Gun arrangement is a clone of Bismark. Two sides up front, and two split off rear like you have. Right now I have the doubles going straight off the rear but will be changing that... maybe...
It worked great for me. The Go Pro caught both guns in action and hitting the target. What I like the most is that the C turret haymaker surprised the enemy most of the time. THey couldn't see it very well and it was mainly responsible for getting those well placed nasty belows on Rob's NC. I enjoyed the fact that it was very easy to keep both guns trained on the enemy ship when they began to cross the stern block thus exposing themselves. I tagged a lot of ships with the single cannon in D turret only to follow up immediatly by either backing in but most times I let off the throttle and had fun watching the enemy come into gun range on . It was a very easy way to get guns on target and point them wih the D turret at range and get those quality belows when they tried the hug and slug on my stbd quarter with C Turret. I wish we could have more units there and have them as dual haymaker,dual stern(death Y pattern) and keep the Dual sidemounts. Boy that would be really fun. Be that as it may I was able to protect my quarters very well and utilize both Turrets back there.
I saw you land an impressive number of shots there. Plus you wiggled back and forth catching them on both sides. Coming up from behind you was a lose - lose deal. If the proposal next year to eliminate sides or drop units happens, I know where I am putting all my weapons. The c turret on mine was a favorite too. I cut a nice pattern in the moo's side during the one on one and that was all C Kinda looked like a c too!
I hope that doesn't happen with dropping the sides. It took over 30 yrs allow Bismarcks to be able to carry the dual sides. Far as I am concerned anything 800ft and above should be allowed to carry dual sides. Anything over 700 ft should be allowed at least one dual side. My CWC-X rules allows up to 4 in a side. I never had that kind of success with my C turret and I got to admit I didn't think much about those single aft cannons in seperate turrets angled that way. I thought the duals were going to be my main weapons but turns out the stern guns I was able to use more accuratly and get those nicely placed shots. I had better control in lining up the target. More fun frustrating the ships behind me and just keeping them in range of the guns. I don't think most people have an issue with it. I find there is always somebody who just can't stand the thought of certain ships with better combat factors if the ships are correctly setup and battled properly. Look what we poured into those Sodaks and NC.s with the dual side mounts and they went Toe to Toe with no problems. They had the smaller target more maneuverability edge and triples to boot. I don't think were going to see this happen. There are plenty of Bismarck ships now with a voice. On the other hand Nagato's should be able to have 2 sidemounts but in seperate turrets. I was surprised not to see 1 Nagato class. I selling my Konig to Tom Cromwell so he can use it for NATS. Likewise I am building VDT and VU for Nats. Transport is easier and keeps costs and handling down. So his IOWA and mine are put on the backburner to build these ships. We were both looking at an Arizona and A Tennesee but will hold off that idea seeing that we have the other ships here.
Curt, Did Tom bring HMS Erebus with him to Nfld? He bought it from me incomplete in 2008 and planned to work on it last summer while in Halifax, not having had time to do anything with it in the 2008-2009 school year. I expect it will turn as tight as HMS Roberts or Gorgon, being the only warship class in the hobby with bow and stern rudders, Bob
I believe the original intent of the dual sidemounts in a single turret was to give ships that physically could not mount all of their cannons in main turrets a place to put them. For instance, Yamatos, Iowas, Richelieu, Rodney, and Vanguard. The Yammer/Iowa/Vangaurd need it because they have so many units, and the Richelieu and Rodney because of the all forward turret arrangments. The only ship that benefitted from the 800' and more rule was the Bismarck. Personally, I have no problem with a 7 unit Bismarck. It is the dual sidemount in a single turret in a Bismarck that I dislike.
I see your point there however that doesn't apply to Vanguard seeing that it too has 4 turrets just like Bismarck. I think that since they can utilize the dual side mount there's been more interest in them and their getting a little more respect as opposed to being thought of as a very large lumbering easy target. It 's nice to have a few more options in setting up the guns and it gives them a better balance of laying out their offensive and defensive capabilities.If I had a Vanguard I would set it up with dual side mounts and the Y setup with single guns same as Bismarck. I can see the Nagatos having a dual side mount arrangement but in seperate Turrets. The Bismarck class is larger again so having that ability to set up dual side mounts from a single turret in that class makes it more competitive but not everyone with a Bismarck will opt to set it up that way because they are harder to use and more difficult to set up for a lot of people. I find too that with Bis most people are comfortable with setting up dual sterns and a hay maker a side mount and a bow mount. . If that ruling was taken away well seeing what the single Y aft set up can do having them set up as duals and 2 single side mounts still works for Bismarck.It would be like having quads but in dual aft mounts angled 15 degrees each side which would be nasty. Hood would benefit if their was a rule proposal to allow that ship more options to set up her guns. But you don't see a lot of Hoods in fast gun maybe because of the limits on cannon setup imposed under the current rules. Honestly I would love to see the Nelson Class, Richelieu, and KGV classes have more options to setup their cannons. Triple side mount dual side mount and no stern cannon as one option for the Richelieu That would make them unique. KGV, heck give it an extra unit to mount quad sterns and 2 single side mounts. That should make that ship more competitive . I understand that in MWC the NC's are allowed to use 1 Turret as a Dual Side Mount.What are your thoughts on that?
Hi Bob. Yes Tom did bring that back and he mentioned today that he would like to get that ship finished. He started on the Konig today and I started work again on the VDT. We decided to use these ships for the Next Nats as their easier to transport and will help reduce costs.
NCs and Sodaks can only have one gun arrangement ... triple sterns and single sidemounts. The rules prevent any other setup. So taking the logic a little further, perhaps NCs and Sodaks should be allowed dual sidemounts so they to can have the flexibility for different gun arrangements?
I for one think NC's and Sodaks should have more arming options right now you have one choice and while good if you allow them to use duel sides with the established 6 units it gives them some more options and this is what the hobby needs. Limiting players has and will continue to turn people off building certain ships, open it up a little and really explore what this hobby is capable of.
I have a sodak and I battled with sodaks. They are a very closely matched set Sodak/ NC and Bis I was sank by one. The bis is longer (more to protect) but the sodaks and NC's are like fatter bulldogs and can turn under. I don't think the sides made or broke the bis. My damage was done with the rear guns mostly Defintely should pull the vanguard sides as that is supposed to be the counter ship and then you're right, you won't see as many of either ship. Vanguard is a seven unit.
Response to Richielieu Funny you mentioned that .The CWC-X rules I created allows ships up to 4 firing cannons in any quadrant. So any ship can have options for set up unless it's a Monitor like the Terror where there is only 1 Turret . Trying to remember now how I had it written I think I had the NCs and Sodaks as class 7s and the Bis and Vanguards 8 units as an example Iowas get 10 and Yamato's get 10. I think. Triples all around for Iowas and Yamatos.If I remember. I'll have to repost it or get a link set up so you can see it. I may be off here on what I am stating but I am positive I would allow up to 4 firing quadrants in any quadrant. NC's and Sodaks are already very very deadly and efficient now but would you sacrifice a tripple for a dual sidemount? That is the question. If you were allowed one extra unit then you got yourself some options like a dual side, single side tripple or 2 dual sides and a dual stern. Hey imagine triple, dual and a single stern...hmmm certaintly would be interesting to see how the Captains would allocate units. Eventually they would settle in for what works well with them. Most likely the tripples would be retained. Maybe inflationary but it would be taking it to a finer edge.
Thanks for clarifying that for me Snipehunter. Were they experimenting with that setup as a trial run?
I agree. Even with the dual sidemounts the only one that sank directly from them was Ginger's NC.. sorry Ginger. But the rest of those Sodaks and NCs and of course throw in the NJ were extremely tough to sink even with duals. If there is anybody out there with any doubts about a smaller slower battleship going against monsters like Bis and Yamatos then you need to see the vids of this 2010 nats. Those single sidemounts were just as lethal. Jersey was even crazier. Throw in a scary Erin and a pesky invincible and Bis had a lot of scary targets coming after it. :cry:
Not that I've ever heard of, NCs are deadly enough as is. Giving them more firepower isnt really necessary.
As soon as you inflate a ship on one side, the other side will want one of their's inflated. But I would still match my Duke up against a Bis anyday.
You're battling up in class, You will always win that battle if the bigger ship sticks around (unless they prop wash you or suck you under) I would take that battle too.
