L'Ocean Vs. Victory, Duel of the Titans, Naval Action

A duel between first-rate ships of the line.

[@randyvines1497]

Me just appreciating how beautiful these two boats are.

[@notrius7754]

SHIPS

[@mightymontymain4604]

@@notrius7754 right >.

[@Noreik395]

Did you really say the b word...

[@Skockodrakce]

okay so a french ship under the english flag and an english ship under the pirate flag... makes sence

[@FlightTheatreAlberto]

Sense

[@gdtherealpanemic8384]

Just naval action =)

[@ronaldsan2667]

British captured a French pirates captured a British sense

[@spinocus]

The Brits loved stealin' them sexy French ships! Seriously though, The Royal Navy seized and used a ton of French warships during the 18th & 19th centuries. I also believe the Brits captured at least one Ocean class first rate during the Napoleonic wars. The one I can think of is the Commerce de Marseille, seized when the Brits took the port of Toulon.

[@k.v.7681]

@@spinocus They didn't take the port of Toulon, they were invited in as allies by Royalist rebels.

[@marcer54000]

I think a L'Ocean and Santisima Would be more duel of the titans, The vic is sort of a standard thing now not really super high end

[@1x_rj_x1]

Theoretically the L’ Ocean would win because it has thicker armor and more cannons, however the Victory is surprisingly nimble if captained correctly. I could see it going either way depending on the experience levels of the captains.

[@hamuegg6042]

Best pirate I’ve ever seen...

[@daithi6826]

The queen Anne's revenge against a british warship colourized

[@thedstroyer462]

Queen Anne's revenge vs. A sand bar colorized

[@thedictationofallah]

Queen Anne's Revenge was a converted guineaman (slave trading ship) from 16 guns to 30-40 guns.

[@rx-0862]

victory lost the brawl soon as her captain decided to use the same broadside it used to tank the first cannon volley

[@johannnespaul4300]

haha i got it

[@ARUDRADEY]

SUPERB DUDE!!!!!!

[@catrienclayton7122]

She is a beast

[@weebitteeateeweebit]

She is!

[@louissepepito7577]

man ur ship is very tough how did u manage the upgrades though?

[@cazackfamliy5301]

Wasn't much of a battle because the L'Ocean is an absolute monster in the game. it could take on two of those Victories.

[@johnstrelley3917]

What game is this?

[@iSpaceKoala]

@@johnstrelley3917 Naval action, that's written dude

[@johnstrelley3917]

I NEVER LEARNED TO READ!

[@laurence2854]

CA zackfamily it's True but the Victory fire every 2 minutes and the Ocean fire every 15 seconds

[@weebitteeateeweebit]

@@laurence2854 it's the opposite in history I think.

[@bluestingray8955]

The victory is missing staged battle

[@jeffreyrobinson3555]

British ship is on the bows but doesn’t rake, holds fire till on lee? Pirate ship has wind passing larboarg to larborad and doesn’t cross Brit’s stern for a killer rake?

[@jasonmcginn4966]

Is this a game?

[@moleman6899]

The Victory has no chance against the Ocean. The Ocean was first launched 25 years after the Victory was.

[@weebitteeateeweebit]

I did not know. Thanks!

[@IM_THE_CHANGLLER]

@@weebitteeateeweebit I think he ment the ship ? Or

[@thedictationofallah]

In a real battle the Victory would've won, prove me wrong.

[@_aquamarina9308]

which game is that??, why i search naval action its just lead me into Ww2 ship game??

[@lisa-azrabroad4137]

it is on steam

[@MrZnarffy]

Nice, but while first salvo was perfect, second should have been towards her rig and then sat upwind of her. No need for taking all that beating,,,,

[@danielalejandrogonzalezrom5706]

Es como jugar Assassin's greed lll, Blackjack y rogué

[@Bruh-ty1ws]

Game?

[@weebitteeateeweebit]

Naval Action

[@Merluso415]

Buena pelea , aunque no voy a negar que convulsione un poco al ver una bandera inglesa en un barco francés .

[@andrewstackpool4911]

Two ships approaching with the wind in different directions???

[@danialzidaneamarty8493]

Lol

[@mausumichaudhary3708]

How have you install the game.

[@mausumichaudhary3708]

How have you done

[@mausumichaudhary3708]

It is from computer

[@leroiarouf1142]

@@mausumichaudhary3708 computer Steam

[@hoovy2738]

what game name

[@weebitteeateeweebit]

Naval Action

[@Galrauch01]

pirate vs pirate

[@pascalb2062]

Why is the opponent not inflicting any damage??? Same distance same number of Canons different damage....

[@weebitteeateeweebit]

Due to the extreme thickness of my ship build.

[@odane6336]

What is the name of the game

[@weebitteeateeweebit]

Naval Action

[@odane6336]

@@weebitteeateeweebit it is an online or offline game

[@weebitteeateeweebit]

@@odane6336 Online

[@williamg3020]

try an arial view using home

[@kaizen1712]

What is game

[@weebitteeateeweebit]

Naval Action. It's available on Steam. Cheers.

[@b26t4]

Bro why he didn't fire that first pass, already lost that fight.

[@Breizh-1998]

Vive la France !!

[@ARUDRADEY]

What!!! I

[@user-ej8gn4jj5m]

What happened?

[@labaguette3740]

So why the French Navire have a British flag ?

[@pattonkesselring4247]

Because the French Navy is basically just the Royal Navy’s unpaid reserve. P.S. sorry, love you France

[@pattonkesselring4247]

Oh not to take anything away from the French Navy, but I think their biggest advantage was in their army rather than their navy. Besides most of the British strength at sea was in their numbers and overseas empire. They were able to blockade French and Spanish holdings to prevent the French navy from large engagements most of the time, and when they couldn’t they could muster enough forces to fight them off. However much like in war of the 20th century, quantity has a quality all its own and the French couldn’t stop hemorrhaging ships to the British. Further, I don’t think the French doctrine was well suited for stopping the British. Their tendency to fire on the masts and rigging was more so they could retire from the battle without a pursuit, whereas the British fired into the hull to disable guns and kill crew, which more often than not allowed the British to do substantially more damage to their French opposite number. For instance, Redoutable and Bucentare received a fair deal more damage from HMS Victory than they dealt to HMS Victory, musketry not taken into account as that’s more of a marine thing. Had the French adopted this tactic, and considering their alliance with the Spanish in several conflicts like the Napoleonic wars, they very well may have been able to take control of the Atlantic, or at least ensure it didn’t belong solely to the British. However, the combination of political instability, a less damage oriented doctrine, and the hemorrhage of ships to the Royal Navy seems to always give the Royal Navy the edge in oceanic combat. However, it should be noted that not until World War I was their a new rival to the British, and the French remained one of the preeminent navies in the world, second only to the British, and by a fairly slim margin at that.

[@williamrassat6787]

@@pattonkesselring4247 I completely agree with your statement, quite frankly it is an astute observation from your part. I agree that the french were more focused on its land army, than its navy, as it has many borders with many great powers such as germany, spain and Italy. I completely agree that the British were a lot more focused on their navy than their land army, and therefore, logically, their navy was better than the french navy. However, im gonna make a couple of points on periods where the french navy was a big threat towards the British navy (more than spain and Netherlands) and sometimes even surpassed them in naval supuriority. Firstly, during the 17th and 18th century, french ships were faster and technologically more advanced than british ships, that's why the british captured many french ships, and never destroyed them completely, such as La Concorde (queens anne's revenge). Furthermore, it can be argued that the french had a better Navy than the British during the reign of Louis XIV, as the french won many battles against the British, spanish and dutch during wars such as the franco-dutch war, the spanish succession and the 9 years war. Countless naval battles where the french defeated the british during those wars: battle of beachy head (9 years war) Battle of bantry bay (9 years war) battle of lagos (9 years war) Battle at the Lizard (Spanish succession). And famous admirals who were hated a lot by the british such as Jean Bart, Suffren, Tourville, Charles Henri Hector d'Estaing and many more. In addition, the french won those 3 wars, the 9 years war, the spanish succession, and the franco-dutch war. The british Navy was better than the french Navy in the 7 years war, undoubtedly... However, the french navy again became a rival towards the british during the American revolutionary war, in which the french won many naval battles aganst the british; such as: the battle of Cuddalore, and the battle of Grenada and ofc, the famous one, the battle of Chesepeak... However, the french were no longer a match for the British navy after the french revolution, as all their experinced commanders fled the country, and they were replaced with inexperinced ones... All in all, the british always had a better navy than the french historically, however, you can see that the french navy was very close or if not better than the British navy at times... There is a fomous quote from a French admiral, Charles Henri Hector d'Estaing, during the revolution, he was imprisoned and he was to be executed by guillotine, but before his execution, he wrote, "After my head falls off, send it to the British, they will pay a good deal for it!"

[@pattonkesselring4247]

@@williamrassat6787 that’a why I didn’t fight for the 16th and early 17th century. Also, it’s why I said that the rivalry between the French and British navy was way closer than the British and German navy during the lead up to wwi. However, I would also argue that even though French ships at various point s were more technically sophisticated, the fact that the British were able to capture them points to a British operational superiority. As a for instance, the Italian fleet at Lissa had a technically superior fleet, but the Austro-Hungarian fleet was better commanded and had an operationally superior fleet. The Austrians won the day. Furthermore, the battle record of the two shows just how close they were for several hundred years, no mean feet to be sure considering the Spanish navy had been made a second line power at best by the 1720s thanks to the War of Spanish Succession. However, looking at battles can be woefully unreliable when determining operational strength and doctrinal superiority. For instance, the British fleet at Jutland should have crushed the high seas fleet, but thanks to an operational deficiency on the part of the British admirals (and by admirals I of course mean Beatty) the much weaker and less technically superior German forces were able to escape with rather minimal casualties. Trafalgar is a unique case in history as it’s held up to be the deciding factor in British naval superiority, but I don’t think that tells the whole story, because that battle signaled what had already pretty much been true, that the British navy had mastery of the oceans and seas around Europe. The Franco-Spanish fleet had been on the run and then blockaded by the British fleet during the entire campaign. While during most of the 18th century the rivalry was much closer than it would be even during the Napoleonic wars (which was still measured in inches) I still have to give the edge to the British on an operational level, though the French are ahead on a technical level. 17th century though, very much in the French hands, and after the raid on the Medway the English fall below the Dutch and Spanish as well for a time afterwards. BTW this is my kind of conversation, I love history talk. Cheers. 👍👍👍🇬🇧🇫🇷

[@williamrassat6787]

@@pattonkesselring4247 This is my brothers take on it, he agrees with your argument. I love those kinds of conversations btw. Both of you make good points. But I'm surprised that none of you (but esp the other guy) discussed Britain's economic/commercial superiority in the Atlantic and later the Pacific during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The East India Company, which had its own navy, dominated commercial trade all over the east, and fought out competition from the French and others. I mean, I agree with the general consensus here. You're both right. France dominated technologically-speaking, but Britain's reliance on its navy made it doctrinally superior in the long-run. Sure. I, however, think there's so much more to the story. And it comes down to cold hard cash. Moolah. Britain's technologically inferiority to France for so long (I'd argue till the 18th century) was largely because the British navy wasn't a hard power instrument up until the late 16th century, following Elizabeth I's reforms. Till then, the navy was largely merchant and made up of privateers. The few true warships Britain had at its disposal served as a sort of defence membrane for its merchant activities. So that was good and bad - good part was that Britain's decentralised naval activities allowed it to grow a huge informal merchant empire by the 18th century. Bad was that, yeah, in the short-term, its military might was weak (as evidenced by Beachy Head, etc) But, getting back to the long the long-run, I'd argue Britain's short-term weakness (decentralised, largely commercial navy) was its biggest asset. By the time the Commercial Revolution hit continental Europe in the 18th century (France, Spain and Italy mostly) Britain had grown a massive merchant network in the Americas, Indies and the Pacific, which the parliament taxed the shit out of to build the military might France had come to mess with during the Seven Year's war. Britain's economic superiority since the 17th century - a direct result of the extremely decentralised/liberal naval activities in Britain, unlike France - in the long-run, paid for the massive standing navy Britain possessed much later on in history.

[@rsm_me171]

all abit bollocks really volley after volley fired at hull top deck would have shot ball and chain for the mast first especially with the close range . no sails its a duck and stern guns would have look for rudder lol , and the ships would have tacked the angle for shot bounce lol incredible games of noobs

[@tezzdogger6073]

Is that like a game or something?

[@weebitteeateeweebit]

Yes, Naval Action. Can be gotten on Steam.

[@tezzdogger6073]

@@weebitteeateeweebit looks like fun. Thank you

[@weebitteeateeweebit]

@@tezzdogger6073 It's a bit repetitive, the game but it can be fun.

[@coyote4961]

Duel of the Titans!!! The Victory doesn't even damage the armor of L'Ocean half way before being sunk in an all out broadside battle......

[@thedictationofallah]

Naval actions is not accurate

[@coyote4961]

@@thedictationofallah I know... if it was realistic, the L-Ocean likely would have been fairly badly hurt if not crippled by the first broadside the Victory did close range. Also would be a lot more loss of cannons as they get hit broadside.

[@thedictationofallah]

@@coyote4961 In the age of sail whoever reloaded the quickest won

[@coyote4961]

@@thedictationofallah Armor of the ship, gun size, gun quantity, and overall position also did play parts. An average size frigate wasn't going to beat a Man-O-War even they could reload faster. Best chance they had was their better maneuverability. But if they couldn't get out of the way of the guns in time, it would not end well for them.

[@thedictationofallah]

@@coyote4961 In the age of sail there was no ship armour, it was the type of wood, and for instance a corvette would be lightly built but a ship of the line would have a strong hull built to not only protect better like armour (which was not intentional) but to support the rigging and the weight of the ship (along with the ballast). Also, Man O' War just means a ship constructed for combat. In journals of pirates they wrote in some cases (E.g Captain BarthomelowSharpe, William Dampier) that they faced a 10 gunned Man O' War for example. (-You can skip reading here- Although that would've been a lot considering that in the Era of Piracy in the New World most ships carried light 2-6 pounders, and what classified as a proper cannon would've been a 12-42 pounder gun. That's why pirates feared 2-4 gunned Spanish barks because their ships carried 6-18 swivels and light cannons) Anyways, the most important thing was rate of fire and the wind. Also Frigates didn't have any chance against ship of the lines unless the ship of the line was poorly designed so that the lower gun deck would be too close to the waterline making it impossible to shoot from them during a storm and the fighting was done unfortunately during a storm and a Razee-Frigate and another regular Frigate encircling and firing it under the gallantry of Edward Pellew. The quantity of the guns did not matter in ship of the line engagements (unless it was a 74 against a 120 gunner, see poor Bellerophon in the battle of the nile). HMS Captain (74) under Nelson captured a Spanish Second Rate and a 1st Rate at the same time while resisting heavy fire from the 6 largest ship in the world (Including Santisima Trinidad of 130 at the moment) 3x 112 gunned first rates along with other massive ships. Also during Camperdown HMS Ardent (64) held up against many Dutch 74s but managed to play an important role in the battle There are many instances of a much smaller ship or fleet coming out victorious over another. I highly suggest the London Gazette or just simply Wikipedia on their article/page of "List of Naval Battles" is this reply too long

[@Billyshatner88]

This games poor physics dosnt take into effect how much maneuverable the victory was over the l'ocean it had a shallower draft which made it faster and alot more agile which aloud it to bring it's guns to bare and stay out of the French guns that's why the slightly smaller but more agile British ships consistently out performed the larger slower French ships

[@weebitteeateeweebit]

British warships also enjoyed a much quicker cannon reload due to their flintock fuse I think?!

[@patriciusvunkempen102]

yes the victory was known for her exceptional speed for her size and also the extreme sturdyness of her construction to the long seasoning time for her wood due to building delays, the french used mush fresher woods, and the lengths of their ships meant they were overall less stable and had a tendency to work themselfs apart in weather, at least more than british built ships

[@unclekevin5094]

The French navy had very few good or experienced officers due to the fact that most of them were from aristocratic blood pre-Revolution and because of this many were removed from their position and replaced by political appointees. Secondly the French fleets were locked up idle in the ports for most of the war by the British blocade while the British ships were constantly sailing and training their men. Thirdly, because the French ships were locked in the ports Napoleon stripped them of men for the army meaning that when they did eventually get to go to sea they were undermanned, outclassed and badly led. Fourthly a ships power was not rated by the number of guns it had but by the weight of its broadside. Thus a ship with 24 and 32 pounder guns "throws" more weight than one with the same number of 24 pounder guns. British ships tended to have smaller and less guns than French ships but the difference was that their crews were so well trained that they could get off 3 or 4 shots to the French 2. Therefore although each broadside was usually smaller every 10 minutes they actually threw twice as much iron at the French than the French returned. Lastly the tactics were different. The French preferred to stand off at a distance and shoot Langrage (in other words any old bit of iron, chain nuts and bolts stuffed into sacks or canisters ) at the sails to try to immobilise the opponent while the British liked to get right in and shoot the into the hull of the ship, killing the men, turning over the cannons and destroying its ability to continue the fight. There are several cases where the ships have been so close together that the flaming wadding from the British ship has set fire to the opposite enemy ship. (Sorry this is a bit long but I used to teach British naval history 30 years ago).

[@patriciusvunkempen102]

@@unclekevin5094 excellent essay i agree so much people always think aristocrats were lazy fucks and many were, but they also filled in key positions in society and usualy rather well, the problem in france was not that the aristocrats were decadent or untaxed but that the cost of the military was only directed at the thrid estate while in feudalism it ought to be lay on the aristocrats who get their wealth from their subjects, in france this was disconnected which gre resentment at the same time a strong upper middleclass was very very wealthy but not incooperated into the flow of power the english had solved this with the geomentry or how it is spelled. where you would basicly be part of the lower nobility by wealth and thus rich people had both share in power and dutys. in prussia it was through a more strict structure i guess but there alse were problems with the general system at the times.

[@lisa-azrabroad4137]

against the Ai? and alpha game, change a lot since then. And this is not how battles are in this game

[@weebitteeateeweebit]

Yeah, true.

[@Justin-yp1dz]

4 minutes of cannon barrages and only 30 crew dead. lmfao more like 30 crew dead each barrage lmao

[@alexius23]

Rule Britannia

[@user-do7tn7on1b]

Where the fuck is crew?

[@user-ef6hb1ut4o]

тупой бой...ни маневра, ни грамотной артиллерийской стрельбы.....ДИЗ.

[@thedictationofallah]

If this had happened in real life the Victory would win, there's lots of reasons to support that. But such a duel between two 1st rates is impossible, 1st rates never sailed alone.

[@weebitteeateeweebit]

Yes, they would never sail alone.

[@Noelegamer]

well no the ocean is faster and as agile as a 74 cannon while it is more armored than the victory and it has greater firepower

[@_benzopela_3403]

Ето нудно смотреть в 2х режиме

[@Noreik395]

british were dominant because they had far better trained gunners who could fire 2-4 times more shot in the same time as a french or spanish gun crew due to the french and spanish sitting in port for years on end, historically i could see hms victory winning if they are crewed by their specific nations crews but if they both had same skilled crews i could see it going either way as the victory in naval action really doesnt do her performance any justice, there was many reasons why she became a favorite ship of admirals to use as flagships in many campaigns even after she had been afloat long past her expected lifespan

[@weebitteeateeweebit]

Yes, and their cannon trigger was revolutionary enabling a much more rapid reload

[@Noreik395]

@@weebitteeateeweebit indeed

[@nixodk8240]

Nice staged battle ;)

[@abatur7861]

Читер

[@renesagahon4477]

Could have been a good video if he got the facts right

[@hoosieryank6731]

Guess there's no benefit from aiming at sails.

[@GreatUncleanOne1]

unfortunately, the game is slowly dying.

[@julianmarsh2758]

this game is an inaccurate computed unfair piece of crap!The victory would easily win why is she lay down in the docks of Portsmouth?

[@logman3707]

What?

[@bluestingray8955]

I mean victory won irl lmao

[@FlightTheatreAlberto]

@@bluestingray8955 not just victory, victory and a bunch of other ships the l'ocean would win in rl if it was 1v1

[@bluestingray8955]

Retirix no was a one on one point blank range

[@grauer_wolfii9262]

The real victory was sunk and the one in Portsmouth is a replica built right after the real one sunk