Stretching Sculpts: 1777 Concorde class 12-lb. 32-gun frigates

[Diamondback]

As noted, I've been trying to figure out how much can be wrung out of the existing sculpts for game-extension--I'm taking them in sculpt-SKU order, so the Concordes are up first. All of these are 12-pounder 32's unless otherwise noted. I'm personally shaky on Nymphe since data conflicts, but including it for the sake of discussion.

Can work for or released as	Minor mod	Maybe	New Sculpt	Unknown
1777 Concorde (H Chevillard) 1777 Charmante (JD Chevillard) 1777 Ipigenie (Guignace) 1778 Magicienne (JMB Coulomb) 1779 Ceres (Bombelle; per Winfield near identical to Concorde) 1807 UK HMS Hyperion one-off -(Magicienne copy) 1808 UK HMS Bucephalus one-off -(Magicienne copy)				1765 Infidele (Ginoux) 1765 Boudeuse one-off (Raffeau) 1766 Dedaigneuse (Guignace) 1766 Engageante one-off (Estienne) 1767 Atalante one-off (J Coulomb--=JMB Coulomb?) 1768 Zephyr one-off (Ollivier) 1777 Nymphe (PA Lamothe) 1777 Sibylle (Sane) 1777 Fortunee one-off (Forfait) 1777 Iphigenie (Guignace) 1779 Galathee (Haran) 1779 Capriceuse (Segondat-Duvernet) 1780 Venus (Sane) 1785 Félicité (Forfait) 1786 Proselyte one-off (Ducrest) 1788 Aglae one-off (Duhamel) 1791 Semillante (Penetreau) 1793 Charente Inferieure (Haran)

No drawings found at NMM for:
1785 Félicité (Forfait)
1786 Proselyte one-off (Ducrest)
1788 Aglae one-off (Duhamel)
1791 Semillante (Penetreau)
I'm pretty sure I've seen draughts for some of these reproduced in Boudriot's History of the French Frigate 1650-1850, but sadly am having trouble finding any online.

When you suggest a column to assign a class to, please state your personal priorities--some of us are "Accurate Model First" folks, others are pure gamer and would be content with a Popsicle stick hull bearing three toothpick masts, and I'll bet most of us fall somewhere in-between. (What this means: a Green carries more weight coming from an AMF-er, and conversely a Red carries more weight from a "Gamer First, Model Accuracy Unimportant," because each means a contradiction of the person's normal biases.)

[fredmiracle]

I guess for me the main question is likely to be: if I'm playing a particular historical engagement (or campaign, or plausible/hypothetical engagement based on real events, or whatever), then for each ship, what is the best proxy to use of the ships we have. Since we have so few ships right now, that's pretty easy. At some point when there are more choices it might get more confusing.

With the WW2 minis I was a fair bit more of a stickler, but there seems to be drastically less variation in both the appearance and capabilities of AoS ships, and that's reflected in Ares' statting. So I think I'll be pretty flexible about the whole thing

[David Manley]

Nappy naval gamers have coped with this dilemma for decades and I suspect SOG players will be no different. I fully appreciate where DB is coming from with this. I don't fall into his popsicle and toothpick category, not by a long chalk, but one thing I've learnt about AoS gaming is that proxies really become a way of life if you want to cover anything other than a very narrow sphere of interest. AoS models in 1/1200 are often thought of as being "inspired by" a particular class or ship, so whilst obviously using that class or ship as their basis they are regarded as suitably generic to be used for a range of types within broad bands; paintwork and suitably affixed ensigns used to differentiate; and of course once viewed from more than a few inches away the differences between varieties of frigates of SOLS is beyond recognition. I don't think the shift to 1/1000 makes all that much difference in that regard.

Something I'm toying with as an idea if I continue as deeply with SGN as I have with other AoS games is to remove the ships' ensigns completely and replace them with interchangeable ensigns - not sure exactly how to do it yet, or even whether I will have the time and/or enthusiasm to do so (my wash and touch up plan for my SGN ships has stalled for example, although that may well restart given the positive comments received for the model in the last few games).

That said, it is an interesting exercise to see how far the sculpts go within tight or broader bands of tolerability. I shall watch developments with interest

[Diamondback]

Looking at Magicienne's ports, I can see how some ships might have started as 32's and gone up to 36's, 38's or even light 40's with no hull modification.

Declaration of own bias: I myself am an "Accurate Model" sort--part of this is trying to broaden the reprint pool for when those start, part looking for ways that existing sculpts can be leveraged to quickly and inexpensively launch future waves. That, and trying to grade stretches on the scale from "Enthusiastic YES!" to "*Shrug* Well, OK" to "Grudgingly Accepted" to "COMPLETELY Unacceptable".

Wait 'til I start tossing up 74's... that's where the REAL fun's gonna start. LOL Just big enough that class differences start to become more pronounced...

[David Manley]

Wait 'til I start tossing up 74's... that's where the REAL fun's gonna start. LOL Just big enough that class differences start to become more pronounced...

Which is of course why the likes of Mr Langton produce (for example) several different types of British and French 74s

[Diamondback]

Yep... "small enough to be a pain in the ass to manufacturing, big enough to be an irritant to AMS*".
*Accurate Modeler Syndrome

Dreading the Temeraires, so I think I'm going to table them and skip straight to the 1773 Amazons and then the Slade Common 74's...

Eric, if you see this could you please edit the thread title top "Stretching Sculpts: SGN101, 1777 Concorde class 12-lb. 32-gun frigates"?

[Berthier]

I'm not so hard core accurate modeller syndrome, however I'd rather that stats of each ship were more diverse, as David has previously pointed out Ares have designed a system with limited room to move (the range of numbers is too small to allow diversity) on differentiating ship performance without using home rules so I think we may see a lot of those in the future.

[Diamondback]

True... it depends which factor one finds easier to modify. I find it easier to cook the stats, some find it easier to chop minis--I should have noted up front that my sole focus in this discussion is the physical sculpt, believing that the paper parts of the game are easier to alter than plastic and tooling metal.

There are always options... for example, if you want a more "nuanced" game, you can double the hull points and then tweak gunnery proportionally, which opens up more "notches" for things to fit into.

[Пилот]

And that's good solution, Diamondback.

[Diamondback]

Updating after a few years with FWAS and Ares Reprint info...

->Iphigenie is now added as an Official Extension.
->1779 Ceres class (Ceres and Fee) are added as a Green stretch--per Winfield & Roberts, "similar to Concorde."

[Diamondback]

Okay, there are gonna be so many drawings we need to break this up some... especially since I'm considering all French 12-pounder frigates with 26-28 gun main-batteries (and one 18-pounder that was an up-caliber from a 12-pounder hull) as potential stretch candidates.

This post, the four Ares Confirmed classes covered and a no-drawing fifth confirmed by outside experts whose books Ares relies on.

1777 Concorde

1777 Charmante - Unite as taken 1796

1777 Magicienne - uncertain if this is as-taken or recommissioned

1777 Iphigenie (Guignace)

1779 Ceres -no drawings for Ceres or Fee, as neither were taken by RN

[Diamondback]

The ancestral forms... With the exception of Boudeuse and her two stretched sisters, the six Infideles and four Dedaigneuses all of the early twelve-pounders were one-offs.

EDIT: As is my more recently adopted Standard Practice, we'll start with Concorde for comparison.


1749 Gracieuse
1749 Hermione (1757 HMS Unicorn's Prize) - a rather odd ship with eight 12's and 22 8-pounders, this sounds rather like an archaic class called a "demi-batterie" with a full deck of smaller bores and a half-deck of larger bores below that concentrated aft. (Somewhat replicated, albeit more like a "quarter" than "half battery" with Bonhomme Richard.)
1750 Rose
1756 Danae (1759 HMS Danae)
1757 Hebe
1758 Chimere
1763 Terpsichore
1765 Infidele
1765 Sultane
1766 Boudeuse
1766 Dedaigneuse - 1780 Belle Poule before up-gun and refit as a 36-gunner

1766 Engageante
1767 Renommee
1767 Stretched Boudeuse
1768 Atalante (1794 HMS Espion as refit for RN service)

1768 Aurore
1768 Zephyr one-off (Ollivier) - not taken by RN

[Diamondback]

The contemporaries... the second round of 12-pounder designs, from around 1775-1780.

EDIT: As is my more recently adopted Standard Practice, we'll start with Concorde for comparison.


1777 Fortunee - in search of disposition and drawing
1777 Nymphe

1777 Sibylle - Drawings for class-member Nereide as taken

and as recommissioned

1779 Capricieuse
1779 Galatee (first 3) - HMS Pique

1779 Galatee (last 3, aka 1793 Charente Inferieure class) - HMS Tribune, Renommee or Decade, up-gunned version version of the same hull

1779 Venus - Drawing for class-member Cleopatre

[Diamondback]

The Last Hurrah - 12-pounders of the late 1780s to 1790s...

EDIT: As is my more recently adopted Standard Practice, we'll start with Concorde for comparison.


1785 Felicite - "probably very similar to Fortunee”
1786 Proselyte - 1793 HMS Proselyte floating battery
1788 Aglae
1789 Embuscade - 1798 HMS Ambuscade
1791 Semillante
1794 Cocarde Nationale - HMS Alexandria
1794 Coquille - HMS Dedaigneuse

1798 Heureuse - HMS Chiffonne

[Bligh]

Another very useful compilation of information DB.
Thanks once again for all your diligent research.
Rob.

[Diamondback]

Well, in this case more a recompile and reformat with a few minor additions. :)

I would be hesitant to count Atalante/Espion as viable in light of her *negative* bow rake--her bow curves in at the top-line, while almost all of the others I've found are either vertical or positive, outward rake. (Then again, so does Charmante and Ares already ran with that one...)

Be really helpful if one of our graphics wizards could rework these to all be at the same scale, and chop off the underwater sections so we can focus more on what we'd see on the table... :)

[Bligh]

Be really helpful if one of our graphics wizards could rework these to all be at the same scale, and chop off the underwater sections so we can focus more on what we'd see on the table... :)

I agree.
Unfortunately although i did Technical drawings for many years, they were all of the pen and pencil variety.
I am not adept with Computer packages. Also failing eyesight makes it hard for me to pick out detail on these often feint plans.
To get rid of the unwanted underwater portions of the drawings would certainly be a step in the right direction.
Rob.

[Diamondback]

I hear ya, amigo... my eyes were never good to start with. They've been relatively stable the past ten years (good eye 20/400, worst acceptable for USAF aircrew being 20/200), but I've accepted the reality that blindness is less a question of 'if' than 'when'.

[Diamondback]

Also, it's of interest to note that Bucephalus and Hyperion are both 18pdr variations of the Magicienne design, though Bucephalus (copied from Topaze) is seven feet longer than Hyperion (copied from Magicienne herself). Similarly 1810 HMS Pyramus is an up-bored clone of the very old 1766 Dedaigneuse design... by 1800, it's a head-shaker why the Admiralty ordered a long-superseded design replicated when they had already taken and cloned (and improved and up-gunned) samples of the ships that replaced it.