Multi-format events (Treaty)

All
I feel like we have a good thing going with these multi-format events.
Not only do I think that it is good for our club, but it also gives those around us in other clubs a chance to battle their boats more often, and hang out with fellow R/C combat folks.
It also gives us the opportunity to pick up on some of the other technologies that the other clubs use.
At least from a Treaty stand point, I plan to schedule pretty much all of the Treaty events as multi-format, with the possible exception of our Nats event, so that we can do our rules stuff.
I will be contacting all of the other regional clubs, and trying to make sure that schedules do not conflict.
This year we shared the waters with ships from the BBS, and some of the big-gun clubs.
In 2008, I hope to include the L.E.A.G., the Battlestations group (96th scale version of big-gun), and I will also look into having an event with the MWC, and IRCWCC.
I will keep you all posted.
Mikey

 

All
I have been trying to follow all the discussions in the other areas on this forum about why one couldn't (or at least shouldn't) build a boat that they really like because it will simply not be a good boat for combat.
Now that is certainly not a good thing, when you have been involved in the combat for a few years, and are ready to move on to another new project.
But it is even more troubling to me when it is someone that is new to the combat, and they find the forum and introduce themselves, and tell us all what boat they really want to build as their first combat ship, and they are then steered away from the boat they want to build.
I have been putting a lot of thought into this, and I wanted to post some of them for discussions.

First off..
I think the main reason for this is that R/C combat has been labeled a sport/hobby, and has evolved into just that.
I also think that there are more members leaning towards the sport side than the hobby side of things. And that, in my oppinion, is one of the reasons why members is some clubs shouldn't build some boats.

Another thing that comes into play is that there is generally an attempt to create a balance between historical accuracy, and game-play (keeping the teams equal),when it comes to speed, units, and such.
Examples are..
Iowa and Yamato are both 8 units and 24 seconds, when the Iowa was a 33+ knot ship, and Yamato was 27 knots.
North Carolina and Nagato are both 6 units and 24 seconds, when the North Carolina was a 28 knot ship, and the Nagato was more like 25 knots or something like that.
So when a club gives ships something that they historically didn't have (like more units, or speed), then they generate a list of preferred ships that due to their combat abilities, will not only outclass most of the other average ships on the water, but will make it almost impossible for members to build some of the less than average ships.

Treaty is unlike the other small-gun groups in two ways.
1 Units, and speed are both based on historical accuracy.
So although the teams will not have ships of equal power, and speed, one can pick a ship that appeals to them for any number of reasons (especially coolness).

2 We lean towards the combat being more hobby, and less sport.
So most of us got into this because of our love for the boats, and the fellowship, and not so much for the competition.

I am still giving serious thought towards trying to host more multi-format events with the other groups.
I will admit that there are some pretty hard fellings towards Treaty out there in some cases, and I will address that in a later post.

 

I always try to point people to ships that are "good" that match up with their skill level. If the first ship a guy wants to build is th Iowa and he knows nothing about how to do it things can only turn out bad for him. He'll have a ship that does not work and he will stop coming. Best to explain how they need to learn how to do things first then move up to the giant ship, if they still want to. Most after some time in the hobby will no longer want the giant or weird ship.
Way back when I wanted a Texas. Can remember why just thought it would be fun. I found out that I would have been crushed in it. I had no clue how to build stuff for 4 years. My ships sucked. The more I learned the better I got. Might not have lasted that long if I had started with a big ship.
I have seen several guys localy and nationaly start with a "bad" ship and never get it working and leave the hobby.
The vets have to help the new guys pick a good ship for their skill level. Be it a cruiser or battleship. Then you have to help them build it.

As for the hard feelings for Treaty. I'd like to know the story of why you broke off from the IRC or MWC or whatever club you broke off from. I've never meet any of you, that I remember. It's not like there are 100s of us battling every weekend. I'm disapointed that we have several groups doing almost the same thing but the same. I think it would be better to have one larger club with one set of rules. More people more fun.

 

We started treaty because ther were several of us that did not think that a 33 knot cruiser should be run to ground by a 27 knot yam.It just mad no sense. Also we did not like the machine gun sound of the rapid fire guns.We also felt that some of thes pumps could keep a full scale ship afloat. If you look at treaty it is simply the modification of thos 3 evils speeds out of scale, fire rate out of scale and pumps way to big to allow sinks with reasonable damage. I must say it has worked out well on so many levels that i cant imagine doing it any other way .We have loads of fun, little on no disputes,and sorties that can last 30 mins. Patching is to a minimum,and we still have plenty of sinks ,that arent because two machinegun battleships made a sandwich of a cruiser that could not run away.I almost forgot I watched a small gun tape yesterday and the whole battle could be summed up as ram,ram,ram,ram,ram. We have verry little rams and no ram sinks i can remember.Try that in small gun

 

I can't speak for the guys who originally drafted the Treaty rules, but I can speak for myself. I originally thought as you did that there should be one club, one set of rules and all would be well in the world. A search of archived emails on the IRCWCC yahoo site should show me being on the record and saying exactly that.

However, when I started looking closely at what the treaty guys were doing, it was very much in line with fixing some of the things I dislike about fast gun rules. So I figured I'd give it a shot. I've still got my 26 sec props for the Invincible in my box. My Courageous is still at 24 seconds. I intended to battle both formats. Then I tried treaty. I found I liked it FAR more then an IRCWCC event. Not because of the people (great guys in the IRCWCC, love them to death), but because of the rules. I enjoy how my ship (and other people's) performs far more then I did at fast gun speeds. That's not to say I won't battle with them again or to their rules, it's just saying I have found I enjoy treaty more, and thus, it is my primary focus.

When you talk about changing rules such as speeds, the typical response was "This has worked for 20 years, why change it?". That is their right, and I don't argue it, but it's not what I am looking for out of my hobby. This way, with more flavors to choose from, more guys are likely to find something that's "their cup of tea" and stay in the hobby. That means more guys building, more guys sharing ideas on sites such as this one, and that communication is good for everyone, regardless of format. Big gun guys, fast gun guys and treaty guys all have different ideas on things, and passing those ideas around and finding the good stuff other guys are doing can only be a good thing for the hobby of RC combat overall.

 

So it was a format change you wanted to make. It was not an issue with personalities not getting along.
Did you want to make the format change because your ships always got shot up? Or did you want to be "Closer to real battles".
Were you MWC or IRC or ???

 

Yes, my primary reasons for changing were format related. I don't personally have issues with the guys who battle that way, so I wasn't leaving to get away from anyone. Obviously, I got along with some people better then others; I don't think that can be avoided. I am still on the IRCWCC mailing list, and may some time choose to battle with those guys again. You just never know.

The primary issue that I had at the time I jumped was that I didn't believe there was enough of a speed difference between the 28 second ships and the 24 second ships. The acceleration of those small ships is enough that a 28 second ship (Markgraf) was able to stay along side a 24 second ship (Derfflinger) long enough to empty its sidemount when they started from a stop. That was tested by a couple of IRCWCC guys in Maryland a few years back. When changes were proposed, they were shot down in with the "This has worked for 20 years" line. Yes, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be made better. They didn't even want to experiment.

For the record, I was driving a 26 second ship (the Invincible) at the time, so I had the best of both worlds. My I-boat got shot up a whole lot less then other people's boats. My Courageous got shot up a whole bunch which made me not want to play with it. I also feel that it's wrong that 26 knot Nagatos can keep up with my 32 knot Courageous and my 33 knot Salem.

That was the primary reason I wanted to try something different. Once I did, I found a whole bunch of other things that they were doing that I liked a whole lot better then the IRCWCC. Only by actually trying something different did I learn how much more I could enjoy myself.

For the record, I have never attended an MWC event. I'd also like to say there is nothing inherently wrong with their rules. They HAVE worked for 20 years. I find they just don't work so well for my personal interests. I don't foresee myself returning to that style of battling, but I wouldn't rule it out either. There are some good guys I miss battling with.

 

The truth of the matter is that we never really wanted to start a new club.
Back in 2003-2004, we approached the IRCWCC about generating a second set of rule within their club, and battling between their sorties. We were going to call it the B-fleet.
We wanted to remain members of the IRCWCC, and attend their events, but battle between their sorties, to a second set of rules, that were based more on historical accuracy, than game-playability.
We felt that there was no reason for it to not work, as back in the early days of the IRCWCC, when frequencies were limited, and the club had a large turn-out, they had to break the teams down and have an A-fleet, and a B-fleet just so that everyone got to battle. They just didn't all battle at the same time.
When it was first announced on the forum, there were a few members that thought it sounded interesting, and were willing to give it a try, but they were for the most part fairly new to the club.
Most of the members didn't say one way or the other.
But there were a few veterans, that had a real problem with this, and took to name-calling, and ridiculing us. They made a big-deal of why the IRCWCC had a working set of rules, and didn't need a second set, and that everyone was pretty content. And pretty much felt the need to respond to any post concerning the matter, so as to head it off.
One of these members even sent out private e-mails to me that eventually led to my simply dropping the idea.
In my oppinion. That is where Treaty got it's start. Although it took a few more years to come into being.
Mikey

 

To make a long story even longer, we need to go back in time a little further.
Before the IRCWCC was approached about allowing a few of us to generate a B-fleet, were the ship's units, and speed, would be based more on historical accuracy, we had started some discussions about changing their rules along these same lines.
I had rejoined the IRCWCC after spending several years battling with the MBG (a big-gun group in the mid-west), and starting construction on my first 96th scale Battlestations ship.
I really like these two formats because of several reasons.
1 Ships abilities are based on historical accuracy.
2 There is a limit on technology, that helps keep the playing field even.
3 It is based on the theory of on-your-honor.
So a captain keeps score of their own damage, and is responsible for the
legality of their ship, it's systems, and how they run it in battle.

So I attended an IRCWCC event and had a great time seeing my long lost friends, and making some new ones. But some of the things that frustrated me in the past were not only still present, but in some cases more apparent than before.
The cannons were not only firing even faster that they had been a few years before, but they were also firing much harder. We are just trying to penetrate 1/32" balsa. But it had now become part of the competition to make one's cannons fire harder than the next battler's cannons.
There were just a few classes of (preferred ships) being build in large numbers, due to them being given extra speed (due to the speed-by-length rule), and some had also been given extra units (in order to keep the teams even), and some had been given both extra speed, and extra units.
So when you ask what would be a good ship to build, it was always the same few ships for two reasons.
1 If you build one of the favored ship classes, you will do well with it, because it was made into a great ship by the rules.
2 Your team really needed you to build one of the favored ship classes, because most of the captains on the opposing team had also built favored ships, and if you built an un-favored ship that was made into a bigger dog than it normally would have been anyhow, just because you like it, then you would probably be a detriment to your team.
So after putting some serious thought into it, and discussing my thoughts with a couple others, I posted some possible rule change theories on the forum.
Here are a few of them.
Come up with a way to reduce the muzzle-velocity of the cannons.
Reduce the speed of the Yamato to 26 seconds, while keeping it's 8 units.
Reducing the units of the Iowa to 7 units, while keeping it's 24 seconds.
Reducing the speed of North Carolina to 26 seconds.
Reducing the speed of Nagato to 26 seconds, and making it 5.5 units.

A few of the newer members responded that it souded like an interesting idea. Most of the members simply didn't respond at all. But a few of the veterans responded much the same way as I desrcibed in my earlier post.
Not only did they say no. They got all worked up over the thought of it, and made a big-deal about how the rules were great, just the way they were.
They responded to pretty much any post that supported the changes with the intent of crushing any hopes of change. One resorted to the name-calling, and ridiculing.
One even sent me private e-mails, that eventually resulted in my dropping the idea. At least for the time being.
But eventually I came to the conclusion that what was needed, was not to change the rule set for the club, when most of the members were happy with the rules as they were, but to simply generate a second set of rules for those members that wanted something slightly different, and call it the IRCWCC B-fleet.
In doing it this way. The IRCWCC doesn't experience another group of members breaking away to start another club. We would all still be IRCWCC members, and attending the same events, in the same place, and at the same time, and those that like the rules as they are, don't have the rules changed, but also those that were not happy with the rules, can battle to a set that is more in-line with what they find attractive ( safety being something that cannot be comprimised of course).
So that led to the IRCWCC B-fleet proposal that I covered in my previous post, which didn't go over as well as we had hoped.
Mikey

 

Hey Mikey,
Well said. That seems to be the way I remember it.
Bobo

 

So in order to help keep things in prospective, considering I posted some history out of order...
First, we few proposed to change the rules in the IRCWCC, when some of the members were happy with the rules as they were.
Not that it was a bad thing to do, but we were told that it would not have been very fair for a few members that wanted changes to the rules to force changes on those members that were happy with the rules as they were.
So a few opponents made such a big-deal out of it that we dropped it, and continued to battle with the IRCWCC.

Then we approached the IRCWCC with the idea of generating the IRCWCC B-fleet. Which we thought would be fair to all, and make everyone happy.
But again, a few opponents kept us from making any progress, so we again dropped the idea, and continued to battle with the IRCWCC.
But we did have something up our sleeve.
It's called the BBS.

 

BBS - Buckeye Battle Squadron.

Several veterans of IRC founded this group in a Pizza Hut in Heath Ohio in 1999; all 3 of them had been in combat in one-way shape or form since 1982. The discussion centered around; 1.) What is it that bothered us most about combat and; 2.) if we could change anything, what would it be? The answer was unanimously the speed of the ships followed by the escalation of damage by the increase in technology and pumping ability. The idea was to have a set of rules that followed the IRC close enough that if the members wanted to go to an IRC or MWC meet, they could with little work. To accomplish this we viewed the speeds as a major problem. With North Carolina's and Nagato's running around at speeds that were impossible for the prototypes, we decided to implement Dan Hamilton's speed chart for capital ships and keep heavy cruisers run at 24 sec/100 ft, light cruisers at 23 and destroyers at 22. This way, a cruiser wouldn't be hunted down and destroyed by ships that had no business running that speed. If you wanted a fast capital ship, you had to deal with the byproduct of length and overall size. The other byproduct of this was that a cruiser would then be an excellent first ship. Fewer units to manage and less damage. The other thing that was discussed was to limit the technology and pumping capacity. By doing these things we hoped to a.) Limit damage, b.) Increase sinks and c.) Increase the number of types of ships on the water. An example of this is, if you want to build a Yamato, the trade off for the 8 units was 26 sec speed. Same with a North Carolina. Smaller battleship with 6 units but 26 sec instead of 24 sec. Nagato's would go back to 5.5 unit ships and slow down to 26 sec. The "chosen" ships would still be excellent ships in there own right, but they would not be able to rule the pond as they were in other formats.

Initially it was successful. It was growing and people were having loads of fun. We were starting to see different ships on the water, like a WW1 Scharnhorst and an Indefatigable class battle cruiser. We had one of the nicest Tiger’s I’ve seen in a long time running with the group. Dave Au from MWC, bless his heart, loaned us the dreadnought HMS Orion (28 sec) to use as a club boat. It had limited success in MWCville (they called the "Monarch Butterfly") but with a refit did quite well in BBS. With the number and abilities of the 28 sec. German battleships, there was a term used, "The Axies rule the slower ship class", but that's another topic.

Things started to change in the beginning of 2005....

 

One of the things that I like with the format that WE call Treaty is that we spend more time on the water battling and less time patching. I would have to say that this is the best of both worlds. And oh yes, we still have sinks. Plenty of them.
Has anyone ever heard someone say that the thing that they like best about R/C Combat is patching?
Bob
"I got lots done on the boat today."

 

I got quite a bit done on the Courageous today as well. I think I should be able to fire up the motors tomorrow evening, that's my next task.

 

BBS
At the same time that I was getting back into the small-gun combat with the IRCWCC, I had also run into some of the members of the BBS, and dropped in at some of their events, and eventually was running one ship in both groups.
Over time, those of us that were wanting a B-fleet in the IRCWCC, came to the conclusion, that the BBS was basically what we were looking for.
A group of people that wanted to get together with friends, and enjoy the boats, by battling for the fun of it.
One might have been able to call it a small group of like-minded friends, that got together to enjoy the hobby of r/c combat.
But over time, the BBS got bigger, and as it gained more members, it became apparent that they were not all like-minded anymore.
Some liked the club just the way it was.
Some wanted it to be more like the other small-gun clubs, so that it would be easier to swing from one format to the other, which would also make it easier for the battlers in the other small-gun clubs to battle with BBS.
Some didn't have a preferrence, and just wanted to run their boats.
And last, but not least, some wanted to find a happy middle ground, where we could all be content.

So the BBS generated a B-fleet within the group, for those that wanted to be more like the other small-gun clubs.
They could come up with their own set of rules (as long as safety was in no way compromised). They could then battle between the A-fleet's sorties.
It seemed like the perfect solution to the problem at hand.
But it wasn't long before the members that wanted to be like the other small-gun clubs started voicing their concerns that they may not have enough ships to have a fun battle, and that it would be more fun to have all of the ships on the water at the same time. Which presented a new problem.
Their ships would be able to pump more water, have a faster rate-of-fire, and possibly have more speed, and/or units than the same ship set-up for BBS rules.
So if I remember correctly, in 2006 the club started having less members attend the events, and the events were also less often, to the point that by the middle of the battling season, there had only been a few events, and towards the end of the battling season, there seemed to be almost no interest in having events.

 

MBG
The Midwest Battle Group is a big-gun club based out of Indiana, with members in the surrounding states. In the mid 90s this group was not only very active, but also had a pretty good number of active members. They battled every month during the battling season, and could have 10-15 ships on the water at most meets.
But at some point sevreal years ago, the membership started to drop off, and in the last few years there have been seasons where there were no battles at all. I think that there was one battle each year for the 2005, 2006, and possibly 2007 seasons, with perhaps 6 members or so.
For the last few years there has been a lot of talk about trying to get the club built back by having regularly scheduled events, even if the turn-out is low, but as most of the members have to travel a few hours, (if not several) to the events, the interest is short-lived.
There had been discussions years ago about having multi-format events with some of the small-gun groups, and in fact one year we did have an event with some of the old IRCWCC members from the surrounding states attending. But that was during the time that the MBG was at it's peak.
The down side of that event was that most of the big-gunners left the event feeling less interested in small-gun combat than they were before they actually saw it in action.

 

So the situation was this...
You have r/c combatants that have ships built to 1/144th scale.
They are located in areas that have big-gun groups that are not as active as one would like.
They are within a reasonable distance of a small-gun group that they have been battling with already, that has a set of rules that they are comfortable with, although there has been some talk of changes to the current rules, but most importantly, has already generated a B-fleet ( that wasn't being used), for those that wanted to try to battle to a different set of rules, but still be in the same club.

 

Useful knowledge.
After many hours on the phones, we decided that the worse thing that we could do was nothing..
We could continue to battle with the IRCWCC. But then we would have to battle to their one set of rules. Which we had all done at some time in the past, and in some cases still were. It hadn't killed us yet, but we were frustrated.
Mainly because allowing us to create a B-fleet never got off the ground due to the way a couple/few of the members handled the original concept.

We could continue to battle with the BBS. But if they passed rule changes to make them more like the IRCWCC, then we might as well just battle with the IRCWCC, in addition to the BBS. It would just be more of the same. And more frustration all around.

We gave some thought to the MWC, but never seriously considered it to be an option due to our locations.

Although the idea of battling with the big-gun clubs was brought up, it didn't get much support, as we were not sure there would be any battles.

So somewhere, somehow, the un-used B-fleet in the BBS was brought up. At that point, we decided to try to come up with a new format, and approach the BBS about integrating it into their club as the B-fleet.
The main reason the B-fleet in the BBS hadn't worked out before, was that the members that it was created for (those that wanted to utilize more technology), also wanted to battle with the rest of the BBS (the A-fleet).
Well. We were not concerned with how many ships we could get on the water at the same time to battle with us.
We just wanted to battle with like-minded members, no matter how many (or few) they were.

So now the only question was..
How do you go about creating a new r/c warship combat club, in an area that contains a small-gun group that is fairly good sized, and pretty active, but has lost it's wind, and also has a big-gun group that was pretty good sized and really active years ago, but has become scattered, and in-active, without killing off, or pissing off either, (or both clubs)?

 

As a pretty new member in MWC, does all this sound familiar. It did not take me long to question, why was a NC, Yamato, and Nagato able to run as fast as other ships, when the 3 of them could do 27 knts on a good day. I was told it was to keep the rules simple. How hard it is to write the rules, to scale the ships to their proper speed.

Now days we have word processors, so its would be pretty simple. I have discussed this same speed issue with Don, and Rick, and they both think it would be a good idea to slow the ships down some, just to stop the rams. But they both say it would never pass, because then the special ships would not turn as well, and we can't have that can we. I say just get rid of drag disks!!![xx(]

And when you do propose a new rule, you hear the same thing, the rule has worked fine as it is, if we changed that rule then those special ships would not be the best ships, and people who made them would not like it.

I go because I do have alot of fun battling at the local battles, luckly I'm in the the most active MWC region. But a few rule changes will not kill us, I promise. [8D]

 

All.
I have been busy these last few days, but will post more on how Treaty come into being.
Mikey