New Ships

[Dobbs]

Have I missed a discussion about the new ships on the Ares website (wave 4)?

There is a picture of a British 64, an East Indiaman, a French 80 and a Spanish frigate.

[TexaS]

This may be it, so I'd say no.

[TexaS]

From the look of it it seems they have once again made the ship the center of a cyclone. The fore stay sails seems to catch another wind vs the spanker. It's a little hard to tell from the pictures.

On the other hand the hulls look good.

The last wave had very much better stern galleries, so let's hope those are as good on these.

[TexaS]

And here they are for ease of reference:

30618

30619

30620

30621

[twsl]

There was a brief discussion in another thread.
Most disappointed with the lateen rig on the rear of the French 80.
If this is correct along with how short it looks on the base,
I think I will be switching to Langton for Trafalgar.

[TexaS]

Why, oh why would they put a lateen on a Tonnant?

[Naharaht]

I hope that they will correct the mistake.

[Diamondback]

I raised the lateen-mizzen issue, and didn't get a reply. (If you guys think YOU'RE pissed, imagine MY view as the researcher who took point on setting up this release!)

Right now, it sounds like the present thinking is Waves 1/2 were OVERsized--they've had a new engineer starting from Wave 3 design on, and you know how engineers LOVE to change things.

[Bligh]

I can well understand your feelings yet again DB.
The only consolation is you must think what a complete hash they would have made without your input!:shock:
Rob.

[Redcoat]

Latin sails ????? Napoleonic era???? :smack:

[Bligh]

Would that be Lateen vela, or vela secundis Lateen Julián? :wink::takecover:

Rob.

[Diamondback]

I'll let you in on some insider info from my days long ago as an Engineering student...

First Rule of Engineering: "If it ain't broke, EFF WITH IT 'TIL IT IS!"

[Bligh]

Very similar to one of mine DB.

:fixit:If you can't fix it use a bigger hammer. If you still can't fix it use a cold chisel with it.:happy:

Rob.

[TexaS]

As a software engineer we have a saying: It's not a bug. It's a feature!

I'm not inclined to call that lateen sail that.

[Naharaht]

It sounds like we will have to cut off the piece of the lateen sail which projects in front of the mizzen mast or remove the lateen sail, cut off the bottom corner and re-glue it.

[Diamondback]

My own plan was to find a gaff of the right size, and see if I could hire one of you guys to swap Tonnant lateens for EIM gaffs (I'll only have five EIMs so they'll need to use one of the gaffs as a master to cast a sixth), and do similar on SGN109/110. :)

[TexaS]

And someone should tell that new engineer that the jib and fore staysails take the same wind as the spanker before he makes another ship!

[Diamondback]

Jonas, I *did.* "Production limitation," I was told--I don't understand why it only became an issue with a new engineer.

[Bligh]

I intend to do some experimentation with the sails I removed from my hulked ships.
I will keep you informed.
Rob.

[Diamondback]

While it's not going as well on the backup laptop with the main crippled and headed to the shop for repairs, I've been working on knocking a scale-chart together for ships I can get scanned draughts of.

Rob, you should have a surprise in your email. :)

[Bligh]

A very pleasant surprise thanks DB.
I have answered you in private.
Rob.

[Capn Duff]

So , if I understood correctly, everything we kickstarted and then waited a couple of years for the special ships.... were wrong. Excellent news, I am suitably impressed, I am a radio and systems engineer but I think you will understand where and to what I would like to attach the o/p of a 10kw amp to :bleh:

[csadn]

"We must all trust the Good Lord to save us from out Italian friends."
[Reinhard Heydrich, _Conspiracy_]

[Diamondback]

So , if I understood correctly, everything we kickstarted and then waited a couple of years for the special ships.... were wrong. Excellent news, I am suitably impressed, I am a radio and systems engineer but I think you will understand where and to what I would like to attach the o/p of a 10kw amp to :bleh:

Chris, I'm working up a Line Chart with how the ships *should* scale out in-game, rescaling Greenwich draughts to 1/1000. (A start on it is what I sent Rob.)

Surprising (at least to some) things I found from it:
1. Constitution SHOULD be around Victory's size--President is negligibly smaller than Old Vicky, and she was the smallest of the five.
2. Meregildos should be around the same size as Victory--again, Salvador del Mundo is the smallest of her kind and she scales slightly smaller.
3. Bahama is *noticeably* smaller than Bellona.

[Capn Duff]

:thumbsup: kk cheers for the info DB

[Diamondback]

Also, old business: SGN110 also works as a hull for the old 1762 Romney 50's, and might work for the contemporary competitor 1769 Salisbury. Seriously, Portland was drawn right ON Romney's plan with the only changes I see being the underwater lines...

[Bligh]

I agree with Chris, DB.

All this information will help us with not only reconstructions, and adaptations, but also to reconcile some of the ships we already have. I am convinced now that you have looked into this that there is so much of a mix up it is better to just use a ship for what the stats give it, rather than try to assign any specific name to it and expect it to be correct.
Rob.

[Diamondback]

As I work up a roster for potential reprints... I've already got almost 500 (including the existing releases) with just Wave 1 and the Hebe family, not including some of the more recent "approved stretches" like Canada, Royal Sovereign etc.

[Bligh]

Cheers DB.
That should keep we repainters busy for a while then.
Rob.

[Diamondback]

See why I say the Devil will be chipping ice off his balls in Hell before Ares runs out of reprints? LOL

[Bligh]

:clap: Very picturesquely put DB. :happy:

Rob.

[Killick]

I have got to admit I not to fusy about details for sails as long it does not affect the game

[Bligh]

I am between two stools myself here Alistair. Whilst I don't mind minor errors such as the set of the sails, wrongly placed or missing gunports for example. I do mind size effects where a ship is obviously meant to be larger than its companions. An example of which would be if the projected Santisima Trinidad, ended up smaller in scale than HMS. Victory.
Rob.

[Killick]

Yes Rob I agree with you on the size of the mins. That does make a big difference.

[fisher40k]

I have just discovered the "SGN reprint chart" file in the downloads section - awesome! More ships. Thanks to those who worked on it.

Two questions:

1) Is anyone working on updating it for Wave 3 and 4 ships?
2) Is there any reference to modify the Data for these variant ships - adjusting for number and size of guns fitted, or crew carried that would change the stats used by SoG?

Looking for a simple way to vary games a bit.

Thanks in advance.

[Diamondback]

Carl, I'm working up a more straightforward version as I type. That was a "public release" version, a lot of data that was proprietary to us on the Research Team and Ares like Wave 3 and my research notes for Wave 4 wasn't included.

The new version is a line for each distinct ship that can be represented by existing miniatures, and is presently approaching 650 distinct ships (counting a re-flag as a second ship)--and I haven't fed in the SGN108/201, 111 and 116 sculpts yet! (I still have to add quite a few SGN104's to the pool too...)

Problem is, it takes a pretty big dent to "move the needle" on game stats--for example, Thorn carried four to six more guns than most other Swans and only gets a point or two of buff. Bahama is massively over-gunned (statted for a battery of 36-pounders, only carried 24's)--trust me, Wave 3 is a can of worms you *really* don't want to reopen around here, the butthurt was frickin' Old Testament BIBLICAL--and with some cause.

[fisher40k]

Thanks Diamondback - that sound really useful, sorry you have had such a hard time pulling all the information together. Look forward to seeing the result.

[Diamondback]

Carl, that's why I'm on the team with Ares :) --I'm not a naval architect or nautical historian (my particular niche as a historian is actually WWII in the Southwest Pacific, "MacArthur's War"), but where I do have strength is in data-mining, archive-trawling and then assembling that data and acting as an archivist/DBA/record-keeper. And every year brings new information that sometimes re-shuffles the deck... for example, at first the 1765 Artesien sculpt (Wave 3 French 64) looked like a "dead end" for expansion potential, but it turns out with the release of French Warships in the Age of Sail that Artesien is one of the best choices they could have made as it's almost the stereotype for a French 64 of its time.

[Diamondback]

Another surprise finding: Part of the reason we're seeing scales seem so far off is that Wave 3 was a freak-show: Bahama and Meregildos were freakishly small for their types, Artesien no less freakishly huge. I just plugged the drawing for Ardent into my Line Chart and next to Artesien, the British ship is dwarfed by her French counterpart. (Of course, Artesien is a two-decades-newer design... Ardent is basically a 20-years-late clone of a 1740s French design.)

[Diamondback]

Just plugged in Tonnant and more weirdness--Tonnant scales smaller than Temeraire, even than Bellona. This is creeping me out here...

[Bligh]

:salute: Could it be that with your attention to detail and desire for ferreting out the truth you have uncovered the real reason for these apparent anomalies DB?:minis:
If so we can all relax a bit more.:sleep:
Now about that Lateen sail!:takecover:

Rob.:happy:

[Diamondback]

661 existing and potential ships and counting, plus four I have recommended be permanently retired until they can be resculpted at a more proper size--with nothing from SGN108, 111, 116 or 201 fed in yet.

Pro Tip: SGN112 isn't really a bad model, it just has bad names and stats attached. If you knock it down to Gunnery somewhere between SGN109 and SGN104, and relabel with names from the Ildefonso group, it actually becomes a very good representation of the newest Spanish 74s at Trafalgar.

[Bligh]

Noted and will be acted upon in my Fleet.
Thanks DB.
Rob.

[Diamondback]

BTW, Rob, I sent you the raw Word doc on the Line Chart with links to the various drawings used. I figure if a second person using the same process comes up with the same results, then either the results or valid or the bug is not me but the process.

[Bligh]

Can you re transmit DB. I never got the E-Mail but if it was yesterday we had four power outages because of thunderstorms which messed up the computers.
Rob.

[Diamondback]

Resent.

[Bligh]

Got it thanks DB.
I will have a look at it as soon as I get a moment.
Rob.

[TexaS]

Pro Tip: SGN112 isn't really a bad model, it just has bad names and stats attached. If you knock it down to Gunnery somewhere between SGN109 and SGN104, and relabel with names from the Ildefonso group, it actually becomes a very good representation of the newest Spanish 74s at Trafalgar.

There weren't that much criticism on that ship model that I recall, except for some about them being a little too small for those names and the stats. But the stats went kind of haywire in that wave...

[Diamondback]

Minor breakthrough! I think I've found the plans 108 and 201 are based on....

Since the original Slade drawing is badly degraded, I'm thinking this pre-1920s forensic reconstruction might serve as a "holotype" for SGN108.
http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/79912.html

Similarly this 1830-drawn plan of pre-rebuild configuration would work too.
http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/79911.html

For Victory today we have better results with her sister 1810 Boyne.
http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/80027.html

Simple sculpting guideline: British threedeckers with "chevron" forward ports get SGN108, "back-raked" ports 201 unless details make neither suitable. This means SGN108 (Victory as built, 1756 Royal George, 1810 Queen Charlotte) and SGN201 (1810 HMS Boyne, 1810 HMS Impregnable, 1811 HMS Union) each have three potential reprints remaining; 108 gains four more with the addition of the 1797 Neptunes and 1805 HMS Ocean (a stretched Neptune); 111 gains three with the addition of the Purisima Concepcions bringing the roster to 694 existing or potential ships not including SGN116 or a handful of question-marks each I'm considering for SGN104 and 112.

A *very* cold day in Hell indeed before Ares exhausts that pool...

[TexaS]

Great to hear. That 108 and 201 mess is a bit strange, but it's possible to make something out of it.
If it's good for HMS Neptune, it's good for HMS Temeraire and HMS Dreadnought too I guess.
That takes care of more Trafalgar ships at least...

[Capn Duff]

For Trafalgar ships
I have used 108a (Royal Sovereign) for HMS Netune, Dreadnought and Temeraire and 108c(Queen Charlotte) for HMS Prince.
112b (Bahama) as French 74 Intrepide, Spanish 74 San Ildefonso , Bahama, Spanish 80 Argonauta , Minorca
112a (San Juan Nepomuceno ) Spanish 80 Montanes and Neptuno although the Spanish 80 not changed the original stats.
I changed HMS Prince to a Veer -1 as she was a notoriously bad sailer and Reduced the Neptune's crew box to have one less 2 and changed it to a 1.

What I personally am looking for is. Stretched Slade to make into HMS Mars and an equivalent French early Courageux which I believe was the basis for HMS Minator and HMS Leviathan and HMS Colossus

[Bligh]

Well gentlemen, this seems to be opening up a whole new set of opportunities, if only we can find those ship models still about.
Rob.

[Diamondback]

Chris, I'm personally not comfortable using SGN104 for the Courageux family--generation-wise they're the same split as Ardent vs Artesien, and I'd bet that there will be a similar size difference. Best guess, the ships you mention should either slot in between SGN102 and SGN104 or be closer to Temeraire size.

[Diamondback]

Great to hear. That 108 and 201 mess is a bit strange, but it's possible to make something out of it.
If it's good for HMS Neptune, it's good for HMS Temeraire and HMS Dreadnought too I guess.
That takes care of more Trafalgar ships at least...
Jonas, that's why I said "the Neptunes" plural rather than "Neptune" singular. :)

And an oops... the total is 689: the chart ends at line 694, with one row Header and the four Recommended For Retirements included.

[Capn Duff]

Chris, I'm personally not comfortable using SGN104 for the Courageux family--generation-wise they're the same split as Ardent vs Artesien, and I'd bet that there will be a similar size difference. Best guess, the ships you mention should either slot in between SGN102 and SGN104 or be closer to Temeraire size.

Hi DB been reading through The Ships of Trafalgar and going to compare lengths with my Warships in the Age of Sail Brit and French vols. Agree Mars may well close to the Temeraires in length, need to check the shape.
Appreciate your input

[Diamondback]

My gut's said "neither" on shape, TBH. I've been lobbying for a British Large or Middling 74 based on the Courageux family as a counterpoint to Tonnant, and similarly if SGN111 is the Spanish "middleweight" Third Rate using a resculpted Gautier 74 as their "Heavy."

French designs by generation:
74's: 1740s Invincible (1760s Slade Common) - 1760s Courageux (1780s Leviathan, Armada) - 1780s Temeraire (not widely cloned with so many taken)
64's: 1740s Lis (1760s Ardent) - 1760s Artesien (not cloned with demise of 64-gun format) - no 1780s generation

So normal practice was for the British to build what the French were building 20 years earlier, but beefed up and adapted to their own needs.

[Diamondback]

For the record, I'm not saying necessarily that they're matches I'm comfortable with per se other than Early Victory, Late Victory, Boyne/Union and Impregnable... just that if I absolutely HAD to put the full RN three-decker fleet on the table Right Now those are how I'd go for closest existing fits. I'd be happier about things with more sculpts to choose from, but I'm not sure where to break 'em down on the working assumption we *might* get maybe ONE more...

[TexaS]

Yes. We know that with each more "exotic" class there will be a smaller market and if the sales doesn't support the cost, no more sculpts.

That is why I hope there will be a few main stream Dutch and Swedes before too many ships looking almost like an existing sculpt ends the whole game's development.

I'd rather have a Dutch 74 than two British second rate sculpts.

[Diamondback]

Guys, I'm working on a Comparison Chart for British three-deckers as I type. Once it's done I'll start one for the 74's... First Rates I've magnified to 1/750 scale (the biggest I can do while still keeping to a half-page width limit), and Thirds I should be able to go a little bigger but probably not the 1/500 (double SGN size) I was hoping for.

[Bligh]

Thanks again for all the work you are putting in on this DB. We will all benefit from it, and it will undoubtedly also boost Ares sales as we all avidly do the conversions which it brings to our attention.
Rob.

[Diamondback]

And the chart needs rework--OpenOffice hates excessive graphics, and London's drawing looks suspiciously smaller than all other threedeckers on the page. I'm not sure if Greenwich misrecorded draught dimensions or I screwed up the math somewhere, or if they really were runts of the litter... Either way, I'm frustrated enough I'm gonna take a few days and come back at it when I feel fresh, rested and ready. (For you guys keeping score about autism-spectrum pathology, this is what a Burnout stage looks like.)

[Bligh]

At least you recognize it for what it is and can handle it DB. We all get to that stage from time to time. I think that I can empathize with you. I tend to do subjects to death until I have them completely tamed, and then need a complete break, and then do exactly the same to the next interest which grabs my interest.
Rob.

[Diamondback]

Also, the master line chart now seems suspect--no way in hell does the difference in drawing sizes match the four-foot difference between Ardent and Artesien. Either somebody at Greenwich misrecorded dimensions, scan dims don't match original hardcopy, or I have a Critical Math Fail--and we've previously discussed my known mathematical issues to death. :o