Drag Props and Debate (Split from Seydlitz build)

I really think if guys want to continue arguing about this you should start another thread. Kevin's excellent build thread is not the place to discuss this matter.
Also I want to offer my apologies, Kevin, for being the small stone that started the avalanche. If I would have known it would go this far I would have found other means to address this. Again, my apologies.

 

So, It's probably obvious that I'm not a fan of huge drag discs nor the "turning motors" rule but, I have no beef with anyone taking part in the discussion. I understand that people have strong opinions about these things but, I think we can keep it civil and discuss the rules of the game. I'll be upfront about my personal bias : I like British warships and I think the current state of the game penalizes them unfairly. I'd really like to see more of them on the water and that's not likely to happen without some changes. I also think this hobby will die out if newcommers can only expect failure and frustration, if they don't choose to build the ships that end up benefiting from vagaries in the current rules. So, here's what I propose : pick a formula for how large drag discs can be, rewrite the rule to actually include the words "drag disc", and allow twin screw vessels to run their shafts in opposite directions and varied speeds to make up for the fact that they can't use drag discs. I think that would balance things out and create more choices for viable ships. Please let me know what you think?

Edit: I realized that I forgot some important wording. I meant to say "twin screw or single rudder vessels." as those two categories contain most of the ships I'd like to battle with.

 

Oh, yeah! I'm all for this. Will make my predread turn like a Nassau.
Ok, just kidding. This isn't a good idea and would never pass.

 

True, sorry. The reason this isn't a good idea is that It would give two shafted ships a major turning advantage. They'd be able to turn right with a Nassau. Maybe not a 'bad' idea, but I doubt you'll find anybody to support it.

 

I don't believe it will make HMS Dreadnought or HMS Erin turn with a Nassau that has drag disks which are 4-5 times the area of the scale props. I think it will make them turn well enough to be worth building them, though. It would make many ships viable that are not today.

PS. As Caleb pointed out, my examples were poorly chosen with respect to # of screws. My mistake. More coffee required. HMS Lord Nelson would be a better example.

PPS. They are good examples of ships that the "turning motors" rule treats in-equably.

 

Then why are drag discs not allowed on 2 screw ships? I've read that people believe it's one of the other but, there is a photo of a vanguard that had drag bowls and props on all four shafts. How can that have been allowed? It seems to be the "rules" are enforced with a bias.

PS. I did not know that they were removed before the ship battled. My mistake and appologies.

 

Dreadnought and Erin have four props so wouldn't apply under your proposed rule change. And drag disks aren't everything. Do they make you turn better? Yeah, to a point, but there are other factors like prop size and rudder shape that can decide more readily how well your ship will turn.
And I don't think drag disks and all that are the reason you don't see a whole lot of Erins or Dreadnoughts. Most likely reason is that there isn't a readily available fiberglass hull for them and many builders prefer a FG hull over scratch building.

Did you read the whole Yahoo discussion? Charley clearly stated that the drag props were removed to get the ship to speed and that it wasn't battled with them on.

I'd encourage you to finish your ship and come to a battle and see for yourself that this isn't true.

 

How are British ship penalized?

 

As far as spirit of the rules.. it is impossible to cover EVERY single variation.

I looked and found no rule that prohibited my from mounting an air cannon to my ship that would push a target boat over to expose shots below the waterline. I also didn't see a rule that prohibited towing a string or small cord that would foul props, any rule that prohibited mounting a paint cannon that would spray ships with paint, mounting a watermelon on the deck of my ship, attaching a fish to my ship to artificially speed it up.. .using a tuna-fish sandwich as a pump... etc.

All very ridiculous and while I might be wrong on one or two.. maybe some are grey area.. no SPECIFC rule exists. There are lots more I could do.. and may do.. as they are completely legal.. if I follow some folks point of view.. which I don't.......... so maybe I wont........ I won't. I am not suggesting any recent topic is ridiculous but rather that the lack of a specific rule is not needed to curtail methods and behaviors that violate the intent or spirit of the rules.

A rule ,no matter how poorly worded, was created with an intent regardless if it was stated or implied which creates the spirit of the rule. This intent and the spirit of the rules is the only way we can possible cover 'every variation' in the rules.


Have a nice day!

 

I did not know that those Drag devices were removed from the Vanguard. That's encouraging : ) My examples were ill chosen. and I've edited that. I've been to the Moat several times now. My first ship (an Edgar Quinet) was put back on the shelf because it's gun arrangement was immediately questioned and, even though it was later reversed, that made a lasting impression. Everything else I'd like to build has been discouraged for one reason or another. Sure, I could build Nassau but, I'd like to build a Lord Nelson and it's frustrating that the rules allow similar ships to have massive drag devices while these are not, ensuring they'll never be competitive.

 

I agree with the examples you cite being unfair but, perhaps "legal" because there is no rule that covers it. That isn't the case with drag props/discs. There *IS* a rule and while it's intent may simply have been to make most of the big ships turn better, it's wording penalizes ships with less than 3 shafts. The lack of allowed size and the interpretation that "relatively scale" doesn't apply to them, even though those words are in the same sentence, makes the Nassau and some others into a super ships. What is the scale location of the massive drag devices on a Nassau? It's the exact same for a Lord Nelson : it didn't exist. So, why do not all ships get them?

 

You beat me to it. It would be a huge help, if the calls made by CDs and the Eboard rulings are included as appendices to the document itself.

 

Get your Duke running. Not sure what people are telling you, but the Iron Duke is a very competitive ship. You might not be able to turn on a dime like a Nassau, but you can outrun them. And it's a very good gun platform

Question: Whose Nassau is using these massive drag disks? I just was just at the regionals yesterday and both Rick and Trey's Nassaus had very reasonable drag disks on. They may have been a little bigger than the prop (which I believe was 1.5" dia).

 

I don't think it will ever be "my" ship. I think I made the mistake (again) of buying something that isn't what I want because it is one of the few ships that isn't made useless by the current rules. There are some things I'd like to change about it and I'm not terribly motivated to do them.

The example that brought me into this discussion was the NC with 2.5" diameter discs. Rick's and Trey's may be reasonable but, the rules/precedent allow for unreasonable discs and I think we can agree that Nassaus benefit the most from them.

 

I think the current combination of rules on "turning motors" and "drag props" make many of them needlessly uncompetitive. Most of the ships I'd like to battle are victims of one or both of those two rules.

 

You're right, of course, and I just realized that I left the part about single rudders out of my proposal. Erins, Dreadnoughts, etc are hamstrung by only having one rudder. I contend that not allowing them to reverse their inboard screws amplifies that to a disproportionate degree and heavily favors the twin rudder ships.

 

Well considering that the drive props are 2.125 inches in diameter, I don't think they are unreasonable.

No, I don't think so. Any ship that is allowed drag props benefits from them just as much as a nassau. And just because the nassaus are allowed drag disks doesn't make them world beaters. The reason they can turn so well is because of their short length and prop-rudder configuration. Drag props help, but I'd Imagine they'd turn almost as well without them.

 

If I remember right, Mike Mangus won Most Feared Allied at a past NATS driving a Erin. Hardly uncompetitive.