Portsdown

If anyone is at a loss for a name... http://www.ageofnelson.org/MichaelPhillips/

I shall be consulting... http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16695?msg=welcome_stranger ... something may be learnt thereby.

Portsdown

Hitting a Magazine would be infinitesimally rare. The magazines were below the waterline in the area of the hold, in a central location where a ball would have to get through the ships hull and the stores around the magazine before getting through its walls. The magazines (bigger ships had two) were effectively double walled. There were walls in the hold within which it sat but the room itself was a wooden box suspended by ropes from above - a 'Hanging Magazine'. This meant that it would take longer for fire to reach it as there was less connection with the main body of the ship. Fire would also hopefully burn through the ropes and cause the Magazine to drop into the bilges, and any water therein, before reaching the Magazine itself. The hold could also be deliberately flooded and the ropes cut. All sorts of protective measures were taken - for example light was supplied by a candle outside the magazine that shone though windows in both the magazine itself and its casing. In action nobody would enter of leave the Magazine - charges would be handed, stored in a fireproof box, out through a slit in a wetted curtain and the staff inside wore special clothing that minimised the chance of spark. The only magazine explosions I can remember reading about that occurred in battle came after fire had taken serious hold on a ship. There were explosions that occurred outside battles but obviously cannon shots were not involved - usually we don't know why these explosions happened because nobody survived. Explosions in battle tended to have survivors as by the time the fire was big enough to threaten the magazines it was big enough to drive people off the ship. The explosions could be very large. I have certainly read (I don't remember where) of the crew of two opposing ships locked together by their yardarms halting the combat to fight the fire in one of them together as if one ship went up the other would be utterly destroyed as well. Boats rescuing people from burning ships were at very real risk, not just from the potential explosion but also from guns set off at random by the flames. yet repeatedly enemy small vessles and boats would go out to rescue the crew of a burning enemy ship.

Agree about the name - some people will make assumptions based on it. Some will expect you to lead. My experience, based on years of World of Tanks is to expect less of someone with a 'boastful' (and what I consider boastful is pretty wide) name, until demonstrated otherwise. The 'SuperMegaPanzerOberFurer' types tend not to live up to the name. The people who expect less tend to be less vocal however. Plus, whilst we may be expect less from you due to your nick we expect absolutely nothing from those harassing you. You have become, inadvertently, through an an absence of cynicism when choosing your nick, an Idiot Detector. If you read http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/3087-what-made-you-pick-your-username/?p=68765 you will discover that I rejected my first two choices of name for exactly this reason.

The Avatar is His Royal Highness, Admiral of the Fleet, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, the current Lord High Admiral. Please report to the Tower immediately.

From my memory of 'Seamanship' you are pretty much correct. One such manoeuvre was known to have been attempted only once, and it succeeded spectacularly. Another manoeuvre, used in his books by POB, seems to have been discussed as a theoretical possibility, however nobody ended up in a desperate enough situation under the right conditions to try it. However one manoeuvre, Club Hauling, was a recognised way of getting off a Lee Shore. Here is the description from a document 'General Principals of Working a Ship' from the 'New Practical Navigator', 1814: This method of going about is resorted to when on a lee shore, and the vessel can neither be tacked nor box-hauled. Cock-bill you lee-anchor, get a hawser on it for a spring, and lead it to the lee-quarter; range your cable, and unshackle it abaft the windlass. Helm a-lee! and Raise tacks and sheets! as for going in stays. The moment she loses headway, let go the anchor and Mainsail haul! As soon as the anchor brings her head to the wind, let the chain cable go, holding on to the spring; and when the after sails take full, cast off or cut the spring, and Let go and haul!

<Intermission> <Off Topic> Well, I can't find my copy of 'Seamanship'. I can find a book on a load of seamanlike and unseamalike knots, 'The Wooden World' and 'The Command of the Ocean' but not 'Seamanship'. I live on a boat and she is currently undergoing a long term refit so a lot of my stuff is in storage. My parents will go and have a rummage through the boxes of books for me tomorrow. If not I will have to buy a new one - no massive loss as my copy was badly water damaged a few years ago. I can't really recommend Harlands 'Seamanship in the Age of Sail' enough to those who can spare the requisite number of Guineas and have a deep interest in this subject. 'The Wooden World' and 'The Command of the Ocean', both by N A M Rodgers, are much cheaper and great for the organisational side of this period, if you don't have them already. </Off Topic> </Intermission>

I have the 1799 RN Signal Book with me on my Tablet. Signal 128 'Particular ships to cut or slip and chase (leaving a bouy upon the cable) in the Direction by Compass signal denoted. If for the whole Fleet to do the same, two Guns will be fired herewith.' I think that settles it for it being historical to bouy the cable when cutting or slipping your (anchor) cable.

Don't underate POB. He was invited to speak at learned conferences and was thought of highly by Colin White, late lamented head of the Royal Naval Museam. On the POB email list, which houses a fair few 'learned coves', including, until 2005, Colin White, it was very rare indeed to find 'the Master Nodding' while I was there. He practically lived his era. I will, nevertheless, double check in 'Seamanship' (in a few hours)

I will check 'Seamanship in the Age of Sail' for info on this subject late tonight when I get in from work. I must say that lying to would be much more stable than bare poles however.

Ref. recovering anchors. Cutting away your anchor in battle or emergency was a recognised practice. Ships had several anchors and whilst they didn't like dropping them they did at need. If time and circumstances allowed they would bouy them but if not 'dragging for an anchor' was a recognised procedure. Making ships wait to recover them before moving off would be highly unrealistic. Fighting from a stationary position was also a recognised procedure. It was done at anchor, with a spring to the anchor to allow the ship to be pointed exactly. It was sufficiently common that there was a specific signal for it in the code book. The only problem with that tactic is that you needed the water to be shallow enough for the anchor to be usable - vessels have never carried cables of infinite length! That last also rules out making a ship under Bare Poles anchor if you want to be realistic. Unless you are in reasonably shallow waters it would be simply impossible.

Ref. rotation under Bare Poles. What is being forgotten is that the ships of the time could, and did, raise and lower masts and yards. In this situation the yards are most important, because of the time issue. Raising and lowering yards without spreading the sails would change the windage of each mast, allowing a multi-masted vessel to have moderate control of her rotation. Not perfect control, but enough to lie approximately head, broadside or stern to wind.

One problem with a set of rules is that you can start to get 'rules lawyers' who tie up devs time and the guys who find something not listed in the rules and do it until discovered. Hence I propose 'Rule Zero' - which actually makes 90% of other possible rules just guidance and clarification. 0.1 Do not do anything that would: a. Defeat the aim of the testing. b. Spoil the enjoyment of a reasonable player. 0.2 In your dealings with players and staff, including such things as choice of avatar and nickname, you should should comport yourself in a reasonable and Gentlemanly manner. 0.3 Bad behaviour or contravention of these rules on the part of another party does not exempt you from these rules. 0.4 If you are in any doubt whether something contravenes clause 0.1 to 0.3 you are obliged to seek guidance on the forums.

Indeed. We tend to extract the Micheal from everything, including (especially) ourselves. But the quote in the original post looks like a post from a well known UK Internet phenomenon, the grammar (and spelling) Nazi. If the target of the comment were British the use of language would have been dissected with a micro-scalpel - without an anaesthetic. People have been burned at the stake over the use, or non use, of an Oxford Comma.

I would suggest only after the introduction of Reefing, sending down Topmasts etc. in storms.

Bumping this a bit with a quote from Herman Bumping this with a quote from Herman Melville (writing in 1850 about life in the US Navy) regarding Captain David Porter's refusal to strike his colours when it became clear all was lost at the Battle of Valparaiso (capture of the USS Essex and USS Essex Junior by HM Ships Phoebe and Cherub in 1814) hopeless. He said that Porter was seeking to "crown himself with the glory of the shambles, by permitting his hopeless crew to be butchered before his eyes." and that "Nor, by thus continuing to fight, did this American frigate, one iota, promote the true interests of her country."

Sort of sad that a native would remember the Pirates (curse of their, and our (because they seem to be the only Age of Sail thing youngsters can think of today), age) rather than the naval Battle of Valparaiso, where the USS Essex and USS Essex Junior (a prize) were taken by HMS Pheobe and HMS Cherub http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Valparaiso

So I have to start up Steam, to play an Age of Sail game ... <Palm-Face>

WOT, like the Royal Navy? (PS: You said 'Unique', not 'Equal')

Being as how: A. I spend half my working week sat across from a Commander RN, with a fair number of Lt Cdrs around. B. Work in a building named for HMS Grenville that once housed part of the Admiralty Surface Weapons Establishment. C. Can see HM Naval Dockyard Portsmouth, HMS Victory and HMS Warrior 1860 from the office window. D. I live on a boat that is the namesake of several important RN ships, including a 74. I think you can guess my answer.

Well, I live on a boat, Narrowboat Invincible, so my first thought was Invincible. But then I decided that this sounded boastful. Then I thought of Grenville, after HMS Grenville (R97), the ship that the building I work in is named after (her bell hangs in reception). But I felt that it wasn't quite right, it still felt a bit boastful. People might think I was comparing myself to the origin of the ships name, Vice Admiral Sir Richard Grenville, who died of wounds received aboard his ship the Revenge, which stood alone against the 63 ships of the Spanish fleet at the Battle of Flores (1591) So I chose Portsdown, after the hill (overlooking Portsmouth) on which the Grenville Building stands and HMS Portsdown (T 221) an Anti-Submarine Warfare Trawler of WII. BTW, thats not me in the Avatar. The bloke is one of the crew of HMS Amethyst, hero of the 'Yangtze Incident'. The cat is Simon DM, Amethysts Ships Cat.

Quick 'Point of Order' - the Royal Navy (at least) didn't use Shanties as it was held to mask the calling out of important orders. Music would have been during leisure time. Ok, now for my likes. Loads of stuff from Fishermens Friends. 'Nelsons Blood' - 'Shanty Medely' - 'No Hopers, Jokers, and Rogues' (modern) - A little bit of Steeleye Span, not well recorded (its much better off the album) 'Senior Service' (modern) - An ad-hoc group, but a period piece ... 'The Gallant Frigate Amphitrite' Coope, Boyes and Simpson 'The Thousand Miles' (18th Cent) -

As a clue to of how hard it was to sink one of these ships, here is HMS Implacable (74) (formerly the French Duguay-Trouin, built 1800) being sunk in 1949. http://youtu.be/f6InlOLpry0 Now she was more difficult to sink than a ship in battle - she had no guns and masts. Also the charges were set wrong and the ballast dropped out of her when they sent off. But she stayed afloat like that, a hazard to shipping, for 3 hours. And, whilst the Pathe film doesn't mention it, those 3 hours were under bombardment by vessels of the Royal Navy using WWII era armament. Even then significant parts remained afloat and posed a hazard to shipping until they were washed ashore. I think this shows that, at the very least, 'sunk' ships should, in many cases, remain afloat and a hazard to players - possibly holding the remnants of their crew that could be rescued and used to bolster those of players of an appropriate side. I'm very much in favour of some sort of 'Striking' mechanism. For a start seamen were human and its very, very, rare for military units to continue to fight effectively beyond certain levels of losses. They were also a scarce resource - it took time to turn a Landsman, pressed or volunteer, into a seaman. Napoleon realised this and was very strict that British seamen should not be exchanged for French, as had been previous practise. Depending on the situation striking at least preserves your crew to assist your country at some putative later date. One consideration that players could be presented with is that if they refuse to strike in a situation that warranted it they would get a reputation for it. The number and quality of men coming forward to form future crews (and, make no mistake, volunteers were an important source of men, especially for successful and popular Captains) and their morale (nobody likes to think that 'The Old Man' would waste their lives pointlessly) would all drop. So yes, you could refuse to Strike, but your reputation and future prospects would suffer.

One of the key drivers behind 'Battle Sails' was fire. You didn't want the Mainsails down as they came close enough to the deck to be set alight by flash and embers from the guns. I see everyone charging around with full sails and wince. Basically every time you fire (or at least fire with your upper decks guns) with Mainsails set there should be a chance of setting them on fire. And if you have Studding Sails set...