Sir Lancelot Holland

Generally speaking, the defender will usually hold the advantage, they already hold the area so defence is usually area denial, that is what screening fleets are for, to deny the attacking PB access to the area. This is why any attacking fleet should, of necessity, be two to three times larger than the defending force in order to force entry. TP into a PB removes that defensive advantage and gives it to the attacking fleet, especially where the attacking ships are of better quality and with better skilled players. Now if an inferior defensive fleet can hold off a superior attacking fleet then they have done well, if the attacking screening fleets tie down the defensive screen then the attacking PB fleet will get in and very likely win the PB as happened frequently in the late Anglo-Swedish war, The few PB's GB did win were due to a solid defence, utilising all of the defensive advantages, and, where the Swedish PB fleets were denied entry, or, had limited entry to the PB area. Take away the defensive advantages and the better quality, better skilled side will usually win, barring errors or misfortune. The only real effect TP into battle will have will be that eventually the defending side will say there is no point in defending at all, for the attacking side there is no battle, so where is their content, sailing in and winning by default gives no one any satisfaction,, and, defeats the object of port battles completely.

To the native Swedes I say, you welcomed these British renegades into your nation, you have followed them in whatever grudge, vendetta, or flimsy excuse against GB, or more accurately certain clans and or players within GB, they have used those to lead you into this war, will you win? maybe, wars are so unpredictable, if so, who is left to fight? your neighbours Norge-Danmark, France? Spain who have had a horrendous time from almost everyone including us?, How about the U.S. though you'll be hard put to find an excuse for that, but, I have no doubt that an excuse will be found, the Chinese maybe, it's bit of a sail to get at them, but, hey, they'll be all that's left anyway once you are done with the Dutch, that is, neutrality is no guarantee of survival against those who only want to fight! the Prussians and the Poles who are clearly finding fun and enjoyment without a lot of fuss or drama? It won't be your local, friendly, neighbourhood Russians that's for sure, even British renegades are frightened of something! A very famous Japanese Admiral allegedly said of his nation's folly, he said "I fear all we have done is waken a sleeping giant, and, filled him with a terrible resolve" and he definitely said "In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success." Vice Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto,. the Battle of Midway was the turning point of the Pacific war, it ended six months to the day of the attack on Pearl Harbour! If you do nothing else, learn from him, he knew his trade, and, the consequences of one foolish act, fortunately for him, he never saw the true consequences of that folly, I think, eventually, you will.

A warship, no matter how good she is on paper, are only as good as the the men who man her, this is why it has always been the case that those who commanded warships were the best of their kind. All ships had their virtues, and,their vices, good captains exploit them, poor and mediocre Captains do not, they may well be competent Captains but if they cannot exploit their ships strengths and their opponents ships weaknesses they remain competent Captains and will rarely become renowned. Competent Captains are ten a penny, Captains of renown are far rarer creatures and on a bad day can be bested by competent Captains or by circumstance. A competent Captain should know when to to fight and when to evade, he should know that if he cannot beat a Le Requin that she cannot run before the wind and will act accordingly, if he knows he can stand his ground with a good chance of winning then he'll do so, it is the Captain who makes both the ship's and his own name, and, not the ship that makes the Captain, this is why not every Captain becomes a John Paul Jones or a Nelson, I will not be either, but I know I can hold off a Le Requin even in a traders brig, and have done so, although the Captain in question clearly had greater stock in the the reputation of his his ship than his own abilities in her! The issue of a ships rating is complex,almost every navy of the time used different criteria for rating ships, so unless only one rating system is used there will always be differences in opinion of what a specific class of ship should be rated, one mans 6th rate can easily be another mans 5th rate, or vice versa, likewise, with cannon differing weight scales can result in heavier poundage doing less damage than an apparently lighter gun since there was no standardisation of cannons or weight of shot between nations.

It is not a question of risk/reward at all, it is a question of doing what has to be done to defend a port, if a nation wants to attain victory by sending overwhelming forces believing they cannot lose there is no point in complaining that they are screened out by inferior forces, any attacker who is arrogant enough to think that they will always win using superior ships and mods deserves to be taught differently and this is what is happening here, nothing more, nothing less. It is no different to the fate of Napoleons army when they invaded Russia, the Russian army did not beat Napoleon, Russia's winter beat Napoleon, and it was sound military tactics by the Russians to take advantage of of their Winter to win their war, so it is, with any nation who uses small ships to screen out a superior force, you use what you have to best advantage, sometimes you will win, sometimes you will lose, but as the British like to say, 'all is fair in love and war'. These 'Kamikaze' Screener's get no tangible reward for what they do, unlike the VM's that the overwhelming force would get if they got into the PB and destroyed a fleet incapable of it;s own defence, never mind the port, yet they go out time after time to defend with courage and honour, to the best of their ability, there is I think a great deal of satisfaction among screener's when they know that these great ships of the line also get no reward when they are sent packing by a 'rag tag navy' with inferior mods, perhaps, then, our enemies had better pray that we remain so, for, if we actually 'git gud' as some tell us to do, who knows what we may achieve?

This was, I think, the last large scale Anglo-Spanish battle before the wipe, There had been a number of battles around Mantua during the evening. The results aside these battles were characterised by the relative lack of salt and the conduct of both Spanish and British players was, by and large, courteous, gentlemanly, and, very much typical of sea warfare of this period. I too hope the front-lines system can be refined, such areas would reduce the frustration levels of spending hours seeking action and finding little or none, and, may also reduce the numbers preying on new players around capitals.

The use of the sextant was actually mandatory for all Officers, Midshipmen were taught by the Master to use one, and, it was an important part of the examination for Lieutenant.

Good luck to Snow in the Seven Provinces, now if you could just send over some Gouda and Edam with the Iron shot it would be greatly appreciated!

The retention of new players is without doubt one of the most serious issues currently in game, without them the game will stagnate or in the worst case die. So how can we, the most experienced veterans and testers of this game help them best? Firstly and foremost our attitude and conduct has to change, we cannot afford to maintain our current attitude towards them, neither can we hunt them to extinction. The war server is an harsh environment for veterans, much more so for those who can barely hoist sail, without knowledge of wind, or, basic tactics that will give them a fighting chance to evade or defend themselves against an enemy. The idea of learning the basics on the peace server then bringing their xp and rank over from there is a sound one, they will however still require support on the war server, there is still a vast difference between fighting AI and fighting people, especially where the odds are uneven, and, they often are. I think everyone knows that in real life there were gentlemen s agreements between navy's concerning the 'civilised conduct' of wars at sea, which, were set apart from the the Nation's Articles of War, and rules of engagement that governed life and war at sea. Among those 'agreements was that unless a lower rated ship was part of an organised squadron or opened fire on on a higher rated ship the senior rated ship could not initiate an attack. If for example we were to say that Captains under the rank of Post Captain were immune from attack by higher ranked officers (unless they are part of a fleet in battle, or, were foolish enough to open fire on superior ships, or, Captain's above Post Captain) but are permitted to engage equal or lower ranked Captains with similar experience to themselves their chances of survival to reach high ranks would be much improved, upon reaching Commodore they should at least have a working knowledge of how to sail and fight, and, hopefully we can retain them for a longer period of time. There will of course of course be some Captains who may not adhere to such an agreement, and there is little we can do to prevent them, but, if the majority do there will still be benefit for new players, We could even, by common consent, say that Pirates, being 'outside of the Law' be exempted, at least that would give them something in common with the real Pirates of the day and provide a measure of higher risk for new players who will, at some point have to accept that challenge anyway, but, at least most new players should have a reasonable amount of experience to try to defend themselves, or, disengage from the battle.

If Naval Action were actually a simulation of 18/19th century warfare with all the stratagems and tactics, a defined set of victory conditions with re-settable default start points then the OP would be correct. However Naval Action is not that, I do not think that was the intent of the Dev's to begin with, more likely their intent was to provide a taste of naval warfare during a period where it has been heavily romanticised in print and on-screen. If I am wrong I am sure Admin will clarify that point of view. In truth naval warfare of the period was tough, if nature did not kill you the enemy would, if not the enemy then your own side may do so for any one of the infractions of the articles of war, it was fought with values that today are obsolete, yet the basic rules have not changed in centuries, from England it took months to get ships on station in the Caribbean, often remaining there for several years at a time, we are fortunate that we don't have to go to the India or Africa stations, and god forbid the Far East stations! How does one take such circumstances and convert them to a playable game that entertains, remains vibrant and close to the conditions of the time? Where fleets could, and, did pass each other without being seen, where the weather could and did make combat extremely difficult causing more losses than combat, where battles ended in stalemate more often than not, and, big fleet actions were rare, Naval Action sees more battles in a week than most Napoleonic Sailors did in a lifetime, even though some of those lives were short and brutal, we have ships that are close to their real life counterparts, with concessions made for play-ability, we do not fight in conditions that are close to those which navy's had to face in the day in terms of weather, or, regulation, if we did the game would be far too frustrating to play, and, at the end of the day, it is a game not a war simulation.

It would work really well for ports in inlets or up river, certainly make some PB's more challenging from a tactical viewpoint. The concept of forward defence and falling back on the guns would make a big difference to light or outnumbered defences, and provide more challenging offensive tactics for attackers as well. One may even see the use of the little used heavy ship batteries where speed and mobility are not major issues.

The common locations for magazines was below the waterline on the Orlop deck, logically close to the centre of the ship so that all cannons could be served in a similar time-frame. There may have been exceptions of course, and, it was not uncommon for powder bags to kept close to the guns for immediate use, (just as small caliber ammunition would be stored on deck in lockers as ready-use until rounds arrived from the 4 or 5 inch magazines). Later turreted ships would find the Cordite and shell rooms beneath the Barbettes below the waterline for easy flooding in the event of fire, The X turret magazine aboard Hood actually went far enough forward as to have been almost under the Captains day cabin and the Admiral's quarters and was the Magazine that exploded first, examination of the wreck suggests that the resulting fire went forward below decks without setting off Y magazine (which was further aft) venting above decks forward of the Mainmast where the explosion appeared to take place from the Prince of Wales viewpoint. True magazine explosions were very uncommon in the Napoleonic era, the best known example being the French 1st rate L'Orient at the Battle of the Nile, while the fire aboard L'Orient started aft, and low down in the hull, British gunfire spread the fire both forward and to the upper decks, the initial fire may well have been kept under control and away from the magazine were the fire not targeted by British ships. The introduction of Cordite, which tended to destabilize over time, and, required a temperature controlled environment meant a severe rise in magazine detonations even when not in action like HMS Vanguard in 1917, It is quite possible that USS Maine may also have been due to a coal bunker fire setting off a powder magazine, like Bretagne the Maine's loss was controversial, and what actually happened in Havana may never be truly resolved. The French Battleship Bretagne, IJNS Yamato, USS Arizona, HMS Barham and HMS Hood are all well known, documented, magazine explosions due to combat as were the British Battle-cruisers at Jutland. The Loss of the Bretagne was particularly controversial, since her loss at Oran, caused by Force H, a British Battle Squadron, created a great deal of bad feeling between France and Great Britain, ironically HMS Hood, which was Admiral Somerville's flagship at Oran, shared her fate less than a year later near the Denmark Straits. Many lesser known ships also suffered the same fate. Overall it does appear that magazine protection and ammunition handling procedures were better in 18th and most of the 19th century than they were in 20th century before the introduction of Cordite in 1889 as the shell propellant of choice.

The Articles of War, which governs daily conduct and behavior in combat, parts of which are read at Sunday Services and at punishment, Port Admiral's or Fleet admiral's instructions (ROE) signal's, Provision's, Ships, and Captain's logs were all part of ships 'library'. I would think that such a book would have to be optional as many people would not want to spend a lot of time on paperwork in a game, those who like to keep a record of where they are going, have been, weather and action reports, or prices, profit and loss what is sold and bought where, would, probably like a log, although, most of the information can be found elsewhere. The idea is good and would bring a touch of authenticity to 'life' at sea for those who have the time and inclination to keep a log.

Privateering at least in the beginning was something of a grey area legally speaking especially where the British were concerned. The likes of Raleigh, Drake, Hawkins, and Frobisher were Officers of the very new Royal Navy in time of war, in times of peace they were known to have operated under letters of Marque signed by Queen Elizabeth I, when it is considered that Pirates were outlaws operating without Letters of Marque and the fact that Queen Elizabeth maintained that they were Royal Navy Officers the claims of Piracy by His Most Catholic Majesty King Philip of Spain may well have credibility for as RN officers they would have been committing an act of war, or, an act of piracy if they did not have letters of Marque! For game purposes however, if you accept that the nations are permanently at war with each other (or all trying to beat GB, depending on your viewpoint lol) then Naval Captains cannot hold a letter of Marque, the Pirates, who in truth should not be a nation per se, (I think a number of Pirates may well prefer a form of Bretheren of the sea, with it's own rules, and, with Letters of Marque as well they could become a unique faction as opposed to a 'Nation'), however, should be able operate under Letters of marque from any nation who chooses to hire them giving them a veneer of legitimacy. There should I think be a time limit on Letters of Marque, perhaps a month with an option to renegotiate a re-issuance of the Letter. This allows the Pirates to change allegiances should they desire to do so. As far as I can tell, under the current Mechanics players under Letters of Marque would be ineligible to enter PB's on behalf of their sponsors, but, nothing restricts them from Screening operations or any other mission that they could legitimately carry out as Pirates.

господа, Я был бы признателен, если бы вы объяснили мне, почему покупка пушек за форт стоит в три раза больше, чем приобретение снаряжения высотой 42 фунта? Хотя я и согласен с тем, что форты - это дорогостоящие предметы для постройки и обслуживания, я не понимаю, почему пушки, которые стоят одинаково, выковывают ли они для форта или корабля, почему я должен купить 200 пушек для форта на 64 пушки? Заранее спасибо, что нашли время из своего плотного графика, чтобы объяснить мне, почему это так. Приношу свои извинения носителям русского языка, если в переводе есть ошибки, русский не является моим родным языком, к сожалению, Google Translate не славится точным переводом синтаксиса и грамматики. Gentlemen, I would appreciate it if you could explain to me why it is that it costs three times the amount to purchase cannons for a fort then it does to outfit a first rate with 42 lb guns? While I accept that forts are expensive items to build and maintain I fail to understand why cannons which cost the same to forge whether for a fort or a ship why I have to purchase 200 cannons for a 64 cannon fort? Thank you, in advance for taking the time from your busy schedule to explain to me why this the case. My apologies to native Russian speakers if there are errors in translation, Russian is not my native language, sadly Google translate is not renowned for its accurate translation of syntax and grammar.

¿Cometió Villeneuve errores en Trafalgar? Sí, ciertamente lo hizo, no conozco a ningún Oficial en ninguna fuerza militar, de ninguna era que no haya cometido errores, Raglan, Lord Chelmsford, Custer, incluso Wellington, Montgomery y Rommel cometieron errores, ninguno de esos oficiales fue calificado como cobarde por sus errores ¿Era grosero o simplemente arrogante? ¡Más de uno de los oficiales de arriba era más que creíble! Personalmente creo que ambos rasgos son malas cualidades en cualquier persona, sin importarles los oficiales de Flag. Una opinión formada a través de la experiencia y, como cualquier opinión, no necesariamente lo hace un hecho. No digo que tu opinión sea errónea, como tampoco la mía, es solo eso, una opinión. Nuestro Nelson, excelente como era, también era arrogante, su arrogancia debería haberlo visto en los tribunales de guerra en más de una ocasión por desobediencia voluntaria, particularmente después de Copenhague. Negarse a navegar bajo órdenes es Mutiny, del mismo modo que las tripulaciones de HMS Rodney y HMS Hood se amotinaron en 1936 en Invergordon, o, peor aún, podrían interpretarse como cobardías en virtud de los Artículos de Guerra de todas las naciones, una ofensa capital bajo ley militar