Treaty is basically Fast Gun with a few elements of Big Gun. They still use Fast Gun technology, basic weapons and armor, drives, etc. They do incorporate Big Gun ideas like historical speed, limited ROF, pumping capacity, etc.
ok guys, what is the Difference between big gun, treaty and Fast gun? I had a friend ask me and i wasn't sure! Nikki
Fast gun was the original r/c combat club (the IRC) and big gun people broke off because they wanted more realistic speed, armor and gun power. Fast gun has broken apart with MWC covering most of the US and IRC covering most of the central and northern east coast and Canada. Treaty was created by some individuals who thought fast gun was a little too brutal. 1/96 scale grew out of big gun. So... Big gun: slower speed, bigger ammo (1/4" ball bearings), no reverse (in most rule sets), heavery armor on the ships, slower timed firing of guns. Fast gun: faster speed (movie speed - that which gives the warship the same wave configuration as the real ship - movies then slow down the film 3 times), faster guns (no limit on speed of fire), 1/32" balsa only for hull covering. Treaty: big gun speed, fast gun guns but with timed fire, fast gun hull covering I think that covers all but corrections by the other groups is accepted. Marty
Marty has the right of it. In short, Treaty is a hybrid of big gun and fast gun using fast gun ships.
To the world outside our little corner of it: No difference. We are crazy people who build expensive model ships, and then go out and shoot them to pieces. Rob
Also, you might want to read the FAQ on RC Naval Combat (where you are right now), and the Servo Magazine article (written pre-Treaty) on the NTXBG site here: ntxbg.org/articles/servo20051rcmw.pdf A major difference: Big Gun has variable calibers (with different rates of fire) and balsa thicknesses, based on the prototype ship's specifications. Everything is determined by the protype specifications as reported in Conway's All the World's Fighting ships - there are no "units". Any gun over 3" calber can be armed. For a more complete listing of how the armament, pumping capacity, etc. is determined, and the relative speeds, you might want to refer to the charts in the NTXBG Technical Appendix here for at leas one example: ntxbg.org/documents/NTXBG_Technical_Appendix.pdf Treaty and Small/Fast Gun, of course use a "Unit" system, where a class of ship is assigned a number of Units, agreed to by the membership, to determine armament and pump allowances.
In big guns it is possible to arm all of the main turrets and the secondaries! Provided they are over 3" in cal. So Big Mo could have all nine barrels ot the three main turrets firing the 1/4 ball bearings plus the twenty barrels of the ten secondaries firing bb's!
That's true in theory. In practice, it's not very practical. The more barrels, the more gas, the more plumbing, the more fittings and valves, the more possibility of leaks, the more ammo you must carry, and on and on. The fun part for me is that I can do it if I'm able, and that's a wide open universe of possibilities. Rob
"Fully arming" a ship is rare, for the reasons Rob indicated. But, if you can figure out how, and want to, you are welcome to. We do have a Richelieu in our club with the 8 1/4" mains and the stern secondaries (9 .177") armed. Not the wing secondaries, though. You also have the flexibility to arm only the secondaries, or only some of the secondaries, and no mains. On some ships there are space considerations or other considerations where you might want to arm some of the secondaries along with or in lieu of the mains. Cheers,
In addition to the points we've made so far, there are also some other considerations. One is simply room in the hull and weight allowance to do it. If you have a ship that's already riding at the waterline and "dialed in" for combat, and you decide at some point to arm your secondaries, something has to give. If you're like most people, you're already using up the available space, and you will need to start from scratch to make room for the additional guns. Also, additional guns are going to add weight above the keel, and you may find that you're sacrificing stability for increased firepower. Another consideration is the particular battling styles involved - not only yours, but those of other captains you're likely to encounter. You may simply find that secondaries aren't worth the extra cost in time and hassle. Rob
Though secondaries are interesting, back to subject... treaty combat is not that old compared to big gun/fast gun.So what was the basic idea for the concept of Treaty combat? regards, Markus
Markus The idea was to take fast-gun ships (which we already had), and generate a game using some of the rules that we liked from the big-gun clubs. Mainly having a speed chart (based on historical ship speeds). The speeds of the ships are mid-way between fast-gun, and big-gun. Limiting pumping capacities based on each class of ship. The capacities are fairly close to big-gun. Limiting the rate-of-fire to 2 shots per second of each cannon. Which is perhaps a below-average cannon in fast-gun. Limiting the down-angle on cannons to 15 degrees to open the range. Fast-gun allows 20 degrees. Limiting the muzzle-velocity of the cannons. We use the foam test like big-gun. There are other differences. But that covers the original idea pretty well. Mikey
No, not dumb at all! Lets stick with construction cost alone. I wonder if there is much difference in technical skills required.
I do have on my list of future builds, BB65 the USS Illinois. and yes my plan is to arm the all main turrets and all of the secondaries.
The main difference in all 3 of these approaches is not construction, but the onboard equipment - specifically, rotating turrets and related plumbing.Typically, an Indiana-style cannon is going to cost something like $150, and if you arm all four turrets in something like a Bismarck, you're talking about $600 for the cannons alone. If you arm secondaries, even fixed secondaries may cost $35 -$50 each in materials, so you could spend somewhere in the ballpark of $1,000 to arm a battleship with mains and secondaries, by the time you're through. You also have to have a radio that can handle all of the channels you will want to use (probably 7+). Specifically dealing with just the construction differences, I can't think of any differences except the balsa thickness (typically 1/8" for a Big Gun battleship), and whatever structure is needed to support the turrets. Rob
Treaty uses big gun speeds so that may not be much of an issue. Arming seems to be the main cost difference
Treaty can be a little cheaper in the gun department as you can break full unit guns and add 1/2 units to other full unit cannons which results in less guns with bigger mags, also I think you can have 100 round(2 unit) bow/stern guns.
