maturin

Where are you going to put guns on a Trinc? The supposed pirate modifications aren't really relevant for a flush-decked mid-1700s warship. What pirates did to the slow pig 1600s merchant vessels they captured is another story.

Technically there were no uniforms for common seamen. Some form of duck trousers, jackets, tarpaulins, etc. Many men would buy clothing from the ship, meaning that it would be similar in practice, but by no means identical or standard. In combat most of the gun crews would probably be shirtless anyways. The current in-game crew do look like landsmen with their bookstore clerk vests.

This picture doesn't show any "structure" at all, besides deck planks and beams (only small parts of which can be hit and no ship ever suffered serious battle damage to them). The big beams in the middle are the riding bits for holding anchor cable, and they have no structural importance. On the deck above is just an oven. That leaves the guns and crew and pumps, none of which are structurally important, and all of which already have hitboxes in the excellent damage model that was so carefully developed.

Maybe Nelson would have survived Trafalgar if he could have commanded from a chicken coop with one-way mirrors.

A ship is a pretty big target. I'm pretty sure that the effect of windage would be insignificant compared to the lack of precision and accuracy that is inevitable with shipboard gunnery. For example, if you are trying to knock away a spar with a bow chaser in a strong crosswind, that means that you are sailing close-hauled in fresh weather, with the ships (and thus the gun and crew) heeling to leeward with spray coming over the bow as the vessel pitches and lurches about. In short, you have greater difficulties to deal with than windage on the ball in flight.

Tajikistan, man... Motherf***in' Tajikistan Someone had to give Star Citizen a run for their money.

People got sick of storm battles in Sea Trials when they made up a huge percentage of all battle instances, which is very different from the occasional, situational storms in the OW. There's a reason your average seafaring narrative contains only one big storm, rather than a constant grind of bad weather. Many players weren't very good at aiming in storms, and ended up ramming or dismasting to excess. But the devs have pointed to some sort of OW instance limitation, and usually ignore inquiries of what happened to the storms.

Yeah, go and stick it up your 'echo chamber.' Most old vets have spent years asking what happened to the storm battles in the OW.

Better, if you imagine that warships and naval captains spring up out of the ocean as depicted above.

Because that makes total sense...

I do mostly PvE and missions are soul-sucking drudgery that poison new players' minds against the game because they are encouraged and incentivized to suffer from the worst content NA has to offer. If you want to be a sea wolf, you have to actually hunt. Missions are literally farming. Plant a seed, go harvest. OW bots need to be adjusted so they are actually suitable as targets. More long NPCs, fewer fleets.

The quote was from Alan Villiers' about the Mayflower II voyage, by the way. Where have you handled a sprit topsail? Kalmar Nyckel?

Mission-based PvE is something I would only wish on Chinese gold farmers. Go hunt the OW for your PvE.

Before any more angst over Kickstarter content, the Constitution model can't just be 'fixed.' It needs serious rebuilding in both hullshape, rig and sails.

On the other hand, the 'outdated' large spritsail is said to 'throw the bow off the wind better a bowsprit full of jibs.' Spoken by a man who actually used one. So I wouldn't cast doubt on the Wapen's turning ability due to her rig. Especially when the lateen yard can be jack out to windward to luff up in a big hurry.

Just looked, she was built after the movie.

Maybe post some pictures?

Admittedly, it wouldn't do much for your example of brig vs ship-rig.

Oh, OK. But the tradeoffs involved in seeking speed are generally not kind to handling. An sharp-built ship may tend to pitch violently, a shallow hull won't be as weatherly, etc. British design was conservative at times, but the whole advantage of a conservative design is the ability to reliably produce rugged ships that handle well in a variety of conditions.

Yeah, shorter vessels. Which gives us reason to suspect any source that talks about French speed "and maneuverability." The author is probably just using videogame logic and throwing in the 'maneuverability' part because it 'makes sense.' All I've heard is a lot of observations that French ships (and British ones too, when they got longer) were slow in wearing (aka, manual sails 180 turn). I could forgive Miller if his book covered 1700-1815, but it is a rather egregious statement for 1775-1815. By the second half of that period, French naval architecture could even be described as conservative.

Skimpy fastenings for certain structural timbers, for one. Plus the longer frigate always needs to worry about hogging a bit more.

This is not the conventional wisdom; it is absurd. This IS the conventional wisdom, but it is also something of a myth. French frigates had a reputation for being faster than British designs for much of the 18th Century, but with very important caveats. First of all, if a French frigate was faster, it was usually because it was bigger; the French were willing to spend more money on fewer vessels. This pushed the British to build their own larger frigates, which were just as fast, and by the Napoleonic Wars the idea of French superiority was outdated. In addition, French ships sometimes fared better sailing downwind in mild conditions. That may be very frustrating for the British officer who can't catch them, until the boot is on the other foot with the French ship struggling in heavy weather, makings more leeway than the British ship. British naval architecture was relatively backwards in the early 1700s, when the French were building fast privateers and introducing the classic frigate. But the British matched the French at the speed game as soon as they started building their own frigates, which often owed something to French lines, but also erased the drawbacks associated with French designs. And they didn't need to be oversized to be fast. Take the Niger-class, for example, of very moderate size in the 1760s, but they could make 14 knots. There was some ebb and flow over the course of the century, but by the Napoleonic Wars there is no real advantage when it comes to comparisons of French and British design.* Meanwhile, French frigates were were of quantitatively lighter construction in many ways, seriously diminishing their usefulness by British standards. I've never heard of a reputable source suggesting that they were superior in this regard. I've also never heard anything that mentions more headroom on French frigates, which doesn't make sense given the stereotype of low, shallow and fast. You can't combine those things with comfort.** The book you need to read is 'Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars' by Robert Gardiner. He lays out these arguments very well. And for a French perspective, read Jaques Boudriot's highly-technical tome 'History of the French Frigate.' Boudriot is surpassingly rigorous in all things and never makes any claims about overall French superiority. * A lot of the evidence we have points to overall British superiority if anything, but we have to consider the Anglocentrism of the texts and the poor state of the French service at the time. ** Also, towards the end of the 1700s the British were far ahead of the French in making their ships livable. Better ventilation belowdecks, no burying bodies in the ballast, etc.

The sailplan and rudder position are essentially the same. And Constitution weighs more than Agamemnon (a 3rd Rate). So, same question.

Calling it a frigate doesn't make it turn like a frigate. Why should a longer ship with similar draft and beam turn faster?

Theoretically, isn't deeper draft compensated for (to X degree) by a larger rudder? Whereas length is an uncompensated factor for turning.