Britische 90 und 98 Kanonen 2nd Rate richtig einstufen

Hallo werte Kapitäne,

Ich möchte meine neuen gedruckten 90 und 98 Kanonen 2nd Rate britischen Linienschiffe korrekt in das Sails-of-Glory System einbinden.

Daher würde mich interessieren, wie Ihr die beiden Klassen einstuft bzw. eingestuft habt:

Nach etwas Studium der Tonnage, Bewaffnung, Mannschaftsstärke, Abmessungen usw. liegen beide Klassen natürlich nahe beieinander.

Größe ist sehr ähnlich, Tonnage ist ca. 10% niedriger, 750 zu 850 Mann Besatzungsstärke, identische Bewaffnung…

Ich würde beide Klassen als Rumpf 6 Schiffe einstufen.
Die 98-Kanonen-Schiffe würden 60 Punkte auf der Schadensleiste (10 Boxen) haben, die 90-Kanonen-Schiffe 54 Punkte (9 Boxen).
Ich habe irgendwo gelesen, dass die 90-Kanonen-Schiffe wie alle britischen 2nd Rate schlecht zu steuern waren.
Vielleicht waren sie auch hoffnungslos überladen mit Bewaffnung???
Einige der Schiffe wurden sogar umgebaut und verlängert, ohne die Bewaffnung zu verändern. Wohl um die Segeleigenschaften zu verbessern???

Um noch einen nennenswerten Unterschied zwischen beiden Klassen zu haben, würde ich den
98-Kanonen-Schiffen Manöverklasse H4 geben (wie den 100-Kanonen-Schiffen der Briten) und den
90-Kanonen-Schiffen Manöverklasse H3 !!!
Die verlängerten 90er könnten auch Manöverklasse H4 haben.

Für die Mannschaftsleiste würde ich von 4-4-3–3-3-3-2-2-1-1-0-0 ausgehen.

Welche Punktzahl würdet Ihr beiden Klassen geben? (Siegpunkte)

Wie seht Ihr das?

Hi Uwe.
It would be well worth asking this question of either DB or Captain Duff, Chris as they have both looked into this area before.
Rob.

Uwe, my suggestion for Second Rates is just use SGN108 HMS Britannia as a "statistical model." Technically a late 98 had more destructive power than a ca. 1750s-60s First Rate, but they didn't leave us a lot of room to "thread the needle."

So basically I'd start with Britannia as late 98 (say Neptune/Temeraire/Dreadnought), and then for older ships I'd speed up the decay rate in the damage tracks.

Hello DB,

as far as combat power is concerned, it is of course always to be seen in relation to the time period.
But you have to show the different tonnage/size in the damage boxes.
If you equate the 90-gun ships with the 98-gun ships and give them only 60 damage, would there only be differences in combat effectiveness between 90/98 guns?

The complication here is it depends on the hulls. Boyne/Union were straight copies of 1803-rebuild Victory's hull with weaker armament, so I'd say they should be treated as de-facto First Rates (which they were later up-gunned into). The Dreadnoughts and their stretch version Ocean were similarly First Rate size and later up-gunned to stand as equals among the First Rates.

If I can find my way back into the Stats Committee Wardroom (whether find my key again, pick the lock or just cannon the door down) I'll see about copying our old 2R thoughts and pasting 'em here, unless one of my more illustrious peers in that august body beats me to it. Kinda in over my head still working on estate matters at the moment... first problem is figuring out how to pay off a car I now own four years' payments of debt on that I won't be able to drive until February at soonest.

Hello DB,

let it be. You definitely have more important things to do.

I was just hoping that a few old Sails-of-Glory warriors had long since created these ships or their values ​​and could just post them.

But I understand the problem more clearly now. Many Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diamondback

If I can find my way back into the Stats Committee Wardroom (whether find my key again, pick the lock or just cannon the door down) I'll see about copying our old 2R thoughts and pasting 'em here,

---

I checked your profile DB and as far as I can see you should be able to access the Stats Committee.
Rob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bligh

I checked your profile DB and as far as I can see you should be able to access the Stats Committee.
Rob.

---

It's mainly a matter of remembering where the link is, old friend. I can't do much for at least the next twelve hours until banks, utilities etc. open for business...

First off, the table we had to slot things into. We need to define upper and lower limits as a start--except the two Victory sisters, which would of course inherit her stats other than weaker Gunnery, I would suggest that most Second Rates should slot in somewhere between a First (which we find underpowered, but possibly passable as 98's) and Bucentaure.

Distilling the Big Chart, I would suggest that most of the Firsts *should* be closer to 1765 Victory, and even Ville de Paris is underpowered. Realigning the Firsts is outside this discussion (though I'd personally suggest Queen Charlotte and Ville de Paris's official stats as lower and upper bounds for most 100's without carronades), but the range from Royal George to Queen Charlotte might be a good starting point. Malta is a bit heavy for an 80, maybe even represents a carronaded 84, but a 12-box version of her Gunnery line might be a good start for statting a weak 90.

Rating	Ship	Burden	Boxes	Veer	Deck	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	M6	M7	M8	M9	M10	M11	M12	Total Gun	BSW kg	Kg/Gun Pt
100	201B HMS Victory (1805)	6	12	3	I	7	7	7	7	6	5	5	4	4	3	2	X	57	521	9.14
100	201A HMS Victory (1779)	6	12	3	I	7	7	7	6	6	5	5	4	3	3	2	X	55	558	10.15
100	108A-1 HMS Royal Sovereign	6	12	3	H	7	7	6	6	6	5	5	4	3	2	1	X	52	539	10.37
100	108C-1 HMS Queen Charlotte	6	12	3	H	7	7	6	6	5	5	5	4	3	2	1	X	51	525	10.29
100	108A-2 HMS Britannia	6	12	3	H	7	7	6	6	5	5	4	4	2	2	1	X	49	524	10.69
100	108B-1 HMS Royal George	6	12	3	H	7	7	6	5	5	4	4	3	2	2	1	X	46	484	10.52
80	115C-1 HMS Malta	6	11	3	H	7	7	6	6	5	5	4	3	3	2	X		48	600

For further comparison, 110-gun Ville de Paris throws 607kg, 112 Santa Ana 694 (531 less obusiers), and a typical Ocean threw 669 while Montagne topped out at 734. For heavyweight Brits Hibernia (another 110) threw 669, 120's Caledonia and Nelson each threw 697. Vaunted Santisima Trinidad throws 675, more like 584 without obusiers. BSW's here are maximum recorded for that ship except for Victory. At their best with two decks of 18's the Dreadnoughts threw 475, while 1810 Boyne threw 438 from a Victory-design hull. 90's usually had between 382 and 420 kg of throw. Which is kind of anemic, since 74-gun HMS Spartiate threw 487 and even a Slade Common 74 like Bellona threw 354.

Based on these, here's what my gut is thinking of to suggest as starting baselines...

• Carronaded 98: Royal Sovereign or Queen Charlotte
• Uncarronaded 98: Queen Charlotte or Britannia
• 90 (note, all 90's were upgunned to 98 before carronade intro): Royal George

Some of my personal proposals... (USS Independence is here as a reference, she was basically a "74" SOL the way Constitution was a "44" frigate, a freakishly huge superheavy version.

Rating	Ship	Burden	Boxes	Veer	Deck	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	M6	M7	M8	M9	M10	M11	M12	Total Gun	BSW kg	Kg/Gun Pt
98	HMS Dreadnaught as-designed	6	12	3	H	7	6	6	5	5	4	4	3	2	2	1	X	45	475	10.56
90	HMS Barfleur as-designed	6	12	3	H	7	6	5	4	4	3	3	3	2	1	1	X	39	411	10.54
74	USS Independence/Washington	6	12	3	H	7	7	6	6	5	5	4	4	3	2	1	X	50	624	12.48
80	115C-1 HMS Malta	6	11	3	H	7	7	6	6	5	5	4	3	3	2	X		48	600	12.5

Even though the Americans have one less deck and are top-to-bottom 32's, I'm including them for being of three-decker size; if these numbers "feel" fairly close I can start trawling individual ship loads from BWAS to try to expand things. 190' is a damn big "74," ya gotta admit--and even approaching the length limit of a First Rate!


We never really finished nailing these down, but try 'em out and see what you think--suggestions for improvement always welcome. :)

Thanks for all that DB.
Rob.

For my own back of envelope calculations I allow carronades half their shot weight for purpose of *most* calculations of moderate to long range fires, with the various medium and light guns fitting in between the 'routine' naval ordnance of typical length range (insensitive to variation in length) and 1/3rd charge ratio, and the short, chambered carronades with a 1/12th ratio of powder (French obusiers are around half that, French later carronades a hair stronger).

Wow. that's a lot of information. extremely interesting. Many Thanks.
Then I'll deal with the design of the ships sheets.

I think that's a good basis for classifying the carronades.

In a nutshell, even though a Second Rate has less "throw weight" than a two-decker its big advantages are 1. it can keep fighting longer by virtue of more ship to soak damage and more gun-crews to be able to afford losing a few, and 2. more lightweight guns and carronades higher above the waterline relative to a twodecker mean it can turn the smaller ship's weather decks into a slaughterhouse and possibly even inflict more damage to the uppermost "enclosed" deck via a version of what we now call "plunging fire." (Today's naval guns are howitzer types, they lob a shell high and let it fall through the deck, while a threedecker blasting its upperworks guns into a twodecker would be "crank those muzzles down and direct-fire right through.")

oh that was quite a bloody business...

Do any of you know why, for example, the armament of all three 98 dreadnoughts was reduced in 1808 in the 18pf range to 12pf?

What was the reason?

Probably reducing top-weight to improve seaworthiness, or compensating for the topweight of added carronades if I had to guess. I'll have to check Winfield and get back to you.

I would take a different approach...

Of course, the ship classes are very close. Still, I really want to make a distinction between the older 90 and 98 gun ships and the Dreadnought class and the Boyne class of 1810 and of course the 1st Rates.
For me, technically speaking, the strength of the hull is the first distinguishing feature. And while it may sound weird at first, I think the older 90/98 gunships should be referred to as hull 5 ships rather than hull 6 ships.
I have the tonnage (bm) in mind. At about 2100 bm the limit is reached for me. See the heavy 2-deckers (84 guns or similar), super-heavy US battleships Independence, etc., and all 1st rates. All these classes/ships have hull 6 and 10 or 11 boxes with 60 or 66 points respectively.
This is also supported by the armament of these ships. The later models and 2-decker had significantly heavier guns on board with higher damage output.

Also, it bothers me that beyond the hull 6 with 11 hull boxes there is no option for an increase. I would put the big 112/130 Spaniards or 120 French on the same level as the old 90/98 British.
Of course, combat power can be adjusted - but I tend to make a difference in hull strength as well.

I would give those 90/98 gun ships more hull squares for that. Since the normal 74s with hull 5 "only" have 9 boxes with 45 points, there is still the possibility of increasing the fields. This in turn reflects the bigger teams!
For the sake of order, mention those old ships as well. Although they don't play a significant role for me because the Union + Neptune were demoted to port service and the Namur was later converted to the 74:

HMS Namur (1755), HMS Union (1756) and HMS Neptune (1757) are the oldest, which were no longer upgraded to 98s = hull 5 with 10 boxes = 50 points

All ships of the Sandwich, London, Barfleur, Queen, Duke, Londen (revised) and Boyne (1790) classes are all below 2100 bm in design and tonnage (bm). Therefore I would give these ships 5 but 11 boxes = 55 points as a hull.
Of course, there are other distinguishing features in combat power, etc.

The dreadnoughts (Dreadnought + Neptune + Temeraire) are just reaching the limit. However, I would like to have some distance between the 1st rate ships.
Therefore these hulls would have 6 - but only 10 boxes = 60 points!
The Boyne class (Boyne 1810 + Union 1811) with the Victory based hulls are above the 2100+ and would therefore also have hulls 6 and 11 boxes = 66 points! They are ships that would qualify as really 1st installment.

That is an option. I'm just trying to create technical differences.
Do you think that's total nonsense or are we going to get any further.

Ich würde einen anderen Ansatz verfolgen…
Natürlich sind die Schiffsklassen sehr nahe beieinander. Dennoch möchte ich unbedingt einen Unterschied zwischen den älteren 90 bzw. 98 Kanonen-Schiffen und der Dreadnought-Klasse sowie der Boyne-Klasse von 1810 und natürlich den 1st Rates machen.
Für mich ist spieltechnisch die Rumpfstärke ein erstes Unterscheidungsmerkmal. Und auch wenn es zunächst komisch klingt, bin ich der Meinung, die älteren 90/98 Kanonenschiffe eher als Rumpf 5 und nicht als Rumpf 6 Schiffe zu bezeichnen. Dabei habe ich die Tonnage (bm) im Kopf. Bei etwa 2100 bm ist für mich die Grenze erreicht. Siehe dazu die schweren 2-Decker (84 Kanonen o.ä.), superschweren US-Linienschiffen Independence usw. sowie bei allen 1st Rate. Alle diese Klassen/Schiffe haben Rumpf 6 und 10 oder 11 Felder mit 60 bzw. 66 Punkten.
Dafür spricht auch die Bewaffnung dieser Schiffe. Die späteren Modelle und 2-Decker hatten deutlich schwerere Kanonen an Bord mit höherer Schadensleistung.
Außerdem stört es mich, dass es jenseits der Rumpf 6 mit 11 Rumpffeldern keine Option für eine Erhöhung gibt. Damit würde ich die großen 112er/130er Spanier oder 120er Franzosen mit den alten 90er/98er Briten auf eine Stufe stellen. Natürlich kann die Kampfkraft angepasst werden – aber ich tendiere dort auch in der Rumpfstärke einen Unterschied zu machen.
Ich würde diesen 90/98 Kanonen Schiffen dafür mehr Rumpffelder geben. Da die normalen 74er mit Rumpf 5 „nur“ 9 Felder mit 45 Punkten haben, ist da noch die Möglichkeit der Erhöhung der Felder. Das wiederum spiegelt dann auch die größeren Mannschaften wieder!
Der Ordnung halber erwähne die diese alten Schiffe auch noch. Wobei sie keine nennenswerte Rolle für mich spielen, weil die Union + Neptune zum Hafendienst degradiert wurden und die Namur später zum 74er umgebaut wurde:
HMS Namur (1755), HMS Union (1756) und HMS Neptune (1757) sind die ältesten, welche auch nicht mehr zu 98er aufgerüstet wurden = Rumpf 5 mit 10 Feldern = 50 Punkte
Alle Schiffe der Sandwich, London, Barfleur, Queen, Duke, Londen (revised) und Boyne (1790) - Klassen sind allesamt von der Bauart und von der Tonnage (bm) her unter 2100 bm. Daher würde ich diese Schiffe auch als Rumpf 5 aber 11 Felder = 55 Punkte geben. Natürlich gibt es dann weitere Unterscheidungsmerkmale in der Kampfkraft etc.
Die Dreadnoughts (Dreadnought + Neptune + Temeraire) erreichen gerade so den Grenzwert. Ich möchte jedoch zwischen den 1st Rate Schiffen noch etwas Abstand haben. Daher würden diese Rumpf 6 – aber nur 10 Felder = 60 Punkte haben!
Die Boyne Klasse (Boyne 1810 + Union 1811) mit dem Victory basierten Rümpfen liegen über den 2100+ und wären demnach auch Rumpf 6 und 11 Felder = 66 Punkte haben! Sie sind „vollwertige“ Schiffe, die als 1st Rate durchgehen würden.
Das ist eine Möglichkeit. Ich versuche eben spieltechnische Unterschiede zu erzeugen.
Haltet Ihr das für totalen Quatsch oder kommen wir da ggf. weiter.

I like what you have going here, Uwe.

Hi Dobbs,
I like most of your house rules too!
:-)

Uwe, I like your thinking--it adds a bit of "time and technology march on" and some differences that are reasons to choose one ship over another. If memory serves, Ocean was enough bigger than her unstretched sisters to cross the 2100t barrier, and then there's the matter of post-plug HMS Prince.

I think you have Stats Committee potential, and if you're interested I'll ask for a vote on inviting you to join so that you can see all our prior work for ideas--though the only one we successfully pushed down the ways was Tonnant, and even that was only meant as an "interim" until Ares launched theirs.

Die Ocean von 1805 und die Impregnable von 1810 sind durch jeweils über 2250 bm deutliche Vertreter mit Rumpf 6 und 11 Feldern. Sie sind sogar noch schwerer als die Neue Boyne Klasse.
Und natürlich abschließend auch die Schiffe der Trafalgar und Princess Charlotte Klasse.

Die verlängerte Prinz kommt mit 2088 bm (nach Umbau) natürlich sehr nahe an die Grenze heran und wäre sie direkt so gebaut worden, würde ich dort auch für Rumpf 6 tendieren. Aber so erhält sie die maximale Rumpf 5 Version - eben mit 11 Feldern und 55 Punkten. Vielleicht würde ich Ihr eine Manöverklasse besser geben als den anderen 90/98er Schiffen. Oder auch das Kartendeck "I". Wobei das der Boyne 1810 und Union 1811 vorbehalten sein sollte, so wie es DB bereits geschrieben hat. Macht absolut Sinn.

The Ocean from 1805 and the Impregnable from 1810 are clear representatives with a hull of 6 and 11 boxes, each with over 2250 bm. They are even heavier than the New Boyne class.
And finally, of course, the ships of the Trafalgar and Princess Charlotte class.

The extended Prinz comes with 2088 bm of course very close to the limit and if it had been built directly, I would also tend for hull 6 there. But this way she gets the maximum body 5 version - with 11 boxes and 55 points. Maybe I'd give her a maneuver class better than the other 90/98 ships. Or the card deck "I". Whereby the Boyne 1810 and Union 1811 should be reserved. As DB has already written. Makes perfect sense.

Thank you for the suggestion with the Statistics Committee.
Argo and I have worked out and tried out many scenarios, house rules, etc. and Sails of Glory still ranks high as a game for me.
I absolutely love working on rules, additions to an existing construct and still improving it a little bit. The desire for the perfect set of rules 2.0 is not off the table for me :-)
The integration of additional ships and classes was important to me from the beginning.
If this takes place on a written level, I can overcome my English weakness with Google. I would be happy to support you with new (and old) projects.

Maybe make Prince a 5x12--she's old and weak like her London sisters, but with that IIRC ~20' plug spliced in across four gundecks including QD there's a lot more of her to have to shoot away even though no guns or crew were added. WARNING: Long table ahead with our old guidelines!

Frankly, I'd say some of the smallest Firsts and biggest Seconds should probably be 6x11, which would allow 6x10 and 5x11 for the "conventional" Seconds along with superheavy two-deckers.
Here's a table I worked up for the Committee a while back, but needs some updating...

"With our recent tests finding that Burden has more effect on durability than hull boxes, and noting that the rankings do seem to generally align with tonnages, I thought a second look trying to back-engineer things might be in order--this seems to explain why Concordes got better Burden than Amazons. Mahonesas obviously don't fit, their stats appear to be pure made-up Munchkinry. Do note that I'm using the 20'-shorter Salvador del Mundo as the Meregildos sample; she's the draught we designed the mini from (the others should be 6mm longer) and the best documented." (The red text indicates the absolute "floor" for smallest ship Ares can make and anything below it--our proposal for USS Enterprise took some creativity to get "above redline." Need to edit to add Prince and Ocean, obviously.

Sculpt	Ship	Dims	Ton BM	Hull	Deck
	Santissima Trinidad		~3000?	6x12	worst possible
	HMS Caledonia; Nelson-class		~2616	6x12	F or H?
106	Commerce de Marseilles	63.41x16.47	2746	6x12	F
108	HMS Hibernia	61.32x16.16	2530	6x12	H
111	Purisima Concepcion/ San Jose		2456	6x12	F
111	Salvador del Mundo	57.91x16.47	2397	6x12	F
114	Tonnant	59.12x15.27	2281	6x11	H
	US Independence superheavy 74	57.91x16.5	2243 US
201/108	HMS Victory	56.08x15.56	2162	6x12	I
	Dreadnought 98	56.39x15.6	2120	6x11 or 6x12?
	Caesar/Foudroyant 80's		1975-2025	5x11?
	1750s French 80 80's		1975-2000	5x10 or 5x11?
102	Cassard-variant Large Temeraire	56.19x14.64	~2000?	5x10 or 5x11?	B
102	British-built Temeraire clones	55.87x14.33	1925	5x10 or 5x11?	B
102	1782 Temeraire Middling 74	55.87x14.33	1925	5x10	B
	British late Large 74		1850-1925
	1766 London 90	53.95x14.95	1870
	1757 Triumph Large 74	52.14x14.95	1825	5x10 or 5x11?
	1759 Sandwich 90	53.65x14.94	1821	5x11 or 6x10?
	British late Middling 74		1750-1850
112	Bahama	53.34x14.64	1786	5x10	B
112	Nepomuceno	55.17x14.34	1740	5x10	B
	British early Middling or late Common 74		1700-1750
104	HMS Bellona	51.21x14.06	1603	5x10	D
	British early Common 74's		1550-1700
202	USS Constitution	53.04x13.16	1533	5x10	L
	UK 24pdr pitch-pine superfrigates		1525-1575	prop 4x10
202	USS President (much weaker than sisters)	53.04x13.16	1533	prop 4x11	L
109	Artesien	50.02x13.15	1480	4x10	N
115	Ardent 64	48.77x13.42	1376	5x10	J
115	1740s Lis 64 (template for Ardent)		1373-1402	5x9 or 4x10	J
	US 18-24pdr 38 (Constellation)	49.99x12.5	1278	4x10 or 5x9?	E?
105	FR Pallas 38	46.93x11.91	1083	4x9	E
105	Hebe 38	46.12x12.67	1071	4x9	E
105	UK Leda (Hebe clone) 38	45.73x11.88	1062	4x10?	E
115	Portland 50	44.50x12.34	1044	4x10	O
116	USS Bonhomme Richard	46.33x12.19	998	4x10	O
113	Mahonesa (heavier group)		974	4x10	K
	US Confederacy 12/18pdr 32-38		970	4x10?	K?
113	Mahonesa (lighter group)		966	4x9	K
	UK 1799 Apollo 18pdr 36		943
	UK 1795 Phoebe (len. Perseverance) 18pdr 36		913
	UK 1798 Amphion 18pdr 32		909
101	Concorde 12pdr 32	44.17x11.08	888	3x9	A
	UK 1781 Perseverance 18pdr 36		871	3x9 or 3x10?
	US Essex 12pdr 32-36		867	3x10?	C?
	UK Pallas 18pdr 32		776	3x9?
	1756 UK Venus 12pdr 36	39.11x10.87	718
	US Raleigh 12pdr 32		696	2x9 or 2x10?	C?
	US Virginia 12pdr 28		681	2x9 or 2x10?	C?
103	UK 1773 Amazon 12pdr 32	38.4x10.67	677	2x9	C
	US Providence 12pdr 28-32		632	2x9?	C?
103?	UK Enterprise 9pdr 28	36.57x10.11	593	2x8 or 2x9?
	US Peacock 22 sloop-of-war	36.28x9.75	539
	UK Banterer 9pdr 24 (Cyane)	35.97x9.77	537
	UK Cyrus 9pdr 22 (Levant)	35.06x8.84	454
	UK Cruizer 9pdr 18 brig-sloop	30.48x9.3	382
	1795 Merlin 6pdr 16	32.3x8.54	365
107	1766 Swan 6pdr 14-18	29.29x7.96	300	1x8
	Ares' hard-minimum ship length	28m
	1807 Cherokee 10 gun-brig	27.43x7.35	235
	1800 Archer 12 gun-brig	24.38x6.78	177

https://sailsofglory.org/attachment....1&d=1608258505

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackAubrey1805

The Ocean from 1805 and the Impregnable from 1810 are clear representatives with a hull of 6 and 11 boxes, each with over 2250 bm. They are even heavier than the New Boyne class.
And finally, of course, the ships of the Trafalgar and Princess Charlotte class.

The extended Prinz comes with 2088 bm of course very close to the limit and if it had been built directly, I would also tend for hull 6 there. But this way she gets the maximum body 5 version - with 11 boxes and 55 points. Maybe I'd give her a maneuver class better than the other 90/98 ships. Or the card deck "I". Whereby the Boyne 1810 and Union 1811 should be reserved. As DB has already written. Makes perfect sense.

---

Heavier than Boyne means heavier than 6x12 Victory, though. Prince had a reputation of being slow and unmaneuverable, I'd give her an H. As an aside, ton-for-ton Impregnable is the size and tonnage of a Spanish Purisima Concepcion or Meregildos first-rate, and probably a lot beefier in her structural members too.

Right now I wish my German were better... the last time I used it was in high school 20 years ago, and while I have a *very* close ( ;) ) friend in Munich she insists that we always speak English so she can practice.

oh, extensive list.
First I have to adjust my hull information to yours.
You write 6x12 hull, I specified it with filled hull fields 6x11. it's the same. Just to clarify.
Prince Hull 5x12 OK
Maneuver class H3
The Prince can then hold the firepower longer.
I'm in the process of creating the shiplogs.
I also believe that hull strength is more valuable than hull boxes. A 6 hull ship tends to absorb more damage and is less likely to be full from a single damage token. But fewer fuselage fields mean fewer teams...
By the way, I'm playing a round of Sails of Glory with Argo on Saturday

My thought, Uwe, is that DB's list is a starting point. I have been hesitant to change my ship burdens as envisioned by Ares, but am contemplating it. Stick with your ideas and share them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dobbs

My thought, Uwe, is that DB's list is a starting point. I have been hesitant to change my ship burdens as envisioned by Ares, but am contemplating it. Stick with your ideas and share them.

---

Precisely. Uwe, anything not Official Ares in that list is just the Committee's or my own suggestions for consideration, to use or not as you think best but hopefully give a foundation for ideas and experimentation. :)

Personally, I think some of the older First Rates (Britannia and her unreleased sister 1756 Royal George) should be kicked down to 6x11 alongside the similar-tonnage Seconds; Victory/Boyne/Union IMO being right on the 6x11/6x12 borderline.

on "threedecks.org", which I usually use as a data source, the three dreadnoughts in the early years up to 1808 are equipped with 2 decks with 18pf guns.
But that must be wrong because the Ocean had to be extra enlarged afterwards to allow for 2 decks of 18pf. At Winfield the dreadnoughts are in there with only 1 deck 18pf!
Does anyone have any other sources available?
Of course, this plays a role in the evaluation of the dreadnoughts.

Winfield is the superior source; ThreeDecks has some questionable data but nowhere near as bad as Wikipedia.

My suspicion is the original trio were meant for and launched with two full 18pdr decks, found to be too heavily loaded so they were reduced to 18/12 and Ocean stretched to accommodate the extra gun weight. I'll check BWAS once I get through some more estate paperwork and getting the Ill Tempered Mutant Landcrab fed.

I have the pdf. Version added by Winfield for the British 1793-1817.
It says quite clearly that the Ocean was ordered as early as 1790 on the basis of a 4th dreadnought. But then it was reworked (extension and enlargement of the gun decks in order to be able to use 18pf on both decks UD/MD at all!)
The Ocean then became the new class. Hence the later launch date of 1805. Apparently identical to the Impregnable class or the Impregnable, which was not completed until 1810, apart from a few specifications.
The three dreadnought sisters were already finished in 1797/1798 and 1801 and Winfield never mentions 18pf in the UD and MD there. That makes sense too.
Accordingly, the broadside weight of the three dreadnoughts is 434kg like almost all other 90/98ers.
However, the ships have been improved and strengthened in other respects, allowing Hull 6 version.
Only with the Ocean was the fighting power of the 98 significantly increased to 600kg BSW with carronades.

One more addition:
Although the dimensions of the Impregnable 1810 correspond to those of the Ocean, the armament has again been reduced somewhat. Nevertheless, the Impregnable vs. Dreadnought class significantly stronger: approx. 570kg to 434kg BSW.

Per BWAS 1714-1792: "UD battery on all three ships was altered to 18pdrs before completion; thus armed, they fought at Trafalgar, but reverted to carrying 12pdrs on the UD in 1808 and were reclassed as 104-gun First Rates in 2.1817."
1714-1792 is the newer-published volume.

Then Winfield expressed himself unclearly or incorrectly in the BWAS 1793-1817.
But then the volume that will be published later counts!
Well! - Then it's probably the case that the dreadnought sisters already had 18pf in both decks. (until 1808)
Thank you for the research!

Might have been corrected in 1793 2nd Ed--then again might not, even with revisions 1793-2e was where I got hit with the bad numbers that made our Constitution about twelve feet overlength.

ETA: This error carries an important lesson, that being that NO ONE is infallible and even the top mind in any given field can make mistakes.

Gibbs Rule #3: Don't believe what you're told, always double check.

I'm curious about Winfield's new volume about Spanish ships!!!
It's very expensive, but certainly a very good basis for the many Spaniards that we still have to figure out.
Should be out next year.

Exactly!

All these different sizes between the British, Spaniards, French, Americans, etc. also lead to differences, transmission errors, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackAubrey1805

I'm curious about Winfield's new volume about Spanish ships!!!
It's very expensive, but certainly a very good basis for the many Spaniards that we still have to figure out.
Should be out next year.

---

Yessir, it also covers twice the timespan of any other volume in the series to go with twice the price, and I'm hoping for tech discussion on the differences of Spanish engineering practice too. I'm waiting for a Nook or ePub copy; if my estimate is right based on shipping weight and probable thickness I'd need a laptop case just for the hardcopy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackAubrey1805

All these different sizes between the British, Spaniards, French, Americans, etc. also lead to differences, transmission errors, etc.

---

Also that British measure over the endposts while Americans measure inside... this is why I usually prefer to compare measurements by taking the British measured length from a non-UK class, then if I have builder measurements I use the measured ship as a baseline and figure the others based on percentage larger/smaller than that. The multiple Spanish measurement systems alone are a screaming nightmare and a half...