View Full Version : 2017 Captains Cabin
Union Jack
01-11-2017, 02:48
A place to discus all aspects of e the new 2017 Solo Campaign.
UJ
Are we going to carry over experience from our captains from last year?
Union Jack
01-11-2017, 07:00
You will have to ask Bos'n of that.
Nightmoss
01-11-2017, 09:37
http://sailsofglory.org/showthread.php?4372-2017-Solo-Campaign-Rules
If you have ranks and abilities earned in prior campaigns then they will carry over. Ability points carry over too.
So the Admiralty have given me a choice between the HMS Unite and the HMS Concorde. Both are fine ships, the only significant difference between them is the placement of the fore and aft guns.
I am only allowed one of them, I am inclined towards choosing the larger forward gun arc.
Thoughts? Tactical analysis?
Are we going to carry over experience from our captains from last year?
If you know the ability scores for your captain, then send it to me and I'll include them. There is a space for that, I just don't know what they are. :question:
You will have to ask Bos'n of that.
And I'll answer. :thumbsup:
http://sailsofglory.org/showthread.php?4372-2017-Solo-Campaign-Rules
If you have Ability Points, decorations, and promotions, then send them to me and I'll include them. I just don't know what they are.
:cannonboom:.........................:takecover:
I got some reinforcements! Shhh don't tell the wife!
27342
I got some reinforcements! Shhh don't tell the wife!
27342
Hey wife, you've a deep-sea sailor on your hands. :smack::girlieangry:
Union Jack
01-15-2017, 16:51
Hey wife, you've a deep-sea sailor on your hands. :smack::girlieangry:
Hey wife, you've a deep-fried-sea sailor on your hands!
You're in the frying pan then Neil.
I'm usually in the fire.:shock:
Rob.
im using an Amazon class frigate for the LOM campaign. What chance do you think I would have if I ran it against one of the new fourth rate ships in the feb mission? is it doable? Or will it be like taking on a 3rd?
Only one way to find out Hugh.
I was in trepidation when I took on a 74 with my 44 last year, but it worked out OK. If you can beat a larger ship the rewards are much greater both prize money and feel good factor. If you look like losing you can run away and he won't catch you. Win win situation. You can't guarantee that if you take on another Frigate.
Rob.
im using an Amazon class frigate for the LOM campaign. What chance do you think I would have if I ran it against one of the new fourth rate ships in the feb mission? is it doable? Or will it be like taking on a 3rd?
Murad Reis, :Arrrr:Admiral of the Tripolitania Navy, some say pirate of the Barbary Coast, sails in a schooner with a burden of 2. He makes his living by taking on what he knows he has a good chance of beating. When he confronts a ship with a burden of 4 he will use his speed and the fact that schooners can sail closer to the wind to divert or avoid his advicary. He would never try to capture or sink a frigate that large. He might win such an engagement, but the likelihood of profit is too low. :moneygone:
But, go ahead and try. I would love to read the AAR. :clap:
The secret is to get in close without being hit first, and then rake the enemy double shotted, and with first time of fire bonus. They never recover in the following battle of attrition unless they are very lucky.
Sounds easy, but it don't work often.:dazed:
Rob.
The secret is to get in close without being hit first, and then rake the enemy double shotted, and with first time of fire bonus. They never recover in the following battle of attrition unless they are very lucky.
Sounds easy, but it don't work often.:dazed:
Rob.
That's why Murad doesn't use that trick unless he has to. You live longer if you play when the odds are in your favor.
Best to take the booty and run for it. Ill take a look at the ship card and log for the fourths when mine gets here (unless someone wants to send me a photo?)
Best to take the booty and run for it. Ill take a look at the ship card and log for the fourths when mine gets here (unless someone wants to send me a photo?)
Or you could use the ship you have and use it against ships your own size. Most scenarios use relative terms when describing the size of your opponent. When the scenario gives an absolute size, then alter it to fit the size of you ship. You will not be forced to use a small ship against a first rated ship in this campaign.
I have a lot of fun with Meshuda, burden 2 schooner, presicely because of her advantages; speed, maneuverability, and ability to sail close to the wind.
Or you could use the ship you have and use it against ships your own size. Most scenarios use relative terms when describing the size of your opponent. When the scenario gives an absolute size, then alter it to fit the size of you ship. You will not be forced to use a small ship against a first rated ship in this campaign.
I have a lot of fun with Meshuda, burden 2 schooner, presicely because of her advantages; speed, maneuverability, and ability to sail close to the wind.
Sound advice, but I have new toys coming and want to use them ;)
Sound advice, but I have new toys coming and want to use them ;)
I would too. Send in your new ships name by the end of January when everything becomes final. After that you'll need to go to Beau's Sons Boats and buy the new ship with treasure points.
You will not be forced to use a small ship against a first rated ship in this campaign.
I have not written my scenario yet Bob.:sly:
Rob.
I have not written my scenario yet Bob.:sly:
Rob.
Me either :Arrrr::Arrrr: I was thinking about doing a great escape sort of thing.
Ah ha!
Mine is in April Hugh.
Bligh.:sly:
I have not written my scenario yet Bob.:sly:
Rob.
Be nice!
Oh, I forgot to whom I was speaking, Capt. Bligh. :erk:
Hrm... *Whispers* "It's Admiral Bligh..."
I am much maligned.:sad:
Bligh.
I am much maligned.:sad:
Bligh.
Sitting on his bunk, head resting in his hands, eyes staring dejectedly at the deck between his feet, we find Bos'n who knows his easygoing days on board are over. He referred to his admiral by his former rank, in public, and reminding him of the dark past of the Bounty and the difficulties of the years that followed.
What could he do to make amends; nothing could possibly right this wrong. :cry:
Cheer up, lad. He didn't turn you before the mast.
One day when I was sitting alone dejected and pensive at the foot of the foremast:sad: a disembodied but heavenly voice from on high whispered unto me :pray:" Cheer up lad things could be worse." so I cheered up,............. and sure enough things got worse.:shock:
Bligh.:happy:
Ha, ha! :happy: Good one. Let me fill your glass and toast for things getting better. :drinks:
The disembodied voice turned out to be Bos'n in the Fore tops.:help:
Bligh.
The disembodied voice turned out to be Bos'n in the Fore tops.:help:
Bligh.
Cheeky bastard. :cheezy:
Cheeky bastard. :cheezy:
Less of the cheeky, if you please Bos'n.
Bligh
Union Jack
01-23-2017, 08:31
Well shiver me innards and yank the large intestine from a sperm whale. I should think a bottle or 2 of the Admirals favourite tipple might just be the deciding factor. Otherwise volunteer for hazardous duty and start scrubbing out the head.
Do any of you find that double shot gives too much of an advantage in solo play? Almost all solo play rules have ships use ball, as a significant proportion of battles are decided by the accuracy of the first few broadsides, does double shot weigh the probability of a happy outcome a little too heavily in the players favor?
I find so too. I have played some solo scenarios without doubleshot because of just that reason.
Union Jack
01-25-2017, 06:17
I have been on the receiving end of a bashing by an AI opponent that kept it's distance and got 2 broadsides in but yes closing and double shot is an advantage. I would say if you are doing it then so should the enemy. If you keep doing it wouldn't the enemy be wary and keep its distance and pound you, then close with an advantage of a full broadside against a reduced one?
For my next game I'm going to not use it and see how it goes. (If I have any ships left afterwards)
Just a thought, but are there any rules about firing broadsides while boarding? I can't think of any. If the boarding action last long enough then is there any reason you can't issue a reload and fire order?
I have been on the receiving end of a bashing by an AI opponent that kept it's distance and got 2 broadsides in but yes closing and double shot is an advantage. I would say if you are doing it then so should the enemy. If you keep doing it wouldn't the enemy be wary and keep its distance and pound you, then close with an advantage of a full broadside against a reduced one?
Very true! I just wish you could somehow get the AI to play that smart.
The ai tends to want to get up close and personal. I wish there was a way to get it to maintain distance. I wonder if any of our rules makers could figure that out.
As you can see from my January AAR I always give both sides the benefit of the same rules. Double shot actually worked against the AI in this game, but normally it is all square. If I think the AI ships are about to make a nonsensical move I change it to what I would do myself. In the Jan game near the end I used the I in AI by moving both Heroe and Santa Ana into an unscheduled turn to avoid them crashing into the wrecks in front of them, when the rules would have had them plough into the rest of their compatriots. It gave me a much better game than having my ships just sail up and blast them where they lay. As it was instead of capturing the whole Squadron Santa Ana made her get away, but it was much more fun.
Rob.
Just a thought, but are there any rules about firing broadsides while boarding? I can't think of any. If the boarding action last long enough then is there any reason you can't issue a reload and fire order?
Basically no Hugh, if you have enough hands left to complete the actions.
The rules do not say anything about it not being allowed. However, if you draw any 0's it might be fair to then draw E chits to see if your boarders copped any of to rounds that passed through.
I know that the Lower deck guns regularly continued to fire during boarding, and port to port was often what resulted in fires starting on the lower decks.
Rob.
I just got my wave 3 ships in!
Gosh the Artesien is a good looking ship isnt it!
I think that they all look very good Hugh. It is just a pity that there is a doubt about the scale, but what the heck, we at least have them.
If anyone wants to see some of the new ships in action go here:-
http://sailsofglory.org/showthread.php?4412-AAR-2017-Scenario-1-Nation-vs-Nation-January-Pell-Mell
Rob.
I have been on the receiving end of a bashing by an AI opponent that kept it's distance and got 2 broadsides in but yes closing and double shot is an advantage. I would say if you are doing it then so should the enemy. If you keep doing it wouldn't the enemy be wary and keep its distance and pound you, then close with an advantage of a full broadside against a reduced one?
Ok Group,
If this is a rule change you want to make I need to hear what others have to say about it.
My preference is to allow both player and AI use what ever makes sense for the game, but Ares rules say:
When playing with Standard or Advanced Rules, the ships not controlled by the player will shoot using the following rules:
They do not choose the type of ammunition
when the guns are loaded. If a broadside shoots
within the red/purple part of the ruler, the
target takes C damage counters. If it shoots at a
longer distance, but within the first half of the
ruler, the target takes B damage counters. If
the distance is longer, but within the ruler, the
target takes A damage counters.
Majority rules or everyone decides for themselves. :question:
Union Jack
01-26-2017, 08:04
Sound fair enough for me.
Nightmoss
01-26-2017, 10:01
Seems appropriate to me as well.
Union Jack
01-26-2017, 11:58
Perhaps we need some negative for using double shot.
1. If a fire counter is drawn for the target ship then the firing ship takes one too. To simulate a burning wad from the firing ship drifting into the rigging of hhe fire.
2. Can only be used by a player controlled ship. All other ships in a Squadron can't use double shot.
I'm sure others could think of something better. Otherwise all ships should be able to use double shot on first turn of fire only. Or any ship employing double shot must only use double shot throughout a game. Making reloading twice as long etc etc.
It is funny that you should say that Neil, because I have always played the double shot on first fire only because I never find ships have time to reload doubled in the thick of battle.
If reducing a ships stern to a hulk at the end of a battle with nothing else going on I may relax this a little.
Leander, for instance had so much time to wander around the fleet before coming up with the Santa Ana that I allowed her the liberty of using double shot again. My general consensus, however would be that if one ship is doubling, then any other ship on whichever side, AI or not, if it has time to load should be allowed the same privilege.
Rob.
It is funny that you should say that Neil, because I have always played the double shot on first fire only because I never find ships have time to reload doubled in the thick of battle.
If reducing a ships stern to a hulk at the end of a battle with nothing else going on I may relax this a little.
Leander, for instance had so much time to wander around the fleet before coming up with the Santa Ana that I allowed her the liberty of using double shot again. My general consensus, however would be that if one ship is doubling, then any other ship on whichever side, AI or not, if it has time to load should be allowed the same privilege.
Rob.
As the custom ai rules currently try to get ships as close as possible, I think starting all AI ships with double shot makes sense. That gives the player more incentive to maintain range, which is much harder than plowing into them. It will also help balance those first turn barrages that we throw at the ai that tend to win games before they begin. Or we could simply ban double shot, or have it as a captaincy or crew skill that needs to be earned?
Make each type only have half the range. Long range (yellow) is half ruler and short range (orange) is quarter ruler. You still get both and can fire not catching the enemy with both types. Limiting range that much would limit the value of double shot.
Union Jack
01-26-2017, 17:06
Just been reading Line of Battle.
It would seem double shot was only very effective at pistol shot range.
Perhaps reducing the effective range of double shot to 1/4 ruler length only may suffice?
Just been reading Line of Battle.
It would seem double shot was only very effective at pistol shot range.
Perhaps reducing the effective range of double shot to 1/4 ruler length only may suffice?
That's a solid idea. And it makes sense since the energy from the powder will be used on two balls rather than one, so largely reduced muzzle velocity.
Months almost over! Who is going to get their game in this weekend?
Here is a bit on Carronades to be going on with.
I will do one on the Long guns ASAP.
carronades.
27801
A carronade is a short, smoothbore (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoothbore), cast iron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cast_iron) cannon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon) which was used by the Royal Navy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy) and first produced by the Carron Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carron_Company), an ironworks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironworks) in Falkirk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkirk), Scotland, UK. It was used from the 1770s to the 1850s. Its main function was to serve as a powerful, short-range, anti-ship and anti-crew weapon.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carronade#cite_note-1) Carronades were initially considered very successful, but they eventually disappeared as rifled (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifling) naval artillery changed the shape of the projectile, exploding shells replaced solid shot, and fewer naval engagements were fought at short ranges.
History.
27788
68-pounder British naval carronade, with slider carriage, on HMS Victory
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victory)
The carronade was designed as a short-range naval weapon with a low muzzle velocity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_velocity) for merchant ships, but it also found a niche role on warships. It was produced by the Carron ironworks and was at first sold as a system with the gun, mounting, and shot all together. The standard package of shot per gun was 25 roundshot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundshot), 15 barshot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barshot), 15 double-headed shot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_shot), 10 "single" grapeshot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapeshot), and 10 "single" canister shot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canister_shot). "Single" meant that the shot weighed the same as the roundshot, while some other canister and grapeshot were also included which weighed one and a half times the roundshot.
27789
Charles Gascoigne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Gascoigne)
Its invention is variously ascribed to Lieutenant General (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant_General) Robert Melville (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Melvill) in 1759, or to Charles Gascoigne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Gascoigne), manager of the Carron Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carron_Company) from 1769 to 1779. In its early years, the weapon was sometimes called a "mellvinade" or a "gasconade". The carronade can be seen as the culmination of a development of naval guns reducing the barrel length and gunpowder charge. The Carron Company was already selling a "new light-constructed" gun, two-thirds of the weight of the standard naval gun and charged with one sixth of the weight of ball in powder before it introduced the carronade, which further halved the gunpowder charge.
27791
Carron Ironworks.
Theory of design.
The advantages for merchant ships are described in an advertising pamphlet of 1779. Production of both shot and gun by the same firm immediately allowed a reduction in the windage, the gap between the bore of the gun and the diameter of the ball. The mounting, attached to the side of the ship on a pivot, took the recoil on a slider. The reduced recoil did not alter the alignment of the gun. The smaller gunpowder charge reduced the barrel heating in action. The pamphlet advocated the use of woollen cartridges, which eliminated the need for wadding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadding) and worming, although they were more expensive.
Simplifying gunnery for comparatively untrained merchant seamen in both aiming and reloading was part of the rationale for the gun. The replacement of trunnions by a bolt underneath, to connect the gun to the mounting, reduced the width of the carriage enhancing the wide angle of fire. A merchant ship would almost always be running away from its enemy, so a wide angle of fire was much more important than on a warship. A carronade weighed a quarter as much and used a quarter to a third of the gunpowder charge as a long gun firing the same cannonball.
27792
Remains of a Carronade displayed at the Carron Ironworks.
The reduced charge allowed carronades to have a shorter length and much lighter weight than long guns. Increasing the size of the bore and ball reduces the required length of barrel. The force acting on the ball is proportional to the square of the diameter, while the mass of the ball rises by the cube, so acceleration is slower; thus, the barrel can be shorter and therefore lighter. Long guns were also excessively heavy in comparison to carronades because they were over-specified, being capable of being double-shotted, whereas it was dangerous to do this in a carronade. A ship could carry more carronades, or carronades of a larger caliber, than long guns, and carronades could be mounted on the upper decks, where heavy long guns could cause the ship to be top-heavy and unstable. Carronades also required a smaller gun crew, which was very important for merchant ships, and they were faster to reload.
27802
Gatehouse of the Carron Ironworks.
Early use.
Carronades initially became popular on British merchant ships during the American Revolutionary War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War). A lightweight gun that needed only a small gun crew and was devastating at short range was a weapon well suited to defending merchant ships against French and American privateers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer). The French came in possession of their first carronades in December 1779 with the capture of the brig Finkastre by the frigate Précieuse (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=French_frigate_Pr%C3%A9cieuse_(1778)&action=edit&redlink=1), but the weapon was judged ineffective and was not adopted at the time.
However, in the Action of 4 September 1782 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_of_4_September_1782), the impact of a single carronade broadside fired at close range by the frigate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigate) HMS Rainbow (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Rainbow_(1747)&action=edit&redlink=1) under Henry Trollope (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Trollope) caused a wounded French captain to capitulate and surrender the Hébé (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_frigate_H%C3%A9b%C3%A9_(1782)) after a short fightThe Royal Navy was initially reluctant to adopt the guns, mainly due to mistrust of the Carron Company, which had developed a reputation for incompetence and commercial sharp dealing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharp_practice). Carronades were not even counted in numbering the guns of a ship.
27790
It was Lord Sandwich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Montagu,_4th_Earl_of_Sandwich) who eventually started mounting them in place of the light guns on the forecastle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forecastle) and quarterdeck of ships. They soon proved their effectiveness in battle. French gun foundries were unable to produce equivalents for twenty years, so carronades gave British warships a significant tactical advantage during the latter part of the 18th century — though French ships mounted another type of weapon in the same role, the obusier de vaisseau (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obusier_de_vaisseau).
27793
Victory vs Bucentaure.
HMS Victory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victory) used the two 68-pounder carronades which she carried on her forecastle to great effect at the Battle of Trafalgar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Trafalgar), clearing the gun deck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_deck) of the Bucentaure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucentaure) by firing a round shot and a keg of 500 musket balls (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket#Ammunition) through the Bucentaure's stern windows.
The carronade was initially very successful and widely adopted, and a few experimental ships were fitted with a carronade-only armament, such as HMS Glatton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Glatton_(1795)) and HMS Rainbow (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Rainbow_(1747)&action=edit&redlink=1).
27794
HMS Glatton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Glatton_%281795%29)
Glatton, a fourth-rate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-rate) ship with 56 guns, had a more destructive broadside (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadside) than HMS Victory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victory), a first-rate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-rate) ship with 100 guns. Glatton and Rainbow were both successful in battle, though the carronade's lack of range was an arguable tactical disadvantage of this arrangement against an opponent who could keep well clear and still use his long guns.
In the 1810s and 1820s, tactics started to place a greater emphasis on the accuracy of long-range gunfire, and less on the weight of a broadside. Indeed, Captain David Porter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Porter_(naval_officer)) of USS Essex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Essex_(1799)) complained when the navy replaced his 12-pounder long guns with 32-pounder carronades. The carronade disappeared from the Royal Navy from the 1850s after the development of steel-jacketed cannon by William George Armstrong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_George_Armstrong) and Joseph Whitworth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Whitworth). Carronades were nevertheless still used in the American Civil War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) in the 1860s. The last known use of a carronade in conflict was during the First Boer War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Boer_War). In the siege of Potchefstroom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potchefstroom), the Boers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boers) used 'Ou Griet' against the British fort, an antique carronade mounted on a wagon axle.
Design.
27795
The original design of the carronade included a different type of mounting on a wooden carriage, where the cannon itself had a projecting loop on the bottom that was pinned to the gun carriage, which was fastened to the side of the ship, with a pivoting mounting which allowed the gun to be rotated, while rearward recoil was contained, sometimes with a slider carriage. In some versions, a wedge was placed underneath the chamber to control elevation, while in later versions an elevating screw was used.
Carronades had a chamber that was one-caliber smaller than the bore; for example, an 18-pounder carronade had its chamber bored equal to a 12-pounder. This was partly to reduce the weight of the cannon, but also had the effect of reducing the velocity of the cannonball (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_shot) and range to which it could fire. However, one factor mitigating the deficiency in range was that carronades could be bored with a much tighter windage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windage) than long guns. This meant that more of the propellant went to moving the shot, rather than bypassing it.
Naval artillery during the Age of Sail (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Sail) simply was not accurate, regardless of whether the cannon was a gun or a carronade. Almost all barrels were smoothbore, not rifled, and tolerances had wide variations on everything from the actual roundness and straightness of the barrel to shot size in relation to the bores (windage). Sights were rudimentary or non-existent, and elevation was controlled by wedges and guesswork. As a result, effective or decisive naval battles were generally fought at ranges under 100 yards where the carronade's heavier ball was useful and its shorter range was not a huge problem. Technological improvements changed the capabilities of naval armament by the nineteenth century, but muzzle-loading smoothbore cannon were still not very accurate. As a result, naval tactics in line of battle counted on the effect of rapid broadsides at short range, to which the carronade could make a significant contribution. In smaller ships like frigates, privateers and raiders, the captains still appreciated long guns for their increased range, since ships were not expected to engage in line-of-battle, but rather often found themselves engaged in long chases or attempts to work to windward. It was often better tactically to attempt to shoot the opponent's rigging down at range rather than close in for direct combat, where their weaker hulls were at risk. They also often found themselves far from home or harbors, where repairs and spare yards, masts or rigging could be found. Generally, although the power of the "smashers", as they were called, was acknowledged, most captains preferred the long guns, as was traditional.
Ordnance.
27796
Diagram of a carronade mounting. The lack of a nozzle or muzzle cup suggests this carronade pre-dates ca. 1790, and it must date to 1785 or earlier as a copy of this drawing in the Dutch archives bears that date.
27797 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carronade_%28schematics%29.jpg)
Model of a carronade with grapeshot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapeshot) ammunition.
A carronade was much shorter and a third to a quarter of the weight of an equivalent long gun. A 32-pounder carronade, for example, weighed less than a ton, but a 32-pounder long gun weighed over 3 tons. Carronades were manufactured in the usual naval gun sizes: 6-, 12-, 18-, 24-, 32-, 42-, and 68-pounder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass)#Use_in_weaponry) versions are known.
The smaller carronades served in three roles. First, they often constituted the entire armament of unrated vessels. For instance, the Ballahoo- (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballahoo_class_schooner) and Cuckoo-class schooners (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckoo_class_schooner) were armed only with four 12-pounder carronades. Second, gunboats such as those that the Americans deployed at the Battle of Lake Borgne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Borgne) often had one large 18-, 24-, or 32-pounder gun forward on a pivot, and two smaller carronades aft. Finally, larger vessels carried a few 12-, 18-, or 24-pounders to arm their ship's boats — the cutters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutter_(boat)), pinnaces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnace_(ship%27s_boat)), launches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_(boat)), barges (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barge), and the like — to give them firepower for boat actions. For instance, each of the 42 larger British boats at the Battle of Lake Borgne carried a carronade in its bow; only the three gigs were unarmed.
At the other end, even a quite small vessel might carry the 68-pounders. For instance, Commander William Layman of the Cruizer-class brig sloop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruizer_class_brig-sloop) HMS Raven (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Raven_(1804)) replaced her two forward 6-pounder guns and 32-pounder carronades with a single 68-pounder on a pivot, and then did the same with two of the aft 32-pounder carronades. By doing this, he replaced 70 pounds of broadside with 136 pounds (assuming that both 68-pounders would usually fire on the same side), and ensured that Raven would have less dead-space to her front and rear.
Carronades were not counted in a ship of the line's rated number of guns. The classification of Royal Navy vessels in this period can therefore mislead; they would often be carrying fewer guns but more pieces of ordnance than they were described as carrying.
The carronade, like other naval guns, was mounted with ropes to restrain the recoil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil), but the details of the gun mounting were usually quite different. The carronade was typically mounted on a sliding gun carriage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_carriage) rather than a wheeled gun carriage, and elevation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevation_(ballistics)) was achieved with a turnscrew (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turnscrew&action=edit&redlink=1), like field guns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_gun), rather than the quoins (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quoin) (wooden wedges) usual for naval guns. In addition, a carronade was usually mounted on a lug underneath the barrel, rather than the usual trunnions to either side. As a result, the carronade had an unusually high centre of gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_of_gravity). Towards the end of the period of use, some carronades were fitted with trunnions to lower their centres of gravity, to create a variant known as the "gunnade". Gunnades, introduced around 1820, are distinct from the earliest carronades, which also featured trunnions.
In the later 18th century, a new type of cannon was developed in Britain, which was a cross between a cannon and a carronade, and which was called a cannonade (not to be confused with the term cannonade which refers to rapid and sustained artillery fire or the act of firing as such). An example was the "medium 18 pounder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18-pounder_short_gun)", which was shorter and lighter than a gun, yet longer than a carronade. While seemingly a good idea in theory, it was found that the gun was less accurate and shorter ranged than a long cannon, less powerful than a carronade, and at 28 cwt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredweight), too light for the powerful charge, meaning recoil was excessive and often broke the breachings, or ropes, which attached the gun to the hull timbers. They were quickly removed from service in most cases, although a number were retained on ships in merchant service, such as the East India Company, who weren't generally expected to engage in combat. A number of the merchant ships in the Battle of Pulo Aura (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pulo_Aura) were armed with cannonades. This was a fight between a fleet of East India Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company) merchantmen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_vessel) under command of Commodore Nathaniel Dance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Dance) and a French squadron under Admiral Linois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles-Alexandre_L%C3%A9on_Durand_Linois); it was unusual for merchant ships to engage in combat, but they successfully beat off the French in series of engagements, convincing them they were actually facing a powerful force of Royal Navy vessels; this action was later used as the basis for the climactic battle in the book H.M.S Surprise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Surprise_(novel)), part of the famous Aubrey and Maturin series (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey%E2%80%93Maturin_series) by Patrick O'Brian
27798 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_O%27Brian)
Carronade on a garrison mount, used to defend fortifications. Government House, Bermuda.
The East India Company (EIC) also used carronades, and these appear to be larger, and heavier than those that Royal Navy used. In his discussion of the single-ship action (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-ship_action) in which the French frigate Piémontaise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_frigate_Pi%C3%A9montaise_(1804)) captured the East Indiaman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Indiaman) Warren Hastings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Hastings_(1802_EIC_ship)) on 11 June 1805, the naval historian William James (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_(naval_historian)) compared the 18-pounder carronades on Warren Hastings with the 18-pounder carronades that the British Royal Navy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy) used. The EIC 18-pounder was 5 feet (1.5 m) long, and weighed 15 1⁄2 Cwt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredweight) (1,736 pounds (787 kg)); the Royal Navy's 18-pounder carronade was 3 feet 3 inches (1.0 m) and weighed 10 1⁄2 Cwt (1,176 pounds (533 kg)). James's figures show the EIC's 12-pounder carronades were 3 feet 3 inches (1.0 m) long, and weighed 8 1⁄2 Cwt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredweight) (952 pounds (432 kg)); the Royal Navy's 12-pounder carronade was 2 feet 8 inches (0.8 m) and weighed 6 1⁄2 Cwt (728 pounds (330 kg)).
Range.
27799
There was usually a considerable gap (known as windage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windage)) between the ball and the inside of the gun barrel, as a result of irregularities in the size of cannonballs and the difficulty of boring out gun barrels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_barrel). The windage of a cannon was often as much as a quarter of an inch and caused a considerable loss of projectile power. The manufacturing practices introduced by the Carron Company reduced the windage considerably. Despite the reduced windage, carronades had a much shorter range than the equivalent long gun, typically a third to a half, because they used a much smaller propellant charge (the chamber for the powder was smaller than the bore for the ball). Typical naval tactics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_tactics_in_the_Age_of_Sail) in the late 18th century, however, emphasised short-range broadsides, so the range was not thought to be a problem.
The air resistance of a spherical cannonball in supersonic flight is much greater than in subsonic flight. For a given weight of powder, a larger ball, having a large mass, has a lower maximum velocity which reduces the range of supersonic flight. But the increase in the distance of subsonic flight may have more than compensated, as the air resistance is proportional to the square of the diameter but the mass is proportional to the cube. The Victory's 68 lb carronade is reported to have had a maximum range of 1,280 yards at an angle of 5 degrees with a 5 lb charge of gunpowder.[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carronade#cite_note-11) The structure of Victory's forecastle limited the weight of the guns. The other gun on the forecastle was a medium 12 lb cannon, which had a maximum range of 1,320 yards.] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carronade#cite_note-12) Carronades were not noticeably short range for either the weight of the gun or the gunpowder charge. Carronades were short range because of their small gunpowder charge but their lower muzzle velocity required a higher trajectory. But at sea, the range of the long gun had little use. At sea, guns were on moving platforms making timing of fire very difficult. Pitch and roll meant that most ships fought at close range of a few hundred yards or less. In battles between warships, carronades could be at a disadvantage if they were fought outside its point blank range; such as in the case of USS Essex, a frigate equipped almost solely with carronades, which was reduced to a hulk by the longer range guns of HMS Phoebe and HMS Cherub off Valparaiso, Chile in the March 28, 1814 Battle of Valparaiso (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Valparaiso). Warships often aimed at the enemy’s hull to destroy its capacity for battle. A ball fired from a cannon on the downward roll of the ship would often ricochet off the sea into the enemy hull. A merchant ship would more often aim at the bigger target of the masts and rigging in the hope of escaping a pursuing enemy. The higher trajectory required of carronades at ranges of 400 yards or more was little disadvantage for its use by merchant ships or any naval ship fleeing a more powerful enemy. The theory for centuries had always associated long barrels with long range, but experience had also shown that shortening the barrel did not reduce performance as much as expected (e.g., the English musket barrel between 1630 and 1660 went down from 4 to 3 feet long).
Diagram.
27800
1. Breech bolt
2. Aft sight
3. Vent hole
4. Front sight
5. First reinforcing ring
6. Barrel
7. Muzzle
8. Second reinforcing ring
9. Azimutal pivot
10. Chock
11. Elevation pivot
12. Wheel
13. Mobile pedestal
14. Carriage
15. Pommel
16. Elevation thread
Rob.
Is this thread really the best place for this information?
I would have suggested its own thread under the Historical section.
I did consider that very idea Jonas, but decided that I had written this in direct response to the ongoing discussion and therefore it would attract the audience I aiming it for here rather than tucked away in the historical section. the information can be more readily accessed near to the discussion.
Rob.
Interesting, im suprised that the penetration was that close honestly.
And WOW! The planks on HMS Victory were 3/4 of a meter thick!?
Hugh, just don't tell any American of the 12 lb penetrating USS Constitution at 450 meters... Even I'm a little... doubtful.
Yes, it does seem a bit far fetched. It shouldnt be too hard to calculate it though with a little research.
Ill give it a try
Force = Perimeter of impact area x Thickness of material x material shear strength
T = 0.530m
S= 10~11MPa based on properly prepared white oak timber
Now to work out P
Diameter of a 12lb cannon ball is ~4.52" = 0.115 meters
The balls are spherical though and so there will not be a flat area hitting the hull. To account for this i will have to make a guesstimate. Lets say that the impact diameter is closer to 1" , 2.54cm, 0.0254m.
The perimeter of the shearing area will be pi*D = 0.0798m
So combine all of this
F=(0.0798m)(0.530m)(11Mpa)
F=465.2 KN
This is the minimum force required to break the hull on the USS Constitution.
I made a program a few weeks ago to determine final speed of a ball moving through the air given drag,
so with a 300m/s muzzle velocity from a 12lb carronade and a distance of 450m the impact speed should be ~ 58.6m/s
Force of impact
Mc = 3.78kg = Mass of cannon ball
Wc = 37.07 N = Weight of cannon ball
d = 0.02m = distance of deformation of wood due to deceleration of cannon ball
Rate of deceleration
a= v^2/2d
a= 85849 m/s2
Force of impact
F=W.a/g
F= 324.4 KN
Fi<Fw
324.4 KN < 465.2 KN
########
So based on these back of the envelope calculations, it shouldn't be possible for a cannon ball fired from a 12lb carronade to penetrate the armor of the USS Constitution at 450m
########
If we did the long gun the only difference would be the initial velocity of the shot, which should be around 440 m/s, impact velocity will be around 86m/s
This will give an impact Force of around 698KN which will be enough to punch through old iron sides.
Ill give it a try
Force = Perimeter of impact area x Thickness of material x material shear strength
T = 0.530m
S= 10~11MPa based on properly prepared white oak timber
Now to work out P
Diameter of a 12lb cannon ball is ~4.52" = 0.115 meters
The balls are spherical though and so there will not be a flat area hitting the hull. To account for this i will have to make a guesstimate. Lets say that the impact diameter is closer to 1" , 2.54cm, 0.0254m.
The perimeter of the shearing area will be pi*D = 0.0798m
So combine all of this
F=(0.0798m)(0.530m)(11Mpa)
F=465.2 KN
This is the minimum force required to break the hull on the USS Constitution.
I made a program a few weeks ago to determine final speed of a ball moving through the air given drag,
so with a 300m/s muzzle velocity from a 12lb carronade and a distance of 450m the impact speed should be ~ 58.6m/s
Force of impact
Mc = 3.78kg = Mass of cannon ball
Wc = 37.07 N = Weight of cannon ball
d = 0.02m = distance of deformation of wood due to deceleration of cannon ball
Rate of deceleration
a= v^2/2d
a= 85849 m/s2
Force of impact
F=W.a/g
F= 324.4 KN
Fi<Fw
324.4 KN < 465.2 KN
########
So based on these back of the envelope calculations, it shouldn't be possible for a cannon ball fired from a 12lb carronade to penetrate the armor of the USS Constitution at 450m
########
If we did the long gun the only difference would be the initial velocity of the shot, which should be around 440 m/s, impact velocity will be around 86m/s
This will give an impact Force of around 698KN which will be enough to punch through old iron sides.
Huh? :question:
I was trying to get a picture of how a cannon ball would fair against the USS constitutions side at our, and show how I did it so you can tell me where I'm wrong.
If I'm right, then it's a close thing. Wood is also not the best armor.....
Where'd the forum go all weekend?
Problem with the main host server according to the Lord high Admiral.
Aerodrome was down too.
Rob.
AAR. Pell Mell Butcher's Bill now posted.
Rob.
Union Jack
01-30-2017, 12:27
Would this link help
<a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3j8FAAAAMAAJ&dq=New%20Principles%20in%20Gunnery&as_brr=1&pg=PA79&ci=123%2C1005%2C730%2C463&source=bookclip"><img src="https://books.google.co.uk/books/content?id=3j8FAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA79&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U18WpAgTTCEr4gO2xg-Fb9aqF0wAg&ci=123%2C1005%2C730%2C463&edge=0"/></a>
No Neil.
It won't go to a site on Google.:happy:
Rob.
Union Jack
01-30-2017, 17:08
To date since the solo campaign(s) started in July 2014 the following have been played:
2014 4 Solo games were played 19 times
2015 12 solo games were played 55 times
2016 12 solo games were played 60 times (to date)
2017 2 Solo games were played 4 times (to date)
A big thank you to all the scenario writers and players who have taken part.
Union Jack
01-30-2017, 17:15
I have linked into the scenario sticky all the AAR's played to date.
Let's see if we can break last years record!
May I add my thanks to you all for the effort put into these games, which along with the historical research and model making seem to form the backbone of the Anchorage.
That so few people can achieve so much shows the strength of commitment which we have to the game in spite of the setbacks.
Well done everybody.
Rob.
Union Jack
02-01-2017, 03:35
Hoping to get the Letters of Marque games up to date next 2 weeks. All caught up with the nation v nation.
Good for you Neil.
I am just about ready to run that one, once Vapnartak is done and dusted this weekend. We seem to be very busy just of late.
Rob.
Union Jack
02-01-2017, 07:23
I still have 3 to play from 2016 and Feb 2017's too.
AH! That makes a bit of a difference. Still look at the sacrifice as being worth the time you took to build your gaming room.:wink:
Rob.
Now that I have seen the totals for our Jan mission displayed, can you tell me how I can change the Baleraphon's -3 points needed for repairs by spending extra rep?
Rob.
Has anyone read this?
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/141
Looks very interesting Hugh.
I have not personally any knowledge of it, but I bet Dave Manley has.
Rob.
Here are all the damage cards you asked for Neil, and I'm sorry it took a week to get around to it.
.27992280852808627995279962799727998279992800028001280022800328004280052800628007279892799027991
Rob.
You managed to mix it up a little, Rob. The Santa Ana and Mejicano has the wrong middle part.
Well I'll be horn swoggled!
I thought that the way they had done the interlocks were foolproof? Obviously not idiot proof though.:happy: I'll redo those tomorrow.
Rob.
Is someone updating the spreadsheet?
I think Neil is doing it.
Rob.
Is someone updating the spreadsheet?
Yes. I have updated the spreadsheet when I see AARs on the forum. There have been very few. If I have missed some let me know where they are and the result will appear on the sheet.
I think Neil is doing it.
Rob.
No, Rob, I am.
Yes. I have updated the spreadsheet when I see AARs on the forum. There have been very few. If I have missed some let me know where they are and the result will appear on the sheet.
OH sorry, I was referring to the ship stat spreadsheet being updated to wave 3
Now that I have seen the totals for our Jan mission displayed, can you tell me how I can change the Baleraphon's -3 points needed for repairs by spending extra rep?
Rob.
Rob,
It takes a lot of time to fix that much damage. In this game, you have a choice to use Baleraphon with the first 3 hull boxes covered or leave her in port to finish repairs. I happen to know the person writing the March scenario and you probably will not be hurt by leaving her at home. She will be fit as a fiddle in time for the May game.
OH sorry, I was referring to the ship stat spreadsheet being updated to wave 3
My confusion, sorry. It's hard to keep up with all of the different conversations going on. MY BAD! :embarass:
Rob,
I happen to know the person writing the March scenario and you probably will not be hurt by leaving her at home. She will be fit as a fiddle in time for the May game.
Thanks for the info Bob.
It is a relief to know that, as my downfall last year was the working out of the repairs for lots of ships all at one time. In the end I juust gave up on it as I got too far behind.
As for not many AARs yet, I'm hoping it's because people are still catching up with last years.
Rob.
Union Jack
02-11-2017, 12:26
Finishing off 2016 by Tuesday. Leaving next week for remaining 2017 missions.
I managed to sail Feb today Neil.
It was interesting and not what I expected.
Rob.
Union Jack
02-12-2017, 06:41
Missed the pics Rob. Cheers. I can do a quick fix on the spreadsheet bu can't upload until my internet is sorted. It takes so long to type on a phone, then remember to check for predictived texting I might miss some so apologies.
Neil
That's O.K. Neil.
I have a couple of errors to correct this evening when i get the Spanish out again.
hope you get full service back soon.
Rob.
Union Jack
02-12-2017, 09:38
Rob is there a French ship missing? There are only 5 cards.
I make it six Neil.
Did you see the ones in Attached?
Rob.
These are the others you asked for.
28081
28082
28083
28084
Rob.
Union Jack
02-12-2017, 14:33
File is uploaded and in the moderation queue.
UJ
Union Jack
02-21-2017, 12:40
An update:
To date since the solo campaign(s) started in July 2014 the following have been played:
2014 3 Solo games were played 19 times
2015 12 solo games were played 54 times
2016 12 solo games were played 62 times (1 to come, to date)
2017 2 Solo games were played 4 times (to date)
A big thank you to all the scenario writers and players who have taken part.
I was wondering if we could find some way of honouring the scenario writers as well as the players, because over a period of time they also clock up quite a few posts.
Rob.
Union Jack
02-21-2017, 16:08
I will comply a full list by campaign year Rob.
Union Jack
02-21-2017, 16:36
28267
Thanks for the breakdown Neil.
The numbers for Scenarios played tallies with mine, so medal issue is correct.
I had no stats on writers but it looks as if you have carried the can for most of that, so thank you.
No one else has enough on the board to worry about thus far.
Rob.
Who's going to play a game this weekend? Anyone else going to jump in to the 2017 missions?
Has the March mission been finalized?
Might do one tomorrow whilst I await the March show to manifest itself.
Rob.
Union Jack
02-25-2017, 03:30
Who is up for writing March?
Here is the list Neil.
http://sailsofglory.org/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bos'n http://sailsofglory.org/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://sailsofglory.org/showthread.php?p=66909#post66909)
We need volunteers to write scenarios for the 2017 campaign season. We are in particular need for January, a Nation v Nation scenario, and February, a Letter of Marque scenario. Please let me know if you can contribute for the months listed below:
Nation v Nation
Jan. Bligh
Mar. Bos'n
May Wahko
July Bligh
Sept. Union Jack
Nov.
Letter of Marque
Feb. Wahko
Apr. Bligh
June Union Jack
Aug. Nightmoss
Oct. Hjl
Dec.
Please respond.
Union Jack
02-25-2017, 08:11
Playing Feb 2017 on Monday. I'll be upto date then.
Just played a game against my 8 year old son. He beat me!
HMS Sybille (Me) vs Artesien (little Hugh)
28291
28294
28292
28293
After a 2 hour battle, dodging in and out of islands and exchanged broadsides he finally found himself behind me and the day was his.
28295
28296
Union Jack
02-25-2017, 16:53
Fantastic game. So when is the young lad writting his first AAR and scenario for the campaign?
It is always great to see a game without the added strain of having to write a long diatribe after it.
That was a refreshing look at a young player just enjoying the game.
That's what it is really all about. Let us never forget that aspect.
Rob.
I don't have much spare time to spend with my kids at the moment and now that I have three of them I makes sure to spend some time with each of them individually at the weekends. Hugh likes tabletop games so we play a couple of hours of sails or xwing a week.
I'd like to say I give him an advantage and that's why he wins... But it isn't...:embarass:
Nightmoss
02-26-2017, 08:35
Nice to see a fast and fun game with the family. Thanks for posting. :thumbsup:
Nice to see a fast and fun game with the family. Thanks for posting. :thumbsup:
Thanks for the rep!
Gonna try to catch up this week. Friends wedding, 4 month old, work, in laws, clogged sewer line, and the list goes on... I've set up my table three times to be interrupted each time. Going to have to get a permanent table set up instead of the dinning room table. Besides that I have ships being demasted all the time. ��
Just the average day in the life of a Captain on the beach then Barry.
Now you know why they spent so much time at sea.:wink:
Bligh.
Union Jack
02-27-2017, 13:04
So that's put 2016 to bed, now onto February 2017's little shindig.
Any idea when this months mission will be posted?
Rob.
Who is responsible for this months?
Any idea when this months mission will be posted?
Rob.
I'm working on it. It will be up soon, very soon.
It seems very quiet in here suddenly.
Who is doing next months mission?
I am.
In fact I have started to put it together.
Rob.
I am just going to introduce you to my new crew for the solo Letters of marque missions.
28999
Rob.
An Earl Gray drinking frenchman?
I am just going to introduce you to my new crew for the solo Letters of marque missions.
28999
Rob.
That is an extremely diverse crew you have there. But 6 senior officers on such a small ship?! You stretch reality too far!
An Earl Gray drinking frenchman?
He is the least of my worries Jonas. Wait until you hear what the big ugly guy at the back eats and drinks!
Rob.
That is an extremely diverse crew you have there. But 6 senior officers on such a small ship?! You stretch reality too far!
I just could not bring myself to argue with them when they all volunteered Hugh.:wink:
Bligh.
He is the least of my worries Jonas. Wait until you hear what the big ugly guy at the back eats and drinks!
Rob.
That is an unkind thing to say about Commander Data...
You mistake his rank, sir.
That is a captains dress uniform of the 1812 regulation with later epaulettes and hats. I would say 1840ies or something like that.
That is an unkind thing to say about Commander Data...
Very amusing Hugh, I actually meant the guy next to him!
Bligh.
Union Jack
03-20-2017, 16:53
That officer is very effemitive looking either that or needs a damn good haircut egads! Same as that fellow on the right too!
Very amusing Hugh, I actually meant the guy next to him!
Bligh.
I'm also sure that the really good looking one behind is a steward wearing that white jacket.
Bligh.
Union Jack
03-21-2017, 16:49
The man front centre must be Nelson or I'm a blind Dutchman looking down a telescope the wrong way in a snow storm. He only has one arm......there again didnt Nelson loose an eye before his arm? Must remember to book myself in for a date at the opticians, I hear the new spectacles are rather good.
He lost sight on the eye but he didn't actually loose the eye if I remember correctly, so you must be right.
That is correct Jonas. He never covered the eye with a patch, so Neil has no need to make a spectacle of himself.
Bligh.
Union Jack
03-22-2017, 10:46
I thought I was monacled or do I mean manicled?
Just played a game against my 8 year old son. He beat me!
HMS Sybille (Me) vs Artesien (little Hugh)
28291
28294
28292
28293
After a 2 hour battle, dodging in and out of islands and exchanged broadsides he finally found himself behind me and the day was his.
28295
28296
Sign this kid up for the Solo Campaign.:medal:
I thought I was monacled or do I mean manicled?
Now that is singular Neil.
Rob.
I am that sailor Hugh.
Rob.
Could we get the Rosta up to date please so that the July mission can be played with the ships in their correct state of readiness.
Thanks.
Rob.
Union Jack
07-03-2017, 07:58
I'm now resigned to the fact that I will not get any gaming in until Doncaster. Still got oodles of prep to do for the Doncaster weekend and real life is about to get in the way again next Tuesday.
Still, I've got this week to get much of the ground work done.
Nightmoss
07-03-2017, 08:19
Probably best if you remove me from August scenario responsibility. I'm pretty much done with SoG for the foreseeable future. Too busy with Naval Action and other gaming interests.
31047
Just finished building the third l'Ocean class First Rate for our small US Fleet in Naval Action.
Cheers!
Well it's good to hear from you at any rate Jim. Do keep in touch from time to time, until you can return to play again. I always appreciate your AARs as you know.
Sail with a fair wind my friend.
Rob.
Sorry to hear you are so up to the neck in it Neil. Is there anything I can do to help out?
Rob.
Union Jack
07-04-2017, 06:33
Special Project 2 is underway (A rather large model) then it's just stuff for my game on Friday China 1938. (Decals for 6 aircraft mainly). The priority is SP2. I'm chipping away at it each time I get some free time but putting in extra hours at work to make up for the July shortfall has crippled my spare time last month. Trying to get the bigger pieces done so it's just a final construction around begining of September. Hoping I've not missed anything on the Doncaster Admin side as we need this to go like clockwork.
Union Jack
07-05-2017, 13:07
Eventually my gaming table is free of clutter and I've given myself the task of sailing at least 1 AAR before I go into hospital next Tuesday.
I do hope you can manage to get that done Neil.
I am getting withdrawal symptoms without any new AAR's to read.
Good luck with your operation next week. I will be awaiting your escape from the sawbones clutches.
Let us be thankful that things are a bit better than they were in Nelson's day.
Rob.
On another point Neil.
If you need someone to do the August scenario, I guess I am up for it if there are no other takers.
Just let me know.
Rob.
Union Jack
07-06-2017, 03:26
Cheers for the offer Rob but isn't August Nightmoss'?
Have a look at post 146 Neil.
I will be really sorry if we lose Jim as a shipmate.
He has contributed so much.
Rob.
Union Jack
07-06-2017, 10:11
A sad loss. Isn't Bos'n still running the 2017 campaign then?
Have a look at post 146 Neil.
I will be really sorry if we lose Jim as a shipmate.
He has contributed so much.
Rob.
I hope so Neil.
He was on line a couple of weeks ago.
Rob.
Union Jack
07-07-2017, 10:18
Well I've managed to get March and May scenario's out of the way. Onwards and upwards.
Union Jack
07-07-2017, 15:47
My first AAR's since January. It will be awhile before I post again but at least there are two warmers into the bank as my training Sgt used to say.
Like corporation buses Neil.
Nothing for ages and then two of them come along at once.:happy:
Good to see you are back on your feed.
Rob.
Union Jack
07-10-2017, 09:40
Could the results of my last 2 AAR's be published in the spreadsheet please. I have added the RTP and damage plus the 2 captured ships. Just need the scores.
Tomorrow my Squadron will depart on the July mission.
May the Good Lord have mercy upon us all.
Bligh.
Still wondering if you would like me to do the August mission?
Rob.
Still wondering if you would like me to do the August mission?
Rob.
Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I wanted to give Nightmoss time to get his scenario in. Please, if you still can, do the August scenario.
Thanks,
Wilco that Bob.
It may be a couple of days late as I'm not 100% myself at the moment.
Rob.
Wilco that Bob.
It may be a couple of days late as I'm not 100% myself at the moment.
Rob.
Are you too having problems with identity theft?
Are you too having problems with identity theft?
It felt a bit like that Jonas.:happy::happy::happy:
Rob.
I am looking forward to your September mission Neil.
Are you O.K. for doing it or could you use the time better on Donny prep?
Rob.
Anybody else prevented from accessing the Campaign sheets?
Rob.
Union Jack
09-11-2017, 07:51
With all the will in the world Doncaster has taken over my life for the past few months and recovery from major op 2.
Cheers for taking the September mission Rob.
I think in reality my SoG Solo Campaign will have to wait until way after Doncaster is finished as I will have post Doncaster write ups to do and a plethora of other things. But I will get them done.
Neil
No worries Neil. i will hold the Fort, or should that be harbour until your return to insanity.
I will try and post the September mission for members tomorrow.
Rob.
Hjl is supposed to be writing this month's mission.
Any chance of seeing it in the near future?
rob.
Looks like we are not going to get an October mission then!
Rob.
Neil, as nothing seems to be forthcoming for October would you like me to move up my December mission to fill the gap?
Rob.
Union Jack
10-20-2017, 12:34
Rob apologies it looks like it's all fallen to you at the moment. If you could do October I'll try and get something done for November.
I will throw something together then Neil.
Rob.
Union Jack
11-29-2017, 11:03
Ok m'hearties what doth the wind blow for 2018 campaigns wise?
1. Do we want to continue in present format?
2. Do we want bi-monthly campaign games ie 3 for Nation v Nation and 3 for Privateers et al?
3. Some other combination or idea?
Personally, I would be happy to do a bi monthly if that suited other players, rather than what has happened this year with shipmates marooned as the year progressed. Even I am not getting the AARs completed by the end of month deadline.
If we adopt that approach, anyone with a personal game played among friends may have time to slip that in in an intervening month.
Rob.
Personally, I would be happy to do a bi monthly if that suited other players, rather than what has happened this year with shipmates marooned as the year progressed. Even I am not getting the AARs completed by the end of month deadline.
If we adopt that approach, anyone with a personal game played among friends may have time to slip that in in an intervening month.
Rob.
I agree.
Neil! Part two of the November scenario is up for viewing.
https://www.sailsofglory.org/showthread.php?4829-November-scenario-Gun-for-Gun-Shot-for-Shot-Preamble
Rob.
Union Jack
12-04-2017, 11:10
The Aye's have it then.
2018's Campaign will be as follows:
February: Nation v Nation
April: Letters of Marque
June: Nation v Nation
August: Letters of Marque
October: Nation v Nation
December: Letters of Marque
If all are happy with that?
Union Jack
12-04-2017, 11:12
Gives players plenty of time to play a game with long periods between.
Looks good to me Neil.
Still enough to have one off and qualify for that medal if you choose to take part in both games. May I make one suggestion in that if a player so wishes they can dovetail the LoM with the NvN so that one of their chosen characters may appear in both campaigns. ie. a French Privateer aiding the Fleet by spying on the enemy, or say my Indiamen taking part in a Fleet action, or a Fleet Captain on a special single ship mission along with say a Spanish treasure ship. Whatever you can come up with within the scenario as set by the writer.
Rob.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.