Do 7/32" cannons penetrate better than 1/4"?

Well I can help with this one:

If said projectiles are 6 1/4 inch fired at point blank range, and substance A is a 1/4 inch piece of balsa and substance B is a 1/16 inch piece of balsa, here are the results:


Substance A


Substance B

 

A picture is worth a thousand words but I think I lost count with the number of words with these pictures. Wow!

 

Sick. Put some clothes on I can see your internals! Did your momma raise you that way? Nasty, but, fun damage!

 

That looks bad but nothing compared to the damage done to JOHN COFFILLS "UGLY BOAT". See the pics on our old NABS WEBSITE AT www.pittelli.com/nabs and go under the first page for pictures emails, select Miscellaneous Fun pictures and find a big green ugly boat. There is a lot of close up damage. lol

 

OHHH REEEALLY CAPTN DONKEY.. WHAT COULD IT BE.. HMMM??

 

Although Slow gun's Damage is more impressive, Fast gun allows for more strategy. I think most people would enjoy the shock value of panels blown out, which both bearings and bb's can do, but it the culmination of damage that sets the two apart. There is greater strategy, defensive coverage (knowing you and your enemy know where you have been heavily damaged between sorties) and then there is also the fact that you can say "I didn't sink!" While your boat impressively shows off a hundred bb strikes. Both penetrate. Neither does more penetration than the other. Unless you are 100 feet away blasting with yoru triples.. the bb's might not get through. Otherwise, it comes down to how you want to play the game. Bearings are gonna do more damage quickly, bb's must be strike a target multiple times and with purpose. Those with better skill at determining where they will strike usually do the most damage.

 

Hmm, one of the reasons I chose Big Gun was the strategy aspect of it. With the combat,weapon and armor rules the way they are, it gives more diversity to the game, IMHO. Its suicidal for a cruiser to go head to head with a battleship. Now thats not to say we don't do it

While we do have 1/4 inch guns, we have an 8 sec delay between shots to simulate reloading. Each ship has different handleing characteristics as well. The speeds and turning ability vary per the actual ship, making strategy depend on the skipper your facing and the ship.

I've never tried fast gun, so I can't compare directly.

Andy

 

I think I'll back andy up on his statement. I think there is more strategy on Big Gun. Fast fun seems to be more about the driving skill & remembering which side of the opponent's ship is armed (or out of shells).

 

Ouch. Not sure which way to return fire! LOL (making references to the responses) I have no experience with Slow/Big Gun, heck I thought you guys fired every 6 seconds (shows what I know) But from an amateur's opinion, I found that there was a great deal of talking on the lakeside between team mates and of course getting strategy together comign up to the battle. For example, NC and Warspite left on the water versus Yamato. Well, I slid in to feel out the Yamato keep him thinking about me what am I gonna do? The slower Warspite moves in and rakes the port of Yamato who is until then distracted and returns fire sporatically, not giving as much as recieving. I then bring NC down the Starboard side and give a few with return fire. I look over and Curt isn't sure what just happened, it worked perfectly!

So my example, I know there strategy in both, however, I've seen the pummelling of ships on videos. It's usually quite quick and nasty. How can it be quick? Well Two or three ships, eighteen or so ball bearings in a five or so second span and the target was done for. In fast gun, yes, you listen for the vent of gas and you know where they are now venerable. And as is the same in one or the other Andy, I agree. Cruiser versus battleship, bad idea. I had Cumberland and South Carolina come after my NC as we were live and going for the throat as it were. Well, let's just say, NC came out three and oh. With six sinks to her credit. LOL

I guess in the end unless you played both you wouldn't know for sure, however, I think there is more to fast gun than gets credit in the end. From what I've seen and read the diversity looks to be on par with one another. Where one has armed carriers, the other has multiple ways to arm a single ship. One has firing in rapid succession to cut a line down your ship, the other blows out panels! You can probably go back and forth through for a while. They are different yet in the end as I've posted before, the same. The goal is the same. I'm not trying to urinate in anyone's cereal as I hope no one does with mine, when you aim nine cannons in three turrets at a boat you are about to broadside, think of this, in fast gun, you might only have one cannon in that turret and get off two three shots before your target evades. So, you have to be more thoughtful, about your opportunities, develop your skill and have a keen sense of timing. Whereas, in Big Gun, two ships will sit and wait for the next barrage because both must wait their eight seconds to inflict damage, presenting stationary targets.

I don't know, am I off base with this one? I was trying to be objective. Don't get me wrong. I concede the damage is impressive. That there is strategy and you would still have fun no matter which way you played it out, heck, I would liek to give a try some day. There is just something to be said about the targets always moving, and the look of a multi holed ship riddled with damage, and you shake your head and say "How the heck is that thing still floating!"

My two bb's for what it is worth. Not trying to change minds, just offering up an expanded view.

 

Here's the other thing. The battles I've been to in the past few years have been lack luster, due to the lack of ships on the water. The last 'good' battle I've been involved with was in 2003. I haven't had the time to concentrate on it since then. *Having kids tends to affect these sorts of things).

The battles from 2000-2003 were great (MBG battes BTW). The battles we ran started about 11:00 AM and lasted until 3:00-4:00, or until we were all tired. Initially we would usually have the first big sortie. After that everyone would come in and patch, except for those who were least damaged as the other team would usually launch convoyes at that time. And then a bit of strategy until we all kind of get ready for one last hurrah at the end.

There has been an effort latly to try and get things going again, though it will take a while to get back where we were.

Andy

 

Strategy and Tactics are different. Strategy: enemy ships are off the water to repair and reload, can the cargo boats get through? Tactics: Can I get in for a good shot on that ship without taking too much return fire?

An example of a tactical battle: I have the video from the end of the WWCC Last Man Standing, which came down to a duel between my SpahKeuzer and the Italian Capitani Romani class cruiser Scipione Africanus. Both ships have triple torpedo tubes off each side, though Spahkreuzer's are ranged to hit at 4" away while Scipione's are ranged for 8". Scipione is 42 kts, with a single rudder, while Spahkreuzer is 37 kts with triple rudders. What ensued was five minutes of tense tactical maneuvering, trying to get a shot while the other guy couldn't, holding fire to just the right moment, and careful aiming. I'll get the entire LMS posted on youtube at some point, for all to enjoy.

An example of a strategic battle: The WWCC Annual Axis vs Allies Campaign Battle is a two hour endurance battle between the Axis and Allied fleets (we normally do four 15 minute sorties with Red and Blue teams). The Axis battleships have traditionally performed poorly, with mechanical failures, poor tactical decisions, poor communications, and general ineptitude. Last year, nothing changed about that (one principle Axis battleship sank less than 10 minutes in). Instead, five light cruisers and destroyers were equiped with mine laying devices. The Allied port and convoy route were heavily obstructed by mines. The mines disabled Allied ships as often as Axis ships suffered failures, leveling the playing field. The mines also were successful in interdicting Allied cargo ships (the Axis didn't launch any). With the battleships playing on an even footing, the extra guns of the mine laying division tipped the balance in favor of the Axis, who won by a narrow margin.

Since the Cal-Neva group is right near the WWCC, myself and other members of the WWCC are looking into joining both clubs. Cal-Neva has a build session this weekend, so I'll let you know my first impressions after that.

 

ohhhhhh when posted LMS be, inform the masses for all to see! LOL That would be interesting to watch! I am often thinking of ways to incorporate new formats into the game. In LMS for instance, does everyone start on the water? Do you select a few ships to start and then every minute launch a new ship?

 

In the WWCC, we usually play 15-minute sorties. Everyone has to be in the water (in axis or allied port) at the beginning, then sail out to meet when commence fire is called. Nobody may leave the battle until those 15 minutes are up. For our Last Man Standing, we made a few modifications to the basic game.

1) Free for all: no team victory. You may choose to fire on someone, or not to fire, but in the end there can only be ONE.
2) Cage Match: we enclosed a small section of the pond with a rope and buoys. All ships must stay within bounds at all times during battle or be disqualified. We actually had several ships pushed out by an unarmed transport attack, which were the first ever "sinks" caused by an unarmed vessel.
3) No patching: Between sorties, you may not fix holes in the hull. However, you may change batteries, reload, refill CO2, replace pumps, or any other modifications/fixes necessary. Just don't cover up holes.

We just played 15-minute sorties with those rules, until there was only one ship left. The first sortie had lots of fighting but no casualties. The second sortie saw all but four ships eliminated, and the third sortie ended it. The event was a smashing hit, and everyone is looking forward to this year's battle.

 

I'm going to bring this up at the general meeting we are having thsi weekend. I would like to try this...

 

I like hole counting. It's cool to brag about how many holes your ship received and survived a sink. I like to keep stats and compare over the season and then get an average of damage received.

 

Agreed! I found some fun facts while keeping track of scores (holes) last year. At some point I'll get around to writing an article about my findings.

In other news, the LMS video is mostly done (had some free time last night). I will preview it to a test audience tomorrow. I will not post it on Youtube until after the WWCC Fleet Meeting (middle of February), as that is the intended world premier. It consists of three videos each about 10 minutes long. The first introduces the battlers and covers the first round. The second covers the second round, and the third covers the third round as well as a short review of the winner in action. For the three rounds there is no background music, so the battle is just as it happened, complete with amusing on-shore banter and commentary.

 

Can't wait... keep us... posted!

 

Then of course there's bragging about how LITTLE some other ship took before it sank so far the minimum number of holes required to sink a ship has been 0. Thats right, the big goose egg. Zip, zero, nada. A ship got sunk without a scratch on it, at a non-combat event, without a shot being fired. Another ship took only two holes to sink, and that was with a working pump. Can anybody beat that?