“Disclaimer” This is my opinion only. Would love to discuss. My feeling will not get hurt. I have included Combat Effective score as a baseline. Others set up the scoring. It gives points for maneuverability and gun placement assuming 100% hits. Most points for aft sidemount (haymaker) least for bow gun. What do you look for when choosing a ship? For many, they get into this hobby, because they like a particular ship or navy, and that will override any other reason. Then there are those of us who want to field the best boat possible under the rules. Over unit 6 These boats are huge!!! They are long they are heavy, they don’t fit in your car, they are difficult to launch, and are even more difficult to retrieve from the water, they have a lot of freeboard (read easy to hit). The guns are mounted high (read easy for small ships to slip under bow sidemounts). A lot of captains run 2 pumps in these making them very difficult to sink, but the amount of damage given compared to damage received would not make them an admirals choice. (for those who count holes) Generally speaking because of their length these are not the most maneuverable boats out there. The one exception is the Bismarck. The single large drive prop with large drag props creates an incredible amount of prop wash vectored through dual rudders. I would never build any of these. Best of Class Bismark AXIS 6 Unit We can immediately remove all single rudder boats. Even with the 1.5 bonus for over 700’ they still do not turn with a dual rudder boat. Nelson’s and Richelieu’s all forward gun design is a poor option for this hobby. South Dakota, North Carolina, and Nagato are the only real options. Nagato’s haymaker option and Casements, makes it the hands down winner. Best of Class Nagato AXIS 5 Unit Again we can eliminate all single rudder boats. None of the Class five boats even get the 1.5 rudder bonus. These ships are severely handicapped by our rules. The single drive prop make the Baden and Konig stand out. In spite of the slow 28 speed, their maneuverability more than makes up for it. You can run away from them, but engage at your own risk. Queen Elizabeth and Iron Duke have good maneuverability and speed. Not fast enough to run with the big boys, not quite as agile as the Baden and Konig. Good all around boats. Fuso and Hyuga. Length will hurt them, but they sit low in the water and have good gun placement and casement protection. Best of Class Baden AXIS 4.5 Unit Again, single drive shaft boats will be on top, and single rudder boats are out of consideration. Battle Cruisers take a hit due to their poor length to width ratio. I see a lack of fiberglass hulls in this range. Kaiser, Helgoland, Erin, Orion & King George V would all make serviceable boats. Best of class Kaiser 4 Unit I will split this between dreadnoughts and battle cruisers. Repeating theme here. Remove single rudder boats.. Nassau is standout do to Best Length to Width Ratio in hobby compounded with single drive shaft and dual rudders. Best of Class – Nassau AXIS I will address the (4 unit) battle cruisers separately because they are often suggested as good rookie boats. Von der Tann is short wide and has good casement protection. Moltke is the longest of the three and does not have dual rudders. It is significantly larger than the other two making it the easiest to build. Sits low in the water making more difficult to hit. Invincible is narrow, and has no casement protection. It is particularly vulnerable to aft cannons. Best of Class – Von der Tann AXIS Best of the Best Eeeek what’s this? Not an Allied ship on the list!!! NEEDS There are 3 ships that I think that there could be a market for in fiberglass hulls. HMS Barham – Queen Elizabeth class Dreadnought. WWII version of this ship has bulges and casements. As I have pointed out the Allies need all the help they can get. HMS Erin – Good length to width ratio, good turret placement, dual rudders SMS Kaiser – Killer class 4 Axis boat. Like they need another one. SMS Helgoland – similar in size to Kaiser, but wing turrets make it less desirable.
aaaaahhhhh,, thanks man you took my idea away, but i'm happy you done it. if one person thinks of it at least 850 people had the same idea. thats great you shared this thanks, for being on my wave length. but yours is more in detailed that i could have ever done at my level of experience, but you done your homework , very good.
Which shiplist are you going by? Bismarck is 6.5 units (was 7 under IRCWCC for a year, but that was repealed). You have Scharnhorst down as 5.0 units (which it is in MWCI, but 5.5 in IRCWCC (because it is correctly classified as a battleship there)). Also, I counted atleast 8 class 5 ships that get the rudder bonus, although most get it by virtue of having two rudders (inline or twin). Otherwise an interesting read for those people that like to read a mathematical analysis of the shiplist (which doesn't take into account construction, or the captains competancy in running them).
I'll have to chew on this for a bit, but I'll make a few notes. Moltke does get the dual rudder bonus though, as she had them in-line. Probably wouldn't pick it over a VdT though. I wouldn't be entirely so quick to discount all the single rudder ships. Some can be startlingly effective. Stephen's South Carolina (clearly aided by being a mere 3 feet long) is a hard ship to bring to bear, and not one I am usually overly eager to sit next to. I personally think casemate protection is overrated. It adds annoyance/difficulty to the build and if you aren't counting points, does nothing major to stop you from sinking. Mostly psychological effect, on both sides. I like Imperial German for style and bloodline. Beyond that I prefer WW1 era vessels over most interwar and ww2 period ships. From there I consider if a ship fits a playstyle I have in mind. Then I start looking at things like: Can I put guns where I want them? Can I fit everything? I value shorter ships over longer ships for a multitude of reasons, including needing to fit in my car without excessive amounts of trouble.
Class 6+ Both Vanguard & Bismark can be deadly with the right person and a good wingman. Others in this group are just too big. Class 6 Currently Nagato is the only ship anyone should ever built. Back when stern guns weren't useless NC & SoDak were excellent ships. Nelson's two sets of twin bow sidemounts interest me, but not enough to deal with the single rudder and two prop, come on Britts why'd you do that! Class 5 This is the class where speed starts to matter as there are several speeds in the class and most class 6 are 24sec. Speed is a weapon. On a small pond or small battle it is much less of a weapon than a big pond or a big battle. Ask the guys who have stuck with the 28sec ships. When they get good they have no one to shoot at. Since speed matters, best in class is QE, close 2nd is ID. Revenge is up there, even with the in-line rudders. Baden/Konig are nice but too slow. The other ships can be OK but have other issues. Class 4+ I have to give Kongo the lead here, she's fast and can play slugger if needed. When I use mine I like to stern to stern slug with early in the battle and chase down cripples latter on. Kaiser is good, but again slow. Derflinger is also pretty good. Class 4 I'll take the speedier VDT, I-boat & Moltke over the others. Since I've had both a Moltke & VDT I lean Moltke as she's heavier and I like to push people around when I'm shooting them. Westfalen is good, but slow. Best over all Nagato. Best all around QE. Best if you're two best buddies have NCs, Vanguard. Best if you're old and like your back Moltke/VDT/I Boat. Best if you want to pull up a chair and wait for someone to come to you Baden Best if you want to run away and rarely use sidemounts NC Best if you want to prove you're a better builder/battler than everyone else and can make a ship others think sucks into something good Nelson. I will agree that someone should make a Kaiser hull. I have really nice prints if someone is up to making a plug.
I never take captain building or fighting ability into consideration when ranking a ship. I figure a captain that can take a mediocre platform and make it good could take a good platform and make it great. Keith
I can't wait to get my Barham on the water. I am very much looking forward to having a haymaker again. (silly little 1/2 half unit pump) my experience with sluggers has been with a Westfalen that I REALLY liked. I was able to sneak up and inflict in spite of her slow speed. Also ran an Invincible for a while which I did not like as well. High free board makes it take more damage, and the narrow beam make it a little tippy. All of my sluggers have been light so I haven't done a lot of "pushing". Vanguard is a dog that super captains build to prove something.
It's always interesting to read how other people rank ships. Sometimes there are no surprises, other times you learn something totally new. In this case, I didn't learn much. Which is unfortunate, because you have such an extensive list and a strong sense of value that makes one ship more effective than another. I just don't know what that is. See new thread on Battlefield roles here: https://rcwarshipcombat.com/threads/ship-roles-in-fastgun.443964/
I disagree. While both low freeboard and casemates reduce effective target area, casemates have an additional benefit. Casemates are below the ship's main deck, which is the most common aim point people use. Unless a skipper is paying very close attention, he will probably mis-estimate his aim point and is likely to bounce shots off the casemate deck rather than poking holes in hull. And unless this hypothetical skipper is listening closely, he may not hear the difference in sound between shooting balsa and shooting casemate. "Well that's silly," you say, "he should be aiming below the waterline!" And you're right, he should be. But like many optical illusions, it takes either lots of mental effort or lots of practice to overcome this seemingly minor issue in actual combat. I have seen similar effects from ships with submerged tumblehome, like monitors and certain French pre-dreadnoughts, and ships with severely off-center superstructures like HMS Rodney.
A couple of things. HMS Lion has dual rudders, actually, so I am assuming it would be very similar to HMS Tiger. Also, single rudders are out, but what about inline rudders? It seems to me that the prevailing opinion is that these are only marginally better than singles, as, while you can make the aft rudder large, it still is not sitting directly in front of a prop. Does anyone have any experience/evidence to suggest otherwise?
Tiger is better than Lion because of the gun layout. Tiger can use the "middle" turret for a sidemount, in Lion is's too far into the middle of the ship and you have to use two bow sidemounts. Otherwise they are very close to the same. In-line and the 50% bonus single rudders make ships turn better than single rudder ships, but not as good and twin rudders. It's a middle ground that makes several ships just fine to use. My Kongo, longer ship twin rudders, turns the same as Tyler's Derflinger, shorter ship in line rudders. If Derf had twin rudders she would turn better than Kongo as it's a much shorter ship.
I don't care much for the gun layout for Tiger or Kongo. The haymaker is too far toward the middle for a ship that turns as poorly as battle cruisers. Derflinger has better turret locations, and sits lower in the water making less target for aft guns. None of these would make my short list.
Keith, Could you please give an explanation of how the CEF was calculated with the formula's and rational behind them? That way we could all be on the same page with what drives your determinations and if we value different abilities in a ship we could adjust the numbers/weights and come up with "optimal" ships for different styles of battling. (a ship with a battling style that match's the captain's battling style is much more of a threat than a mismatched captain/ship, a cruiser captain driving a hug & slug boat or vice versa for instance)
I've run a Kongo, the gun location is good, a very fun ship that can sink more than one ship in a battle. The first battled I used it (Didn't even have SS yet) I sank a VDT, he came over and asked how come I had so many guns on the ship. He thought the fourth gun I installed was being used, I only had three solenoids in the ship. I guess if people think you have too many guns you must be doing alright. Yes, she it not a good turning ship, you have to get used to it. Besides Warspite it's the only other ship I feel I can use without a wingman and still cause lots of damage. The location in Tiger is about the same, but Kongo's deck comes in away from the hull allowing for additional down angle. The Tiger does not have this feature on the deck. The Tiger also only gets two sidemounts, not three, that's the big drop off between the two. Derf & Kongo have about the same total freeboard to shoot at. Derf sits a little lower, but Kongo has lots of casements. Kongo also has a stringer that runs almost the entire waterline. You take very few on hits, typically 2-4 in the stern. Kongo is better than Derf because it gets 3 not 2 sidemounts. Derf is better than Tiger because it has a better HM location. Tiger is the only Allies 24sec ship that has a stern sidemount. Vangaurd has twin stern sidemounts.
"Nassau is standout do to Best Length to Width Ratio in hobby compounded with single drive shaft and dual rudders." nay nay good sir! While I do not contend its battleworthiness, it does not have the best length to beam in the hobby (of combat ships at least). Nassau length to beam is 5.38 to 1. Florida (B) is 4.92 to 1. And in the non-combatant world the Iosif Stalin (Sibir) Icebreaker has a 4.68 to 1. It could be armed as a gunboat, lol.
I include CEF only as a reference. It is a good starting point, but not the (be all end all). It assumes that all shots hit. Where in reality some gun placements make hits much more likely than others. It doesn’t take into consideration things like amount of free board and casement protections. It also does not take into consideration Turret location. A haymaker scores the same regardless of the location or down angle an individual ship can get. Don’t poke me too much on the math. I was too lazy to double check the math when I copied the work done by others. COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS FACTOR Manuver factor = (length^3 * rudder factor)/(rudder area * beam * 144) rudder factor is: Prop # ruddertype 2 1 1 1 .8 2i .6667 .6667 2t .5333 .43 Fire Power factor rated by cannon mount locations Bow sidemount 825 stern sidemount 990 twin sidemount 990 stern gun 400 Bow gun 200 Stern guns have an additional multipler due to knocking chuncks out # of guns Multilpler 1 1 2 1.1 3 1.2 4 1.4 So add all your cannons up and get the fire factor. Speed number: 21 1.6 22 1.5 23 1.4 24 1.3 26 1.1 28 1 30 0.9 So for the final Combat Effectiveness Factor (CEF) CEF= (Fire Power* Speed number* 100)/ manuver factor.
I stand corrected. . If the Florida had supper firing rear turrets, you might have something there. Single rudder is the bane of all US dreadnoughts. It takes them all out of Best of Class discussions.
so in the end of all this , is the master minds and ever so knowledgeable captains going to agree on at least one ship that is well suitable to the answer being asked, what is the closest target ship at a beginners level. a ship that can be sufficiently ran and only flaw it could possibly have is the capt. what I'm asking is what is the basic ship that everyone or could be anonymously be voted on as a best ideal entry level ship. assuming everyone's skills rating was at a beginner. i'm actually interested to see what ship, boat, that could be. thanks, Fred lol sorry i thought this was toward the new guys Q. on best ship to build lol, but hey, lets see what happens.
