[UNIT] Mighty Ships Et Al

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Unit Graphics' started by MightyToad, Mar 6, 2020.

  1. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    173
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, it was addressed to the Sword, I was just advertising the ship to him. Even if it has been modified, it is quite a decent unit of the 17th century. From the entire list of ships of that time, I have so far come across only a small ship of the line and this.
    There are, of course, units converted from EU, but half of them is useless to even repaint - because they are scary as hell.

    A special trash is that the vanilla set of units is not only poor, It is also fantasy. For example, what Firaxis called a galleon - 1. not a galleon at all. This is a parody of the urca - armed transport. 2. This thing has different parts from different centuries. When such a nose appeared, the fourth mast was no longer used on galleon-style ships.
    Okay, counting urks as galleons is almost a canon and Sabbatini is its prophet :D. But nothing prevented from drawing normally.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2021
  2. Sword_Of_Geddon

    Sword_Of_Geddon Arbiter of the Sword

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    14,063
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England, USA
    Wasn't looking for ships but rather showing off a suggestion as I said for SOUTH AMERICAN ships, what if or real. I appreciate the suggestion but what your talking about really has nothing to do with my post. The S.American region has afew Reedship designs that would be cool if made, I was only pointing that out.

    I posted one Walter had converted as an example. That ship is a longboat-ish Reedship, but there are two hulled ships with two animal heads, and reedships with no heads as well. So some things to go on artistically. Also since its so untouched the ball is in Toad's court. I remember his Mesoamerican units(Eagle warriors were amazing). Regardless if its these ships or not I'd like to see Toad be creative again and come in with something out of nowhere of his own design/
     
  3. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    173
    Gender:
    Male
    I just came across a cute unit, then your post caught my eye and I remembered an interesting thing without much connection with the post. And, considering my personal dump of useless knowledge about the sailing fleet, I shared useless knowledge about a this ship. That's actually all.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2021
  4. Sword_Of_Geddon

    Sword_Of_Geddon Arbiter of the Sword

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    14,063
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England, USA
    Misunderstood you. I apologize.
     
  5. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    173
    Gender:
    Male
    No wonder. I have my own personal dialect of English, and it is not yet possible to explain with gestures on the forum:D.
     
  6. Sword_Of_Geddon

    Sword_Of_Geddon Arbiter of the Sword

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    14,063
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England, USA
    I've been trying to represent the naval aspect of the game in my mod. Current version doesn't show the progress ive made, for example I have the Hulk as the first real sailing ship without oars, Carracks as the logical upgrade(which then upgrade to SOTL). I currently have Galleas upgrade to War Galleons. Try my best to be more historic(and hopefully) more fun. I'm aware there was a earlier generation of Frigates and such. Can't include everything though.

    How would an upgrade path of ships look like to you?
     
  7. Sword_Of_Geddon

    Sword_Of_Geddon Arbiter of the Sword

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    14,063
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England, USA
    Another idea, Maasai Warrior. They have been said to be some of the fiercest warriors in sub saharan africa. The boys actually go threw training similiar to what was depicted of spartans in the movie 300.





    One is a photograph the other concept art.
     
  8. MightyToad

    MightyToad Sith Lord

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2015
    Messages:
    474
    I've been playing around with that unit today. I made it look more like the one in the pics. I changed the sail to a crab claw. The Inca are more likely to have adopted the crab claw from the polynesians, or perhaps something more primitive like the Ainu one.

    Reed_Ship.jpg
     

    Attached Files:

    Matsuda123, tantanmen and Zeta Nexus like this.
  9. Sword_Of_Geddon

    Sword_Of_Geddon Arbiter of the Sword

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    14,063
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England, USA
    There is evidence of trade between Rapa Nui and the South American coast, apparently some similiarities with some customs and stonework, totally not out of the question.

    That is a great Reedship Toad thankyou! Andean Catamaranish ships like that do/did exist, as you saw from the picture and so faithfully duplicated. :)
     
    MightyToad likes this.
  10. Sword_Of_Geddon

    Sword_Of_Geddon Arbiter of the Sword

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    14,063
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England, USA
    They actually also had more Viking-ish ships, but the sails were made of Reeds. The people that built them intended them for lakes and maybe rivers. I do believe there were peoples on the Andes region coast that were heavily into fishing, I remember reading once along time ago. I think the "mother culture" of the region, the Caral, were heavily into the ocean.

    Years ago someone made a raft of polynesian design called the "kon tiki" and aimed to sail from the coast of peru i believe, to Easter island to prove that contact was possible. The voyage was difficult, but a success..
     
  11. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    173
    Gender:
    Male
    1. To begin with, I must inform you that you already have a typical ship of the 17th century line. This is a "heavy privateer", a unique unit of Wales. The frigate complements it.

    2. Now about the real story.
    Spoiler :
    A) the ship of the line is the result of the gradual evolution of the galleon. At the same time, the most common type of ship of the 17th century line is about 50 cannons.
    If you just look at the its weight of the volley, it will be approximately equal to a very large (but not "record") galleon and twice as much as a typical one.
    If you look at the real possibilities (the weight of the volley for a certain time), then it's even more interesting there. Galleons usually have several (2-4) large guns that fired extremely slowly (up to 1 time per battle). And they also account for up to a third of the firepower.
    Next, we are dealing with a gap of about a hundred years
    The vanilla unit depicts an "average" ship of the line of the second half of the 18th - 19th centuries. Approximately 74 guns, the weight of the volley is twice as much.
    A 100-gun three-gun ship of line ("Мan-of-War"), respectively, tripled.
    Nuance: three-deck ships were built by all the "medium" maritime powers, starting with the Danes. The peculiarity of English three-deckers of the late 18th century and beyond is only one - they are usually smaller than competitors.

    B) Frigates - a derivative of the Dunkirk corsairs. In the era of galleons, they were replaced mainly by small high-speed galleons and various proto brigantines. In different fleets, they are somewhat different and were called differently.
    The "medium" frigate of the 17th century (with 8-9 pounder guns) is 2/3 of the galleon's salvo formally and almost as much without taking into account the galleon's "superpuns". In relation to the ship of the 1/3 line.
    A mainstream frigate from 1779 to the end of the Napoleonic Wars - with 18-pounder guns. About 2.5 times stronger than the "ancestor". Quite close to the 17th century battleship and about 40% of the 74-gun battleship of its time.
    Naturally, the weight of the volley is not everything. The lighter artillery of frigates, on average, shoots more often, but light guns do not penetrate the "armor" of the ship of the line (thick sides) at all, and the average ones are quite bad.
    Hence the quite justified bonus of the ship of the line against the frigate in vanilla (+50%).

    3. What do you have in mod

    Your ship of the line will be upgraded either from a caravel or from a brigantine. Moreover, it is depicted by a "frigate" from the EU (?). In fact, it is some kind of small three-masted ship of the late 18th and 19th centuries (sloop/corvette).
    The frigate is upgraded from a "military galleon". And frigate exactly... the brigantine depicts.
    You probably just made a mistake with the links to the images in the ХML. The brigantine itself, by the way, looks... strange.
    There is also a unique ship of the line of England - with three gun decks.
    Specifications
    Brigantine force 7, speed 3. Ship of line 10, speed 3 + 50% against frigate.
    Military galleon 7 speed 4, frigate 9 speed 5.

    4. Offers.
    A very conservative option is to simply use a 17th-century frigate with the characteristics of 7 speed 5, without changing anything else.
    Conservative option
    а) The military galleon does not change.
    b) It the upgrade to the ship of the 17th century line (9 speed 4).
    c) Further upgrade - vanilla ship of line force12, speed 4.
    d) Or (alternative upgrade) Man of war (force15, speed 3). Although you can leave it in the same place, of course.
    Bonus in relation to frigates of everyone - vanilla.
    15 are the characteristics of an early pre-dreadnought. Вut in reality those had a salvo weight in less than the last sailboats. Their advantage is armor and rifled guns. Ie, you just need a bonus against sailboats.
    е) A 17th century frigate is slightly weaker than a galleon, but faster (strength 6 speed 5)
    f) A late frigate is 9 speed 5. (as is now in mod)
    Brigantine (the most controversial point): an alternative branch from the caravel, possibly to the privateer. 3-4 speed 5. Can explore the opponent's territory and possibly attack without declaring war.
    A realistic option is also possible, but almost the entire balance will have to be revised there. At the same time, there is an insurmountable difficulty. The chronological gap between units is very large, the difference in characteristics is also very large. There will be instant and total obsolescence.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2021
  12. PPQ_Purple

    PPQ_Purple Techpriest Engineer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    4,416
    I am no naval historian but I'll give you my personal limited understanding of naval combat through the ages as well as some though on how this could or should have been done in civ.

    Firstly, to look at the broad picture. For most of human history naval combat was characterized by several broad points:
    1. Navies are expensive to build and maintain not just because of the ships but also the trained crews which need paying. Thus only very rich nations maintained large standing fleets in times of peace. So war fleets were mostly composed of ships and crews "borrowed" from merchants.

    2. Skilled crew was always a big advantage. This is most extreme during the classical period where oar powered galleys and triremes literally required crews on par in skill to modern competition rowers. But even later and right up to the gunnery era a skilled well drilled crew that knew what they were doing was a big advantage in a fight. Much much more so than in modern days.

    3. Naval combat was mostly about boarding and capturing enemy ships. Actually shooting at enemy ships with intend to kill was rare and only really became a thing during the late age of sail with the proliferation of (relatively) cheap and light iron cannon. Newer the less even as late as the napoleonic era boarding was still a major part of naval warfare. Although by that point it had fallen out of favor in large fleet battles.

      The only other example is ramming combat where by your goal would literally be to ram into your enemies ship with intend to sink rather than capture. This had its heyday during the classical period but was newer too popular because ramming an enemy ship in such a way to destroy them but NOT cripple your self in the process and doing so during a pitched naval battle was a difficult task that required a skilled crew and well coordinated fleet. Something few navies of the time could field.

    4. War galleys newer went away. Small, agile oar powered ships have the absolute advantage in coastal waters or enclosed temperamental seas like the Baltic or Mediterranean. So they remained in use there for a very long time. Even when cannon showed up all they did was stick cannon on galleys and keep rowing.

    5. Fireships, suicide craft filled with flammable materials and later even gunpowder were supper effective.
    So using that my look at the wooden warship eras in CIV would be something like this:

    Ancient Era:
    • Keep the ship types as they are with Galleys for transports and Triremes for combat.
    • Ships should have a chance of capturing enemy ships on victory. Say 10% base for galleys and 20% for triremes.
    • Make a tree of promotions that effects the capture chance and gets it up to say 50%.
    • Ships of this era should be unable to enter ocean but get bonuses in seas and coastal waters.
    • Have some sort of fireship unit that would basically be a cheap collateral damage dealing
    Medieval Era:
    • Literally the same as above only with the introduction of cogs as large transports.
    Renaissance:
    • Introduce proper ocean going ships, the Carrack, Caravel and Galleon to fill the combat, scout and transport roles accordingly.
    • Introduce a new Galleas unit as an upgrade for earlier galleys. It should have a bonus in coastal waters and seas but can't enter oceans. So basically like the "ironclad" in vanilla CIV.
    • Boarding should still be a thing in this period with the Carrack getting access to the same boarding promotions as galleys did.
    Early Modern / Napoleonic Period:
    • Introduce three new ships the Frigate, Galleon and Ship of the Line.
    • Ship of the Line > Frigate > Galleon.
    • The Carrack upgrades to Frigate and Cog to Galleon.
    • Nothing upgrades into the Ship of the Line.
    • Boarding should still be a thing in this period with the Frigate and Galleon getting access to the same boarding promotions as galleys did.
    • Ships of the Line should be immune to boarding to represent the transition to broadside combat.
    • Ships of the Line should be able to bombard coastal provinces with their cannon to reduce city defenses. Maybe even get a 1 tile range ranged attack.
    • War galleys of all sorts finally die out as a unit tree.
    All the above eras should have a Fireship unit tree as a comparatively cheap collateral damage suicide unit. So basically be a naval version of the vanilla CIV Cruise Missile.

    I'll get back to you with my thoughts on the later eras in another post.
     
    Dumanios likes this.
  13. Sword_Of_Geddon

    Sword_Of_Geddon Arbiter of the Sword

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    14,063
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England, USA
    Thankyou that was very informative.

    I did also introduce a light ship line, light galleys(ancient) followed by medieval, then I have them upgrade to the Chebeck, followed by the Sloop.

    Also I always have ships upgrade to something. This both cleans up the menu in city screens(I don't want to see a caravel as a build option in the industrial era). So I have a transport line(galley, cog, caravel, galleon, steamer, transport etc), a light ship line(effective against pirate units), a medium line(trireme, medieval war galley, galleas, war galleon, frigate etc) and a heavy line(Holk, Great Ship, SOTL, Ironclad Battleship etc).

    Finally I have the Privateer line. I also have roles for each type. Some of these roles change when entering the Industrial age. Others just take on a more modern version, like destroyers are anti sub rather than anti pirate. I want Cruisers to be Carrier defenders and missile carriers.

    bring in the fireship is a good idea. I also was thinking of the siege type ships, based on what Toad has created. Privateer line and Siege ship line would converge at the Torpedo boat, which upgrades to subs later.
     
  14. PPQ_Purple

    PPQ_Purple Techpriest Engineer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    4,416
    Now, on to the more modern eras. In this period a different set of points come into play.
    1. Boarding vanishes completely as a viable combat tactic.
    2. Armor becomes a thing and is very important.
    3. Ship design becomes increasingly more important to crew skill.
    4. Ships become increasingly more specialized.
    For this period we basically have 4 different eras of warship design.

    The Ironclad Era:
    Unlike what CIV would have you believe Ironclads were NOT glorified monitors. Quite the opposite in fact. The first true Ironclad which would set the norm for all that came after it HMS Warrior was in every way a fast, agile and deadly ocean going warship. This said, monitors did exist and not all "ironclads" were proper ironclads. Some were in fact just regular age of sail style warships with iron plate literally bolted on. And these stayed on in service long past their sell by date. Another thing that became popular during this period were all wood warships with steam power for extra agility and speed during combat.

    In terms of combat tactics this period is literally the same as the Napoleonic era only with iron armor and better cannon. Also, pure steam powered ships were with the exception of monitors literally nonexistent with most ships being either sail powered or in the case of warships having sails to use for cruising and steam engines for combat.

    Thus my view of the period would be:
    • Ironclad
      • New primary warship.
      • Nothing upgrades to this as it is a new kind of warship that has to be built from scratch.
    • Armored Frigate:
      • Age of sail warship with iron plates on top.
      • Performs the frigate role of killing transports.
      • Upgrades from any older wooden warship.
    • Monitor - The ironclad from vanilla CIV.
    • Clipper - Sail only fast transport ship

    • All warships of this period should have the ability to bombard coastal tiles as well as have a range 1 ranged attack.
    The Predreadnaught Era:
    This is my favorite era of naval warfare. It's the period that gave us the first battleships and cruisers and such beautiful things as these.

    This era sees the advent of a number of new types of warships which I'd represent like this:
    • Battleship:
      • Best warship.
      • Very expensive to build but can crush all others.
      • Too slow to catch cruisers and transports.
      • Can bombard land tiles and has a say 2 tile range ranged attack.
    • Cruiser:
      • Fast transport hunter and raider. So basically an upgrade from the frigate line.
      • Ironclads upgrade into this.
      • Can bombard land tiles and has a 1 tile range ranged attack.
    • Armored / Protected Cruiser:
      • Cruiser hunter
      • More expensive than cruiser but still less than battleship.
      • Bonus vs cruisers.
      • Can bombard land tiles and has a 1 tile range ranged attack.
    • Torpedo Boat - Weak coastal only warship with a big bonus vs battleships and all cruisers.

    • Torpedo Boat Destroyer
      • Weak warship with a bonus vs torpedo boats and flank attack vs torpedo boats.
      • Ideally destroyers and torpedo boats (and later subs) would use a copy of the DLL code from Fall from Heaven for assasins and Guardsman units.

        For those that don't know in vanilla CIV units always target the strongest defender when attacking. In FFH units with the "assasin" ability target the weakest unit instead. And units with the "guardsman" ability intercept this.

        I would give the "assasin" ability to torpedo boats and later subs and "guardsman" to destroyers.
    Dreadnaught Era:
    This era sees the introduction of several new types of warship as well as a general improvement in all ship types. In fact, the evolution of ships in this era is breathtakingly fast. Where as in the age of sail a ship of war could easily remain relevant for generations and even centuries in the dreadnaught age a ship launched today would be hopelessly outmatched by one launched just a decade later.

    This said, this era basically has several major points that need focusing on.
    • Battleships upgrade to dreadnaught battleships.
      • These are more powerful versions of the same thing.
      • They have a more powerful ranged attack.
      • They have a bonus vs old battleships.
    • Cruisers and Destroyers remain the same.
    • Torpedo boats are replaced by submarines.I would actually make this a direct unit upgrade.

    • Battlecruisers are introduced.
      Now there are several schools on what the hell these are supposed to be. You have the British school which is basically to make ships with the guns of a battleship but the speed and armor of a cruiser. And than you have the German school which is basically to make a ship with the armor and speed of a battleship but the guns of a cruiser. And everything in between.

      I honest to god do not know what to about this one.

    • At the tail end of this era you also get the carrier and its cheap cousin the escort carrier.
     
  15. Zeta Nexus

    Zeta Nexus <{[(Nexus)]}>

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    4,639
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In a constant brainstorm...
    Hey! That's very much like the Unit tree in AND2 and CoM.
    Even the "War Prizes" modcomp is there that allows ship capturing, though there is no promotion for it.
     
  16. Sword_Of_Geddon

    Sword_Of_Geddon Arbiter of the Sword

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    14,063
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England, USA
    Yeah Purple this is awesome stuff. Definitely very helpful and a joy to read. What would light ships like Sloops of War upgrade to in the Ironclad Era? I am assuming the Cruiser line splits in two with the normal and Battlecruiser types in play.
     
  17. PPQ_Purple

    PPQ_Purple Techpriest Engineer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    4,416
    Honestly I am not sure that upgrading ships really reflects the reality of naval combat. Naval strategy was always historically more build strategy than anything. That is to say, the effort of actually building new ships was always a major factor. That's why you see old ships stick around a lot more and drag navies down.

    This said, really, the problem with CIV is that it has to go through all the different eras. And once you accept that you can either have a game that glosses over each era or one where each game lasts way too long for the casual player. Like, if it were me I'd make the game so that on the slowest game speed (the only one I like) each era lasts about as long as a normal speed playthrough of vanilla civ start to finish. And I'd make the maps such that you start on one small continent with say 2-4 other civs. Than you have clusters of 3-4 such continents separated by sea (not ocean) so that you can expand into them during the classical age. And each of these clusters would be the size of the largest vanilla map size. And than you'd have a bunch of these clusters separated by ocean to form a total map size of something like 10-20 largest vanilla maps. And you'd start the game as a boy and finish as an old man.
     
    Zeta Nexus likes this.
  18. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    173
    Gender:
    Male
    If you look at the Napoleonic Wars, then in 1810 a small British army cost 2/3 of what the world's largest fleet cost. In general, you describe a situation where there are already mountains of iron on the sea, but not on land.

    Hmm. In fact, for most of history, the great maritime powers west of the Indus are city–states. Large only by the standards of city states. The middle ones are some kind of Samos. Then a break for the Hellenists and Rome, and again the Italian "polis" in the south and the Hansa in the north.
    At the same time, if we take the X-XI century, then the Mediterranean Catholic hegemon is Amalfi, 50 thousand.
    Portugal, which began to engage in the navy in the 15th century, was in fact a power of about the same order as Venice, while quite poor.
    The real superpower of the West (France) was engaged in the fleet from time to time until the 1660s.
    That is, there were two real reasons to take up the fleet. 1. The presence of not so much money and opportunities 2. HOPELESSNESS. In different forms – Lydians, Spartans, Spaniards, etc. In general, an invincible opponent on land.


    In reality, this is a rather specific situation: "we forgot how to use a battering ram, but we don't have powerful guns yet and we are not Byzantium/Arabs."
    At the same time, the high possibilities of mobilization were largely explained by the extremely militarized style of merchant shipbuilding.
    A normal merchant ship before the Renaissance is something like a Greek "round" ship (a smooth-decked sailboat).
    The whole horde of ships with massive bow and stern superstructures are, in essence, military "projects" adapted for commercial needs, and not vice versa. The merchant galleys of the Mediterranean are exactly from the same series.
    As for the crews, the possibilities are not as great as they seem. The crew of merchants is minimal for financial reasons. At the same time, the movement of sailboats from point A to point B does not require large crews, even a fairly large ship can manage a couple of dozen sailors. Meanwhile, even a small frigate needs six times more.
    With the dominance of the rowing fleet, the situation is almost the same.
    That is, in order to recruit the military fleet mobilized, the merchant fleet must be orders of magnitude larger than the military. Meanwhile, for the maritime powers, the situation often resembled a "Dune". The Dutch played the role of the guild, then the British, and no one canceled the need to keep the fleet inside the system.
    Let's move on to the material part
    There are three problems with the use of mobilized merchant ships
    1) first you need to have them. At the same time, if we take the top 10 European maritime powers of the 18th century, we will find that half of the merchant fleet either has practically no, or it is small, especially relative to the size of the military.
    2. they should be suitable for military functions. Meanwhile, a) the vast majority of "merchants" until the very end of the era of the sail is a small, while warships grew at a faster pace. b) a very slow and clumsy.
    At the same time, the rowing fleet is either a ram or artillery in the nose, and the sailing fleet is a broadside. A little earlier – a specific "boarding" design with "locks" on the bow and stern, etc.
    3. Mobilized merchants are determined... and resolutely avoid combat. If De Ruyter has surrounded the British, the Dutch traders simply won't do anything. If there is no De Ruyter, and there are no Englishmen in the environment… In general, you understand.
    As a result, a clear specialization raged in the rowing fleet throughout antiquity and since the 16th century. There were exceptions, but it was force majeure (the guns are too big to put them on a war galley, so we will improvise – but at the first opportunity we will write off the "mutants").
    In the sailing fleet, the situation looks like this. Already at the Battle of Lawforth (1665), the mobilized "merchants" make up less than a quarter of the fleet of England and about 1/9 of the fleet of Holland. At the same time, we are talking about the East Indians and Co. That is, these are initially hybrid military-merchant ships with teams whose problem is only in discipline and lack of experience in squadron battles. Moreover, the ships are atypically large, there are fractions of a percent in the merchant fleet.
    In general, the situation very quickly begins to resemble the Second World War. Mobilized and converted ships can be used for escort and limited for privateering functions, but no one uses them in regular battles.


    In reality, the rowers were recruited at best from poor backgrounds or soldiers. At the same time, they often made up a significant part of the adult male population.
    In general, the secret is simple. We take people who are used to physical labor and start feeding them with superhuman strength. If you still pay a lot or flog a lot...

    Yes, and even more than you think.

    You are exaggerating the scale of the problem. With the classic galley tactics head-on, the enemy at first remained without oars. And it is quite difficult to miss a slowly crawling hull with a length of at least 30 m.
    The fact that the ramming tactics did not revive quite quickly has one explanation. The owners of the sturdy galleys in the east relied on Greek fire. In the west, such ships appeared not much earlier than artillery. In later European galleys, the ram was simply replaced with a large-caliber bombard.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2021
  19. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    173
    Gender:
    Male
    In reality, before the era of steam, a warship and a landing ship were almost synonymous. That is, even in the Crimean War, it was normal practice to cram twice as many soldiers onto a battleship as the number of crew.
    So in the era of trier and Co, a galley with one row of oars is basically a messenger/scout. Heavy ships or round traders are much more convenient for transportation. Specialized landing ships were also built – but these were triers with a cut-off upper tier..

    If you look at real fights, then there is 10-20% capture – it's very unlucky. 50%, 75%, in general, everything is noticeably more typical.


    Actually, in reality it was the opposite. The Karakka is an earlier and more versatile ship. First of all, because it appeared in the era of boarding tactics, carrying a lot of soldiers is a matter of combat capability for it.
    The galleon was originally a kind of "cruiser" in the karakki, faster and with more guns per ton of displacement. As a result, the karakki were first pushed into a large class, and then disappeared. Moreover, they held on for the longest time just in the role of a large transport.
    The galleon has become a "transporter" in pop culture for three reasons.
    1. The habits of brave privateers to certify as a galleon any Spanish merchant or military transport.
    2. Elementary ignorance about the military transport use of earlier and later sailboats. Another thing is that boarding tactics still dominated and usually there were more marines on the galleon than later.
    3. And yes, especially valuable cargo was often carried on warships. In 1640, American silver was carried by a galleon, in 1740 - by a ship of the line. Neither one nor the other were suddenly transports.
    There are nuances in this scheme, but in general so.


    By the way, the galleas did not replace the galleys (which is obvious). Less well known is that he gave rise to an alternative branch of evolution to galleys to rowing frigates.


    1. The Karakka has nothing to do with the frigate at all. Neither by origin, nor by the niche occupied.
    2. Between kogg and its southern counterparts (nephi Ko) and the era of the galleon there is just a karakka. Specifically, Kogg evolves into a northern "quasi-karakka" - the hulk. And the one in the flute.
    The southern line looks like a "nef – karakka –galleon". And the connection here is not "genetic". Galleons evolved from fast anti-piracy ships, and rowing. But then they cynically took the place of the karakk, yes.


    1. A ship of the line is a direct derivative of a galleon. To such an extent that the boundary between late galleons and early ships of the line is drawn strictly depending on national preferences.
    2. If you need a specialized landing ship of the era, then this is anything but a galleon. Any "merchant" or... specially converted battleship of the 4th rank. The British did this during the American War of Independence.

    Hmm. Actually, Abukir / Nile is the capture of 9 French battleships out of 13, Trafalgar -21 out of 33. Stable 2/3.
    The nuance is that the later ships of the line are thick wooden "armor". It sank very badly, it didn't burn very well either.
    At the same time, the battleship is just the decisive force when boarding its own kind and in general all those whom it is able to catch up with. No one has canceled the advantages of a high side.

    In fact, in terms of firing at the coast, the battleships differed in "power", but the depth of fire was not outstanding against the background of the other ships. The firing range of the then guns 1. does not vary much depending on the caliber. 2. anyway small and often more important to get closer to the shore.

    In reality, the galleys stopped being built at the very end of the 18th century. At the same time, they were displaced by rowing gunboats and rowing frigates.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2021
  20. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    173
    Gender:
    Male
    No, even ironclad –true, river ones - were boarded. At the same time, 1. there were very few battles of early ironclads in principle, only one major one. 2. The battering ram turned out to be decisive in it. Artillery penetrated armor extremely poorly 3. As a result, the ironclads also tried to board regularly. Moreover, the ironclad are intact, whence a rather pale result.
    There was only one technical problem – the appearance of rapid-fire weapons (gatlings and Co.). How many of these gatlings would have remained in the ranks after the shelling is a big question.

    Actually, the vanilla ironclad is not a monitor. The designers were clearly inspired by the crafts of the Confederates, the most famous of which is the opponent of the Monitor "Virginia" / "Merrimack". Pseudo-monitors with guns in the casemate were built not only by Southerners, but it is always improvisation (the northerners have such crafts – river). The simplest, cheapest and most primitive option available to insurgents or third-tier powers.
    But Firaxis considered it a reference ironclad, yes.

    I will clarify that
    1. European ironclads also began as coastal slow-moving ships (armored batteries). Quite a lot of them were built. "Gloire" and "Warrior" are already the second generation, the first seaworthy ironclads.
    At the same time, a specific evolutionary branch of coastal ironclads existed and developed until the end of the era of armored ships.
    2. The first seaworthy ironclad was the "Gloire"
    3. "Warrior" was the first all-metal ironclad

    At the same time

    A). While the "fake" "Gloire" carried rifled guns, the British had a) smoothbore guns b). Extremely unsuccessful Armstrong breech-loading guns. They were terrible in the field version because of a defective shutter, and in the version of a large naval gun it was the apocalypse.
    They had to be removed. And they also caused the British admirals to be allergic to breech-loading guns, which lasted a very long time.
    Normal artillery "Warrior received only 5-6 years after construction.

    B). The funny thing is, the "real" ironclad was partially armored, in the central part. At the same time, the steering machine and the propeller shafts were unarmored. Unlike the "French". It doesn't really matter when shooting at a vaguely visible silhouette, but the fights of the then ironclads are point–blank shooting. The French could behave ungentlemanly and shoot at the extremities with aim.

    C) At the same time, 4 months after the Warrior, the French completed the all-metal "La Couronne" with normal weapons.
    By the way, the unit in mod does not represent the "Warrior", but something vaguely similar to the "Magenta" - the only ironclad with two gun decks.

    The British had 6 of them after the "Warrior".
    Steamships began to brazenly sink opponents 35 years before the "Warrior" (the war for Greek independence).
    20+ years before him (in the 1840s), mass construction of steam frigates began. At the same time, wheeled frigates already showed decent speed under steam and were very large. The American Mississippi was one and a half times the size of Nelson's Victoria and was known for ramming the ironclad. In which she heroically won, despite the complete absence of a battering ram.
    Then there were screw frigates and ships of the line with speeds of about 12 knots.
    In general, in the 1850s, steam engines were already the main power plant in combat mode.

    Just not. The only major battle of the era is Liss (1866). Due to the low vulnerability of the ironclads for artillery, it resulted in dogfights with rams. Antiquity 2.0. , linear tactics temporarily died.

    1. It should be borne in mind that at that time armored frigates were called a) all armored ships with one closed gun deck. As a result, all seaworthy ironclads were classified as frigates b). How the frigate could be classified... even a three-tower monitor.
    2. Historically, armored cruisers/frigate began with the reflections of the Russian Admiralty on the topic "how do we drown English non-armored cruisers".

    There are as many as two units that really represent the monitor. One is posted in this thread.

    1. Clippers made up an infinitesimal part of the transport vessels of that time. 2. The mainstream transport of the era is still already a sailing steam vessel 3. The iconic one is the Great Eastern, a "small" steamer the size of a good superdreadnought.

    As can be seen from the above, armored ships were the "tip of the iceberg" of unarmored military vessels + had a much wider range of varieties.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2021

Share This Page