Hi Justin, Will your rule proposal be narrow i.e just for this one boat or will the proposal be broad?
If I recall it is changing the verbiage to be ‘commissioned after’ and not ‘launched after’ but not sure if the years are changing. These were just the focus because the Jersey was launched in late 1905 so it missed the cut off by a month, which is silly as they were all part of the US Atlantic fleet of pre-WW1.. other ships of that fleet are legal and all were obsolete by the outbreak of WW1. So why make some arbitrary year that excludes ships that all sailed together. But thats for others to argue. I have a legal main ship.
Hi Dark, Yea that arbitrary year of 1905 for the hobby is 45 years of tradition. Probably the change will be along the lines you suggest, the "verbiage".
Hey Haw Haw; I will be changing how it reads to ships launched after 1904 which will only bring in 4 new ships total to the hobby which isn’t that bad since it is easier than the “commissioned after” rule which could possibly bring more ships into the hobby.
the four ships are; Connecticut class PDN (US) Liberté Class PDN (French) Roon Class ACR (German) Duke Of Edinburgh ACR (Britain)
Thanks for the reply, yes those are nice. Especially the Roon class, I do so love my german boats. Just to be clear, the rule will read as all "all ships launched 1904-46"
Yes so pretty much just changed the 1905 to 1904 and that’s the only thing I am looking to change in the rules nothing major just moving it back one year
Hi Justin, Would you consider a first draft alternative. "all pre dreadnought battleships prior to Jan, 1905 with a 73ft beam that were laid down, launched and completed shall be legal"
I am for adding these few ships (none seem preposterous or game-changers ;-) But whatever wording is used, it would be best to research a list of known ships it would add so people can look (if it sounds like an unknown floodgate it will worry some captains) I am guessing there won't be resistance to pushing it back 1 year and adding a short list of known ships it would allow. BrianK
I have researched the ships for pushing it back one year and I feel that adding 3 total ships ( 1 PDN 2 ACRs) won’t be game breaking I wouldn’t want to do any research or changing the wording that much to include beam or anything like that because then it brings too much controversy to the game.
@Justin Ragucci and @bkoehler, so sorry for this very late reply. Just for context, looked up what 73ft beam would bring. Japanese pre dreadnought. Fuji class Shikishima class Asahi class Mikasa class German pre dreadnought Wittelsbach class French pre dreadnought. Jaureguiberry class Republique class Russia pre dreadnought. Tri Sviatitelia class Potemkin class Tsearevich class United States pre dreadnought. Virginia class Connecticut class Uk pre dreadnought Royal Sovereign(1891) Majestic class Canopus class Formidable class London class Duncan class
The rule has already been proposed at NATs this year as written and it has made it onto the ballot. Please keep an eye out for it. If you would like to propose something with the 73ft than you can write something up for next NATs
BB-62 didn’t go to NATs and BB-16 isn’t done yet. BB-62 isn’t ready for NATs yet and she won’t be at NATs next year either as I’ll have too much to worry about with being admiral and helping the CD as well. But I will be battling her up until NATs
