Discussion in '1/96 Battlestations' started by Tugboat, Sep 29, 2013.
I like Gascan's suggestion.
I like the idea of simplifying the caliber sizes and getting rid of 1/8” and 3/16” rounds. I think the most popular ships for Battlestations will be destroyers / smaller cruisers or the pre-dreadnaughts. Which you pick will depend on whether you like speed or armor. I don’t think heavy cruisers will be very popular… I have two of them in my shop and they are pretty big.
I favor a slightly different split on the calibers. I think the BB size should cover up to 7.99”. This will keep the light cruisers, which should be more popular, with the lighter round. Many (most?) light cruisers also had torpedoes, so they can still be heavy hitters.
7/32” rounds would be from 8.0” to 12.99”, covering most heavy cruisers and PDNs. I would actually like to keep the 8” heavy cruisers with a smaller caliber, but when the 3/16” round is eliminated there has to be some compromises.
1/4” rounds would be from 13.0”+. This would add 41 ship classes to the 1/4” club, in addition the 50 classes that are already allowed the 1/4” rounds, so it does not expand it dramatically. With the exception of two ship classes, all the 13.0”+ cannons were on capital ships built after 1912, so I think that split reflects the relative fire power of the ships too. Two American PDNs used 13” guns which are really not in the same class as the post 1910 guns and these should use the 7/32” rounds instead. So these two ship classes could be excepted from the 1/4” round club, or we could just not worry about it. For my Kearsarge, I’ll use the 7/32” guns regardless of the new rule, simply because I have those cannons on hand.
I like Marks line of thinking on the caliber splits.
There is actual precedent for the derating of the 13" MK.1 on the Indiana/Kearsarge/Alabama classes. In one of the early 20th century Janes Fighting ships the gun power chart equated that gun with the more modern 8"/45 in terms of effectiveness.
It seems to me that these modification begin to make the tactical rational of the Armored Cruiser actually well modeled in the hobby. They have the guns of battleships but more speed and less armor.
I really like this. Most ships, in the near future, are going to have to be armed with cannons that were originally built for 1/144 scale ships. Most common were the 1/4" for battleships as those were so much easier to build for big gun as the cannons tend to be top heavy and the beamier hulls handle that better.
Your Artemis would still have the same gun.
I also like Mark's improvement on Gascan's plan. I always figured that no one would build DDs/DEs with 1/8" guns because they are too wimpy, so this change opens up those classes (like the larger Akizuki DDs) to being built. I think it will encourage more heavy cruisers to be built as well.
There appears to be a general consensus that Battlestations should simplify from 5 calibers to 3 calibers, probably using 1/4", 7/32", and either .177" BB or 3/16". I don't see any major deciding factor between 3/16" or .177", although you can always use a smaller round if the larger round is selected.
There also is a general consensus to shift the gun chart to match the boats we want to build. The only question is where to make the dividing lines.
Mark suggested 13 inches as the cut off for the big guns, but I think that all battleships should have big guns, especially compared to contemporaries. Mikasa should outgun Izumo, just as Bismarck outguns Prinz Eugen. This should be true even for the older, smaller battleships, because this scale is supposed to make it easier to build and fight these boats. I know that historically the older guns aren't a match for newer, larger guns, but I think it makes sense for the game we play.
On the other end, I like seeing a difference between the heavy cruisers/armored cruisers and the light cruisers and destroyers. The Washington Treaty limits light cruisers to 155mm (6.1"), and that seems like a good dividing line. Destrpyers and light cruisers would still get small guns, but light cruisers would tend to get 1/16" armor. Heavy cruisers and armored cruisers would tend to have medium guns and thicker armor.
I would say that the smaller round should be .177 and that we forget the 3/16 round altogether. For me, the deciding factor between .177 and 3/16 is availability. BBs can be found many places locally, making it easy for a beginner to get going with a smaller boat. Other ammo is usually special order unless you get it from a fellow captain who special ordered it.
Exactly, Dietzer! Many good reasons for the change.
I LOVE THIS PROPOSAL FROM GASCAN. I HAVE BEEN AN ADVOCATE OF 1/4 FOR 10 AND ABOVE FOR AS LONG AS I REMEMBER. I HOPE WE CAN ADDRESS THIS LOCALLY SOON SO I CAN START BUILDING A NORMANDIE THAT WILL ACTUALY FIRE MORE THAN 2 FEET
I have a split personality. And so do I
Dead horse and all, but is everyone pretty much agreed on 3-7.99" for BB, 8-12.99" for 7/32", and 13-18.1" 1/4"?
Simply place the words "up to" in the rules in regards to allowable calibre.
That will allow the use of smaller shot when the correct size cannon is not available.