Carrier rules

Discussion in 'Midwest Battle Group' started by Mike Horne, Jun 29, 2008.

  1. Mike Horne

    Mike Horne Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Posts:
    233
    I will have to update my poor computer to read the WWCC rules, I'll probably ask Rob or Ben to send me the info in email.

    I am interested in the hows and whys because I want to see carriers better represented in the hobby. I feel there is a very real chance that carriers can be great novice builds, because the arizona cannon allows for just about anybody to build a carrier.

    So, construction aside, I think a carrier component to gameplay similar to convoy, but scored like the Austrailians might be a good thing. I've been mulling it over in various forms for years, but have never been in a large enough club to pull it off :)

    Small carriers that are on the cusp of having another cannon could really benefit by rounding up... and many designs for carriers have enough .177 cannons allowed that side defense torpedos might not really be necessary.

    Some tweaking of the modeling of the carriers might be just the thing to get more carriers built.

    I'm interested in what the wiser heads think :)
     
  2. the frog

    the frog Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Posts:
    209
    Mike per the wwcc rule which we just adopted as R&D ,small carriers get 3 1/4 barrels per quadrent and large carriers including the Bearn get 4 1/4 barrels per quadrent. 16 1/4 guns on the bearn is quit a sticky proposition. Using a rotary quad for port and starboard means only 3 guns. Leave out the front gun and you still have the firepower of the alsace.OH MY LIONS AND TIGERS and BEARS OH MY
     
  3. Mike Horne

    Mike Horne Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Posts:
    233
    Okay :)

    Do you still get to attempt to arm the secondaries, or is the tradeoff the side protection guns? I'm not quite sure what is intended, but it sounds like it might trip the balance into people trying cve's and such.

    I have plans for Shokaku...

    For a good many of the Japanese carriers, this will pull up their power :)


    Mike
     
  4. Powder Monkey

    Powder Monkey Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2006
    Posts:
    1,394
    For Japanese carriers the planes could be radio controlled don’t need weapons on them just crash them into the side [:D] just kidding I know it is way to hard and unsafe so don’t flame me but that would be cool don’t ya think [8D]
     
  5. BoomerBoy17

    BoomerBoy17 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Posts:
    1,946
    Yea, kamikazes would wreck the superstructures that people put lots of time and effort into. But if those rules would be adapted, i wouldnt mind doing a carrier.
     
  6. Mike Horne

    Mike Horne Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Posts:
    233
    Ya gotta dream!

    I've always wanted to see the planes themselves become the shot, based on South Coasts rubber band guns... but something strong enought that the plane pierces the hull. Limit the number of "planes" but not the rate of fire... and I think carriers would be very powerful indeed :) Gotta think outside the boxes!
     
  7. Mike Horne

    Mike Horne Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Posts:
    233
    Ise class...

    My guess is that it would be a small carrier based on number of airplanes instead of tonnage... but would it get the original armament plus all the goodies above... This is then a boat worth considering.... Who's gonna try and torp cruiser your convoy ships with this beast tagging along!


    Mike
     
  8. BoomerBoy17

    BoomerBoy17 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Posts:
    1,946
    Very true, just as in actual war, you have to adapt to new threats and change tactics to suit new challenges. The carrier will be a very mean ship, but planes are inherently dangerous to people and ships, and i know the second point is on purpose, it might not 'take off' because the ships cant deffend themselves. Well, most carriers werent armed with larger then 5" guns, so the guns aree to compensate for the lack of planes; if working planes were a reality, i think the carriers would lose their armaments. But with both guns and planes, you are right, they would be a force to be reckoned with!
     
  9. the frog

    the frog Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Posts:
    209
    The wwcc is notorious for arming everything so I would think the 1/4 guns would be the primarys and the secondaries as usuall would be anything above 5 inch in any quantity as original ship were laid out.So a shinano would have 16 1/4 inch and a guzillion bb secondaries.It may even be anything larger than a 3 inch OH MY
     
  10. the frog

    the frog Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Posts:
    209
    In the MBG we had both allied and axis launching planes from deck with rubber bands It never quite worked out but a few hits were scored
     
  11. Mike Horne

    Mike Horne Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Posts:
    233
    Ise, carrier version by conways 35,350 standard, 8 14inch guns (4x2) 16 5 inch guns (8x2) 22 aircraft.

    The reason this is a really interesting ship to me is the hybrid carrier/battleship design... and it would be such an odd boat.

    Shokaku 25,675 standard, 16 5 inch guns (8x2) 72 operational aircraft



    I thought some clubs went through a phase of firing the scout planes... but this fell out of favor fast.


    Mike
     
  12. BoomerBoy17

    BoomerBoy17 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Posts:
    1,946
    Mike, if planes ever became reality in this hobby, the Ise would be one of the best ships, period.That is quiet the armament.
     
  13. admiraljkb

    admiraljkb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Posts:
    145
    For your initial problem of not being able to read the WWCC docs, you can go to http://openoffice.org to download a good office suite that happens to also be free.
     
  14. Gascan

    Gascan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Posts:
    920

    Since when is the WWCC famous for arming everything? We are big gun, but we have had armament limitations for so long that nobody knows who originally adopted them anymore. Most battleships are allowed between 6 and 8 main guns, depending on the tonnage.

    The WWCC rules currently have a chart for carriers. They divide the carriers up into three classes. All carriers over 50,000 tons standard displacement get 16 1/4" guns in four groups of four, and three pumps. All carriers 20,001 tons to 50,000 tons standard displacement get 16 1/4" guns in four groups of four, and two pumps. All carriers 20,000 tons or less standard displacement get 12 1/4" guns in four groups of three, and two pumps. Aircraft carriers shall mount all guns and barrels in fixed positions beneath the flight deck. The individual groupings of guns shall fire directly to the front, directly to the rear, and directly off both sides.

    Aircraft carriers do not get any torpedoes or secondary guns, regardless of whether they carried them or not. This is because some carriers had no guns over 3", some had all guns over 3" on one side. Also, an aircraft carrier's combat abilities were dependent on the aircraft it carried and it's anti-aircraft defenses.

    We also do not allow hybrid ships, nor do we allow sail powered vessels.
     
  15. admiraljkb

    admiraljkb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Posts:
    145

    Umm, it's been pretty recent. Since 2003. It's been pretty controversial in the Big Gun circle. Still guaranteed to cause a very contentious discussion on the Big Gun list. :)
     
  16. Mike Horne

    Mike Horne Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Posts:
    233
    Got 'em, Thanks Jeff...


    WWCC arming everything? I've been out of the loop :) Was it really that long ago I took a break from the hobby. Ben's legendarily funny Alpha Centauri rant forgotten? And has WWCC stayed further Au towards Centauri? No offense! I find the rules compromises a good lesson in the hobbies developement, and educational in how game balance has been changing over time.

    I can see perhaps why the carriers got rounded up to triple quarters... It's costly to find all those cannons, but it just seems wrong to me to limit secondaries...

    I would rather set the small carriers at double quarters per side... and go up from there... and base it on planes carried, as the Shinano was ginormous, but carried few planes.

    Or, allocate the cannons that simulate the planes however you wish between quadrants.

    I do not like that hybrids are disallowed at all... my guess is they just didn't fit. But the Ise is a ship that was rennovated to a hybrid format, repairs being completed, in conways, sunk RL... Should be allowed.

    The impact of disallowing this class of ship is the same as disallowing the Kiti... a small boat with enormous impact on the hobby... a one of a kind, small RL impact on combat ship to boot.
     
  17. Kotori87

    Kotori87 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Posts:
    3,288
    Um, Jeff? The armament hulabaloo in 2003 was a RELAXING of the armament limitations, to permit ships 20K tons to 30K tons to get 8 guns and ships under 20K tons to be fully armed. The original armament limitations of 6 guns max per ship are so old that nobody currently in the club remembers when they were instated.

    I personally suspect that the reason why hybrids were disallowed was that nobody could figure out what to do with them without making them either overpowered or underpowered.
     
  18. Gascan

    Gascan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Posts:
    920
    If built as a battleship in the WWCC, Ise would get 6 main cannons to arm. If we were to allow her as a hybrid, we would have to prevent her from growing much more powerful than this. I think it would be reasonable to allow her two fixed 1/4" cannons directly off the stern, in addition to four main cannons. The larger caliber guns would be great for pounding a slow or disabled ship (or someone who bumbles across the stern), or as defensive fire, while the front two turrets would provide flexibility in most engagements. I have seen the fixed stern, front rotate arrangement used successfully many times, including the ship of the Most Feared Skipper of 2005.
     
  19. Mike Horne

    Mike Horne Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Posts:
    233
    Ya, twenty seaplanes is somewhat dubious :) but the original rulesets I was looking under were pretty much like you describe, the difference being that with the addition of side protection guns, it becomes a much more interesting build. The bene for being outside WWCC is that the proposal in the works may allow for all the extra goodies... making one of those porcupine type boats :)
     
  20. BoomerBoy17

    BoomerBoy17 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Posts:
    1,946
    Even as a carrier, the Ise would be a formidable foe. Im now shacking in my boots!