Does any one have any Des Moines parts for sale? I know i can get them at battlers but just wanted to see if any one was selling them cheaper. Zac
I doubt it, Des Moines isn't a very popular ship. It's pretty long and doesn't have the history that other ships have. Between the Baltimore that Barnstormers is coming out with and the new BC Cleveland, I doubt many people will build Des Moines at all anymore. Mike D
I think I should clarify my post from yesterday. The primary reason people currently build Des Moines class ships is because they're available from BC. There isn't much justification for people to scratch build components for a ship class that is of only passing interest for most builders. Most people build a a ship for one or more of the following reasons: 1) The ship had an interesting history. Only the Newport News saw action in Vietnam, so these aren't historically interesting ships. 2) The ship has good RC combat performance. While the Des Moines doesn't suck, you can build a Baltimore (soon to be available from Barnstormers) and get the same 3.5 units and speed, in a shorter hull which will turn better. Baltimore hulls also offer the added benefit of different superstructures (Baltimore class, Oregon City class, Worcester class) for variety. 3) The ship looks cool. Des Moines DOES look pretty awesome. Unfortunately for her, the Oregon City sub-class looks nearly the same, but on a shorter, better turning Baltimore hull. My not build the Oregon City if you like the look, and get the added turning as a bonus? 4) Sentimental value. You or a relative served on that particular class of ships. There's a lot more likely of a chance someone served on a Baltimore, Oregon City, or Worcester, and will make the turrets, etc for them. An example of this would be my grandfather serving on the USS Pittsburgh, a Baltimore class ship. Thus, I personally would be more interested in building a Baltimore then a Des Moines. 5) Availability. Someone makes a kit. This is the MAIN reason people build Des Moines. BC makes a kit for it, so they don't HAVE to scratch build things...which is why I believe you are unlikely to see people with Des Moines parts for sale, beyond the 5" 38 turrets which are common to the battleships as well. Barnstomers will soon be coming out with a Baltimore as well, so availability of what I personally think is a slightly superior ship for the reasons stated above will be excellent. Now if Des Moines was a 4 unit ships...but I digress! All of the above reasons I stated plays into why I think BC is making a brilliant decision to offer a Cleveland class hull. First, she's much shorter then either Balto or Des Moines, so she should turn better. The hull is also used for the Fargo class (looks like a mini-Des Moines, coolest looking light cruiser in my opinion) and the Independence class aircraft carriers. The hull is also legal (meaning close enough) to play the role of a Brooklyn or St Louis class light cruiser or, the one-off Wichita class heavy cruiser. All in all, a most excellent hull for a new guy looking to get started. Good Mike
Des Moines turns better then you think it would. In MWC because it is over 700' it gets the 50% rudder bonus. We have 3 scratch Baltimores under construction up here. I'm waiting to see how they'll turn. I'm betting it is same or worse then the Des Moines.
Ahh, I was an IRCWCC guy, and their rudder rule was for cruisers over 599 ft, so Baltimore would have the same advantage (as would Cleveland, Brooklyn, Northampton, etc) as a Des Moines would...so it would pretty much come down to length. Good Mike
As with all things, politics played a role. I was at the rules meeting when this happened and it was originally proposed that battlecruisers over 700ft and cruisers over 640 ft get the extra rudder area; similiar but not exact to the MWC rule. Certain Axis captains complained that it would help the Allies and not the Axis because it misses the Lutzow pocket battleships while helping Des Moines and Baltimore. I guess Myoko, Hipper, Trento, Bolzano and Takao class cruisers don't count. So, to appease the Axis, the rule proposal was changed to 599 ft, which obviously benefits the Allies far more then the Axis since the Allies got the extra rudder on all those 600-610 ft treaty cruisers. Not sure if that's what the Axis really wanted, but they got it. Good Mike
Because for a lot of ships, it's hard to find good plans of their rudders. Also, scale-size rudders in 1:144 don't turn the boat really well.
So that explains the 599 thing for the rudder. I guess. (my head hurts) But I don't understand why the rudder area instead of the extra 1 sec. speed.
To the best of my knowledge, there as been no discussion on giving cruisers more speed then they already have in the IRCWCC. Currently class 2 ships are allowed 23 seconds, its the class 3 cruisers who are in a no-man's land so to speak. I don't really think that helping all cruisers was on anyone's agenda for that rules meeting, but someone wanted to see the long ones be a little more viable as compared to the shorter cruisers, which would explain why there hasn't been any discussion (that I know of) about raising the speed. I think there is general apathy in general for the most part towards cruisers, as when I was talking about building a Pensacola class ship at fall regionals last year as a back up/campaign ship, I was just told "don't waste your time with a cruiser". I've also seen some veteran captains state that cruisers don't need any help since they can already change batteries between sorties. The rudder rule as pertains to cruisers was also bundled in with "battleships and battlecruisers over 700 ft in length", so I think that the cruisers ended up getting the extra rudder because people were interested in helping ships like KGV, Hood, Vanguard and Alaska. Its kinda like pork barrel politics where some senator tacks on a clause for his pet project (in this case, it was long cruisers), and it gets passed because there is no line item veto to sort the wheat from the chaff. All things being equal, I don't think that many people in the IRCWCC care about cruisers one way or another, and thus I wouldn't expect them to see any kind of speed love anytime soon. Of course, those are only my opinions and observations, so your mileage may vary. Good Mike
o yea i forgot, I've decided to change my mind to the Invincable instead of the Des Moines. So i'd be buying Invinceable parts now. Used or new.
It's my personal opinion that turning is more important then speed. Others might disagree. In my Invincible, I don't much worry about anything that's faster then me, I can always turn away from them (unless they bring a friend) and prevent them from getting a shot. The ships that scare me most are the highly maneuverable dreadnoughts which turn even better then I do. I'm not a good enough captain to get away with trying to fight a Konig, Nassau, or VU without a friend or catching them someplace they shouldn't be (like close to the shore so they can't simply turn and eat me). I've got enough speed to run away from them though. Good Mike
For a cruiser, it might be beter to have speed. If you can't out turn the other guy, you need to be able to out run them. Sence cruisers can't out turn a battleship, even with extra rudder area, they would seam beter off with speed. Note also that at MWC nationals there have been ~20 cruisers, often as secondary ships. MWC has the extra speed for the cruisers, which has caused them to become more popular.
Cruisers are a ton of fun to play with. They are good to learn with for a rookie and good or a vet to take a break from the big, heavy, lots of patching ships. In the MWC we have lots of cruiser show up for NATS, almost everyone brings one. The extra sec really helped make them usefull. I justed battle a very good NC captain this weekend that took a break to bring a FN Glorie. He wasted everyone with his stern guns. We guess he put 300+ aboves into us. For all this damage he took 2-0-1 in 5 sorties. Not a bad score.
