To hit the masts you'd have to elevate above the horizon, and I agree with Carl on the nightmare of re-rigging (however, I think it'd be GREAT fun to successfully dismast your opponent. Oh heck yeah!). Maybe if we had some kind of trippable hinge on the masts that tripped when a certain weight of water was aboard, use a float switch or something. More complex though.
Placing the shot-activated dismasting mechanism inside the hull might work. Put it under the mast step, so when you get hit there, you lose a mast.
It'd be interesting to design it such that loss of one mast doesn't remove your control of the other(s). Tricky.
Just me but I think at least initially the sails should be for show anyway, yet able to raise and lower them. Using them to drive the ship might be not only too complicated but a barrier to those that cant figure it out. Tug, this can be my first wooden ship!
This is a delicate stage in the formation of a whole new style of battling. You have to decide the historical aspects you are going to include, and which ones must be simplified or excluded. In fast gun clubs, the combat power of a ship is translated into units, while in big gun clubs, the model's armament is derived from the armament of the historical ship. Both systems work just fine. Neither club worries about plunging fire, radar fire control, or anti-aircraft capabilities. They exclude them because they are too complex to simulate and still have a fun game. It's hard enough to get a model to drive and shoot reliably, and adding in radar is just one more thing to break down at the last minute. My point is that taking out masts and rigging, while an important part of combat in the Age of Sail, is not a good idea for models. It is not safe to fire upwards at the sails, and it is unnecessarily complex to build a mechanism inside the hull to disable the mast when hit. With the mines, transports, docks, and LST's with little tanks we have in big gun, it is very easy to forget the basics. At the heart of any combat club are two ships shooting holes in each other. Get that down before trying anything else.
Johnny, I'll do a class on one if someone has plans of USS Constitution, Bon Homme Richard, or HMS Victory. One of the French ones from the website Carl found would be cool, too. But I'd love an Old Ironsides. @Eric, I'm not advocating dismasting gear, just saying it would be cool, not necessary to the game. The points you raise are very valid re: forming a new club/format/whtev.
Now that I'm safely ensconced and warm at home, I have a few more thoughts: 1) I'd like to hear from John Clayborn (who started the Age of Sail gun thread) about what he's been doing (I think he said there were a few guys involved in it with him) and what rules they have used or were thinking of. 2) I'd like to hear what people think would be good to carry over from fast gun, big gun, etc, and what would be best left behind. Ideas on arming/units/etc would be good to hear. Propulsion, more specifically, if motors are allowed to assist becalmed vessels, what restrictions should be put on them? Should there be restrictions on rudder size? If you allow the generic ships as Johnathon proposed (which I'm not saying I'm against), what restrictions do you impose on them to keep them reasonably in line with historical ships? 3) Upon a little searching, dummy me remembered 'oh, last time I cruised Amazon, there were several Anatomy of the Ship books on Victory, Old Ironsides, and other sailing ships...'
Hey Tugboat, I've got digital plans for HMS Tremendous, a British-built 74-gun third rate. There is almost no difference between her and any other British 74, because they didn't change much. If you want a generic ship, that's about as generic as they come. French ships have more variation, but I also have a much wider selection of plans for them.
I read for a while about the Constituion and the Victory last night. Very cool stuff. Doug down here in Houston is very interested as well. I think that a new style blended gun would be easy to use as the fast gun cannons are far less expensive than those big gun rigs. I would like to see at LEAST 4 guns on each side. Anymore than that and air supply would be a problem. In messing with the numbers a little the Constitution being 200+ feet would need to be 1/48 to be a decent size to hold air and such. How much weight it could hold before it had an unrealistic waterline.. I dont know. I was thinking of ways to make the wood parts on the top of the ship so they can be replaced after battles to make them 'lookers' again. I suppose they could be screwed down.
Since Jonathan started with 1/48, that was the scale I thought about... it'd make Constitution and Victory both a little over 4' long. If you base the movement on wind power vice motors, batteries wouldn't need to be as big. I figure that a 9 ounce CO2 bottle could sit in the middle of the hull to supply all those cannons. If you look at the RC tank combat rules, they simplified the build rules and thus eliminated a lot of arguing over technicalities. If used in this milieu, it'd lead to individual looking ships, but with similar firepower for a given size vessel. I'd want at least 4 guns per side per gun deck, but also reward guys who build the bigger two and three gun deck ships (maybe allow a certain number of firing guns per deck, simplify the situation but still reward building bigger/more complex vessels. Limiting pump output more severely than current formats might be worth looking at, too. The way I'm thinking, simple, easy rules can reward good shiphandling (considerably more important in sail-powered RC combat anyway).
It just occurred to me while running around at work thinking about shiphandling... no solid area at bow or stern, apart from a small area along the keel to fasten balsa to... half of the fun would be maneuvering to cross the 'T'!
Given the complex shapes of sailing ships' bows, and the amount of structural detail work up there, I don't think it's a good idea to make the bow penetrable. The stern galleries, on the other hand... no problem! Heck, sheet it with thinner balsa, or give lots of bonus points for shooting there So, quick review. Ideas suggested so far are: 1) building to 1:48 scale 2) using, or at least allowing, "generic" ships 3) Allowing a certain number of guns per gun deck, or a certain number of guns per mast per gun deck (some ships only have one or two masts) 4) Penetrable stern or/and bow 5) maybe propulsion-assist motors? (depending on difficulty of sailing) A few other issues to consider: 1) what thickness of armor? (suggestion: stick with 1/32" or 1/16", for ease of sheeting difficult curved hull shapes) 2) what caliber of guns? (suggestion: stick with .177", for wider range of gun designs and simplified ammunition requirements) 3) Should deepened keels be allowed? (suggestion: yes, full-length deepened keels should be allowed to improve sailing, stability, safety) 4) What about rudders? 5) what about bulwarks (hull sides that extend above the main deck, often with gun ports cut in the sides) Also, Tugboat, what sort of price range would we be looking at to arm a frigate like HMS Surprise, with one and a half decks of guns, using your suggestion of 4 guns per side per gundeck? I know it's about $25 per barrel for cannons, but what about all the extra hardware to fire large banks of cannons?
I will have time today at work to do price calculations (we're going to have 2 docs, 2 medical assistants, and me (the nurse)... the 2 MA's said they'd do all the pt workups if I gave all the shots! Glee!) (yes, I love giving shots. Who wants one?) I was thinking 1/32" balsa and .177" guns for the reasons Carl gave. I have no qualms with sticking a bulb keel on the bottom (out of sight, out of mind), or allowing various types of drop keels such as sailboats that are built for close-to-shore use. I would not want stabilizers that showed under normal use. If there was going to be a rule on such things, I would suggest something like 'No non-period stabilizing devices unless they are invisible under normal sailing conditions'. So basically, as long as the ship LOOKS like a period vessel, it's good to go. No super-detailed rules, just regulate undesired end results. If Carl (engineer X-treem!) can develop an artificial gravity coil to use for stabilizing his ship, then 1) I want in on it and 2) it's legal as long as the coil's beta nodes aren't showing under normal conditions I printed some plans at work and spent some time looking at them between torturing small children, which gave me two things: some ideas on penetrability and gun rules, and screams to ease my workday. Looking at the plans of the 2nd-rate Frigate Artemise (www.all-model.com) I think that arming-wise, we could base the guns on two things: First, number of gun decks. I thought, 'maybe half-gundecks count half', but then remembered that some ships have a partial gundeck (bulwark) at bow and stern, so would they get 2/3 of a full gundeck? I think the right (and simplest, least-arguing by rivet-counter) method would be that a gun deck counts as a gun deck. If it's only half, then hey, that's fine. Cram up to a gun deck's worth of guns in that area. The idea being (in my thoughts anyway) that 2-4 guns more or less will not be that critical when you're talking broadsides. I think the increased complexity will initially at least keep people from building 120-gun tyrants of the waves. I, while loving a challenge, wouldn't consider it, and I speculate that a well-handled nimble Surprise or Artemise could sink a leviathan. So, I suggest simple gun rule (first part), gun deck = gun deck as long as the deck is half the length of the main gun deck. Ships with a small bow and stern gun deck (bulwarks) that together are more than half the length of the main gun deck, count as a full gun deck for arming purposes, although the guns must be split reasonably evenly between them (i.e. a 2-3 split is fine, a 4-1 split isn't). If the bulwarks together aren't half the length of the main gun deck, then they don't count. This is a really rough approximation, not bean counting For measuring gun decks, pick a standard and go with it (not as individuals, I mean as a club); either from the outside edges of the outer-most gunports, or something. As long as it's consistent. Second, scaled length of ship, divided by 10 (rounding normally, i.e. 45" ship gets 5 guns, 44.5" ship gets 4), per deck. That would make both Constitution and HMS Victory get 5 guns per deck by either standard, which is not truly representative of the real ship's combat power (50 and 100 guns, respectively) but I think it well-nigh impossible for anyone to cram 10 guns per deck into a 48" long ship. I could be proven wrong, but hey, these are just my thoughts on the matter I almost forgot pumps! I suggest: limit pumps to .75"/19mm diameter impellers in single-stage cetntrifugal pumps. Discharge of the pump to be at least 12 inches from the rudder. No rotating the discharge to aid the helm. Rudders... hmmm.... I haven't thought seriously about rudder areas, but obviously that'd need addressing.
Attention thread readers: I have been grossly defamed in an email. James (Anachronous) posited this scandalous opinion over the aether-web... "Clark, I can hear your mental gears a grinding away on this four states away. " This is positively and patently UNTRUE!! He has no evidence whatsoever that I have at this moment 20 1/48 scale frames drawings of HMS Minerva*, a 50-gun 2nd-rate Frigate, upon my desk here at work. No proof at all! *There was no ship by this name of this type in the RN, but there was in the French navy. Call it artistic license. IF I was building one.
Also was thinking about penetrable area... was thinking about keeping it simple... from 2" above the waterline down to 1" below must be penetrable, maybe 1/8" solid around gunports, and 3/8" thickness for decks where the deck is within the required penetrable area.
Mental gears? Ha Everyone knows that's the screw working it's way loose..... But I have to admit as silly as I think this whole age of sail combat thing is the thought of putting 15 guns sitcking out each side of a boat would be pretty cool, as long as there were ROF and Ammo limits. (then again 15 guns pumping out shots at fast gun ROF would be pretty impressive to watch)
I was thinking about guns and co2 and with the beam of most of these ships, and more than 8 cannons with solenoids, and enough air for 25 shots for each cannon it might be too heavy for the ship. I can get all 225 shots out of my baden with 3.5 oz tank with a little left to spare, max 240 shots. So we could say that with 3.5oz and 25 shot guns you could have 9 guns but very little margin for error, 50 shot guns - 4. That would be the best bet as 8 guns would leave you a little air left over, 8 firing guns, and the weight savings of the bottle. The 7 ounce would be better if its decided to do the standard 50 per gun. Another reason for 25 is shorter magazines as space will be very tight in the ship. I think when you start trying to put 3 decks of cannons you wont be able to put 8 coil guns on a side. I suppose you could use a big gun cannon and have 3 barrels of different height one stacked over the other on each deck. I estimate that would be about $100 per barrel with no solenoids. You can use 100psi mouse solenoids but they wont do much damage will they? I think above the water they might but it will be harder to make holes below the water. 8 -12 kips can be very heavy and I know that big gun rigs are much heaver even without the solenoid. A good cross-format pump would be to use like the BC mini pump, with an approved motor, at an approved voltage. I for one have no idea how to restrict the pump flow to a certain rate. I can however supply a specified voltage onto a specified motor, onto a specified pump. Would 4 secs on reload satisfy all? Bottom line is I suggest it not be too complicated. It would be a much smaller cross section of what we have so even as low as numbers are now.. this will be a tiny sliver or that amount. Costs and complexity should be considered or you will end up with only 2 or 3 guys involved. Just my .02 Johnny
Smaller beam? HMS Minerva (a fairly 'middle of the road' ship, has a beam of 23.3 cm (9 inches) with like 4" draft!! In any case, I was visualizing smaller magazines than IRCWCC and MWC use, and looking at trying multiple guns from one valve. This will sap some power, but let me play and see what I get hit in the face with. I'd definately want ROF restrictions... I was thinking 8 seconds, at least until someone has some idea of how fast the ships will move. An alternative to the multiple guns would be to have guns with the interrupter set to allow two BBs per shot. I hadn't really expected anyone to try to build a ship with three gundecks for quite a while, as impressive as they may be. The smaller 2nd and 3rd rate frigates are much more do-able. Space-inside-wise, these ships have considerably more room that a 1/144 scale ship of the same model length, because they don't have the long, slender hull forms that modern ships do. Also, the batteries would be considerably smaller, freeing more weight and room for multiple CO2 bottles if needed. (and other gas system stuff)
Grossly defamed? I think not, it is merely one ADD afflicted hobbyist recognizing the condition in a fellow sufferer! So what time frames are we thinking of? Up to La Gloire and Warrior?
