What is the Man-O-War and the SOL anyways? - a topic on ships with some ranting

[guczy]

Well lads, first thread i open on these forums and its partly a rant. First of all, i love the game but i have to admit it has some (if not many) flaws, but none of them are gambreaking IMHO. Most of these flaws have a thread already, the thing i wanna rant about are the Man-O-Wars. You could say: "The MOW? Thats such a small part of the game, why do you have to open a thread about it?" Well because i love ships (and no im not even close to being a sailor), and the MOW-s grind my gears since the original COL. If you are absolutely not interested in ships then skip the part between the jagged lines, it will bore you to tears.

Update: well, if you hate ships you probably just want to jump to the last paragraph or dont even read the post as most of it is about ships now...

---------

Well my first problem is: what the heck is a Man-O-War anyways? Well i looked it up in wikipedia, and it says that its an armed ship with soldiers on it propelled by the wind (eg. sails). Originally it was a smaller galleon-like carrack, and an english king, namely Henry the VIII called them Man-o-War. According to wikipedia the "legitimate" (whatever that means) was developed by Sir John Hawkings. I quote the english wiki for additional details: "It had three masts, could be up to two hundred feet long and have up to 120 cannons; four at the front, eight at the back and fifty six cannons on each side. It needed three cannon decks to hold all the cannons. The maximum cannon decks needed before on any other ships was two. It had a maximum sailing speed of around eight or nine knots. The ship was so successful that Sir Francis Drake created a smaller version he called the frigott or frigate. As two more centuries passed, the man-of-war became even more popular." (source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-of-war)

I hate wikipedia but dont have any books to quote from, but i assume this info is correct, although it has some points which i really dont understand (like whats "legitimate", and the step from the carrack to such a huge ship seems to be a too big step). I'll be honest: i have only heard about Man-O-Wars in Colonization (the old one), a ship of this caliber is usually called a frist rate Ship-of-the-Line. I suppose in the XVI. century they were called MOW but i dont think this term was used in the latter centuries (i admit i dont have any sources on that, but i have never heard about them in relation of any XVII-XVIII. century ship, and ive played a lot of games which play in these centuries in the Caribbean, and have read about the ships online and offline aswell)

This epilogue is getting really long, so just a few words about the SOL-s. (Ship of the Line). In the british warship rating system the ships go from 6th to 1st rate. The 6th and 5th rate ships are known as frigates, no one calls them SoL-s. The 4th rate is the smallest SoL with about 48-60 guns, the 1st rate has 100-120 guns so they were HUGE and the most powerful ships til the steam powered ships came into play.(if you want to see a real SOL, go see Nelsons ship the HMS Victory in the UK) They had very bad acceleration, but quite high top speeds, and as you can imagine it HUGE firepower, they could kill a frigate with one well placed salvo, but this didnt really happen as Sol-s usually fought against each other Which isnt true as only the brits called their largest warships SoL-s, at Trafalgar for example they mostly fought Galleons - so, well, SoL-s didnt fight each other, they fought usually against same sized (okay this isnt true either but lets simplify cause this post is getting really long) but differently called ships. In conclusion: huge ships fought huge ships.

First i want to apologise for this long epilogue about ships, but i just had to, it was a subhuman urge. (the word subhuman does not exist, i made it up and its copyrighted from now - no not because its a cool word, but beacuase i made up an english word despite not being a native english speaker, or writer in this case).

------------------

In Colonization every nation has the same unit types, which makes me kinda sad, but TBH it was this way in the original so im not THAT angry about this. Except for the ships where they really could have made a difference, because Spain and the Dutch have never had a SOL, i dont think the dutch even had a ship that large. (in the wikipedia article about Man-o-Wars there is a picture of a dutch "Man-of-War", but TBH i dont think anyone except Henry the VIII and the author would call that ship a MOW, but i might be wrong). It might cause imbalance if the nations would have different ships, but i would like more types, as there really were a lot of shiptypes involved in the timespan of the game, especially in the Carribbean area, they were actually more important than the soldiers in that area. I dont say make it super-realistic, so that you could even set the ammo-type (dont get me started on this topic, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the current one) but some variety couldnt hurt. (Oh dear modders out there, please hear my prayers - if you need help with ships feel free to contact me, if you want 30 different ships i can provide the data)

And why are the REF ships called Man-o-Wars and your useless floating garbage failships SOL? If the data from the wikipedia article is correct, the MOW could mean any ship from a 12 gun Sloop to a 120 gun 1st rate. Seeing the picture of the ship ingame lets us assume its rather the latter. Okay its the most powerful ship of that time, fair enough. (its still stoopid to call it MOW) But your most powerful - but still epicly failing - ships are called SoL-s. As i said previously (in the part you probably havent read) this could mean a ship from 4th rate (48-60 guns) to 1st rate (100-120 guns). If you look at its picture it looks like a ship with 3 gundecks, which pretty much means its a 1st rate. Well we already now they are not 1st rates, as they are at least as big and more modern (at least according to wikipedia) than the MOW, but as they kick your a$$ anytime the SOL-s you build are for sure not 1st rates. Or some really crappy ones probably built by ACME and they blow themselves up like Will E Coyote.

Okay they are not 1st rates, maybe im seeing things and they are 3rd or 2nd rates. Well lets ovelook that fact that just two of these ships would never meet alone and lets pretend they do. A 3rd or 2nd rate would probably lose against a 1st rate. If the captain is really good he could win by outmaneuvering the 1st rate, as that ship has a really BAD turning rate, so in "reality" a 2nd or 3rd rate could have a valid chance against a 1st rate. In Col2 they have absolutely no chance, if you get lucky (and by lucky i mean lottery-winning lucky) you can kill the MOW with 2 SOL-s. In reality 2 2nd or 3rd rates would easily kill a 1st rate. Even if they dont fight it together just after each other. A 2nd or 3rd rate could withstand enough punishment to cause really big damage, and the 2nd ship just has to finish it off. If the 2 ships are fighting together the 1st rate has absolutely no chance, he can pound one ship but the other one can sail for the MOW-s weak parts and kill it in a few salvos.

So this leaves us with a 4th rate for the SOL. Well TBH IMHO 2 4th rates together would be enough to kill a 1st rate, after each other...well i think the 1st rate (MOW if you forgot) would have a chance, with some lucky (or good) salvos it could crush the 4th rates after each other without sustaining too much damage. 3 of em together would no doubt kill a 1st rate, after each other...well...i think they would win, but there is a not-so-small chance the 1st rate would win.

My point with all this is, that yes, they can call your failships SOL-s, but calling the MOW a MOW is really not good, and they are way overpowered. Yeah i get it, colonial forces are weaker than the elite British ships, but if you are really building SOL-s than the ratio of 1 MOW can be defeated by 3 SOL-s is dumb. (yeah i know im dumb too, but this thread is not about me) SOL-s are really-really expensive and if the REF is building up fast they will have around 20-25 MOW-s so to counter them you need like 50-80 SOL-s. Go figure how much time that would take to build/buy. And it isnt sure that it would pay of.

Well this post is getting REALLLY long and boring now, so for the closing comments: I didnt go in-depth talking bout how stupid the concept of a lone HUGE warship figthing another one is, and i didn't cover a lot of other important issues (like game balance) either. I don't think this whole thing is a major flaw of the game (well, most of the ppl wouldn't consider it a flaw at all), but for someone who loves ships (not the gay-way...well not even hetero-way) this can be a let-down. I would love to see a mod with different shiptypes for each nations, as i said in the part you probably havent read, im would be glad to help with such a mod, i cant do any designing or programming, so i dont know if i would be helpful at all, but if you think so feel free to contact me in any form. I apologise for any historical inaccuracies (actually the whole part discussing which ship would win is pointless as that never could have happened in reality - who would be so stupid -with a modern age analogy - to send an aircraft carrier ship alone into battle). Flame on if you want to, i am fireproof...And if you amde it through the whole text: huge congratulations. SOL-HUGE congratulations.

ps: sorry for grammar errors and typos, as i said my native language is not english.

ps2: i know im a ****** for writing such a long article about something with so small relevance in the first few days after the game is released when the game still has some major bugs...well see you in the Arkham Asylum

 

[GoodGame]

Part of the problem is the over-encapsulation of centuries of history, but the best reference point would probably be the defeat of the Spanish Armada by the English. Most of the Spanish fleet could be approximated as SOLs, while a large part of the English fleet was frigates (MOWs). Basically the frigate has an emphasis on maneuverability while the 'ships of the line' were hulks emphasizing number of guns. Ships of the line would prefer to stay in formation and in lines that concentrate their firepower along the length of their hulls, while frigates would try to maneuver individually to avoid their target's gunports, while bringing their own guns to bear (usually by a maneuver called 'crossing the T'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_T).

Most of this is well depicted in SM's Pirates!

With its superior manoeuvrability, the English fleet provoked Spanish fire while staying out of range. Once the Spanish had lost their heavy shot, the English then closed, firing repeated and damaging broadsides into the enemy ships. This also enabled them to maintain a position to windward so that the heeling Armada hulls were exposed to damage below the water-line.

 

[cephalo]

Since the game is kinda sorta depicting the american revolution, that sortof implies that the king is patterned after the English king. The English navy at that time was completely dominant in ship to ship combat. All they had to do to win was to force a battle, which their enemies usually tried to avoid even though their ships were very similar. So, even though an SoL and MoW are really the same thing definition wise, I think they are trying to depict a King's navy that you can try to copy, but you can't.

 

[guczy]

Part of the problem is the over-encapsulation of centuries of history, but the best reference point would probably be the defeat of the Spanish Armada by the English. Most of the Spanish fleet could be approximated as SOLs, while a large part of the English fleet was frigates (MOWs).

Basically the frigate has an emphasis on maneuverability while the 'ships of the line' were hulks emphasizing number of guns. Ships of the line would prefer to stay in formation and in lines that concentrate their firepower along the length of their hulls, while frigates would try to maneuver individually to avoid their target's gunports, while bringing their own guns to bear (usually by a maneuver called 'crossing the T'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_T).

Well yes, Nelson had a lot of frigates but they didnt decide the battle at Trafalgar. Your right about the "crossing the T" maneuver, they won with that, the ships involved were all SOL-s (a firgate would have been killed in one salvo). The line was actually led by the Victory (Nelson was no . .. .. .. .. .), which suffered severe damages, but the english won by a huge margin. They have crossed the T twice actually and sunk lots of galleons. (which have huge firepower but dont have the armor, speed and maneuvering of a SOL). I dont say the frigates didnt matter in that battle, but they werent the matchwinners.

------

cephalo: yeah i should have mentioned that, you have a valid point, but in a lone SOL vs lone SOL battle only the gunnery discipline would matter (yes the english pwned everyone in that category), and yes the british SOL would kill the colonial, but the second colonial would kill the british because of the damage it had sustained. And as a mention in a 2 SOL vs 1 SOL battle the british lonely SOL could only win with luck.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Terms can be confusing and nebulous.

SOL means Ship of the Line of Battle. That changed over time as ships were built bigger and better.

Man-Of-War often meant only sailing warship.


As I recall, an SOL of the period was usually a 74 -80 gun ship.


It might have been easier if ships were just called 32s, 74s, etc.

 

[fmiracle]

Terms can be confusing and nebulous.

SOL means Ship of the Line of Battle. That changed over time as ships were built bigger and better.

Man-Of-War often meant only sailing warship.

For me it's most strange that Colony goverment have costly and powerfull Ships of the Line (pure warships? usable only in serious wars, they not intended to catch pirates, guard transports and so on)

While Metropolia have only 'abstract' Man-o-Wars that can be just any type of warship... %)

 

[guczy]

fmiracle i totally have to agree with you. The colonies were not rich enough to afford a SOL. SOL-s were the carriers/battleships of these centuries and think about how much those cost nowadays, it took a lot of money, effort and know-how to produce such huge ships...

Well it would be historical accurate if you could only build frigates, which would have no friggin chance against the MOW-s. But this game is not about realism and i think you need a ship which is able to counter the REF. Well the SOL in this game is far from being able to perform this kind of task so either its poitless and take it out, or make it stronger so it can fight the MOW-s.

 

[centrelink4]

Well it would be historical accurate if you could only build frigates, which would have no friggin chance against the MOW-s. But this game is not about realism and i think you need a ship which is able to counter the REF. Well the SOL in this game is far from being able to perform this kind of task so either its poitless and take it out, or make it stronger so it can fight the MOW-s.

Well I think you summed it up yourself, it very very abstract game. It like complaining about civ4s "riflemen" or "infantry" not matching the performce of the 1912 122nd X countries elite brigade etc.

However since put effort into a long first post I'll answer your questions:

1. Man o war is just a generic term for a fighting ship not a ship per se. I put some guns on my cargo ship and now I have a man o war.

2. Legitimate refers to the fact that this design was more of a purpose built war ship rather then the example in point 1.

3. It goes from galleons, not from carracks.

4. Naval combat is influenced by so many factors other then just the base ship that by using different ship names, there really simply trying to represent the fact that the colonial navy is ad hoc whereas the european is a (in theory) dedicated and well train force.

4. So yes it is silly that you get SOL and they get MOW, but they needed to give you (the colonial) worse naval strength and proably fought MOW was a cooler name.

5. Finally dont get too carried away by number of guns. Frigate dont get "blown away" by larger ships.

At this time period hardly any ships were sunk directly, they were often boarded or surrendered. Even traflgar where england 'destroyed' the enemy fleet after hours of combat they only acutally sunk like 2 ships directly and even then I think one blow up by luck.

Yes later on really damaged captured ones were scuttled or sunk in hurricane or something, but they werent simply blown away.

 

[Reveilled]

So the issue, as I see it, is that the Royal Navy need a bigger ship than the largest colonial ship, but the names aren't right. So either the Man-o-War needs to be changed to the Ship of the Line, or we need a ship even bigger than a Ship of the Line.

According to the US Military Dictionary the term Battleship was first used around the time of the American Revolution to refer to the largest wooden warships. So it's good for the period in which the Royal Navy's ships appear, it would signify the largest, most modern ships at the time, and the name even sounds bigger in your head.

 

[mboza]

I can't cite a source off hand, but I would have said MoW were first raters, and SoL were rates 1-3.

But ultimately I think colonial SoL were unnecessary, we could have stuck with frigates. Without a foreign intervention, or shore batteries, fighting the King's fleet is a waste of time.

 

[misterslack]

Repeat to yourself "it's just a game, and I should really just relax".

 

[guczy]

centre: good to know someone has actually read my post, thank you and thanks for the reply, now to your points:
1. yeah, thats what i thought before reading that wikipedia article
2. you might be right (it does make sense) but TBH i rather think the wikipedia makes that part up. Gonna have to look into it.
3. well, yes galleon-like carrack doesnt make any sense to me, ive qutoed wikipedia in that matter, but thanks for the correction.
4. i totally agree with that, all of the 4 nations had a dedicated, well-trained fleet (well maybe the french are a little bit of an exception here, but this would be another long topic, which shouldnt be discussed in the main col forum
4. (yes, you used 2 4s ) i agree with the player having less combat strength, but i dont think there should be this much difference. You are totally right about the game not being realistic in any way, but as i wrote earlier this scenario in this time is really a ship-centric scenario and i think tehy should have made more shiptypes, and they shouldnt have called MOW-s. I just hate that.
5. (which in reality is 6 ) I admit that i get somewhat blown away by the number of guns, but a 1st rate, with a disciplined british crew, using round shots can destroy a smaller frigate in one shot. It needs some luck and the frigate captain has to be really stupid to go so close to the SOL but it could happen easily.

I have to disagree with the last part of your post. It is true that a lot of ships were demasted and boarded, but the British Fleet had the orders to shhot-to-kill. They mostly used round shot and went for the sinking. Opposed to the frenchies who had the standing orders to emast and if possible flee if the battle had a slight chance to go wrong. British captains would have had a chance to get executed for doing this...

Your right about Trafalgar though, but thats a completely different story. The english counted as the underdogs and this has to do with the fact that the spanish wargalleons were nearly impossible to sink, much like the Bismarck (the ship which has blown up had the same bad luck as the Bismarck). But the patroling british frigates usually killed smaller or equal ships and only went for boarding in case of a galleon. (the english were less interested in the cargo, they were mostly interested in harming the enemy)

reveilled: you are right, but i think a lot of people would be even more opposed to the term "battleship". When you think about it you think about something like the USS Idaho or the HMS King George V and not a ship with sails.

mboza: no im quite sure that in England no one called a 1st-4th rate ship a MOW. Maybe you have a point with that the colonials shouldnt have anything better than a frigate, but as a lot of ppl said (incuding me) this game is not about realism and if you wouldnt have a SOL it would made even less sense to build any navy.

 

[Lord Shadow]

Yes, wiki says...

The word battleship was coined around 1794 and is a shortened form of line-of-battle ship, the dominant wooden warship during the Age of Sail.

...Which means "battleship" indirectly meant "ship of the line". The problem with the ship naming is that there weren't many equivalent vessel types around: every ship class had a specific purpose. Basically, there was the frigate and the ship of the line. There were different rates, as you said, but most people would scratch their heads, puzzled, if they saw units named "1st-rate" or "3rd rate". "Man-o-War" basically just means "warship", but I can't think of a better way to differentiate them from their colonial 'equivalents'.

As for the word "battleship", even if it was first coined back then, I can't help but think of the (nearly) modern ships that used the name far more extensively.

 

[guczy]

Yes, wiki says...

...Which means "battleship" indirectly meant "ship of the line". The problem with the ship naming is that there weren't many equivalent vessel types around: every ship class had a specific purpose. Basically, there was the frigate and the ship of the line. There were different rates, as you said, but most people would scratch their heads, puzzled, if they saw units named "1st-rate" or "3rd rate".

Well i would say that's what the civilopedia (which should be called colonipedia) is for. I dont think a lot of ppl know what a Man-o-war is either. (if you think about it: i have read a lot about ships and played a lot of games involving them and even i didnt know what a MOW is)

As for the word "battleship", even if it was first coined back then, I can't help but think of the (nearly) modern ships that used the name far more extensively.

Yep, thats what i have said, most of the ppl would think that.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Well, if nobody bites on my describing ships as 32s, 74s, etc. ...

How about frigates, double -deckers, and triple-deckers ?

 

[guczy]

Rusty: i see no problem with calling the ships 1st-4th rates and frigates. Calling a ship with just a number would not sound too good. But as we have only 3 types of warships there is really no point in renaming them, unless someone makes a mod with more ships.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Rusty: i see no problem with calling the ships 1st-4th rates and frigates. Calling a ship with just a number would not sound too good. But as we have only 3 types of warships there is really no point in renaming them, unless someone makes a mod with more ships.

People will be confused regardless. I'm pleased the game includes ships, whatever we call them.