totalspoon

Hi Gents, As everyone knows, ship battles backing in the age of sail didn't end in the loosing fleet slipping beneath the waves, but with the loosing ships dis-masted, battered and having struck their flags. It would be nice if at the end of battles in Naval Action it was like this. However, I know Game Labs experimented with a damage model to try and achieve this but found both sides just battered each other to pulp and there was no winners. They have spent a lot of time on the current damage system and it does work well. What I was wondering is if the current damage model could be changed so that, once your armour was shot off, instead of the ship just begin to sink rapidly, instead, all subsequent salvos did huge amounts of damage to cannons, men and masts. Under this system, combat would remain exactly the same until you had destroyed all the enemy's armour on the side you're shooting at. Then, three or four subsequent volleys into that unprotected side, would leave the enemy with most masts down, most guns dismounted and most men casualties. Damage beyond a certain limit would lead to an automatic striking of the flag. The game play would be pretty much the same as it is now but the end of the battle would look much more realistic. This would also encourage captains to strike their flags. Once your armour is gone and the enemy has put a salvo or two into you, knocking down a mast or two and taking our a good amount of your guns/crew, is there any point going on? Why not strike and save your virtual men when defeat is inevitable in a few more salvos? Thankyou for your consideration, Totalspoon P.S. This is merely a suggestion, nothing more. Game Labs knows far more the mechanics of this game that I do. My appologies if this has already been suggested

Hi Johny Reb, Sir, from the War of Austrian Succession to Trafalgar, I count 17 major naval battles between the British, French, Spanish & Dutch fleets in which at least one SOLT was lost by any cause. If I have forgotten any, please point them out and I'll add them. TOTAL ENGAGED NUMBER CAPTURED OR LOST Battle of Toulon 1744 57 SOTL 1 Captured 1st Battle of Cape Finisterre 1747 18 SOTL 4 Captured 2nd Battle of Cape Finisterre 1747 22 SOTL 6 Captured Battle of Lagos 1759 26 SOTL 2 Aground & Burnt, 3 Capt Battle of Quiberon Bay 1759 45 SOTL 8 Wrecked, 1 Capt Battle of Cape St Vincent 1780 27 SOTL 1 Exploded, 4 Capt Battle of Dogger Bank 1781 14 SOTL 0 but 1 (Holland) SANK that night due to flooding Battle of Chesapeake Bay 1781 43 SOTL 0 but 1 (Terrible) Scuttled after battle due to flooding Battle of St Kitts 1782 48 SOTL 1 Captured Battle of the Saints 1782 69 SOTL 1 Burnt, 4 Captured Glorious 1st June 1794 51 SOTL 1 SANK (Vengeur), 6 Captured Battle of St Vincent 1797 39 SOTL 4 Captured Battle of Camperdown 1797 25 SOTL 7 Captured (1 (Delft) sank 6 days later) Battle of the Nile 1798 26 SOTL 9 Capt, 1 Burnt/Exp, 1 aground/burnt Battle of Copenhagen 1801 19 SOTL 7 Capt Battle of Cape Finisterre 1805 29 SOTL 2 Capt Battle of Trafalgar 1805 60 SOTL 21 Capt, 1 Burnt/Exp Of the 4 that sank -- Holland escaped from the battle but sank that night from damage taken. -- HMS Terrible was decrepit and in such bad shape that BEFORE the battle that her pumps were running flat out just to keep her afloat. After the battle, the extra flooding from gunfire was too much and the order was given to scuttle her. -- Vengeur was a dismasted hulk by 12.45pm and out of the fight. She struck her colours and asked for assistance at 2pm as she was sinking, finally slipping beneath the waves at 6-6:30pm. -- Delft sank six days after the battle on her way to England from the effects of flooding caused by gunfire So in 17 Battles, in which 618 SOTL were involved, 98 ships were captured or lost. Of these... 80 SOTL were captured 11 SOTL were wrecked or aground & burnt 4 SOTL Burnt or Exploded from gunfire 3 SOTL Sank from flooding caused by gunfire AFTER the BATTLE 1 SOTL Sank from flooding caused by gunfire DURING the BATTLE I believe the facts demonstrate that sinking a SOTL in combat with gunfire was a very rare occurrence (1 in 98?) and that your accusation of 'intellectual dishonesty' is false. Spoon P.S. This is purely a discussion of historical facts. I am not in any way implying anything about the game or changes to it.

Hi Gents, My apologies as my first post did not go down well. It was written as an enthusiastic and dynamic piece in article style to try and start a friendly debate. It was not taken as such by many people and for that I am sorry. I stated “At Trafalgar, where 60 ships of the line battled it out, with the allies loosing 22 (21 captured and one lost to fire/explosion), not one single SOTL was sunk.” This was implied to be false, but I stand behind this statement. On the day of battle, not one SOTL struck its colours or ceased combat operations because gunfire had caused it to take on excess water. The ships listed by Sir Admin were lost in the storm which followed (except Achille which burnt/exploded as I had already mentioned). It was also implied I lied when I stated “Look at the famous frigate actions of the War of 1812. Not one frigate was sunk by gunfire.” Sir Admin stated “HMS Java sank after battling USS Constitution despite all efforts to save her. There are many other examples like that.” While this is probably just a simple case of conflicting sources, my sources state that HMS Java stuck her colours to USS Constitution as she had lost all masts except the lowest section of her main and Captain Bainbridge had placed the Constitution across her bows ready to rake her. Believing further resistance was futile, her surviving senior Lieutenant Henry Chads surrendered her. Depending on which source you read, she was burnt one or two days later, her magazine still being dry, she exploded. I hope these issues were just a case of miscommunications. Spoon

Hi Gents, Ligatorswe, I don't think you quite got the point of my post. When Captain Dacres, standing on the smashed mastless deck of HMS Guerriere was asked by the American Lieutenant if he surrendered to USS Constitution, his options were not surrender or sink. His options were surrender now and save his men, or wait as Constitution raked his decks till there was no one left standing, and then seize her by boarding. As we know, Captain Dacres famously responded "Well, Sir, I don't know. Our mizzen mast is gone, our fore and main masts are gone - I think on the whole you might say we have struck our flag." Even with her 24lb guns, Constitution lacked the firepower to sink the much smaller Guerriere outright. Boarding or raking-then-boarding were Captain Hulls only two options (unless he wanted to sail away). Dacres understood that and surrendered.

Naval Action is touted as a hyper realistic ship sim with the forums full of discussions on how best to tack and minuscule errors in ship models, but in video after video that I’ve seen, the action comes down to one ship sinking another with gunfire. This is hopelessly unrealistic. As an example, between 1700 and 1800, in dozens of large naval battle with hundreds of ships of the line involved, as far as I can tell, only a single Ship-of-the-Line was sunk by gunfire. This was the French 74 ‘Vengeur du Peuple’ ("Avenger of the People") which became tangled with HMS Brunswick during the Battle of Glorius 1st June, 1794. To quote From Naval History by James P163 (taken from wikipedia) “Vengeur fired an entire broadside at point-blank range, but was then unable to fire her main batteries again, the ships being so close as to prevent French gunners from ramming ammunition into their guns; in contrast, British gunners used rammers with semi-rigid rope handles instead of wooden handles, and were able to reload and maintain a sustained fire, riddling Vengeur with holes. The fight went on for four hours, until Brunswick, after shattering the rudder of Vengeur to prevent her from manoeuvring, separated at 12:45” Even then, with the crew completely out of control, with no one manning the pumps and no damage control being undertaking, it took till between 18:00 and 18:30 for the Vengeur to final sink. Historically, a SOTL had more chance of catching fire and exploding than it did of sinking from gunfire. At Trafalgar, where 60 ships of the line battled it out, with the allies loosing 22 (21 captured and one lost to fire/explosion), not one single SOTL was sunk. Even lesser ships, when attacked by a ship of equal size, could take remarkable punishment without sinking. HMS Serapis (900tons BM), while it desperately tried to fend of boarders, fired it cannons down through the bottom of the hull of the Bonhomme Richards (a converted merchant, 1000 tons BM) for hours in an attempt to sink her and failed (though she did sink the following day after being abandoned). So what did decide battles? Why did ships carry so many guns if not to sink the enemy? Simple; Guns were used to destroy an enemy’s ships ability to stop it being boarded. The British & Americans did this by firing into the hull of the ship, destroying guns & men, causing confusion & chaos and bringing down masts (masts go to the keel of a ship – shooting into the hull could and did bring down masts). With enough men dead and enough confusion in the leadership, any ship can be taken The French & Spanish attempted to do this by shooting for masts and rigging, as once it can’t manoeuvre, a ship can be raked from safety until all powers of defence are gone, and then easily taken. However, in most cases, once a ship lost its ability to defend itself, it struck its colours, the threat of boarding being as effective as boarding itself. Look at the famous frigate actions of the War of 1812. Not one frigate was sunk by gunfire. In every case, the loosing frigate was taken by actual boarding, or dismasted, leaving it open to raking and boarding at the victors pleasure. If Naval Action wants to be taken seriously, it needs to get rid of the Hollywood-esc sinkings and make boarding (or more importantly, the threat of boarding) the decisive factor in naval battles. Thankyou for taking the time to read this. Spoon TL:DR Gunfire didn’t sink ships. It was the threat of boarding that decided battles.