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

There are other ways to give someone options such as lowering the l.O.A for side mounts to 700 feet, maybe allow units to be split on any size of ship and take out the rule about covering all 4 quadrents, I say if you have enough guns cover all 4 unless your ship has all main batteries foreward of the superstructure. If you look at the difference between standard and full load tonnage what you are really talking about is ammo, food, crew and fuel there is no change to the ship itself. On the other hand I think if a ship had a major refit before the start of WW2 maybe that ship needs two listings because this does effect several important things( speed, armor, weapons, tonnage ) Curt if someone wants his\her ship to remain compeditive they will have to upgrade there ship. Another thing that could be done is to take a rule set and pick it apart line by line fixing it as we go.

 

HERE WE HAVE THE NEXT OPINION TO THE TOPIC. THANKS FOR THE INPUT CARL!!!!!

Hi, does anybody mind if I add a few thoughts? I shouldn't technically be posting here, but its too interesting of a topic.

Anyway, how about basing EVERYTHING on what the historical ship had? Rather than lumping boats into ANY class, you give them what they historically had. This has several basic premises, about speed, pumping, and guns.

1) guns: If your ship had 9 main guns, you can put in 9 main guns. If it had 8, you can put in 8, and point them in whatever direction you please. Ammunition is based on caliber. If your ship had guns over 15", it would get 75 rounds for each barrel the ship historically had, which can be distributed among the armed guns however you please. If your ship had guns between 11" and 15", it would get 50 rounds per barrel. 6" to 11", 25 rounds per barrel. Anything smaller than 6" would get 15 rounds per barrel. Another example: if your ship had 9 15" guns, you could arm 5 if you want. It would still get (9*75=675) rounds to split among those 5 cannons.

2) pumping: You could base this on armor thickness, but I've seen some itty-bitty ships with 18" belt armor. It would probably be better to say "you can pump a number of gallons per hour equal to your ship's historical standard displacement divided by 1000 tons." For example, if you had a ship that historically displaced 35,000 tons, your model would pump 35 GPH. If you guys think that number is too low, you can double it for all ships, ie 35,000 ton ship pumping 70 GPH.

3) speed: if a ship historically was lightning fast, let it go really really fast. If it wasn't so fast, then make it go slower. Consider using actual SCALE SPEED for the allowed velocity of your ships. To calculate this, take the historical speed and divide by the square-root of the scale, for example to get scale speed of a 1/144 scale ship, divide real speed (in knots) by sqrt(144)=12 to get scale speed (in full-scale knots). You can then do basic unit conversions to get to sec/100feet. The big-gun clubs use a historical speed chart, but actual scale speed was deemed too fast, and it was reduced.

4) other aspects, such as rudder size, props, etc. use historic scale and location. Rudder size is as shown on the plans, plus 25% by area. Props must be in scale location, and propshafts must exit the hull in scale location. Prop size, pitch, and blades are used to change speed, and as such should not be restricted, but try to recommend scale size and shape.

Unfortunately, not all sources agree on what ships historically had. To avoid this problem, specify a primary source for data, such as Conway's the World's Fighting Ships, then allow ships NOT covered by Conway's to be allowed if three separate sources can be found that provide all necessary data, and agree with each other on that data.

DISCUSS!!!!

 

BTW..... capslock on.... ok.... that last post was from January second, 2007. So as you can see, things have been discussed for some time... Curt, my man, let's make er happen!

 

How would you position those guns? . Would that not favor ships like the atlanta and cleveland class light crusiers. The atlantas had 16 5" guns and the clevelands had 12 6" guns. How would you get 16 15 round guns in a atlanta? or 12 25 round guns in a cleveland? as far as rudders with so many conflicting sources which one to use? As far as pumps go we only have three choices available to us for use unless we are going to start making custom pumps.Water density would be a problem with scale speed as the lighter ships do not have the weight to cut through the water and may begin to hydroplane.

 

I think originially the game was developed on keeping everything historical but too many issue came into play.I want to keep the game as part historical part game. There has to be a balance.
The scale speeds were tried once and it turned out that the ships were too slow. Speed by length seemed to work well as a smaller ship with lighter weight could move fast through the water and a larger ship could muster enough power to move it's bulk through the water and still turn well without taking a full minute to complete a turn and get into firing position. The water is the main problem. It is not scaled down so it presents a problem against smaller lighter ships, shorter fatter ships, and the longer much heavier ships. A balance was found to address that and the speed by length works well for most ships.

I don't agree with arming every single gun as the ww1 ships carried a lot of barrells and turrets. Again there is a balance to be found. I wnat to keep the game simple to play, relatively easy to set up ships, and learn to battle. Cost is a hughe fact or and building time and .servicability on the pond.

Great points though. Thanks CARL.

Darn I got to go again. Work that is....
Chat later.

Curt

 

The crew and all that go along to make the crew one with the warmachine to be an effective battle"unit" is the one element that without it the ship is nothing but useless metal. Crew compliment does affect how the ship operates. Just as the guns need ammo stores, the crew needs the water and food to operate. The crew is a part of the ship and can make or break the ship.

 

In the balance between historical accuracy and playability, i think things have to be leaning towards playability. I would like to see multiple ship types out on the water. The hobby should not see only a few ship types on the water. It should not change rules so that unplayable ships can compete. I think some rules can be tweeked so that it benefits all ships. For example using full displcement as compared to standard tonnage. Another idea is to permit those ships which have a certain width to have sidemounts.

 

[]Agreed Paul. Playability is the key here. Some wide ships like the michigans are pretty wide for their size however because of their extremely short length they roll excecessivly. The only way I'd see those ships with sidemounts of they were downangled the way the destroyers have their torpedoe tubes down angled.That way even when they roll the bbs will not shot above the horizon whether the ship rolls in a tight turn or if it is taking on water it begis to list to one side heavily.These ships are basically "UP AND PERSONAL" SLUGGERS so a very steep downangle to compensate for their HIGH ROLL factor would be required.

[]

 

I agree playablity is the most important thing and I agree with you Curt about the wide\short ships having side mounts. We also have to be careful with the idea of torps for small ships for the same reason, they can guickly become a safty issue.

 

BIG GUN guys make excellent torpedoe systems. Actually you can view them here on the forum under weapons. They look easy to install. I don't know the cost but if I was a serious destroyer Captain I would get thier systems.

 

My only concern is that they are designed to penatrate thicker balsa than we use, is there a way to restrict the hitting power also I think the smallest size bearing would work the best for our purposes. I thnik we should make them as safe as we can. Hey curt want to do some R&D.

 

They are designed to penetrate the thicker balsa of the battleships however they often fight other destroyers with the 1/32 balsa and other than being sunk the come out of it just fine. The pressure is no different than ours. They are strictly designed with safety in mind built into the system and taking into consideration the "Tippy" nature of the destroyers.

 

I am sure they could probalby make "CUSTOM" set for FAST GUN by limiting the number of barrels. For example a FastGun destroyer in addition to the standard "Spurt"Cannon could mount 1 or 2 Torps on the beam(broadside) 1 barrel per side with a limited shot using our standard size bbs.

 

I suggested a 5 round spurt gun, that will still out a nasty hole in a ship. Hey Curt why not just one as it is free weapon and all you don't want to overpower or over weigh a destroyer. The Mog might have the weight but most other destroyers really don't

 

I don't have an issue with that. One should do it.

 

5 rds sounds right. mAYBE THE smaller destroyers could be dedidcated to carry TORPS only and the larger destroyers could carry 1 gun and 1 torp.

 

There we go. Too easy Curt. I like where your head is at man! Let's jot that one down.

 

The 1.5 units sure,sounds good the one unit ships can carry either torps or a conventional connon.

 

HERE WE GOOOOOOOOOOOO: IT BEGINS

Rob you brought up some interesting points. I think the torp system may not work for small gun as the main problem is getting an additional unit. I came up with a classification system. It was working well till I got the crusiers and small battleships battle crusiers. It seems that some of the ships that did carry torps under my system would not have them and some would have them. I realized this could be a problem so I decided not to try that sytem. What I did try did work and this does not involve torps. However using the current system we go by FulL Load Displacement to assign units. We keep the 7 class ships but also have class 8 - 9 units ( IOWA Class) and one more class ..class 9 - 10 units Yamato class. All other Classes will increase by .5 increments. So ships that were for example a class 3- 3.5 are assigned as class 3 - 3.5 to 4 units or 4 - 4.5 units again depending on the Full Load Displacement range. This way the smaller ships can increase thier units but no to the point where it will affect thier stability or ability to supply co2 for the extra unit.
Some ships will gain a 75 gun or can divide the 75 into a 50 and a 25 normal or spurt cannon.
Keeps our classification system basically the same without a lot of change. Class 7 would be iether 7 to 7.5 or 7.5 to 8 units.

Iowa class being the largest ALLIED Vessel, with the best blend of Speed, Firepower,Armor would be a class 8 -carrying 9 units 1 tripple sidemount - 1 dual sidemount - one tripple stern and 1 pump. Iowa would be a 23 second ship

Yamato would be class 9 - 10 units. Simply because it edges Iowa class in gun size, side, armor and 20 percent larger in displacement. Yamato due to being slower than IOWA will remain as a 24 second ship. Yamato would carry 2 tripple sidemounts - 1 tripple aft - 1 pump.

This seems to make sense in the grand scheme of things. And in some historical respects correct.

It will not be a chore or huge expense to upgrade our ships to give them a little more without being too excessive or complex.

I like the idea of restricting ammo for select cannons but that may be more difficult to set up and correct in a ship. It may be confusing for some Captains to have a system like this. How would that work for 3 turret ships?

Great ideas and again thanks this is well received. Keep in mind this is for all to review and think about so nothing is set in stone here just ideas exchanging and this is a great think tank, thanks guys.


DISCUSS..... IT IS TIME..... THANKS CURT FOR THE ORIGINAL....

 

I think triple side mounts are a bit of a over kill, the damage done to pannels will be extensive and may require resheeting a boat multiple times in a season, that will in itself cause the cost to rise. Also if a person starts using electronics even a single unit could mean $100 or more. A triple hit below the water line will most likley put a ship out of action so there will be less slugging and more standing off as few captains will want to get their ship chewed up. The damage caused by dual side mounts is more than enough and the smaller ships cannot take anymore damage with any hope of surviving. In my opinon a class 8 ship has more than enough units to give anyone pause or the choice of how to arm a ship, what I think it boils down to is how broken is the system in play now. Most of us agree that most of it works good as is, the standard vs full load argument seems less and less important. If you look at the rules as they stand now my only problems are with inaccurate tonnage listings, ship speeds, some battle cruisers being under gunned and destroyers not being able to engage and hurt battleships but in reality they couldn't anyway. Almost every battleship could survive several torp hits. Most of us agree the game needs some historical accuracy, on the other hand destroyers could take on cruisers but there are not alot of them around here right now, maybe what we really need to do is to look at what ships we are all building and say how many class 5 and up ships do we really need. Remember battleships ruled the seas for many years but they were very few in number. The more I look at this the more I think small little tweaks are the way to go, most likely on a ship by ship bases.