Now, now Mike... 1) I'm not dictating the rules, I asked for input since I'm only one guy who is maintaining the rules for everyone else. 2) I don't want little old Virginia annihilated either. Throw out an idea that sounds reasonable to you. Overall max number of torps per side limited to X tubes? A representative fraction of the total number of tubes? Or must arm all main battery guns before you can arm torps? Or a combination? You make a valid point about the carnage a Kita or Ooi could cause. If we say a representative fraction of tubes may be armed (like one per launcher) would that be more palatable? For the pro-Kita crowd, keep in mind that like 1 in 20 torps fired actually hit and exploded, if that. @J - rounded UP, so if your ship has 5 guns, must arm 3 of them.
Well as it has 4 it is not an issue for me. But it might come up some time. Though now that I think about it there was a variant of the flush decker that had a dual 4" mount in the bow. I don't think it was successful.
I really think that technical issues will preclude a fully armed Kitakami. I really think the practical limit will be 3 to 4, especially if we keep with the scale mounting rules with out excessive down angle. Most "modern" DD's had centerline tubes that would tend to preclude lots of down angle anyway.
Or just ban the torp-whore Kita and Ooi. That's easy to do. Might piss off some people, but then if they aren't building a 1/96 ship, who cares. If they really want to build a 1/96 ship, they'll find another boat to love
We know there are some crazies out there who will look at it as a challenge to fully arm a Kitakami. I am not for banning anything that anyone wants to build, with in the limits of laid down or in service pre 1946 and post 1900.
It took me a long time to realize this, but it's very important. Big Gun combat is a game inspired by history, it is not a simulation to recreate it. We base our game on history because it is fun, not because it is historical. I know this is Battlestations, not Big Gun, but it's a very similar situation. As a historically-inspired game, it's important to look to history for rules. But the very next question that needs to be asked is: "does this rule make the game more fun?" I've seen photos and heard stories of a 36-torp 1/144 scale Kitakami, and apparently a 40-gun version that was under construction. Although the gun was not very balanced (some of the barrels hit harder than the others), it was still enough to cause massive damage, often a one- or two-hit kill. It has be done in 1/144. If you let it, it will be done in 1/96. As I understand it, such vessels contributed to (though were not the sole cause of) the death of the South Coast Battle Group. The WWCC went through years of development of torpedo technology and rules. When I joined, there was a max of three tubes per side with two balls per tube. This was discovered to cause too much damage (often a single hole 1"x1.5" that could sink a battleship as easily as 18 holes from the Kiti). Battleship skippers called "no fun," and a quick fix was put in place simply by loading one ball per barrel instead of two. This instantly brought about a reasonable balance between cruisers and battleships. A recent rule change allowed a more compact, lighter gun to encourage destroyers in addition to the cruisers that were already common. The end result of all this development is an excellent balance of firepower between the small, fast, torpedo-armed destroyers and cruisers and the big, bad battleships with rotating guns. Torpedo-armed boats are a significant threat to battleships, but are not the one- or two-shot killers they used to be. I don't want to tell you guys what to do. At the same time, I do want to pass on valuable experience, so you don't have to suffer through the same mistakes that have already been made. I recommend coming to visit the WWCC at the Maker Faire on May 21st and 22nd. It's a long way to go, but not only will you get to see torpedo boats in action, you'll also get to see all the rest of the exhibitions at the Maker Faire. I unfortunately will not be able to attend, but Kotori will be happy to show you what it's all about.
I would like to reiterate Gascan's invitation. I know it's a long way to come to California, but if there's any event worth travelling for, it's the California Maker Faire. On Saturday, May 21st, and Sunday May 22nd, the WWCC will be hosting an exhibition series of battles in front of thousands of cheering spectators. We will build a 60'x40' pond, set up blast shields on three sides, and fill the area with bleachers for a huge audience. We will then battle every hour on the hour from noon 'til sunset on both Saturday and Sunday. That's a lot of battling, and a lot of skippers come to participate. And just for you guys... Since Gascan cannot attend the Maker Faire this year, I am left with two battleships, a torpedo-destroyer, and a transport with only me to sail them. Alas I do not have enough hands to sail all four ships, so I will be lending them out to any visitors from other combat clubs. I think this would be a great opportunity. Battlestations is very similar to Big Gun in a lot of ways, so seeing what we do and participating would help you see what you're in for.
I appreciate the invite, but I fear California's a little too far for a short visit, even for the Maker Faire and a chance to battle... You guys' advice on torp ships is definately appreciated, we will have to find a happy medium between letting torps be a part of the action and keeping them from dominating. @J - weren't we proposing making the allowable date stuff 'in commission between...', and with the proviso that the ship had to be laid down in order to play?
I think so. I don't know that it was settled. That works for me as it allows lots of predreads and a couple of the could have beens. I will note that change in the rules. As currently written they are: General: Ships will be 1/96 scale replicas of warships and civilian ships that sailed during the 1905-1945 period. To be "legal" for this hobby, the hull must actually have floated, even if just sliding down the ways. Concept ships, or even ships that were approved, but not built, are not allowed. Modifications and refits may be incorporated (i.e. torpedo bulges added post-construction, up-gunning of turrets), but work on the modification in question must have actually been begun during the 1905-1945 period. Proposed: General: Ships will be 1/96 scale replicas of warships and civilian ships that were in commission or laid down during the 1900-1945 period. To be "legal" for this hobby, steel must have actually been assembled. There for Constellation class BC's are fine but the N3's aren't. Modifications and refits may be incorporated (i.e. torpedo bulges added post-construction, up-gunning of turrets), but work on the modification in question must have actually been begun during the 1900-1945 period.
So if it is te 3 or 4 torps per side rule then does that mean someone could build the USS Shaw when it had the snub of a bow?
I would say that ships wshould be represented in their as-built condition; temporary repairs shouldn't be exploited
bt hw would it exploit it? it would have less displacement I beleive the one website said ike it went 25nots! how is that exploiting!
Did the temporary bow stay on the ship or was it eventually replaced with the correct bow? Did the ship participate in combat or patrol with the temporary bow? Is there a set of plans that show the temporary bow? I think the as-built rule is the way to go.
As built or refitted really. Then we would only have unbulged QE's, Pennsylvanias with cage masts and the like. Not that those are bad things
