• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.

[Vanilla] Civ6 Caravel

If I may, I've posted on this subject before, ad I might be able to clarify a few things.

First, recognize that the Renaissance Era saw a lot of development and experimentation in ship design. Specifically, in the Caravel, Carrack, and Galleon there are three types that come from completely different starting points and, since they werre essentially all aiming for the same multi-purpose capability, became more and more alike as they developed.
Second, realize that the nomenclature was not hard and fast, and the term that refered to one thing nautical might refer to something entirely different a century later.

So, to start with, the Caravel.

This is first mentioned about 1451 CE, a Portuguese development from small lateen-rigged coastal trading and fishing boats. The earliest illustration of a Caravel shows a two-masted ship, lateen sails on both masts, total capacity about 50 tons. It was considered very fast and maneuverable but the small size meant that it couldn't carry enough food and water to spend many days without making port: the earliest Caravels could scout down the African coast, but attempting to cross the Atlantic or Indian Oceans was liable to result in making port, if at all, with half the crew dead of starvation or dehydration.
Consequently, they started getting bigger, and by the end of the 15th century were up to 160 - 200 tons, with 3 - 4 masts, and the largest of them started adding low stern and forecastles and square rigging the foremast - becoming the Nao or Nau and not coincidentally, becoming big enough both to carry small cannon and cross oceans without decimating their own crew.

Now, the Carrack has a longer and more varied development. First, because it started earlier than the Caravel: the first Carracks were developed from the Cog (which is obviously needed as a Civ Medieval ship type given its importance as an ancestor to later types) between 1304 and 1380 CE in Genoa. The earliest Carracks shown late in the 14th century have 2 masts, the mizzen mast lateen rigged and the foremast square rigged. The ships had no stern or forecastles, so early Carracks looked very similar to small Naos or late-model Hulks. By 1410 CE Genoan Carracks appear in northern Europe, by about 1468 CE are shown with 3 masts, and large stern and forecastles as part of the hull. The square sails on the forward masts also added topsails and by about the end of the 15th century only the mizzen mast was lateen rigged.
In northern Europe Carracks were 'clinker built' - the technique used since at least 700 CE by the Scandinavians, in which the hull planks were overlapped like shingles and nailed together, so that a lot of the strength of the hull was from the planking rather than the frame. This became so common that 'Carrack-built' or 'Carrack Hull' referred to this clinker construction, not the ship-type. This type of construction had one fatal flaw, however: cut a hole in the hull - like say, for a gun port - and you weakened the entire hull. Since after 1500 CE not only gunports for big guns but also sealable covers for the gunports had been invented, the Carracks after that date are increasingly 'caravel built' with smooth-sided planking nailed to a sturdy frame of keel and ribs.
By the end of the 15th century Carracks with their towering 'castles' had also become much larger than the Caravel-Nao line, reaching up to 1000 tons draft by 1498 CE.
A good example of a Carrack from around this time was the Mary Rose, launched in England in 1511 CE. She was originally a 500 ton clinker-built hull with 2 gun decks, but 64 of her 78 guns were anti-personnel weapons only - oversized muskets rather than true 'cannon'.
In 1536 CE she was rebuilt, the hull changed to 'caravel' planking and a third gun deck added. Now she carried 96 guns, but only 22 were cannon, the rest still 'swivel guns' or anti-personnel only. Note that from her wreckage they also salvaged a mass of personal weapons, including longbows, so she was still not a true 'gunship': the intention remained Medieval in that she was going to close in, riddle the enemy crew with arrows and musketballs, and then board her. Effective ship killing cannon were still in the future.

Those came with the Galleon, another Mediterranean development.
It was developed in Spain in the early 16th century (first illustration is from 1511 CE) from the Venetian galleone, a combination oared and sail-powered ship used to hunt down pirates. By the 1530s the Spanish had lost all the oars and developed a pure ailing ship with a longer, lower, and narrower hull than the average Carrack, carrying 3 - 4 masts of which only the mizzen was lateen rigged, all the others square rigged. With lower stern and , especially, a low forecastle Galleons were much more maneuverable than Carracks of the same size, and the lower hulls could carry more and bigger guns (by the 1550s, up to 32 pounders) without becoming fatally top heavy (the Vasa was a Carrack design which turned turtle and sank before she got out of harbor)

But note: a late Carrack, large Nao/Caravel or Galleon could all be about the same size - 450 - 600 tons, and the Carrack and Caravel type hulls were neither well-designed to carry lots of big cannon safely.

Which is why the Galleon was the one that got developed. In the 1560s England built three galleons, then in 1570 John Hawkins cut down their forecastles and stern castles (remember, these were already lower than the Carracks') and produced the 'race built galleon'. An example was the Foresight, which was only 300 tons, so not much larger than a large Nao, but with a relatively low superstructure, so could sail closer to the wind and maneuver handily, and was much more stable. She had a continuous gun deck with 28 heavy cannon, making her better armed than Carracks twice her size. Galleons could be rigged exactly like Carracks, with 3 - 4 masts and a lateen rigged mizzen, but increasingly the lateen sails disappeared on the masts, and all masts were square-rigged.
In the 17th century, once race built galleons started being built with 2 or 3 continuous gun decks, the Ship-of-the-Line was born. The first is generally considered to have been the English Sovereign of the Seas, launched in 1637 CE. She was a 3 masted fully rigged ship (square sails on all masts) of 1522 tons, 3 gun decks, and carried over 100 'big guns' - the first ship in the world to carry so much heavy ordinance.

Now, in game terms, I suggest that the Caravel is really a Scout vessel more than anything else. Only the Portugeuse UU Nau could be considered a 'fighting ship', and it would really be a Melee vessel, having largely anti-personnel short-ranged guns only.
The Carrack would be the Renaissance Melee ship: again, largely short ranged anti-personnel weapons.
The Galleon is the Renaissance Ranged ship, the first type carrying deck-loads of heavy cannon, and the type that can be Upgraded realistically into the Ship-of-the-Line of the (early) Industrial Era.
 
^ So..
0. Did Civ6 Caravel graphic appears correctly?
https://forums.civfanatics.com/attachments/upload_2020-7-29_0-54-40-png.564310/
1. Caravel's base speed (of four hexes) did not reflex the ship's true potential well right? it should be five hexes with fewer melee attack factor (lower than 50)
2. Under reworked unit roster. If Carrack (Portuguese will have Nau instead) is to be in game then it should have the speed of 4 and melee attack of 50 or slightly more? (taken from game terms).
3. And what should be its upgrades for botn Caravels and Carracks? Should it be upgraded to the same ship of differen ship? I've read elsewhere that one of the two will become Frigate (which should be melee choice rather than ranged, and what should be upgraded to Ironclads?).
or... Should Caravel belongs to a different class: Naval Scout? that works like land-based recon? do you agree with this class of ultralight warship?
 
Last edited:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/attachments/upload_2020-7-29_0-54-40-png.564310/

The hull is about right, but only the mizzen mast being lateen-rigged would be a very late model Caravel: the early models started with all lateen rigging and only slowly added 'square' sails.

1. Caravel's base speed (of four hexes) did not reflex the ship's true potential well right? it should be five hexes with fewer melee attack factor (lower than 50)
2. Under reworked unit roster. If Carrack (Portuguese will have Nau instead) is to be in game then it should have the speed of 4 and melee attack of 50 or slightly more? (taken from game terms).

Ship speeds are tricky. On the one hand, there is a great deal of continuity: a replica of a Bronze Age merchant ship was able to carry 30 tons of cargo with an 8 man crew and with a single square sail made 8 knots across the Black Sea. The Medieval Cog (2000 years later!) also had a capacity of about 30 tons with a crew of 10 men or less and a single square sail and, again, a replica maintained 6 - 8 knots for days. The Caravel is described as 'fast' but I haven't seen any exact figures for sustained or maximum speeds. I suspect they varied enormously since Caravels covered everything from a 2-masted lateen rigged 50 ton vessel to a 4 masted square and lateen-rigged 200 ton vessel. For game effect I would agree with making them 1 Tile/turn faster than other Renaissance or Medieval ships.

3. And what should be its upgrades for botn Caravels and Carracks? Should it be upgraded to the same ship of differen ship? I've read elsewhere that one of the two will become Frigate (which should be melee choice rather than ranged, and what should be upgraded to Ironclads?).

The Caravel in its last forms was almost indistinguishable from the Carrack, in that they both had 'caravel built' hull planking (smooth-sided) and stern and forecastles and a combination of square and lateen-rigged masts, and carried a much lower 'weight of metal' (guns) than Galleons. Therefore, I'd be tempted to make both of them Upgrade to the same ship-type.

"Frigate" is another word that meant a number of completely different ships. Originally (late 15th century) it seems to refer to a light galley in the Mediterranean and generally meant any ship built primarily for speed and maneuverability regardless of hull-type or sails. In fact, early Caravels were referred to occasionally as Frigates, to the confusion of later Naval Historians. In the late 16th century the Dutch started using the word to refer to shallow-draft privateers also called "Dunkirkers" operating out of the port of Dunkirk, and by 1600 CE the 'standard' Dutch warship was a 300 ton or so shallow draft ocean-going 'Frigate'. By 1650 CE, when the major warships were being built with 2 or 3 gun decks, "Frigate" began to mean any ship with only one gun deck. Just to keep us all confused, ships with 2 gun decks were sometimes called "Great Frigates".
The first 'real' Frigate was the French Medoc, launched in 1740 CE. It was fully Ship Rigged - all square sails on 3 masts, all guns carried on a single continuous bow to stern gun deck. It had a much lower superstructure than previous designs which made it extremely maneuverable and fast. Frigates regularly averaged 14 knots, which was almost twice as fast as the previous centuries' Carracks or Galleons.
All of which, however, means that in Game Terms having the scouting Caravel and the Melee Carrack Upgrade to the (early) Industrial Era Melee Frigate that combines the Caravel's speed with the Carrack's firepower is a good match.

Frigates historically started adding steam engines for auxiliary power (first in 1841 - 43) so that France, Britain and the USA all had numbers of Steam Frigates in the 1850s. As these started to get iron-reinforced and then steel hulls in the late 1850s the term 'steam cruiser' started to be applied to them, and by the 1870s the term 'armored cruiser' or 'protected cruiser' came into use for ships designed for long-distance patrolling, scouting, and raiding - exactly the same missions assigned to Frigates over a century earlier.

I would, therefore, give the player the option of a Technical Upgrade of Frigate to Steam Frigate in the late Industrial Era (Steam is the obvious Technological prerequisite) which gives a speed advantage in Coastal (because they can't carry enough coal to use the steam engines for long on the open ocean) and a big Combat factor increase because they also had explosive-shell-firing rifled guns now : ranges more than tripled and the effectiveness of a hit on an unarmored warship were now catastrophic. To make a complete break and build Cruisers (which could be called either Protected or Armored Cruisers, the definitions varied from navy to navy and almost from decade to decade between 1870 and 1905) would be possible only about 30 years later. These would have the speed advantage of the coastal Steam Frigate in all waters and a slight advantage in Combat Factors as guns continued to get better. They would also have the inestimable advantage that ;torpedo cruisers' started to be built at the end of the 19th century and quickly morphed into the Torpedo Boat, the type that resulted in the Destroyer of the Modern Era so that, unlike the sail-carrying Steam Frigate, rthe Cruiser of the 19th century can be Upgraded to a Destroyer in the next era.
That gives the gamer the option of quickly 'technical upgrading' his Frigates to Steam Frigates but then having to build all new Destroyers in the Modern Era, or building Protected/Armored Cruisers anew but being able to Upgrade them in the next Era to Destroyers.

or... Should Caravel belongs to a different class: Naval Scout? that works like land-based recon? do you agree with this class of ultralight warship?

Naval Scout would be a perfect category for the Caravel, except that right now that would require an entirely new Promotion Tree for the new category, which seems like a lot of work for a single Unit. It might be easier to simply classify the Caravel as a Melee type, but give them the increased sight range of a Scout, which would also apply to the later Frigates, Steam Frigates, Cruisers and Destroyers that were all used in the 'scouting' role.
 
Interesting stuff, thanks.

What I mean by this:


Is that there's a difference between changing the sails on a caravel hull so that it becomes square-rigged, and the Caravela Redonda design which was a type of caravel with a larger hull than the lateen-rigged caravel, which typically included a forecastle and a square-rigged sail at the front. These caravels were used in the long voyages to India because the smaller ones were no longer adequate.

So the carabela redonda you've attached is technically square-rigged, but it's not THE Caravela Redonda because it lacks the elements which constitute it.

f_Caravelaredm_78b6857.jpg


It seems the Spanish term carabela redonda includes any caravel with square-rigged sails, whereas in Portuguese it's typically associated with a specific design.


Oh I see now what you meant!

I must say I'm not very aware of the different models of carabels. I only know that they changed sails depending of the "seas" (coast vs oceanic for example) and that the hull changed during the years making the carabel a bigger ship.

Apart of that, I do not know much.

One question that I'm really curious. In other languages Nao= carrack?

I checked the nao Santa Maria in spanish, english and portuguese and in all 3 it is defined as a Nao, but in the portuguese wikipedia says it is a "carrack" too.

So i'm becoming more and more confuse... They also have a different picture of the ship (the portuguese reproduction is closer a carrack whereas the spanish is closer to a nao).

So I do not know if, for example, in portuguese they say Nao=Carrack or they make a differences between naos (as model of ship) and carracks.


P.S: I found this picture of the lateen caravel and the "redonda" an see what you wanted to say. I mean that they changed the sails at the main one could be square or lateen.

I do not know, this world of ships it very confusing...
 

Attachments

  • carabelas.jpg
    carabelas.jpg
    72 KB · Views: 38
In a picture of a naval skirmish / battle between Tudor England and France. Were combatants all Carracks or did Caravel also used here?View attachment 566143

Both ships are shown with indications of 'clinker built' hulls (overlapping planks), so would be Carracks. The French ship is shown with gunport covers in the hull gunports, the English ship without, so they would be, technically, from the transition period of late 15th or early 16th centuries - the gunport with a sealable cover started appearing just before 1500 CE. They also have very small guns, even in the lower hull, which is also typical of the 15th and early 16th century: until the invention of the short guncarriage in England in the mid-16th century, big guns were almost impossible to reload in a battle, and so were much less useful than smaller anti-personnel weapons like those shown.

The combination of lateen and square sails means nothing, since both the later Caravels, most Carracks and early Galleons all used a combination of lateen sails on the mizzenmast and square sails on the foremast, and either type on the main mast.
 
And what 'Great Ships' means? is it an english term referring to a war carrack that's bigger than usual which were used in Northern Europe. (Tudor England, Valois France, and Lubeck city state (?) ) like Grace Dieu and Mary Rose?. Did Iberian powers (Spain and Portugal) used these too?
 
And what 'Great Ships' means? is it an english term referring to a war carrack that's bigger than usual which were used in Northern Europe. (Tudor England, Valois France, and Lubeck city state (?) ) like Grace Dieu and Mary Rose?. Did Iberian powers (Spain and Portugal) used these too?

The term "Great Ship" didn't have a hard and fast definition, but was simply used to describe any ship that was larger or more heavily armed than the 'normal ships' of the same time. They could be any of the large ship-types: Carracks, Galleons, or race-built Galleons.

The term was first used in England for the Grace Dieu, a 1500 ton clinker-built Carrack launched in 1418 CE that only carried 3 small cannon, but a huge complement of billmen and longbowmen
Other examples were:
Scotland's Michael (nicknamed "Great Michael"), a 1000 ton Carrack launched in 1511 CE and the first ship designed from the start to carry a battery of big guns: 27 30 - 45 pound cannon, plus up to 250 swivel guns or oversized arquebus anti-personnel weapons.
England's Henri Grace a Dieu or "Great Harry", launched in 1514 CE, a 1500 ton caravel-hulled (that is, smooth planked) carrack with 43 heavy guns. She was one of the first ships built with gunports, and to build this 1500 ton ship took 3739 tons of timber and 56 tons of iron fittings.
Portugal's San Martin de Portugal, built in 1577 CE and taken by the Spanish when they conquered Portugal in 1580. She was a 1000 ton Galleon, armed with 24 cannon and 24 'swivel guns'. She was the flagship of the Great Armada of 1588.
England's Ark Raleigh, later renamed the Ark Royal. A race-built Galleon of about 550 tons built in 1587 CE, but carrying 38 cannon plus 18 swivel guns. She was the English flagship in the Armada battles, and note that on half the tonnage she carried 50% more guns than the 'regular' galleon, the San Martin.

The last ship for which I've found the term used was the English Sovereign of the Seas, launched in 1637 CE and later renamed the Royal Sovereign, 1522 tons as built, later increased to 1805 tons. She was the first ship built with 3 full gun decks, and the first ship to carry more than 100 cannon, ranging from 40 pounders to 12 pounders. She is considered to be the prototype and first example of the Ship of the Line that was the mainstay of all European navies for the next 200 years.

The two characteristics of Great Ships were, first, that they could outfight any non-Great Ship of the same period, being more heavily armed and usually larger. Second, that they were enormously expensive. Building the Micheal took the equivalent of the entire income of Scotland for a year, and nearly bankrupted the kingdom!
 
So in short 'Great Ships' are the alternate Renaissance term to call what that will become Ships of the Line ?
What are the combat emplasis of English Great Harry of 1514? Gunnery or boardings? (plus the use of antiquated 'longbowmen' archers on board)
Amongs Renaissance powers, who else other than England and France used 'Great Ships' of carrack designs?
And are all War Carracks like those usually built with high walls (like 'Jian4' () of the old China?)
And what are preferred designs and riggings of Japanese 'DateMaru' oceangoing trade ship? (Spanish Galleon or Portuguese Nau (The so called 'Kurobune' black ships, is it because Portuguese like to use black woods to build ones?)? or anyone else) did they use Catholic shipwrights to build these?)
And about a small sail attached to the prow mast. is this feature a norm since its introduction or is this feature exists in big carracks (like Nau) and not a small ones?
And shields attached to two war carracks. are these shields add any armor factor or are they simply shown affilations and / or knights and lords family involving with the ships (crews, captains or constructions or else?)
 
Last edited:
So in short 'Great Ships' are the alternate Renaissance term to call what that will become Ships of the Line ?

Remember, 'Ship of the Line" has no meaning until after the issuing of the "Sailing and Fighting Instructions" to the English Navy by Robert Blake in 1653, the first exposition of the tactic of forming a 'line of battle' by warships. By that time, the term Great Ship was no longer used, so in a way, the Great Ships were the direct predeccors of the Ships of the Line, in that only another Great Ship could stand up to them, and only Ships of the Line (by definition) could hammer it out in line of battle with other ships of the line.

What are the combat emplasis of English Great Harry of 1514? Gunnery or boardings? (plus the use of antiquated 'longbowmen' archers on board)
Amongs Renaissance powers, who else other than England and France used 'Great Ships' of carrack designs?

The Great Harry was built in the 'transition period' after about 1500, when the English were increasingly going to reloadable Big Guns on warships, but like the continental powers still relied or at least included lots of antipersonnel weapons for potential boarding tactics. By the 1560s the English were completely converted to the Big Gun tactics with the race-built Galleon designs, while others (most notably the Spanish and French) still tried to close, fire a single volley and then board and take the enemy. The disaster of the Great Armada in 1588 ended that tactic as viable, at least in Europe.
Carrack or Galleon form Great Ships were built by England, Scotland, France, Portugal, Spain and Sweden (although here we are really talking specifically about the Tre Kroner, or Vasa, which was built for Sweden in 1628 by Dutch shipwrights, so was only "half Swedish"). The only other 'naval powers' of any kind in Christian Europe were the Italian States of Genoa and Venice, and they were still building mostly Galleys and Galleasses - some of them as large as any of the Carracks, but I've never heard or read of any of them referred to as 'Great Ships'

And are all War Carracks like those usually built with high walls (like 'Jian4' () of the old China?)

The defining characteristic of a Carrack hull with either clinker or smooth planking was that it carried high stern and forecastles built as part of the hull (instead of separate as in the old Medieval Cogs and Holks). The Galleon, in contrast, was lower, especially in the forecastle, and longer in proportion, making it a much more stable hull for mounting Big Guns.

And what are preferred designs and riggings of Japanese 'DateMaru' oceangoing trade ship? (Spanish Galleon or Portuguese Nau (The so called 'Kurobune' black ships, is it because Portuguese like to use black woods to build ones?)? or anyone else) did they use Catholic shipwrights to build these?)
And about a small sail attached to the prow mast. is this feature a norm since its introduction or is this feature exists in big carracks (like Nau) and not a small ones?

Can't speak to the Oriental naval developments - they are outside my area of expertise, such as it is. Black Ships could be either built in the Far East using teak or could refer to the fact that many hulls were waterproofed by caulking the seams with tar or pitch, which quickly leaked out and 'painted' most of the hull black. I've read both as an explanation for the term 'Black Ships' but couldn't tell you which applies in any specific case.

The Foresail attached to a separate bowsprit or half-mast in front of the mainmast is very old: it shows up on depictions of Etruscan ships of the 7th century BCE, Greek triremes in the 6th century BCE and Roman merchantmen throughout the Imperial period. It reappears on all the ships with more than 1 mast, starting in the late Medieval Era (about 1300 CE) with the large Holks, then the larger Caravels and all Carracks. Remember that the types and arrangement of sails and rigging on Caravels, Carracks and Galleons changed constantly, and while the combination of lateen rig on the rear mast or masts and square rigged sails on the foremast or mainmast was reasonably 'standard' throughout the 16th and early 17th century, they and various foresails were applied to multi-masted Caravels, Carracks and Galleons and a particular arrangement of sails was not characteristic of any one type of hull.

And shields attached to two war carracks. are these shields add any armor factor or are they simply shown affilations and / or knights and lords family involving with the ships (crews, captains or constructions or else?)

Shields attached to the hull were strictly for decoration/heraldry by the 15th century, because most ranged fire came from the castles or platforms attached to the masts, so was plunging fire against which the shields gave little protection. By the late 15th century, increasing numbers of gunpowder weapons like ship-mounted hackbussen and swivel guns made any kind of shield even more worthless as 'armor'.
 
Back
Top Bottom