No, because not everybody is going to agree and not everybody battles the same way. The best thing to do to find your ideal ship is to get out to a few battles and try a few out. Most people near me have many more ships than they could ever use. This is of course assuming you don't already have a favourite ship you want to build.
A good ship for a new guy is going to be the biggest ship he can handle. For someone who's never done an RC, has no building skills, has no money, has no local help... That's a small ship a cruiser or 4 unit BC. For an experienced RC guy, lots of building skills, with money to burn, lots of local help... That could be the Class 6 ships. It's not a one size fits all.
as i expected, but was wanting to see everyone's reply, but i did think perhaps a few boats would have been named off. the Q. is still young. its always fun to see everyone's thoughts , most i have seen from the past and other threads is what, i like to think we all agree on one thing here, that's to have fun, and help everyone else join in the fun. thanks guys.
Lots of people will steer a beginner toward a cruiser. I still say the Suffren is the best cruiser out there. I would say that any cruiser for a “beginner” should have all aft cannons. Run and gun. Keep your bow out of trouble. I like to steer new captains to a ship they will be happy with for several years. 4 Unit battle cruisers still keep cost and complexity low. VTD, Moltke, Invincible. Set them up traditional Aft cannon, Aft sidmount (haymaker) and bow sidmount. Von der Tann is the most dangerous, but it’s short length could be a challenge to a new builder. Moltke is the easiest to build being bigger, it gives more room to fit the internals. Invincible if you have to have Allied.
nice, thanks for sharing, my group has me on a lender , it's a P-cruiser , not sure if it is recognized among other groups. But it is a fast ship its a 30 sec/100 ft and has forward and rear guns its a 4 unit ship , i have had nothing but fun with it. its a blast to run and gun. and as per my group approval they felt i was capable enough to run something bigger with out of risk of ram damage to them, so i am working on the yomato. i want to try something bigger, and im in high hopes about enjoying my time with it. like i said, i like all the boats " ships" and if i was a million dollar man i would be crazy enough to build them all. and play Santa to all the new guys. but I'm not and i can always thank i would do it. but, i just like the idea of getting with people who share a common interest . and i enjoy everyone posting on this forum. its fun and relaxing to me. this is my therapy and get away. thanks guys. dumb azz tanker disabled veteran , fred DATDAV FRED
Yeah as of now I am treaty. But some day will run battle stations. Our club runs both. Lol. But seems I'm being hinted I've talked to much .thanks for being polite about it .
I can't quite agree with this. Much of Treaty's ruleset came out of the MWC and IRC sets, with notable changes to speed, rate of fire restrictions, pump output and scoring. Much of the discussion here is applicable to their ships as well. The numbers being tossed around may be less relevant, but the general discussion of what makes a ship a 'good ship' is still fairly relevant.
Those four things you mentioned significantly change the game though. Several ships which are complete dogs in fastgun like the hood for example are actually worth building for treaty.
Yup, but I'd wager the ships that IRC/MWC considers good are still good in Treaty. Nagato is still going to have tons of solid area. QEs are still going to be able to turn and still have good turret layouts, etc. Oh what a relief. I thought the building was collapsing.
Thanks. However, how great of an improvement does the larger rudder make? Is it significant, or just marginal? I understand that it will not be as good as a rudder(s) right in front of a prop.
It is not so much being right in front of the prop as it is vectoring the prop wash. When the rules were set up splitting the rudder area between two rudders made them too small, so dual rudders were given a 1.5 rudder area bonus. As it turns out this is too much, giving dual rudders a significant advantage. Those who care about having that advantage are unwilling to give it up, so the rule has never been adjusted.
Well, then I see a good opportunity to fix that. If they don't want to give up the extra rudder, that is fine, but then EVERY ship should have the same rudder area available to them, no matter how many rudders they have. #waitingforflamewar
Probably a good topic for a new thread... but do we really need MORE turning? Personally I would counter propose that the 50% bonus be eliminated and all rudder areas increased by 25%. That reduces some of the excessive turning abilities by some ships, improves the abilities of others, and most importantly, leaves no group in the argument truly happy.
While I think the Combat effectiveness calculations are a useful comparison between ships, I think that one should build what one wants to build based on desired ship, battling style etc. I think at the end of the day, a reliable, well captained single rudder ship will be just as nasty as anything else out there. Rarely are you going to see a situation where such precise calculations make much of a difference compared to captain/reliability/ fleet mix, etc. As to rule changes, not a big fan of nerfing one set of ships to favor others. I figure the point is to have different ships w diff capabilities. The rules as they are regarding rudders seem fine to me.
