Hi All. I figured this was a good place to ask this question. Is there a provision for allowing someone to build and fight a neverwas? I am not talking about something crazy like a Super Yamato, Tillman, or H44, but ships that were approved designs that were laid down and/or launched but never completed. More specifically, I am thinking of ships that were started and scrapped due to wars or the Washington Naval Treaty. Is this something that can be determined by the regional clubs? The reason I ask is that I really like a couple of the neverweres (French Normandie and Lyon classes, Russian Imperator Nikolai I, etc.) that date from WWI and pre-treaty. What is the general opinion of this? Is there any precedent? Thanks! Ryan W.
Hi Geek, the answer to your question about "hypothetical" ships depends on the club. Some clubs, including most Fast Gun clubs, are very strict, and require that a ship was built, launched, and commissioned in order to participate. Other clubs (most Big Gun clubs) are much more forgiving about hypotheticals, ranging between Launched, Laid Down, all the way down to Mentioned in Conway's. My own club the WWCC is probably the most forgiving of all, in that not only does it allow any ship in Conways, but it also has established procedures for documenting exceptions to Conway's (like Kreuzer D, laid down in Germany but not mentioned in Conway's), and another procedure to ask for a waiver to the rules. Thanks to that, we've got a fascinating collection of ships including: BC Kreuzer P (last man standing in 2010) BC Dutch Battlecruiser (first capital ship sunk on YouTube) BB Normandie (most feared ship 2004 and 2005) CL Spahkreuzer (most feared ship 2006 and last man standing 2006 under my command) BB Gascoigne (under construction) BB Alsace (under construction) BB Montana (under construction) BB H-39 (at least two ships undergoing refit) BB Scharnhorst/Gneisenau with 15" guns (active in 2005 and 2006) BB Sovietsky Soyuz (active in 2006 and 2007) BB Lion WWII (under construction) and more. Still more ships are legal, and just waiting for someone to build them.
I have always liked the Russian Ismail/Navarin class Battlecruisesrs and wish MWC was more open to the hypotheticals. At least to those ships that were actually launched if not completed. I prefer ships that actually floated, but laid down makes it a bit less hypothetical. Not so keen on those ships that were just some one's bright (or not so bright) idea.
Admin powers ---- Activate! Nothing against this thread, but it doesn't seem to belong in the MWC folder If the intent of the OP was to ask the question with respect to battling in the MWC, please let me know and I'll move it back.
Back to the original point, the Tillmans were never planned to be built at all, they were just thought exercises as to how big a battleship could be built. (at that time)
The best thing is to look at what your local club will allow, it can differ from state to state however. The Big gun in Australia allows anythiing that Conways says was laid down so the british WW2 Lion class, and the Normandie and H39 are Ok, while not launched they were laid down but the WW2 Montana, Lyon and Alsace were not laid down so not able to be built. The Russian Krondstat is a problem for us however as Conways contradicts itsself in some ways as the final plan that the specifications speak of as being laid down was not approved until 8 months after the hull was laid down, and we have to presume that the hull laid down was the one approved as a 22000 tonne 9 X 10inch design at 32 knot, not a 38000 tonne 9 X 12in design with 32 knots.
I've got plans for the Tillman... 80,000 tons, 28.8 knots, and four hextuple 16"50cal turrets. If the two Montanas currently under construction here don't turn the tide for the Allies in 2011, I'm gonna suggest they try a couple of those monsters next
If someone showed up with a hypotthetical vessel at a local battle, I'd let them play, as long as it wasn't rediculous. The Tillmans are so far outside our rule set that I don't theink they'd fit in any balanced manner in MWC battles (or IRC battles for that matter).
I don't know about even how viable they would even be in IRC, considering they would only get 7.5 units (no exception written in for them) and twin sidemounts. they would be out turned by almost everything on the pond, and would be basically a floating billboard...
Personally I don't care what shows up on the pond so long as I can shoot holes in it. That said, I can't imagine that something that massive would be competitive in fast-gun - itll just take a long time to sink and be a bb-magnet while it does so.
A Normadie would be a good ship I think. In the fast gun clubs, it would have been a 5 unit ship with lots of hull volume, four shaft (drag discs on outside two shafts), and twin rudders. It should turn very well. The three quad turrets would give some interesting ideas for cannon layout. By the way, many hypothetical ships are legal in the Treaty format. For those that don't know, Treaty is a cross between fast gun and big gun with fast gun units and a big gun styled speed chart and pump limits.
Wow, thanks for all of the responses. Just a note, I put it in the MWC section as that is the governing body of the club closest to me, but moving turned out to be a good call! It looks like most folks would have no issue with a never-was as long as it's not crazy. I am basically considering something like a Normadie or Lyon, but also perhaps a Gangut or Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya (neither hypothetical). As to the effectiveness of the French Normandie or Lyon, I think they would be fine. They are similar in size to most of their contemporaries (Normandie is 560ft. and Lyon is 635ft.). Decisions, decisions....
You really need to get in touch with whoever you are going to battle with locally and see what they think, how we feel doesn't really matter if the local guys won't let you battle with it. Most of SCRAPS battles are listed as Sanctioned MWCI events meaning you wouldn't be able to battle a ship that doesn't follow the rules. Get in touch with them and see what they say, if you need contact info let us know and we'll get it for you.
Yeah, the Tillmans and a few others were really ridiculous. But if that's what the Allies need in order to stand a chance.... Oh, sorry, Smack talk belongs in the Smack thread On a more serious note, the Normandie is an awesome battleship. Three quad 7/32" guns, two of which are easily armed, in a maneuverable twin-rudder dreadnought hull... very scary. There was one in the WWCC from 2004 thru 2007, and it was one of the most feared ships on the water. I literally saw ships twice as big as it running away, because of how scary it was. I wonder how well it would do in Fast Gun, with the possibility of a quadruple stern gun. There's also the Gille battlecruiser, with the same guns plus a few knots and a few inches length. My personal favorite hypothetical is the Gascoigne. It's a Richelieu, with one quad turret moved aft. The French ordered it, and were gathering up the resources when WWII intervened and the Fall of France cancelled construction. I'm helping build one this winter. Unfortunately the owner has classified all construction data and photos as top secret, but I can say this much. The *classified* secondary *censored* really scary *top secret* sink the Iowa *classified* water channel *bleep* methane bubbles.
Speaking of the Gascogne ... I've been working on one on and off over the past year and a hallf. The hull mods are done. The superstructure is done. Stuffing tubes and motor mounts are done. The rudder is done. Even the water channeling with embeded wiring is done. I really should finish the thing. heh. It's under construction for Treaty combat where I think it will be a very competative ship with triple sterns, a two-cannon rotating fore turret, and it's fast speed.
Gangut is very legal and Clark (Capt. zur See von Tugboat) is building one for some one. The Imp. Maritizia is good and does not have those nasty refits applied in the 1930's.
