3 Things

First, if there is a way of allowing you to give commands to all ships without having to click the pause button off and then on again each time this would help.

There should be an invinceable setting. The existing easy/hard setting is kinda useless since it affects the enemy as well. (Not that I like to cheat or anything.)

It would be cool to have a life boat that gives you about a 1 in 10 chance of making it to another ship. Kinda like Oliver Hazard Perry from the Battle of Lake Erie in the War of 1812. This is the battle that he uses the flag "Don't give up the ship" and kicks some serious but. Here's a picture of the flag hanging at Annapolis MD.: http://img246.echo.cx/img246/6985/navydontgiveupship6dy.jpg

Mitch

Here's a little video showing how to select a group of friendly ships "on the fly" without pausing.. so then you can click on the appropriate orders to attack or whatever.. never stopping for a moment..

Thanks for the video info.. Maybe I should do more grouping of friendlies instead of trying to individually select and target. I'm on Surface Mission German 10b and have been doing a lot of this lately. I figured if they each have a different ship to attack it might keep them busier so they don't go after me. Of course I haven't had any success at this yet either.

Mitch

It would be cool to have a life boat that gives you about a 1 in 10 chance of making it to another ship. Kinda like Oliver Hazard Perry from the Battle of Lake Erie in the War of 1812. This is the battle that he uses the flag "Don't give up the ship" and kicks some serious but. Here's a picture of the flag hanging at Annapolis MD.:

I agree that being able to ?abandon ship? in a small boat (almost all warships by Enigma?s time carried at least ?some? motorized lifeboats) would be very cool? especially if friendly ships could come to your rescue and (in turn) allow you to man one of their guns.

To suggest that Perry ?kicked some serious butt? at Lake Erie, however, demands a very serious lack of understanding of what truly happened at that battle. For one, the British and American fleets did not meet on near-equal terms - the British, grossly under-funded in their defense of Canada (England?s main military focus was still then the ?real? threat of Napoleon - an American invasion of Canada being seen as a trivial, far-off colonial matter in comparison), were able to muster a ?fleet? but barely half the number which they would face sailing under Perry. Even ship-to-ship, the British suffered a very great disadvantage - their vessels lacking full compliments of cannon and being built of green, unseasoned timber (making their largest brigs - although comparable in weight class to Perry?s - dramatically inferior in their ability to resist puncture by solid iron shot).

What makes the events surrounding the Battle of Lake Erie so resonate in the American mindset, thus, is not the fact that the battle was ?won? (even then, there were few - even on the British side who considered ?possible? a strategic win for England - the most they hoped to achieve being a ?tactical victory? in which they would inflict greater losses than they received before withdrawing) but rather the manner in which Oliver Harvard Perry himself conducted it. Amongst the American people of today, Perry is considered a popular hero - enough so to have a class of frigate named after him. Yet, according to the (now) largely forgotten war conventions of the time, Perry had - in every sense of the word - to ?cheat? in order to achieve his victory.

It was no secret, before or after the battle, that Perry was a somewhat impulsive commander - and when British Commodore Robert Barclay, a talented strategist and a veteran of Trafalgar, laid a ?simple? crescent trap? Perry blundered wildly into it, orchestrating his fleet into something more like a cavalry charge, and allowing his flagship (the large brig ?Lawrence?, too far ahead of other American ships by that time to expect any support) to become riddled with shot and left a bloody, burning hulk almost right at the battle?s onset. Now, under the rules of war which existed at that time - any commander in Perry?s now prone and unrecoverable position (his masts toppled and his ship left a helpless, burning mass) was considered to bear the ?duty? of surrendering his ship in order to spare the common sailor the horror of a vain and bloody massacre (an enemy boarding).

Perry, however, had other plans - humiliated by the thought that, being the ?admiral?, surrendering himself meant surrendering his entire fleet (most of which had not yet even been ?touched? by enemy fire), Perry boarded a longboat and had himself rowed for the brig Niagara. It is ironic to consider that, in light of his own very deliberate betrayal of the standing rules of war, Perry survived this transfer to the Niagara only due to very strict adherence to that same code of conduct (which he had himself betrayed so readily) by the British. During the Napoleonic era, and throughout the previous centuries, it had been considered ?ill mannered? by the British to fire upon, with deliberate intent to kill, an enemy officer (or other member of the so-called ?gentry) - as the ?proper conduct of war? according to many such old world powers, ought to ?spare the nobility? (to them, war being almost a kind of gentleman?s ?sport?). Although Perry, and for that matter most American officers, were not true nobility by British standards - this did not register in the minds of the lieutenants and marine commanders in the British fleet whom, in spite of being well within range, directed neither musket volley nor cannon shot Perry?s way.

It is doubly ironic thus to consider that, given he was in no ?real? danger during his transfer to the Niagara (owing to British ?good manners?), Perry is nevertheless remembered as being ?heroic? for this very act. In reality, he had already ?lost? the battle according to the standards of war which had endured the centuries up until then and, in spite of the ?Perry? factor, would continue to endure for centuries after (England ?still? considers it immoral for a government to commit or support the direct assassination of other national leaders - most reminiscent of their reluctance to fire upon French and American officers during Napoleonic times - a courtesy which the French, too, abided by).

Nah, I beg to differ with your analysis. First, the ships on both sides were built from green wood and inferior ship building equipment. This is documented on both sides. The smaller vessels did not play much of a determining factor in the battle so the 9 ships v/s 6 did not play a big role. The Brits had the advantage of more experienced officers and better trained manpower.They had an advantage of long guns 35 to 15 which is why I don't understand your statement of Barclay trying to lure Perry in. That simply doesn't make any sense. Perry had an advantage of the short range carronades 39 to 28 so why would he not want the close action? His only problem was that Elliot failed to commence into the battle.

Per eyewitness accounts on the British side, "When the realization of the significance of Perry's transfer to the Niagara was seen, the British focused their fire on the little cutter. With great care John Chapman, a private in the 41st Regiment of Foot and serving as gunner onboard the Queen Charlotte, aimed a 24 pounder at the cutter and fired repeatedly. During his perilous journey, the cutter was inundated by splashes of near misses. Miraculously, after passing through a storm of shot, Perry and his boat crew reached the Niagara. This hardly sounds like the British let him transfer because of their gentle manliness. Give me a break.

His battle flag stated "Don't give up the ship". Had he given up the battle would have been lost. When Elliot failed to move into battle Perry took it upon himself to continue. When Perry attacked the second time he was definetly at a disadvantage. But the Queen Charlotte and Detroit had kind of run into each other didn't they. OOOPs! The end result is history. Perry was the first in history to defeat an entire British squadron and successfully bring back every ship to his base as a prize of war.

Following is some information I received from a guy who has studied the battle:

In regard to construction & fitting out of the respective Sqd. on Lake Erie, both Perry & Barclay faced many of the same problems. While the British faced a considerable shortage of materiel to fit out their ships, particularly sails, rigging & proper guns, they at least had an established ship yard to use a their base of operations. Amherstburg/Ft. Malden had been an established military depot & HQ of the Provincial Marine on Lake Erie for almost 10 years. Please note that both British & American accounts point out that the two largest British ships, Queen Charlotte & Detroit, are both described as being far better built than their American counterparts Lawrence & Niagara. Perry & Noah Brown (naval constructor at Erie) had to start by creating a shipyard & base of operations from scratch. The fact that the American won the "Logistics War" should take nothing away from Perry's tactical victory.

Ed B.

" We have met the enemy and they are ours: two ships, two brigs, one schooner, and one sloop."

"DON'T GIVE UP THE SHIP"

I hold to my "kicked some serious but" statement.

Following are some sites with more information:

http://www.nps.gov/pevi/HTML/battle.html

http://www.lake-erie.navy.mil/cg70battlelke.htm

http://www.brigniagara.org/battle.htm

http://www.masseymarineart.com/Prints/USNa...ts/BatErie.html

Goatman: Excellent rebutal, with informative links.

I was born and raised in Cleveland also had an oppertunity to visit the actual Command HQ of Comadore Perry located on the Islands.

One may be surprised at the True location as I was myself when I happened on it.

I believe somewhere here (residence) I have the actual footage on VHS that I recorded myself of the location.

There is a lot of interesting history behind the Battle of Lake Erie and alas sadly there are winners and losers in any conflict. My logic behind this statement is when it comes to war in reality " There are no winners" there may be Victor's but the bottom line is everyone loses. JMHO.

FLETCH.

Hey Fletch, good to hear from a local. I'll be going up to Put-in-Bay on May 28th if all goes as planned. We'll be doing some bike riding on the island and I wanted to show some kids the Perry Monument. Good photo's: http://www.putinbayphotos.com/monument/monument.htm

That thing is 352 feet high. It would have been quite the view to see the battle from up there.

I know what you mean about the fact that nobody really wins in war. I just lost my son in-law Jan. 26 2005 fighting over in Iraq. He was only 22 and never got to see his daughter Chloe.

Mitch

Sincerest condolences.

Sincerest condolences on your son-in-law.

I have been to the monument many times and surrounding Islands, went over to Pelee a few times also. I used to dock at Winke's but the trip was just too far 75 miles one way, not really all that bad but after a full day on the water one dosen't realize how exhausting it is until the time to make the return trip, spent many a nights sleeping on the boat and made the return trip the next day.

I found it is much easier just to trailer the boat, now I usually launch from Rocky River or Edgewater.

FLETCH.

I used to sail quite a bit around the islands and off edgewater. Used to go with my wife at sundown to Edgewater and sail out and around the crib. That was pretty cool. Actually, I bought the boat off a guy that had it docked at Edgewater but I found it best to trailer it as well. Had many a interesting experiences with that boat. Lot's of memories up at the islands as well.

Two interesting things about the monument. During WWII some girl jumped off commiting suicide and the last time I was up there the ranger said the weekend before some guy was arrested for hanging his daughter over the edge by holding her feet and he was drunk. I got a chill up my spine just thinking about it again.

I thank you guy's for the kind words for Tim. The Browns will be having a ceremony in his honor at their first home game. Which happens to fall on 9-11 this year.

(The date has been changed for the Browns ceremony to November ? 2005.)

Take care,

Mitch