Agema Publications

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Agema Publications

A forum for the disscussion of the Play by Mail games from Agema Publications


4 posters

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

    Papa Clement
    Papa Clement
    King
    King


    Number of posts : 681
    Reputation : 10
    Registration date : 2019-02-10

    The Chinese Navy-why I build it, views on it and the modern world - Page 3 Empty Re: The Chinese Navy-why I build it, views on it and the modern world

    Post by Papa Clement Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:11 pm

    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!

    Jason2 wrote: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?

    I can see the point about serious canal building being outside the LGDR period, but there are plenty of examples of large scale canals serving particular waterways outside of England/UDP, e.g. the French Canal du Midi, and the Chinese Grand Canal. So for France and China to be denied the dredger technology to maintain canals is an historical anomaly. As Venice (in the early days of G9) I did start to repair the Corinth Canal which is another obvious improvement - nations have been digging canals since the earliest times and must have had the technology to maintain them. At the end of the day a canal is simply a ditch so there would have been low tech solutions either involving manpower (as Stuart suggests), or simple machine type technologies which could be applied. Since I've never played UDP (and am never likely to) I can't be sure, but I imagine that the first turn of every new LGDR game, the UDP player is inundated with requests for dredgers.

    Perhaps another compromise would be to allow every player to build canals up to level C, but only get higher if they have dredger technology? It would be assumed that poor relief could cover maintenance of canals as well as roads?

    Just occurs ... question for Jason2 - since all Chinese numbers are big, do you make a payment for poor relief in Kwantung and how do government running costs compare to western positions? Are the provinces expected to keep the Emperor in the style to which he would like to be accustomed?


    Jason2
    Jason2
    King
    King


    Number of posts : 673
    Location : Aberdeenshire
    Reputation : 12
    Registration date : 2019-06-16

    The Chinese Navy-why I build it, views on it and the modern world - Page 3 Empty Re: The Chinese Navy-why I build it, views on it and the modern world

    Post by Jason2 Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:19 pm

    On cavalry galleries, I did a bit of digging into the various floating batteries the Danes used in the 1801 Battle of Copenhagen.

    One of the things I found was this list giving the Danish ships involved, it is in Danish, not sure if the Google translate version will appear in this link or not http://www.grifo.dk/slaegt_db.php?id=1113
    Included are cavalry barges, cavalry prams, blockships, floating battery and it give their cannon and crew sizes among other details.
    Floating Battery No 1 has 20 cannon and 129 crew, the prams and barges all vary but seem to have roughly 10 crew for every cannon, while the blockshios vary even more and have 6 to 10 crew per cannon.
    Papa Clement
    Papa Clement
    King
    King


    Number of posts : 681
    Reputation : 10
    Registration date : 2019-02-10

    The Chinese Navy-why I build it, views on it and the modern world - Page 3 Empty Re: The Chinese Navy-why I build it, views on it and the modern world

    Post by Papa Clement Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:28 pm

    Jason2 wrote: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 Smile  I think they will turn up eventually in G9 but they're not a priority just yet.

    Just seemed a fairly obvious benefit - effectively making a triple-hulled ship to enhance bulk cargo carrying capacity.


    Stuart Bailey wrote: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.

    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.  

    Putting copper round the gun ports would provide limited protection from splinters, but wouldn't have the same strength as iron. I was a bit surprised that copper weighs more than cast iron, but I should have remembered my chemistry. You could probably get the thickness down of the copper relatively easily, but not necessarily that of the iron using C18 technology unless you give it to blacksmiths and they pound it out manually which would be very expensive given the quantity required.

    Stuart's point about repairing at sea is valid, but you could have a liner or SoL converted to be a workshop ship accompanying the fleet which would provide the necessary floating workshop. If the idea was adopted then the tactical response would be to fight at closer range, however I guess the crews of the armoured ship would have higher morale than those on the other ship, at least at the start of any engagement. I suspect Stuart is right that armour plating (Kobukson style) would be of minimal use at close range, but armour over wood takes a lot of the power out of longer range shot - it should hit the iron and possibly even bend it, but it wouldn't then have the power to get through the wood on the inside. It would be a bit like a blunt arrow trying to penetrate not just plate mail, but also the leather underneath it. You really need a pointed arrow which would mean changing the shape of the cannon ball.

    Reading the description, the armour on the Kobukson was probably an anti-boarding device so I agree with Stuart on this point.
    Papa Clement
    Papa Clement
    King
    King


    Number of posts : 681
    Reputation : 10
    Registration date : 2019-02-10

    The Chinese Navy-why I build it, views on it and the modern world - Page 3 Empty Re: The Chinese Navy-why I build it, views on it and the modern world

    Post by Papa Clement Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:34 pm

    Jason2 wrote:On cavalry galleries, I did a bit of digging into the various floating batteries the Danes used in the 1801 Battle of Copenhagen.

    One of the things I found was this list giving the Danish ships involved, it is in Danish, not sure if the Google translate version will appear in this link or not http://www.grifo.dk/slaegt_db.php?id=1113
    Included are cavalry barges, cavalry prams, blockships, floating battery and it give their cannon and crew sizes among other details.
    Floating Battery No 1 has 20 cannon and 129 crew, the prams and barges all vary but seem to have roughly 10 crew for every cannon, while the blockships vary even more and have 6 to 10 crew per cannon.

    Looks Danish to me, but I can see the numbers which matter.

    I'm sure Stuart can correct me, but I think the number of crew required to successfully operate a cannon increased with the callibre/complexity of the weapon. The minimum number (I think) is 4. Admittedly on a battery, it would be possible to share the role of aimer with multiple guns, but rate of fire would probably reduce. I just can't see how 100 crew could man 40 guns. Jason2's Danish examples of 6-10 crew/cannon would seem to be more reasonable, especially if we factor in getting more ammunition/powder from the other deck.
    Jason2
    Jason2
    King
    King


    Number of posts : 673
    Location : Aberdeenshire
    Reputation : 12
    Registration date : 2019-06-16

    The Chinese Navy-why I build it, views on it and the modern world - Page 3 Empty Re: The Chinese Navy-why I build it, views on it and the modern world

    Post by Jason2 Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:41 pm

    Papa Clement wrote:I can see the point about serious canal building being outside the LGDR period, but there are plenty of examples of large scale canals serving particular waterways outside of England/UDP, e.g. the French Canal du Midi, and the Chinese Grand Canal.  So for France and China to be denied the dredger technology to maintain canals is an historical anomaly.  As Venice (in the early days of G9) I did start to repair the Corinth Canal which is another obvious improvement - nations have been digging canals since the earliest times and must have had the technology to maintain them.   At the end of the day a canal is simply a ditch so there would have been low tech solutions either involving manpower (as Stuart suggests), or simple machine type technologies which could be applied.  Since I've never played UDP (and am never likely to) I can't be sure, but I imagine that the first turn of every new LGDR game, the UDP player is inunted with requests for dredgers.

    Perhaps another compromise would be to allow every player to build canals up to level C, but only get higher if they have dredger technology?  It would be assumed that poor relief could cover maintenance of canals as well as roads?

    Just occurs ... question for Jason2 - since all Chinese numbers are big, do you make a payment for poor relief in Kwantung and how do government running costs compare to western positions?  Are the provinces expected to keep the Emperor in the style to which he would like to be accustomed?



    With China, I sometimes think some of these exceptions are more down to the fact a lot of the rules were written before Chinese positions were in play, and so few have played Chinese positions, that it hasn't come up as an issue before. I mean, G9 is in fact the first time I have had the income to afford to build canals in a Chinese position (at £10 million per level, am sure you can understand I often have had other expenditure priorities!)

    AS to the Chinese questions, I do do poor relief and at the same level as I would for a European position and in G9 at least Kwantung is currently doing well financially so that cost is affordable. Running costs are a bit more difficult to compare but if i were to do them as a percentage of overall expenditure, and using Scotland as a comparison, I would say they are about 75% of those of a Scottish position...of course that is a limited comparison and in Kwantung I do have an efficient civil service now which reduces costs.
    The positions aren't required to pay for the Emperor-or at least we are not told we are paying for him. Who knows, maybe there is a hidden formula in the game somewhere that says "X% of a provinces potential income goes to the Emperor before the rest goes to the governors" but if there is, it's not shown in-game in any way so players wouldn't be aware of it.
    Papa Clement
    Papa Clement
    King
    King


    Number of posts : 681
    Reputation : 10
    Registration date : 2019-02-10

    The Chinese Navy-why I build it, views on it and the modern world - Page 3 Empty Re: The Chinese Navy-why I build it, views on it and the modern world

    Post by Papa Clement Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:52 pm

    Jason2 wrote:With China, I sometimes think some of these exceptions are more down to the fact a lot of the rules were written before Chinese positions were in play, and so few have played Chinese positions, that it hasn't come up as an issue before. I mean, G9 is in fact the first time I have had the income to afford to build canals in a Chinese position (at £10 million per level, am sure you can understand I often have had other expenditure priorities!)

    Fair comment - does underline a point I made ages ago about having a separate rule supplement for Chinese/Far East positions - perhaps some of these anomalies could be ironed out and then it would encourage more players to try Chinese positions.

    £10M/level of canals sounds a bit extreme to me, but it is a big area and as you've pointed out before all Chinese numbers are big. I suppose the figures for mountainous Chinese provinces would be even higher. Spending £10M to build canals before you have the dredgers to maintain them is a huge risk.

    Jason2 wrote:As to the Chinese questions, I do do poor relief and at the same level as I would for a European position and in G9 at least Kwantung is currently doing well financially so that cost is affordable. Running costs are a bit more difficult to compare but if i were to do them as a percentage of overall expenditure, and using Scotland as a comparison, I would say they are about 75% of those of a Scottish position...of course that is a limited comparison and in Kwantung I do have an efficient civil service now which reduces costs.

    The positions aren't required to pay for the Emperor-or at least we are not told we are paying for him. Who knows, maybe there is a hidden formula in the game somewhere that says "X% of a provinces potential income goes to the Emperor before the rest goes to the governors" but if there is, it's not shown in-game in any way so players wouldn't be aware of it.

    I hadn't really thought much about it before thinking about canal maintenance, but perhaps in the absence of dredgers, you could use poor relief to pay for canal maintenance. I would imagine that relatively speaking there were more peasants in China than in European societies so as a proportion of population the cost would be higher. I suppose Kwantung could have a larger merchant class than some other provinces given your foreign trade so perhaps that would reduce it compared to other provinces.

    When I have compared government costs across positions it has been as a proportion of population, but England's basic government costs are less than twice that of Venice so it does seem that larger countries have proportionately lower costs. If I keep the ratios the same then Kwantung's government costs should be c.£3M. If they are much below this then you must be doing really well with your efficient civil service, if they are way above then perhaps this is the levy for the Emperor?

    Sponsored content


    The Chinese Navy-why I build it, views on it and the modern world - Page 3 Empty Re: The Chinese Navy-why I build it, views on it and the modern world

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:29 pm