How Close Is Close Enough?

Following on from a couple of other posts on the forum, what is the consensus regarding substitution of ship types and how close do you want them to match?

Some obviously just require a flag change after being captured but what about other substitutions?

Without the larger range from the likes of Langton and waiting possibly years from Ares to obtain a ship you might want, What is your tolerance level?

Say if Ares does not make a particular ship, is it really ok if you want for example the US Essex to just take a similar gunned model (say a Concorde)
and reflag with an American one and maybe a paint touch up for variation?

Another example, to take a Hebe class French frigate and reflag as either the Spanish Amfritite 1796 or the British Blanche after its capture in 1805.

How close at this scale matters?

Then we come to the recent matter of size differences of the current Spanish release.

The bigger the ship the more the differences stand out. Should we grab other ships like a Royal Sovereign or Orient and reflag as Spanish for anything between the Rayo and Santa Ana? Is anyone going to count the gunports while you are gaming?

Should I concentrate my 3d printing efforts only on conversion pieces when I start, things like just a replacement stern rather than a whole hull. With the current hulls being a couple of mm shorter in width it makes a cut and replace a bit harder without filling and sculpting.

Same for a Bellona as a replacement Nepomuceno, where do you draw the line?

I have seven more ships coming which will bring me to around 55 in total and the whole reason I started was so I didn't have to paint the majority if I chose not to.

I could literally play from the box. With my 2400th scale ships substitutions were easier, all the navy packs you bought contained the same range of sculpted ships but you had to paint them all before you played (that was my line in the sand so to speak).

Should I just pick a range of ships and go generic like the smaller scale. The upcoming releases should fill some nice gaps (if they are to scale).
I can handle the base inserts and ship cards no problem for any ship I need.

What about other nations, Could I select from the current ranges for Russian or others and reflag/repaint? At the end of the day would you really care or notice?

If it wasn't for the painting side of it and the lack of time I have for it I'd be considering ditching the entire collection and switching to Langton.

Personally, I like there to be a documented engineering relationship, like how almost all Thomas Slade's 74's and some of his 64's were based on the 1744 French 74 Invincible--the Large 74's were straight copies (Triumph/Valiant) or cut-and-stretch derivatives (Kent/Ajax), the Commons that started from 1757 Dublin and stretched all the way to the 1770s Cullodens and later repeat Edgar/Elizabeths were slightly-scaled-down versions, and in turn the St. Albans 64s were a scale-down of Bellona (EDDIT for clarity, and the basis of the SGN104 sculpt), the first "mass production" iteration on Dublin. Worcester 64 may have been an improved St. Albans. Similarly, almost all French 18-pounder 38- to 44-gun frigates were variations on the Hebe design, the British Ledas were copies and the Livelies were very similar but not quite identical.

If you search a series of threads I did called "Stretching Sculpts" you'll find plenty of discussion there--at the very least I want a "stretch" to look generally similar and be of fairly close size (within about 2-3mm up or down on model waterline length).

That seems a very rational attitude to the problem of doing the easy conversions DB, never mind the possible way for Ares to extend their line(no pun intended) without having recourse to complete re-sculpts. Just a few tweaks with one of the masters should do it.
Rob.

The only real difference I have noted when comparing British built copies (or even repaired captured ships) to original French is the reworked stern. It could be fixed by switching stern galleries with a Langton one. They fit really well on the Sails of glory ships, but require painting.

I find that the tolerance is very much a personal choice and you would get as many answers as there are active members here.

Mine is that I prefer to have a visual difference to show if a ship differs if it has different stats. This means that an 80 gun Tonnant-class that would have a slightly superior firepower and perhaps lower veer would be nice to differentiate from the Téméraires, but not really that important.

The British from French of the same ship or a copy only need a re-flag but I think it's fun modelling and therefore I would like to swap stern galleries on a Leda compared to a Hebe. I haven't yet though.

Edit: I did rebuild a Hebe into my Swedish frigate of the Bellona-class though. It's actually a little long by a few mm but I find it looks good and different enough. Bligh rebuilt a Constitution into a East India Company large frigate as well. It makes the ship stand out and you can tell there's a difference on the table.

I took your advice about altering the stern gallery on that one Jonas.
I think your use of the Langton sterns is excellent and as you say can transform a ship very easily. On the Nottingham I also took out the Mizzen mast, extended the poop deck to end just forrard of the mast and then replaced it. The whole of that build was really down to your inspiration.
When I get the time I am going to invest in a few more Langton bits and peices to alter some more ships.
Rob.

Do Langton sell parts separately?

Yes they do Hugh.
If you want anything in particular, I can get it for you with my next order and send it on.
Rob.

When I rebuilt my HMS Venus I extended the poop, and lifted and shortened the mizzen, but I made the stern gallery from plasticard. I didn't know that Langton makes that very same frigate, but as a Russian ship. It was captured by them.

Yes I used plasticard with the raised poop of the Nottingham and also to put a higher bulwarks along the aft part of the ship Jonas. It also made a deckhouse.
Rob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bligh

Yes they do Hugh.
If you want anything in particular, I can get it for you with my next order and send it on.
Rob.

---

I might just take you up on that offer!

For a quick-and-dirty Stopgap British 64, use the stats of the British SGN109s and the mini of SGN104.

Also, given how tightly the French Marine Ministry controlled ship specs, basically designers were allowed only minor tweaks other than cosmetics... well, let's take it sculpt by sculpt.
--SGN101 will work for any French 12-pounder frigate with a 26-gun main battery up to 36.
--SGN102 doesn't NEED any pass-fors with the sheer number of Temeraires built, but might be OK for other late-1770s-to-early-1780s French 74s (I note this with reservations).
--SGN103 will pass for most 12-pound British 32-36-gunners from 1757 Niger on. Also, the nine-pounder Enterprise 28's look very similar to my eye.
--SGN104 in addition to the majority of Slade 74s and the six 64s mentioned above, can also pass for Bately's Canada and Williams's Royal Oak/Alfred classes--RN practice was to have each of the two Surveyors draw up competing designs to similar basic specs. EDIT: Also, as design is based on French 1744 Invincible, might work for 1740s-early 1750s French 74s with substitution of SGN102 gun and hull stats.
--SGN105 will work for almost any French "fregate de 28x18" (main battery 28 eighteen-pounders), along with the British Lively and Leda classes.
--While SGN106 is about ten guns heavier, it will also pass for the two cut-down Commerce de Paris 110's.
--SGN107... I'm not sure about the Swans.
--SGN108 and 201, and their not-quite-right for ANYTHING models, have been discussed to death.
--If you want to play AWI, with some watering-down on stats Constitution can pass for SCS South Carolina, and stats unchanged is probably fairly similar to early British superfrigate Newcastle. (Competitor Leander would take much more work on the model, and Newcastle would still need a little to be "right".)
--SGN109 is your quintessential Generic French 64 built during/after the Seven Years' War era.
--SGN110 can probably pass for most British 50's of the period, I'd need to check gun-deck layouts before commenting on 44-gun two-deckers like Serapis.
--SGN111 were it not in dire need of anabolic steroids could also pass for the two Purisima Concepcion 64's, including HMS San Josef. Need some gun-port rework, but I think it could be done.
--SGN112, while based on a rebuilt 64's blueprints after upgunning into a 74, might work for most of the "Gautier System" 74s.
--Wave 4 Ardent sculpt combined with SGN109 stats will represent a 1750-and-before Generic French 64 well too, because Ardent was based on the 1740s French Lys class.
--Wave 4 Bonhomme Richard will pass for most French East Indiamen of about 900 tons and larger, though some minor surgery may be needed.
--Wave 4 Mahonesa is your basic Generic Spanish Light Frigate of its day.
--Wave 4 Tonnant/Bucentaure is basically your standard French/British 80.

Thank you for that very lucid and comprehensive scrutiny of the state of play DB.
I'm sure that if the sculpts are still available it will give us all many hours of fun tickling up those ships to make them look different from each other.
Rob.

Some minor edits added to prior post. Let's just say I don't think the boardware can handle the sheer amount of data in my Reprint Chart... even Excel quails at it sometimes. I'll play around, see what I can get to work and start a new thread showing what has been done and what I believe can be done--or revisit and update the old Stretching Sculpts series, though I will not prepare threads for SGN111 and SGN112. Those two are the sculpt equivalent to me of what a Stalinist would call "Unpersons"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diamondback

I will not prepare threads for SGN111 and SGN112. Those two are the sculpt equivalent to me of what a Stalinist would call "Unpersons"...

---

A bit like Captain Duff's attitude to Triplanes then.


Attachment 28187

Sorry, must have been that predictive script again.

Rob.

It's just that they are completely out-of-scale to the rest of the game... even the Tripe is generally close. But when you say "we're doing 1/1200" then say "couldn't do the detail we wanted, moving to 1/1000" and then go BACK to 1/1200...

Is that the actual reason for the anomalies then DB?
Rob.

Unsure... but we do know that MINI-gildos and Bahama scale out much closer to 1/1200 than 1/1000, or even 1/1100.

Remember, SGN was first announced at 1/1200, then moved to 1/1000 early in prototyping...

Oh yes, I remember only too well, and the furore it created amongst the players who already had Fleets at 1/1200
Rob.

Thanks DB for your responses. I have looked through all your stretching posts and am now pondering it all.

I happened to google Gautier System and found out the top result is a wardrobe system.
The same search did lead me to the following sites with lots of info and links:

http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/...autier-system/
http://www.slideshare.net/egtorralba...volucin-tcnica
http://www.slideshare.net/carlosmeta...odelo-17517404

Some impressive research and builds. Looks like they don't have scale issues.
Going to take me a while to go through it all - even longer to pick out the english bits through the spanish.

Superb find Alan.
The pictures alone are an education in themselves.
I never realized in all the photos of full sized ships I have done just how many details I missed out until I looked at this.
Rob.

Alan, the 74's shaded in light-purple here are the Gautiers:
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:..._Espa%C3%B1ola

San Juan Nepomuceno
San Pascual Bailon
San Francisco de Asis
San Lorenzo
San Agustin (uprated to 80)
1769 Santo Domingo
San Pedro Apostol
San Pablo

64-gun relatives:
San Pedro de Alcantara
Bahama (upgraded to 74)

We need more information before I can comment about:
San Luis (80)
San Julian
San Isidro
San Francisco de Paula
San Jose
San Rafael (80)
San Miguel
San Eugenio (80)
San Ramon (60, possible third San Pedro Alcantara?)
San Felipe Apostol (68, possible SPA upgun?)
1781 Santo Domingo (68, see SFA)

I know that Gautier designs were used at Ferrol, Habana and Guarnizo--I'm not sure whose designs were used at Cartagena or Pasajes, and I seem to remember Cartagena liking to "do their own thing." I've grouped 80s with the 74s because of how the Montanes design made the jump with changes being mostly minor bow rework and ballasting.

The contemporary Cartagena 74/80s:
1765 San Genaro
Santa Isabel
San Vicente Ferrer (80)
San Nicolas (80)
San Joaquin
San Juan Bautista
Angel de la Guarda
San Damaso
San Justo

What a superbly useful chart DB.
Thanks yet again.
Rob.

I also just edited my prior to extract relevant ship names and notes.

Cheers DB for the info, I am looking at what to do with the Spanish.
Also am I correct in saying the Portland also is suffering from the scale slip, it looks so to me anyway.
I am currently deciding whether to get a couple more Brit three deckers, possibly the Royal Sov sculpt to use as HMS Temeraire and either Dreadnought or Nepture.
Also looking to see if I can get HMS Africa from the new 64 sculpts.

Chris, Africa was an Inflexible--what Ares MEANT to sculpt except their modeler grabbed the wrong drawing. In 1/1000 they are, according to Roberto, extremely hard to tell apart. Most of the names on the Wave 4 SKU will really be Inflexibles--I personally threw a fit and made them throw in a few Ardent names to match the sculpt because, as I put it, "the customer base will have some VERY awkward questions for you if you don't and I won't blame them for having them."

The Intrepids are similarly difficult to tell apart from the other two at this scale, so one sculpt seems to pretty much cover the supermajority of 1740s-50s French and 1770s-on British 64s.

Also, Inflexible is a scale-down from the Albion-class 74--so trade a Wave 4 and SGN104 sculpt on their bases and you have a St. Albans or Worcester 64 (three built of each) and one of the five Albions.

More mistakes inbound for wave 4?

Not if they value having me contributing to the heavy-lifting on historical research, or as a customer.

Let me make my position crystal clear: After all the work that I PERSONALLY did pulling Wave 4 together (for which I would note that I have neither asked nor received financial recompense; to me this was my "audition" trying to give them a reason to hire me even part-time), they Eff This One Up and I am GONE. Somebody will be getting some killer deals in the Marketplaces from liquidating my collection, and I will wash my hands of Ares and all that comes with it.

Edit for clarity: Minor glitches I can tolerate (if it's the only glitch in the set I'll even tolerate something at SGN108 level), but by Eff Up I mean another MINI-gildos.

I for one have played the Battered Wife Game too many times with too many other game publishers and political parties to "come crawling back again" any more... I just don't have the patience or the energy, especially with two aging relatives approaching retirement and intending to dump all of keeping their household operating on MY shoulders.

This is exactly why I'v been taking the view that the models are playing pieces and mere representations of the actual ships rather than something akin to fine scale models. I can see this being an ongoing If I want that I'll buy Langton and GHQ (oh wait, I do already). Ships too long, ships too short, planks for wings, inaccurate strut arrangements, trenches, bizarre colour schemes, rescaled fighters, inaccurate profiles, the list will go on I'm sure regardless of how much effort and angst is expended here and elsewhere. Life is too short to get stressed about it especially when there are serious family issues to content with (a trait at you and I also share unfortunately). We have provided the guidance they've asked for, what they do with it and how they interpret it is really down to them. At the end of the day I suspect the vast majority of players who really - really - care about those issues are the few who actively post on this forum and the aerodrome on these issues. Apart from postings here I can't recall seeing much, if any discussion and discord elsewhere on internet forums. I get the feeling that the majority of players are happy to have ready assembled and painted ships that provide passable representations of typical ships of the period for use with a fun and engaging game that they can get into in just a few minutes (although it would be nice if they could get a bit more consistent on sizes). I think the bigger issue and the real one to worry about is the lack of consistent availability of starter sets for Sails and Wings (but thats just me - happy to be told I'm out of touch if tats the case)

David, I would agree that lack of Starter and "icon" product are hamstringing them--but I can only fight the enemy I can see, I don't think they'd take my lobbying for "Fresh batch of Starters every year, maybe new ship names and colors every 2-3 years" as being within the realm of a mere Historical Consultant's portfolio. Similar re the idea of a run of WGF101-104 and either WGS Series 1 or the FW190/P-51 series every year... and we've discussed the consistently blown deadlines elsewhere, I gave 'em the best way to guarantee improvement and it doesn't appear to have been adopted--sloppy delivery scheduling completely screwed an old friend into closing his game shop that was heavily dependent on Ares product after WOTC abandoned miniatures.

Again thanks DB for the info, I'll wait for wave4 then for my 64s.
Hoping they do not hash it

Cartagena's San Justo is credited to Gautier too.

San Juan Nepomuceno
San Pascual Bailon
San Francisco de Asis
San Lorenzo
San Agustin (uprated to 80)
1769 Santo Domingo
San Pedro Apostol
San Pablo
San Eugenio (80)
San Joaquin
San Justo

64-gun possible relatives:
San Pedro de Alcantara
Bahama (upgraded to 74)
San Felipe Apostol (68, possible SPA upgun?)

We need more information before I can comment about:
San Luis (80)
San Julian
San Isidro
San Francisco de Paula
San Jose
San Rafael (80)
San Miguel
*San Ramon (60, possible third San Pedro Alcantara?)
1781 Santo Domingo (68, see SFA)
*Not found at ThreeDecks

I know that Gautier designs were used at Ferrol, Habana and Guarnizo--I'm not sure whose designs were used at Cartagena or Pasajes, and I seem to remember Cartagena liking to "do their own thing." I've grouped 80s with the 74s because of how the Montanes design made the jump with changes being mostly minor bow rework and ballasting.

The contemporary Cartagena 74/80s:
1765 San Genaro
Santa Isabel (not Cartagena, a Jorge Juan at Bilbao)
San Vicente Ferrer (80; Cartgena, Eduardo Bryant)
San Nicolas (80; Cartagena, Bryant)
San Juan Bautista
Angel de la Guarda
San Damaso

What I would be inclined to do if I spoke Spanish (had some classes, but so rusty I'd probably TRY to say "hello" and end up saying "go **** yourself") would be to contact Miguel Godoy ( http://www.miguelgodoy.es ), the master modelmaker for Madrid's naval museum, and ask him for his thoughts about what he would be comfortable passing post-rebuild Bahama, Meregildos and Mahonesa off as at this small scale.

I once again endorse what Chris has said DB. Thanks for your invaluable input.

I would be most upset if your contretemps with Ares meant us losing your presence on the site.
We would all be the poorer for that, and I would personally feel that I had lost a wise friend and mentor.
Let us hope that it does not come to that conclusion.
Rob.

Let me state no less unequivocally than my prior that nobody wants to see that scenario come to pass less than I do.

Apologies if I seem to have a short fuse, I've just been recently lied to to my face, stabbed in the back and buddy-f***ed by not just former long-term business partners but people I once considered friends too.

No worries DB we understand how the excrement hits the fan and reflects upon us all at times.
That is why I enjoy the Anchorage and the Drome so much.
A chance to escape from the real world for a while.
Even I find that a few G&ts are not always enough to smooth the angry beast.
Rob.

I'm working up a spreadsheet on Spanish Thirds as I type, which will hopefully help until someone with Spanish-language skills can reach out to Sr. Godoy.

I got Mrs B to try her Spanish on that publication, but the problem comes when she gets to technical bits which are not included in metrication conversational Spanish, and the fact that she last did it almost 50 years ago.
Rob.

Bligh, email sent with spreadsheet for your perusal while I try to figure out adapting it for presentation here.

Damn, I wish I could copy-paste Excel spreadsheets like text...

I have had that thought on many occasions, when a very carefully drawn up table is scrambled by posting here.
What do you want me to look for specifically in your post to me?
Rob.

Rob, that was mostly just sharing the "rough cut", though if you have any thought about reducing the total data-barfage they'd be appreciated. :)