RE: MWCI "Deck Layouts" I think I may have stumbled over a fix to some of the thin deck issues we have. Right now the rule is that you can have a 1/4" weather deck in places where you have both a casement deck (1/8") and a Armor Belt or Bulge (1/8"). You can not have more than 1/2" total deck if a armor belt is used. So for example the Baden can have a 1/4" weather deck, a 1/8" casement deck, and a 1/8" armor belt. If I chose to, I could have a 3/8" weather deck and a 1/8" casement deck, but no armor belt as I would be over 1/2". Why not give cetain ships the choice of where that 1/8" of measurement goes if they choose to not use a armor belt. Example: I would take the Baden casement area as such, a 1/4 weather deck, and a 1/4 casement deck. I would take my allowed armor belt and give it to the casement deck to thicken it up. Rule Proposal would be: Ships that include all three decks/stringers, IE. the weather deck, the casement deck and a armor belt/bulge have the option to move the armor belt/bulge 1/8" allotment and add it to the 1/8" casement deck, thus making the casement deck 1/4". This is done for added thickness. Ships useing this rule may not use a armor belt/bulge stringer.
RE: MWCI "Deck Layouts" Hmm ... wouldn't that take away penetrable area from higher point scoring waterline or below-the-waterline areas and transfer it to the lower point scoring above-the-waterline area?
RE: MWCI "Deck Layouts" Nope you have it opposite, but that is at the captains descretion and is an advantage for the oppoasite team. The captain currently can make the choice to not have the armore belt or bulge 1/8" stringer now, they just have to add it to the weather deck if they wish. This rule would allow the captain to add that to the casement deck instead, to help him sturdy up the 1/8" casement deck. No difference in point or penatrable area is done to the deck area, we would just be adding the measurement to the botom most deck not the top.... Not sure how clear this is.. hard to put in typing. The idea came from Bob letting me know that the Moltke layout could have a 3/8" deck from bow to stern because they had NO armor belt. I was not catching the 1/2" rule. Once I understood that, the idea came to me about the stringer and how we could still keep the penatralbe areas for the casements and help captains out by giving them a choice to what deck to add that 1/8" to if they chose to not use the armor belt/bulge stringer.
RE: MWCI "Deck Layouts" Mike, by removing the armor belt and adding it to either the weather or casement deck, you are taking away an inpenatrable area in the SIDE of the hull and moving it up to the deck level, which is worth zero points anyway. So it's of benefit to the builder by preventing the decks from warping (1/8" is too thin by far for a structural deck), and benefits the enemy by giving them a non-stringered hull to shoot at.
RE: MWCI "Deck Layouts" I understand. Though I can forsee someone putting the waterline on the 1/4" thick casement deck to prevent waterline shots. Practical? Doubt it ... but one never knows. Heh. Mike
RE: MWCI "Deck Layouts" The Baden has an armor belt that is right under the casement deck. So it's OK to go 1/4" & 1/4" there if you want. I don't have a problem with taking a stringer for a bulge or belt and putting it under the casement deck. Typicaly that bulge or belt is on the waterline (Kongo, Warspite) and now moves to above the waterline. This would open up higher points areas for holes. On my Kongo I take very few on the waterline hits as the belt stringer runs almost the whole length of the ship. I think my 2nd battle with the ship I had a score of 102-2-33, no sink either. Lots of holes but not many ons. I don't know if taking the stringer out would be a good idea, the bulge on Kongo would tend to blow out as it's pretty sharp, unless you rounded off the ribs so the balsa was sheeted in a smooth line. Moving the stringer is not legal, right now...
RE: MWCI "Deck Layouts" Moltke has an armour belt that you can choose to model, it simply doesnt run the midsection of the hull where the casemates are.
To make it legal would require a rule change, and I'd like to see how the rule as-is does for a while before changing again.
I just would like to see it modified. The rule is good despite my arguments against it at the start..lol I just have a very serious issue with a 1/8 casement deck on a ship where that deck is the "Supporting Deck" for the entire mid section of the ship. By modifying the rule just a little such as giving us the ability to move a stringer would be a huge help.
So one thing I dont understand with the new casemate rules, is my Baden considered sunk when the weather deck is awash or when my casemate deck is awash? Because the lower deck is how it is normally considered sunk, but then I have penetrable area above that line? This makes no sense! Why should a casemated ship have penetrable area above what is considered a zero point line and is normally made impenetrable for that reason? Or is this just a lame rule to give the allied triple stern guns more to shoot at? But if it is when the weather deck is awash then that would mean I have no impenetrable area above (this makes sense) but then that would mean D turret has to be underwater (assuming an even keel) for her to be considered sunk? If so, can I just seal her up and have an underwater firing cannon once she takes on some water? edit: for mispellings
Most ships have open area above the lowest sink level. On an NC the bow is higher than the stern but still cut out. If we stopped the open area at the lowest sinking level there would be very little to shoot at on every ship. Sunk is the lowest weather deck. Take Houston for example. It's always been the lower stern deck is the sunk level. Same for Baden, Warspite, Tenn, WV... Way back my USS Mpls would sink but the foam SS on the higher deck would keep it afloat right at the higher main deck. I was already sunk, but my ship was still floating. On Baden the lower weather deck and casement deck are at the same level. When they go under you're sunk. Warspite has a small casement level in the stern under the weather deck, VDT does too, when those levels go under the ship is not sunk.
@McSpuds, that's what I'm saying. We can't just 'modify' a rule... it has to get changed, because if we can just 'modify' one rule as we wish, then all the rules can be bent that way. If it makes you feel better about the rule 'slighting' the casement deck... it is NOT the structural support for the top deck. The bulkheads, longitudinals, and keel(s) below are. The armor is hung on that framework. The deck (apart from armor attached to it) is just there to keep the sea out, and give the sailors someplace to sunbathe. Not any more structurally important than the rather dull and non-smexy-lookin' internals
I didn't mean that one should be able to draw a horizontal line from the lowest sink level and everything above should be immune to damage. What I meant was that everything above the weather deck (at the location when viewed from the side) should be immune to damage. So for a NC that would be anything resembling superstructure. Any part of the hull would be below the weather deck and so would be penetrable. Per the rules (II.A.3.a) the weather deck on a Baden IS above the casemates and so she should be able to settle to that level before being declared sunk pursuant to section III.c.6 "A sink shall be declared when a ship has any portion of the weather deck awash on both sides of the hull and is unable to recover, or when part of the hull is resting on the lake bottom." Also rule II.A.3.a states that "There may be only one weather deck at any given section along the hull." so the lower deck can not be considered the weather deck at which she is considered sunk.
The casement area goes on to read further down: 3. c) Deck Step: The point on a ship where the weather deck is allowed to step down to the next lower deck. A “deck step” can occur for two reasons: 1) When the weather deck of the ship continues but moves inwards from the next lower deck’s gunwale more than ½” and does not at any point come back to ½” or less from that gunwale with respect to viewing a ship from bow to stern. 2) The weather deck ceases, but there are lower decks that continue with respect to viewing a ship from bow to stern. This defines the lower stern deck as a "weather deck" also, starting from the point where the uppermost weather deck either ends or moves inward from the gunwale more than a 1/2". There is still only one weather deck, it just steps down at a specified point.
The back half of a Baden awash is considered sunk, if it's up to the casemates...sunk plus at that point I think the ship would sink anyway unless there is some crazy good waterproofing on it.
I don't know about your ships, but if my Baden was flooded down to the bottom of the casements / stern weather deck awash, it would be dropping like a rock for the bottom, as the remaining volume above water (namely the casement deck and superstructure) don't have nearly enough displacement to keep me afloat. Assuming some air volume still trapped in hull (and not ventilated by pesky allied captains), it's theoretically possible to be afloat in this condition... very briefly .
