Printable View
With my very very limited grasp of naval warfare in this period, it is my current understanding that maintaining large fleets in this period was extraordinarily expensive.
It seems to me that a fleet of 20 Ships-of-the-Line engaging another 20 ships of similar size would be an infrequent occurence.
Do I have this correct or can someone please better relate the relative frequency of large-scale decisive naval engagements in the 16th-19th centuries.
My thanks.
The Div
You are pretty much correct that maintaining a fleet of ships of the line was a very expensive task indeed. You are also correct that nations very rarely risked large numbers of these ships in pitched battle.
To give you an idea of the cost of constructing a First rater I'll use the H.M.S Victory as an example.
She was a big ship, with over 100 guns. Construction lasted several years and cost £63,176 and 3 shillings, the equivalent of about £50,000,000 in todays terms. 6000 trees were used in her construction. England lost a huge amount of it's ancient woodland to ship construction during this time period.
If you take that sort of expense and then multiply it by 20 for a full fleet you are looking at about £1,000,000,000. That is a hell of a lot of money and a huge investment. The massive cost associated with such a large navy is one of the reasons there weren't more sea-faring empires. Most countries just couldn't afford to keep up with big powers like Britain, it was cheaper to maintain a large land force.
I think I remember reading in a textbook somewhere that Britain eventually got to the point where they literally could not afford to build any more first rate ships, to do so would have bankrupted the economy.
As for the frequency of large battles, I can't give you accurate figures (although I'm sure another, better informed member can) but I am fairly sure battles on the scale of Trafalgar wre certainly not a regular occurance. Gathering all your first raters into one masive fleet could cause logistical problems, as well as weakening your projetion of naval power everywhere else in your empire.
Hope that helps :beam:
Not to mention Ships of the Line had a service life somewhat shorter than a modern ship (which can be expected to serve 50 years or so, if its still relevant in combat at that time). Most wooden sailing ships (from the service lives I've seen) lasted 20-30 years before they were replaced, retired, scrapped or sold.
A small add on.
The "Victory" was the biggest thing the British ever built at the time, so her costs and materials would have been the absolute maximum.
Still, Sir Beane's outline is particularly accurate.
The lowest rated Ship of the Line was a two deck 74 gun variation. These two deck versions ran all the way up to around 85 to 90 guns if memory serves.
Once you got past that number of guns you went to three deck variants. I think in the end the British had only 3 to 4 ships of the 3 deck variety. They were vary rare, the Spanish actually had more three deckers than anyone else. The number though was still only between 5 to 10 maximum.
You are right about the Victory being paticularly large. I should have mentioned that, it means the £1,000,000,000 figure is a little on the high side probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
Interestingly enough though there were some real monsters built during the time period. The biggest ships could reach to four decks and 140 guns. The largest sailing ship ever was the French first rater Valmy. It was so big its hull was almost square, which allowed it to have more guns but reduced its stability somewhat. It was launched in 1847, so it is a little out of the games timeframe.
Engineers at the time worked out the Valmy was about as big as you could build before the ship became impossible to properly operate.
I think in Empire we will see 74 gun ships as the standard ship of the line. Larger ships might only be available to factions such as England, France or Spain, and then probably only as a unique flagship unit.
A fleet of tweny Man of Wars will be a truly impressive sight. And a terrifying one if said fleet happens to belong to the opponent. :laugh4:
My understanding of naval combat at the time was that fleets were so expensive, and the weather gauge conferred such a huge advantage, that most engagements would be rather cagy, indecisive encounters, with the side without the weather gauge reluctant to fight at a disadvantage and the side with it unwilling to risk losing it. Out-and-out struggles to the death like Trafalagar were very much the exception.
Indeed, my understanding is that the French strategy was generally to avoid direct confrontation with the stronger British fleet wherever possible, since even a small French fleet could act as a deterrent and force the British to maintain a fleet to counter it, whereas the French losing their fleet in a direct battle would leave the British a decisive strategic advantage. Hence most battles between the two would consist of more of a chase, with the British fleet perhaps picking off a few stragglers but otherwise being unable to force a decisive battle. This was not helped by the fact that on the rare occasions that the French did opt for a direct confrontation, they tended to lose (as at Trafalgar or the Nile).
It's one aspect of realistic naval warfare that I won't be too upset if they leave out.
Wow I was not aware of some of those stats and figures. My study finished in 1820 so 120 to 125 guns was the maximum I had heard about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
Thanks for that Sir Beane. Very interesting.
PBI, I agree with your description also. Cagey is a good way to describe encounters and tactics.
FYI, from the HMS Victory web site, here's a list of the ships at Trafalgar. There were a few huge 1st raters like the Victory, but most were the more cost-efficient "74" type:
Code:Type Number of guns Number at battle
1st rate 100 3
2nd rate 98 4
3rd rate 80 1
3rd rate 74 16
3rd rate 64 3
5th rate 38 1
5th rate 36 3
Armed Schooner 12 1
Armed Cutter 10 1
Total 33
Great info! If we look at these numbers it seems to suggest 74 gun ships will be the 'standard' ship in Empire. They will probably be the equivalent of armored sergeants; cost-effective, able to be built relatively easily and able to hold the line against most other units.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
I wonder if we will see a special 'flagship' unit to represent the Admiral's ship, sort of the naval equivalent of general's bodyguard? It would be nice if our top naval brass was better protected than other captains.
This is what I am concerned about. Massive fleets of 74 gun ships everywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
My original understanding seems to hold true, that while large engagements did occur, the cost of maintaining multiple 20-ship fleets would prevent regular engagements.
I would also assume that smaller enagagements, perhaps between 1-5 ships of smaller sizes would be far more frequent? Does anybody have any information on this?
Thanks for the info thus far. Keep it coming. :bow:
From what I've read frigates (4th and 5th rate ships) were the most common. And that's how I'll be building fleets. A squadron of 5 or 6 frigates mostly and like 2-3 battle ship heavy war fleets.
Frigates were probably more common overall, but that's because they had a huge variety of uses. Frigates are (relatively) small, fast and manouverable. They would be used as messengers, delivery ships, signal ships, spy ships, blockade runners and also to chase down fast enemies such as pirates or enemy frigates.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
However when it comes to forming a proper line of battle for a high-stakes naval enganement frigates would not be used. Ships of the line completely outclass frigates in battle, they are tougher, more heavily armed and carry a great deal more men. Frigates would have been present at the battle, but in the role of support ships rather than fighting ships.
Some factions historically got much more use out of frigates, for instance America. But this was mostly because they didn't have the money/facilities to build larger ships. When an Admiral of the time had a choice he would go with the heavy hitters.
This doesn't mean frigates won't be useful though. In another thread a CA staffer mentioned that having frigates in your fleet will aid you in intercepting enemy ships. Frigates will act like your eyes and ears.
However in smaller 'skirmish' battles frigates ruled the waves. If you need an interceptor to hunt down pesky pirate scum then frigates are the best choice for the job.
The Royal Navy used around 100 Ships of the Line in several of the wars of the 18th century. During the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars it started out at around 160 and slowly increased to 200+ IIRC*
The 74 only became the standard in the second half of the century.
To put the cost of ships into context the UK annual naval budget during the Seven years War was around 5-6 million pounds.
*Edit: 5th rates (32-44 gun frigates) started at 90 and doubled during the war.
CBR
Oh my! That is rather a few, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
It certainly sounds as huge numbers if we compare with numbers of big ships used in the 20th century. But then there are limits to just how big a wooden ship could be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
There could never be a Dreadnought race as we saw before WW1 with bigger but fewer ships, although there certainly was a gradual increase of size of both ships of the line and frigates throughout the century.
In the end it is a question of available manpower and money. At the height of the Seven years War the British army had 120,000 men and the navy 80,000. I don't have total numbers but based on the wages for sailors the total wages would been have maybe 1.2 million pounds. So thats about 1/5-1/4 of the Naval budget. Then you can add consumables, refitting and construction of new ships. It all adds up.
CBR
If CA find a reasonable way to make 100 or so of the biggest ships the limit then the game will be reasonably historically accurate in that regard. They could do it through an actual hardcoded limit (which sucks) or by making it economically prohibitive (the best way).Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
If CA take the realistic approach (and there is no reason yet to doubt them) then we you might see 4 or 5 fleets of twenty ships of the line, at the absolute maximum. When you think how big Empire's oceans are that really isn't that many ships.
Which leads me to believe that most minor engagements, featuring ten ships or less overall, will probably be fought between smaller ships. Schooners, sloops-of-war and other armed but small vessels need some use afterall.
The big ships will probably be divided up via region. One stack in the Med, one in the Indian ocean etc. This would allow a player to respond to a threat in any area with a large force of powerful warships. I imagine larger forces of big ships would only gather under truly exceptional circumstances, such as to protect a massive naval invasion of a hated enemy.
I think somewhere CA have stated that there will be between 20-40 different kinds of ship available depending on faction. Hopefully we should see a lot of variety. I wouldn't worry about the A.I spamming 100 gun monsters. (I hope)
Perhaps I can shed some light:
A 1st rate ship of the line's crew was in the neighbourhood of 800 men between sailors, gunners, and marines. Of these people, some money was paid on a salary basis, but they also participated in the share of loot - in the Royal Navy and also the french navy, but not on the spanish one.
Officers above the rank of lieutenant were mantained at full pay (and lieutenant and below at half pay) during demobilisation periods, which was part of the Royal NAvy's advantage over other navys of the period - a reserve trained and ready officer class.
1st raters operated individually in very many cases - protecting convoys, blockading, raiding, etc. For longer voyages they might be escorted by frigates, specially when patrolling waters where engagements might take place with ships of similar size.
Frigates could also operate individually, specially in far-removed theatres, where no ships of similar size could be encountered, or escorting fast convoys, and could also be used to effectively enforce blockades if no stronger enemy naval forces were present.
Tactical groups of 5-7 SOtL were assembled for particular tasks, and were considered quite a force (that's at least 5-6000 men to feed). This was closer to the 19th century. For early 18th century engagements I suggest revisiting the battles of the War of Spanish Succession:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...ez-M%C3%A1laga
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_C%C3%A1diz_(1702)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vigo_Bay
I just realized something, by the stats presented here, CA will have to give a SOL at least a crew of 500 men? I mean that's the lowest they can go without ruining it, so say, 500 men, if we bring togather 20 of our SOLs, (which is possible in the games engine, 20 ships each side remember), and so does the opponent, so it's 500*40=20000 men in all, on the map.........? If we can have 20000 on the sea at one time (I see nothing to oppose it, going by the data), then why can't we have 20000 men in one land battle?
By the way, it's nice, quite a lot of interesting facts here, I never knew so much about the big ships.
The Naval trailer shows a big 120 gun ships having a crew of about 320. We of course don't know if that number change if players increase unit sizes.
CBR
I've read a fair bit about naval warfare at the time and I've certainly seen most action between ships of the line being a very nice sweet spot of between 3 to 7 ship at a time.
Hell you needed to be an very highly ranked officer to command more than 3 ships, at one time.
Many of the 64 and 74 gun variants operated alone as Sir Beane has stated. This was the best way to project naval power.
I'd expect most of the sea battles to be in the 1 to 4 ships on each side range. Monster 20 a side battles will require huge investment and resources...you'd certainly expect CA to make a concerted effort to make the scale of the engagement as realistic as possible at the time.
And I can't emphasis this enough. Frigates were in most respects far more valuable than two deckers. They had the range, speed and size to deal with just about most issues, barring a pitch fight with a ship of the line.
One account described frigates as the grey hounds of the ocean. If you put them in packs they become very dangerous.
I just hope the cost and upkeep will make truely large naval forces rare.
I would say so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
CA are going to be able to gather more than enough information in order to accurately put a price, a recruitment frequency and an upkeep cost on a typical ship of line.
There were is very accurate information available if you look hard enough.
Zenicetus's post about ship type is a classic example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
It sounds like we should get our wish. CA has already stated that ships in ETW are expensive, and that building a decent-sized navy will require a significant investment of both time and money. I suspect that larger engagements (10+ ships on each side) will be fairly rare. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
And rightly so given the historical parameters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Not all hands are on deck in battle. The below-decks gunnery crew isn't visible, and that's a lot of men on a ship with 74 or more cannon, even allowing for the cannon you should see topside. There are also noncombatants like ship's surgeon, carpenter, cook, etc. that wouldn't be above deck. And from what I remember of the screen shots, they're not showing all the deck and rigging crew that would be doing the actual sailing. We'll probably see mostly marines and a few assorted ship's officers, which should substantially reduce the number of animations needed. With land armies, they have to show everyone in the battle line.Quote:
Originally Posted by india
No, they do have the below decks crew, looks like 3 per gun.
But it looks like pretty much just gun crew, marines & officers are there, sailing crew not included or only a few.
No, here's what I meant by the below-deck gun crew, where all you can see from the outside is the cannon sticking out of the ships' sides:
http://www.woodentallships.com/images/line.gif
geek time!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
Not until 1795 were there more frigates than 'ships of the line' (1st to 4th rate) in the Royal Navy. in fact the number of 'ships of the line' right through our period never dropped below 100, in 1700 there were 122 'ships of the line'.
However it seems from 1760 onwards there is a shift towards more Frigates (but not less 'ships of the line', just an altering in the portions of each)
Cheers
Alex
Good stuff batemonkey.Quote:
Originally Posted by batemonkey
Here you can see the below deck gun crew through the damaged hull side of a two decker.
Something I hope is included will be a reduced upkeep for ships kept in harbour.
Victory spent her first 13 years in service with no masts & the decks boarded over to protect her.
There should probably be a 'readiness' penalty for the first turn or two out of harbour too.