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

[Knight of the Rose]

The way to reduce the number of ships will be in the initial cost (very high) and upkeep I think. Having standing armies was expensive, and having ships in operation was expensive as many excellent posts have already shown.

Say Denmark e.g. - they had a lot of hulls, but not enough guns (expensive) and sailors (need vages). In principle, Denmark could bring 30 SotL in action if need be in the 18th century, but could only afford having three in operation in peacetime.

And yes, they used all the oak. The trees planted in 1807 to build a new fleet after the loss of the navy in the British-Danish war has just grown to the right size in 1990. Sadly naval technology grew faster.

They hasn't gone to waste though, as they have been used to many restauration projects around the world, e.g. the 'Coronet' at Newport, US

/KotR

[RexCroatorum]

I wish to know how the not-english faction would deal with their supreme navy. For example, I am willing to play as french, so I wouldn´t be able to maintain large fleet, but I would like to damage brittish economy with my spread navy, all over the world. I would like to cut their colonial trade. Would it be possible?

[Slammer]

Hello this is the Royal Navy as of 1805 1st Rates 7 2nd rates 14 3rd rates 95 4th rates 13 5th rates 114 6th rates 25 sloops 121 bombs 17 fireships 1 brigs 127 This is the Mediterranean Fleet as of 1812 4 1st rates 4 2nd rates 2 80 gun 3rd rates 19 74 gun 3rd rates 2 razee 58 gun super frigates 18 38 gun frigates 9 36 gun frigates 26 ship-sloops 6 brigs

[Martok]

Interesting info Slammer, but I don't think it really has any bearing on this discussion (especially since you apparently quoted the RN's numbers from 1805, not 1705). Unless I'm missing its relevance somehow?

[Slammer]

It hadto do with how many battles would you see with 20 ships of the line. Thtas there be more battles with smaller ships

[Martok]

It hadto do with how many battles would you see with 20 ships of the line. Thtas there be more battles with smaller ships

Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification/elucidation.

[Polemists]

France can dominate the oceans if you really tried, why not? We've seen screen shots of the US having ships of the line If that's possible then anything is.

Agreed, why do I get the feeling small frigates will be the US version of milanese crossbowmen.....ugh, watch as Boston becomes the new Bern.

(Reference to MTW2 the city of Bern which Milan usually takes and overstocks with crossbowmen.*

[Mailman653]

I wish to know how the not-english faction would deal with their supreme navy. For example, I am willing to play as french, so I wouldn´t be able to maintain large fleet, but I would like to damage brittish economy with my spread navy, all over the world. I would like to cut their colonial trade. Would it be possible?

France can dominate the oceans if you really tried, why not? We've seen screen shots of the US having ships of the line If that's possible then anything is.

[Knight of the Rose]

I wish to know how the not-english faction would deal with their supreme navy. For example, I am willing to play as french, so I wouldn´t be able to maintain large fleet, but I would like to damage brittish economy with my spread navy, all over the world. I would like to cut their colonial trade. Would it be possible?

France did build some amazing ships, and could just as easily as GB build a massive navy if they wanted to. In RL that was not a priority, as France had many other issues, being on the continent. GB had a policy of splendid isolation, and a colonial system, which required a massive navy. I think it was after Trafalgar that the Royal Navy decreed that it would always be at least twice as strong as the combined might of the two strongest foreign powers.

But I see no reason why it couldn't be France that took over India and buildt a fleet to rule the waves. Especially in a computer game.

BUT if you are contemplating what to do when / if you play France and you've been blown out of the waters, well, that will be a difficult situation. In RL there was a lot of shipbuilding in the colonies, so that could be a base for small-ship operation to annoy the brits. But annoy will prop. be all you can do without a decent ship-of-the-line navy. I don't think you would be able to cut off trade compleately.


/KotR

[Asmodius]

For a general idea on realistic crew sizes with marines/soldiers...The 80 gun English ship Tonnant was carrying 700 crewmen at the battle of Trafalgar...while the Spanish 4 decker 130 gun Santisima Trinidad, the largest warship of that time, was carrying 1,000.

The French and Spanish did have very large fleets at times, but after the disaster at the nile and especially Trafalgar were reduced to sitting blockaded in harbours mostly. They suffered in combat w/ thier English counterparts for many reasons, but mostly because English crews kept up a much faster rate of fire from relentless drilling...as well as the English using more modern firing/ignition mechanisms that had less delay/more accuracy.

The Americans did actually commision a number of ships of the line....up to as large as The USS Pennsylvania wich was outfitted to carry between 120 and 136 guns....The vast majority of thier ships were of course frigates though.

Frigates stayed around the side lines of the battle when ships of the line went at it. They mostly functioned as tug boats for disabled/captured ships. Thier main uses was generally hunting privateers, convoy duty, fighting other frigates, and "legitimate piracy"/prize taking. Frigates could far more than pay for themselves in the long run.

[Sir Beane]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For a general idea on realistic crew sizes with marines/soldiers...The 80 gun English ship Tonnant was carrying 700 crewmen at the battle of Trafalgar...while the Spanish 4 decker 130 gun Santisima Trinidad, the largest warship of that time, was carrying 1,000.

The French and Spanish did have very large fleets at times, but after the disaster at the nile and especially Trafalgar were reduced to sitting blockaded in harbours mostly. They suffered in combat w/ thier English counterparts for many reasons, but mostly because English crews kept up a much faster rate of fire from relentless drilling...as well as the English using more modern firing/ignition mechanisms that had less delay/more accuracy.

The Americans did actually commision a number of ships of the line....up to as large as The USS Pennsylvania wich was outfitted to carry between 120 and 136 guns....The vast majority of thier ships were of course frigates though.

Frigates stayed around the side lines of the battle when ships of the line went at it. They mostly functioned as tug boats for disabled/captured ships. Thier main uses was generally hunting privateers, convoy duty, fighting other frigates, and "legitimate piracy"/prize taking. Frigates could far more than pay for themselves in the long run.

Excellent info! I think the comment about Frigates is a good indication of the sort of thing they will be useful for in-game.

In the game I think we can expect to see crew strength mostly represented as the number of marines on board a paticular vessel, and a few sailors. I doubt we will see a thousands of crew wandering the decks of the bigger ships, if only because of the framerate issues they might cause, and the fact they aren't really neccesary.