Coming soon! Rules changes for CWC! Let's Go!!

Check back. Posts of rules changes and proposals to come.

 

HERE IS SOMETHING ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ROB CLARKE:

First some not so radical ideas

1) Base sidemounts on tonnage.
The side-mounts are restricted to class 4 and above as a safety issue.
Currently the smallest Dreadnought (Espana) is 15,500 tons. There are several Pre-dreadnought and a couple of cruisers and armoured that are larger than this, but are not allowed sidemounts because they are class 3.
I think we should just say - ships over a certain tonnage can have sidemounts.

2) We allow torpedoes.
Allow spurt guns to be mounted under the waterline on ships that were equiped with torpedoes. Allow a certain number of BB's and guns for a certain number of torpedoes. Say --- 1 BB for every torpedo.
Smaller ships could mount them in the bow or stern. Ships allowed sidemounts could mount them on the side.

3) Change the way ships are allowed to come off the water. No 5 minute rule --- once on the water you don't come off unless you sink or scuttle. We can arrange something where if a ship transits a certain area with no enemy ships in the area then it can have 'escaped'

4) Do away with the current restrictions on gun placement -- allow any number in any turret pointed any which way --
BUT -- probably want to restrict the rate of fire (if possible)


And now for the BIG change

I propose:
That we scrap the current concept of 'class'
The IRCWCC rules work for the most part, but one thing that doesn't work is the way very different ships are lumped together together in a class and then have rules assigned to that class as though all the ships are the same. Same rudder size, same number of guns, same restrictions on sidemounts etc.....

I think it's time we broke free of this and instituded our own scheme which divides the ship's capabilites into offsensive, defensive, and speed. In effect 3 numbers for each ship. These numers would be adjusted to when the ships were built. There would be 3 time periods -- 1905-1922, 1922-1933, 1933-1946
For successive age the speed, offensive power and armour quality would be adjusted to account for the improved technology.

OFFENSE
=======
The offensive number would be based on the number and size of guns. This would be the number of cannons that the ship could carry

DEFENSE
=======
The defensive number would be based on the armour thickness. This would be like the big gun rule, where pump capaicty is rating by the time it takes move certain volumn of water.
Alternately, we could adjust the size of the pump outlet, and even allow an increase the amount of soild area (ie more ribs)


SPEED
=====
The speed would be based on the type and length of the ship -- much the same as the current rules.

I have appended an example shiplist. Of course this needs much more tweaking -- but if there is interest in the club for this concept then it can be done. There are some things that people won't like - but if the concept is acceptable we should be able to find a genral formula.

Anyway -- that's it.

Nationality: Germany
ClassName Type Lnch LOA W Dspl Guns Armor Rddr Rating
============================= ==== ==== === === ===== ======= ===== ==== ===========
Adm. Hipper (L) CA 1939 676 70 14100 8x8 3.2 4.75 4/23/168
Adm. Hipper CA 1939 665 70 13700 8x8 3.2 4.5 4/23/168
B-97 DD 1915 322 31 1400 4x3.5 0 2 1/24/160
Baden DN 1916 590 99 28000* 8x15 14 4.68 5.75/28/48
Bismarck BB 1940 820 118 41673* 8x15 13 7 6.75/24/70
Blucher CAE 1909 521 81 15500* 12x8.2 3 3 3.75/26/136
Derfflinger BC 1914 689 95 26180* 8x12 12 5.75 5/24/64
Deutschland CA 1933 610 70 12000 6x11 4 4 3.75/23/144
Deutschland PDN 1906 419 73 13200 4x11 9 2 2/30/88


Q. Elizabeth (B) DN 1914 640 104 32700* 8x15 13 5.25 5.5/26/56
Q. Elizabeth DN 1914 640 91 27470* 8x15 13 5.25 5.5/26/56
Queen Mary BC 1913 704 89 26780* 8x13.59 6 5.25/24/88
Quilliam DD 1942 358 36 1700 4x4.7 0 2 1/21/200
Renown (B) BC 1933 794 102 34800* 6x15 9 5.75 4.5/24/99
Renown BC 1933 794 90 27320* 6x15 9 5.75 4.5/24/99
Revenge (B) DN 1916 621 102 29950* 8x15 13 5 5.5/26/56
Revenge DN 1916 621 89 27970* 8x15 13 5 5.5/26/56
Takao(B) CA 1932 669 68 13400 10x8 3.4 4.5 3.5/23/151
Takao CA 1932 669 59 12800 10x8 3.4 4.5 3.5/23/151
Tanikaze DD 1918 336 29 1200 3x4.7 0 2 0.75/24/160
Tone CA 1938 662 61 11200 8x8 3.9 4.5 4/23/163
Tsukuba PDN 1907 475 75 13700 4x12 7 2.75 2.25/30/107
Umikaze DD 1911 323 28 1000 2x4.7 0 2 0.5/24/160
Yamato BB 1941 863 128 64000* 9x18 16 7 7.75/24/48
Yubari CL 1923 478 40 3400 6x5.6 2 2.75 1.75/24/162
Yugumo DD 1944 391 35 2100 6x5 0 2 2.25/21/200

JUST A SAMPLE HERE GUYS.....

 

Change is always a good thing as long as everyone agrees. The only thing I ask is that there be no in fighting. Majority rules.

 

That worked well the first time....

 

I have a few ideas. Are you looking to use a rules set as a starting point or are you thinking of a completely new set from scatch?

 

No. Curt believes the best way to proceed is to take most of the basics and then tweak em... add a few and you have it!

 

If most of the rules are good why start a new set.

 

Thing is.... it's not a new set. You are tweaking, improving, testing... change doesn't come about overnight. I'd like to see more options. There is no reason to be "handcuffed" into doing something a certain way. Variety is the spice of life, and let's have more of it! The rules as they stand don't allow for any muscle room. No flexability. Let's flex a little and see where it puts us?

 

Ok why don't we look at Rob's suggestions and "PLUCK" from that what you "REALLY" like..AND tell us why you like it. Lets look at what is likeable and the rest we can review again to get a second look. Kiss principal will apply here for rules.

Thanks to Rob for his proposal. Anymore please bring them here.

Curt

 

There is nothing wrong with either the IRCWCC OR MWC rules. MWC is Ircwcc but "Tweaked". We can look at both and "Tweak" it further. Both versions use a " Standard Tonnage". We could go with a more logical and accurate FULL TONNAGE. Not the odd "DEEP LOAD EMERGENCY DRAFT" TYPE ..just FullLoadDisplacement..as an example. By using that you naturally have units increasing for all classes(types)

Another thing. Smaller ships like small class 4s from WW1 unfortunalty due to the length by hull speed rule are too fast in the water. They end up shipping a lot of water and bounce around on the water like Toy BOATS. Their speed should come down a little to allow more control over the model's handing. THey would not bounce so much on the water and be better small platforms with sidemounts making them more effective. Less plowing into the water forward or reverse. Most of these are ww1 ships.

Maybe we can assign a unit allocation scale for the WW1 vesssels as built and those that were refitted and carried on into WW2 would have a ww2 allocation.

The WW2 vessells would have an allocation for ships specifically built in WW2.

Speed Firepower and Armor and Size should be the 4 criteria. All the other stuff is FOO FOO.

Armor - keep it to Sidebelt since that is what we are shooting at to sink our ships anyway below on or above the armor belt.

Firepower - I want to keep it simple here so Number of Guns and Diameter

Speed- Maybe designate 2 versions 1 for WW1 and 1 for WW2. Ships in WW2 were generally faster and the old ones had their speeds increased after their refits..Hood and a couple of others were exceptions. So that presents and interesting way of Handling those kind of ships.

Displacement: Full Load keeps it simple- means fully outfitted ready for battle. Well some of our models can be fully outfitted but I don't want that. Example YAMATO would only get 1 extra unit used as a gun or pump that's it. Yeah it could take 2 more units but I rather keep it at less than full capability. Other models would be hard pressed to add full capability but all can handle a partial or full unit upgrade in capability.

More to think about. Keep it going.

 

Here is my opion on weight, standard vs full load. In my opion it really does not matter which you use if the listed tonnages are taken from multiple sources and a average is taken.Accuacy is most important. If you go with full load though the Ircwcc\Mwc tonnage list would have to be redone as is was made for standard tonnage only. my main problem with using gun diameter\number is that does not take into account muzzle vol, armor penatration, accruacy or rate of fire. All of which were as important as the number and size of the guns. If you want a more accurate system thaen we should look at broadside weight as it is a more accurate measurment of a ships hitting power. I for one don't want to get into different thickness when it comes to balsa, we really should try to keep this simple and maybe restrict the size of pumps in certain classes of ships instead. This can be just as effective as balsa thickness. The other thing we also have to look at is that some ships do not have the room inside or the weight allowence to have anymore equipment so adding more units may become impractical. I for one have a new idea for speed that I will be submitting to the other club for which I am a member that better reflects a ships speed, maybe I will post it here after I send it off to the Prez. As far as size I think the current class system works pretty good, my only problem with it is that Yamato and Iowa are not in the same size or weight class, if anything drop Iowa down a half or full unit to better reflect this. Iowa is more in the Vanguard\Bismark weight class anyway. On another note the other thing we should look at is cost of building a ship, if we add units that will increase cost and I for one have found building a large ship very expensive. If it gets to much more we may drive away potential members due to the costs involved.

 

The only thing we have to remember about the WHOLE thing is that it is great to be as accurate as possible, however, we should not shy away from the true nature of this hobby. It is a game and some things will have to go out the window, not that they aren't considered, it has to be fair to all sides, regardless of size, weight or what the ship did historically. Let's keep that in mind as we move forward.

 

[] The Tonnage lists in the MWC and IRCWCC are good. Most are very close and some are not on both lists. The plan I drafted I used not just those sources but at least 20 sources by way of books, websites,documentaries, specs the list goes on.Ask Craig on that I spent 4 months working on it. I came up with the average Full Load tonnage. Taking the Top 10 closest tonnages of a ship to get more of consistent rating. Then narrowing down that field again to top 5 then to top 3. I found both the Ircwcc and Mwc got it right by having a Tonnage Range as opposed to absolutes. It takes into account that mutiliple sources will give various Tonnage ranges. Nobody really knows for sure the exact amounts as that was impossible to calculate as many factors came into play.

I stand by the research I did and I believe it is a fair assessment as I want nothing more but to make the game playable and fair.

OOOPS.. I...got to get back to work....

[]

 

Not a problem Greg.... some exciting R&D .... it's good to grow a little.

 

Curt not saying what you have is not accurate but I think a wholesale change like that may not be needed. A tonnage range works as most countries build ships to counter other countries ships. In closing if the Ircwcc\Mwc are pretty good why not just fix the problem areas and try and get rid of most of the rule exemptions as this seems to be a sticking point. Then we coul look at adding some new rules or ideas, such as torps, I for one would not fear them as much as alot people do and I would limit them to 5 round spurt guns, the thing I am couirious about is how a destroyer Captain will fit in torps and still meet weight and will they have the internal space needed.

 

Looking at Mogador today.... the thing would have no problem handling torpedos... as far as it goes... the rules are a sticking point themselves.... I wouldn't really worry about anyhting radical at this point... just getting things started....

 

It is not a wholesale change Chris. We are talking about having the "Option to upgrade 1 unit. Not a drastic change and certaintly provides more "Flexibility"and "Freedom" to mount an extra unit whether for defense or offense. With the current sytem your "Stuck". Take a Malaya for example. It be great if a Captain had the "Option" to increase his fighting potential just a little. It wouldn't be a "Must Do".
Standard Displacement in my opinion is not very logical as a scale for rating the #of units a model ship can carry. Why not use both scales. The current standard displacement scale for min units assigned and use the FullLoad as the Maximum unit. Everybody then has the chance to move up just 1 unit. Some ships could benefit from an extra pump or cannon. Just nice to have that kind of option available I think.

Lets get a list of the current rule exemptions and discuss them. You have the floor Chris..ah the monitor..err the keyboard.. whatever.. sheesh..LoL.

 

With todays technology the dynamic of the fleets are changing again. Destroyers are becoming more prominient, nasty, and just darn righ plain fun. I would love to take on 3 destroyers at one time. Or have a destroyer and form a destroyer leader squadron and attack.. ahem... Bismarck...lol sorry Craig. The System Big gun uses for thier destroyers work and honestly I would not have a problem with a fast gun destroyer outfitted with the torp systems they are currently using. The Team Delta boards and Micro pumps make the large destroyers competitive. Still though you need some building experience to build these cramped ships but hey gotta love a challenge.

 

Just plain evil.... my strategy against that would be.... We must fight.... to run away!