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

IRCWCC says that Cannons may not be subdivided into smaller cannon unit(a 1 unit unit may not be divided into 2 1/2 unit cannons however under section G. Pumps, a one unit pump may not be subdivided into 2 1/2 unit pumps.

So the allocation I set up for a NC works. 7.5 UNITS 3STERN 50S, ONE SINGE 75 AND 2 DUAL SIDEMOUNTS. tHAT is the upper limit within reason for a ship of this caliber. Again I pose the question.. do you want ships of this class and the list is there to have dual sidmeounts on both sidess? If not then this is the way to do it.

If a Captain wants to make the 75 rd cannon into a 50 and divide the remaining unit into a 1/2 unit pump then that gives the Captain a choice...options... will he decide to go a little more offensive?...or go a littel more defensive.. If we make a rule where ships with 1&1/2 unit guns could subdivide into a full unit 50 rd cannon and a 1/2 unit pump then I don't have an issue with that. It gives the Captain a choice in how he wants to use that unit. It will utilize that 1/2 unit and give these ships a littel extra offensive or defensive power.

 

The Maxium rate of fire may be difficult to gage using electronic buttons. Still even a normal cannon with no mods made to it has a limit of firing without the bbs jamming in the breech. Steve is used to fighting in battles that are cluster F^%&&KS. Bascially ships within a small area and there is at least minimal 8-10 ships. You guys won't have that kind of contests.Nor will you have ships outfitted so technical in comparsion to what those guys have no have the battling skill developed. It will take a looooonngg time to see that kind of caliber battling. You have nothing to worry about there. The breaking of ribs and such I already mentioned what's causing that, the silicone lined muzzells. That we DO NOT NEED. Like you I am not interested in breaking through another guys hull, just the balsa. I don't believe in it and goes against the fabric of the hobby.. to shoot through soft balsa and make holes in the balsa.

Here is another thing. Steve is a sit and battle guy. He plays his Nagato but not moving around hardly at all. He waits for the enemy to attack him, baiting them. If he was more hit and run I don't believe he would incurr such damage to the ribs and hull of his ship. MOst of them battling do not.Most do not play tactics like Steve. It is his style unfortuatlly he gets hit at point blank range in swarms.

Say Hi to Steve for me.

 

So what you are saying Curt is that there is only one way to set up a NC the only real choice is what side to put the deul on. That does not sound good, I think more fredom in how we can set up our ships, under the old system you have little or no choice under this configureation your only real choice is what side to mount the deul side mount on. Why not leave the system alone and reduce the rule on mounting duel side mounts to 700 feet and that would give NC several different set ups, the standard two single side mounts and a triple stern, set two would be two deul side mounts and a single stern or one duel side mount one single side mount and a deul stern. to me having more options on how to arm is more important than more units, that way you see more than 3 or 4 different types of ships on hte water.

 

Hmmmm..I remember I was proposing ships of NC size basically any ww2 ship(not post refit of ww1)of that size 700 ft up to 799 ft with that options but it was "NOT" well received. They the naysayers said that ships like NC would become 2 powerful because of their maneuverability. The other thing was the internal volume. The most a ship this size could reasonable carry in way of co2 is 12oz. Too many mulitvalves and the tank is going to empty very fast. Tripples will take 3 actuators and a pair of duals will require 4. Hmmm may drive the cost up there and complicate things. However... I do like the option your proposing for side mounts based on ships 700 ft. Make it 700 up to 799. That way ships over 800 ft, (excludes IOWA and Yamato) could carry an additional unit. Vanguards, Bismarcks are already carring but they could be class 7 -7.5 to class 7- 8 units. There are not many ships over 800 ft below 55,000 tons.

Ok lets set NC for the 3 options. Soday then could be set for Dual sidemounts 1 turret and a single sidemount other turret to max out and keep it in perpective. However that may be an issue. I am still not sure on this sidemount based on length. I think if you look at the other ships in this category and it is going to be a real headache.

I will think about this and research it further.

 

I have not heard that, but we could try it and if it does not work we could go back to her original set up, but you still have the problem of her having a deul side mount. As for the other ships the only other ships effected by lowering the deul side mount rule are Renown,Dunkerque, Scarhorast,KGV,WWI Lion,Queen Mary,Tiger,Littorio,Hyuga,Kongo,Nagato,Des Moines and NC. That being said the Des Moines is a cruiser and could be exempted. Some hypothetical would also benifit but I have not included them. That seems to me be alot of ships but the allies get 7 additional ships the axis 5 and 1 that could play both sides that would be able to mount side mounts. If we increase the units it will most likely unbalence ships like Nagato, NC and Scanhoarst due to there maneuverability and would they have the internal room to mount additional guns and valves. As far as gas goes I plan to use only a 9oz bottle for Tirpitz. Accually Sodak would be left unchanged due to her length, as Paul has said he does not have alot of extra room in his Bamma. That ship may be one on the outside looking in.

 

I will get back to you on this Chris. It may be workable.

 

Cool I have some investigating to do myself, I think the last thing any of us want to do is to screw the whole thing up. Last night I did have another idea for Iowa and Yammy, what I was thinking was that Yammy due to her superior armour and displacment would get 7 guns of 50 rounds and 2 pumps and Iowa would get her 7 guns due to her better fire control, muzzle volcity and armor penatration, but due to her limited armor she would only get 1 pump. Yammy would be a 9 unit ship and Iowa would be a 8 unit. What do you think Curt.

 

Pardon me, saw this and I had to get some info.
Who is using Silicone lined barrels?
I've never heard of that before.

 

Heard about it but don't know who has been doing it.

 

Me neither, I know after testing last year at Nats, that some cannons are exceding 250 fps, which is causing excessive ship damage. But I did not see lined barrels.

 

But the guys that were shooting 250+ on the chrono weren't battling at that level. They had to sacrifice rate of fire to get it up that high ( EDIT: not just RoF but they had to sacrifice responsiveness too, pull the trigger and wait a second for it to fire). And I didnt see any boats last year at NATS taking massive amounts of structural damage from cannon fire.(Fiberglass and wood will both take some damage from being impacted by steel balls, thats just the way things are.) But if this is just something people have heard about and nobody has actually seen then thats a little less interesting. Plus that would really only work if you love sorting BBs or are willing to shell out some cash for precision ground shot. ( yes djranier we know you are [] )

 

Chris I don't have room for another pump. There is no space from the bow as far back to the original pump. Yamato does not need 2 pumps, she already has reserve buoyancy because she can weigh up to 59 lbs.

Kind of brings it back to the NC debate. What's to stop me from making that pump into a Cannon? Back to one of my original suggestions. Give Yammie option to carry a single turret with tripple sidemount or leave 2 turrets with dual sidemounts or 2 pumps. Since teh model is undergunned and has 20 percent additional displacement over the next largest model then it makes sense to make that unit a cannon or offensive unit. Due to the 3 turret arrangment that becomes a tripple sidemount. Iowa being longer and narrow with a lot less displacement and much lower freeboard could use the additional pump.

I like original ideal better. Make IOWA and Yamato exempt. Iowa class 8-9 units ( 3 75 rd sterns)the extra rounds allows for the superior radar, or it could relfect the Iowas superior rate of fire. Either way she would have more rounds to carry. She would carry 1 dual sidemount and 1 tripple sidemount and 1 pump.

Yamato gets class 9- 10 units. No 75 rd cannons, means less ammo and tripple sidemounts.

That makes these 2 pretty close. Both would have thier unique advantages and strengths. Balanced out well.

Back to the NCS and the 700ft sidemount option.

 

Ok guys this can be sorted on another thread. Back to the rules discussion. Tks

 

Curt if you don't have room for another pump, how are you you going to fit in more guns? Why is the model under gunned? the models I hear that are under gunned are battle cruisers not the Yamato, If you look at the firepower of both ships (Iowa, Yamato) just because here guns were bigger does not mean they were better, in reality not only were Iowa's guns were more accurate, could shoot just as far and had better penatration of armor than Yamato's and they could fire faster. All and all just better guns, as far as the 20% bigger displacement is Yamato should get anything for that it should be an extra pump beacuse alot of that was armor. We could just restrict the Yamato to have 2 pumps. Just because she was bigger does not mean she should get more guns than Iowa, the other thing we could do is drop Iowa down to either a 7.5 or 7 unit ship as she is closer to Vanguard or Bismarck than Yamato in regards to weight. If Iowa is dropped I would leave Yamato the way she is, as it would over power her in regards to all other ships on the water.

 

Alright guys.... I think you've hashed this out enough. There is only one way to really decide it. Curt... would you be willing to convert Yamato to the class 9-10? If so... then I would either fight Yammie with Bismarck as he stands or upgrade myself. I think in this case I'd want another pump.... I'm going to take some damage. Is there anything that would stop me from having no pump and all eight cannons armed? I mean this is about captain's choice right? If that is the case I may go that way with it instead... not sure. Lemme know what you think Curt. Again, the only way to see what is what, is to actually get one of these beasts done up. I'm willing to have Bis go up against Yammie even if I don't convert it.

As far as anything else goes... you guys have had your chance to yak this up and I think everything has been said now. Let's move on to other PROPOSED changes. LOA 700ft for sidemounts? Sure. But, if you are up-uniting the classes... there are a few we should bump up as well... SODAK for one. It makes no sense to have it 7-7.5 with a triple side, two single sidemounts and three pumps.... unless you never wanted the ship to sink!!!!

That would give 2-French, 2-German, 8-English, 1-Italian, 4-Japanese, 4-American. From the current eight that can have sidemounts... this is now twenty-one. Giving much more flexability and putting a little more "umph" out there.

 

What I was saying Craig was that Sodak would be exempt due to her shorter length she was not listed above for a reason, my hole idea is based upon the fact that we do not up gun if we up gun it will send the entire thing in a spiral out of control I do not know what Curt big obsession with having 9 guns. As Curt said in a earlier post if he does not have room for another pump how is he going to fit 2 more guns and their gear into her. As far as the other class sixes go, Nagato, NC, Sodak all would be hard pressed to put more than 5 guns and a pump in them, even with the space and weight saving features that electronics offer were used, this is the thing that is getting left out. Just because all ships have more guns does not make the game more playable, that is the most important thing we should be thinking about.

 

Chris I am not going into a Yamato vs Iowa debate. I been through that so many times this season I am ready to puke it up. Just stick to the basic factors that are on the ship lists both Ircwcc and MWC.If you can't understand it then so be it I'm cool with it.

Chris you will completly get it once your Tirpitz hits the water and you have a few battles.

Last point on installation. As I explained before I have the room to carry the 2 cannons. The cannons are not on the hull bottom where a pump would be. If you need to see interiors there are more than enough available

I don't have an "OBSESSION" with 9 guns. As far as upgunning Chris those values are based on the models space allowance, weight factors, cost, ease of intallation the works. I don't expect you to understand it because your new at this and there is a lot of things to take into account.

Point is CHRIS I already worked out everything and I am sure there are things that will be overlooked. It is inevitable as this is very complex.

Tell you what. You go ahead and draft an entire proposal based on "All" the ships and not just thier stats as ships but as "Combat Models".Now that means you have to be familiar with the ones that have been built and used in the hobby. The ships are set up for the BEST offensive possibility without overcomplicating the setups or costs.Yes you could set a rule that there be no limit to firing arcs but what will happen is that rookies will set up the 7 gun broadside and a .25 unit pump. Yeah impressive till the fist few minutes when the guy realizes that he can't get those guns to bear on anyone because the opponents can obviously see how it's armed and they will just move in on the complete underdefended side.

I based everything not just on my expereince battling with a WIDE variety of combat models but through the emails which I kept from the original forum on layouts, capabilities, and combat tactics, the HULL BUSTERS , which was club magazine that was incredibly helpful to new people in setting up thier ships and exchanging info on how to build set up and play the ships and the problems everyone encountered when building. I am also drawing on my combat experience and buidiing experinece with a wide variety of kit and non kit models.I have a very very good idea on what models can handle what, how much costs and performance.

The easiest modification is a unit upgrade. Individual combat units are available through battlers so I kept that in mind for the rookies if they wnated to upgrade.

Like I explained before I stand by it. I don't want a complicated system here. I am looking to slightly alter the game by way of adding an extra battle unit or 2 at most for ships able to handle it but using the classification system already setup based on standard tonnage to Full Tonnage. If a guy wants to take his NC to a MWC event all he have to do is just disconnect one cannon. If a MWC guy wanted to try out our event he only need 1 additional unit mostly which is not a problem. Most of the models can handle that. I have to take into consideration the CO2 supply, particulary if a model will have duals or tripples, balance that with battery power for the motors and pumps, balance that with the weight of the model and keep it from being overweight. Also keeping the units to 50 and 75rds I don't want to have ships with 3 or 4 75 rds it makes it confusing to classify ships on thier unit allocations and that can become a nightmare. Ships like NC and others in her class range you have to be careful not to have too many units or too many options for firing arcs. You will end up having people who will always be changing things around never being satisfied with their gun arrangment. It will turn them off after a while. There must be limits and I want to keep it within limits. The Big ships Yamato and Iowa are exempt under the current system of rules for a very good reason.. VERY BIG, VERY LONG, HEAVY MODELS with LIMITED setups. That is why there are very very very few of them out there. They are at the BOTTOM of the FOOD CHAIN. Big targets that don't maneuver in tight spaces. They can't rotate their guns, they can't shoot over thier bows. They are not the best combat models out there.They provide the largest target area of all the ships other than Carriers. 1 OR 2 UNITS won't change that very fact. The system I am using is just extending what is already in place...unit wise. All the other stuff can be R&D later but need to start with the heart of it all the..units. That's what seperates this hobby from all others..a pump and a cannon.

If you want to set up your own rule system and try them out for NB when you guys get settled go ahead. I am already going through what I proposed way back in 06 and am making changes. This I will have in place for the Newfoundland Labrador Chapter of A.R.R.C for RC COMBAT. Maybe we can meet in the middle with all this and exchange what we learned from our experiences with the R&D from it.

The models here will still be able to compete in MWC. It does not take any effort to insert a pin into a cannon and deactivate it, or disconnect a hose or shut off a dedicated valve. That's the way I am going to draft it for here for R&D and see what works.

I will be interested to hear how you guys set it up for yourselves in NB.

Craig I will have Yamato set up as 9 gun 1 pump. Origially I would have been happy with just 8 guns 1 pump. It's not going to happen anytime soon though. Maybe later the summer. We'll see. PE is priority now and so is Roma, followed by Bismarck.. which will remain as 6.5 though I can certaintly make it class 7 for later but no hurry for that. Followed by California and Tirpitz.

Goodnite..yawwn.

Curt

 

You can add another pump if you want. Chris and I tangled and Yamato took more damage. Bismarck is more maneuverable and quicker on the fly with rudder control. And a tough ship to put down. iT WOULD not be wise to have no pump. I wouldnt need all the guns. Just one cannon to pop a minum of one hole below the waterline aft and the ship will sink fast.

I want the ships to be as most effective offensively and balanced defensively within reason. Too much of either or will have consequences.

I will look forward to that Battle Craig.

It makes no sense to have it 7-7.5 with a triple side, two single sidemounts and three pumps.... unless you never wanted the ship to sink!!!!

Exactly that's why there has to be some restrictions on that part of it. When I tell a guy how best to set up ship.. I mean the best that works for the ship. I am not guessing. I am getting this from the videos of the nationals over the years and my own observations in combat with these models. I talked to the "Experienced" people, the ones who are very successful with this hobby. It's worked very well.

Most people will go offensive. If they done their research well they will find that tripples in the stern 1 large pump and 2 sidemounts work the best. Boy wish I had that COMBAT EFFIENCY FACTOR sheet.That would clear up a lot of ill conceived perceptions. That's just NC.

All about balance. I will let you know when I get the tripples set up and get video of it firing.

Curt

Curt

 

Fantastic news Admiral! I agree. I agree. and ummmmmmmm I agree. Good points all. I look forward to our meeting on the pond Admiral. I will stick with the standard formula for Bis for now and may convert in the offseason, should testing go well. I too wish you could find the COMBAT EFFICENCY FACTOR sheets.... those were great!

Talk soon Stokomoto....

Sparrow

 

I will post some ideas I have for the mainland as soon as I get a chance, so keep your eyes open.