Battlestations Rules

Discussion in '1/96 Battlestations' started by Tugboat, Apr 15, 2008.

  1. Tugboat

    Tugboat Facilitator RCWC Staff Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Posts:
    8,298
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    Honestly, with the bigger scale, I'd give them 1/2".
     
  2. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    Sounds good. I was looking at the Arkansas stats and realized that the monitor has a deeper draft than a Flushdecker. The DD has more freeboard though.

    I am not sure how to limit the rule though. Should it be based on the draft of the original vessel or the displacement?
     
  3. Kotori87

    Kotori87 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Posts:
    3,530
    How about an application process? ie if you can convince other people like the tech officer, or half the club, that your ship needs extra depth, then you get the extra depth and a note is added to the ship list saying "this ship is allowed extra depth".

    This way you avoid having unbuildable ships that are just outside the extra-depth limit that cannot compete with inferior opponents that are just under the extra-depth limit, like what sometimes happens in Big Gun.
     
  4. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    That sounds reasonable. The whole Battlestations rules process is very much a work in progress. We can grandfather in things as needed after every thing settles.
     
  5. rcengr

    rcengr Vendor

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Posts:
    1,293
    Location:
    Ohio
    We were discussing the hull window rules this weekend at the build session, and since we didn't have a copy of the rules we kind of winged it. I looked up our questions when I got home and discovered there are two items that the rules are silent on. I don't know where in the rules process we are, but I thought I would bring them up for discussion.
    First, does the bow solid area follow the line of the bow, or does it have to be perpendicular to the waterline? For instance, the Baltimore uses a vertical bulkhead to define the back of the solid area and has plenty of area below the -1" line to keep the bow strong. However, on ships with less displacement depth and a raked clipper bow, (as we found on the Artemis) you end up with a very little hull left if you use a vertical line, creating a weak spot. Based on this observation, I recommend the rules allow the bow solid area to follow the forward line of the bow as in fast gun and Treaty.
    Next, there is no rule that allows the builder to move the bottom of the windows to the 45 or 60 degree turn of the bilge in the back. Again, I think that if we follow the -1" line the whole way, there will be a weak spot in the stern, especially for low draft vessels. The Baltimore is set up for the 45 degrees and we also cut the windows for the Artemis on this line. So I'm recommending allowing the builder to follow the 45 degree turn of the build for the bottom of the windows.
    So I don't know if these omissions were intentional or accidental but I'm interested in what people think should be in the rules.
     
  6. Tugboat

    Tugboat Facilitator RCWC Staff Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Posts:
    8,298
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    I could've sworn that the 45 degree thing was in there. I'll put it in, because I know for a fact we've discussed it in the past and it was agreed to be a Good Thing.

    I will also put in the 'following the curve of the bow' part, that's the intent (And soon it will be the letter!) of the rules.

    EDIT: Changes have been entered in the rules.
     
  7. dietzer

    dietzer Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    739
    Thanks, Tugboat!
    BTW, those items were missing in the original Battlestations! ruleset, too. I mistakenly cut the Shimakaze's bow using the straight vertical line because of that, and then found out after talking to Joe Kutz that he meant for the rules to follow the bow. Then I started trying to build back up the Shimakaze's bow with fiberglass and West Systems Epoxy because my cuts had made the hull only 1/4" thick at the bow!

    Carl
     
  8. Tugboat

    Tugboat Facilitator RCWC Staff Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Posts:
    8,298
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    Glad to be of service :)
     
  9. NASAAN101

    NASAAN101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Posts:
    2,506
    Location:
    Pittsburgh PA, USA
    EDIT!! This post by Nikki has been moved to its own thread in an appropriate forum. Not to bust your chops, Nikki, just don't need to discuss that in the Battlestations rules thread :) k? :) Tugboat the Forum Fascist :woot:
     
  10. dietzer

    dietzer Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    739
    OK, here's another rules question.

    The rules specify what thickness of balsa to use based on the ship's armor, but do not specify if we are to silkspan one side of the balsa or both sides.

    As I recall, Joe Kutz, the original founder of Battlestations!, was always for having silkspan on only one side of the balsa skin. However, I think Treaty does silkspan on both sides of the balsa skin.

    So what should we use for Battlestations!? Silkspan on just one side, or on both sides?

    Carl
     
  11. Tugboat

    Tugboat Facilitator RCWC Staff Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Posts:
    8,298
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    I think both sides is fine, it doesn't seem to hurt any of the fast gun formats. Anyone have a diverging opinion? I'd like a devil's advocate to chip in :)
     
  12. Gascan

    Gascan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Posts:
    920
    Silkspan on both sides should be just fine. Putting it on the outside tends to leave a nice clean hole on the outside, even if balsa armor behind it gets knocked away (weakening that section of armor). Silkspan on the inside tends to reduce splintering, so the damage is more likely to remain in the area that was hit. Both of those effects become more noticeable with thicker balsa armor.
     
  13. Kun2112

    Kun2112 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Posts:
    710
    I agree with Clark and Eric for the reasons mentioned. I know that the Mogador and New Jersey were done on both sides and I think that the St. Goerge and Strausborg were too. The interior layer shouldn't stop any penetration that was going to happen anyway and should result in less re-sheeting.
     
  14. dietzer

    dietzer Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    739
    At the Indiana build session, Bats was recommending we silkspan both sides. The outside for the reasons already mentioned, and the inside to limit the amount of debris getting sucked into the pumps...

    Carl
     
  15. SteveT44

    SteveT44 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    1,865
    Location:
    MD
    Speed and maneuver in Battlestations.
    • Can a multi-prop ship use variable thrust and direction from the different props to assist in maneuver?
    • Speed controls, can systems be used to maintain speed in turns and such?
    As automated systems are allowed in firecontrol, think of the above functionality as an automated helmsman looking after these functions.
    Steve
     
  16. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    Variable direction as in a pivoting prop mount? I would have to say no to that.
    There is certainly plenty of historical precedent for using prop speeds to aid in turning. So that is fine with me.

    Using a speed controller to maintain speeds while turning. Interesting concept but I don't care for that. Ships tend to scrub off speed in turns historically and I think the hobby should reflect that.

    These are just my opinions and in no way official.
     
  17. mike5334

    mike5334 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Posts:
    1,877
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Interestingly enough, I do not see anything in the rules that would prevent differential prop speeds to aid in turning. Very very interesting ...
     
  18. glaizilla

    glaizilla Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Posts:
    375
    I think the differential steering should be allowed, real ships can reverse opposit shafts to try to help tuning, and seeing how I have a 111" battleship, I need all the help turning I can get
     
  19. glaizilla

    glaizilla Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Posts:
    375
    115" in the Big H-39's case...
     
  20. SteveT44

    SteveT44 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    1,865
    Location:
    MD
    I think with that beast a fleet of harbor tugs might also be advised. :)
    OK, so I see differential steering being allowed. Caveats being that thrust from any individual prop cannot exceed max forward or reverse speed performance (IMHO). To me this makes sense as it's used in the real world. We call this tank steering or single stick mixing in the tank hobby.
    A speed control to maintain speed in turns is not allowed as it circumvents real world performance. I'm ok with that...