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

Wow. That's an approach I'd never have expected.... could Yamato handle it Curt?

 

How about this one Paul... make IOWA a class 8 -9 unit with 8cannons and 1 pump. It would carry 1 tripple sidemount,1 Dual sidemount all of 50rds.Then make her stern guns all 75rd cannons. She would carry 425 rounds total. Give her 1 sec speed advantage as well, make her a 23 second. This would reflect her speed, and her radar giving her superior stern guns. Yamato would not be able to outrun or outpace her in a pursuit and if attempted her bow would eat 225 shots from low stern guns.

Yamato being a larger Target would have no speed advantage so keep it 24 second. The only advantage is the 20% displacement. She would be class 9- 10 units. All turrets armed however only armed with 50rd mags. She would unfortuntaly have no advantage with her stern guns as they are mounted higher than IOWAS and fire 150rds as opposed to IOWAs 225 rds. Not a good stern to stern challenge there. That leaves her trying to get alongside IOWAS side that would carry a dual sidemoutn where she would edge that one side only by 50 rds 1 cannon. However that would be very difficult too because IOWA is faster and would avoid letting Yamato on that side. This would reflect radar capability as the CAPTAIN of an IOWA can dictate the strategic positioning. If Yamato screws up than it will eat tripple sidemounts or 225rds of stern cannons and on a hull that size Iowa would easily tag Yamato. To me that gives teh ALLIED ship the edge. So in ahead to head that would be extremely interesting to see.

The classes go up to 8. We could make IOWA class 8-9 units and Yamato class 9 -10 units. This seems fair to me.

What do you think of that? If someone modified their IOWA like this then I would modify my Yamato for a head to head challenge to see what it would be like.

Curt

 

How about this; Iowa and yammy would be class 9 and would be like so. The Iowa would have 7 guns and be 23 seconds speed but one of her guns would have a 75 round mag, Yammy would be 7 guns and 24 seconds but 2 of her guns would be 75 rounds. This gives Iowa a slight speed advantage but Yammy gets a slight firepower advantage. The other thing we do not have to have any ship with triple side mounts. On another note this idea of a ship being class 8 and having 9 units or class 9 having 10 units all this does is gets around the sink points, if a ship has 8 units it is a class 8, if it has 9 units it is a class 9 and so on. I think points should be based on the class of ship say 200 points per Class so a yammy or iowa would be worth 1800 points sunk if they were a class 9. It a more fare way to give out sink points than the current system.

 

DAMN YOU CURT STOKES! I wanna build an Iowa just to try that! I am really interested in the configuration... something really off the beaten path... no one else out there thinking in this direction.... why did I trade for Shinano.... *grumbles* I almost wanna find one of those hulls.... almost. I like this kinda strategy. Good work you two. So would these then be the bench mark for the rest of the fleet?

 

That woukd depend on which system we used, The way i figured it that all other ships would pretty much stay where they are so those two ships have that advantage. The only two ships even close in displacement were the Vanguard and Bismark's and I think they work pretty much work as is. That being said I think most other ships should stay put so that we don't unbalence things. One thing we should look at though is battle cruisers other than Hood and Scharnhoarst as they are class 6 and 5.5, the Renown is only a 4.5 and should be at least a 5 or 5.5, the world war 1 BC's are pretty good but maybe we take a look at tham all. Speed and LOA for side mounts could also be addressed with something that works better.

 

The worst thing about having mixed mag cannons is that they don't always fire together consistently and one cannon will hog the gas and affect the other one. Loading them is a pain in the butt too. I had mixed guns in Bismarck's D turret with a 75 coil and 5o rd coil. Oh it worked most of the time but one cannon was always loading and firing faster than the other one that being the 75 rd mag. No I found that 2 "like" Cannons give a much smoother consistent rate of fire. My tripples and dual sidemounts work very well and consistently. Roma's single 75rd sidemount works great by itself and the aft tripples are all 50s and they empty togehter and fire well consistently. Installing mixed cannons likethat and grouping them in the same turret is a pain.

In my proposal I would have had Bismarck and Vanguard moved up to class 7 -8 units. THe class 6s would move up to class 7s and so forth. That way even though the 2 biggest ships are allocated more units so is everyone else so it keeps it balanced throughout.

Once we get these 2 behemoths sorted out lets move down to the Next lot
Craig go ahead and post them. Work from the biggest and go down in succession.Everyone here can look at them for reference as we discuss them. Makes it easier to discuss and refer back.

As for Yammie in order for me to avoid ordering 3 75rd cannons and having to remove my current 3 cannons in place now it would be easier for me to just drill out one more hole alongside the current cannon in each sidemount and insert a 50 rd mag. I can always attach another valve and run them off the current accumulators for the sidemounts. That would be very cost effective. Other Than Jason ..I don't know who else but Tommy that has an IOWA, they can install the 3 75s for the stern and one extra sidemount for a tripple. That would get these 2 ships at least ready for the next phase of RC COMBAT. Time to Evolve the hobby that way.The hobby has been evolving dramactically in technology which is outpacing the rules.

We need to have our ships catch up. We can make it more exciting and competitive and playable without the upgrades in technology..ie ESCs, robotic boards, soleniods ect.

Back to basics with a littel "PINACH" added on top.

 

Since were starting on discussing these classes of ships lets take it from the top and work our way down..

This particular group of battleships range from 44,000 tons - 72,000 tons

the smallest # of units allocated in this range is 7.5 units. The largest is 10 units.

Class rating starts this here with this groups at class 7 - 7.5 to 8 units. Class 8 - 9 units
class 9 - 10 units.

CLASS 7-7.5 units Battleships>= 44,000 to 49,999 tons
CLASS 7-8 units Battleships>=50,000 to 56,999 tons

CLASS 8-9 units Battleships >= 55,000 to 60,000 tons

CLASS 9-10units Battleships > 60,000 tons

Ok in this group these Battleships would be assigned units as follows starting from the least tonnage to the max at Full Load Displacement value

FULL LOAD TONNAGE
44,400 NORTH CAROLINA CLASS 7 -7.5 units
44,500 SOUTH DAKOTA CLASS 7 - 7.5 units
44,500 HMS NELSON CLASS 7-7.5 units
45,900 KING GEORGE V CLASS 7- 7.5 units
46,200 LITTORIO CLASS 7- 7.5 units
49,900 RICHELIEU CLASS 7 - 7.5 units
50,900 BISMARCK CLASS 7 - 8 units
52,900 VANGUARD CLASS 7 - 8 units
53,500 TIRPITZ CLASS 7 - 8 units
57,500 IOWA CLASS 8 - 9 units
72,000 YAMATO CLASS 9 - 10 units

This is the first group to look at. Discussions please...Lets GO!

 

I think these 2 ships should be the benchmark for the rest of the classes to be discussed. Gotta start somewhere.Lets go to the top and go where the most friction is and get it done.

Damn now you got me wanting an IOWA Craig. I think that would be the most awesome thing next to a BIGGUN IOWA fiRING 12 rounds of 3/4 inch ballbearing or whatever size they use ...it's bigger that's for sure.

I am tired of unutilzed Turrets or barrels on our ships.Lets give them more bang!

 

HEEELLLLPPPP!!! I can't stop posting!!!!... must go to bed......

 

DAMN..I'M back! I was just looking at Yamato. 75 rds would not work there.They would go right up to my servo tray. Too much for me. However I can manage an extra cannon in each sidemount. The accumulator will be tricky though.
Looking at my 1/350 iowa and the 1/144 plans I placed my spare 75mag on it and you can fit 3 75 rd mags there comfortable. The mags could run either direction. I probably run them aft or forward but I am leaning towards aft section. ..MOre research...tomorrow..I an NOW ..OFFICIALLY ...SIGNING OFF...G'NITE!

 

OMG!!!! I will leave all this stuff to you folks to figure out.

 

hehehehehehehehehe Funnnnnny... hey Chuck? This is just amazing proposal wise... I would love to outfit an Iowa like this.... it would be damned nasty. Make it a REAL battleship instead of a big target.... which it still will be.... Iowa's would start coming out then I think. As far as the rest go.... Curt you know where I stand... give er....

What's with the multiple posts man..... somone's getting excited?

 

My big thing is from talking to some guys in the US the idea of triple side mounts scare them, could you imagine a ships with electronic firing system with triple side mounts, NO thank you I think we have to limit them as electronics are going to start to filter up here. If someone ordered electronics and high tollerence barrels for a ship and you combine that with triple side mounts the damage will be very nasty. As far as unused gun barrels the only ship that would have all guns used is Yammie and why should she have it if nobody else does. I think the other thing we should start looking at is what the extra units would do with the smaller ships such as NC and Sodak, we would have to look at lowering the side mount rule for length. In my opion NC is already one of the best combat models out there if she 7.5 units she will have the same firepower as Yammie does now with a half unit pump, she will rip Yammie a new one with 2 deul side mounts and a triple stern, she turns much better and is just as fast, I think that would over power that class when it is compared to other ships of the same size. What we really should be looking at is what advantages a ship has before you just give it more units. The system as it stands now seems to take that into account with a few exceptions. I will quote people when I got into this hobby, if it ain't broke don't fix it and the other was the rules have been around for 30 years now, and have work pretty good. I am not saying that there should be no changes but does this require wholesale changes. I for one will support change for the better but not change for the sake of change just to be different. The other thing we may have to look at is electronics as they will become more common as time goes by, do they give a unfair advantage over the old servo system, if so how much. If the advantage is too much do we restrict the use of them because everyone cannot afford to put them in there boat or do we call it progress, me and some others have been toying with the idea of converting over to electronics but even I admit that, if they give a unfair advantage something should be done. In closing just by increasing all the ships units does not make a system of checks and balences something every game needs, it just increases the divide between small ships and large ones there are other things we could do insted of increasing units. As increased cost will seperate the haves from the have nots. This is something we really need to sit down and look at also.

 

Well now we have the ying and yang of it. As far as change goes. No change is bad... and no change can't be undone. I will always (unless I win the lotto) be a have not. I am content with that. As long is everything works in the end I don't care. I would love to see triple sidemounts and advancements in tech. I just won't have the ability to keep up. Still doesn't mean people can't try it. Why handcuff progress because some can't keep up. I'll have my boat on the water and will take all comers. Triple sidemounts... quads.... technical terrors... twenty boats or two.... doesn't matter to me... I just wanna play. Let's do that instead. Prep the rules for 2009... and let's get on with it.

 

Why not try one thing at a time instead of a wholesale change?

 

Chris I don't what guys you were talking to but I have yet to hear of any comments like that from anybody. These guys are used to tremendous damage. They resheet after everybattle and it's not just from Tripples but from a fleet of ships during one battle so their getting holed a lot from all sides. They have and are still using electronics with delta boards and Solenoids and now with advanced ESCs so now you have all that advanced electronic firepower with the means to position your ship for a firing postion much more accuratly. The IRCWCC have been using Electronic firing Solenoids since they first became available and nobody even noticed for a long time. 30 Years later the battlefield on the water composes of models with just poppets only, or solenoid, or delta board with poppet or any combination. My point is the game is ever evolving and will continue to evolve as new things are tried. Not everybody will try them or even want to but others will certainlty explore them and use them or develop something else along the way. The game evolves through hard experience and on water R&D. Everyone needs to keep an open mind and allow development and exploration of the hobby. Without it the Hobby would not be where it is today. Models with better more reliable systems, better game play, and better utilization of a model and it's faculties.

As far as Yammie having unused barrels that is one suggestion. I actually proposed several suggestions on this. But as to why... I propose to you why not? We already know why..that has been talked about to death add nauseum so I am interested in the WHY NOTS side of it. Last time I checked there are 3 bismarck class ships down there upgraded and there are no Yamatos other than Chris in NB.

A rule for limiting sidemount based on length? That makes no sense to me.
You can work on that one and let me know how that works out. Under the "Proposed" ruling you got it wrong there. NC would not be the same as Yammie if Yammie was left a class 7-8units. NC would have 3units in the stern turret, 2 in a sidemount and 1 single in another sidemount 75rds and a pump for 7.5 units total. That is not the same.

The system I propose does look at the advantages each ship has and tries to allow that ship to use them which currently none of the ships are able to utilize their potential. There will always be exceptions ie:Rodneys, Hood, KGVs ect and those are left seperate to discuss and see how they can best be used. Even with the best thought out I found that some ships(models) due to their inherent design will never meet their full potential but if we can help them improve their playability just a bit than that's better than leaving them the way they are which is unbuilt, unseen and unknown.

Wholesale?Not sure what you mean there but the changes will take effect when someone decides to change their ship. Ships can still be as they are and make no changes. Far as I can tell nobody has ship that will be made anyway to a new rule and even if in place doesnt' mean that everyone will switch or upgrade simutaneoulsly or next year or even years. You don't have to even upgrade nobody said you have to. Just because one guy decides to add a pump or a cannon doesn't mean you have to. Far as I am concerned a skilled Captain with a good reliable ship will take out a ship with upgraded units or technological advanced systems. Doesn't mean a darn thing. You will find that out soon enough when you start battling against opponents who may have an ESC or a solenoid for a cannon. We fought Marty and another fellow I forget his name and they had solenoids. None of us noticed any different. Marty was sunk and so was the other fellow.If we go with the proposal of options for standard and Full then that means I can keep both Bismarck and Yamato as they are. Bascially the standard would mean current unit allocation as per original. In a few years if I want to add 1 extra cannon or pump it would be great to do so but doesn't mean I will or I have to. Frankly I am very comfortable with Bis as a 6.5 and Yammy as class 7-8 unit. But you know I agree with Carl.. doesn't impress me to see IOWA and Yammie so undergunned. Lets face it.. no sternsidemounts..how many ships have them...a lot. No rotate allowed.., unable to shoot over the bow so a quadrant always undefended. Stern guns that are useless at close range and can only hit above the waterline..way above...so you see for a ship that costs 3000.00 pardon me if I like to see it a little more competitive. The biggest ship in teh hobby relagated to only 4 effective cannons with at most 2 guns in a broadside. Seems off to me....But its not about that. If so I wouldn't even suggest bring everyone else up and give them optional setups.

As far as electronics. I don't know people thought Chris's Musashi was using electronic solenoids as it fired very very fast. Faster than Yamato. The reason..his servo cams were virtually on top of his poppets. There was a test done between poppets and electronic solenoid years back and the poppet slightly edged the solenoid however it was deemed a tie. Doesn't give an edge that way but the electronics allow more efficient systems. There are the Techocrats and there are those who stick with the Kiss principal. What ever works as long as the model ..WORKS.. reliably.

The only thing I don't agree with is modifying a tight tolerance barrel to fire even harder than what would be allowed by pressure alone.. like coating the inside of a barrel with silicone to increase the muzzell pressure.It's not requried and I have heard that it fires just way too hard damaging fiberglass hulls their ribs and stringers and devestating turrets. To me that is a safety issue and the game was based on damaging BALSA not the actual hull of the model. Another is the extreme rapid gatling gun fire. I know there are some ships not many just only a couple that have managed to have thier "T"pins drilled through the bottom through the PIN. This in effect allows 2 BBS to travel through the upfeed tube and through the breach ,not quite a spurt but close. The gas once released has begun pushing the first bb and a 2nd rolls in on top of the pin at the instant the pin then begins to move.Now 2 bbs are moving at high speed through the upfeed. There you have it..rapid fire cannons.

However yes the first time it was encountered it shocked the guys and threw them off thier game. But technology eventually gave way to familarity, tactics and skill and the boys were able to sink this ship not once but several times. The once "Feared" quickly became another Joe on the water but easily identified as the "one" with the Quick firing guns. After that nobody feared that ship anymore. In fact it was becoming a target of obsession because everyone was waiting to take a crack at it.

The same will hold true for all of the ships after the upgrade. A whole new element avaiable.One that will either make you excited and anxious to play or one that will make you PEE in your pants and walk away.If your really going to pee in your pants then you should look for another hobby.

I don't believe you should restrict someone's ability to get equipment for thier ship that would make their ship work better just because "they" can afford it and you cannot. Heck most of the guys in the hobby can afford a Hell of alot more than I can but I managed to buy and build a Yamato and equip it..not because I could afford it because I really couldn't but I budgeted for it and shopped wisely and built it wisley without wasting a lot of money. The only setbacks I had was the gears system because it was new territory for me and I was not familiar with the brands and their products and how they worked. I lost money there but fortuntaly I recuperated quite well. Costs for my model have been extremely low. Reliability high despite having it sink 6 times and chewed to itty bitty bits over and over and over. Most peope will start out small and work their way to large if they want to but the exact opposite is true also and they go back to small and settle somewhere in between. No I don't agree with restrictions based on what someone can afford and not to afford. It's a matter of what the person wants and what choice they make.

The system and balance of checks are already in place. Were just going to add to the current system..enhance it a little not by much. If it works don't fix it yes but in reality everything needs a little upgrade eventually. The rules have worked for 30 years because of the continous changes being made to "EVOLVE" the hobby.

The time for change is at hand and it's time to get things moving.I been waiting 25 years for simple changes to happen Point in case.. your Bismarcks to get to a class 7. Don't know about you but I most likely will not have another 30 years to wait for another simple change.

The divide was already there Chris before you came aboard.Now it's time to start the process to close the divide. There are no have nots or have tos..this is a hobby. It has costs but the costs can be handled depended on how you want to handle it. Anybody that can afford a Yamato apparently doesn't want one. Those that can't afford a Yamato don't really care for one anyway so they are the ones who will want to maximize their smaller ships. The smaller, medium and large ships are going to benefit the most from this as this will be the core battling group. Not the "SUPERSHIPS"
Their cost are going to be optional but their options will be always available.It's a win win situation. Costs have aleady gone up anyway so that point is irrelevant.My point make the most of what you got.If you can afford to build 3 or 4 small or medium ships than the other guy with the same medium budget can certainly afford 1 extra cannon or pump.The transition to change the playing field dynamic will take only hours as opposed to months or years. I rather see a few ships with more capability than 8 or 9 ships that have only some of thier standard units mounted on board.
A win win no matter how you look it at.

I am a HAVE NOT and with my health and circumstances that will probaly not change. However I am able to make the best of what I got and I will push the envelope just a little. I have no Car so I am at a huge disadvantage anyway..I have the worst weather to deal with. Still can't get out due to weather. The last time was that 2nd speed trial in March. This hobby is for everyone but if you are tight with funds or time than it will take good managment on your part to make it work.Management of your resources and time. Then see you on the water. That's where I enjoy what little time I have when I can get it.

Great viewpoints Chris...hope to see more and thanks for adding to the discussion. Time to get back to PE. I spoke with Paul and I think the PE is going to arrive sooner than you think. Ok time to shoot something...LOL

CHEERS B'YS

 

If a captain wanted to have & guns in a NC and half unit pump what is to stop him..... Nothing, Craig for one said that is how he would arm it and he also said he would build another in a heart beat if that is how she ends up being.

 

Simple Chris. You cannot "Subdivide a cannon for a smaller pump. 6.5 cannons and a single "Full"unit pump. 7.5 units giving 5 50rd cannons , 1 75 round cannon and 1 full unit pump. NC benefits with a dual sidemount and a 75 round single sidemount. So your moving a class 6 - 5 cannons 1 pump at standard displacement old rule and if you choose to Full load your model you can increase to class 7-7.5 or 6.5 cannons, 1 Full unit pump.

Besides where would he put the extra cannon? Tripples are already taken up, a single sidemount is already in place then you have duals. Where is he going to have the extra cannon placed? Are you suggesting that a NC have Dual sidemounts? THAT would contradict your own argument Chris against upgrading a NC..

[][][]Curt

 

Nothing in any rule set I have read says that a NC has to use a full unit pump if the captain wants to put a half unit pump instead of a full unit pump, that would leave him 7 units for guns.

 

After talking at length with Steve Crane last night, the whole electronic firing system being an advantage is very minimal, the thing that gives the US captains an advantage over us up here is the push button radios, there are alot of things I may put into my boats in the future but the whole electronics vs servo and popit system for me is a moot point as soom videos he showed me have pointed out. Another thing we may have to look at somewhere down the line is a maximum rate of fire for all ships, to me it is one of the only rules in treaty that I like. One other thing Steve did say he must resheet his boat after every second battle and that his ribs are pretty busted up and must be repaired at least once a year, again that is too much damage to be repairing on a regular basis, as our battleing season is so short we will have to have a test other than a pressure test to see how hard a gun is hitting, I have a couple of ideas for one but I will have to test it out before I say it works or not.Going to talk to Steve latter today and pick his brain some more. T.T.F.N