Help me Understand the Historical Costs of Fleets and the Frequency of Engagements...

[Divinus Arma]

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

[Sir Beane]

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

[Sheogorath]

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.

[AussieGiant]

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.

[Sir Beane]

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.

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.

[AussieGiant]

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for that Sir Beane. Very interesting.

PBI, I agree with your description also. Cagey is a good way to describe encounters and tactics.

[PBI]

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.

[Sabuti]

I'd like to see large navy battles. I'd say the game is a dramatization of history, much like a historical movie, with the action exagerated. That's what makes for an exciting and hopfully chalenging game.

[Spookybear]

I didn't read the whole thread, but I know that in Denmark there is no longer any oak forest. Denmark has used to be filled with only oaks, and now there's only beechwood left(it was planted to replace all the oak). Actually as far as I know Denmarks fleet was the biggest in the 18th century. But it went bad for the economy(that was alot earlier, but caused partly by all the ship building), Denmark actually also went bankrupt :P