I think you need to keep in perspective that we're typing about cruisers here. I don't think a 2.5 unit cruiser has ever swung the outcome of a battle consisting of more than a few boats, regardless of the armament. Going from duals to triples or quads make the boats something you have to pay attention to on the water, so my reaction when taking fire goes from 'meh' to 'ouch, ouch ouch...and he's out of ammo.' The class 2 splitting units was enacted in 2007 I think, back then I built my Fiji with quads at first but didn't have skill, experience, or tech to make it viable. allowing triples for the 3 unit cruiser would be a big plus in my mind. It makes the step-deck US cruisers more attractive and closes the gap between them and Lutzow slightly. Otherwise I'm not sure that this rule would change how boats are built. Sure add a plinker to your heart's desire Firepower creep is often typed/talked about, not sure it really comes to fruition based on my review of rule changes over the past 15 years. I don't see changes in relative strength between classes 3 and below impacting relative strength of class 4 and up. In general, most captains want more guns for their ship, which is unlikely to change whether or not this rule gets proposed and changed. It's important to consider that opinions posted online don't always align with the actual voting members Going back to the text of the proposal, I would recommend just this. I don't want to have to argue over the definition of a cruiser. Everything else is covered by other rules I think: "Ships in Class 3 may split ONE combat unit into two ½ units."
I like the class 3 concept, at least Kevin's mod of it. Honestly, I'd prefer to return the class 2's to sanity, but that should be a separate proposal. As for Randy, well, I miss him too, but are we going to have a trophy for Marty, Steve M., Dan Hamilton? Where does it end? Twenty years from now is the club 5 guys getting together and swapping 90 trophies? I'd rather remember Randy with a giant smurf pirate flag at lakeside, and maybe some humorous shenanigans like taking pictures of smurfy business between sorties to post on the anti-social medias. But that's just me.
I think changing it to just say class 3 does make it neater. If someone wants to split up their PDN, well, ok cool I guess haha
As a driver of a predread i like this. I'd change over to a 75 round sidemount and take a half unit from a bow gun while keeping the half unit pump. Makes the ship more fun that way.
So, My thought was to put 10 empty name plates on so after 10 years the Trophy can retire if we wish. Can retire it sooner if we want. As for the others, I didn't know them all that well, or I would propose something to honor their memory. I don't know that an award would. After speaking with Randy's Widow and spending time with her the idea of Randy's legacy being an award for someone who puts the effort in to battle all over the country brought joy to her and the memory of Randy. If I'm in the minority and the club ultimately decides they don't want to, that's fine, but I'd like to. As for others we have lost, maybe assign their names and legacy to an existing trophy which has no special name currently if folks who knew them feel that would be a positive way to honor them.
I don’t think a 75 rd sidemount while either having a 75 Rd stern or a 50&25 stern would be better in a predread. The 50/50/50 set up works great. Sometimes you are better off not being on the water longer.
Man, I sure would like to have a pair of 75-round sterns in my PDN. I get into a whole lot of trouble trying to use up the ammo in my sidemount...
I run with a Stern sidemount. I have Nassaus tacked on my tail always. The extra rounds are more fun and useful in a sidemount than a bow gun. For me anyway. Ymmv
The problem with a stern sidemount in a predread is then you need to run 1-2 bow guns. The don’t really have the height in the turret to get downangle and they are small enough that they bounce in the water too much to keep the guns at range. I ran bow guns the first year I used Radetsky. Worked great for shooting targets. Not very good for shooting convoys. I switched and have been very happy with the ship. It’s a ton of fun in campaign and Class 1-3 battle. I’m not sure it would be as good in a fleet battle. 28sec ships are just too slow to keep up with the action sometimes.
Speaking of slow. Any appetite for a rule about giving Armored cruisers with sufficient beam a single 1 unit sidemount? I think it'd be Blucher, Warrior, Minotaur, Tennesee, Rurik, Kurama, and Tsukuba impacted by such a change, just glancing at the shiplist beams and running off of rote memory saying 73' beam was the cutoff for PDNs. 26 second hulls with a single sidemount and single 1.5 unit stern, or dual sterns and a half unit pump. that sounds like it'd be at least mildly amusing. It'd be safe considering the beam width. And.... Discuss. I could be wrong on that beam. Anywho. I'll just throw that idea grenade and get back to watch from the rafters.
I like numbers and charts. Give me a list of the predread that compare to your ACs that would get a sidemount. List length beam weight in lbs. Also a turret layout. Can any run a stern gun and a stern sidemount? An interesting proposal.
I don't think I'd be in favor of it, the change would make ACs have better features than pre-dreds (same armament, 2 sec faster), so instead of just seeing a handful of predreds, those would die off and we'd see a handful of ACs.
Cool. I can totally understand that. can you think of anything that might change the equation to bring more ACRs into the fray, yet leave Pre-dreads their spot? I just spitballed the 1 unit sidemount as a way to limit it compared to PDNs. Perhaps limit them to a single half unit sidemount? Again, I dunno. I like standard-type battleships. just a thought, and I figure with you and Bob on the thread, it'd lead to a great discussion. I don't have any of that stuff, Bob, but when I get a chance, I can get back to you.
Bob. 73' is the minimum beam. this translates to 6.08 inches. Tennessee is at 73' beam. Here's how it stacks: 'Standard config' is the typical 1-A-1 layout of PDNs and ACRs of the era. any deviation will be noted Blucher: Same layout as Nassau. can run a stern and sidemount. total junkyard dog. Kurama: standard short, look like they'd make quite a good maneuver boat Tsukuba: standard. short, look like they'd make quite a good maneuver boat Rurik: standard. she's low and leggy. good stern guns due to step deck Minotaur: standard. step deck low stern. the bow turret looks like it'd be a good high angle Warrior: wow. this looks like it'd be a fun boat to arm. Nassau turret positions, but all turrets are single mounts. can run a stern and sidemount. Tennesee: standard Overall, I think giving them a 1/2 or 1 unit limited sidemount, or something to limit their general side-mountedness would preserve the PDN role. If I had any one of these with just a 1/2 unit sidemount, I would slap in dual sterns and have that sidemount reserved for chasing down something on five. I think the sides are generally balanced. Can you guys think of ANYTHING that could preserve the PDNs while providing for the wide-body ACR? I think these little hosers would be fun to watch
If the large ones get one sidemount and one other gun they get one less gun than a predread. A few of them are the size of VDT and Radetsky. That’s pretty big for two guns. I’m interested but not convinced yet.
The large ones are 3 or 3.5 units. Maybe limiting them to two guns total if they use a sidemount is an option. They are neat boats, but I don’t see a high adoption rate happening. They are mainly a cruiser alternative. Also very few hulls available beyond scharnhorst
