on the English rating system.

Thanks Stuart - glad I could help.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Would point out that if one just looks at the numbers of guns and ships employed at Cape Passaro and in the battles of the Anglo-Dutch wars is will underplay the English advantage. The standard 60 gun ships of the San Fernando class designed and built by Gaztaneta which were the first truly modern Spanish war ships carried twenty four 18 pounders on the first gun deck, twenty six 12 pounders on the second deck and ten small 6 pounders on the forecastle and quarterdeck.

A English 70 or even a 60 gun Line Ship at Cape Passaro might have only a small advantage in number of guns or even none at all. But she would have had a substantial advantage in weight of shot. In the earlier Anglo-Dutch wars which I am interested in the love of the English for big guns and the difference in weight of shot was even more marked. With the Dutch ships mounting and counting large numbers of light guns three pounders and the like as anti crew weapons, while the English did not even bother to count such "pop guns".

During the rest of the C18 Spanish warship design switched between French and English styles but as well as many fast 50 to 60 gun Navios for trade protection (which just do not fit in with Agema at all well) they also built many out and out line ships. Interestingly the largest of them the 130 gun Santisima Trinidad was designed by an Englishman in Havanna Mateo (Matthew) Mullan and was built by his son Ignacio......Matthew married a Spanish lady in Cadiz in 1754 but Ignacio seems to be from an earlier marriage.

I agree that considering the number of guns by itself can be a bit misleading. I don't have detailed figures for Spanish warships in the same way I have them for English warships (and some comparisons for French warships), but HMS Grafton (which was typical in 1709) had 26x24pdr on the lower deck, 26x12pdr on the 2nd deck and 18x6pdr above that. So there would have been a slight advantage in numbers of heavier guns. Quite why the Spanish didn't carry a full complement of guns on the lower deck, I don't know, unless it was simply an economy measure. There was a certain logic in Spain building 60-gun ships given her large colonial Empire and the need for dual-use ships to protect convoys. The strategic situation she faced was somewhat different to the English/Dutch/French who fought for control over the Channel. For these 3 nations a large fleet of 70+gun SoL which could sail out to challenge an equivalent armed fleet was essential to keep trade flowing, and it was this which drove not only the increased size of fleets, but their design and tactical use. The disadvantage for Spain, of course, was when faced with a better armed English fleet, they may well come off the worse. They did start building bigger ships by c.1750 and the really huge Spanish SoL like the Santissima Trinidad was a monster when first built in 1769, armed with 30x36pdr, 32x24pdr, 32x12pdr, 18x8pdr. She was subsequently enhanced and in 1805 at Trafalgar when carried 140 guns, she dwarfed Victory at 104 guns. Victory's armament was a mixture of long and short guns, comprising 30x32pdr(long) on the lowest deck, 28x24pdr(long) on the middle deck, 30x12pdr(short) on the 3rd deck, 12x12pdr(short), 2x12pdr(medium), 2x68pdr carronades on the top deck. So the usual situation had by then reversed: the Spanish had the bigger ships with the bigger guns. Unfortunately for them, Santissima Trinidad was more of a liability than a help since her maneuverability was so poor she was more like a floating brick and had to be rescued by smaller SoL.

Unlike Stuart I'm not entirely convinced that simply building upgunned ships with greater weight of shot is necessarily a good thing. We have discussed this extensively in game (yes, despite the rivalry between England and Spain in G7 we do maintain a lively and regular correspondence). In my view the type/style of guns depends on how you intend to fight. Heavier guns give the advantage if they are used to fire at the hull whereas have no real advantage if firing at the rigging. There is also a trade off which we have seen described in game newspapers: the larger the weight of shot, the quicker crews become tired so the rate of fire slows. Since most battles start off firing at long range (where with even excellently drilled crews, the number of shots actually hitting the target is rather low), I have found that it can be counter productive to replace 24pdr with 32pdr. The crew with the 32pdr will have exhausted itself firing ineffectively at long range so that when the distance is closed the quicker-firing and less tired crew with the 24pdr will be able to fire more effectively. A quicker rate of fire does mean they expend more shot and will run down powder more quickly, so it does slightly depend upon circumstance, but my point is that heavier guns are not always the advantage that they seem.

Another aspect to this is handling during battle. The historic English preference was always to fire at the hull, knock out the guns and basically do as much damage to the enemy as possible. The historic French preference was to fire at the rigging to disable which then allowed them to use superior maneuverability to get into position to rake or force the enemy to surrender. French tactics make sense when we realise that the loss of 20% of the rigging would be enough to disable a SoL. If a mast was down then this would put the whole ship out of action until it was cleared. Historically the French were probably right in theory, but their crews were not trained well enough to consistently apply this against the English so history has judged that the English tactics were more effective.

I'm not pretending to have cracked the puzzle, because both alternatives have advantages depending on how they are used. I have tried both in games and both work. I just observe that it is not always the biggest ships with the biggest guns which win. Other factors can also be decisive.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
As for the "Cavalry Galley" according to the write up its a two decked barge with no means of propulsion and 40 Cannon (24 pounders) so were the hell do you fit the horses??? Even diddy little Russian horses! Wonder if you got a Galley to tow it into position is it just a totally misnamed (lost in translation from the Russian?) floating gun battery? If towed on to a sand bank so it can not sink and with non of these new fangled sail's and ropes to confuse people could be perfect for the Russian Navy. And is it a 5th rate?

Looking again at the Cavalry Galley, the description in the rules does seem a bit odd. I had read it as being a type of large galley, but looking more closely at the number of recruits, the whole description doesn't make sense:

"Cavalry Galley: 100 recruits, prefix CG, £4,000 raising, takes 3 months, upkeep £2,000, carries 40x24pdr. 2-decked barges which have to be towed since they have no means of propulsion, available only to Baltic shipbuilders, no excess carrying capacity."

I think there must be some typos there:

A large galley uses 500 recruits, takes 6 months and only carries 6x6pdr. That makes sense compared to an ordinary galley (100 recruits, 2 months, 1x12pdr), and a galley transport (200 recruits, 6 months, 10x12pdr). The way I had originally read it (and I suspect how JFlower had done as well) was that a cavalry galley was a kind of galley transport for horses, but that doesn't tie in with the "no excess carrying capacity" or the 40x24pdr. That kind of armament would be too heavy for a galley and in any case there would not be enough crew to fire all the guns. So even if it was supposed to be a kind of heavily-armed raft to be towed into position by other galleys, would each gun fire once and then take an hour for the exhausted crew to reload?

Perhaps someone can ask Richard to clarify it otherwise I can see players piling in to raise cavalry galleys as cheap river defences?

I think Russia in G7 may well build some soon, just to see what happens after a whole game year with no Russian naval Losses , it may be time to get a bit more adventurous in maritime matters.

I'm glad everyone seems to be enjoying the discussions this has bought out

Just thinking on the very useful rating list Papa gave, in Glory aren't there now 2 LSoL designs? the "usual" 100-gun (so 2nd rate?) and a 120-gun (1st rate?) or am I imaging things?

On the cavalry galleys, a couple of thoughts
1) I wonder if it is a mistranslation in the name? I seem to recall in WW2 the Japanese having a mortar that if you did a literal translation of the name was "knee mortar"...the allies captured some, and based on the name, tried them out and had the operator prop it against their knee...with unpleasant results. The knee reference came from the angle you were supposed to use it at...and prop it against a tree or something similar...
2) Given their lack of propulsion and small crews, I wonder if they are blockships/floating batteries really? so all you need is the gun crew...and possibly given the way they were often anchored you would only need to man half the guns at any one time?

Jason2 wrote:I'm glad everyone seems to be enjoying the discussions this has bought out

Just thinking on the very useful rating list Papa gave, in Glory aren't there now 2 LSoL designs? the "usual" 100-gun (so 2nd rate?) and a 120-gun (1st rate?) or am I imaging things?

I should really try to steer this back onto specifically Chinese ships rather than sharing more western naval design hints, but ...

The table shows ship ratings based on the English system at 1700, when the cut-off for 1st rates was 100 guns. So if a ship had 120 or even 140 guns, it would still be classed as 1st rate.

2nd rates (under the English system) were classed as 1st rates by the French/Spanish who rated anything above 80 guns as 1st rate (their 70-gunners would be classed as 2nd rate under their system (French rating was called 'rangs')).

The number of 1st/2nd rate ships built was historically very small and the design fell out of favour in the 1750s because despite England being at war, the government actually listened to its naval officers. Those officers pointed out that larger ships had serious problems and were simply not as good as slightly smaller vessels. Some of the problems probably seem like common sense to us, but consider that the heaviest guns were on the lower decks. As armament weight increased, heavier timbers and more cross beams were needed to balance the design and allow for the weight of shot. In practice this meant that the lower deck was perilously close to the water line so in all but calm weather, when the lower gunports were opened water came in. Extra weight also meant extra sail was required which again increased weight, and extra crew to man the sails, extra supplies to feed the crew, etc. So there are optimal points which can be found to determine the best size of a ship.

The first time there were formal guidelines for English ships was 1677, when James Stuart (later King James II) was in charge of the Royal Navy. These proved to be well designed ships but William insisted on altering them in 1691 and due in part to political wrangling that shipbuilding program was not completed. When technology had moved on slightly there was another attempt in 1706 to create standard designs for each rating, but the 1st rate ships were not included because the government had already decided they were too expensive so only set standards for 4th-2nd rate ships. The ideal ship was modeled on the best of each class currently in service which tended to favour the 1677 designs over the 1691. I should stress that this was not a very rigorous specification so shipbuilders still had a reasonable amount of latitude. This changed in 1719 which was much more detailed, covering thickness of planks, weight/position of guns, etc, for all classes of ships. The 1st rate standard was modeled on Royal Sovereign which had been rebuilt in 1701 from the previous Royal Sovereign which caught fire in 1697 whilst neglected in dock (some could say that this was deliberate given William's republican tendencies and that the 1697 Royal Sovereign was actually originally laid down in 1637 by King Charles I, rebuilt in 1660 and 1685). Royal Sovereign could therefore be said to have been closer to the 1677 specification than William's 1691 muddle. At the time of the 1719 designs there were only 3x1st Rates in service and 5x2nd Rates.

The next major change in specifications was 1745, but these were not well received at all. The change in specification was because of the War of Jenkins Ear when it took 6 hours of fighting for 3x70-gun English ships to pound the Spanish SoL Princessa into surrender. The Spanish ship was broader, built of solid tropical hardwood and despite losing its mast refused to sink. It was also by size much larger, the equivalent of an English 2nd rate, despite only having 60 guns. The initial response of the English was to insist on bigger guns, but in practice this meant fewer guns until stability issues could be solved. So 70-gun SoL ended up with 64-guns. 1st rate SoL were still out of favour, but at least the episode stimulated a period of greater experimentation to build larger ships more capable of supporting heavier guns.

This might seem odd, but the consensus doctrine of the early 1700s in England/France/UDP was the concept of 'Fleet in Being', i.e. simply by having a large fleet, you could achieve your strategic objective without necessarily having to use it. So although you could build 1st/2nd rates for prestige, they were rarely sent out of port and when they were, they were unpopular. In most conditions the lower deck couldn't be opened so it was possible for a 1st rate to be outgunned by a 3rd rate. Handling was also a major problem which again the 3rd rates didn't suffer from. So the mid-1750s captains were trying to devise ways of breaking the line of battle which required better handling rather than bigger ships, so England stopped building 1st/2nd rates until they had solved the design issues and were happy that the extra expense actually had a benefit. They did build a few in the Napoleonic Wars, but ... and this really says it all ... in 1796, the enemy was sighted off Spithead. The Channel fleet raised sail and although the 3rd rates managed to clear dock, the 4x2nd Rates crashed into each other. They just didn't have the sailing qualities required. At Trafalgar the 2nd rates had to steer on a different course to keep up with the rest of the fleet, which of course didn't matter that much in that particular battle, but back in 1700 Captains could be disciplined for failing to stick to line of battle.

Not every ship design works and it is probable that 1st/2nd rates lasted as long as they did because they spent most of their lives laid up in harbour - too expensive to use, too unstable, and the officers who pushed for them to be built had probably left the service. If this is the kind of fleet you want to raise then be my guest, but it seems a bit like raising an army which never fights.

The question is really about scale. A 2nd rate handled worse than a 1st rate because it was slightly shorter with the guns crammed in. So if you think of the frigate as a basic design, a well proportioned corvette would look like a miniature Frg; a well proportioned SoL would look like a large Frg because the proportions would be in the same ratios. Where this leaves the 100/120/140 gun SoL for game purposes depends on the other inventions your navy has which can compensate for the extra weight/length/power. Perhaps to get a 140-gun LSoL to handle properly you need all the other naval inventions packed on the ship as well, otherwise it will struggle. I suspect that the 120-gun LSoL is a better ship than either the 100-gun LSoL or 140-gun LSoL. The 100-gun would be a ship which pushed the basic 70-gun design to its limits (as the 140-gun pushed the 120-gun design to its limits). I should stress this is only a theory - it has yet to best tested in game to the best of my knowledge and it would need a serious commitment to shipbuilding (and a lot of money) to produce a fleet of 120-gun or 140-gun LSoL. 9x70-gun SoL use the same number of recruits as 5x120-gunners and if given the choice, I suggest 9SoL are much more useful and flexible than 5LSoL.

My earlier comments about upgrading 24pdr to 32pdr also apply to those daft enough to put 42pdr on ships ... pity the poor half-starved sailors on rotten biscuits who had to load the guns.

Jason2 wrote:
On the cavalry galleys, a couple of thoughts:
1) I wonder if it is a mistranslation in the name? I seem to recall in WW2 the Japanese having a mortar that if you did a literal translation of the name was "knee mortar"...the allies captured some, and based on the name, tried them out and had the operator prop it against their knee...with unpleasant results. The knee reference came from the angle you were supposed to use it at...and prop it against a tree or something similar...
2) Given their lack of propulsion and small crews, I wonder if they are blockships/floating batteries really? so all you need is the gun crew...and possibly given the way they were often anchored you would only need to man half the guns at any one time?

Could be. There is clearly some mistake, though. It could be 4x24pdr instead of 40? That would make it more of a variant on a ketch than a galley which would make more sense given the number of recruits. Still doesn't explain the 2 decks, though.

There was only sufficient crew to fire a broadside from one side of the ship at a time (the assumption was that you would not fight ships on both sides), so there is still no way 100 crew could fire 40x24pdr.

Tipping my hat to the title of the thread - If anyone is going to play the Wako - one of the favourite ships for Chinese Pirates was the Foochow pole chunk. For players thinking of having their maiden guard pole them along the pearl river it is not a large punt but a specialist timber transport. Purely for reasons of their trade they seem to have been longer and thinner than the average Junk & therefore faster.

Good news in that you could run away from trouble at sea, bad news when returning from your broker and favourite noodle shop and some git has pinched your ship!

Ref the Cavalry Galley my theory is that they are be used either as a specialist bit of siege kit - basically like the floating mole the Duke of Parma used to block Dutch ships sailing up the river to re-supply Antwerp during his siege of the place. Or they can be used as a type of boom to stop nasty people raiding your ports.

Since 100 crew would be pushed to man even one side of twenty 24 pounders - my theory is that they are basically a harbour watch to polish the guns and make sure no one pinches the Czars cannon for scrap matel and in action they would be reinforced by the Army fusiliers in order to load and fire the guns at a reasonable rate. Think as a matter of Russian (or Prussian?) pride someone should build and use a Cavalry Galley. Just think of the humiliation for your foes if they lost a Line Ship to a barge!

Ref people daft enough to mount 42 pounders on ships that would actually include the English Fleets of the Anglo-Dutch wars. In the 1665-1667 battles when the Lord Admiral was one James Stuart, all of the major ships were equiped with demi-cannon (32 pounders) even down to ships as small as the the 54 Gun (190 crew) Leopard which still had 22 demi-cannon. While seven major ships were equiped with the cannon-of-seven (42 pounders). The 1660's 80 Gun Victory for instance had 20 Cannon of seven (42 pounders) 6 24 pounders, 26 Calverins (18 pounders) and 28 demi-calverins (9 pounders).

The huge weight of fire-power carried by early English lineships left them with a very low freeboard (gap between the water and the lower gun ports) and in certain conditions the English had to close their lower gun ports while the Dutch could keep theirs in action. But the English Admirals who only expected to fight in summer and in the fairly calm waters of the Channel & the North Sea (with perhaps the odd trip to the even calmer waters of the Baltic or the Med) kept on pilling on the guns even if it messed up the ships trim. In some cases going as far as reduceing the weight of the masts etc to save weight so more guns could be mounted.

As the emphasis switched from meeting the Dutch in the North Sea to operations against the French in the Atlantic so the need for more free board grew and the huge weight of shot carried by English warships reduced (slowly and under protest).

Spanish ships like the 60 gun San Fernando class designed for long distance voyages across the Atlantic naturally had lighter guns and a high free board which made them good escorts but even less suitable for joining in the line of battle than say a English 60 gunner. In G7 ships of this size have spent most of their time on convoy escort, mapping and hunting Blackbeard (still not found him).

Line ships are based on the larger Princesa (may have only had sixty guns in action due to accident? but class was effectively a 70 gunner) only captured off Cape Finisterre after a six hour battle with three English 70 gunners even though she had lost one of her topmasts in an early accident and the 114 gun Real Felipe who at Cape Sicii twice resisted assaults by four English ships. Ok so she finished the battle so badly mauled that she had to be towed into Cartagena by a Frigate but the fact that she survived at all really impressed and worried the English Admirals. Bit like the G7 Spanish Fleet the French trapped against a lee Norfolk shore and the Cadiz Squadron which engaged the English Grand Fleet in attempt (which failed badly) in attempt to lure them onto the shore defences of Cadiz.

Did have hopes that the G7 Spanish Fleet would get to rest its design's against a fleet which does not have "crack crews".......but not a over gunned Russian Barge.....thank you very much. And no Junks please we are Spanish

The Pole Junks are nice sure you know, the National Maritime Museum has a good example of a model of one in its collection (fairly sure photos are available online) while the Uni of Bristol has a collection of historic photographs of China online and have some of Pole Junks from the start of 20th C. It's not a design I have asked Richard about having in-game as so far not seen the need for it. Perhaps if I develop a timber industry in the future though maybe they would really just be a junk version of the fast liner (which I do use in-game).

There are so many quirky Chinese ship designs, I could get carried away but I do try to only ask Richard about introducing new ones that I feel I need. Which reminds me, I should talk to Richard about Ming/Qing canal dredging technology as it's become clear researching spoon dredgers isn't going to achieve anything quickly. It is one of those frustrating things that I no longer have easy access to Joseph Needham's works, I do prefer to always give Richard the evidence when I come up with something new to the game and frankly usually when I come u with something I want to add, he is the main English-language source.

I have once or twice thought about seeing if I can "rediscover" in-game the Song technology for adding iron armour plating to warships (other than the Kobukson). I suspect weight might be an issue plus I think the Song just used it on their river navy ships.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Tipping my hat to the title of the thread - If anyone is going to play the Wako - one of the favourite ships for Chinese Pirates was the Foochow pole chunk. For players thinking of having their maiden guard pole them along the pearl river it is not a large punt but a specialist timber transport. Purely for reasons of their trade they seem to have been longer and thinner than the average Junk & therefore faster.

Jason2 wrote:The Pole Junks are nice sure you know, the National Maritime Museum has a good example of a model of one in its collection (fairly sure photos are available online) while the Uni of Bristol has a collection of historic photographs of China online and have some of Pole Junks from the start of 20th C. It's not a design I have asked Richard about having in-game as so far not seen the need for it. Perhaps if I develop a timber industry in the future though maybe they would really just be a junk version of the fast liner (which I do use in-game).

I like the sound of Foochow pole chunk (or pole junk?). Presumably carrying the cargo on the outside meant that they could make a quick getaway by cutting the ropes and letting the cargo sink?

I do hope Lord Fong can overcome his reticence and ask Richard to introduce them. It does seem from this discussion that China lacks a small faster craft which as well as being used for piracy could also be used to protect against pirates?

Jason2 wrote:I should talk to Richard about Ming/Qing canal dredging technology as it's become clear researching spoon dredgers isn't going to achieve anything quickly.

It does surprise me that China doesn't have dredging technology ... how else was the Grand Canal etc built and maintained for the 1500 years before 1700 without dredgers? I have never understood why dredgers should be a restricted technology since it is only really a lever with a bucket on - very low tech. Perhaps instead of limiting who can build dredgers and treating them as a ship, it could be assumed that every nation has some form of dredger, just not very efficient ones. The cost of a level of canals could therefore be adjusted to reflect available technology and each nation would be able to research better dredging techniques, therefore bringing down the cost of a level of canals. That seems fairer all round.

Perhaps as a research project you could try paddle dredgers - Chinese ships can have paddle wheels and fundamentally they are doing the same thing to propel the ship through water as dredgers are trying to do with silt. Or do Chinese positions start with such a research handicap that you can't hope to research any improvements and may as well not bother?

Of course that doesn't solve the problem of dredging harbours, but again at the risk of appearing to be overly innovative, since all harbours had basic loading equipment, they could be modified to grapple the masts of sunken ships at least to the point where masts could be cut off so the harbour re-opens. It is more difficult for harbours which silt up due to river sediment, but these geographical constraints should really be made clear to players at the outset or through the gazetteer.

Jason2 wrote:I have once or twice thought about seeing if I can "rediscover" in-game the Song technology for adding iron armour plating to warships (other than the Kobukson). I suspect weight might be an issue plus I think the Song just used it on their river navy ships.

That might not be as daft as it sounds. I did do some experimenting on this, though have not yet referred the matter on to the King James Academy of Wacky Ideas for the official Agema input. I reasoned that since we can have copper bottomed ships, weight itself is not as important as distribution. If the weight is kept towards the bottom of the ship then it should be possible to add some kind of plating or other strengthening. What I wasn't sure about was how useful it would be. In terms of weight, a square yard of 1 inch thick plate would weigh 335lb (iron), 420lb (copper), 532lb (lead) - these 3 being the most commonly available metals which could be used in 1700. Put that in context with each cannon ball being 24pdr and you see that by reducing the ammunition carrying capacity alone you could have at least some basic plating on a ship specifically designed for it.

So what is stopping me? Basically I think there are better ways of achieving the same end. It depends on the purpose. The weak points of the sides of a ship are its gunports, so it may make sense to put iron round the gunports. This should not unbalance the ship or bring a major weight disadvantage. The purpose would not just be to keep the guns operational for longer, but to minimise casualties because the primary source of casualties was from splinters. I have not actually tried this in game, but theoretically it should work.

When the academy is finally up and running there is another idea I've had which I want to trial first. That should give me a huge advantage against huge Spanish ships, but if you don't mind I'll keep that one confidential until I know whether it works or not.

Ref keeping Chinese canals in good condition.......rather than dredgers could you not use sluice's and labour teams lead by trained engineers?

Basically drain the water out of a section of the canal and then a 5000 stout lads with shovels (or 4967 stout lads and 33 Jesuits with shovels) dig out all the silt and spread it on local farmers fields. Some how seems a more "Chinese" solution than importing dredgers.

Think this type of solution should be on offer to all players who can build canals and want to keep them in good condition. This would still however make Anglo-Dutch Spoon Dredgers a valuable labour and cost saving which many would still like to obtain:

ie 5,000 labourers @ £3 year = 5,000 recruits @ £15,000 per year

or 20 spoon dredgers = 200 recruits, £10,000 capital cost & £1,000 per year upkeep

But perhaps for Lord Fong etc it could cause problems with the Honourable Guild of dunnykin & dredger diggers if he puts honest Chinese diggers out of work by importing foreign ways!

Ref Chinese ships with armour I think main use was to protect the timbers burning arrows, rockets and other inflamables and protect crew against arrows and other light anti personal weapons. The Kobukson seems very much a design aimed at stopping the Japanese tactic of clearing the decks of Korean ships with arrows and musket fire and then boarding with Samurai swordsmen.

But like armour for men, horses and elephants on land it would be of little protection against powerful gun powder weapons. Plus you would have the problem of repairs, holes in timber can be wadded and repaired even at Sea. Holes in metal tend to need heat use and dry docks.

Papa Clement wrote:

I like the sound of Foochow pole chunk (or pole junk?).  Presumably carrying the cargo on the outside meant that they could make a quick getaway by cutting the ropes and letting the cargo sink?

I do hope Lord Fong can overcome his reticence and ask Richard to introduce them.  It does seem from this discussion that China lacks a small faster craft which as well as being used for piracy could also be used to protect against pirates?

I think the carrying of the cargo on the outside was originally because they felt it made the timber cargo easier to load and unload but yes I suspect your idea was an additional benefit  I think they will turn up eventually in G9 but they're not a priority just yet

Papa Clement wrote:

Jason2 wrote:I should talk to Richard about Ming/Qing canal dredging technology as it's become clear researching spoon dredgers isn't going to achieve anything quickly.

It does surprise me that China doesn't have dredging technology ... how else was the Grand Canal etc built and maintained for the 1500 years before 1700 without dredgers?  I have never understood why dredgers should be a restricted technology since it is only really a lever with a bucket on - very low tech.  Perhaps instead of limiting who can build dredgers and treating them as a ship, it could be assumed that every nation has some form of dredger, just not very efficient ones.  The cost of a level of canals could therefore be adjusted to reflect available technology and each nation would be able to research better dredging techniques, therefore bringing down the cost of a level of canals.  That seems fairer all round.

Perhaps as a research project you could try paddle dredgers - Chinese ships can have paddle wheels and fundamentally they are doing the same thing to propel the ship through water as dredgers are trying to do with silt.  Or do Chinese positions start with such a research handicap that you can't hope to research any improvements and may as well not bother?

Of course that doesn't solve the problem of dredging harbours, but again at the risk of appearing to be overly innovative, since all harbours had basic loading equipment, they could be modified to grapple the masts of sunken ships at least to the point where masts could be cut off so the harbour re-opens.  It is more difficult for harbours which silt up due to river sediment, but these geographical constraints should really be made clear to players at the outset or through the gazetteer.

The Chinese did have a number of methods for desilting their canals, not "just" a dredger along the lines of a spoon dredger but also a couple of rather interesting gadgets that were towed by barges and either scrapped the silt from the bottom of the canal or rolled along the bottom and kept the silt moving to stop it from settling.  They also developed an engineering solution that used additional embankments at the bottom of the canal to increase the speed of the current in such a way that actually stopped the silt from settling in the first place.  I think it only worked on certain stretches of canals but still seems pretty ingenious.

I had originally just planned to develop spoon dredgers and thought that it wouldn't take too long as, like you said, the Chinese did have dredgers from long before the Glory period.  But it has become clear that plan isn't working.  An issue had been the authoritative sources for these technologies, at least in English are few and not easily accessible so, to be frank, I was hoping to avoid having to spend the time finding them to give to Richard to (hopefully) get them into the game fairly quickly.  So will need to give in and do that now but I have heard of something that I just need to get hold of that might be useful and be an easy resource to give to Richard.

On the limited access to dredgers at the start, I have always suspected it was a bit of an easy in-game way to limit the growth of canals.  Glory is a bit before the canal building mania so if you limit who has the technology to maintain them, you can (in theory) discourage players from building them straight away?

Papa Clement wrote:

Jason2 wrote:I have once or twice thought about seeing if I can "rediscover" in-game the Song technology for adding iron armour plating to warships (other than the Kobukson).  I suspect weight might be an issue plus I think the Song just used it on their river navy ships.  

That might not be as daft as it sounds.  I did do some experimenting on this, though have not yet referred the matter on to the King James Academy of Wacky Ideas for the official Agema input.  I reasoned that since we can have copper bottomed ships, weight itself is not as important as distribution.  If the weight is kept towards the bottom of the ship then it should be possible to add some kind of plating or other strengthening.  What I wasn't sure about was how useful it would be.  In terms of weight, a square yard of 1 inch thick plate would weigh 335lb (iron), 420lb (copper), 532lb (lead) - these 3 being the most commonly available metals which could be used in 1700.  Put that in context with each cannon ball being 24pdr and you see that by reducing the ammunition carrying capacity alone you could have at least some basic plating on a ship specifically designed for it.

So what is stopping me?  Basically I think there are better ways of achieving the same end.  It depends on the purpose.  The weak points of the sides of a ship are its gunports, so it may make sense to put iron round the gunports.  This should not unbalance the ship or bring a major weight disadvantage.  The purpose would not just be to keep the guns operational for longer, but to minimise casualties because the primary source of casualties was from splinters.  I have not actually tried this in game, but theoretically it should work.

When the academy is finally up and running there is another idea I've had which I want to trial first.  That should give me a huge advantage against huge Spanish ships, but if you don't mind I'll keep that one confidential until I know whether it works or not.

That's interesting, thanks,  I hadn't considered the comparison to coppering.  Will have to look into it once I have a spare order

Stuart Bailey wrote:Ref the Cavalry Galley my theory is that they are be used either as a specialist bit of siege kit - basically like the floating mole the Duke of Parma used to block Dutch ships sailing up the river to re-supply Antwerp during his siege of the place. Or they can be used as a type of boom to stop nasty people raiding your ports.

Since 100 crew would be pushed to man even one side of twenty 24 pounders - my theory is that they are basically a harbour watch to polish the guns and make sure no one pinches the Czars cannon for scrap metal and in action they would be reinforced by the Army fusiliers in order to load and fire the guns at a reasonable rate. Think as a matter of Russian (or Prussian?) pride someone should build and use a Cavalry Galley. Just think of the humiliation for your foes if they lost a Line Ship to a barge!

Looks like I can agree with Stuart on this point - the description doesn't make sense, but someone should try and build one anyway.

Of course tactically they would still have a problem: in the time it would take army fusiliers to get onto the cavalry galley to fire the guns, the (Russian) SoL would have fired and sunk it. Even I don't expect English barges to be able to defeat SoL.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
Ref people daft enough to mount 42 pounders on ships that would actually include the English Fleets of the Anglo-Dutch wars. In the 1665-1667 battles when the Lord Admiral was one James Stuart, all of the major ships were equiped with demi-cannon (32 pounders) even down to ships as small as the the 54 Gun (190 crew) Leopard which still had 22 demi-cannon. While seven major ships were equiped with the cannon-of-seven (42 pounders). The 1660's 80 Gun Victory for instance had 20 Cannon of seven (42 pounders) 6 24 pounders, 26 Calverins (18 pounders) and 28 demi-calverins (9 pounders).

The huge weight of fire-power carried by early English lineships left them with a very low freeboard (gap between the water and the lower gun ports) and in certain conditions the English had to close their lower gun ports while the Dutch could keep theirs in action. But the English Admirals who only expected to fight in summer and in the fairly calm waters of the Channel & the North Sea (with perhaps the odd trip to the even calmer waters of the Baltic or the Med) kept on pilling on the guns even if it messed up the ships trim. In some cases going as far as reducing the weight of the masts etc to save weight so more guns could be mounted.

As the emphasis switched from meeting the Dutch in the North Sea to operations against the French in the Atlantic so the need for more free board grew and the huge weight of shot carried by English warships reduced (slowly and under protest).

I never said the English didn't make mistakes in ship design and it should be remembered that the 1660s were still early days - all sides had to work out how to use the firepower of the ships they had and the appropriate tactics. I find the battles of the Anglo-Dutch wars interesting because of the problems they discovered. These include signalling (every admiral seemed to want to rewrite the signals book for security, which meant that the crews didn't have time to memorize the new signals in time for the battle), co-operation (there was still a preference to break out of the line and fight ship to ship instead of holding the line and fighting as a disciplined fleet) and support (even when they could get into line - not always possible given the variation of design and addition of extra guns - getting the squadrons to support each other so they were not outnumbered at critical moments, often proved beyond both sides). It is amazing how often the excuse of "couldn't see the signal", or "misunderstandings" occurred, followed by recriminations and political wranglings after the battle. The French navy was by far the worst for this, with officers refusing to obey the orders given by those of a lower social rank even though they had a higher naval rank. Anglo-French co-operation against the Dutch fleets was also a major problem: neither party really trusted the other to fight or if they did, that they would fight with any conviction. It wasn't really until the Anglo-French wars (1690s) that both English and French navies realised that they couldn't afford to indulge in squabbling and had to be more disciplined if they were to defeat each other. The French learned this lesson first and had the initial advantage, but thankfully this brought the English to their senses and after defeating the French a few times, King Louis focused more on the army than the navy.

I still think that upgunning ships from 24pdr to 32pdr or larger does have its disadvantages.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Spanish ships like the 60 gun San Fernando class designed for long distance voyages across the Atlantic naturally had lighter guns and a high free board which made them good escorts but even less suitable for joining in the line of battle than say a English 60 gunner. In G7 ships of this size have spent most of their time on convoy escort, mapping and hunting Blackbeard (still not found him).

That's probably a fair point, though I am amazed you haven't found Blackbeard yet - perhaps you need to check your (HWIC/Portobello Co./Trieste-Americas Co., etc, etc) list of employees for one called Barbanegra and you'll probably find he is on the payroll of one of your factions! That's certainly the working assumption of English intelligence.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
Line ships are based on the larger Princesa (may have only had sixty guns in action due to accident? but class was effectively a 70 gunner) only captured off Cape Finisterre after a six hour battle with three English 70 gunners even though she had lost one of her topmasts in an early accident and the 114 gun Real Felipe who at Cape Sicii twice resisted assaults by four English ships. Ok so she finished the battle so badly mauled that she had to be towed into Cartagena by a Frigate but the fact that she survived at all really impressed and worried the English Admirals. Bit like the G7 Spanish Fleet the French trapped against a lee Norfolk shore and the Cadiz Squadron which engaged the English Grand Fleet in attempt (which failed badly) in attempt to lure them onto the shore defences of Cadiz.

Did have hopes that the G7 Spanish Fleet would get to test its design's against a fleet which does not have "crack crews".......but not a over gunned Russian Barge.....thank you very much. And no Junks please we are Spanish.

Completely accept the point about Princesa which I made earlier. Naval design stagnates when there is no impetus for improvement. The French and Spanish both sought to improve their ships 1720-50 whereas the English just codified previous achievements until it was clear they had more work to do.

The Spanish navy in G7 is far from useless - can't comment about French ships in G7 as I haven't captured any of them, but you have more improvements on your ships than I do on mine and you have standardised on 100-gun LSoL and use EiM for transports, rather than my normal 70-gun SoL, 1 squadron of which defeated your attempt to break out of Cadiz, and these were not even fully drilled! And they are certainly not all elite. A previous player had raised rather too many elite SoL which was costing me a fortune in upkeep for no obvious benefit, but those numbers have now significantly reduced (in part after the dishonourable Dutch attack on Dumbarton where they were repairing in dry dock). I am now operating a very simple system: each ship must earn elite status by exceptional feats of seamanship. Once they get the required number of combat points (which get harder to achieve), they can then be trained elite. Such exceptional feats do depend on the quality of the ship and the difficulty of the task, weather and strategic considerations, so if undrilled corvettes went out in a storm to defeat excellently drilled Spanish patrols, that would be exceptional, whereas if I sent excellently drilled Frg out to do the same, it probably wouldn't be. Officers and crews now know that if they want to be elite, they must behave as elite ships should not just once, but many times. And it should be obvious that officers who won't try to perform difficult orders don't get the necessary points. I don't raise any elite ships now - they all have to earn it, which after all is how it should be in the most enlightened rule of King James III in G7. It is the closest I have come up with to mirroring the ethos of the Royal Navy in game terms.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Ref keeping Chinese canals in good condition.......rather than dredgers could you not use sluice's and labour teams lead by trained engineers?

Basically drain the water out of a section of the canal and then a 5000 stout lads with shovels (or 4967 stout lads and 33 Jesuits with shovels) dig out all the silt and spread it on local farmers fields.  Some how seems a more "Chinese" solution than importing dredgers.

Think this type of solution should be on offer to all players who can build canals and want to keep them in good condition.  This would still however make Anglo-Dutch Spoon Dredgers a valuable labour and cost saving which many would still like to obtain:

ie 5,000 labourers @ £3 year = 5,000 recruits @ £15,000 per year

or 20 spoon dredgers = 200 recruits, £10,000 capital cost & £1,000 per year upkeep

But perhaps for Lord Fong etc it could cause problems with the Honourable Guild of dunnykin & dredger diggers if he puts honest Chinese diggers out of work by importing foreign ways!

Ref Chinese ships with armour I think main use was to protect the timbers burning arrows, rockets and other inflamables and protect crew against arrows and other light anti personal weapons.  The Kobukson seems very much a design aimed at stopping the Japanese tactic of clearing the decks of Korean ships with arrows and musket fire and then boarding with Samurai swordsmen.

But like armour for men, horses and elephants on land it would be of little protection against powerful gun powder weapons.  Plus you would have the problem of repairs, holes in timber can be wadded and repaired even at Sea.  Holes in metal tend to need heat use and dry docks.  

The Chinese also use manpower historically to do the dredging but I think the manpower would be excessive. If we go by your example above as a model, I will need 1,000 dredgers to maintain Kwantung's canals...so if 5,000 labourers are needed to do the work of 20 dredgers, I would need 250,000 labourers...and that is just for Kwantung Province.

Good points on the armour issues. I might still do the research eventually and maybe build a trial vessel just out of interest. Given the Chinese tendency to use fleets as a way of showing off to neighbours and tributary nations, eventually it could be worth building a very small number of ships for that purpose and put up with the various inconveniences while leaving the technology off the "real" warships