Tell that to Nelson at Trafalgar or the Nile.
The major battles throughout the age of sail were made up of fleets built around cores of of the strongest ships. That means 1st and 2nd rates. The 1st and 2nd rates were always the lesser number, but that was because of upkeep costs. Like modern aircraft carriers of today, which are their descendants, strategy wise. The numbers you quote from the RN are during peacetimes. That is when the 1st and 2nd rates are laid up in reserve and the smaller vessals played a stronger role because they are cheaper to maintain. No need for a huge main battlefleet, just cruisers, mostly doing anti piracy patrols overseas and showing the flag to scare the little guys. During wartime, the RN employed many more 1st and 2nd rates. Since the 1600's the number of capital ships being deployed has steadily reduced with major battles of 40-60 liners a side during the Anglo-Dutch wars of the mid 1600's being reduced to maybe 15-25 a side by the early 1800's. BTW, the 3rd rate 74 was a liner and as it was in the late 1700's, more than a match for any 1600's liner of a 100+.
Rubbish. I already covered why there were fewer numbers of the larger ships in my previous post so I wont go back into that. If those 3 deckers were just flagships and useless for battle, why then were literally hundreds of them built by the nations of Europe during the 1600's, 1700's and 1800's?
Sort makes light of your statement, don't it. Here is the line up at Tralfalgar. . . . As you can see, 1/3 of the battleline of both sides was composed of 1st/2nd rates. To say these ship were of no consequence is idiotic.
Take a look at the casualties of the frigates. You'll note they had none. What does that tell you of their role in fighting? Nelson's line about want of frigates was about needing them for scouting, not for fighting in the line of battle as you seem to be implying above.
The battleship was a prestige ship, yes, but it also was the backbone of the naval strategic forces. The battleship projected the naval power of a nation. The RN Grand Fleet of ww1 was noted for its composition of capital ships, not for its cruisers and destroyers and its role was to dominate the seas with those capital ships. The aircraft carrier took over that strategic role from the battleship during ww2 and that is why aircraft carriers are the ships of the line of today (though one could possibly claim the same for nuclear ballistic missile subs, too). It is their strategic roles where these types are related, not their weaponry, and that is what I meant when I wrote the aircraft carrier is the liner of today.
The numbers you site are from wartimes, true, but not at the height of the Napoleonic period's naval wars. 1794 was before things really got started and 1814 is after the naval war was done and the RN had no real opponent anymore. It seems you got your info googling this site:
http://home.gci.net/~stall/ship2.htm
But you should have investigated that site a little better (or maybe you did, but decided to ignore what it said that was contrary to your own opinions).
There's nothing wrong with enjoying these exchanges, Pyrrhos, but the thread (abandoned though it may be) was about placing a second city. The discussion that's going on between you, Snarkhunter and meisen does seem better suited to the World History forum.. . . . I think you'll find that Snarkhunter, Meisen and myself enjoy these exchanges of information and opinions. That you lack the ability to either understand and/or enjoy such debates does not give you the right to dictate what others can or cannot do. We will not dumb down for your benefit nor will we only discuss what is of interest to you. . . .
I found the read most interesting, thank you for the debate, ill-placed as it was
Yeah, but discussions take on a life of their own. When you and some friends are sitting in a pub and with some of you, the subject under discussion changes, do you, and the others talking about the new subject, leave the table you are sitting at and go to another to discuss this new subject?
(a) If new cities (1 in size) border other (1) cities to start, how can they grow without getting overcrowded, doesn't this limit future productin capabilities?
(b) I am assuming this is a big anti-corruption strategy, are there other major benefits also in clustering your cities?
(c) I have tried to forward project as much as possible based on wherever the best unclaimed terrain/resources are located and defend the gaps in between. Eventually the cities grow towards each other and the gap is filled. Is there a flaw in this strategy and does the strategy have to change as you move towards Diety?
I see that MAS has already covered most of this. Pyrrhos started a thread on city spacing not too long ago. That thread might prove to be interesting reading for you. It's entitled C-X-X-C or C-X-X-X-X-C?.Questions to the most common 2nd city answers
It seems everyone's responses (until Meisen's post) supports tight city clusters, with city edges bordering other city edges. I am a newbie (Chieftan) so maybe don't understand the strategic reasons, so here are my questions -
(a) If new cities (1 in size) border other (1) cities to start, how can they grow without getting overcrowded, doesn't this limit future productin capabilities?
(b) I am assuming this is a big anti-corruption strategy, are there other major benefits also in clustering your cities?
(c) I have tried to forward project as much as possible based on wherever the best unclaimed terrain/resources are located and defend the gaps in between. Eventually the cities grow towards each other and the gap is filled. Is there a flaw in this strategy and does the strategy have to change as you move towards Diety?