Honestly, the Iron Dukes have plenty of solid area as-is. Badens likewise. 4 square inches of penetrable area added above where I would already be declared sunk doesn't phase me. Baden Forever!
The Iron Duke had 5 casemates forward and 1 aft on a side. The aft one is clearly part of the hull even if it was plated over after completion and then moved up into the superstructure. Of the five forward ones three are right up along side the edge of the hull and should clearly be penetrable surrounding them. That leaves the forward most two casemates. They are still very much near the edge of the hull and appear to be inset only for the purpose of improving arcs of fire forward. Furthermore, her deck step from the upper to lower weather decks is only where it tappers back at roughly a 40 degree angle and so the overlap is small at best. You could describe her as having a raised forecastle. All of this leads me to believe that the current rules for Iron Duke are appropriate. The "German 3" all have their casemate armament inset from the edge of the hull with long upper and lower weather decks that overlap for roughly half of the ship length. The lower weather deck is planked and has railing along its entire length suggesting it was intended to be used as a deck and not just simply a ledge. I would describe these ships as having a blended forecastle/superstructure. This is very different from the layout of the Iron Dukes.
Isn't it all semantics though? IMO, why should a few ships with casements get an exception while others do not? Frankly, if someone really likes a ship enough they will take the trouble to build in the penetrable casements like I did with the Erin. If someone doesn't want to do casements, then they won't build the ship. Why should I have to do all the work to build penetrable casements in the Erin (or QE, or any other casemented ship) while others do not have to? Hovey, I suggest putting together a rule proposal, finding co-signers, and sending it to the MWC secretary to be included in the coming year's ballot. Beating a deadhorse here isn't accomplishing anything. My apologies if this is sounding kinda rude.
The difference is because of where the casemates are located. On the Erin or the QE the casemates are along the side of the hull. On the Bayern they are above a very large weather deck that previously would have declared them part of the super structure but because of their unusual deck layout and current rules gives them the problem of having to have significant penetrable area directly above a line that when awash makes them considered sunk. Erin, QE, Iron Duke, VDT, Moltke what ever class you want doesn't have this situation. Gee didn't know I had to have permission to talk about things without them being on a ballot. Sorry about that.
The purpose of this thread was to discuss the rule. The discussion currently occuring. the beating of this horse if you will, is very relevant and on topic. Proper discussion of things fleshes out ideas, concerns and understandings. Sitting quietly until time to submit rule proposals is just a good way to fail and delay discussion until you're behind the 8-ball.
While I agree in principle that discussing it is a good idea, it's a pretty small audience of MWC people on here, and a more thorough discussion might be had on the rules mailing list.
Wouldn't it be boring if we all agreed on everything, all the time? I still think counting holes is archaic, but that's how your game works, so you are striving to make a level playing field for all. I'm watching the process with great interest, the vested interests, the peacemakers, the rules lawyers, and those who want simplification all working towards a solution. It is , as Spock would say, fascinating. Oh and by the way, since it's gone past 12.00, Merry Christmas!
Again, my apologies if my post sounded somewhat rude. When things start to repeat over and over again though, then the discussion tends to go on without anything significant said. The Baden was and always has been considered sunk at the same deck level as the Erin/QE/etc, i.e. the stern deck awash. The Baden's casements are at the same level as the Erin/QE/etc. Making the Baden's casements solid or penetrable won't change either of those facts. The only contention seems to be whether someone wants to spend the time (or not spend the time) to make the Baden's casements penetrable. Again, a bit of frankness: Sometimes it just isn't worth spending time and energy to avoid doing something when it can simply be done in the first place. You should see the lengths my kids went through at times to avoid having to brush their teeth!
And a great picture worth a thousand sinks! Merry Christmas to all of that persuasion and Happy Holidays to the rest.
First, Merry Christmas to all! Second, I want to especially thank all those who have contributed to this thread, for, against, or on the fence. Open discussion is how understanding, compromise, and good will are accomplished. I want to also make clear that I'm not a "vested interest" because I drive a Baden and want a competetive edge. I'm vested because I don't want to be patching holes in my superstructure every day I battle. See my above "definition" post. If you can walk between the vertical surface in question and the edge of the hull, by any nautical definition you are standing on a deck. If it's open to the outside, it's referred to as a "weather deck". And the vertical structure beside you is thereby above the hull and, again by nautical definition, that makes it superstructure. On the Baden (and other similar ships), that weather deck extends forward until it blends into the forecastle. Obviously, the first section of that, as the forecastle deck continues aft and the hull bulges outward, should be penetrable for some length before it recedes sufficiently to make the transition to being truly no longer part of the hull. The dispute in question is where to define that point. Under the old rules, it occured approximately under Anton turret's barbette. Under the new, closer to Caesar's barbette. Can anyone honestly look at the pictures, plans, or drawings of Baden and say that the section in dispute is hull? Not "can I put a bb there and score a point", but part of the hull structure by any reasonable definition? I think anyone who looks at it, not from a competitive point of view but from a naval one, would have to classify it as super. Is that outboard deck six or more feet wide on the actual ship(1/2" in our scale)? For most of it's length I'd GUESS it was. Short of ordering the actual ship schematics from the builders for every ship in the hobby, interpretation of what documentation we have and application of common sense is all we can do. Again, Merry Christmas to all!
I have seen pictures of Kaiser and Konig classes begin launched and they did have their casemate deck built before being launched. I haven not found any of a Bayern class being launched yet. Not really sure that is an important fact though since stability on an unfinished, unmanned vessel is more important when being launched than having her finished or not. Likely the German's would have had to finish that deck in order to keep water out, given the low freeboard.
There is this picture of the Wurttemburg after launch. Weather deck seems to be in place. www.bobhenneman.info/ersatzFreyapics.htm
In case anyone doesnt know, the ship on the top is the Wurttemburg. It looks to me that her bow is pointing to the left and based on shadows she has her forcastle and the first few casemate locations present.
Honestly, my gut response on viewing the pic was that I didn't see any casements in place. But upon zooming in, you can clearly see that one level of the forecastle was in place, and that the first 2 or 3 casement positions are there. It's hard to see (hence my initial error) because the stbd side looks blurry in that area. But zoomed in, you can count the levels, and see where the casements are, even if they're a little blurry. If we had one of the image enhancement programs that NCIS has on TV, we could count lands in the casement guns on that pic
Well I've come full circle, having cut and/or re-cut (or re-re-cut) every class of IJN Battleship casemate deck now, I don't really have a problem with other casematey ships having to be gone back over and given the dremel treatment. My Fuso gained a 1/8" stringer along the whole of the casemate deck at the cost of 1/8" off the hull rim above it, and I got to keep the 1/8" stringer along the massive bulge/armor belt. I thought that was pretty cool. As far as the "German 3" goes, I got nothing. The only German ships I have are flush deckers.
Not sure where you're going with this. Some ships launched with just the hull built, others were launched with practically everything but the masts & funnels. Still others weren't "launched" at all, they were built in drydocks that they then flooded down. Still waiting for an answer to the question though... can anyone look at the center section of Baden / Bayern's casement deck and say "that's hull"? Again, I'm not arguing semantics, not arguing rules. I'm pointing out common sense. If our rule set doesn't use common sense.....
