Rule Proposal 2020.X – Randy Stiponovich Let’s Battle Award Purpose: This Rule is intended to create a new award to be given to the battler that competes in the highest number of sorties annually. In the unlikely event of a tie, the person who travelled farthest to Nats shall be awarded the trophy. It is named for Randy Stiponovich who was a staple at battles across the country. He always brought a positive attitude and an excitement for battling. He would help anyone and everyone he could. His calmness and positive attitude was always a refreshing voice for the hobby. Tragically he passed away just before Thanksgiving 2019 leaving behind many friends. Proposed: Add following text to Part IV – Awards, Section ‘A’ Individual Awards, 9. Randy Stiponovich Let’s Battle Award A. This travelling award will be given to the battler who competes in the highest number of sorties. In the event of a tie the Award will be given to the battler who travelled furthest to Nats. The recipient shall hold the trophy until the following year’s awards banquet at Nats and is responsible for ensuring it makes it to the awards banquet. Rule Proposal 2020.Y – Increase Class 3 Cruiser Armament Options Purpose: This rule is intended to allow captains of class 3 cruisers to choose an additional method to arm their ships. As the rules state now, class 3 cruisers have the option to arm 2 1 unit cannons and a 1 unit pump. Class 2 cruisers with 2.5 units carry the same amount of fire power and are 1 second faster. There is little incentive to build a class 3 ship as it is slower and offers no more firepower. While a full size pump will be equipped, a cruiser rarely needs the additional damage control capacity. This rule is intended to allow a class 3 cruiser to split ONE of its combat units into 2 ½ units, one of which must be used as a pump, allowing the other ½ unit to be added to a cannon or to mount an additional cannon with the caveat that no more than 2 cannons may fire into the same quadrant. This allows a captain to outfit a ½ unit pump, then arm a 1 unit cannon and a 1.5 unit cannon off the stern; alternatively the captain may arm their ship with 2 1 unit cannons off the stern and a ½ unit cannon off the bow with a ½ unit pump. Proposed: Add the Following text to Construction Requirements Section E. Cannons subsection 11 (authorized exceptions): g. Class 3 cruisers may split ONE combat unit into two ½ units. One of these ½ units must be used as a pump. The other ½ unit may be added to a 1 unit cannon or used as an additional cannon. A class 3 cruiser that splits one of its combat units may not have more than 2 cannons firing into any single quadrant.
Here are 2 proposals I've come up with for discussion and tweaking prior to submission. I think the first one is pretty obvious but I am open to suggestions and constructive criticism on either. I am building the trophy for the proposed award and will donate it to the club. Thanks for your input!
I like them both. For the first, as the secretary it's easier for me to keep track of number of battles instead of number of sorties. I don''t get visibility on if a battle is 2 sorties or 3 sorties, also harder to account for 1st sortie sinks (not impossible). I would clarify the first sentence as well to say that its over the whole year of battling (assuming that's the intention). For the second, why not allow more than 3 cannons in same quadrant? It would allow a northhampton 25rd triple sterns (then doubles for remaining 25). 25rd triple (or quad) sterns are allowed on class 2
Wouldn't it be simple enough to just amend the rule to allow all ships class 3 and below to split units? The only thing you run the risk of doing is allowing predreads to split units and none of them I can think of have more than 2 main battery turrets? Correct me if I'm wrong. If someone uses that to stuff a six gun into a cruiser, have fun I guess?
Salt Lake City would become a popular boat if you can figure out how to arm all five of the stern guns at once. It'd be amusing to see if it could even turn without capsizing, but such firepower in a cruiser hull would be worth the attempt....
I'll be honest.... After seeing the damage that can be done with my quad Stern's with the duca (2.5u cruiser), I am not sold on the splitting of units with no restrictions on qty per quadrant. In the end , further increasing the stern gun firepower in cruisers will just result in some next tier up requiring changes (as is being noted here with the 3u cruisers). beware unintended consequences.
Most cruisers don't have the weight or main battery gun barrels for any sort of crazy stern arrangement. I'm OK with modifying existing rules, but not okay with creating new situational restrictions.
Quad Stern's in 8 pounds overall ship weight is now straightforward. Weight really isn't an impedement anymore down to about there.
What would they do with the extra gun? The Balt & Des Moines already get triples. Putting a bow gun on the would be stupid. The Axis large CAs use twin sterns. Then have a mostly useless high turret stern or a bow gun that again is a bad idea.
I wouldn't say its straight forward. I've seen one that actually comes to battles. I doubt it would become an epidemic. And if you decide to stuff six half unit cannon into a cruiser, have fun with the class 6 boat worth of complexity and $$ you've sunk into 25 trigger pulls. Don't miss? And even then, I can't think of many cruisers who had a pair of triple turrets aft. Going back to the actual proposal, As the owner/operator of a class 3 cruiser (suffren) I don't think I'd use this rule at all. Also, it kind of robs the 3.5 boats of their one trick pony. The 22 vs 23 sec 2.5 vs 3.0 argument, in my opinion, is an argument of damage control vs speed. The 2.5 has the same firepower, sure, but it is going to have half the damage control. In my opinion it caters to a different playing style. However, I do believe that if 2.5 cruisers can split units to run quad sterns, class 3 should too. No sense having a light cruiser that packs a larger punch than a heavy. Either they shouldn't be able to split, or all cruisers should.
It is really not hard. Just 3d print cannons, and most of the difficulty goes away. I put my duca cannons I've been using in a quad stern setup in the resources section for anyone to use. Ive been running quad Stern's on a light cruiser now for a while. It took anemic ship and made it a real threat to anything with a larger bow. It is really fun on the sending end, less so on the receiving end. which is where I am on the whole bit. It made the lights more fun and practical to run with effect.... Just seems like too much effect in my opinion. same problem people had with converging sidemounts. I tend to think all ships should be free to split or combine units however they like, but that no two turrets should be allowed to impact within 4 inches of each other.
I understand that this is your experience and your opinion, but since this is an IRCWCC rules proposal I am going by what I actually see at IRCWCC events. I have encountered 1 quad stern cruiser at a regional, none at NATs. I could be mistaken, someone who knows an active quad stern ship that was at NATs 2019 please correct me. I believe in balancing the game. This rules discussion has only highlighted the disparity between 2 and 3 unit cruisers. Makes little sense for a light cruiser that had 4 twin 6" guns to have more "punch" than a heavy cruiser that had 3 triple 8" guns. Does this mean that we should give that heavy cruiser more firepower, or does it mean that we should actually take some away from the light cruiser? Power creep is a very real thing. The discussion about quad sterns has only brought to my attention that maybe 2.5 unit cruisers shouldn't have that unit splitting ability after all? Hmmmmmm take away the ability for 2.5 unit boats to split units, suddenly the 2.5 vs 3 disparity is solved as well, and we didn't create a new disparity with 3.5 unit or 2 unit cruisers. Balancing a game is a tricky business. House of cards, domino effect, etc, etc. Then again, we are talking about cruisers here in what a lot of people consider a battleship game. A ton of people will vote one way or another simply because "I don't care about cruisers, sure." or "I don't care about cruisers, no."
So, to answer some of the questions brought up. My reason for limiting the 3 unit cruisers that split to dual sterns was to not take away the triple sterns from the 3.5 unit cruisers. That is, essentially, all they have going for them and they should get to keep that. As for the splitting up of multiple units in class 2, that is a separate issue at this time for me. You can currently have quad sterns, although they are only 25 rounds each. Very powerful in the right circumstances. But still only 25 trigger pulls and 100 bbs. Would there be more interest in letting 3 unit cruisers split 1 unit, and then restricting class 2 ships to only splitting 1 unit as well? 2.5 unit ships would still be able to split 1 unit and mount triples. Or is the restriction on more than 2 cannons in a quadrant the sticking point? If letting 3.0 unit ships mount triples (though 1 is a 1/2) robbing too much from the 3.5 unit ships? I don't have all those answers for the club. I just like the idea of giving some options so that the choice between a 2.5 unit cruiser and a 3.0 unit cruiser has benefits for each way to go. And as BSG said, no captain HAS to split their units on a 3.0 unit cruiser. You might want to take it into dangerous territory and like the extra damage control potential. Gerald battled his Maya as such and the thing took as much damage as the smaller class 4s to sink. Someone else might say, oh hey, I can get 25 extra trigger pulls but I still have to be kinda careful, that sounds fun!
I will amend the proposal for battles rather than sorties to ease secretary duties for sure! For the second I am open to not restricting the cannons, but, some people feel strongly about the triples. It sounds like the class 2 splitting all their units might be a separate issue to discuss too? But I'd still like the current proposal to focus on class 3 cruisers. I can clarify to say CL, CA, and CAE. I'm not talking about PDN splitting up units with this one at this time.
I am conflicted because on one side I believe that every captain should have the freedom to build their ship as they wish. However on the other side I believe that there is a disparity between quad stern 2.5 cruisers and the 3.0 and 3.5 cruisers. But buffing is always a dangerous solution because you can very quickly end up with power creep and unintended consequences. I could possibly agree with the following, 2.5 and 3.0 Unit cruisers are allowed to split 1 unit only. This removes some of the quad stern sillyness, gives the 3.0 boats a little more freedom. No extra restriction. There will only be so many logical ways to use that splittable unit. The 2.5 would essentially get 1 full unit and 3 half units. The 3.0 would get 2 full units and two half units. Still not too sure. Would have to sit down and really look at the changes to specific ships that this could create.
The first one is Brian's HMS Ajax, The second is Clark's USS Omaha. Omaha I've never seen battle. Ajax is the 1 I was talking about actually battling.
That was a difference I was going to point out. The larger Class 3's can usually be made to handle more damage (Class 2's are very unforgiving with damage) - which helps in finding "niche's" for both. I like how the rule makes the Class 3.5's just truly a 1/2 unit gun more (ie, triples, but drops to duals after 25 shots). Assuming both those captains choose the 1/2 pump and decided to "battle carefully" (lower damage control) I can also appreciate the concerns over quad 2.5's (this from the guy with the quad Ajax mentioned earlier). I could probably consider the revision idea about only one unit split. But I will say 25 unit quads are tricky and have limits as well (have to remain calm.. that quick "spray and pray" volley usually empties most the magazine into the water). Brian K
Brandon, I also think it’s a great change and agree that the split units for all 2 and 3 should be limited to 1 split, which would be a different rule proposal of course.
