Issues For Independents

Discussion in 'Independents' started by JohnmCA72, Oct 10, 2007.

  1. warspiteIRC

    warspiteIRC RIP

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Posts:
    756
    Location:
    Annapolis, MD
    "From an aesthetics point of view when i think of a scale model"

    Try looking at some the Canadian ships in Fast Gun, I don't think any club has any prettier ships than them in NS (NABS)
    Bob Pottle, Kurt, etc really make them look good.
     
  2. crzyhawk

    crzyhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,306
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    I agree. The Canadian guys make top notch looking models.
     
  3. Bryan

    Bryan Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Posts:
    251
    For those not liking a rules set that is local you an always approach a club and see if they
    would allow you to float a boat with a different rule set, like our club is mainly IRCWCC
    but there are some ships built to treaty and MWC rules in the club, we may ask them to
    plug guns (like carriers with suddenly huge numbers of guns) or if all at pond are ok with
    it they can fight with the rest of us, it really is up to the people at your local club, it is them
    you will be fighting with most, so it is the people you need to have a good match with if
    you are to stay with the hobby, a specific rule set is nice find one you like and use it, it
    would help if someone near by also used it so you could compare notes and building tips
    and have battling buddies but it is not a necessity. Go to have fun.
     
  4. jamesyoung

    jamesyoung Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Posts:
    66
    So talking to the two nearest caaptains, it seems that they've both chosen fast-gun over big-gun. I was introduced to the hobby by the WWCC a big gun group, so that's the direction I lean. I'm curious why Independent Captians choose their formats. I said in the a different thread, I think the bigger round is exciting, and it seems more fun to build a battleship that can fire the larger round (plus better water penetration), but after drooling over captiancooks pictures of the Utah, which I'd given up on (both because I don't have his amazing woodworking skills, and because it didn't mount 14+ in guns in the original) I'm starting to reconsider. As I understand it:
    Big Gun has larger guns, and only mounts those in the main turrets, for the ships over 50,000 tons. (I had to check, and I guess cruisers can mount the smaller turrets, although how in the heck you get them powered I don't know.
    Fast Gun has all .177 bb guns, and can mount all guns on all ships.
    The other large difference between the two is how they scale the speed.
    For everything else, either the two formats are the same, or even different clubs in the same format have different rules.
    Am I correct?
    So it seems to me, that as an Independent, going Fast-Gun will give me more flexiblity in ships (both age and country/diversity) while still staying competitive.
    Those big guns are sexy though.
     
  5. Bryan

    Bryan Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Posts:
    251
    Fast gun is easier because it is cheeper to buy BBs than 1/4" ball bearings and the ships do not need timers for their guns etc.
    Fast gun is divided into 2 major groups:
    IRCWCC which was the original, a fast easy way to group and categorize ships, good solid rules, tested and revised over many years, and quite workable. the boats tend to be cheeper to build and maintain and easyer to set up, the speeds are not as accurate.
    MWC started with a base similar to IRCWCC but changed some of the categories and numbers of guns for their ships also has a closer approximation of scale speeds or at least a greater range to better define ship classes.
    A later comer and one that could be part of the above groups is
    Treaty Combat, it is a bit more detailed but again basically a off shoot of IRCWCC.
    All 3 of these use the smaller BB guns which makes it easier to get permission to use ponds, allows younger captains (some areas consider the guns above a small caliber to be actual fire arms, check local areas), and is generally softer for anyone getting hit by a stray round. All clubs have good building and design rules and good safety rules, really it depends on who you can battle with and want to make the effort to contact and play with. I know it is easier to get permission to use a pond for fast gun (Small Guns) than any of the big gun combats in our area. Our club has most members part of the IRCWCC but some friends drop in and battle ships that are constructed to MWCC or Treaty stats, what happens is we look at each ship and make the call before a battle if everyone is ok with it fighting and if any changes have to be made, then we go play, really you just have to work together and make it fair and enjoyable for all and it is good then!

    Bryan:blush:

    Model Warship Combat, International Remote Control Warship Combat Club, Treaty Warship Combat Club
     
  6. Kotori87

    Kotori87 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Posts:
    3,227
    I find it interesting that you say Fast Gun is safer, when the people I've talked to who have tried both Fast Gun and Big Gun say "Fast Gun hurts more". Maybe it's because Fast Gun use pressure restrictions while Big Guns use penetration restrictions, and maybe it isn't. Either way, "one is safer than the other" is not a valid argument, since both require the same level of protection for skippers, bystanders, and automobile windshields.

    In fact, I would go one step further and ask, what are we, who have only participated in one format, even doing comparing them? It's like comparing different flavors of pizza without having tried them all. How could I, who grew up on deep-dish pepperoni and sausage, decide whether olive tastes better than hawaiian? Sure, I could look at the nutritional information, but that's not an indicator of taste. Better to let those who have tried both to decide.

    So let's ease up on the Big Gun bashing (most of which is incorrect or irrelevant anyway) and let the people for whom this thread is targeted answer the question. If you're an independent, which format did you choose and why? If you started a club, why did you choose the format you did?
     
  7. Bryan

    Bryan Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Posts:
    251
    I will agree with some of what u say, but I still think getting hit by a 1/4" ball bearing would hurt more than a BB, but thats my opinion:D
    Having seen captains in both Fast gun and Big gun get hit by their own guns during recovery, I can say with some certanty that fast gun hurts less and causes less damage.
    I have tried Big gun and found the lag between shots to be killer, may missed opportunities, and one shot from a bigger ship just crippling on a smaller one and smaller ships REALLY having a hard time (ie if your not in a big boat its not as much fun at all) sinking a larger ship.

    I have personal experience with smaller ships sinking my class 7 ship in fast gun so I know those Captans were happy!

    But I want to make it clear I am NOT bashing any of the styles and i would be happy if a independant chose any club/style to play in and wish them well and still try to help them no matter what club they belong to as we are all really one hobby and need to work together.

    I like watching big gun, but do not like participating in Big gun, I like the knife fight in a telephone booth feel you get from fast gun but that is my choise, others are free to chose their own way and I would support them no mater what way they chose to go. I just do like to help people and we generally all do have the same result we are aiming for. FUN!:)

    Merry Christmas to all and sorry for the rant on your thread, i will stop now....

    Bryan
     
  8. jamesyoung

    jamesyoung Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Posts:
    66
    Two of the comments that came up (from fastgun) are making me like big-gun better:
    1. Biggun sinks little ships easier. I like the scaleness of BigGun, IRL a cruiser, even a heavy would have been suicidal to go up against an Iowa or KGV. I like that that is still true, that cruisers would need to gang up (and probably get lucky) to sink a battleship.
    2. Knife fight in a telephone booth. - I like that the few biggun battles I've been to (I've not attended a fastgun, although I hope to change that this year) involve more manuvering and planned shots. More aiming and thinking is involved I guess.
    James
     
  9. radollar2000

    radollar2000 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Posts:
    167
    Location:
    California
    James one correction to an earlier post of yours.
    Fast gun only allows a certain number of the main cannons to fire as well what quadrant they can fire in.
    Big gun is the rule set which allows the use of all cannon systems.
     
  10. jamesyoung

    jamesyoung Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Posts:
    66
    Huh, I missed that when I read the rules. So, does that mean no rotating turrets?
     
  11. mike5334

    mike5334 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Posts:
    1,877
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Most fast gun allows rotating turrets in class 4 or above as long as the turrets do not violate the # of cannons allowed in a certain firing arc. For instance, on a class four ship, you could have dual sterns and a sidemount cannon. The sidemount cannon could rotate between left side or right side and not violate the 1 cannon per side rule.
     
  12. Astrosaint

    Astrosaint Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2012
    Posts:
    168
    Location:
    Astatula, Florida, USA
    Greetings from Astatula FLA:

    The big issue that affects new captains seems to be cost. My wife flipped when she learned that an average combat ship cost about $1,000. I disagreed with this assessment and removed a zero from the build cost.

    Next question--how do I keep the cost down to around $100. Several factors come into play:

    Size- I decided to keep all the boats I build at 3 feet or less and the beam to no more than 4 inches. While that is good for transport and for not intimidating youngsters staring at a ship that takes 2 people to move, it make 1:144 basically impractical unless one sticks to destroyers or pre-dreadnaughts. The small pre-dreadnaughts do not seem to be popular. I have yet to see a video or still shot of one being used for combat purposes.

    Back in the spring of 2008, the issue of bringing in new captains using "simple" ships was discussed and then discarded. There was a consensus to keep 1:144 scale. The scale was the problem. One cannot build a dreadnaught battleship at that scale and keep the ship at 3 feet.

    Solution: Build to the 3 foot or one meter size and never mind the 1:144 scale. The ships will shrink to 1:300 scale but their price and complexity would also shrink.

    Weapons, radio, and Moving Parts- To keep costs down, I use the 1+1+1=3 rule: One cannon (a bow-chaser) + One propeller + One rudder =3 channel radio.
    Keeping to those basic 3 parts eliminates the need for $100 radios and servos sets. Ebay offers low cost radio sets as long as you do not exceed 3 or4 channels. In fact, since there is just a single cannon, the need for a bilge pump is eliminated (at least for BB sized shot). No bilge pump, no need for a 4th channel to run it. That yields cost savings. A single propeller mean one motor with the option of no gearing box and no multiple rudders and their accessories. The yields even more cost savings.

    Hulls- Since fiberglass kits are sized to 1:144 or larger, those have to be abandoned and wooden scratch hulls used. A scale hull at 3 feet is also impractical for the typical new captain. I cannot build one. Even if I did, how would I fit anything inside the vessel ?

    Solution: Build "squarish" hulls for maximum volume.

    Superstructures- I use the 1940s vintage wooden solid boat models as my inspiration for superstructures. Those kits had superstructures that were little more than wood scrap and pegs. There were no anchors, launches, or other details on them. Modelling combat ships that way take the fear factor out of newbie Captains. It would also make the ships easier to repair. There are also opportunities to use household discards like wine corks for superstructure parts.

    OK, now that I have upended 35 years of tradition and started from scratch, here is the justification. In those 35 years, disposable income has fallen sharply. So has free time. The existing 1:144 scales kits are too costly for this new age of austerity. Depending on them is only going to shrink the new captain's pool. My wife and I have better places to spend $1,000 than a hobby boat that can sink every few weekends due to cannon fire. Granted, the ships would get smaller. However, the hobby would get more captains since entry to the field is made easier.

    I am probably going to miss the $100 mark with my ship. It is closer to $130 without the CO2 can. However. the ship can still fight. I may be left a perpetual independent since the ship does not meet any existing arbitrary rules but this is better than not having new captains.

    Food for thought.

    Manuel Mejia, Jr.
    USS Oklahoma BB37
    Member of the Jon La Feete Society
     
  13. SnipeHunter

    SnipeHunter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Posts:
    1,333
    Cool, Enjoy your version of the hobby. Plenty of room for different styles.

    [​IMG]
     
  14. NickMyers

    NickMyers Admin RCWC Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Posts:
    4,394
    Location:
    Federal Way, WA
    is that in pesos or yen or something? I'm certain my disposable income doesnt have that many zeros after it...
     
  15. SnipeHunter

    SnipeHunter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Posts:
    1,333
    Thousands of dollars like it says on the chart....

    It obviously isn't broken down individually since that isn't really realistic to determine. The Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis has some really neat online data tools that are very easy to find and quick to use.


    Anyway have you (Astrosaint) read the following threads? They might save you some headache.

    http://www.rcnavalcombat.com/Forum/...fault.aspx


    http://www.rcnavalcombat.com/Forum/...fault.aspx

    www.rcnavalcombat.com/Forum/tabid/5...fault.aspx

    Moral of the story is that if you want to do it go for it, it is your time and money. Just don't expect everyone here to jump on the bandwagon. A lot of us like the current hobby even with all of its flaws. (and it is our time and money to do with as we wish)

    Heck a super cheap subsection of the hobby could possibly increase participation across all levels as people get into it for cheap and then want more guns and scale ships and stuff like that they would find the money/time to move to the current rulesets.
     
  16. thegeek

    thegeek Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Posts:
    1,164
    Location:
    Mongo
    If you use rubberbands as the main armament and use them for main motors then I could see the $100-$150 warship. Other than that good luck. This hobby is very cheap if you buy last years tech used and don't want to be very competitive. In fact all brushed drive and pumps should be hitting the used market in a couple of months.
     
  17. mike5334

    mike5334 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Posts:
    1,877
    Location:
    Mississippi
    To put a $1000 boat into perspective ...

    Compare how much it would cost to buy a competative R/C pylon racer. How about a quality R/C helicopter? A large scale gas acrobatic R/C plane?
    The average 40 sized sport R/C plane will cost $400 before the crash. After the crash, much more.
    A person into full size classic cars will pay $1000 or more for a paint job alone.
    A 7 day cruise on a ship can cost up to $1000 per person.
    Yesterday, a coworker added up the cost of going to an Alabama football game with her husband. Including hotel, tickets, baby sitter, and a concert, the cost was over $740.

    The bottom line is most hobbies, no matter if it is aircraft (model or full size), traveling, cars, or whatever, will cost money. Many times it will cost more than a 1/144th scale model combat warship. If we took a look at other "nice to have" things we spend money on, we find out that we spend more than we think and the cost adds up quick.

    As for the $1000 ship cost itself. That is a price for a large battleship. Smaller ships such as cruisers can be built for far less. A fast gun cruiser can easily be built for $450. Soemtimes used ships will go for less because the builder wants to try something else or wants to get a new captain started in the hobby. There are ways to keep cost down without trying to create a new rule set. Heh.
     
  18. Astrosaint

    Astrosaint Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2012
    Posts:
    168
    Location:
    Astatula, Florida, USA
    Around the State of Florida, $1000 is 1/10 to 1/20 of a persons's total income for a year. Incomes have been falling off for 30 years. So are new entrants into all of the hobbies in general. We are in a time of austerity. A lower cost category of Combat Model Ships would boost the number of captains out there. It would be especially attractive to younger, less well monied, captains.
    I ask again, does the hobby want more captains ? A new generation of captains using simpler 1:300 scale boats is better than a shrinking number of captains running 1:144 scale ships or larger. As an educator, I rather have my student bang up model boats than gang bang because the latter is inexpensive.
    >>>>>Great Commentary Snip
    From another post--Buying used equipment and inheriting a ship requires a mentor.
    I have not had the luck of finding a mentor. The nearest event is about a day's drive from home in GA. This is why I am independent and a member of the Jon Le Feete Society. The hobby already undergoes fission (i.e Washington Treaty). Perhaps the time has come for a new category of RC Combat ship to appear for newbies.

    Manuel Mejia, Jr., Educator, Florida.
     
  19. NickMyers

    NickMyers Admin RCWC Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Posts:
    4,394
    Location:
    Federal Way, WA
    Hi there!
    Yes, initial cost can be a shocker, which is why for most groups we tend to loan ships for peoples first year or two while they build up a new ship. Or we sell a used ship cheap. Either way it helps to either spread the cost out or keep it down a bit.
    The average new fast-gun combat ship does _not_ cost $1000 unless you're putting every bell and whistle on. 400-600$ is more like it. Big-Gun may be a different story.
    To keep the cost reasonable, do a lot by yourself rather than buying off the shelf- but you'll find it hard to buy a co2 regulator, bottle and a cheapo 2.4 radio for under 100$ total.
    We have a SouthCarolina locally that is quite popular. A little over 3 ft long, and about 6-7 inches in beam. We have a Westfalen, a dreadnought battleship, not too much larger, that fares quite well as well. Both of these ships can be easily moved by a youngster, fit in cars easily, etc. The owner of the SouthCarolina takes it with him when he flies around the country, storing it in a golf club case.
    What is this obsession with 3 ft? and 4 inches wide? You are going to actually create something that is more frustrating to arm and sail effectively than a 6ft battleship. Narrow beam means sensitivity to weight distribution, difficulty fitting things in, inability to use the el cheapo big lead acids, etc.
    You can buy cheapo 2.4ghz radios with 4-6 channels from HongKong for around 30$.

    Eliminate the pump? These ships pretty much all leak a bit here and there over the course of the season. I've never seen a rookie boat that didnt have leaks at the end of the season, even 'fully' patched. With no pump, you're basically sending them out to sink with no damage control capability. That's not actually that much fun.
    Why is it impractical? I've seen rookies blow away vets with the things they produce in our hobby.
    That is pretty much how most of our superstructures are. Some people do go heavy details, but a lot of us are more simple - we cover the major features and not much else.
    I think its great that you've looked into the hobby, and you want to get people involved. I think its great that you've identified things that are issues for you personally. I think you've made a mistake by assuming that those same issues are major issues that afflict the hobby. It seems that you've seen the cost as a major roadblock and intimidated by the scale requirements of the hobby, and rather than figure out how you could address those items for yourself personally, you've decided to invent a variation, which I think you will find will cost you a lot more than you 100-130$ per ship price point. Good luck!
     
  20. NickMyers

    NickMyers Admin RCWC Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Posts:
    4,394
    Location:
    Federal Way, WA
    I don't see how you think this is going to result in a significantly lower cost, easier to get into variant.

    There are certain, more or less 'fixed' costs per ship. There are a few costs that scale with the ship size.

    You will need a way to control it , so each ship needs a radio. We have those too.
    You will need something to power your guns, for each ship. If you choose co2, you will need a bottle and a regulator. We have that same basic requirement as well.
    You will need stuff to fire your one gun. So you will need some combination of servos, solenoids, switches, poppet valves, etc. We have that too. Maybe we spend a little more because we have anywhere from 0-6 more guns than you do, but nothing stops us from building a battleship with 1 cannon and adding the others as we have money.
    You will need to buy or manufacture your gun. We have to do this to, again, as with the previous item, we may have more, but nothing says we have to have more.
    You will need a prop and motor for propulsion. We too have ships that are driven by a single screw. No savings here...
    You will need a servo to control your rudder, we do to! Also no savings here.
    You still need to build a hull, we need hulls too. Building a hull for a battleship doesn't cost significantly more than building a hull for a heavy cruiser or dreadnought. Sure there is some increase, but it is marginal compared to other fixed costs.
    You are removing a pump. You've saved 30$ roughly. Though you could make one cheaper.


    So in summation: you might be saving a few dollars on your hull, and a few more dollars on the cost of printing plans. You're saving 30$ or so on your pump. You're saving anywhere from 0 to a few hundred dollars on gun and firing hardware. That's basically the core of your cost savings - some money on something that can be spread out over time if you play within one of our clubs. If you want to save money, start building the Edgar Quinot in Tugboat's thread/class thing.