General Tactics

[Pinxit]

I am guessing that I will play the Road To Independence first. With that, in taking on the British I want to try about a three to one mix of Rifle Militia and Regular Line Infantry with Bayonets.

I want to see how much skirmishing riflemen can whittle down the opposition before engaging them with the regulars. Of course I might have some dragoons and a few cannon in the mix but that is the basic tactical experiment that I want to try.

Wont I be able to play Road to Independence as the Brittish hindering the road to independence?

[Fisherking]

@Pinxit

Sorry if it was unclear due to the differences in use of certain words but “taking on” in this case meant going against the British with the Americans.

[Pinxit]

@Pinxit

Sorry if it was unclear due to the differences in use of certain words but “taking on” in this case meant going against the British with the Americans.

Yes, I am aware of that. Im simply asking if CA enables the players to play as the British against the Americans? In the Road to Independence campaign, ofcourse. Will I be able to stop the Americans from gaining independence?

[Martok]

Yes, I am aware of that. Im simply asking if CA enables the players to play as the British against the Americans? In the Road to Independence campaign, ofcourse. Will I be able to stop the Americans from gaining independence?

I've been wondering this as well. My hunch is that no, we won't be able to play as the British, but I would dearly love to be wrong about that.

[Fisherking]

I think that may be something for the main campaign. Road to Independence is a kind of tutorial campaign on the one hand and from what I gather it is scripted a bit and jumps in time, so I am not sure that it is desirable that you be able to play as the Brits…at least in the first go around. Who knows if something gets unlocked when you win it.

Once some of these great Moders get started though, all bets are off!

I can see it now! Massive Indian Coalitions! Jamestown flattened as Coalition drive massive bison herd to the sea! ROFLOL! Elephants lookout the bison are attacking!

[Sir Beane]

I think that may be something for the main campaign. Road to Independence is a kind of tutorial campaign on the one hand and from what I gather it is scripted a bit and jumps in time, so I am not sure that it is desirable that you be able to play as the Brits…at least in the first go around. Who knows if something gets unlocked when you win it.

Once some of these great Moders get started though, all bets are off!

I can see it now! Massive Indian Coalitions! Jamestown flattened as Coalition drive massive bison herd to the sea! ROFLOL! Elephants lookout the bison are attacking!

I'd like to see a mod that makes it possible to play from the point of view of Britain, or one of the Native factions. (Assuming of course that this is not going to be in the game anyway.)

It would be nice to be able to change history a little and stop the United States from ever forming, or forming a United States made up of allied Native tribes!

[Fisherking]

I'd like to see a mod that makes it possible to play from the point of view of Britain, or one of the Native factions. (Assuming of course that this is not going to be in the game anyway.)

It would be nice to be able to change history a littl eand stop the United States from ever forming, or forming a United States made up of allied Native tribes!

You bet it would! And as the moders usually have the unlock codes ready almost before you can get the game installed, it is something to try early on.

It may take them a week or two for them to allow some technology transfers for the Tribes depending on how the game is set up but I am sure there will be a mod or two where you can for instance, take the Comanche and conquer Mexico, build a fleet and start a good naval war, or something along those lines.

The trouble is you just don’t know how they are going to handle the Native Americans. They were very susceptible to diseases brought from Europe and once their number were low then they ceased to be quite the obstacle they had been in the centuries before. If this is reflected in the game, by the end of the 1700s you won’t have much of a chance to rival the Europeans…but early on you might have a chance.

On the other hand if they make them weaker in combat power you may never have that opportunity.

Of course that can be moded too and from the early articles CA had said that this will be the easiest game yet to mod. But then again that is a relative issue.

[Fisherking]

A Naval Tactic I want to try: using four or so heavy frigates or razees against a slightly stronger fleet. I will not deploy in line, after all, CA has said that you will loose if you don’t deploy in line. In stead I will scatter and try to bring them in and rake the enemy line and then retreat out of range before they can bring their guns to bare. The AI will obviously be going for one ship at a time with its line, so when they go for one I attack with another.

If it doesn’t work it is okay, I just go with more and better ships but frigates have the speed to avoid combat with liners and this my be a route to cheaper more versatile fleet. I wouldn’t try it on 6 first rates though. Sometimes discretion really is the better part of valor.


What do some of you more experienced admirals think?

[Oleander Ardens]

Clausewitz and Jomini have a lot of relevant tactics for the game. Strategy is best learned by Clausewitz and Sun Tzu. Totalwar games are of course simplistic, but so is chess and a battle against a good human player will be a great challenge.

In Naval battles it will be very interesting to see how important the topography of the sea (currents, riffs, land) and the weather itself are. The properties of the ships (speed relative to the wind, maneuverability), their pieces (range, weight, rate of fire) and their crew (size, morale, skill) are decisive.

So if first rates have with their heavy pieces operated by large crews the great range and terrific firepower they should I think it will difficult to do them much harm with frigates, as long the AI is decent.

[Fisherking]

In Naval battles it will be very interesting to see how important the topography of the sea (currents, riffs, land) and the weather itself are. The properties of the ships (speed relative to the wind, maneuverability), their pieces (range, weight, rate of fire) and their crew (size, morale, skill) are decisive.

So if first rates have with their heavy pieces operated by large crews the great range and terrific firepower they should I think it will difficult to do them much harm with frigates, as long the AI is decent.

I do so much enjoy these discussions.

The thing about Heavy Frigates and Razees is that their gun compliment was of heavier caliber higher up on the ships than the Ships of the line. That enabled them to have more firepower at longer range than the larger ships.

While I would never close on an undamaged SOL I do think that a small squadron could for the most part do them serious damage from long range.

I can not find much data on the gun ranges. We know that the large Carronades were short range low velocity pieces. The data I did find stated that the long 24#s could shoot about a mile at max elevation (long shot) but there max effective range was deemed at 1200 yards/meters. 18# and 24#s seem to have also been used as chasers, leading me to the conclusion that these were the most accurate and longest ranged of the guns.

With four or so ships staying out of range until a favorable opportunity presents it self for a rake or transom shot I think you could give the larger more powerful, but slower fleet a real run for their money. Especially in heavy seas!

As I said it is something I would like to try. It may prove totally unsuitable but to me it is worth the investigation.

[Sir Beane]

I do so much enjoy these discussions.

The thing about Heavy Frigates and Razees is that their gun compliment was of heavier caliber higher up on the ships than the Ships of the line. That enabled them to have more firepower at longer range than the larger ships.

While I would never close on an undamaged SOL I do think that a small squadron could for the most part do them serious damage from long range.

I can not find much data on the gun ranges. We know that the large Carronades were short range low velocity pieces. The data I did find stated that the long 24#s could shoot about a mile at max elevation (long shot) but there max effective range was deemed at 1200 yards/meters. 18# and 24#s seem to have also been used as chasers, leading me to the conclusion that these were the most accurate and longest ranged of the guns.

With four or so ships staying out of range until a favorable opportunity presents it self for a rake or transom shot I think you could give the larger more powerful, but slower fleet a real run for their money. Especially in heavy seas!

As I said it is something I would like to try. It may prove totally unsuitable but to me it is worth the investigation.

Excellent information!

My take on Frigates vs. SOL's is that frigates should be able to win against an SOL given the right combination of circumstances and player skill.

In most conditions Frigates could travel faster and turn faster than a SOL, this sort of manoeverability should in theory allow a group of them to beat a more heavily armed SOL (I love that acronym, so easy!) by forcing the larger ship to fire broadsides at disadvantageous positions.

By using quick turns, good timing and feints and a lot of luck a group of frigates shuold be able to goad an enemy ship into firing at them at innefective ranges or angles where they can then quickly close in and fire a broadside during the time it takes to reload and prime another broadside.

If the frigate captains have any sense they could also use chain shot to cripple the masts and sails of the SOL to further increase the advantage they have in turning and speed. Of course this tactic works both ways, since the SOL could use its superior firepower to cut down the frigate's sail.

This kind of tactic would be difficult to pull off and require horrendous amounts of micromanagement, it would probably only work in small scale engagements as well. It would however be exactly the sort of thing worth experimenting with so you can show it off in multiplayer

Like Fisherking I want to experiment to find unorthodox tactics that are not obvious, and then use them to crush my foes. (human or A.I)

I'm very much a naval commander at heart

[Ishmael]

ok folks-historically, if both sides has a lot of artillery (in a land battle), did the artillery try to take each other out, or did they tend to ignore the other side's arty and just go for the infantry?

[Sheogorath]

ok folks-historically, if both sides has a lot of artillery (in a land battle), did the artillery try to take each other out, or did they tend to ignore the other side's arty and just go for the infantry?

It would generally depend on the battle and positioning of artillery.

However, up until Napoleonic times, artillery tended to be a bit lonesome on the field. The idea of the 'Grand Battery' (whether French or Russian) only came about in the late 1700's, so prior to that large concentrations of cannon would be pretty rare.

But, either way, I understand that it was preferable to capture cannons, sort of like taking an eagle or a regimental banner. You could drag them home and mount them in front of your barracks, or use them, depending on the situation.

So, I'd say that, at regular ranges, it would be unlikely to see 'artillery duels' in the 1700's. Cannons just weren't accurate enough to hit specific targets behind the lines, so a few 'potshots' when the chance presented itself might be made, but I would imagine they would stick to the convenient targets...like large masses of infantry in dense formation.

The development of a 'grand battery' gives artillery a bigger target in the enemies artillery which, IMO, makes the occurrence of 'artillery duels' more likely.

I am, of course, only speculating on this. Anybody with actual records is welcome to present them :P

[Fisherking]

ok folks-historically, if both sides has a lot of artillery (in a land battle), did the artillery try to take each other out, or did they tend to ignore the other side's arty and just go for the infantry?

In all likelihood the first time Counter Battery fire took place was the first time artillery showed up on both sides of the field. (think rocks if you will)

The 1650 book by Kazimierz Siemienowicz "Artis Magnae Artilleriae pars prima" was one of the most important contemporary publications on the subject of artillery. For over two centuries this work was used in Europe as a basic artillery manual. If you can find it you might get your answer.

Believe it or not artillery fell out of fashion after the musket became widely used. As Sheogorath points out it was a prize to capture and it was deemed too vulnerable to the charge, and too difficult to lug around.

Frederick II of Prussia developed the first real light artillery, and as stated Napoleon developed and perfected massed battery fire. He used it as preparatory fires before the attack.

[CBR]

The thing about Heavy Frigates and Razees is that their gun compliment was of heavier caliber higher up on the ships than the Ships of the line. That enabled them to have more firepower at longer range than the larger ships.

While I would never close on an undamaged SOL I do think that a small squadron could for the most part do them serious damage from long range.

Height of gundecks has very little to do with range of guns as they could change the elevation of guns. IIRC Nelson judged it took 3 frigates to equal or have a chance at outfighting a SOL.

ok folks-historically, if both sides has a lot of artillery (in a land battle), did the artillery try to take each other out, or did they tend to ignore the other side's arty and just go for the infantry?

Yes, especially the heavier guns ("battery pieces") and howitzers would engage in such a role. The lighter guns ("battalion pieces") would be more for local support.


CBR

[Fisherking]

Height of gundecks has very little to do with range of guns as they could change the elevation of guns. IIRC Nelson judged it took 3 frigates to equal or have a chance at outfighting a SOL.


CBR

Ah! But it surely does if the seas are not perfectly calm. It was often impossible for the three dickers to open their lower gun ports. Having the heavier guns where they could be of use in other than calm weather would make a big difference.


I may not have made that line of thought clear in my original post.

Even with a larger ship, if they could only fight with 12#ers or less, who do you think has the advantage?

[Oleander Ardens]

I can not find much data on the gun ranges. We know that the large Carronades were short range low velocity pieces. The data I did find stated that the long 24#s could shoot about a mile at max elevation (long shot) but there max effective range was deemed at 1200 yards/meters. 18# and 24#s seem to have also been used as chasers, leading me to the conclusion that these were the most accurate and longest ranged of the guns.

IMHO

a) Given that manpower set a practical limit to the size and weight of the cannons
b) Given that at certain stage the large amount powder needed to propel a large cannonball to a high velocity and thus long range would require very stable and thus very thick barrels and thus very heavy guns
c) Given that momentum is the key to penetration power a larger cannonball is generally more effective than a smaller ball
d) Given that space is a very limiting factor on a ship.

we can assume that were "sweet spots" of calibers which combined large momentum, good accuracy with long range and good rate of fire while still being managable by the crews. The design of the gun decks and the dimensions of this "sweet" calibers influenced each other.

P.S: Cannons with long barrels were more efficient and accurate than shorter cannons, but more awkward to handle and slower to reload. It would certainly make sense to create fast, stable ships with relatively few, but heavy and longranged guns for raiding, small skirmishes and independent actions.

In a new SOL such a change would make far less sense, because new ships had to fit into the existing strategies used with the existing ships. A SOL was also expected to enable proficient close combat, where a high ROF from many guns was more important than longrange power and accuracy. So it should have been subject to more compromise than a heavy frigate.

[CBR]

Ah! But it surely does if the seas are not perfectly calm. It was often impossible for the three dickers to open their lower gun ports. Having the heavier guns where they could be of use in other than calm weather would make a big difference.

Even with a larger ship, if they could only fight with 12#ers or less, who do you think has the advantage?

Yes in bad weather the lowest gundeck could not be used. But the big SOL's still had 24 pounders on the deck above and the smaller 74's had 18 pounders. A heavy frigate or razee were still lighter ships with thinner hull so even if it could use heavier guns the actual difference in fighting power would be less than if just comparing 24 versus 18 pounders.


CBR

[Fisherking]

Yes in bad weather the lowest gundeck could not be used. But the big SOL's still had 24 pounders on the deck above and the smaller 74's had 18 pounders. A heavy frigate or razee were still lighter ships with thinner hull so even if it could use heavier guns the actual difference in fighting power would be less than if just comparing 24 versus 18 pounders.


CBR

As to hull thickness you could be right. I did find it interesting that the Heavy Frigates carried about the same number of 24#s as the First Rates.

As I said earlier I intend it as a tactical experiment. Seldom did two Heavy Frigates work together. I would just love to see what a squadron of them could do.

[CBR]

As to hull thickness you could be right. I did find it interesting that the Heavy Frigates carried about the same number of 24#s as the First Rates.

As I said earlier I intend it as a tactical experiment. Seldom did two Heavy Frigates work together. I would just love to see what a squadron of them could do.

They had pretty much same length as a SOL so they had the room. The biggest problem was if they could carry the weight of such gun because it added a lot of stress to the deck. That was the problem for the French when they experimented with their 24# heavy frigates. Even SOL's had trouble as some were given 36# that really were too heavy for them.

USS Constellation started out with 24# but it seems that was reduced to 18# later on. Wiki mentions trouble with top weight so that might have been the problem.

I have tried frigates versus SOL's both in the board/miniature game "Close Action" and Age of Sail 2. It's not easy but it can be done, just expect some damaged ships heh.


CBR

[Fisherking]

Somewhere I ran across a class of early American Sloops of war that carried only a few guns, but one was a 42# long tom on a pivet mount.

I guess on a trans atlantic crossing, that ship showing up at noon every day, firing a shot and running, it may dammage a ship or two.

[Oleander Ardens]

Well, even Razees and heavy frigates were not built (or modified) to take down third or even second-rate SOL. They were designed to counter enemy frigates in small skrimishes or duels or to scout for larger formations.

I have a question: How did the range and momentum of the 32 and 36-pounders stand up to the 24 pounders?

If the relative amount of powder (and the lenght of the barrel as the quality of the gun) was similar to the ratio used for the 24 pounders both practical range and momentum must have been far superior. Even with fewer powder the momentum was certainly higher. This explains also why the naval powers tried to outfit the decks of new ships with the heaviest possible caliber, sometimes going over the top.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

The increase of firepower between 24pdr and 32-36 was relatively marginal. A 24pdr would smash almost anything on it's path anyway. Though I don't doubt for shooting away thick masts the big guns had an edge.
But SOL were not required to only fight ships. In a shore action the bigger guns would be of significant advantage over smaller cannon against fortified gun batteries, both in stand off range and effect on target.

[Fisherking]

@Oleander Ardens


The best I could do was for the 24 lb.ers

It came from here.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...l-armament.htm


Cannon
In ships of war, the cannon of the lower-decks are usually drawn into the ship during the course of an expedition at sea, unless when they are used in battle. They are secured by lowering the breech so as that the muzzle shall bear against the upper-edge of the port, after which the two parts of the breeching are firmly braced together by a rope which crosses them between the front of the carriage and the port; which operation is called frapping the breeching. The tackles are then securely fastened about it with several turns of the rope extended from the tackle and breeching, over the chase of the cannon.
The advantage of large cannon over those of a smaller bore is so generally acknowledged, that a particular discussion of it might perhaps be spared. The most important advantage of heavy bullets is this, that with the same velocity they break holes out in all solid bodies in a greater proportion than their weight that is, for instance, a twenty-four pound shot will, with the same velocity, break out a hole in any wall, rampart, or solid beam, in which it lodges, above eight times larger than will be made by a three pound shot; for it's diameter being double, it will make a superficial fracture above four times as great as the three-pounder, (more of a smaller hole being closed up by the springing of the solid body than of a great one) and it will penetrate to more than twice the depth; by this means the firmest walls of masonry are easily cut through their whole substance by heavy shot, which could never be affected by those of a smaller caliber; and in ships the strongest beams and masts are hereby fractured, which a very great number of small bullets would scarcely injure.
To this last advantage of large cannon, which is indeed a capital one, there must be that of carrying the weight of their bullet in grape or lead shot, and thereby annoying the enemy more effectually than could be done by ten times the number of small pieces.
These are the principal advantages of large cannon, and hence it is no wonder that those entrusted with the care of the British navy have always endeavoured to arm all ships with the largest cannon they could with safety bear; and indeed, great improvements were made on this head, by reducing the weight of many of the species of cannon, and thereby enabling the same ships to carry guns of a larger bore: and, very lately, the six-pounders in some of the smaller ships have been changed for nine-pounders of a larger fabric than usual, which hath been justly esteemed a very great addition to the strength of those ships.
The importance then of allotting to all ships the largest cannon they can with safety bear being granted, it remains to show on what foundation a change is proposed to be made in the fabric of all pieces from eighteen pounders downwards, so that they may be changed for others of the same, or less weight, but of a larger bore.

The 24-pound guns each required a gun team of 6-14 men to operate and weighed about 5600 pounds. They are called 24-pounders because they fired a cannonball that weighed 24 pounds. Although the solid 24 pound shot is what was commonly used, the guns could be loaded with a combination of projectiles. The long gun possessed one great advantage: it could far outrange the carronade, and if well operated had a chance of crippling the enemy before coming to close quarters.
The normal gunpowder charge used for these guns was six pounds and their maximum range was about one mile at maximum elevation, but due to inaccuracy at that range this was literally a "long shot." The maximum effective range of a 24-pounder was about 1200 yards. The usual engagement range, however, was much closer. CONSTITUTION engaged HMS Guerriere in 1812 at about 25 to 50 yards. At this range CONSTITUTION's guns could do terrible damage, with her cannonballs penetrating over two feet of oak planking.
The 32-pounder Navy gun [length 112 inches, 57 hundredweight] was intended service was on first class frigates and ships of the line. A total of 744 smoothbore guns of this type were manufactured at five different foundries from 1846 to 1852.
_____________________________________________________________

I can not find the site again but it said that point blank range (0° elevation) was just short of 300 yards with an 8lb charge. It listed max range at 10° elevation (the max) at about 2700 yards and went on to say that because of inaccuracy guns were seldom fired above 4° elevation.

[CBR]

I have a question: How did the range and momentum of the 32 and 36-pounders stand up to the 24 pounders?

When it comes to actual values for penetrating wood I have found various values which overall is 50/50 confusing and enlightening. Some suggest a linear increase from velocity and others closer to the square of velocity. If penetrating wood resembles the physics behind steel plate then one solid oak plank of say 12 inches is stronger than 2 planks of 6 inches each. That might have something to do with the different test numbers I have seen.

Apparently some US test from the IIRC 1820's showed that a 24 pounder could penetrate a SOL up to 700 yards but not beyond. The hull thickness of a SOL would be around 2-2.5 feet and I have seen 1.5 feet for standard frigates and 1.75 feet for USS Constitution (with extra strong oak used) The heavier guns seems to have a penetration of 4-5 feet at around 100 yards or so.

At least there is some physics we can be pretty sure of, and that is the relative difference in penetration based on difference in caliber. That same relative difference also works with ballistic coefficient.

I have converted the diameters of various gun weights with the 6# set at 1. Note that this is UK pounds exept the 36# French gun that is more like 39 UK pounds. The numbers in the brackets are the difference squared to show the overall surface area of a hole. An attempt of showing number or size of splinters.

6# 1 [1]
9# 1.15 [1.31]
12# 1.27 [1.59]
18# 1.44 [2.1]
24# 1.59 [2.52]
32# 1.75 [3.05]
36# 1.87 [3.48]

So a (French) 36# should have 1.87 times the penetration of a 6# at equal velocity. It will also move 1.87 times further before losing the same velocity compared to a 6#. For the 36# versus 24# difference it would be 1.87/1.59=1.18 and it might be able to penetrate a SOL at 900-1000 yards (if we base it on the US test)

There also seems to be an odd effect with penetrating wood, as the best way of producing lots of splinters was to have a shot with just enough velocity to penetrate. If it moved fast it would just make a neat hole. I don't know how to explain that except maybe that the violent(fast) impact would push wood more to the side, while the slow impact would be better at pushing the wood forward.


CBR

[Sheogorath]

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Russian_artillery.htm

Under 'Equipment', if you search there are a few ranges listed.

For instance:

The maximum firing range for ½ pood unicorn was 2300 m, and for ¼ pood - 1500 m.

A 'pood' is an old Russian unit of measurement equivalent to 16.4kg or 36 pounds.

A 'Unicorn' was a Russian artillery piece which was essentially halfway between a howitzer and a regular cannon. While apparently regarded as superior to howitzers, they were pretty unique to the Russian army.

Some searching in the other artillery sections should find some sources for ranges as well.

Of course, this is mostly intended as a resource for Napoleonic-era stuff, but given that the idea of a 'bronze/iron tube' doesn't change that much until rifling and breech loading become common, the information should still be relevant.

EDIT:

Ah-HAH!

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/artillery_tactics.htm

[Fisherking]

Good find CBR

To me the splinter action sounds like the spalling effect. The spall knocked lose from the inside when a round does not penetrate a solid surface but strikes it with sufficient force.

The first six American Frigates were not only made from a couple of kinds of Super Oak not available to European ship builders, the wood was also treated in a special solution to impart more toughness and elasticity.

Rather than make the tables I will allow you to look up the mechanical properties of the woods.
Quercus bicolor (swamp white oak)
Quercus virginiana (live oak)

Quercus Robur (European Oak)

I know about the solution only because the last of it and the treated wood was found at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, in a tank in the still undisclosed solution, under a building, stored there god knows how long. (It was founded in the 1850s) The wood was very much needed for the overhaul of the Constitution and that is where it went.
(from what I got the stuff is still classified)

The US tests were in all likelihood tested against Quercus alba (American white oak)
The penetration in Quercus Robur would be greater I would imagine.

[Oleander Ardens]

Good info here.

I will try to frame the discussion by using elementar physics. I use snippets of Wikipedia here.

We really need just two major equations here plus some little deduction skills

Drag equation

In fluid dynamics, the drag equation is a practical formula used to calculate the force of drag experienced by an object due to a fluid that it is moving through. The equation is attributed to Lord Rayleigh, who originally used L2 in place of A (with L being some linear dimension). The force on a moving object due to a fluid is:

Fd = (-1/2) p V^2 Cd A

where

Fd is the force of drag, which is by definition the force component in the direction of the flow velocity,[1]
ρ is the mass density of the fluid, [2]
v is the velocity of the object relative to the fluid,
A is the reference area, and
Cd is the drag coefficient — a dimensionless constant, e.g. 0.5-0.7 for a sphere


Momentum

p = m v

where p is the momentum, m is the mass and v is the velocity


Thoughts

Let us assume now that every long gun accelerates their projectile to a common velocity x. The Cd factor, the density of the air are also identic.

We know also that:

1 pound = 453.59237 grams
The density of cast iron grey is 7150 kg/m³

24 pounder: weight 24 pounds (10,87kg), volume 0.0015 m3, area (need to calculate the root)


Anyway it is easy that given that shape and density are equal what matters is the weight of the shot. The 36 pounder has a far batter relationship between mass and area (in the drag equation) than the 24 pounder, thus retaining momentum during the flight far better. So while it starts with a hefty advantage in momentum while leaving the barrel this increases through the flight with every meter covered. Thus it can effectively engage a ship from a far longer range, accuracy permitting.

I will comment on the other factors (grapeshots, splintering) later

[Sir Beane]

This discussion quickly took a turn to the technical

If things get any more complicated you'll be in danger of losing me (I fall asleep at the mere sight of equations, being an English student.)

I have a nagging feeling that whatever facts and figures the historians and physicists in this thread come up with, Empire will use a much less accurate model.

As for Friagtes vs. SOL's. I'm guessing Frigates will fair much better in-game than they may have done in real life. Judging by comments and things so far the guys at CA seem to have a soft spot for the Frigate, I wouldn't be suprised if they erred on the generous side when implementing its stats.

[Fisherking]

I have a nagging feeling that whatever facts and figures the historians and physicists in this thread come up with, Empire will use a much less accurate model.

As for Friagtes vs. SOL's. I'm guessing Frigates will fair much better in-game than they may have done in real life. Judging by comments and things so far the guys at CA seem to have a soft spot for the Frigate, I wouldn't be suprised if they erred on the generous side when implementing its stats.

You could be right…

I saw one of the articles where an American 44 gun took on the line ahead of its mates. I think they said they sank one and boarded the ship that rammed them…a 64 I think it was!

I don’t think I would have played it so bold. Especially when it came to boarding a larger ship. Even with help on the way it sounds a bit too daring to me.


I would rather have a just rating than a superman unit…just do them justice.