** This thread was begun as a spin off of 'Weight(y) matters' wherein discussions of maximum and minimum weights occurred. This led to a discussion about multiple pumps. Relevant posts have been moved here, with weight related items largely stripped. Posts which have been edited are noted as such ** Are two pump ships the devils own work? Should they be banned? Should people who want to ban two pump ships be banned? Should we not be allowed to allocate our units however we see fit? Chaos must ensue! Read, weep and discuss! For clarity: Merits of trading offensive units for defensive units. Topic is broad and wide open. Do not assume the above italic text is an instruction to limit to IRC or to discuss narrowly or propose the banning of multipump ships.
Sounds like a rule proposal put forth by those who favor lots of batteries and multiple pumps. Generally speaking I would oppose that. To me you should be giving more damage than you receive. The strategy of I can take more damage because I can carry more batteries and multiple pumps is not where I would want the hobby to go. I would even take it a step farther. We should pass a rule that only 1 pump is allowed.
I feel that if you want to give up 50 for a pump then go ahead. I'll still use one and be happy. This post was originally at https://rcwarshipcombat.com/threads/weight-y-matters.444763/ and contained more material related to the discussion of ship weights.
Eh, while I don't like multiple pumps, especially in smaller battles, you do have to give up something to get them, and with lithium chemistry battery densities its not hard to carry enough juice to run them without bulking up the weight significantly.
Wow I didn't know there was a big issue with 2 pump ships up in Washington. Do you mind sharing more about your experiences with 2 pump ships so we can understand why you support a rule limiting ships to 1 pump?
If someone wants to run 5 pumps and one gun, I'm cool with that because I will have a lot of fun watching them sheet This post was originally at https://rcwarshipcombat.com/threads/weight-y-matters.444763/ and contained more material related to the discussion of ship weights.
Bilge pumps were meant to simulate a ship's Damage Control capabilities. Ok, having actually served in the navy for over twenty years I can tell you from personal experience that there are crews that are "ship" hot at damage control and others that are just average. Nobody is terrible, after all unless you're suicidal Davy Jones Locker is not a place you want to visit. Realistically damage control can do an awful to keep a ship in the real world floating and in the fight. Historically many horrendously damaged ships were saved and lived to fight another day. For our purposes we've totally simplified that ability for our purposes and all ships have specific capabilities within the limits - or - Spirit of the Law, i.e. you can only pump so much water for a specific ship. Whether a ship has one BIG PUMP or several smaller pumps....it's the total amount that can be pumped that should be the limiting factor. Ironbeard This post was originally at https://rcwarshipcombat.com/threads/weight-y-matters.444763/ and contained more material related to the discussion of ship weights.
Locally the general view is that sinks are fun and an important part of the game. This view is enhanced by us not counting holes/points in half a decade and instead handing out win/loss based on sinks. We don't have battles with 12+ ships in them, usually anywhere between 4 and 8, so a well built, well captained ship can be harder to bring down due to lack of available steel. Fair or not, two pumps tend to be viewed as 'I don't want to get my feet wet'. There has been a more or less consistent effort by several of us to keep the local fleet gun heavy and discourage dual pumps at least until such time as the group is able to conduct larger battles.
In the few battles I've been to since getting back into the hobby, I've seen plenty of dual pump ships sunk. I prefer freedom of choice where possible, so if you want to give up a cannon for a bit more patching go for it. This post was originally at https://rcwarshipcombat.com/threads/weight-y-matters.444763/ and contained more material related to the discussion of ship weights.
I wouldn't mind hearing a reasonable discussion on the pump issue, either here or in another thread. I know there've been rule proposals to eliminate them, and as someone who has plans to run with two pumps, id like to hear why some folks don't like them so much.
As far as pumps go, real ships had loads of pumps, but they also other forms of damage control that would be overwhelming to recreate for our purposes. This post was originally at https://rcwarshipcombat.com/threads/weight-y-matters.444763/ and contained more material related to the discussion of ship weights.
Ok, thread should be split from the weight topic and both should be fairly cleaned up to a 'on topic' sort of state. As I said above, I personally dislike multiple pump ships in small engagements. My feelings on this are purely based on observations and experiences that are my own. YMMV and your experiences and observations may differ, and that is ok, that's why we're here! Locally in the past few years, much of the stated reasoning behind folks who have expressed a desire for increased pumping capacity, either through packing in tons of battery power to run higher power pumps, or those looking at multiple pumps, has been in essence one of 'I dont want to be risking sinking' - which I find annoying since we don't have a lot of ships locally and sinking is important. However, it bothers me less if the captain uses it more in a 'now i can engage more closely!' manner than if they are just obsessed with eliminating all risk of sinking. I like how Treaty has it set up for diminishing returns as you increase units allocated to pumping (is that a correct read @rcengr? ), I think most BigGun rulesets there is just a set pumping limit and you can do whatever you want so long as you remain under that, is that correct?
Nick, You are right. Originally when we got Treaty going we didn't want to change the units per say, but to give the captains the option of how to set up their ships. We decided on a base rate of pumping to reflect what the ship class was (battleship, battlecruiser, cruiser, etc.) and allow the captain to increase his pumping by losing BB's. If they wanted firepower they would lose pumping capacity. Figured that this would be the best balance and not have a one size fits all and offers flexibility.
What I've seen here in Texas is that it's used to engage more closely. I think local house rules for smaller battles is cool, because sinking ship is kinda the whole point. My goal with Bismarck is to eventually have it set up so I can configure it however I want by disconnecting a pump, pinning certain guns, etc. I like flexibility, and don't like the idea of being hemmed in to where I don't have a choice in how I set up my ship. I don't think it's good to add rules unless something breaks the hobby.
Well, we have discussed this a great deal in the recent past and I will give a few issues that keep being brought up. 1. 2 pump ships are bad because.... ships are supposed to sink I can't tell you how many times folks say this in person, forum, list, or email. My first thought is... what is that person basing their opinion upon such as have they been attending battles in which there were 2 pump ship? Have they constantly been sunk by 2 pump ships? Did the 2 pump ships survive an unusual amount of damage (relative to other ships)? I would bet that OVER 80% of the folks that don't like 2 pump ships.. have never battled against them regularly or at all, they just don't like the idea. The only places I have seen 2 pump ships was in our region's local battles or at Nationals. Now that there are two new Vanguards in town there are now 2 pump ships battling in NC and GA more often. The point is.. how are folks forming the opinion that 2 pump ships don't sink when they have never battled against these ships more than once or even at all? I doesn't make sense how these folks can form such a strong and emotional opinion on an issue in which they have never faced. I would think that we would all expect to see big ships and 2 pump ships at Nationals.. which in my opinion is what Nationals is for. Had these folks attended battles at Wades or an MWC Nationals they would know that 2 pump ships DO indeed sink. Several 2 pump ships sank at the 2013 Nationals including 2 sinks of a 2-pump Bismarck, Tyler's 2-Pump Nagato, Finster's 2-Pump Nagato, Brandon's 2-pump Nagato (I am fairly sure it was 2 pumps), Jeff nearly sank TWICE but his ability as a Captain prevented the killing blow, I might be missing more. The Brouhaha has been a great place for sinking and in 2014 my ship nearly sank twice with 2 pumps and I believe Jeff had the only other 2 pump ship that year. In 2015 I sank twice as I experimented with sheeting techniques (keywords) and in 2016 both 2-pump Vanguards, the 2-pump Baden, and Tyler's 2-pump Nagato all sank. In the same years there are many ships that had a single pump that it seemed no amount of damage would sink. I believe in 2013 there was only one NC that sank all week long, and I am fairly sure some of them had enough damage to sink.. but were able to handle it.. even with one pump. Let's not forget events like IRC Nats 2015 where there were a small amount of Allied ships and as a result very few of the Axis ships had enough damage to sink.. regardless of the number of pumps. In fact that week, although I gave up a gun and mounted 2-pumps.. I had one pump motor die early in the wek and I was too tired/stressed to replace it...so I just went with it. Same thing happened at the Brouhaha this year but not in the sortie that I sank. So the data says that 2-pump ships sink... I can also provide data that single pump ships take the same outrageous amount of damage and don't sink... how can folks make a valid claim that 2-pump ships DONT SINK without considering single pump ships that DONT SINK? Fact of the matter is 2-pump ships wont sink if: 1. the opposing captain lacks the skill to score hits below the waterline 2. the opposing captain while having the skill to score hits.. has a boat issue that prevents them from even trying 3. the opposing captain lacks the skill to score hits AND has a boat issue that prevents them from even trying 4. The captain has the skill and a good working boat but lacks the courage to trade sidemounts 5. The captain has the skill and a good working boat and the courage to trade sidemountes but just flat got out-gunned by the opposing captain/boat (edited - I forgot the last two) Its that simple.. if you have the skill to score hits below the waterline.. you can sink a 2-pump ship. Some folks feel that if we take away 2 pumps it will make it easier for under-skilled captains to sink these ships. So to that I say... are these same captains sinking single pump ships? Are they causing enough damage to a 2pump ship to sink ANY single pump ship? The battle scores say otherwise.... I frequently have scores that are less than 20 hits in ANY area.. barely enough to sink me with a 1/2 unit pump. So to say 2-pumps is bad because ships are supposed to sink.. is completely inaccurate. It may be annoying but if that is the criteria for 'banning'' then we have a lot more items to add to that list... J
If I understand what you are saying.. is that you are unable to sink a 'well captained ship' (with 1 pump) then sinking is not a 2-pump issue... but potentially a lack of marksmanship. Have you guys compared holes to bb's to find out how accurate you are shooting? How many bellows is average in your area? Are you guys avoiding the 'well captained ship' because he is good? What format do you guys battle up there? Not sure if you are using IRC or not since you are scoring sinks only. Of course what is wrong with local rules? Most of us have local rules that we use such as allowing sunk ships to come back in the second sortie..etc.... J
That's a good way to look at it. So while you can add pump units, each unit added is not proportional. For example, battleships and battlecruisers with 2 units allocated to the pump don't get 4 times the pumping rate of a 1/2 unit pump - instead it is only double. We also don't care how many pumps you have, just pumping rate. You can use one pump to for anything between 1/2 and 3 units. Actually, while the table stops at 3 units, you could use one pump for even more units, although no one has and I don't know why you would want to. And you can make 3 units with a standard pump, no special motors needed.
This is another item that came up but as we are not discussing change on a per format basis.. its getting confusing. I am not sure if you guys are just discussing what is done in other formats or if you are suggesting that the IRC group work on matching rules for other formats. If you are suggesting the latter, I would say why change 1 format to another... why don't those folks just join a format that already has these desired rules in place? I thought that was the point .... the differences in the formats allowed folks to choose different levels of play. I don't see a reason to have 2 or 3 national treaty groups.. it makes more sense for folks to move between formats OR participate in both.. while accepting the inherent differences in each format. I like fast gun, I like the differences, I hope others do as well.
We're discussing trading offensive units for pumping capacity. No one is suggesting IRC adopt someone else's rules, though that has happened plenty (prime example: the casemate rules that came direct from the MWC).
