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

Cool. Geezus CRAIG your freaking me out when you post an original.Will you let me know that it's one of mine please??LOL I'm reading it and half way through I am thinking it must be from someone else and realize at the end of the page that I wrote it...lol.

Chris I want to tweak "ALL THE CLASSES" not just specific ones. MWC had a greater listing on thier shiplist. That's where I started.

As far as tripple sidemounts..TOO MUCH..hype on their destructivenss has been brought up mainly by perceived perceptions and no on water data. The only ships that could give some idea are the BIGGUN SHIPS, the cruisers as I think they fire the same caliber bbs. However I have yet to see a dual sidemount actually BLOW out a panel either from Yamato or Musashi. Yes a lot of holes but to put it into perspective it took 2 Yamatos with dual sidemounts sandwiching a Nelson to sink it without blowing out 1 panel. Plenty of pics to show what they did to Nelsons Hull.Likewise Sharnhorst had plenty of holes but no panels blown out.Bob's Warspite was sunk by a Yamato sandwich between Musashi and Yamato and we dumped 2OO rds, a 100 per side at point blank range, most hit above and relativley few hit below the waterine. Warspite sank yes but it backed out under pointblank fire for 30 to 40 ft having the stsern swamped. The videos show that the warspite's panels though holed were not "BLOWN" out. In 300 battles with Bismarck and over 150 in Yamato the only time I actually seen a panel blown out was against Craig's NC. Only above the armor belt the balsa disintegrated but his ship was beached and so was mine and we both let loose rapidly at very very close range. Same ship under Rob Clarke's command I sidemounted him point blank. The ship sank but his pump failed and though holed badley the panel was not beyond repair. The panel was mostly intact. The only time I seen panels come completely apart is when the hulls are heavily patched and become so brittle that even a single volley would tear out a large chunk of the panel. The panel at that point has no balsa backing. It's the dried glue that causes the huge tears and massive holes. Fresh panels don't get destroyed that way.

There's really no difference between a Tripple sidemount or a tripple stern. Both will hole you . Mostly though the shot is spread out and most of the time one of the cannons shots will be striking ribs or armored stringers.

The only time I have had panels completely destroyed and this has been evidenced many many times are from RAMS. Bismarck has been victim to this many many times with up to '4'panels covering from Bow back to A turret complety caved in. Yamato suffered similar at Can-nats 5 when Sharhnorst backed into it's bow. 2 WHOLE panels were gone. I could only place a Huge Sheet of silkspan over the gaping hole. Weird though nobody took a shot at that section. Too bad they would have sunk it in a heartbeat.

To reiterate I rethought that part of upgrading the "Superships" Yamato and Iowa and figured one tripple sidemount would be fine but not 2. This would make it very unique in the hobby overall and distinguish it as a Canadian rule. Both Axis and Allie will have a "Supeship with this capability" It won't disrupt the other ships because they will be upgraded and improved upon as well. We got Bismarck and Vanguard balanced nicely. Lets make IOWA and Yamato balance out as well.

Hey about a Richielie and a KGV with a Quad sidemount. Now that would be awesome to see.Gives these ships teh firepower they lack and make them feared and respected in the hobby. I would have no problem with these ships. It may attract the BG guys to try it out.

This game is about blasting balsa.Balsa is cheap. We don't have enough ships or skilled Captains or the technology to even have a battle that will have a ship required to reskin the ship. 6 YEARS straight and I only patched bismarck and finally reskinned it later. We did a lot of battling in those 6 Years and on average we had 5 go 6 ships out battling. Bismarck sucked up the most holes because it's a Big Target.

Keep in mind that were not using Electronic Solenoids to "Rapid fire" our cannons and were not increasing our "Muzzell velocity" with silicone lining in the barrels. Hope not anyway. Not needed. Most of you guys haven't battled yet so the misses are going to be very high as you learn to shoot and hit moving targets. The ships are in no need of
being "Resheeted" . Go to Nats with 40 to 50 ships. Not many sink and those that due well yeah with the rapid firepower and modified cannon pistons those ships do end up with panels being destroyed.However the Captains expect this to happen and are prepared for it mentally and emotionally. They also have lots of sheets ready to go. They use ambroid or sigment allow quick resheets to happen. You guys won't even scratch the surface for that kind of intensity. Your ship will be holed but nobody can say for sure what way or how. As long as your balsa is prepared right your hull skin will hold up quite well. It's hard at first..lol..but you will quickly get over it..

CHEERS.

 

Hear Hear! Excellent points all. I especially like the point of making these our own Curt. Yes, let's distinguish the ruleset from others. Let's make things a little wild and crazy. If not for the sake of playability then for the sake of variety. Let's people have a choice. Let me see..... hmmmmm do I go with the standard tonnage on my Iowa and make it seven guns or do I go for full load and bring a gun to the sword fight? Which side would I put it on? Better yet.... maybe I want to use the unit for a second pump? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm like like like like!!!! This is variety. This gives captains a little elbow room and makes it more interesting on the lake. Would Chris upgrade Mushashi and how? Curt would you do the same? I know if Bismarck got another unit, I'd go pump.... especially with my gun setup... Thanks for the input Chris and Curt.... anyone else have anything to add before I grab something else from the archive? Watch these Curt.... you never know what I might bring out next!!!

 

Balsa maybe cheap but then you take $60 dallars a year and that jumps if a boat has to be resheeted. Whey should a ship have 2 listings you can use, just to give you a choice. Well if you don't like the ship's choices don't build it. Picking a certain ship should be done for reason such as do I like this ship and its strengths and weaknesses including how you can arm it and how the ship will turn, speed etc. Going back to the difference 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 or its combat abilities, the only reason I see any ship having multiple entries is due to a major refit. It seems to me that this is begining to be more about distinguishing this ruleset from others not that the rules are broken, to me this sounds too much like change for the sake of change, which is never good. Look at the Canadian Navy.

 

Here is another one. We had a very enthusiastic member. Paid his dues... bought three ships and then found out he could only arm four cannons out of nine. He shook his head and promptly has not been heard from since. Nelson does look a little strange with a single SS stern cannon and four of her cannons as a bb gun. However, in retrospect... what if we'd said... OK. You have 7.5 units to use in full load. What do you want to do? Seven of nine armed and a half unit pump? Ok. Your ship is worth 1800 sunk and you still need to call your five. Oh. You want to go standard? Ok. Six units then. Five of nine armed and a pump. 1100 sunk. The difference there is the damage ratio For those who know my formula here are teh results of the Nelson in these instances.

Current Configuration: One BB in each cannon. Each strikes at the average spot. Four sidemounts for 50 damage. Single stern for 10. Nelson's damage output? 210.

Full Load Configuration? Depending on the captain, but here is what I would do. Since I am still allowed to mount in the stern I would load a 75rd in the SS. That's a 10 pointer gun. Then a triple side and a dual side plus a full unit pump. Gives me another 250 and a total output of 260.

That's a potential damage increase of 23%. It gives a little more ammo to the stern and a nasty sidemount. I would love to play a ship like that. Nasty and screwed up.... just like Nelson.

Yamato/Iowa as they stand now are four side mounts and triple stern mount for 230 damage. Only 20 above Nelson. In the full Load going to the revised rules (only one unit) Damage potential is increased to 280 or 22%. Or if you wanted to go to the max, which wsa arming all guns (or using the 10th unit for a pump.... just a thought) then then either ship increases it DPR to 330 or 44% over the standard. Nelson with a half unit pump, two triple side mounts and a single bow or stern cannon, would have 310, or 48% over the orginal. Which means worth more sunk for these ships of course. Nelson would be a mighty foe for the Yamato and again this sparks more interest in the setup and strategy of the sport.

Another reason to support this. Leveling the playing field. For example. Two Yamatos and Two Bismarcks against a Nelson, NC, Bama and Malaya. Under full load for all is Axis 36 BU versus, 27.5 BU. The Axis captains could simply pin and not load a couple of guns to make the round difference more even. It would come down to the way the captains played on the pond. Not our ships have more ammo then your ships. Ala Cannats Nine. Curt's 8 unit Yamato set sail against six allied ships. Three battleship class three smaller. The smaller ships sank for one reason or another, but none of the big battleships for the allies were in danger of sinking. Not like real life. One or two woulda been pummelled to oblivion. Make Yamato 10 units and maybe Curt would have taken someone with him.

Again guys.... we are throwing things around here. It is easy enough to "say" what we would like to see... but honestly the best R&D is on the water... and I'm sure it will be an interesting time. I think ALL suggestions within reason should be looked at and opinions should be left for after the testing. I would have no problem taking my old NC (full load) up against Curt's "Super Ship" Yamato (full load).... but would have also been interested to see what the two would have done with units closer.... NC at 7.5 BU (full load) and Yammie staying put. Just to see. It would have been really exciting for me.

Anyways..... CONTINUE THE RANTS!!! LOL

 

As far as money on Balsa goes... think of what people spend on Movies and video games.... it amounts to nothing in the scheme of things. Think of the price of gas... I mean come on Chris... If anyone should be complaining about money... it would be me... and I have no problem keeping my ship afloat for the year. No matter what the cost. It's my hobby, I'm passionate about it and I'm not debating that you or Curt are as well. If the only hang up for you is the price of Balsa... I'll lend you some of mine. I know I'm a target... I know if there are ten plus battles for Bis that he will be resheeted this season... depending on the damage more the twice. Don't let something like that hang up your enjoyment of it or be a sticking point. I don't think you will find it really matters as much as the battling actually does and you will find that out once you get out there. Damage is part of the game man. Your boat is gonna get beat to snot. That is why most people go with slate gray and don't pretty our boats up like we do.

*smiles* If it is the paint scheme you are worried about.... I'm not going anywhere... It takes about three hours to paint it back to where it was after a fresh coat of Balsa.... LOL I'm always willing to help.... or do the work myself.... ya donkey!

Let's keep the conversation going here and remember.... alot of this will have to prove itself to make it stick.... some might be scary... but if you havent' played to game... it won't make much difference until your bb's find Balsa and you hear that wonderful sound. Afterwords, when you see that Captain make the walk of shame.... priceless.... sounds like a Visa COmmercial....

Have fun with it .... looking forward to new ideas.....

 

Caig what I am saying is from talking to alot of people at shows the main reason more people are not in this hobby is cost! it is not that they are not interested but when ships start at 300-400 dollars for a small ship and the larger ones are 1000-2000 dollars it scares alot of people off, as far as the new member who bought three boats and was told he could not arm every cannon maybe he should have done more research before his purchase, as they say buyer beware. I for one do not want to see the amount of damage on my or anyone elses ship like they get at NATS or any other US event, I thought the point of this game was to score hits and sink the other guy not rip his boat apart where is the fun in that. I think if the damage up here gets that bad we will loose several people just because they worked hard to get the boat running and to have to resheet and or make major repairs all the time they will get angry and just quit. We have enough trouble up here with memebership without adding any more. As far as leveling the playing feild we really cannot do it as the war progressed the allied ships got better and the axis ships just got dead, you can't think of this in chess terms as both sides having equal pieces because the ships were far from equal, the early war axis ships were better but the allied ships quickly cought up and in most respects were better ships by the end of the war. I think the original rules were desingned to level the playing feild as much as possible but as with every rules set there are loop holes to be found and people have used them for their own ends.

 

Good points. When you have been in this for a while Chris you will understand some fundemental things. That most people would rather watch then play "You are gonna sink that!" and " I wouldn't put that much work into something and have it get shot!" Are a few reamrks I've heard through the years. Price. PS3, games, blue ray controllers.... extra controllers getting more games... then in three to five years get a new one. That's gonna get pricey, no? As Curt's Bismarck will testify you can build your ship and it can last a lifetime.

As Curt also pointed out the damage from a triple sidemount will be the same as a triple stern... It just may make you sink quicker Have you seen in any combat the damage from a triple stern ripping apart panals? No. Neither have I. Think of all the damage we saw on the Kirishima in that infamous Youtube video... you could patch and relaunch .... which is probably what the guy did. When that speed of game and damage comes here... I will have to rethink MY involvement in the game. It is something I do not look forward to. Nor do I want to be replacing panels like yourself. No one really does. A ram does more panel removal than can be done by bb's. Look at the example from CANNATS 8. I lost two complete panels.... they were blown away... by a dual side mount. That is the only time I've heard of it happening. It seems like you may be taking a hard line stance here, there's no reason to. It may never happen. If it does... trials and testing. If it is deamed to much then it goes away.... that's for the membership to decide, and everyone should have a chance to see it before making a decision.... just like Treaty combat for example. I think my final thoughts will happen when I actual experience it... not on what I think will be.

Keep an open mind about it. It's not happening tommorrow either. As far as Duncan... well. He has dropped off the face of the forum too. So really it is hard to know what happened.

With the orginal rules it has Yammie on the top with Iowa. The two are equal and then it drops from there. So there are two "God" pieces already established in the rules, which nobody debates, and we move on from them. It is a hobby. It is a game. It is sport. It is something to enjoy. If you get out there, don't like being with the people you are with, can't handle something that is said, don't like a particular rule, -then- do something about it. We're all involved in this thing for one thing or another.... but, we are all involved the same.

Don't worry about this, get your ship ready bud. It's not worth championing something that doesn't exsist yet. Remember, everyone is sharing ideas at this point... we're not her to point fingers about what is right and what is wrong. That's not what this discussion is about. Too many times I've had to quell someone pushing their thumb down on someone's ideas in this club. It's not worth it. Let's support one another's ideas... throw out our own for discussion. That's the beauty of this... we can talk about it.... when it's time for a vote, then by all means voice your opinion. As will I. It's not worth hurting someone's feelings over or making their opinion seem worthless.

Soooooooo, let's support one another, Curt put in over two months putting this proposal together, let's keep looking it over and make suggestions for tweaks where we see fit.

 

HERE'S ONE FROM CARL.... THANKS FOR THE INFO!!!!!:

Ramming: On youtube there is a video from the NTXBG of the spanish dreadnought Espana being used as a speed bump by the Richelieu by accident. My understanding is that Richelieu was in sinking condition and racing for port, and Espana set an intercept course to get in some extra holes and put the bigger boat down for good. The intercept was miscalculated and nobody realized it until it was too late. Espana was so top-heavy that the bump turned her turtle and down she went. The collision shifted the water in the french boat and the pump activated and she made it back home safely.

The WWCC is the ONLY model warship combat club in the world to legalize any form of ramming. It is a common tactic for convoy vessels to hug an enemy battleship to get under their guns. In order to reduce pondside arguements when ships came in contact, unarmed convoy vessels were allowed to ram so they could hide in plain sight (armed convoy ships are not allowed to ram because they can fight back).

A member of the WWCC bought the liner Normandie from the SCBG last year. It is the only unarmed convoy ship that large to participate in combat in the WWCC. In this year's Last Man Standing it was used to push two light cruisers (and almost one battleship) out of bounds to disqualify them before it lost power and drifted out as well.

The only other exception to the ramming rule is to make submarines easier to build. There are a small number of active submarines. They are dynamic divers and are armed with torpedo tubes forward. To fire, they have a button in the bow of the ship that fires the torpedos when colliding with a target. This simplifies the internals of a very tiny, very complex ship by eliminating the firing servo. Also, all ships may ram submarines. This simple form of ASW is enough to balance out the threat of submarines, and is historically acurrate method of ASW.

Also, the rules about ramming have been loosened up to reduce pondside arguements. The rules now define a ram as a collision between ships, where the bow or stern of the offender collides with the beam of the victim, and causes damage, an uncorrectable list, or a sink. Beam-to-beam contact is not a ram. It has led to rougher battles on the water with more bumping and pushing, but this is better than the arguements we had before. As long as there is no hole and no complaint, its all good. Keep in mind, however, that biggun uses slower speeds and thicker armor, so a ram is much less likely to cause damage.

I have heard multiple tales of how a destroyer (in both cases a Le Fantasque) was run over by a battleship (in both cases an Iowa) and held under for 30 seconds while the battleship reversed throttle (holding little boat down longer). The destroyer gunned the throttle and popped out from under battleship and started pumping, none the worse for the wear.

Yamato vs Iowa: Personally, I'm not particularly impressed by Yama-chan. I don't think the rules accurately depict the most powerful Axis ship. I think that Yama-chan and Iowa should be kept equal. Although the 16" guns are not quite as powerful as the 18.1" guns, the superior fire-control of the Iowa suggests to me that the two should be equal. Also, this seems more equal for both Axis and Allies, unless there is some other imbalance that I am not aware of (does Iowa turn better? are the smaller Allied battleships better than corresponding Axis ships?). If you really want to make a distinction, perhaps you should give them both 9 guns, but give Iowa 1 pump and Yama-chan 2. Remember: these are your rules and it's very unlikely that I'll battle under them (I'd love to come visit and see them in action). I can provide some input, but ultimately, I don't decide.

ALRIGHT.... CURT.... THIS IS NOT YOU..... ANY THOUGHTS.

 

Funny thing....legalizing restricted ramming rules was proposed up here and it was voted by the membership that if a ship was attacked it could do what it could (within the CD's reason) to defend itself through ramming. It would have one strike of some sort and then have to continue on it's previous course.

 

Whoops! Glad I reread these things sometimes! ummmmmmm, yes... that would be for Convoy ships .... including unarmed carriers in convoy battles. Ramming damage and rules still apply. So it would be up the captain of the convoy ship if he would like to try and ram.

 

Oh for *(^&^'s sake..... the freaking Ramming rules apply but with the effect that the point penalty is not given. That's the difference. The boats would come of the water if the rammie was sunk. It would be in effect a ship destroying itself to take out the other.... if it ever happened.... with a carrier though....

 

That statement has no place in this forum!!

 

Jay? Did you want action taken?

 

Jay? Did you want action taken?

Love the quote... so true so true.

 

The ramming rules are fine. The side by side bumping is going to happen so "Gentleman's call here. Unless a the bumping happens to disloge superstructure or deck items or a sidemount tears a gash or punctures the hull.

With Sidemounts that can be reduced by having sidemounts on the beam of smaller ships reduced to min 3 inch from the breech. Some ships havd 5 inch barrels pointing at least 3 inches over the beam and when they get in close they inadvertanlty puncture a hull. My ships have been victim of this many times.

Curt

 

All the points make sense there Curt. No brainers really.

 

That makes sense Curt I think reducing the LOA rule is better than a width rule for side mounts anyway.

 

Should I bring in more? Or are we good for now....

 

I think is done Craig.

 

I have a suggestion. Instead of triple sidemounts for the Yamato, why not have the tripple sterns be given 75 round mags and an iowa 2 75 rd sidemounts. So a Yamato would be a class 9 with 9.5 units and an Iowa would be class 9 but with 9 units. The Yamato getting the slight advanatage due to her status as the biggest ship afloat.