I think that the ircwcc rules permit carriers as combat legal vessels. 1) i thought that this was not true but i was looking at the rules and they said : 3 units Heavy cruisers built after 1922, 8,000 tons to 11,999 tons. Light cruisers built after 1922, >= 9,000 tons. Armored Cruisers built before 1922, 11,500 tons to 14,499 tons. CVAs in Lexington and Akagi classes. CLASS 2 2 1/2 units Heavy cruisers built after 1922, < 8,000 tons. Light cruisers built after 1922, 6,500 tons to 8,999 tons. Armored cruisers built before 1922, Other CVAs 2 units Monitors >= 7000 tons. Light cruisers built after 1922, 4,500 tons to 6,499 tons. CLASS 1 1 1/2 unit Monitors < 7000 tons. Light cruisers built after 1922, < 4,500 tons. Protected cruisers built before 1922. Destroyers 2500 tons and above. Submarines 2500 tons and above. CVLs 1 unit Destroyers < 2,499 tons. Submarines < 2,499 tons. Gunboats, CVEs and all other ship types not listed above. Now, im not asking if they are feasible, im asking if they are legal?
looks that waay to me but it looks more like a target board the trade off in points would kill your team []
not saying i would do one, maybe during college as a convoy, but other then that, i wouldnt. But i never thought it was legal.
maybe a rule change that limits the penetrable area vertically (i.e. the penetrable area on a character can end xxx inches above the waterline.
There are several carriers in use in the MWC... None are used as 'combat' ships with guns, although a few are built with all their units as pumps, and they can run as combatants with pumps enabled, or as convoys with them disabled. The idea is to mix up which ones are convoys and which ones aren't
Carriers are more powerful under Washington Treaty Combat rules but can only have bow and stern guns, as in the IRCWCC. The best carriers for use in Treaty are the small more maneuverable ones based on converted seaplane carriers (Japanese) or cruiser hulls (Japanese and American). They usually have a speed close to the cruiser's and equivalent combat units. Carriers converted from battlecruisers get more units (ie Courageous as a BC has 4.0 units, but 5.0 as a carrier). I'm about to convert one of Ralph Coles' Mogami hulls to carrier Ibuki, built on the 5th Mogami Class hull but not quite complete when the war ended. Both models have 3 combat units and twin rudders, the only difference in Treaty combat capability being that the 35 knot Mogami is faster (25 sec/100') than the 29 knot Ibuki (31 sec/100'). We have two carriers in the North Atlantic Treaty Combat Fleet, both built by John Coffill. They were unarmed for the first two battles and were used as convoy ships. IJN Shinano will be armed with 7 BB cannons and one pump, and Pretoria Castle (an unusually large CVE) will get a pump and 1-2 guns. John seems to be carrier crazy, having built a Mogami with aft flight deck for the NABS fleet and working on a Junyo Class Japanese carrier. Bob
Your Saratoga with 3 pumps would be an awesome decoy, but patching it would be a nightmare. Bob, if John likes IJN carriers, you should get him to take a serious look at the Unryu class ships. At 35 knots and dual rudders on a Hiryu sized hull (approximately comparable to a USN Des Moines class CA) there is a whole lot of potential there to be a pretty kick-arse super cruiser.
I can't say that I blame you. With all the damage that big lady could soak up, you could clear all the Axis guns and run cargo ships with impunity while they are busy reloading.
I will soon be making a rules proposal that will allow one barrel per side on a fleet carrier lets see how that goes.Should make a carrier better able to defen itself. On a carrier with a big point count the side guns could be 75 round which could give cruisers and others vulchers second thoughts.
Wow if we brought 75 round sides in where the 5inchers were located on the saratoga, that would make it a fun ship to battle even in the Ircwcc!
Here's the problem that I have with arming carriers: 1. To arm a carrier in a way that's consistent with its ability to project power offensively, it's got to have some sort of weapon system(s) that can accurately reach out AND DAMAGE targets at extreme ranges, in all directions. I don't really see much of a practical way to get that done, & even if I did, I'm not sure I like what that would mean for the dynamics of the game. That could lead to something similar to what happened in 1:1 scale, namely the carrier coming to dominate the seas, to the detriment (at least, to those of us who love them!) of the big gun warship. R/C warship combat is, basically, all about surface naval warfare. Anything else is a distraction that takes away from the main focus of the game. In 1:1 scale, on 1 hand, a carrier is extremely powerful offensively, compared to any other ship type. OTOH, defensively it's nearly helpless, which leads us to: 2. A carrier by itself is nearly defenseless. That's why they operate in battle groups, escorted by a number of other ships to provide multiple layers of defense against threats from the air, the surface, or underwater. Anything that manages to get through the screen can cause serious problems for a carrier. Because it represents so much offensive power, a carrier is hugely valuable, both as an asset to be protected & a target to be attacked. I think that's the key to the carrier's rightful place in a gun-oriented, surface naval combat hobby: Treat it as an extremely valuable objective, either to defend or attack with everything you've got as a team. I'd try to find a carrier's place in combat mostly using scenarios to simulate what real 1:1 carriers did. First, as far as construction goes, arm it consistently with how it was armed in real life. For example, an Essex had (IIRC) 10 @ 5" guns, so for R/C let it have the same sort of armament that a light cruiser might get. I'd give it damage control (pump) capabilities more consistent with its size, though, because that also reflects reality. As far as the game is concerned, make the carrier the centerpiece. Make the whole outcome of the sortie hinge on whether or not the carrier survives. Don't count any other points. Every other ship, on either side, is expendable. Everybody else on the water is there, either to protect their own side's carrier or sink the other's (or maybe both). To me, an "ideal" carrier game would be similar to a convoy game. The big differences are: 1. In a convoy, the cargo ships typically outnumber the escorts (by a very large margin in 1:1 scale), & they're often smaller ships; in a carrier game, the escorts should greatly outnumber the escortee (i.e. the carrier), & often include other capital ships. 2. In a (cargo) convoy, the value (i.e. the cargo itself) is spread out among multiple ships & loss of individual ships only means partial loss of the convoy's value; in a carrier game, all the value is concentrated in 1 ship, & to lose it means losing the whole purpose of the group. JM
I'm really in agreement with John on this. I think he's speaking with a lot of sense. That's kinda how the original fast gun rules were set up for arming carriers. The biggest carriers were 3.0 units, and carried 8 8-inch guns (US Lexington class, IJN Akagi and Kaga). The rest were all 2.5 units or less.
wow i came up with a good topic. John is talking alot of sense. It is possible that carriers should be used like low-powered leaders of the battle group, object being to sink the other carrier. You have 2 choices, offensive or defensive. Your choice.
That's why in treaty we gave them battleship units, but restricted them to foreward and aft firing guns. They are, basically huge cruisers. A five unit carrier such as the IJN Hiryu could get triple sterns, and a single bow chaser to keep people honest in addition to a 1.0 unit pump. That's nothing to sneeze at.
