PDA

View Full Version : First French or Spanish first rate Ship of the Line.



Comte de Brueys
03-06-2013, 13:52
So the HMS Victory will be the first 1st rate ship of the line, we'll see early 2014 with the KS project.

What would be the first "non-royal-navy" 1st rate?

A Spanish one or a Frech one?

The Dauphin-Royal was an Océan class 118-gun ship of the line of the French Navy. During the French Revolution, she was renamed Sans-Culotte in September 1792, and eventually Orient in May 1795.

The Santísima Trinidad (officially named Santísima Trinidad by Royal Order on 12 March 1768, nicknamed La Real and sometimes confused with the Manila galleon Santísima Trinidad y Nuestra Señora del Buen Fin) was a Spanish first-rate ship of the line of 112 guns, which was increased in 1795–96 to 130 guns by closing in the spar deck between the quarterdeck and forecastle, and around 1802 to 140 guns, thus creating what was in effect a continuous fourth gundeck although the extra guns added were actually relatively small. She was the heaviest-armed ship in the world when rebuilt, and bore the most guns of any ship of the line outfitted in the Age of Sail.

...or another British one?;)

7eat51
03-06-2013, 13:55
The Santísima Trinidad was pretty awesome:

2294

2295

2296

Comte de Brueys
03-06-2013, 13:59
But the crew still more worse as a French one... :p

Here is the Orient:

http://sailsofglory.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=1260&d=1340373631

Can't get a bigger picture with an intact ship.

Als closeups shows her blowing up.

Thanks to our British friends...:mad:

7eat51
03-06-2013, 14:05
But the crew still more worse as a French one... :p

Yes, but what a mini it would make!

I am hoping for many lines of ships beyond Napoleonic Wars, especially War of 1812. It would be fun introducing folks to different eras, etc.

Sea Gull
03-06-2013, 14:20
A Spanish one would be good. Then it would also be used by the French ... and eventually the British. So, 1 ship, usuable by all nations. Can't say fairer than that. :p

Cpt Kangaroo
03-06-2013, 15:08
I voted for French at this time to round off the existing theme. Once there is Spanish frigates and 74's, then would be the time to include the Santísima Trinidad. Just my two cents worth.

Diamondback
03-06-2013, 16:46
My advice would be a French class equivalent to Victory, so Orient. (I THINK the Victory sculpt could double as a 1745 Establishment 100-gun, and there are a couple alleged descendants of Victory that together they might form a Slade 74-style "design lineage".)

PirateBlake
03-06-2013, 17:37
As much as I like to see a Spanish SOL, I would much prefer to get a fleet completed first, so I voted for a French one.

Gunner
03-09-2013, 19:25
Had to go with the Santísima Trinidad. Always liked the looks of that ship. Hence, my Spanish vote.

Berthier
03-09-2013, 20:26
French for me. Spanish had some big beautiful 1st rates but crews were so poor due to lack of sea experience, disease, poor morale and poor logistic supplies, it's surprising they even got out of port in 1805. Maybe earlier Spanish fleet ships could be interesting. Armada, War of Spanish Succession, etc

Gunner
03-09-2013, 21:46
[QUOTE= it's surprising they even got out of port in 1805. Maybe earlier Spanish fleet ships could be interesting. Armada, War of Spanish Succession, etc[/QUOTE]

Someone please refresh my memory, but years ago I remember reading that the only reason they left port in '05 was that Villeneuve knew that Napoleon sent someone to replace him and that was the only way to save face.

Diamondback
03-09-2013, 21:53
The other thing is, while the line's still spooling up I'd prefer to see re-usable sculpts rather than one-offs. Constitution has four or five re-uses (I don't remember if just one or both her sisters were captured), Victory has a handful if some sources are right (the 1745 Establishment 100's and a couple 98-gun descendants on same basic hull).

IIRC Ocean has a couple potential repops, but I've yet to find any for Santisima Trinidad--I'd rather see the expense of a one-use tool come at a point when the game has better revenue stream and cash-flow to support it, looking at ways to keep the game alive a while since I bet I'm probably a relative youngster among this group. LOL

Gunner
03-09-2013, 22:35
The other thing is, while the line's still spooling up I'd prefer to see re-usable sculpts rather than one-offs. Constitution has four or five re-uses (I don't remember if just one or both her sisters were captured), Victory has a handful if some sources are right (the 1745 Establishment 100's and a couple 98-gun descendants on same basic hull).

IIRC Ocean has a couple potential repops, but I've yet to find any for Santisima Trinidad--I'd rather see the expense of a one-use tool come at a point when the game has better revenue stream and cash-flow to support it, looking at ways to keep the game alive a while since I bet I'm probably a relative youngster among this group. LOL

Point well taken.

Diamondback
03-09-2013, 22:45
Don't get me wrong, I want an ST too--hell, I want to see an expansion back into the days of the vast Spanish treasure fleets and Captain Morgan raiding them--I just want to see the game get solidly on its feet and then use such bold strokes to keep interest up once we're out of Startup Mode and established.

OMG, I sound like a bloody MBA, don't I? LOL

Berthier
03-09-2013, 23:34
Someone please refresh my memory, but years ago I remember reading that the only reason they left port in '05 was that Villeneuve knew that Napoleon sent someone to replace him and that was the only way to save face.

Yes Villeneuve left port as he knew he was about to be replaced by Adm Rosily and honour demanded (he felt) he put to sea. He had no illusions as to what would happen if he met the British Fleet, which probably meant he was beaten beforehand anyway, nevertheless against his better judgement he sailed. What really makes the situation so ironic is that the reason for sailing had passed, Napoleon was off fighting the Austrians/Russians and the invasion of Britain had been put on indefinite hold, so the need to gain command of the channel for the 24 hours Napoleon claimed was all he needed to invade, had become mute. The French/Spanish would have done better to sit in port and continued as a fleet in being providing a constant threat, if somewhat tame, to British naval dominance.

Gunner
03-09-2013, 23:59
Thank you Daniel, for the refresher course.

7eat51
03-10-2013, 09:23
OMG, I sound like a bloody MBA, don't I? LOL

Actually, to be so considered is a tremendous compliment. :D

Jack Aubrey
03-10-2013, 09:37
As much as I like to see a Spanish SOL, I would much prefer to get a fleet completed first, so I voted for a French one.

Good point; I think the same..

Diamondback
03-10-2013, 14:30
Actually, to be so considered is a tremendous compliment. :D
Not necessarily, amigo, my own experience with Corporates has led me to see them as somewhere between the Special Ed and Klown Kollege of advanced degrees most of the time. LOL Granted, there ARE individual exceptions... and that may just be my own experiences, since so many of the ones at Boeing are functionally illiterate and if you pooled their combined wisdom together it wouldn't fill the head of a fresh cat turd.

csadn
03-10-2013, 14:53
The French/Spanish would have done better to sit in port and continued as a fleet in being providing a constant threat, if somewhat tame, to British naval dominance.

Not the case -- "ships and seamen rot in harbour", as Nelson himself put it; so staying in Cadiz would have the same results as going out and getting massacred.

The only salient question for the Napoleonic Wars was "when was Britain going to realize its German, Russian, and Austrian hirelings weren't going to get the job done; and put British boots on the ground in continental Europe?". (Realize: About the same time as Trafalgar, the Ulm Campaign occurred....)

Sea Gull
03-10-2013, 15:27
Not the case -- "ships and seamen rot in harbour", as Nelson himself put it; so staying in Cadiz would have the same results as going out and getting massacred.


True. Napoleon plundered the navy and marines to feed into his army.

Berthier
03-10-2013, 19:49
But a ship rotting in harbour, even unmanned, still represents a future "potential" threat, a ship on the bottom of the ocean or captured and used by your adversary represents nothing.

7eat51
03-10-2013, 21:50
Not necessarily, amigo, my own experience with Corporates has led me to see them as somewhere between the Special Ed and Klown Kollege of advanced degrees most of the time. LOL Granted, there ARE individual exceptions... and that may just be my own experiences, since so many of the ones at Boeing are functionally illiterate and if you pooled their combined wisdom together it wouldn't fill the head of a fresh cat turd.

That my Friend is the failure of people, not degrees. I have seen too much of it myself, and it disgusts me. When I did my MBA, you could tell right there in the classroom which group the students would fall into. The ones who worked at learning were promising; the ones who simply wanted credentials for advancement were frustrating. I imagine their fellow workers are seeing the same thing today.

Diamondback
03-10-2013, 22:13
Point well taken... plus an exceptionally craptacular pool of samples in my case, who I'll bet hired flunkies to pass ENGL 101 for 'em.

I suppose that helps explain in retrospect why Alan Mullaly moved to Ford--he seemed more the "hard work to improve self and organization" kind, while the Cult of Harry Stonecipher that rules seems to be on a perpetual Visigoth's Holiday. (And why I wouldn't take a job there even if it guaranteed me a crack at the hottest woman I could possibly imagine and the means to support her, myself and any future children to whichever preferred standard of living is higher between hers or mine for the rest of all our lives.)

But we're going OT... LOL

csadn
03-11-2013, 14:41
But a ship rotting in harbour, even unmanned, still represents a future "potential" threat, a ship on the bottom of the ocean or captured and used by your adversary represents nothing.

Not by a long shot -- in order to get the necessary experience, the ships have to be out in deep water; every day they aren't out is a day their skills are rusting away. So the longer they stay in harbor, the worse they're going to get, until they are rendered entirely ineffective. And then where does one go to get the experience sailors needed to train future recruits? Someone (I forget who) figured it took at least a decade to build an effective corps of naval personnel; however, long it may be, once all the experienced sailors are gone, it's going to be a long while before effective crews can be built again.

Meanwhile, the ships are also not getting maintained, and are getting older daily; how long will it take to get the ships in proper nick, esp. if (as noted) no one's left who knows how to maintain them?

And then there's the recurring phenomenon of the period: All those crews have to be paid and fed, even if they never leave port. So one is spending a boatload [ahem] of money on something which is utterly ineffective; the usual "solution" is to lay up ships, and move men to where they can be used, or lay them off entirely. Which inevitably makes the problem worse -- the phrase "circling the drain" applies here.

No -- the "fleet in being" concept is a falsehood created by incompetent commanders to mask their ineptitude; and it inevitably leads to defeat, on both sea and land.

Mizzen
03-11-2013, 14:49
Had to go with the Santísima Trinidad. Always liked the looks of that ship. Hence, my Spanish vote.

She is a nice looking vessel so my vote was for the Spaniards. I will be happy with any lines of ships. :)

Berthier
03-11-2013, 17:59
Not by a long shot -- in order to get the necessary experience, the ships have to be out in deep water; every day they aren't out is a day their skills are rusting away. So the longer they stay in harbor, the worse they're going to get, until they are rendered entirely ineffective.

I'm not disputing this at all, it's quite apparent.


[/QUOTE=csadn] Meanwhile, the ships are also not getting maintained, and are getting older daily; how long will it take to get the ships in proper nick, esp. if (as noted) no one's left who knows how to maintain them? [/QUOTE]

Agree again, not my point though

[/QUOTE] And then there's the recurring phenomenon of the period: All those crews have to be paid and fed, even if they never leave port. So one is spending a boatload [ahem] of money on something which is utterly ineffective; the usual "solution" is to lay up ships, and move men to where they can be used, or lay them off entirely. Which inevitably makes the problem worse -- the phrase "circling the drain" applies here. [/QUOTE]

Not entirely. Ships laid up require less maintenance and less crew. Yes it costs to have them there, but your argument suggests a deterrent however ineffective in reality, has no benefit in perception. Whatever the pros and cons of having a mothballed fleet, it is what the protaganists perceive the threat to be. So if the combined fleet had not set sail to Trafalgar, the British would have continued to blockade it, pretty much regardless of it's condition as they would not have wanted any of these ships to leave port unmolested at any time. Even after the defeat at Trafalgar, with French/Spanish naval power effectively broken, the French kept building ships (till 1813) the British kept blockading them. Having another 30 odd SOL in Spanish and French ports would have reduced the need for new French builds, reducing costs, and increased the need for a wider blockade. I cant see how a fleet that has been sunk or worse captured, represents a better outcome than staying in port at that time (Oct 1805)


[/QUOTE] No -- the "fleet in being" concept is a falsehood created by incompetent commanders to mask their ineptitude; and it inevitably leads to defeat, on both sea and land.[/QUOTE]

Wow...the presumptions there are legion. The fleet in being typically belongs to the nation that cant compete with the other fleets in being on an equal basis due to either numbers or skill or both, and cant afford the losses if it did try to go toe to toe. Napoleon, The Kaiser etc were land powers playing at sea powers, there inevitable defeat was not by sea power in the case of Napoleon (if he had pulled his head in 1810 after the Austrians were defeated, cleaned up Spain instead of going after Russia in 1812, he could have lasted another decade till his health failed), and Germany's defeat in WW1 was far more complex than the just the blockade which it's fleet probably couldn't have broken even if it had tried.

David Manley
03-12-2013, 01:15
Actually, to be so considered is a tremendous compliment. :D

Not in the UK it isn't, and certainly not in the company or engineers :D

More damage has been wrought on the UK by MBAs than the Luftwaffe ever managed to achieve :D

7eat51
03-12-2013, 14:46
Not in the UK it isn't, and certainly not in the company or engineers :D

More damage has been wrought on the UK by MBAs than the Luftwaffe ever managed to achieve :D

Ouch!

That was pretty funny. :D

Why am I not feeling the love here, folks? :D

Gunner
03-12-2013, 16:01
Going back to my vote for the Santísima Trinidad. We can use other 74's or frigates for the one's we need.
But what can we use when we need the Santísima Trinidad?

Berthier
03-12-2013, 16:49
Some interesting points about the Santisima Trinidad from wiki

1) In August 1780 she took part in the capture of 55 ships from a British convoy of 63, escorted by the ship of the line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_the_line) HMS Ramillies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ramillies_%281763%29) and three frigates.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_ship_Nuestra_Se%C3%B1ora_de_la_Sant%C3%ADsima_Trinidad#cite_note-4)

2) She took part in the Battle of Trafalgar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Trafalgar) on October 21, 1805, as part of the combined Franco-Spanish fleet. Due to her great bulk, her helm was unresponsive in the light winds of the day, contributing to her ineffective service of the combined fleet's cause

3) It's believed that her wreck was accidentally found during testing of a new sidescan sonar of the Spanish Armada, in 2009.

csadn
03-12-2013, 17:30
Yes it costs to have them there, but your argument suggests a deterrent however ineffective in reality, has no benefit in perception. Whatever the pros and cons of having a mothballed fleet, it is what the protaganists perceive the threat to be.

Here we enter the realm of "off-table knowledge" -- in this case: The above assumes the blockading side is not making any efforts to determine the status of the blockaded ships. No reconnaissance missions; no spies; nothing to ascertain whether or not the blockaded ships are making ready to come out or not. This is not, and has never been, the case; there's always someone looking to see if supplies are being bought, personnel recruited (or impressed), etc. If memory serves: British intel was at least marginally effective in determining the preparation level of the Continental fleets (the problem, as seems ever the case, is the Staff officers and Burro-crats flat-out ignoring the data presented them -- of course, if it were revealed "oh, we've no need to worry about a fleet action from the Continent again", what do you suppose happens to the Naval budget next year?).

So what we're seeing isn't so much "what the blockaders perceive", it's "what the blockaders know, filtered through the usual asshattery of the politicians, in uniform and out, running the show".


So if the combined fleet had not set sail to Trafalgar, the British would have continued to blockade it, pretty much regardless of it's condition as they would not have wanted any of these ships to leave port unmolested at any time. Even after the defeat at Trafalgar, with French/Spanish naval power effectively broken, the French kept building ships (till 1813) the British kept blockading them. Having another 30 odd SOL in Spanish and French ports would have reduced the need for new French builds, reducing costs, and increased the need for a wider blockade. I cant see how a fleet that has been sunk or worse captured, represents a better outcome than staying in port at that time (Oct 1805)

Well, I can think of one reason, tho' none of the people there at the time could have foreseen it (unless someone really knew how Napoleon operated): In 1807, Napoleon invaded Spain, and tried to replace the royal family with his brother Joseph; the resultant uprising in 1808 by the Spanish and Portugese touched off the Peninsular War, which saw the first-ever instance of the Imperial Army getting not only beaten, but utterly demolished (~24,000 troops lost; Joseph booted off the throne), and which allowed Britain to place British Army troops on the ground in continental Europe (as opposed to being forced to rely on incompetent "hired help" like the German states and Austria).

The Peninsular War saw much see-sawing back and forth between the Imperial and British-backed forces, but one notable point remains: The French *never* retook Cadiz, despite their best efforts (which included a two-year siege: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_C%C3%A1diz ). This means: Any French ships in that harbor when the Spanish revolted either had to get out of there by their own means, or be captured (for an example, see the British occupation of Toulon some years earlier). After two years of sitting and rotting in harbor, how many of those ships would have been able to get away? I suspect that number looks an awful lot like this: 0.

But that's just one example; a more-recent version would be the German surface fleet in WW2, which was blockaded for most of the war (esp. after about 1942), and just sort-of rotted away in place. (Much the same happened to the *WW1* German Navy; are we seeing a pattern here?)

However it plays out, the fact remains: A fleet which never sets keel out of harbor is not a threat to anyone save the terminally paranoid; hence my comment about the "fleet-in-being" concept being a refuge for the hopelessly incompetent commander. No assumptions; only cold, hard facts -- if one wishes to win the naval war, one needs to get out on open water and beat the opposing navy. Talk of "sit in harbor and be a threat by existing" is a load of codswallop; it's never worked before; it doesn't work now; it never will work.

Gunner
03-12-2013, 18:02
I'm tempted to say, I'm sorry, but I fell asleep after the second paragraph, would you repeat that please. But you might.
So I won't.

7eat51
03-12-2013, 21:23
One thing about the Santísima Trinidad is that it brings another country into the game, and that could bring an interesting dynamic and enable interesting scenarios. Additionally, it could attract individuals interested in the Spanish navy.

RichardPF
03-13-2013, 00:19
One thing about the Santísima Trinidad is that it brings another country into the game, and that could bring an interesting dynamic and enable interesting scenarios. Additionally, it could attract individuals interested in the Spanish navy.

The Santísima Trinidad was a very impressive looking ship and would make a very nice model and addition to the game. It does, I think, bring up a question about game mechanics. The rules include provisions for wind direction and point of sail, but I have not heard anything about specific rules to set wind strength. Certainly wind strength is a factor when deploying very large ships such as this one.

Comte de Brueys
03-13-2013, 05:48
3) It's believed that her wreck was accidentally found during testing of a new sidescan sonar of the Spanish Armada, in 2009.[/I]

That's why all ships of the new Spanish Armada have transparent hull bottoms, to have a good look on the old Spanish Armada. ;)

Comte de Brueys
03-13-2013, 06:01
But that's just one example; a more-recent version would be the German surface fleet in WW2, which was blockaded for most of the war (esp. after about 1942), and just sort-of rotted away in place. (Much the same happened to the *WW1* German Navy; are we seeing a pattern here?)

You can't compare Napoleons blockaded fleet with the German WW I & WW II Navy, not really. :p

Especially the German WW II Navy operated the whole War in the Baltic Sea, Danish Street and near the complete coastal area of western and northern Europe. ...and we don't talk about the U-Boot Waffe.

Don't reduce the punch of the Reichsmarine* only with this blockade and the fact, that German Großkampfschiffe didn't operate worldwide like British, US, French or Dutch ships.

*equipment and training standart were formidable.


However it plays out, the fact remains: A fleet which never sets keel out of harbor is not a threat to anyone save the terminally paranoid; hence my comment about the "fleet-in-being" concept being a refuge for the hopelessly incompetent commander. No assumptions; only cold, hard facts -- if one wishes to win the naval war, one needs to get out on open water and beat the opposing navy. Talk of "sit in harbor and be a threat by existing" is a load of codswallop; it's never worked before; it doesn't work now; it never will work.

That's maybe true for the for the early 19th century's fleets.

Gunner
03-13-2013, 11:55
That's why all ships of the new Spanish Armada have transparent hull bottoms, to have a good look on the old Spanish Armada. ;)

Ha,ha,ha.:D

csadn
03-13-2013, 17:18
You can't compare Napoleons blockaded fleet with the German WW I & WW II Navy, not really. :p

Especially the German WW II Navy operated the whole War in the Baltic Sea, Danish Street and near the complete coastal area of western and northern Europe. ...and we don't talk about the U-Boot Waffe.

Actually, I can -- because the advent of self-powered ships alleviated one of the major problems the French and Spanish faced a bare hundred years earlier (ships were dependent upon wind to move in Napoleon's time; in WWs 1 and 2, they weren't), and the U-Boat specifically countered a major problem faced by most of the Continent's powers (how to move combat ships past Britain without engaging Royal Navy units head-on). Note that while the U-Boats could (and did, I won't deny *that*!) raise nine kinds of merry hell on the oceans, the German *surface* fleets mainly only managed to do so in terms of playing on paranoia.

Long version follows:

In the Napoleonic era, subs weren't practical much past a port (yes, they existed; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_%28submersible%29 ; so a surface force was required to affect an enemy's sea trade and battle fleets. Those surface forces were wind-powered -- and the wind blew in one direction at a time. If the wind was blowing into the harbor mouth, ships in the harbor couldn't get out easily, while blockaders could remain parked within easy reach of the harbor mouth; if it was blowing out of the harbor mouth, ships in the harbor could get out, while the blockading ships couldn't easily hold station off the harbor mouth. (This is why Napoleon's naval campaigns inevitably failed: Napoleon was a landsman -- he sees two points 200 miles apart; he knows ships can move 10 MPH; he assumes then that if he orders the fleet to leave A for B, it will take 20 hours for them to arrive. He has no comprehension of just how bloody difficult it is to move sailing ships.) So a force in a harbor had to wait for the wind to be right before it could leave.

That said: Harbors were small, and ships were unwieldly; so it would take a while for any force inside a harbor to set out (at Cadiz, it took most of the day of Oct. 20 to get the Combined Fleet out of the harbor and formed up; by which point, the British were very-much ready and waiting).

End result of all this is: It was almost impossible for a force inside a harbor to slip away unnoticed (I say almost because in the course of events which put the Combined Fleet at Cadiz, they *did* manage to slip past the British blockade, which had been blown out to sea by a storm; and remained undiscovered by Nelson's pursuing force until they came to Cadiz).

Contrast this with the German Navies of the World Wars -- they are *not* wind-dependent, and can come and go as they please (more or less). The surface ships, tho', could be (and were) easily spotted from the moment they left Kiel, unless they left under cover of darkness or fog. The U-Boats, being able to submerge, were far harder to spot. Thus, the surface fleet stayed mostly bottled up for the course of both Wars, while the U-Boats were able to slip out, raise havoc, and return.

Both Napoleon's, and Germany's, surface fleets were blockaded for the same reasons -- there's not that many exits to deep water, and Britain was guarding all of them. It wasn't until the submarine was created that a means existed to slip combat units past Britain itself, and the RN in general.

7eat51
03-13-2013, 18:13
The Santísima Trinidad was a very impressive looking ship and would make a very nice model and addition to the game. It does, I think, bring up a question about game mechanics. The rules include provisions for wind direction and point of sail, but I have not heard anything about specific rules to set wind strength. Certainly wind strength is a factor when deploying very large ships such as this one.

I am reading a book about the Anglo-Dutch ships, and am learning quite a bit about ship design. Until now, I would never have thought about what you brought up here. Similar issues arise as to ships' ability to enter shallow waters, etc. I can see where house rules can add layers of depth and complexity to the rules if they are at a basic level.

Berthier
03-13-2013, 23:50
Here we enter the realm of "off-table knowledge" -- in this case: The above assumes the blockading side is not making any efforts to determine the status of the blockaded ships. No reconnaissance missions; no spies; nothing to ascertain whether or not the blockaded ships are making ready to come out or not. This is not, and has never been, the case; there's always someone looking to see if supplies are being bought, personnel recruited (or impressed), etc. If memory serves: British intel was at least marginally effective in determining the preparation level of the Continental fleets (the problem, as seems ever the case, is the Staff officers and Burro-crats flat-out ignoring the data presented them -- of course, if it were revealed "oh, we've no need to worry about a fleet action from the Continent again", what do you suppose happens to the Naval budget next year?).

So what we're seeing isn't so much "what the blockaders perceive", it's "what the blockaders know, filtered through the usual asshattery of the politicians, in uniform and out, running the show".



Well, I can think of one reason, tho' none of the people there at the time could have foreseen it (unless someone really knew how Napoleon operated): In 1807, Napoleon invaded Spain, and tried to replace the royal family with his brother Joseph; the resultant uprising in 1808 by the Spanish and Portugese touched off the Peninsular War, which saw the first-ever instance of the Imperial Army getting not only beaten, but utterly demolished (~24,000 troops lost; Joseph booted off the throne), and which allowed Britain to place British Army troops on the ground in continental Europe (as opposed to being forced to rely on incompetent "hired help" like the German states and Austria).

The Peninsular War saw much see-sawing back and forth between the Imperial and British-backed forces, but one notable point remains: The French *never* retook Cadiz, despite their best efforts (which included a two-year siege: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_C%C3%A1diz ). This means: Any French ships in that harbor when the Spanish revolted either had to get out of there by their own means, or be captured (for an example, see the British occupation of Toulon some years earlier). After two years of sitting and rotting in harbor, how many of those ships would have been able to get away? I suspect that number looks an awful lot like this: 0.

But that's just one example; a more-recent version would be the German surface fleet in WW2, which was blockaded for most of the war (esp. after about 1942), and just sort-of rotted away in place. (Much the same happened to the *WW1* German Navy; are we seeing a pattern here?)

However it plays out, the fact remains: A fleet which never sets keel out of harbor is not a threat to anyone save the terminally paranoid; hence my comment about the "fleet-in-being" concept being a refuge for the hopelessly incompetent commander. No assumptions; only cold, hard facts -- if one wishes to win the naval war, one needs to get out on open water and beat the opposing navy. Talk of "sit in harbor and be a threat by existing" is a load of codswallop; it's never worked before; it doesn't work now; it never will work.

We don't seem to be getting to the point I was trying to make. At no time have I said or even suggested the French/Spanish had a chance of naval supremacy against the British because frankly they didn't. It wasn't a numbers issue it was a quality issue. This is a different situation to WW1 and 2 with Germany and Britian where I think the quality differences were far less but the numerical differences were still there. Also the geography was always going to favour Britain which could cover most Baltic, Med and Biscay/Channel exits by air or ship or radar. As you say, only the Uboats changed the playing field there and again only for a while.

The discussion about the Spanish revolt in 1808 is not relevant to the fleet in being as again as you pointed it, this is using historical hindsight to support a position that may never have occurred. All fleets technically could have been subject to this fate. There could have been worker riots in Plymouth or Falmouth and ships on the slips or naval stores could have been burnt, there were mutinies in 1797 and the possibility existed for ships to have been taken or destroyed. These are all simply conjectural and you cant evaluate the argument based on these.

So I return to my initial statement, the ships would have been better left in port than sailing to certain doom or capture. It doesn't matter what happened in Spain later, no-one could have known that. It doesn't matter that ships are rotting in harbour, frigates are still escaping and being chased all over the world as they raid commerce, the occasional 74 may even get out after a storm (to probable certain doom) ...what matters is the mindset of the blockader. Paranoia is just as good a weapon as any, Britain spent enormous resources on sinking German ships in WW2 that had little or any chance of ever sailing (Tirpitz in Norway, others is Kiel and Bremen I think. The crews were fighting with the Wehrmacht and there oil had been diverted to the army and airforce which the Allies knew), it also sent task forces to chase down single/double ship raiders..Bismark, Scharnhorst etc. They were concerned about the possible effect on vital convoys however remote the real threat. So in the Napoleonic times, with the Fr/Sp fleet laid up in harbour, maybe preparing only one or two ships at a time to keep the British on their toes and distracted, this seems to be a very good use of limited resources to force an opponent to use vastly more resources in response.

Napoleon I agree completely misunderstood the limitations of naval power of the day, that's not my argument. All I said was the fleet was better in port, the 10000 dead sailors (however poorly trained) and dead soldiers (there were a couple of battalions on board the fleet at Trafalgar) better of alive. Better to live to fight another day and in another way. The statement wasn't about naval supremacy and resting it from Britain, France at the time never had the chance to do that, it was about what would have served France's best interests with respect to the sortie that led to Trafalgar. I'm not sure the French had any alternative to this strategy, they couldn't get enough experience on the high seas without being forced to battle, they needed the experience to have a hope of winning. Thus a fleet in being is the only fleet they were going to have. In the mindset of a continental power as opposed to a naval power I dont think that is unreasonable or incompetent.

RichardPF
03-14-2013, 01:38
I am reading a book about the Anglo-Dutch ships, and am learning quite a bit about ship design. Until now, I would never have thought about what you brought up here. Similar issues arise as to ships' ability to enter shallow waters, etc. I can see where house rules can add layers of depth and complexity to the rules if they are at a basic level.

I agree! I think that Ares did the right thing by keeping the basic rules approachable for as broad an audience as possible, but sailing ships at the mercy of the elements for propulsion, and especially the varying conditions found near shore, open an amazing array of advanced rule possibilities.

7eat51
03-14-2013, 12:35
I agree! I think that Ares did the right thing by keeping the basic rules approachable for as broad an audience as possible, but sailing ships at the mercy of the elements for propulsion, and especially the varying conditions found near shore, open an amazing array of advanced rule possibilities.

With the amount of technical knowledge I have seen thus far by folks on this site, I think we'll see some exciting and extremely useful house rules appearing. We must remember we are not constrained by Ares' need to produce broad-base appealing rules, a need, by the way, which I support. Allow the game, as is, to be a gateway.

I, for one, want to work on developing scenarios - history is a bit more my gig.

csadn
03-14-2013, 17:23
We don't seem to be getting to the point I was trying to make. At no time have I said or even suggested the French/Spanish had a chance of naval supremacy against the British because frankly they didn't. It wasn't a numbers issue it was a quality issue. This is a different situation to WW1 and 2 with Germany and Britian where I think the quality differences were far less but the numerical differences were still there. Also the geography was always going to favour Britain which could cover most Baltic, Med and Biscay/Channel exits by air or ship or radar. As you say, only the Uboats changed the playing field there and again only for a while.

Oh, no doubt, the German crew quality was equal, if not superior, to the British (the Germans had learned from the best :) )-- at least for those who'd been able to get out to sea at least once. In WW1, after four years of being blockaded (less two big shootouts at Dogger Bank and Jutland), well -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiel_mutiny . In WW2, given the tiny German surface force as compared to the U-Boat force -- well, who took over Germany after Uncle Adi clipped himself?

The point here is: The French Revolutionaries *could* have built up an effective naval-personnel force -- *if they had been able to get to sea*. That was one reason for the British blockade: Prevent the French gaining deep-water experience, so that embarrassments like Ushant and Chesapeake Bay in the American Revolution were not repeated. (The other, natch, was "control overseas trade, and the money derived therefrom" -- how do you think Britain was able to keep bribing the Germans, Austrians, and others to fight France?)


The discussion about the Spanish revolt in 1808 is not relevant to the fleet in being as again as you pointed it, this is using historical hindsight to support a position that may never have occurred. All fleets technically could have been subject to this fate. There could have been worker riots in Plymouth or Falmouth and ships on the slips or naval stores could have been burnt, there were mutinies in 1797 and the possibility existed for ships to have been taken or destroyed. These are all simply conjectural and you cant evaluate the argument based on these.

True -- but it was the only documented example I could find. You mention the Spithead mutinies -- that was another, far more common, problem for all navies: Sailors don't get paid, they get Grumpy.


So I return to my initial statement, the ships would have been better left in port than sailing to certain doom or capture. It doesn't matter what happened in Spain later, no-one could have known that. It doesn't matter that ships are rotting in harbour, frigates are still escaping and being chased all over the world as they raid commerce, the occasional 74 may even get out after a storm (to probable certain doom) ...what matters is the mindset of the blockader. Paranoia is just as good a weapon as any, Britain spent enormous resources on sinking German ships in WW2 that had little or any chance of ever sailing (Tirpitz in Norway, others is Kiel and Bremen I think. The crews were fighting with the Wehrmacht and there oil had been diverted to the army and airforce which the Allies knew), it also sent task forces to chase down single/double ship raiders..Bismark, Scharnhorst etc. They were concerned about the possible effect on vital convoys however remote the real threat. So in the Napoleonic times, with the Fr/Sp fleet laid up in harbour, maybe preparing only one or two ships at a time to keep the British on their toes and distracted, this seems to be a very good use of limited resources to force an opponent to use vastly more resources in response.

I can see that argument; I would rebut it with: It doesn't matter if the fleet gets destroyed one at a time, or in bunches, or rots away on the vine; then end result is still the same -- a big-ass "L" attached to the side who does it. (And for commerce-raiding, depending on how one does it, one doesn't necessarily need even as big a ship as a frigate -- the US did rather well with schooners, sloops, and brigs, for one.) If one intends to win the war, well, "the idea is not to die for one's country; the idea is to make the other guy die for his country".


Napoleon I agree completely misunderstood the limitations of naval power of the day, that's not my argument. All I said was the fleet was better in port, the 10000 dead sailors (however poorly trained) and dead soldiers (there were a couple of battalions on board the fleet at Trafalgar) better of alive. Better to live to fight another day and in another way. The statement wasn't about naval supremacy and resting it from Britain, France at the time never had the chance to do that, it was about what would have served France's best interests with respect to the sortie that led to Trafalgar. I'm not sure the French had any alternative to this strategy, they couldn't get enough experience on the high seas without being forced to battle, they needed the experience to have a hope of winning. Thus a fleet in being is the only fleet they were going to have. In the mindset of a continental power as opposed to a naval power I dont think that is unreasonable or incompetent.

Except they barely had a fleet-in-being -- they had ships, this is true; but they didn't have men to sail them (at least, not more than 1-2 at a time); and they didn't because they'd killed off everyone with experience in the Revolution (most staff-level officers being Aristos). To defeat Britain, they needed men with experience -- as noted above, they'd almost managed it in the American Rev., holding off the RN at Ushant and Chesapeake Bay (which latter led to Yorktown); to get that experience, they needed to either retain les aristos, or get the ships out on the water where the crews could learn the ropes (in every sense). In order to end the wars, they had to beat Britain; in order to beat Britain, they had to beat the Royal Navy; and they couldn't do that sitting in harbor. *That* is Unreasonable, and Incompetent (in many senses).

Gunner
03-14-2013, 18:09
Hey Eric How bout dem Cubs. Pennant dis year?

7eat51
03-14-2013, 21:26
Hey Eric How bout dem Cubs. Pennant dis year?

2421

Gunner
03-14-2013, 22:26
2421

Ha, ha, ha.

Beowulf03809
03-21-2013, 11:32
I voted French only because we already have a decent start to a French fleet with the Starter and KS exclusive models. I would not start a new fleet with a big ship myself but rather Frigate / Third Rate options as they seem to be doing and not adding a 100+ gun vessel until it has some support. Once I had a good French fleet I will be very much looking forward to a Spanish fleet but initially my purchases would have to remain focused.

Diamondback
03-21-2013, 12:20
Actually, the question has already been answered--confirmed Ocean-class in Series 2. :)

Beowulf03809
03-21-2013, 12:51
Actually, the question has already been answered--confirmed Ocean-class in Series 2. :)

Cool! Can you point to the discussion? I'm probably not fully plugged in as many of you.

Diamondback
03-21-2013, 12:53
Lawrence, it was a comment on the Kickstarter page.