Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 37

Thread: Heavy First Rates

  1. #1
    MortenJessen's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,841

    Default Heavy First Rates

    Hi all.
    stefaneke is right, galleons are not trading ships of traditional wiews, but a heavy combo of a warshíp and armed merchantman. They where used by Spain and Portugal to transport cargoes of imense value from South and Middle America to Iberia, and save from the Dutch and Pirates that was.
    But as I hear this it sounds like a collection of people whining about the game not being a cakewalk. Now Now, lets ask a question. How many heavy first rates of the line does people use as e.g. GB or France or Spain? The correct answer should be ONE, and that only as Spain, Santísima Trinidad, is her name. Now talk about navies and ships being used in wrong ways.
    Y.S.
    M. Jessen

  2. #2
    Tim_Ward's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Up High in the North, at the end of my rocky road
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: Pirates Should Not Have Access To Galleons Or Other Trade Ships...

    How many heavy first rates of the line does people use as e.g. GB or France or Spain? The correct answer should be ONE, and that only as Spain, Santísima Trinidad, is her name. Now talk about navies and ships being used in wrong ways.
    "Heavy First Rate" is an invention of Empire Total War, not an actual historical designation. First Rates came in all kinds of sizes and designs, just like any kind of ship. All they had in common was more than 100 guns.
    Last edited by Astaroth; September 06, 2009 at 08:00 AM. Reason: continuity
    Dominion of Dust. A city of sand. Built your world of nothing. So how long did it stand?
    A 100 years? Now wasn't it grand? Built your world of nothing. How long did it stand?
    What did you think would happen? When did you think it would all fall down?
    Domain of dust in a land of sand. Did yourself right, so let's feel grand.
    Domain of dust in a land of sand. Now there's nowhere left to stand.

  3. #3
    MortenJessen's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,841

    Default Re: Pirates Should Not Have Access To Galleons Or Other Trade Ships...

    Hi all.
    1) Didz, I said Heavy First Rates. Yes there was apox 35-40 ships round the world categorized first rates.
    2) Tim_Ward. Heavy First Rate is not an ETW invention. This was an "early" designation of all ships with more than 100 guns. later it was re-classified to take in ships with more than 110 guns. Particulary the french and spanish super-ships in the late 18th century, early 19th century. Ships like Santísima Trinidad, Caledonia and Orient. All did they have more than 120 guns. Santísima Trinidad had 136.
    Y.S.
    M. Jessen

  4. #4

    Default Re: Pirates Should Not Have Access To Galleons Or Other Trade Ships...

    Quote Originally Posted by MortenJessen View Post
    Hi all.
    1) Didz, I said Heavy First Rates. Yes there was apox 35-40 ships round the world categorized first rates.
    2) Tim_Ward. Heavy First Rate is not an ETW invention. This was an "early" designation of all ships with more than 100 guns. later it was re-classified to take in ships with more than 110 guns. Particulary the french and spanish super-ships in the late 18th century, early 19th century. Ships like Santísima Trinidad, Caledonia and Orient. All did they have more than 120 guns. Santísima Trinidad had 136.
    Y.S.
    M. Jessen
    As already stated by Tim there is no such thing as a heavy 1st rate. A 1st Rate is any ship with 100 guns or more. Even, if you wanted to made a fictious classification of 130 guns then if you look through the list you will find a number of ships that match or come close to that figure.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-rate

    Even if we accept your point that Santísima Trinidad was a unique ship I really fail to see how it has any relevance to pirates, unless your trying to argue that because CA screwed up by failing to model the pro's and cons that affected ship design properly, that then somehow justifies the fact that they also screwed up the pirate faction.

    I mean the reason pirates didn't sail around in galleon's is actually related to the reason navies never built fleets of Santísima Trinidad's. So in that respect your right that the fact we can do one is caused by the same cock up that allows the other.
    Last edited by Didz; September 05, 2009 at 05:25 PM.

  5. #5
    Tim_Ward's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Up High in the North, at the end of my rocky road
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: Pirates Should Not Have Access To Galleons Or Other Trade Ships...

    2) Tim_Ward. Heavy First Rate is not an ETW invention.
    Find me the term being used to describe a class of ships in a historical document then.

    This was an "early" designation of all ships with more than 100 guns. later it was re-classified to take in ships with more than 110 guns. Particulary the french and spanish super-ships in the late 18th century, early 19th century. Ships like Santísima Trinidad, Caledonia and Orient.
    So what happened to "the only heavy first rate you're allowed is Sistísma Trindad"?

    All did they have more than 120 guns. Santísima Trinidad had 136.
    The ETW heavy first rate has 122 guns as I recall. Where did you get the idea that the 'heavy first rate' is the same kind of ship as Santísma Trinidad? IIRC the heavy first rate model has 3 decks, whereas the Santísma was famous for having, effectively, four decks after the refit.
    Dominion of Dust. A city of sand. Built your world of nothing. So how long did it stand?
    A 100 years? Now wasn't it grand? Built your world of nothing. How long did it stand?
    What did you think would happen? When did you think it would all fall down?
    Domain of dust in a land of sand. Did yourself right, so let's feel grand.
    Domain of dust in a land of sand. Now there's nowhere left to stand.

  6. #6
    MortenJessen's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,841

    Default Re: Pirates Should Not Have Access To Galleons Or Other Trade Ships...

    Hi all.
    I am tired of trying to correct all of your mistakes. And most of these are related to people only reading what they want's to read. I will try this my self right now.
    1) You do not read what others post. I said Santísima Trinidad was the only Heavy first rate in the 18th century, in effect. And so she was.
    2) If it so happens that CA, as a British company, has used the former British rating system for ships of the line, it is fair enough, but why do people get angry because they do not know that GB was not the only navy rating its ships. France for example had their own rating system, that included 5 main classes Ships of the Line, and more than 5 add. types of re-classifications. Including the speaking "Heavy". If CA brings this into ETW then “god” forbid it if you knew nothing about it.
    3) I did read properly. This seems to me like you are all angry about an AI faction finally managing to put up some sort of fight, make it self more than a bystander. AND then you start complaining about the means by which it does it, because you find it unfair. And you seems to be unable to defend against a pair or four Galleons. BUhuuuuuu. Bring 10-12 5th and 6th rates and they are yours. What is the problem? As I tried to explain earlier this is not a history-simulator, course if it was, there was quite a lot of things many other factions should not be able to do. E.G. France beating the British in America is just not possible. And those of you who uses the old “it is a GAME” argument, then try use it on the pirates too then.
    4) Isaristh, since when could you not build transport ships. Complain to CA, or use the technical help-department if your harbours are broken, not us. Build some 4-5-6th rates and use them for crying out loud. And stop insulting me, please. I am not ranting against persons, only their words.
    Y.S.
    M. Jessen
    Last edited by MortenJessen; September 06, 2009 at 04:17 AM.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Pirates Should Not Have Access To Galleons Or Other Trade Ships...

    Quote Originally Posted by MortenJessen View Post
    1) You do not read what others post. I said Santísima Trinidad was the only Heavy first rate in the 18th century, in effect. And so she was.
    He´s right, there were quite a few first rates in the Spanish Armada, but the only heavy first rate was the Santísima Trinidad. The english HMS victory was only a first rate, not a heavy first rate. I don´t know at the moment of other country that also built a heavy first rate similar to the Santísima Trinidad.

  8. #8
    Tim_Ward's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Up High in the North, at the end of my rocky road
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: Pirates Should Not Have Access To Galleons Or Other Trade Ships...

    Quote Originally Posted by MortenJessen View Post
    1) You do not read what others post. I said Santísima Trinidad was the only Heavy first rate in the 18th century, in effect. And so she was.
    The first of the French Océan class ships started entering service in 1780s.

    If it so happens that CA, as a British company, has used the former British rating system for ships of the line, it is fair enough, but why do people get angry because they do not know that GB was not the only navy rating its ships. France for example had their own rating system, that included 5 main classes Ships of the Line, and more than 5 add. types of re-classifications. Including the speaking "Heavy". If CA brings this into ETW then “god” forbid it if you knew nothing about it.
    I thought the French just used the number of guns to classify their ships? Do you have a source for this "Heavy first rate" classification or am I supposed to take your word for it?

    3) I did read properly. This seems to me like you are all angry about an AI faction finally managing to put up some sort of fight, make it self more than a bystander. AND then you start complaining about the means by which it does it, because you find it unfair. And you seems to be unable to defend against a pair or four Galleons. BUhuuuuuu. Bring 10-12 5th and 6th rates and they are yours. What is the problem? As I tried to explain earlier this is not a history-simulator, course if it was, there was quite a lot of things many other factions should not be able to do. E.G. France beating the British in America is just not possible. And those of you who uses the old “it is a GAME” argument, then try use it on the pirates too then.
    Since I spend at least half my time on here complaining about the shoddy AI, why on earth would I suddenly start complaining about the AI putting up a fight? Putting up some straw man which characterizes our objections as some kind of whining over being 'beaten' so you can dismiss them is not going to work. Since you're having difficulty with the concept I will summarize them in short words:

    Our problem is not that the AI is "putting up a fight", the pirate AI is the same as every other AI in the game. Our problem is that the pirates do not act like pirates but as a sort of Caribbean based navy which is at war with everyone. Our problem is that:

    1) The primarily use vassals for which pirates would have no use for due to their size and slow speed: e.g. galleons. This is not historical accuracy, but realism and basic common sense. There's is in fact a significant difference between an alt-history scenario where the Brits build a navy different to the one they had in real life and pirates acting in a way which does not in any sense resemble the behavior of pirates.
    2) They do not act like pirates and focus on raiding trade routes but attacking navy vassals when real pirates would run whenever they saw one.
    3) All it takes is conquering two small islands to eliminate the problem of piracy everywhere in the world except the Mediterranean.
    Dominion of Dust. A city of sand. Built your world of nothing. So how long did it stand?
    A 100 years? Now wasn't it grand? Built your world of nothing. How long did it stand?
    What did you think would happen? When did you think it would all fall down?
    Domain of dust in a land of sand. Did yourself right, so let's feel grand.
    Domain of dust in a land of sand. Now there's nowhere left to stand.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Pirates Should Not Have Access To Galleons Or Other Trade Ships...

    Quote Originally Posted by MortenJessen View Post
    1) You do not read what others post. I said Santísima Trinidad was the only Heavy first rate in the 18th century, in effect. And so she was.
    This is a completely irrelevant debate, but at least lets look at the facts instead of slinging mud back and forth. I've already posted a link to a site that lists most of the 1st Rates (heavy or otherwise) that existing over the period covered by ETW. There were certainly more than one, though I accept that none are listed as having 130 guns, in fact even the Santísima Trinidad isn't listed as having that many guns, its listed as 116 on four decks.

    However, It still puzzles as to what this has to do with pirates.

    Quote Originally Posted by MortenJessen View Post
    What is the problem? As I tried to explain earlier this is not a history-simulator, course if it was, there was quite a lot of things many other factions should not be able to do.

    This subject has been beaten to death on other threads and its really not worth going over the same tired ground again. Whether you like it or not over 90% of the people on this forum have some interest in history, and buy the TW games because they are set in a historical setting. Therefore, you are not going to win an arguement which supports the conclusion that history is irrelevant to a TW game. If we had wanted to play a fantasy game we wold have bought Command and Conquer, or The Third Age or something. CA's claim not to have promised a historical simulation whilst perfectly true is a tired excuse when used to justify poor game design and misleading advertising.

    For example: in common with most people on this forum I got an email from CA entitled 'Can you rival Napoleon?' to try and promote NTW. But the fact is that this challenge is deliberately misleading, because in fact nobody who buys NTW with ever manage to rival Napoleon, or even be able to emulate his expliots, simply because NTW, just like ETW will bear little if any resemblance to Napoleonic warfare.

    So, I can guarantee that in 2010, this forum will be full of disappointed customers complaining because NTW has fallen short of their expectations. They will buy the game believing that they will get a chance to challenge the expliots of Napoleon and end up playing Sean Bean in a French uniform. I would not even be surpised if Sergeant Harper doesn't find himself in the mix somewhere with his volley gun.

    What is being discussed here is the shortcomings of the way the pirate faction has been implemented in ETW. Most of those shortcomings can be traced back to the fact that they were not modelled on the historical facts about piracy and how it functioned. If you're truly happy with the way the pirate faction works, then I'm happy for you, but in that case you have little to contribute to this debate.

    As far as your point about 1st rates is concerned, I entirely agree with you. Factions should not be able to populate their fleets with huge numbers of 1st Rates (heavy or not). The fact that they can is just another example of CA failing to implement good game design based on historical precedent. You cannot justify the bad design of the pirate faction, by pointing out that its no worse that the design of the naval resourcing system in general, two wrongs don't make a right.
    Last edited by Didz; September 06, 2009 at 06:55 AM.

  10. #10
    Tim_Ward's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Up High in the North, at the end of my rocky road
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: Pirates Should Not Have Access To Galleons Or Other Trade Ships...

    Santísima Trinidad started life as a 120 gun. They added more cannons later.
    Dominion of Dust. A city of sand. Built your world of nothing. So how long did it stand?
    A 100 years? Now wasn't it grand? Built your world of nothing. How long did it stand?
    What did you think would happen? When did you think it would all fall down?
    Domain of dust in a land of sand. Did yourself right, so let's feel grand.
    Domain of dust in a land of sand. Now there's nowhere left to stand.

  11. #11
    MortenJessen's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,841

    Default Re: Pirates Should Not Have Access To Galleons Or Other Trade Ships...

    Hi all
    États de Bourgogne class (three ships 120 guns)à not to be confused with the vaisseaux de 118 class.
    vaisseaux de 110 (all these are fixed classes with fixed numbe of guns)
    vaisseaux de Premier Rang……(First rate ships with between 84 and 100 guns)
    vaisseaux de 80 (all these are fixed classes with fixed numbe of guns)
    Second Rates "vaisseaux de Deuxième Rang" (ships with between 62 and 72 guns)
    vaisseaux de 74 (all these are fixed classes with fixed numbe of guns)
    vaisseaux de 64 (all these are fixed classes with fixed numbe of guns)
    Third Rates "vaisseaux de Troisième Rang"
    Fourth Rates "vaisseaux de Quatrième Rang"
    Fifth Rates "vaisseaux de Cinquième Rang"
    The term heavy (Royal, actually, not heavy, my bad) was only used about the three 120 gunners
    Notice that France does not count frigates in the ranking of line system.
    Wikipedia.

    Now. Lets have a look at facts here. First, the pirates is listed as a faction in ETW just as in every other TW game, to ensure that their turn-complitation comes without interferring with players turn forehand. Second. The pirates is not scripted as a faction. They operate out of two settlements only to ensure that the game does not kill them off themself after turn one, because of economy. They do get some scripted freebies from the AI when it comes to ships, manpower and economy, so they can act as a countermeassure to the player managing to make total monopoly in the trade theatres from turn 3. And they had a couple of islands to give people who complained about the system in RTW and M2TW a chance to wipe them out. Not easy to please every body I guess. HMMM. What to do, what to do. I will leave it to the developers. But an advise here then, to the players who can always find something to complain about. TRY to imagine if the game was like a real world simulator of history. Would you play it, only to sit and do nothing for 48 hours while history replays in front of you? I never understood the argument of people choosing the TW-series for historical accuracy. They should have a mental examination instead (Sorry for the rude speaking, but I am only making payback) since this is a computer game, not a documentary on history channel. The TW-series are made for people who wants battles and challenging gameplay. And that is what they get. CA chooses an era, and then makes a lot of war like it was in that era. That is it. Sorry. But for people who wants realism and war, leave the computer at home and join the Red Cross, or join the army and go to Iraq. I my self was a short turn in Bosnia. What is your realistic history?
    Trust me, I am interested in history too, but I am realistic. It is a game, and it is made to be just such. I enjoy it as such. That is it.
    Y.S.
    M. Jessen
    Last edited by MortenJessen; September 06, 2009 at 07:33 AM. Reason: correcting misspellings

  12. #12

    Default Re: Heavy First Rates

    Posts split off from this thread.

    EDIT: Moved to
    Ships and Naval power.
    Last edited by Astaroth; September 06, 2009 at 08:05 AM.
    Curious Curialist curing the Curia of all things Curial.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Heavy First Rates

    @Morten

    I really think you are getting far to worked up over this issue of historical accuracy. Just try to accept the simple fact that some of the people who bought ETW are interested in the history of the period, and consequently are dissappointed at how little effort CA put in to that aspect of the game.

    It doesn't require you to go off on a holy crusade to try and justify poor game design. Ultimately, people are dissapointed because they expected more of a company that they have supported for years. You can't change that by constantly quoted the obvious, just accept that not everyone is willing to accept mediocrity, when they were hoping for something really excellent.

    It makes no difference to you because you are clearly satisfied with what you got, but many of us are still hoping for improvement, if not in ETW then perhaps in NTW.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Heavy First Rates

    What were "1st rates" did begin to be constructed with gay abandon post Napoleonic period. So much so that all 3 decker's is use were then the "Heavy types". I suspect that cost was not the only issue. 18th century construction and engineering was stretched to the limits with the Heavy 1st Rate.
    The cross lattice method that replaced the old framing changed all that. Prior to that a lot of the "Heavies" wound up in a condition described as "not fit to bear their guns".
    The Victory was a happy accident. It turned out to be an unusually strong construction for a Heavy. Which was why Nelson selected her.

    The basic rule of engineering is the strength is in the square of the cross section. With the standard framing the length limit was about 200 feet. The cross lattice method made it possible for lengths up to 250 feet. We know form these rules that wooden vessels of reputed 450 feet length like Noah's Ark and the Chinese Treasure fleet are myth.

    The same reasons they were struggling to get to 80's in the two decker's.

    So fleets with a number of heavies is consistent with post Napoleon. Along with the "steam frigate".

    Actually the cross lattice method enabled the hull to be strong enough to bear boilers.

    I guess if you view the game as winding up in the post Napoleon period, then it is historically consistent.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Heavy First Rates

    Quote Originally Posted by wulfgar610 View Post
    The cross lattice method that replaced the old framing changed all that. Prior to that a lot of the "Heavies" wound up in a condition described as "not fit to bear their guns".
    The Victory was a happy accident. It turned out to be an unusually strong construction for a Heavy. Which was why Nelson selected her.
    The complaint had more to do with choosing to build them too small than not being able to build them big enough, frankly. (And/or overloading them with guns, which is another way of saying the same thing.) A three-decker built along traditional lines could certainly be made bigger than the standard British 100-gun template without problems, the 120-gun Caledonia design was a great success after all. The extra deck gave a lot of extra rigidity compared to a large 74, which was about the same length as a standard first-rate. A counterpoint may be that the standard British 74 time and again had proven itself more than big enough to kick the stuffing out of a French or Spanish First Rate, so building anything larger than 100 guns was a bit of a waste of money from that point of view! (Then again, you can never have too much overkill...)

    I've never heard the Victory described as particularly strong. She was a particularly good sailer, certainly, (for a First Rate that is, which may in fact be damning her with faint praise; at least she was not the fleet-anchor that most 100-gun First Rates tended to be) which made her a favourite flagship throughout her career. In turn this meant that she had made something of a name for herself when she reached the end of her useful life around 1800, which in turn made her an obvious candidate for a complete rebuild, which cost about the same as building a new ship so was not an operation undertaken lightly, instead of a ticket to the scrapper's yard.

    When Nelson picked her she still had the new-car smell after the rebuild and was a pretty obvious choice for an admiral with enough clout to get her - but let's not forget that his chosen flagship prior to Copenhagen was the ex-Spanish San Josef, 112 guns. (Which may also have had sentimental reasons seeing as how he'd captured her himself, off a 74 - and the Victory was unavailable at the time due to the rebuild) By this time the Victory was getting a bit small for a First, though. New 98-gun Second Rates were built to her plans by the 1790s - an indication of how well-esteemed she was as a seaboat.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Heavy First Rates

    A three-decker built along traditional lines could certainly be made bigger than the standard British 100-gun template without problems, the 120-gun Caledonia design was a great success after all.
    Yes, but both them and the Nelson Class were made post diagonal framing. By the time of the Caledonia even iron was been used in the framing. There was a world of difference between this and the old framing.

    What made the Victory a good sea boat was it's strength. Typically the planking would open up under stress and let water in. Diagonal framing solved much of that problem.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Heavy First Rates

    The good Mr Sepping's diagonal framing turned out to be a godsend for overcoming hogging, the tendency of the stern and bow of an older ship to sink lower in the water than the rest of the hull, giving the hull a banana-shape. In an overstretched navy that had to keep anything that could float and carry a gun in service in all weathers way past its expected service lifespan this was a Godsend, much of the Royal Navy was held together by ducttape and chewing-gum by 1810. Put old ship in drydock, insert diagonal framing, relaunch - she's good for another decade. Yippe-kay-ee and so on.

    It took quite a while for it to be applied to newbuilds in any large scale - Britain could't afford any major building programmes after the "40 thieves" class of 74's had sucked up all the funds and materials. Caledonia was perhaps not the best example, being launched in 1808, but her sister Hibernia was laid down in 1797 and launched in 1804, 201 feet long with not a diagonal frame in sight as far as I know. Or take the Ville-de-Paris, 110, 1795; 190 feet long. The classical first-rate had a ways to go still before diagonal framing was necessary to carry the load. Diagonal framing made them far, far stronger, and less expensive to maintain, that is very true.

    The French had some impressively fast and seaworthy ships, and they did not bother overmuch with structural integrity. The British captured the mighty 120-gun ship Commerce de Marseilles (196 French feet long) at Toulon at the start of the French Revolution and became mightily impressed with her in all respects as they sailed her home to old England. At least until they drydocked her and found out that she was way, WAY too lightly built for them to accept using her as a warship... British ships were run harder than French ones and she would have been a money-pit to keep in service, with more time spent in drydock than in service almost. But this is "only" a question of money, it does not affect the ship's speed; at least as long as she is in good repair.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Heavy First Rates

    Thanks for that snurresprett. I didn't realize the Caledonia was pre Sepping. You know the stuff better than me. I'd fascinated to know how hard they had to pump out those ships when they driven hard as well.

    The "Forty thieves" class sounds entertaining, got any links?

  19. #19

    Default Re: Heavy First Rates

    "The 40 thieves", aka the Vengeur class, aka the Surveyors' class. A series of about 40 74-gun ships built at the height of the Napoleonic wars, largely in private yards because the royal shipyards were overstretched with maintenance work. There appears to have been an amount of corruption at many off the shipyards involved in the programme which caused comment even in the cheerfully corrupt society at the time, hence the nickname. As a class they were not bad ships, but considering that the world's finest navy really put its mind to building the ultimate 74 and came up with a rather ho-hum design they were considered something of a missed opportunity at best. Interestingly, some of the later ships were built in India from the excellent local hardwoods and had long and useful lives.

    Apparently the succeeding Black Prince class, a slightly downsized copy of the Danish fleet flagship Christian VII, was considered a far more impressive and successful design. However, the resources to mass produce these ships just were not there, and post-war the 74 was considered too small to be worth building in any great numbers.

    See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vengeur...ip_of_the_line

    (Lavery, as referred in the Wiki article, is worth reading on general principles. Gives a lot of background.)

  20. #20

    Default Re: Heavy First Rates

    That's pretty impressive, I had no idea. 40 x 74's with the burthen of a 1st rate from a century earlier. I suppose if Napoleon had of secured the continent to the extent he hoped. Then another plan for invading Britain would have been top agenda.

    I wonder how much of the cost overrun was exaggeration? Britain suspended gold convertibility early in the war and simply printed pound notes. Wellington's troops refused to serve on the continent unless paid in specie rather than inflated scrip.

    And people think printing money is a recent innovation?

    Government revenue was 18 million pounds in 1789. But about 58 million pounds by the end of the war. Certainly Britain found the war profitable. It lifted the world trade routes while every challenger was locked in Europe. But I wonder how of that was purely monetary inflation?

    I see you are enchanted by this class of vessel.



    However forget 36 guns. ETW 1.4 will have your Admiral commanding one of these 18 gun beauties!


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •