Ships Of Cerilia

[lord_arioch]

I did a little research on the topic of the development of the sailing ship. The carrack was an improvement (for war) of the Caravel and lead to the development of the galleon.
Perhaps all the "galleons" in Anuire should be carracks and all roundships should be galleons.

I plan to explain my point further with a later post.

Just wanted some feedback.

[RaspK_FOG]

Without further information/notes, I don't know what to say...

[Raesene Andu]

A good site to research ships (one of the best I found anyway)
http://www.grinda.navy.ru:8101/sailship/sh...p/shipanote.htm (http://www.grinda.navy.ru:8101/sailship/ship/shipanote.htm)

Unfortunately the english version of the site is not as complete as the russian version yet.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by lord_arioch@Nov 25 2003, 03:32 PM
I did a little research on the topic of the development of the sailing ship. The carrack was an improvement (for war) of the Caravel and lead to the development of the galleon.
Perhaps all the "galleons" in Anuire should be carracks and all roundships should be galleons.

I plan to explain my point further with a later post.

Just wanted some feedback.
Now regardless of the historical accuracy of this issue (I'm assuming it is accurate by the way), one of the reasons to keep the ships designated the way they are is for cultural issues. Only the Brecht make roundships, the Khinasi carracks and the Anuireans are the primary builders of the galleons. Keeping these distinctions helps with cultural lines and flavor.

[lord_arioch]

A good site to research ships (one of the best I found anyway)
http://www.grinda.navy.ru:8101/sailship/sh...p/shipanote.htm

Wow, that is an excellent site!

The classification and size of ships is a tough topic. Galleons ranged in size from perhaps 200 upwards of 3000 tons(or more). The Carrack had a similar range.

As for cultural flavour, the brecht would design a flatter bottomed hull which would make their galleon with a larger cargo capacity. The carrack is similar to the galleon except for the massive fore and aft castles on the carrack making it the ideal warship. The castles make the carrack top heavy and less seaworthy than the galleon.

I think it should be possible for a regent to build large ships. As an example, I equate one hull point for 100 tons.
The Anuirean galleon (or carrack as I call it) would be roughly a 600 ton ship. If a regent wanted to build a 1200 ton galleon then it would cost twice as much.

The rules for the ships in birthright need to be touched up a bit (eg. all ships loose their rams, except the Sepents galleys).

I am by no means an expert in this matter. I just hope to help bring revision through discussion. B)

[Osprey]

The real problem in dealing with ships is the lack of cannons in the warships being built. By the time galleons were afloat, cannons were standard armament. With cannons, rams would be pretty obsolete. But until that time, ramming and boarding would still be primary means of fighting in ship-to-ship combat, I would think.

I've run into a lot of contradictions when researching ships of the medieval and early Renaissance. There doesn't seem to be a lot of agreement on classification and evolution...I think because the naval history gurus are a fractured lot of historians, maritime archeologists, and naval buffs who all have different ideas of which ships came when, how shipbuilding evolved, etc...it's not until Renaissance and later that there starts to be much agreement about ship nomenclature.

What I've discovered is that a cog is a distinctly medieval, northern European ship. A small tub of a ship really, though they did have the distinct fore and aft castles in most cases (which are few). Which would include Brecht culture for certain, but also English, French, Dutch, etc. Caravels get sticky...I've read some pretty contradictory stuff on what exactly a caravel is...it seems a loose term for a variety of medieval ships, thanks to no standardization in shipbuilding.

Same for carracks...I've read some descriptions that place them before caravels, others that put them after. Who to believe?

Galleons seem to be pretty agreed upon, however, as a late medieval/early Renaissance development. Most accounts I've read make them much more sleek, seaworthy, better designed, and always equipped with cannons. They seem to be the first generation of dependably seaworthy ships of decent size. Certainly they were the dominant warships and seagoing cargo ships of the Age of Exploration (16th and 17th centuries).

For Birthright, though, we need to adapt a fantasy element of sailing ships that developed without cannons, if we're sticking to the no-gunpowder rule. Part of that concept must take into account the fact that cannons were extremely heavy! A 30-gun galleon would have to be designed with that in mind - i.e., built to hold all that top-heavy weight. I think that's one of the main reasons ships kept getting bigger. The need to carry more cannons to protect all that precious cargo. Especially when we're talking about the big galleons of the Spanish Main, or a few other grand Renaissance warships.

All that mass in an Anuirean galleon would probably be redistributed for troop fighting capacity (deck space, castles, battlements on every inch of the fighting deck, perhaps arrow loops instead of gun ports along the sides!). I've been struggling to figure out how 3 companies of troops could all fight at once ona galleon. Stll struggling, in fact, so if anyone's got any ideas, I'm all ears. The arrow slits along the sides is the best answer I've come up with so far.

Besides that, I'd say ballistae and catapults would have to round out a galleon's armament. Rotating mounts would be a necessity. In my campaign, I've had galleons euipped with fore and aft heavy catapults, and several mid-ship ballista (perhaps 2 on each side).

The real issue is: oars and ramming. Currently, Anuirean galleons are described as rowed warships - they sail for distance, and reef for battle and put out the oars. But the number of rowers for such a large ship would mean a huge extra crew requirement, and it would be like maneuvering a tub. Galleys are good oared warships (Khinasi-style, I'd imagine), but galleons? Good ocean-going sailing ships would not be ideal for rowing, would they? Not to mention the provisions and bunk requirements for all those extra crewmen. Not very feasible for long-distance voyages, is it, after throwing in 3 companies of troops?

Well, there's some thoughts to chew on, anyways.

[teloft]

I like to see some more relistic ship rules.

where I could recreate the battle of salamis

http://www.grecoreport.com/kitsos_on_the_s..._of_salamis.htm (http://www.grecoreport.com/kitsos_on_the_sea-battle_of_salamis.htm)

2 fleets of raming ships
the largefleet having x3 or x4 times more ships, but it still losses the battle to the smaller fleat.

:ph34r:


btw read this link of the ship page earlyer mentiond

http://www.grinda.navy.ru:8101/sailship/sh...hip/dromone.htm (http://www.grinda.navy.ru:8101/sailship/ship/dromone.htm)


Ill Quote the howl thing here: Note the Bold words



After the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire the struggle on the Mediterranean Sea was held between Byzantine and the Arab world. The dromon became the main type of ships at that time and besides, both opposing sides used them. She was a war ship who dismissed biremes and liburnas. Firstly the dromon was launched about the 6th century A. D. and was used in different variants up to the 12th century. We little know about this ship, however the Byzantine manuscript dated by the year of 850 contains an engraving with the dromon of that period. Her construction resembles that of the bireme with two rows of rowers. She had two masts with Latin sails on them. But the first vessels of such a type had only one row of rowers and they looked like a liburna with a single mast. Later on two- and three-masted dromons appeared. Their length was varied from 30 to 50 m, the width - from 6 to 7 m. There were helms on the stern - one at each side of a board. The ships had sharp forms and were sufficiently fast. The crew consisted of from 100 to 300 people depending on dimensions of a ship. There was another ship in Byzantine called heladion, but we know quite less about her than about the dromon. The dromon's keel ended by an underwater ram just like for the bireme. The main weapons on the dromon were catapults, which threw fiery shells at a great distance. On the bow and the stern parts of the vessel there were raised decks for bowmen. Powerful and heavy catapults had a possibility to throw shells with the weight of 500 kg at the distance of 1 000 m. Dromons were also armed by light flame-throwers (syphonopho-rami), which flooded enemy ships by fluid burning mass (Greek fire) consisted of tar, sulphur and nitre dissolved in oil. At slight contact with water this fluid blazed up. Such a fire only flamed up in extinguishing by water and it was put out only by wine, vinegar or sand. The precise consistence of such a mixture as well as a construction of weapons did not come to us. Dromons were defended by metal armour against enemy's rams.


:ph34r:

I remember a story about chinis Empire. Where thay had large war ships, with the best seaworthyness seen in the world. But then the empire sayd thet he had no intrest in the sea, and retierd the navy. The only resanable large ships were the royal plesure crousers.

and the shipindustry and knowlege about it sufferd.

:ph34r:

[RaspK_FOG]

Teloft, you gave there two excellent examples of sea-battling history. As a Greek, I happen to know of both situations...




In the 1st occasion, we have two fleets: the persian, and the athenean.

While the persian fleet had many more ships than the athenean, the latter had a great advantage, since the persian warships were too large when compared to the greek ones; thus, they were much slower.

The Atheneans used a simple tactic, since the sea near Salamis is not to be trusted. The "tubs", as Osprey, nicely put it, had a difiiculty at manoeuvering and finally lost the battle.


On the other hand, the Byzantin Empire had the advantage of basing its naval technology on the native greek and ionian civilizations, which were both seaworthy from quite early (since they both are islandic and peninsular folks).

As for the catapult, there is something that troubles me here... I don't know how many of you are aware of this, but the word catapult is a paraphrase of the greek word katapeltis (kataPEltis, e as in red, and i as in ship). The original meaning is what is now known as a ballista, also a paraphrasr of the word vallistra, which originally meant what is known as a catapult! I don't know if there is a confusion here...

As a last note, we don't know the exact nature of greek fire. :(

[Athos69]

One sure way to tell the difference between a Caravel and a Cog is in the hull construction. The Cog was merely a larger build based on the same old technology as teh earlier longships -- the hull sheathing was built in a clinker style, with each successive plank was overlapped on top of the one below it.

The Caravel had smooth sides, and each plank was butted up against the last, then sealed through the action of water swelling the wood into a tight seal. Some tar was used in between the planks to ensure a waterproof seal.

The Galleon and larger ships used the new Caravel-style technology.

[lord_arioch]

It seems the more I look into the history of sailing ships the more I realize I know very little of the history of the sailing ships :o !
Well said by OSPREY regarding the historical accuracy of ships. There is a lot of contradictory info out there.

I think I will content myself with a revision of the explanations given of the Cerilian ships and a touch up on their MC. To me a galleon with a MC of B is hard to believe. As for armaments, I think the ballista (very large crossbow) would be the only weapon allowed on ships with lots of sail.

Anyways, I'll see what I come up with ;) .

[Athos69]

I also feel that 'a' ship in BR does not refer to one vessel, but instead to approximately 3 -- much as a war card of troops refers to about 200 combattants. After all, I seriously doubt that a single Caravel can play host to some 200 marines, and all of their associated retainers, supply train, etc.

Any thoughts on this?

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Athos69" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 5:02 PM





> I also feel that `a` ship in BR does not refer to one vessel, but

> instead to approximately 3 -- much as a war card of troops refers

> to about 200 combattants. After all, I seriously doubt that a single

> Caravel can play host to some 200 marines, and all of their associated

> retainers, supply train, etc.

>

> Any thoughts on this?



Most of a ship`s effectiveness as a combat machine is not a function of the

combatants on board, but of the machine itself. The same thing is true of

the Artillery warcard. It may well represent 50 men and 5 siege engines.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 12:02 AM 12/1/2003 +0100, Athos69 wrote:



> I also feel that `a` ship in BR does not refer to one vessel, but

> instead to approximately 3 -- much as a war card of troops refers to

> about 200 combattants. After all, I seriously doubt that a single

> Caravel can play host to some 200 marines, and all of their associated

> retainers, supply train, etc.

>

> Any thoughts on this?



I`ve always thought it was sensible that what the "units" of seacraft

represented in BR was really "squadrons" or other groupings of craft rather

than single ship operating alone. Some ships might certainly be large

enough to represent a unit all alone, but others should be considered

groups smaller craft acting in concert.



I`ve fiddled around a bit with some craft design rules for D20 using

various building materials, tech levels, etc. and found that kind of thing

interesting, but I`m the kind of guy who likes using RPG rules to "design"

spaceships, weapons, etc. so I don`t think it`s most people`s cup of

tea. One could, however, use such a system of rules and then present the

"standard" ship types, units, etc. and get largely the same end result as

the units at the BR domain level, but have a system available for those who

want to take things a step further. In the long run, that`s the kind of

thing I prefer.



Gary

[teloft]

Originally posted by lord_arioch@Nov 28 2003, 06:47 AM
It seems the more I look into the history of sailing ships the more I realize I know very little of the history of the sailing ships :o &#33;
Well said by OSPREY regarding the historical accuracy of ships. There is a lot of contradictory info out there.

I think I will content myself with a revision of the explanations given of the Cerilian ships and a touch up on their MC. To me a galleon with a MC of B is hard to believe. As for armaments, I think the ballista (very large crossbow) would be the only weapon allowed on ships with lots of sail.

Anyways, I&#39;ll see what I come up with ;) .
As I remember my sagas. The sails were trimmed, and even the masters holding the sails were taking down, increasing the stability of the ship. I even remeber storys of ships begin fasten to gether so if one of them wouls be filled with water, thay would not sink, and therefore the fleat could not be sunken exept as a howl. and therefore you have a land battle on the ships. with the exeption of there is no charging.

However Berserkers (barberians in D20 terms) are not wery usefull in sea battles for thay tend to charge rigth off the ship and fall into the water.

[teloft]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Nov 27 2003, 10:26 PM

As for the catapult, there is something that troubles me here... I don&#39;t know how many of you are aware of this, but the word catapult is a paraphrase of the greek word katapeltis (kataPEltis, e as in red, and i as in ship). The original meaning is what is now known as a ballista, also a paraphrasr of the word vallistra, which originally meant what is known as a catapult&#33; I don&#39;t know if there is a confusion here...

Now for the orgin of the Scandinavian ship.

(partly off topic)

There are some profesors here thet state about the orgin of the people of iceland. involving she scandinavian cargo ship used for travel betvine scandinavia and americe.

there was a tribe of people in mid germany. and when the next tribe started to expand thay took there belongings and moved on were there was no war. it was a tribe thet had settled there from macidonia or greek and joind in with the local population.

Now thay made there move to scandinavia, with the main body setteling in West norway. Thets how it is said thet the ship building knowledge traveld to scandinavia.

Now when the 3 kingdomes in scandinavia formed, thees peasfull people thet dint like to have some rulers over there heads moved on like thay were used to. and settled as masters in Iceland, and founded dublin. storys even state thet thay saild back to the mediterian and settled where is to day south italy, and sicil island.

This is supose to hapen betvine 700 - 1000.

My suport to this teory is

1. every sound represented in modern greek is also present in icelandic.
2. very strong Democratic traditions witch are similar to the democrasy of agent greek.
3. Refferances in the sagas.

[Solmyr]

None of the ships in BRCS should have ramming ability. The hull construction of caravels, galleons, longships, roundships, etc, was such that they would break into pieces if they actually tried to ram anything. The only ships able to ram were long and sleek, such as Mediterranean galleys and dromonds. The only BR ship that comes close is the Serpent galley. I know ramming is cool, but it simply isn&#39;t realistic for galleons and caravels. :)

So, if ramming is desired, then I suggest adding a new ship type. Call it a galley, perhaps. The Anuireans and Khinasi would be the likely cultures to build it.

[Benjamin]

If it at all helps...

The ships that Christopher Columbus came to the western continents in were caravels. I don&#39;t know how many crew he had on each, but they had enough water and food for the few month journey from the Canary Islands to Bahamas.

I believe the settlers came to Virginia and Massachussetts in caravels, also. Again, I don&#39;t know how many people were on each, but they carried all the food they needed for the trip, plus equipment to set up a new life.

Now, if any of you have been to Plymouth, Massachussetts and take a tour of the "pilgrim" ship there, you will see it is TINY. Maybe 40m long, about 10m at the widest, a deck below that is only ~1.5m tall, and a cargo hold below that. I can&#39;t imagine stacking 200 people into that for an extended period of time.

[ConjurerDragon]

Benjamin schrieb:

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2114

>

> Benjamin wrote:

> If it at all helps...

>

> The ships that Christopher Columbus came to the western continents in were caravels.

Mmmh, Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria?

At least *something* useful learned in schools history lessons ;-)



>I don`t know how many crew he had on each, but they had enough water and food for the few month

> journey from the Canary Islands to Bahamas.



They had enough? Strange, I remember that they ran out of digestible

food and nearly faced mutiny

therefore - but that might just be my memory from the movie "1492"...

But was that because they could not store/preserve more food or because

Cristobal Colon did

not expect that the journey to be so long due to wrong calculations - or

because he could not tell anyone how long the journy was he calculated

correct, but noone would have let him have 3 ships if they had known

just HOW far that destination was away? ;-)



> I believe the settlers came to Virginia and Massachussetts in caravels, also.



Someone else wrote a while ago that "Caravel" was used in a very free

way for ships that not all were identical. I don´t know, but I would

assume that Columbus´s Spanish Caravels were not the same ships as the

later english Mayflower, or were they?

bye

Michael

[lord_arioch]

I believe that the Nina and the Pinta were caravels and the Santa Maria was a carrack.
The Mayflower was a galleon. :)

[DanMcSorley]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, lord_arioch wrote:

> I believe that the Nina and the Pinta were caravels and the Santa

> Maria was a carrack.



Those are handy labels, but they`re all post-applied, ships were built by

hand and every one was unique, really.



There`s a replica of the Santa Maria here in columbus, they built it for

the 500th anniversery in `92, and I`ve been on it. It`s miniscule.



http://www.santamaria.com/index.php



That site calls the Santa Maria a "nao", and claims it`s 98 feet long, but

I really think that must include like rigging and spars and the forecastle

and stuff, because it doesn`t seem that big. It`s 72 feet at the

waterline, which is more like it. Really small.



--

Daniel McSorley

[teloft]

Caravel


&#092;Car&#34;a*vel&#092; &#40;k&#91;a^&#93;r&#34;&#91;.a&#93;*v&#91;e^&#93;l&#41;, n. &#91;F. caravelle &#40;cf. It. caravella, Sp. carabela&#41;, fr. Sp. caraba a kind of vessel, fr. L. carabus a kind of light boat, fr. Gr. ka`rabos a kind of light ship, NGr. kara`bi ship, vessel.&#93; &#91;written also carvel and caravelle.&#93; &#40;Naut.&#41; A name given to several kinds of vessels.
&#40;a&#41; The caravel of the 16th century was a small vessel with broad bows, high, narrow poop, four masts, and lateen sails. Columbus commanded three caravels on his great voyage.
&#40;B&#41; A Portuguese vessel of 100 or 150 tons burden.
&#40;c&#41; A small fishing boat used on the French coast.
&#40;d&#41; A Turkish man-of-war.

[lord_arioch]

heh heh heh, like I said earlier, even the historians don&#39;t agree. :)

We must remember ships come in all shapes and sizes, one man&#39;s galleon is another man&#39;s caravel. ;)

Even our modern navies use ships class in a general sense.

If we can agree on what a Birthright caravel, galleon, etc look like (In a general sense) then we are in good shape.

[Barrataria]

I&#39;m glad I looked in here as I&#39;m fooling with ship types for my basic/expert Birthright campaign.

I think you all are reaching the best conclusion: naval history is tough to master and certainly not worth it for purposes of "historical accuracy". Lots of the things specifically affecting ship development are different: particularly arms (assuming you don&#39;t use gunpowder) and provisions are less important (since you could carry a cleric for water, at least).

You might consider the differences between the Cerilia map and the 1400-era map on which the ships you are discussing were sailing. They had to cross enormous oceans, and (although I&#39;m not a BR expert) that is not an issue on the Cerilia map. Sailing from Ariya to Brechlen is essentially a coastal proposition. Sailing out of sight of land is pointless, because (except around Khourane or the mouth of the Krakennauricht) sailing in the open ocean won&#39;t save much time/distance. Sails do allow carrying larger cargoes, however, because the crews are generally smaller than galleys. Maybe that argues for lots of oar/sailed craft, like a galeass.

I can tell that you all have decided (and I don&#39;t have Seas of Cerilia so don&#39;t know if that affects the decisions) on a more Renaissance feel for the seas, with more sail and less oar. I like sailing ships better for D&D purposes, but in some ways this is turning history on its ear. The northern europeans were late to the game in terms of sailing technology; the arabs had lateen sails long before and sailed from southeast asia to Africa. It was grafting the lateen sail onto the square-sail ships like the cog that begat the caravel/nao which were the ships that allowed the Portuguese to sail around Africa and beyond, and the Mayflower et. al. to come along.

Anyway, I wouldn&#39;t be slavish to Earth history, but focus on designing useful and interesting ships for GAME PURPOSES.

One stat that I would include that is far too often ignored: draft. That is the minimum amount of water needed to float a ship, and is critical for the success of certain types of ship. Sir Francis Drake tended to pirate with shallow-draft ships so he could hide in the shallows where privateers couldn&#39;t follow. It will tell you how far upriver your ships can travel, and perhaps some places wil be protected by reefs or sandbars that preclude galleons from entering.

BB

[ConjurerDragon]

Barrataria schrieb:

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2114



> Barrataria wrote:

> I`m glad I looked in here as I`m fooling with ship types for my basic/expert Birthright

>campaign. I think you all are reaching the best conclusion: naval history is tough to master

> and certainly not worth it for purposes of "historical accuracy". Lots of the things

> specifically affecting ship development are different: particularly arms (assuming you don`t

>use gunpowder) and provisions are less important (since you could carry a cleric for water, at

> least). You might consider the differences between the Cerilia map and the 1400-era map on which

> the ships you are discussing were sailing. They had to cross

enormous oceans, and (although

> I`m not a BR expert) that is not an issue on the Cerilia map.

Sailing from Ariya to Brechlen

> is essentially a coastal proposition. Sailing out of sight of land

is pointless, because

>except around Khourane or the mouth of the Krakennauricht) sailing in

the open ocean won`t save

> much time/distance.



Depending on your destination. The Khinasi will have to sail in the open

ocean if they wish to travel the the original islands of the Basarji

(was that Djapar?). However I agree with your view that the naval ways

of Cerilia (this one continent) do not resemble the naval explorations

from Europe towards America - rather those earlier from Europe along the

coast of Africa. From cape to cape sometimes still in the fear to reach

the "edge of the world" and not be able to return. Where Kap Verde was

for some time the border of the known world before the Portuguese

sailors went further and further.



If a campaign does not focus on Cerilia alone but runs on the whole

world of Aebrynnis with all of Djapar, Aduria, Thaele and whatever else

out there then the comparison with the exploration of America is valid

again.



> Sails do allow carrying larger cargoes, however, because the crews are

>generally smaller than galleys. Maybe that argues for lots of

oar/sailed craft, like a galeass.

> I can tell that you all have decided (and I don`t have Seas of

Cerilia) on a more Renaissance

> feel for the seas, with more sail and less oar. I like sailing ships

better for D&D

>purposes, but in some ways this is turning history on its ear. The

northern europeans were late

>to the game in terms of sailing technology; the arabs had lateen sails

long before and sailed

>from southeast asia to Africa.



Vikings in Iceland, Greenland and Vinland did not only row... ;-)



> It was grafting the lateen sail onto the square-sail ships like

>the cog that begat the caravel/nao which were the ships that allowed

the Portuguese to sail

>around Africa and beyond, and the Mayflower et. al. to come along.

>Anyway, I wouldn`t be slavish to Earth history, but focus on designing useful and interesting

>ships for GAME PURPOSES.

> BB

[lord_arioch]

The Draft of ships.

The question raised by Barrataria about the draft of ships I have seen answered in PBEM thus;
Ships are given a class size (Eg. Coaster is light, Caravel is medium and Galleon in heavy.)
These class sizes can be used as a measure of draft. In some PBEM games maps have their rivers colored in different shades to show how far a ship can travel up river (Eg. On the Southern Anuire Coast, the Spider river may allow heavy ships to sail up river as far as Caercas. A medium ship can sail up to Caerwil and a light can sail up to the Spiderfell).

[lord_arioch]

TEST



Units Cost Sail MC Seaw Cargo Bunks Hits Defence
Caravel 6 3 B +6 3 1 2 14
Coaster 2 4 A +5 1 0 1 10
Cog 5 2 C +7 3 1 2 14
Dhoura 4 3 B +6 2 1 2 14
Dhow 2 4 A +4 1 0 1 10
Drakkar 8 1 D(2) +3 1 1 2 14
Galleon 15 3 E +5 6 3 4 16
Galley 8 2 B(2) +2 1 1 2 12
Keelboat 1 2 C(1) 0 1 0 1 8
Knarr 6 2 C(1) +6 2 1 2 14
Longship 3 2 C(2) +4 1 1 1 12
Roundship 12 3 E +8 5 2 3 16
Zebec 17 3 B +5 2 2 3 14

DAMN, :angry: I can&#39;t seem to get my chart listed correctly.

ANYWAYS, If I was to do a revision of the Naval Combat Rules who should I send that to on the BR team to review and post for questions and further revision?
thanks. B)

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by lord_arioch@Jan 8 2004, 12:15 AM
ANYWAYS, If I was to do a revision of the Naval Combat Rules who should I send that to on the BR team to review and post for questions and further revision?
thanks. B)


Daniel McSorley has taken on the responsibility to handle that Chapter.

Try sending him an IM and see if you can hook up.

[Michael Lloric]

All that mass in an Anuirean galleon would probably be redistributed for troop fighting capacity (deck space, castles, battlements on every inch of the fighting deck, perhaps arrow loops instead of gun ports along the sides!). I've been struggling to figure out how 3 companies of troops could all fight at once ona galleon. Stll struggling, in fact, so if anyone's got any ideas, I'm all ears. The arrow slits along the sides is the best answer I've come up with so far.

Besides that, I'd say ballistae and catapults would have to round out a galleon's armament. Rotating mounts would be a necessity. In my campaign, I've had galleons euipped with fore and aft heavy catapults, and several mid-ship ballista (perhaps 2 on each side).

I think that the D&D 3.5 sourcebook "Heroes of Battle" gives some indication of different forms of siege artillery that might be used on board ships, each has crew requirements to operate. as well as to move ammunition from other parts of the ship, replace casualties, etc.

You also have the possibility of boarding actions, requiring melee troops to attack and sieze an enemy ship. Add to that entire units of crossbowmen, archers, or slingers, who would fire direct shots (crossbowmen) from behind a shieldwall (spearmen) that prevents boarders, or archers who can fire a volley even from behind a barrier onto the enemy vessel without direct line of sight, or by targeting crew in the rigging.

The rules aren't going to always reflect out own Earth's combat tactics and ship history precisely, but I think it's fantastic the discussion is so in-depth. It shows a love for the game that is awesome to see!

[kgauck]

Stormwrack was the 3.5 naval supliment my brother so thoughtfully gave for Christmas last year. I think the greatship, on p.100 is an excellent match for the Anuirean galleon.

Greatship: Colossal vehicle; Seaworthiness +6; Ship-handling -4; Speed wind x25 ft (poor); Overall AC -3; Hull sections 240 (sink 60 sections); Section hp 80 (hardness 5); Section AC 3; Rigging Sections AC 4; Rigging hp 80 (hardness 0); AC 1; Ram 6d6; Mounts 12 light 4 heavy; Space 150 ft. by 40 ft.; Height 20ft (draft 20 ft); Complement 500; Watch 20; Cargo 500 tons (Speed wind x 15 ft if 250 tons or more); Cost 60,000 gp.

[Lee]

Kgauck wrote:

Stormwrack was the 3.5 naval supliment my brother so thoughtfully gave for
Christmas last year. I think the greatship, on p.100 is an excellent match for
the Anuirean galleon.

Greatship: Colossal vehicle; Seaworthiness +6; Ship-handling -4; Speed wind
x25 ft (poor); Overall AC -3; Hull sections 240 (sink 60 sections); Section
hp 80 (hardness 5); Section AC 3; Rigging Sections AC 4; Rigging hp 80
(hardness 0); AC 1; Ram 6d6; Mounts 12 light 4 heavy; Space 150 ft. by 40 ft.;
Height 20ft (draft 20 ft); Complement 500; Watch 20; Cargo 500 tons (Speed wind x
15 ft if 250 tons or more); Cost 60,000 gp.



I thought it worked better as the Brecht towership?

I started (but apparently didn`t finish?) a comparison chart for Stormwrack and BR names

BR Caravel = SW Caravel/sailing ship
Longship = Longship
Zebec = Galley or Dromond?

Dhow = Dhow
Coaster = Cog or Pinnace?

Hmm, I may have to come back to this, I`ll be running a Brecht/pirate game in a year or so.

Lee.

[kgauck]

Do you mean the Brecht Roundship?

They are probabaly both Greatships. The Galleon has a higher boarding rating, the Roundship has a higher missile rating, both of these probabaly reflect the existence of different troop types on board, and the Galleon can take one additional hit, and that first hit doesn't effect the Galleon's maneauverability rating.

Since the Greatship is rated Hull sections 240 (sink 60 sections)
I'd either go with Galleon 240 sections, sink 60 and Roundship 200 sections, sink 50, or
Galleon 280 sections, sink 70, and Roundship 240 sections, sink 60, depending on where I ended up with the Caravel and Cog.

The Stormwrack stuff does a good job of presenting reasonably historical boats. The BR stuff used renaissance names for Anuire and medieval names for Brecht, so looking at historical ships would give Anuire a distinct naval advantage (indeed the warcards give Anuire a maneauver advantage and Brecht a missile advantage).

[Lee]

kgauck wrote:
Do you mean the Brecht Roundship?
No, the legendary towership, pp.90-91 of HotGB.

They are probably both Greatships. The Galleon has a higher boarding rating, the Roundship has a higher missile rating, both of these probably reflect the existence of different troop types on board, and the Galleon can take one additional hit, and that first hit doesn`t effect the Galleon`s maneauverability rating.

Since the Greatship is rated Hull sections 240 (sink 60 sections) I`d either go with Galleon 240 sections, sink 60 and Roundship 200 sections, sink 50, or Galleon 280 sections, sink 70, and Roundship 240 sections, sink 60, depending on where I ended up with the Caravel and Cog.[./i]

Good point.

[i]The Stormwrack stuff does a good job of presenting reasonably historical boats. The BR stuff used renaissance names for Anuire and medieval names for Brecht, so looking at historical ships would give Anuire a distinct naval advantage (indeed the warcards give Anuire a maneuver advantage and Brecht a missile advantage).


I intended to spreadsheet the different types and play around with slotting things in.

Lee.

[Beruin]

Perhaps a bit late to chime in, but nevertheless...



The Stormwrack stuff does a good job of presenting reasonably historical boats. The BR stuff used renaissance names for Anuire and medieval names for Brecht, so looking at historical ships would give Anuire a distinct naval advantage (indeed the warcards give Anuire a maneauver advantage and Brecht a missile advantage).

Still the best rpg overview over historical ships, from the earliest galleys to 19th Century schooners can be found in Dragon 116 and includes AD&D statistics for each ship. A later article in Dragon 130 expands the description to junks and other oriental ships. These articles are really worth checking out.

When I first read Stormwrack a few sentences really angered me, p. 25:


"D&D combat is about melee battles, not vehicle encounters
<snip>
The best way to keep your D&D game running smoothly during a ship-to-ship-encounter is to make any naval battle in which the PCs participate into a boarding action as soon as possible

I mean, c'mon guys, I just bought a maritime expansion for my favourite game, and you're telling my I should forget about sea battles?! Gimme back my money!

This was my initial reaction, at least. On the whole, the book is not that bad, but for ship descriptions and sea combat rules, there are better d20 rules out there, I believe. I especially liked Broadsides! for the Twin Crowns setting, you can find a review here (http://www.gamewyrd.com/review/261).

[Beruin]

The real problem in dealing with ships is the lack of cannons in the warships being built. By the time galleons were afloat, cannons were standard armament. With cannons, rams would be pretty obsolete. But until that time, ramming and boarding would still be primary means of fighting in ship-to-ship combat, I would think

I agree, and naval combat seriously started my thinking on introducing gun powder to Cerilia. Ramming seems so ancient, somehow. Rich Baker apparently had the same feeling. In an article on Seapower in Cerilia in Dragon 232 (sorry to bombard you with sources again) he introduced, in addition to a number of new war cards and ramming rules, bombards and smaller cannons, writing:


For some reason, players and DMs alike can’t think of a medieval sea battle without envisioning Captain Blood or Treasure Island. In our own history, the innovation of cannons arranged in broadsides didn’t appear until the middle of the 16th century, while the most advanced regions of Cerilia are assumed to have a technology equivalent to the early 15th century. However, in the last 30 or 40 years Brecht and Khinasi alchemists have been experimenting with a substance commonly known as “hellpowder” — the Cerilian equivalent for gunpowder.

Well, I'm still not truly decided whether early cannons would imbalance my game, but I'm willing to introduce at least a few rare prototypes IMC.

Speaking of ship weaponry, catapults are not really useful weapons for naval combat, despite often being mentioned in previous posts as well as in 'official' game products. Their arc of fire is too high and they would first damage the rigging and sails of their own ship before hitting anything else and they also exert serious stress on their vessel, which might even break a smaller ship.
Instead, mangonels are used, essentially a large crossbow, i.e. ballista, modified to fire stones or lead shot instead of oversized arrows.

For my campaign, I started using Wizkids' Pirates line as the basis for naval combat. Originally, I only wanted a few colourful and cheap ship models, but I found the rules for this game so neat and elegant that I started modifying them to adapt them to Cerilia.
I even started working on the ultimate d20 naval combat system, using the Pirates rules and the best parts (imho) of several d20 rules sets, but this is at best semi-finished and one of those projects I intend to complete if ever I find the time:D

[kgauck]

"D&D combat is about melee battles, not vehicle encounters.


I mean, c'mon guys, I just bought a maritime expansion for my favourite game, and you're telling my I should forget about sea battles?! Gimme back my money!

I think they would also say, D&D is about melee combat, not political encounters. Fortunatly, BR slipped past.


On the whole, the book is not that bad, but for ship descriptions and sea combat rules, there are better d20 rules out there, I believe. I especially liked Broadsides! for the Twin Crowns setting.

I liked the Seven Seas setting which goes by the name Swashbucker and is put out by AEG.

[Galdred]

I liked the Seven Seas setting which goes by the name Swashbucker and is put out by AEG.
It conveys the feel nicely indeed (although it is so heavily based on historical cultures that it would probably have worked better in a historical_with_low_magic setting). I like the roll and keep system, but I found the skill system overspecialized.

Concerning medieval naval warfare, I don't think it needs cannon: early gunpowder weapons were too cumbersome to fit on a ship, there would be no reason why they would be available on sea and not as siege weapons.

Galleys were only used in the mediterranean sea (Western and Northern european countries didn't use galley, probably because their waters were not as calm), thus ramming was only used there.
Atlantic and north sea warfare usually relied on boarding. However, I don't think they made ramming completely obsolete (IIRC, the Spaniards still tried to use it with the invicible armada).

I guess they were dropped from the BR setting because of the forced labor issue, but they would work well to make cultures distinct without using renaissance ships (it would even work better IMO, as these are separate line of ships, while the galleon/carracks are basically evolutions of the former sailing ships):
Brecht could use Cogs/Roundships and Annuire galleys, or the other way around depending on the way one imagine weather in these areas.

[RaspK_FOG]

I think they would also say, D&D is about melee combat, not political encounters. Fortunatly, BR slipped past.

I liked the Seven Seas setting which goes by the name Swashbucker and is put out by AEG.
That would be "7th Sea;" the "logo" of the line changed to "Swashbuckling Adventures" when they reproduced some of the books in d20 and brought some additional with both d20 and their Roll & Keep systems in line.

[Lee]

In a message dated 12/7/2007 2:27:52 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET writes:

I guess they were dropped from the BR setting because of the forced labor issue, but they would work well to make cultures distinct without using renaissance ships (it would even work better IMO, as these are separate line of ships, while the galleon/carracks are basically evolutions of the former sailing ships):


Or that there aren`t waters calm enough to resemble the Mediterranean?

------------ QUOTE ----------
"D&D combat is about melee battles, not vehicle encounters <snip>
The best way to keep your D&D game running smoothly during a ship-to-ship-encounter is to make any naval battle in which the PCs participate into a boarding action as soon as possible
-----------------------------

I mean, c`mon guys, I just bought a maritime expansion for my favourite game, and you`re telling my I should forget about sea battles?! Gimme back my money!

This was my initial reaction, at least.>>

I had the opposite reaction, given that the group I was DMing for didn`t want to play naval tactics.

<< On the whole, the book is not that bad, but for ship descriptions and sea combat rules, there are better d20 rules out there, I believe. I especially liked Broadsides! for the Twin Crowns setting, you can find a review here
(_http://www.gamewyrd.com/review/261_ (http://www.gamewyrd.com/review/261) ).>>

I think I have that Broadsides!, as well as their Pirates! sequel. I thought they seemed too heavy in the PrC`s and maybe too high in the magic for BR. I`ve still grabbed some useful bits from them, and expect to do so in the future.

Lee.

[Ltlconf]

Hello Folks,


Actually, there is no real problem with using galleys, as in reality there were few war galleys using chained POWS or criminals. Think about it; a galley at war, manuevering in battle, is the ultimate expression of "team effort" needing all parties to be hale, hearty, commited, and fully on board (no pun intented). Since a galley slave had a lifespan measured in months (and a pretty horrific one at that), he's nothing to lose by crossing his arms as the enemy ship comes at him and then taking a few deep gulps as the water rushes in. Sure, only a dozen or so would do it, but it would be enough to throw the whole ship out of whack enough to get it sunk. Not what I'd want below decks!
Who rowed the galleys of Athens, Carthage, Tyre, Sparta, Rome (regardless of Ben Hur), Constantinople, and Venice? Free born sailors. In fact they were the largest political block in Athens and nearly as powerful in Venice; both were sea powers and the rowers were the engines. Sure some prison ships existed, but they were rarely frontline warships. Galley slaves were indeed used by Rome, Venice, Ottoman Turkey, the Barbary States, and France but largely in fast merchant, message, and naval supply galleys where trained rowers were redundant and dedication and precision unimportant. If pirates found them, the rowers were often resold as rowers to another ship thus the slaves would often fight the pirates:better the devil you know. If Muslims took a Christian ship, they would free the Muslim slaves, and of course vice versa. Otherwise, no loyalty to religion or nationality was shown (they're freakin' pirates after all!).

As for Northern European Medieval naval combat, I too have rarely heard of anything resembling ramming before the 15th century. Basically they seem to be arrow duals, a few light siege engines fire, then one side closes with the other for boarding action. Satisfies the "Pirates of the Caribbean" fan in all of us through.
This seems deliberate however: From what I've seen of accurate (until the next nit-picker archeologist comes along) reproductions of clinker-built ships (such as Viking longships and knarrs) they where indeed VERY delicate compared to a galley. The clinker ships apparently were also limited in size, largely unable to get much beyond 120ft. or so (the info is fuzzy on this point). The clinker ships were very sea-worthy with the longships able to sail ON (not "through") all but the worst waves due to a very light and flexiable keel. They were more a "amphibious landing ship" than a open water combat vessel and with a low freeboard and thin planking vulnerable to damage. Cogs and roundships had much higher freeboards, fore-and-stern castles (if only added on), and often thicker planking (losing flexiability for toughness) though they could be rowed in a pinch (as could many sailing vessels of the time and the ancient world). This made them good ocean going battle platform and in the 12th century a Danish fleet of cogs sailed unharmed through a much larger fleet of Norwegian longships. The Danes tacked around (not easy with square sails!) sailed back through and proceeded to spread chaos and destruction by arrow fire, flame, and by simply dropping stones THROUGH the hulls of the comparatively delicate longships. Ouch!
As for how many you can pack on the average 16th century galleon etc. well remember that we have VERY different interpretations of personal space and crowding. Don't think a modern warship, think a coach car the 5pm New Dehli-Bombay railroad! Then remember these Medieval folks don't bathe often (though apparently more than previously thought: once a week or so) and are use to a level of funk we can only imagine. Next the food sucks, but you are well aware you're only one bad weather event away from famine at all times, and have the stomach of a billy goat on a good day anyway, you'll eat dang near ANYTHING! to say the least people ate less than folks today even when well off (feasts even for the rich were not a everyday, or even week, thing) if the cloths we have from the bogs are a measure: They were trim. Of course this may be why they died from hunger and cold so easily...Basicly, cramming 200+ colonists, 40+ crew and a couple dozen livestock (yeup, piles of pig poo! Spider-pig, Spider-pig...!) on a 92ft ship is more than plausible, it was COMMON, which is the shocking thing! These were tough, brave (20-30% of ships didn't make it at all!), and tenacious folks. Add in a hostile, unknown alien shore (kinda like landing blind on a alien planet a year away from Earth, and being just being left) and you gotta respect them despite all.
All of the above, of course, is mainly the opinion of historians so to be taken as such. It's a game, so we do as we will.
Now for my own opinion.
Sailing ships move faster in the long haul, or even short haul in a good wind is blowing, than any galley made. Hence why even in the Med the galley fell out of use (plus sailing ships make better gun platforms). However even the best rigged sailing ship needs the wind, while a galley has muscle power no matter what, plus at least some sailing ability. Next, even with a good wind, a sailing ship is limited in it's manueverability: IT CAN NOT LOSE THE WIND. Too sudden and sharp a turn port or starboard and you can lose the wind. These aren't modern racing yachts with mechanized rigging and minimal crew needs (and even those guys pick and choose such manuevers carefully), a galleon needs ALOT of rigging pulled and some very big, heavy sails trimmed. Once a fight is started two sailing ships could manuever for hours before finally closing in for the fight as both tried to keep the wind and currents (not to be discounted close to shore, and a big factor) to their advantage (see "Master and Commander" very accurate in ALL aspects of naval warfare in sailing days). This is not conductive to ramming in any way (except by one side being incompetant and the other very lucky) no quick moving. Even so in the days of sail, boarding action was not rare and up to the mid 17th cent. pretty common. So were landing parties attacking coastal towns (the bulk of buccaneers worked this way).
So, I agree with the idea of Byzantine ect. galleys mixed with sailing ships: it suits the setting, the sea conditions, the usual player's taste in combat, and keeps things gunpowder free (and keeps that can closed!). The sheer number of galley designs still provides for cultural uniqueness while sailing ships still have their place in battle (as battle platforms and troop carriers). Think ships-of-the-line and frigate. The galleons (SOTL) are pretty fast and long-legged but manuever slowly nor can get close to shore for long: no wind and they're trapped. Galleys are the frigates: fast on a short haul, agile, low and small as targets, good for hit and run. A galley could get lucky and ram a galleon (ect.) however it would be vulnerable to everything the sailing ship could throw at it, and being fragile and low, could have her keel snapped by a lucky shot. On the other hand, a galleon with good construction is hard to sink, even when rammed! However, if enough galleys hit a galleon at once, it's likely doomed. Galleys can work like this as they're rowed, galleons or any sailing ship cannot move in such a way quickly or on the spur of the moment. Thus you'd use both just as they did in the Med up to the 18th century for the reasons stated, be creative..