Census

Fast gun/Big gun numbers differences in 144 scale.

From the club locator seems there's about 13 fast gun clubs, and 9 big gun clubs...

Now I didn't give it a really close look...

But I'll stand by my statement that there are more fast gunners than big gunners

I don't doubt that a lot of work went into the survey mentioned... but I just can't get around the difference in cost factor for cannons, and that there seem to me to be more battling fast gun clubs. There are also more vendors geared towards fast guns That alone is evidence enough for me.


Mike

 

& those would be: IRCWCC, MWC, & what 11 others? Make sure you don't count anybody twice.

& I assert that the numbers are within a handful of being even, to the point of being statistically insignificant. What's more, I can point to somebody's research to validate it, so I have some real basis to stand behind my claim.

I prefer something a little more empirical, myself. I have seen figures that were supposedly based on numbers provided by the clubs themselves that indicated that the numbers were surprisingly even. I did manage to find a summary (not the original report, but from the guy who DID the original census), that indicated the world-wide difference in total numbers between small gun and Big Gun clubs was only 9, as of 2006.

Personally, I was very surprised. I would have expected a ratio of maybe 2:1 or even 3:1 favoring the little guys, based largely on observations & assumptions similar to yours. I guess it just shows that each of our perceived realities don't always jibe with the facts. Just like a die-hard US football fan, who would hardly know that "soccer" even exists except as an activity to drive the kids to on Saturdays, might be surprised to find out what's going on in that portion of the world that he doesn't see every day.

JM

 

Now John, I'm not being nasty, I just am not entirely convinced by the earlier census. Questionable inflation of club numbers I have seen on web pages in the past So, I'm not going to give full credence to self reporting.

I thought IIRC and MWC were formats, and counted Cal-nev, Scrap, Port Polar Bear, Great Lakes, Buckeye, Southeast Attack, Nabs, Calgary Combat, Ontario Attack Force, NYBG, and New England Task force. You are right, I miscounted by one, and double counted one. Still... 11 to 9. I think these fast gun clubs also in general have more members... but that's just my impression

I'd rather see the current data from Namba. Now it won't be perfect... but that is hard objective data Battling people vs. Interested people is a whole 'nuther discussion.

Also, two of the premier big gun clubs seem to have gone mostly inactive, as have some of the big gun interest groups I think things may have changed.

9 people? Wow. 50/50 split... I never would have thunk it. So it's closer than I think, but I still think the fast gunners have a majority

Mike

 

Don't forget Treaty - there is the treaty based in ohio, and the one based in canada... nova scotia i believe?

they are both fast gun... or, closer to fast gun i'd say...

 

I's say that you're right Kenny, we're probably closer to fast gun then big, but we've taken a lot of ideas from big gun as well which are really at the core of how our rules work, such as slower speeds based off some semblance of scale, restricted rate of fire and restricted pump capacity.

It's kind of a hybrid big/fast gun using fast gun based ships.

 

Treaty Combat is in a class of its own, as it follows neither fast gun or big gun doctrines to the letter. It is a mix, and should be, in my opinion, considered a new "breed". One that i would like to see more of.

 

We'd love to have you battle with us sometime, Boomerboy. For the most part taking a fast gun ship and modifying it to Treaty performance specs is pretty simple.

Last year someone showed up to the pond with a fast gun Yamato, and within 30 minutes was legal for treaty battling.

 

I found the data on Eric's census... It's a very good start Maybe we could talk him into running it again


Mike

 

Since the main point of both fast gun and big gun are in fact, the guns, I would have to say Treaty is fast gun. Sure it's a hybrid, but it's still fast gun...

 

Not to mention, it doesn't account for those who might have membership in BOTH IRCWCC & MWC. Inflated self-reporting cuts both ways, too.

& I thought they were "chapters", with the clubs being MWC & IRCWCC. I once had a card from the MWC, but never had one from any local chapter, so I always considered myself a member of MWC. Probably not too many people that belong to multiple chapters, so counting memberships at that level may be more accurate than counting at the "top level". Then again, how many people might not belong to any "chapter" at all? I honestly don't know for sure what method was used in the 2006 survey with regard to MWC/IRCWCC tallies.

Now, I don't know why somebody would get that impression, unless it's an attempt to justify what they already want to believe. Counting 20 total clubs, I'd guess that they wouldn't be all the same in pretty much any respect I can think of & there would be quite a spectrum. I don't think that means anything at all, but then again, it's a difference in number of exactly 2 which, if anything, "proves" the point that the the two formats are very close, numbers-wise.

...that doesn't include those who get insurance from other sources (MWC, for a major example, I believe gets their insurance through a model airplane club).

I believe you're referring to SCBG & MBG. My understanding is that they're still going, but choose not to be active in any Big Gun "community" (i.e. online).

Ah yes, interest groups, as in Yahoo! Groups for Big Gun & IRCWCC: As of a few minutes ago, the Big Gun forum had 324 members to IRCWCC's 115. Assume that IRCWCC & MWC each account for 1/2 of the small gun forum, further assume that there are NO members in common between the 2 clubs, so double that 115 & there are 330 "small gunners". That's pretty darn close to the Big Gun "membership" on Yahoo!, & those are real numbers that anybody can verify instantly.

See above: IRCWCC/MWC combined outnumber Big Gun by 6, according to the Yahoo! forum memberships. It's also pretty consistent with the 2006 census, for whatever that might be worth.

So, what does that "prove"? In my opinion, nothing. Go back far enough & both formats had zero. After about 40 years for small gun vs. 20 years for Big Gun, to get to approx. the same point might "prove" that Big Gun has double the growth rate, if somebody wanted to look at it that way. Personally, I wish people would quit trying to promote one format over another, & try to work for the betterment of ALL model combat players in ALL formats, scales, etc. I won't start a "format vs. format debate", but if I see somebody post something that, to me, looks like it's making false or questionable claims about a format to which they don't belong, I'll call them on it.

I think that any growth in ANY segment makes all of them stronger. We shouldn't be fighting among ourselves for scraps (i.e. individual prospects) when there's a feast (i.e. a large number of potential recruits) out there, enough for everybody. "A rising tide floats all boats!", as the saying goes.

JM

 

Interesting discussion.
I for one have participated in most formats of R/C naval combat, and find them all to be great fun.
I am currently involved to some extent with most of them.
Although I do have a preference when it comes to formats, I do also try to promote all of them, and support the clubs as much as possible.
Here in Ohio, most of our local active captains are members of more than one format, mainly because it gives us more opportunity to battle.
We do on occasion hear the complaint that we are sniping members from other clubs, which seems odd.
Mikey

 

Getting a decent census going is really hard to do. Asides from the difficulty in getting responses from club officers, you have to filter the results. Some people have memberships but don't battle, others have boats but don't battle, others buy one-battle membership each time. Still others are in multiple clubs, and many of the online listings of club members are out of date. Add the fact that there are clubs we don't even know about in operation, and getting accurate numbers is a nightmare. Even asking NAMBA won't give complete numbers, because NAMBA doesn't cover the clubs in Australia, South America, or Europe and some US clubs don't use NAMBA either.

I personally believe that the reason Fast Gun appears to be larger than Big Gun is that Fast Gun has organized nationals and regional battles with large numbers of participants, while Big Gun has larger local battles. I heard that there were 50 boats on the pond at one time during the most recent Nats. That illusion helps conceal the on-average smaller club size for Fast Gun clubs. On the other hand, the Big Gun clubs are mostly more active on the local level. My own WWCC averages 10-12 ships on the water at any one battle, and many other clubs have good local numbers.

By the way, we don't want to overlook the "other" category. 1/72 scale Queen's Own, 1/96 scale Battlestations, 1/48 scale Civil War, and other unknown clubs. Just to give you an idea how elusive some of these "others" can be, I have heard reports from several people at my local pond about an age-of-sail club that occasionally battles there. Further interrogations revealed that each witness could accurately describe the *bang* of cannons, the *crack* of shattering balsa, battle damage on hulls, and even pump streams from the damaged boats. I can only conclude that this age-of-sail club exists, despite having no internet presence, no publicity, and no contact with any members of the local Big Gun club.

 

HERE HERE I agree with Mikey we all can have a ton of fun , it would be nice to once see a large group of the battlers together in one location to share a fun run session and swap stories and Tech.

 

Crispin mentioned that the airplane folks have really large meets where there are a grunch of different types of planes taking turns competing, but that are all in the same place at the same time, and it sounds like a blast.
Perhaps we can discuss trying to set up a meet like that in a year or two, where all formats of r/c warship combat are invited.
Generally, the concern is that everyone wants to maximize water-time, which would be problematical. But if the main focus was just getting together for a huge meet, and some battling, it might work.
Here in Ohio, we are already concentrating on multi-format events, where we get two (sometimes three) formats together, and it is always a good time.
I have never liked the idea of lines seperating the warship formats from one another, especially on the internet.
Mikey

 

Just so that you all know where I'm coming from on the topic, I've had several instances where people have tried to turn others against my club and/or format of choice, & I don't like that kind of thing one little bit. I take strong issue with anything that even looks close. I had a case once where somebody actually asked, on a forum, for "talking points" to be used to try to sway prospects to another format. The guy had recently "lost" a prospect & wanted to prevent that from happening again. What's even worse was that somebody actually came back & offered some "points", that ranged from misinformation to outright lies, all intended to "steal" a prospective member from the "competition".

One of the most interesting "points" was the claim that a particular format wasn't "growing" - which I thought was odd, considering the fact that somebody "lost" a prospect, & meant that the format in question was growing by at least that 1, that he had "lost"!

None of us should be doing that sort of thing, ever. This is not a Ford salesman, trying to convince people to buy a car from him instead of a Chevy down the block. There's no need at all to get "cutthroat" over recruiting. I've had plenty of interested parties who, after talking to them for awhile, I think would like another format better than what I've got. When that happens, I tell them what I think & tell them how to get in touch with a club where I think they'll be happier. I'd rather not have somebody who's not going to be happy, than just to pad the numbers by 1. That guy who's unhappy isn't going to stay around long, anyway. Instead of trying to talk him out of what HE really likes, & into what makes ME look better in terms of recruiting numbers, I'd rather have both of us be happier even if it means we go our separate ways.

Bottom line: We shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over each individual prospect. I believe that there are more then enough prospects out there to go around, & even fill up a lot of clubs that don't exist yet. If we promote ourselves right, & get the word out about how ridiculously FUN this stuff is, we'll all have more people than we know what to do with, beating down our doors to get in! There should never be any need to "steal" members, or prospects, away from another club or format. In the end, we're all in this together. What's good for one is good for all, & we shouldn't be showing disrespect to each others' clubs or formats.

JM

 

Well stated JM.

I gave up trying to decide which format is best and gave in and decided to do at least one of each.

That's okay isn't it?

[^][?]

 

"Sure it's a hybrid, but it's still fast gun..."

Honestly, the term small gun (which is disdainful to the fast gun community) is a better description because we limit the rate of fire of our guns. We aren't NEARLY as fast shooting as a well-built IRCWCC or MWC ship.

As far as numbers, I'm of the opinion who cares about who's bigger. I need exactly one other captain for me to battle with. Do I enjoy more? Sure I do, but I honestly don't think it's the deal-breaker for any given scenario. So basically, I don't see the point as to who has the most people. What difference does it make?

 

I'm hoping to come out and battle with you guys one of these summers. I grew up out there, and usually go visit my Mom every year, so it would be nice to take a cruiser out with me and squeeze in a battle with you guys.