View Full Version : Naval - USN

24th Nov 2004, 04:21
I would like to suggest that IG include the United States Navy. Though a small navy at the time, the USN made itself felt in winning nearly all of its major naval battles. And to be historically accurate for the era, the USN just has to be taken into account.


Angel SNR [HG]
24th Nov 2004, 07:50
The USN was a small force of privateers never officially recognised by any government save the French. The english would hang anyone in the "USN" that they captured for piracy!

24th Nov 2004, 15:23
I must reply back on that last comment. The United States Navy (USN) was indeed a small Navy in comparison to the Royal Navy (RN) or even the French Navy (MF), but when it came to the quality of its ships and crews they were the best in the world. Though the US had used privateers during the Revolutionary War, this was on the wane. The USN had a very established Navy by time of the Napoleonic era. The USN's heavy frigates were simply the best ships of their size ever created up to that time. After repeatedly beating RN frigates in battle after battle, the RN put out a standing order for RN frigate Captains to not engage USN frigates in 1 vs 1 battles, they did not want to lose anymore RN frigates. They were to only engage USN frigates when outnumbering them.

Also, you have to remember that O.H. Perry/USN was the first in 1813 to ever engage an RN squadron, defeat it, and capture it in its entirety at the Battle of Lake Erie. The MF had not been able to ever do that in its centuries long struggle with the RN.


24th Nov 2004, 18:42
the Battle of LAKE Erie..... well what a massive battle :D ,

9 yank ships vs 6 british ....come on ..if you are talking naval power (or the projection of power) the usn was not a big player at this time, not to belittle its acomplisments( they did to the best of my knowledge hit above their weight) but it was a small "local" force at this time( beginning of the game period)

what was the usn's OOB to the RN's for that matter any of the martime nations eg spain or the dutch, or even China?

Angel SNR [HG]
24th Nov 2004, 20:22
Well to include the USN purely because they beat the RN soundly when they outnumbered them might be a tad silly as the nation isn't in the game. The USN may have existed in force but it never ventured near europe it stuck over near the homeland meaning it would play no role in the game only US privateers would ;)

25th Nov 2004, 00:32
I didn't say that the Battle of Lake Erie contained an enormous amount of ships or that the ships were very large. The reason I mentioned it was because it was the most decisive action that the RN had lost to such a degree during a period of a couple of centuries, and it was during the Napleonic era.

Again, as I mentioned, the USN was a smaller force than the larger navies, but it was nearly unbeatable in 1 vs 1 engagements during the Napoleonic era.

Someone mentions that the USN was a local force, but ironically many of its actions during this period were undertaken with its Mediterranean Squadron. Nelson viewed the USS Constitution off the shores of Spain and commented with a concern about how formidable of ship it looked to be. A couple of USS Constitution's decisive victories were between South America and Africa.

Again in regards to OOB, they were a smaller Navy no dispute there, but again very effective.

Capt. Hatter USN
25th Nov 2004, 01:41
Only an idiot would fail to see the importance of the United States Navy in the Mediterranean during the early nineteenth century. It is not presentism, or patriotism that drives this, (I am a British subject) but good history. I don't think including the USN would cause anyone any disservice and may encourage more players to participate.

The Mediterranean is located in southern Europe, just in case you are confused.

25th Nov 2004, 02:52
The U.S. navy of this era was well officered, well crewed, and the ships well built. The ship designs that the U.S. was building were the design of the future; however to say that the U.S. ships were the best is reaching. The U.S. navy was not a major player in the worlds oceans; (any nation with over-seas trading interests had ships in foreign Seas). And last, I dont expect to see it included in the game, just because it would be a great deal more work on the part of the developers. As a side note the U.S. was launching more merchant vessels at this time than anyone in the world, most commissioned by foreign nations.

25th Nov 2004, 04:10
This discussion about the relative size of the USN and that of France and Britain could easily be solved by opening up the naval portion of the game to other flags that might possibly have had ships at sea. That is a rather large number whether they kept their distance from the antics of Napoleon or the Spanish or not. We would like the opportunity to use the naval simulation between a lot of different ships. Including other flags and providing the ability to customize ships (tonnage, guns, length and draft etc.) within the period represented would only add to the game. It would not be necessary to include the coast of the Americas to accomplish this. The Atlantic is a nice crossing.

Angel SNR [HG]
25th Nov 2004, 08:25
I don't think including the USN would cause anyone any disservice and may encourage more players to participate.

No offence to any Americans here but just because your nation isn't in the game doesn't means its ****. I've seen too many games have the US included because it helps sales, maybe the majority of Americans need to wake up and realise that their nation isn't the centre of the world no matter what they say.

25th Nov 2004, 15:05

I am not sure to what you refer. No American on here has said anything like what you have stated. I nor anyone in the AOSII USN would ever want anything included that was non-historic. I know it is very difficult to portray the Napoleonic wars accurately in a game, because essentially it was the first world war, but I have seen desert scenes in trailers which would indicate that some actions may be taking outside of Europe proper, Egypt for instance. If this is the case, to leave out the USN Mediterranean Squadron would simply be inaccurate.

Anyway, I think it could help the game , and make it more historically accurate to somehow include the USN in IG's Naval component. And perhaps in the future, maybe even an IG-II or an expansion pack, the whole game could be expanded to include North American battles and more.

Wm. Bush

25th Nov 2004, 15:31
Neither of us implied that IG would be a worthless game if the flags of other nationalities are not included. The FACTS are that individual ship actions, as well as the entire War of 1812 did take place during the period represented by the game. We realise that the game developers cannot expand the game enough to include the America's, but it would not be difficult to recognize the existence and pertinence of other navies.

And theres no need to be anti-American and insulting in this discussion as you have been so far. We are gentlemen here.

CaptTermite USN

Capt. Hatter USN
25th Nov 2004, 16:25
If anyone here is driven by a blinding patriotic fervor it is Angle SNR. I believe you did read the fact that I am NOT an American citizen, indeed I am a BRITISH citizen, but still manage to maintain some objectivity in recommending the USN be included, not as a major power, but an interesting addition to the balance of power in the Med.

Angel SNR [HG]
25th Nov 2004, 17:05
Please not I did not mean any ofence, I am just merely stating an observation I have noticed of some Americans (Whether you are american or not is irrelevant). Games such as American Conquest and Rise of Nations have had the US included in them purely because it helps the game sell better. If you thought I was trying to accuse you of being a selfish American you couldn't be more wrong!
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree over the USN, your opinion is they should be included whilst i feel to include them would be silly if based on a couple of instances.

25th Nov 2004, 19:23

Just for the purpose of accuracy, I'll mention the confines of the map. And Vic, correct me if I'm wrong here.

In the West, it goes to Portugal, England, etc. OBviously.

In the East, it stretches to at most the Ural Mountain Range in Russia. More probably, it will be one province to the east of Russia.

In the South to Morocco, Algiers, Northern Egypt. (Sahara parts not included)

In the north, obviously to Sweden. (Santa not Included :D )

The only tricky part is how represented the Ottoman Empire is on the map.

Without India in the game, it does not posses any strategic points on the map, except for the passage between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. So including the Middle East would seem somewhat pointless. If it is included, it won't be wholly represented.

My best guess would be that they would have the Black Sea cut off the Eastern map. So that Russia would have no direct land contact with the Ottomans. Which would be semi-accurate, considering the tremendous difficulty it would pose to fight over the Caucuses.

25th Nov 2004, 20:11
Perhaps you all are confusing the campaign game opportunities with that of individual ship actions, which have value and enjoyment in their own right. We recognize that this game is not big enough to include the whole world. That does not exclude the ability to enjoy sea fights between other countries, including US Ships. We think that IG will be a good game no matter what areas the world is confined to, but when it comes to individual multiplayer battles, why not be able to represent ships that existed then?

As for Angle, none of us know who u played in the other games you mentioned, perhaps they were more properly described as children, so dont judge AOS players on those terms without knowing us.

CaptTerm USN
USS Constellation 38
Chesapeake Bay

26th Nov 2004, 01:44
And you mistake this for a naval-heavy game.

This is primarily a land-battle game, with naval battles included as well.

26th Nov 2004, 02:17
Well thats uncalled for too Willmore. It was my understanding that the game will encompass both land and sea with equal opportunities.

26th Nov 2004, 02:47
Look at the proportion of Naval vs Land screenshots, and decide for yourself.

Also, there are only 3 types of ships.

Angel SNR [HG]
26th Nov 2004, 14:19
As for Angle, none of us know who u played in the other games you mentioned, perhaps they were more properly described as children, so dont judge AOS players on those terms without knowing us.

Like I said I wasn't judging ANYONE on this forum, I merely picked up on a comment made by someone and decided to add to it. Whether youare American or not makes no difference, just because there are no Americans here doesn't mean I cannot make a comment on them ;) Both of the games I mentioned originally didn't have the uS in them as it coimpletely didn't fit in with the game. American Conquest was about the conquest of south America and North America by the Europeans so wherethe uS came in I don't know, they were added to the nation list at the last minute in order to increase game sales. In Rise of Nations the game covered nations throughout the ages from the middle ages to present day, the game has the US added in an expansion pack in order to increase sales from an American audience. This largely the fault of greedy devs but they are only egged on by too many Americans.
I'd say that you guys sure do know your stuff about the naval side but as others have pointed out the game is doomed to be largely based around land and some of your ideas would be better suited to something like Age of Sail.