18th Century Warship remains

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2012/aug/16/experts-identify-18th-century-warship

From the end of our period but still interesting I think!

was there much actual change in Warship design in the Period? I know some ships were in service ( with Rebuilds) for many decades, which would indicate lillte technological innovation.

Tactically the Line Ahead approach everyone adopted may have been a reason htat there was no great need to change.

I don't think there was a great deal of actual change, at least in the larger vessels.

A good book to read on the subject is "The Line of Battle" from Conways History of the ship. It covers the period 1650-1840. The Author is a Brian Lavery, in the intro said to be the Curator at The National Maritime Museum Greenwich, so Jason maybe you know him?

Only by reputation but he has an amazingly good one. Knows his subject inside out and supposed to also be very personable and approachable.

I suppose most players are land animals, seeing navies only as a way of moving armies around.

Navies are an important part of the system but the senior service seems to come off second best to the army.

I must admit, despite suffering from sea sickness quite easily, I tend to like to build up navies in-game esp if I can find a way of recreating a historical navy. Just about any position I play is a naval power (even if a very minor one!)

Try creating something bigger than a yacht club with one of the central German positions let , it is an interesting challenge.

J Flower wrote:Try creating something bigger than a yacht club with one of the central German positions let , it is an interesting challenge.

Hey I like a challenge

But it is difficult to build up a navy it seems if you're not one of the major naval powers at the outset, even as Russia I guess if playing with the historical determination to do so. In my first game position as Denmark, the small recruit base was a limiting factor so for a nation with a long coastline and maritime heritage (and colonial empire) it always seemed the navy was just too small.

Mind you, as China and literally building a navy up from nothing, it is also quite a challenge. The fact I have twice now managed to develop in only a few years Chinese fleets of a decent size and standard is something I am quite proud of.

I am perhaps not so concerned about the size of the navy I build up. If I am playing a nation that historically had a navy, I like to aim to recreate it (same applies to the army but perhaps not so much) and if its a nation that didn't really have one (if any navy!) I do like to try and give it a 'realistic' fleet, to match its ability (for lack of a better word). So perhaps for a smaller Germanic nation I might simply aim to have a coastal navy with a symbolic 'battle squadron' of a few SoLs (though I would also put the resources if I could into making them the 'best of the best') whilst for somewhere like China, its trying to get a 100 SoL-type fleet.

The Imperial Navy of Russia in Game 3 is a massive size, I was trying to copy Peters ambitions of the time

Try Prussia I started in Game with 3 SOL, 5 FRG, 2 Liners. Still hte old honour rules didn't exactly see Prussia as a major maritime power anyway.

Kingmaker-i do recall you did build up the fleet very successfully I guess that Russia is a bit like China in that regard, it does have the ability if it can find the way. I think the issue in some ways (other than finding a suitable port in the Baltic) is finding an ally to teach you to build the larger vessels (other than Peter personally doing it).

Jason-that's not much, is it? And not too much use against Sweden or Denmark!

Mind you, when Kwantung, I started out with 10 sloops and as Manchuria I didn't have a single ship (not even a liner) at the start, which given the sizes of both provinces coastlines was a challenge!

I had the English, Spanish and Dutch all help.

I assume everyone are aware that Peter (the real one) had a burning desire to get Russia a real navy but only the vaguest idea about how do design and build warships.

One of the main reasons for his 2 year trip to Europe was to hire ship builders, officers and other people that would be useful for Russia on the road to super power status.

It has always irritated me that Peter in various films and books (and in the Glory of Kings as well) have been portrayed as some kind of superman capable of designing and supervising construction of major warships from scratch.

He was capable of building small sailing boats by himself but anything above that is just fantasy, probably dreamed up in the Kremlin many years later.

THe Swedes knew what they where up against and constantly complained to the UDP that they where fazing Dutch built ships with Dutch crew and Dutch cannon etc when fighting the Russians and they wanted this trade of weapons to Russia to stop.

Yup that's what I did I built a large navy but used the other nations to assist me. The Grand Fleet of Russia was over 100 SOL strong and had many support FRG etc.

I also had many other fleets of varying size around my ports and empire abroad and at home. I can say the nearest rival was possibly the Persian with the UK next.

I know from personal experience that the French in game 3 must have 300 SOL at least, perhaps many more.

Ardagor wrote:I know from personal experience that the French in game 3 must have 300 SOL at least, perhaps many more.

You're joking? Dear god, I thought I was doing well when I got Denmark in G3 to 40 SoLs!!!!!!

Game 3 has 'suffered' from inflation in the military. Fleets are pretty large for everyone. Even the papacy has a large fleet.

J Flower wrote:Try Prussia I started in Game with 3 SOL, 5 FRG, 2 Liners. Still hte old honour rules didn't exactly see Prussia as a major maritime power anyway.

Just starting work on another Germanic yacht club

Did manage to use the Fleet to defeat the Swedes.

Admitted it involved Grenadiers in Ships boats attacking them when they were anchored in harbour. Storms had damaged the Swedes, SL was high there ,were talks of mutiny.......

However the Prussian Yacht club celebrated a victory..... on both ships

Main changes to ships in Period seems to have been in size & weight of armament, Construction techniques seem to have remained the same. french designs were better than English, French went for Quality, English for quantity.

Agree with much TRKL has to say, French decided to go for longer ships British for sorter, although Britisch ships also suffered from overloading with cannon. Britain also Required ships & crews that could stay at sea for longer periods, this came about after they decided to post permenant patrols outside French ports.

In small ships France once again was in a better position, the Privateers from Dunkirk, were quite a shock to the RN.

Strict aderence to the line ahead strategy, made battles indecisive, but played into the hands of the British hands as The better seamanship usually enabled them to gain hte wind gauge & dictate the battle to a certain extent.

Britain did also standardise on certain designs, also on ordanance, there were a number of alterations to these over the years, similar measures were also undertaken in France.

The capture of French ships did inspire the British to grater thigs.. When Anson took charge of the construction, he was able to influence the choice of Surveyors of the fleet. The Resulting 74 Gunner design remained standard for almost 20 years.

The 80 Gunner favoured by the French was esentially too big for the methods of the time, they tended to sag at the ends over time causing reduced performance.

The Dutch were constrained by their Harbours depth, so stuck with the smaller 64s' Although they did build a few 74s as Flagships. Many other Nations including those in the Baltic folowed the British lead. In the Baltic Sweden did also build a few 62s' I suppose room to manouver was a priority.

Ref C17 & C18 Naval design people by be interested in a couple of books which I have enjoyed recently:

1) Trafalgar and the Spanish Navy by John D Harbron - Title is somewhat misleading since the book is about the C18 Bourbon Navy rather than Trafalgar. Interestingly is shows the Spanish to be influenced by both English & French Designs/theories and following something of a middle way.

Harbron puts the great Spanish defeat at Cape Passaro down to Ships designed to protect long distance trade fleets being forced to fight heavily gunned English Lineships. Only 2 of Gaztaneta navios had 70 guns while 11 of Byng had 70 or more.

At Trafalgar the Spanish had on average larger and better ships than their English opponents but yellow fever had savaged the Spanish ports in the years leading up to the battle so Spanish crews with a high percentage of soldiers and other landlubbers suffered at the hands of Nelsons veterans.

2) The Four Days Battle of 1666 by Frank L Fox - dispite its title the box covers the whole of the Second Anglo Dutch Naval War and covers such topics as Ship design - oddly restoration English Warships were massively gunned compared to both earlier and later warships. Mostly because Charles II shipbuilers were happy to accept very little freeboard compared to later fleets expecting to fight the French in the Atlantic.
Also the actions (inaction) of the French Fleet. Not clear if Louis betrayed his Dutch allies in 1666 but the French Fleet in 1666 was very weak and Louis clearly did not wish to risk it. It also had the vital job of dropping off a Princess to Portugal first so its possible that in true Gloire style the Dutch were let down due to earlier orders taking longer to action than intended.

I would also not read this book if you are a Dutch player who is easily worried. The Stuarts lost this war in military terms because they ran out of money the Dutch almost lost the war due to lack of naval supplies and lost the peace because of their fear of Louis XIV intentions.