Erin has two tandem rudders...the only one I have seen on the water was incredibly effective and won Most Feared at least once (Mike M). I think you need time on the pond before casting judgement on which ships are 'hamstrung/needlessly uncompetitive.' Iron duke's were very popular about 5 years ago and can still be very effective with current rules. 26 second speed is significant advantage, the 28 second boats only play when the faster boats choose to allow them to play. Most agree that building/captain skill are much more important factors for battle impact than ship class, so I recommend you shift your focus from emails to improving those areas for a better return on time investment
Since the scale prop is 1.27", I'd have to disagree. Perhaps "reasonably scale" is defined as 200-500% the scale dimension? That seems to be in conflict with the 2% used for Hull length and beam. They are clearly related to the shape of the hull which is stated shall be reasonably to scale. Lord Nelsons and Mississippi's have similar proportions but, are only twin screw. This rule penalizes them.
Yeah. Erin is a poor example of that case, too : ( There are others but, I don't have the motivation to bother anymore. My point is the rules are a mess and telling newbies to suck it up is a poor answer. Does anyone want to buy an Iron Duke and an Edgar Quinet?
You are not the first person to voice the last statement and will not be the last. The cold, hard truth of the matter is that in our hobby and the way we battles these ships, there are some ships that are ideally suited and others that are polar opposites and are down-right useless in this hobby. While that is one of the fundamental issues with our type of hobby it is also its greatest challenge. Building a boat that is not the 'norm' and making it perform well is a worthy endeavor, however some ships may never be effective ships on the water, and I am sorry to say the EQ and the gun arrangement I saw on it in NY.. is one of them (IMHO..perhaps others will disagree). In addition.. I would suggest that 'challenges' are not meant for new captains but rather established Captains working on their third of fourth ship.. New Captains need a solid, reliable, working ship to play with while they learn how to BATTLE (driving, aiming, shooting) which is something you can't do on the PC or in the workshop... ONLY at events and on the water can you learn these things. An Iron Duke is a great ship, I think Brian Lamb has shown just how effective and dangerous that ship can be in the right hands. It sits low in the water, has a great place for the haymaker.. I am sure you can get tips from Brian as well. A solidly built Iron Duke will allow you some leeway in learning as a new captain and over time if you work at it.. will be the next Iron Duke expert.
As someone that enjoyed meeting you and your son in NY, I would say this. I can tell you from experience that my warship hobby was not very good until I surrendered to the veterans and said 'tell me what to do' and I followed it. Next thing you know.. my boat worked well and it became fun again. I know you and your kid can have a great time.. I saw how excited he was when I was there so I ask you to do this. Call Carl and ask him to help you get the Iron Duke on the water.. and then follow his lead no if/and/buts.... I am sure you guys can knock it out very quickly and then your questions will shift from rules.. to telling stories about how you ambushed Caleb on the rocks at Carl's.. . I know you won't regret it.
P.S. Take the EQ but dual sterns in it (go through the back of the little turret), put in a 1 unit pump and put it on the water... no problem. Dual sterns that low in the water can do some serious damage... I shot out casements with my dual sterns once.. I was like WOW that's an odd hole for bb damage (square).. but the casement had actually popped out of Mike Mangus' ship in Farmington.
The rules are not perfect, but they have worked well for 95+% of battlers for a long time. I'm sorry that the message you have heard is to suck it up. I think everyone that has responded is just trying to use their understanding of the club to guide you towards having the most fun, vice trying to get changes to the rules that very likely wouldn't pass. The pre-dreds that you seem to like have actually been given more power over the past 10 years than may be apparent. They were given the option of using a half unit pump, and given a single sidemount. You are right that they don't get drag discs which can hurt acceleration and turning...But they are also very short and can be made to turn better than the vast majority of ships on the water. Using small props really close to the rudder can do this without need for drag discs
Out of curiosity. I was under the impression that drag props advented in the days before ESCs as a means to aid in dialing speed. By a large majority they don't appear to be needed for those purposes anymore. Those that do can usually dial it in with gear and prop changes. Besides their long establishment and having dynamics grown around them, what is their value now outside of turning ability? I know I will get a chorus of "but they have been around so long and the system isn't perfect. Don't go messing with the rules". To me it seems pretty equitable to say that unpowered shafts do not get drag devices. I know this would slow the game down as a whole and there are many second and third order effects. But is it actually bad? Just a thought to stimulate discussion involving whether they are necessary anymore given current technology.
Powered shafts do not get drag discs . The unpowered shafts do if the captain so chooses he needs them. Most ships have been using them on unpowered shafts. I never used ESCs in my combat ships but have relied on drag discs on unpowered shafts to tune the speed down . My drag discs generally are either smaller or about the size of my powered prop . Except for Bismarck they are much smaller than my single drive giant prop. Yamato they are a little smaller. With ESC nowadays you do not have to fuss with drag props but some Captains still use them as they help with pivoting sharply in turns in some ships. It is good to have the options available . Available options are always good .
The fix: Since this is a "semi-scale" hobby. Allow builders to equip any boat with only one center-line powered prop and two outlying drag disks. They could build one or two rudders but must keep within current square inch requirements. I'd pick some max distance that a prop could hang below the keel to keep stupidly over-sized props out of the game. For drag disk area, make it the same as the rudder area for the ship in question. I know that this proposal may be like salt in an open wound for some, but it would eliminate this age old drag disk debate, make many more hulls competitive, and as a benefit, make the models cheaper to build and easier to maintain.
I fully understand Curt. Sorry I worded it super poorly. No drag devices on shafts period is what I was saying. A decent ESC goes a long way. I know drag devices are preferred. I prefer them too! However, I would be inclined to see a poll as to current mag throttle arrangements vs esc. I bet esc has mag covered 10 to 1. Judging by Marty's statement. As I recalled hearing, their origination was not turning performance oriented but speed oriented. They have grown far past their original intent. What are some negative effects (in terms of unbalancing the game) that would happen if they are eliminated?
I'm sorry Steve, that would never fly, it just makes too much sense. All boats would be just about equal. All the arguments would go away, what fun is that? Don, Rick and I have had the same conversation, much easier to build a boat, and cheaper with one powered shaft.
Why? The rule is very specific, you can use drag props. Nothing is said about allowing drag disks, they are the reason why these boats can do circles. Then we allow them to be much larger than the drive props on top of that. In my opinion using drag disks is a violation of the rules as they are written, we may have been using them for years, and CD's allowed it, executive committee said nothing, but it still does not make it right. The rule: C. SCALE AND PROPORTIONS 5. Each ship shall be equipped with the proper scale number of shafts, propellers or drag props, and rudders, all in relatively scale locations. Nothing is said about scale size, so they can be what ever size you can fit under the boat.
Well time to cover this issue, since Trey does not know what he is talking about, and is trying to bad mouth my good name. When you are losing an argument, people have a tendency to turn it into a personnel attack. C. SCALE AND PROPORTIONS 1. All ships shall be 1/144 scale. 2. The allowable error in the beam of a model ship shall be +/- 1/8" or 2% of the listed scale dimension, whichever is greater. The allowable error in the length of a model ship shall be +/- 1/2" or 2% of the listed scale dimension, whichever is greater. Trey is right, the rules do not define hull depth, so why is it a issue for him if I cut my hull down, calling me a cheat? I got the same thing from 3 other people at Nats, their intent from as far as I could tell was to keep my boat from battling. Lets cover what, and why I did what I did. The Bismarck is 15 meters to the keel at the center-line. Converting that to our scale is 4.1 inches. The BC hull I found was not correct, hull depth was close to 4.5 inches. My thought was, if you want to follow the rules, you should ensure that the hull depth, should follow the same rule as the beam, and be within 1/8 inch of the scale dimension. As you can see the BC hull exceeded that by close to 3/8 of a inch, well in excess of the allowable 1/8 inch. So I cut the hull down from the top to 4. 1/8 inch. It did not change the beam. The other 2 Bismarck's in attendance at Nats did the same, but they were 4 inch even. All 3 were within 1/8 inch of the scale depth. My boat was the only one called into question, even after I said the other 2 have less hull depth than mine, but no one would answer me, as to why mine was being targeted, and not the others. They got their way, I decided not to battle it. At no time did I ever say "The rules don't define the hull depth" Fake News. I always stated that I was building to the scale dimension. Charlie researched the Bismarck, and agrees that it should be 4.1 inches. The Bismarck that BC now sells is the correct dimensions.
Your boat was called into question mostly because of the armor belt, not just because of hull depth. The other two captains cut from below the armor belt, where you cut from the top. I hope this clarifies why you were "targeted".
And why was that illegal? Please answer that? It was above the waterline, same as the other 2 boats. It had the required hard area, no different than the other boats, just in a different place. And that is not what they targeted me for, the complaint was I cut the hull down a excessive amount. Just as you stated earlier? What was Illegal about what I did to my Bismarck, a fellow purchased it from me, and I told him it may need to be corrected, but he wanted it anyways. I still see nothing wrong with it, and I never could get a straight answer from anyone, except that's it's considered illegal. Please explain why?
There are these magic pieces of paper called plans. When you put the armor belt in a different location than the plans say, that is not 'relatively scale'. Your stringer made it so there was a small slit that a bb may or may not have even fit through. For instance if i have a 1/8" stringer, plus a 1/8" slit then my 1/4" deck-rim, that effectively creates a 1/2" of impenetrable area. And this was explained to you in Bradford. I was standing there when it was explained. However, I was happy to explain it again.
