Keep your eyes open for the Nova Scotia Treaty Combat club forum! Coming in a few days with Jason Clark as Moderator. Bob Pottle
That is a good move Bob. I have been following some of the posts on the NABS forum, and having a Treaty (N.S.) forum will help you all avoid some of the conflicts that are currently going on. We have gone through some of that also in the past. Best to avoid it if possible. Mikey
Agreed Mikey, The local Treaty Combat group has grown to 9 people as more have decided to switch formats. Most of the new club consists of NABS members who have been friends for years, some since 1996. With a group of mostly new or short-term members left in NABS, what we've done is reconstitute the older and more compatable NABS group under a new name and format. The present line-up of captains and ships is: Ralph Coles - Black Prince Bob Pottle - Minotaur, Gorgon, HMCS Prince Robert Tom Cromwell - Nagato Rob Clarke - Konig + another predreadnought under construction Scott Foster - Abdiel, Little Rock under construction Jason Clark - Von der Tann, Glatton under construction Jason's dad - Iowa under construction Steve Hill - will probably convert HMCS Ontario first, then Vanguard Ian MacMillan - Hood, being converted back to a combat model Former NABS members Eric Broderick and Rob Helliwell have had their interest tweaked again by the Treaty Combat rules and may return to the hobby when the new club is seen to be more active. John Coffill was considering Treaty before recently leaving NABS and the hobby. I hope he'll reconsider and join us. The club has 8 completed IRCWCC format ships, all of which have to be converted by reducing speed and having pump capacity checked and reduced if necessary. HMS Abdiel is almost finished and Iowa and Hood may be by September. The first local Treaty battle will be held in early August and 5 of 9 members have confirmed attendance. More battles will follow until the weather gets too cold. Looks like we're off to a good start! Bad Bob
Best of luck Bob. Back down to the shop to continue the build. Any chance of a 4 day event north of the border next year? I could make the trip.
Mikey sent a new copy via email out for review. He should be posting them on the Yahoo Treaty site today or tomorrow.
The big thing you'll have to change from IRCWCC standard is speed and pump capacity. In treaty the speed is based off 30 knots = 30 seconds. So, a 29 knot ship would be 31 seconds, 28 knots = 32 seconds, etc. Minimum fleet speed is 22 knots (so everything slower then 22 knots gets to still go 38 seconds) and maximum fleet speed is capped at 37 knots (so those frenchie 40 knot CLs and DDs are capped at 23 seconds) Pump capacities are simpler: battleship = 1.25 US gallon per minute pump, battlecruiser = 1.0 gpm pump and cruisers and below get .75 gpm (but only cost .5 units) There's more, but those are the extreme basics. Which ship are you looking at converting? Mikey should have the new list typo-free and consolidated (our rules are currently spread between 3 documents or so) within the next few days.
HI Mike: I have a few to choose from but i'm thinking of the Shinano or the HMS Attacker, I still haven't sold the washington and its almost ready and was slow to begin with. But i do like the shinano so that will most likely be the one i use.
John (sinkin123), Either Washington or Shinano would make good Treaty Combat models. The North Carolina Class is a good combatant in any format and in Treaty it's greater speed is much more significant than in IRCWCC, where there's only a 4 sec/100' difference between it and the slowest capital ships. In Treaty it can be as much as 8 seconds faster, but there are even faster battleships than the NC (ie Vanguard). I think Shinano has 7 units (don't have the rules handy) but the BB cannons can only be in the bow and stern quadrants. It could have a single pump and triple guns fore and aft, duals front and quads aft, or vice versa (all under flight deck level). The Yamatos in NABS turned fairly well for their length. The Shinano should be fairly effective pursuing or being pursued, but not in a melee. It has such large volume and reserve buoyancy it should be very hard to sink in the course of a typical battle, especially with the low number of combatants locally. One pump will probaly be enough. Let me know if you need any help getting either or both models ready for action. Bob
I think that the Washington would be an excellent ship. If I were setting one up, I think I'd go with 75 round sidemounts, dual sterns and a full unit pump. She's definitely not a ship you're going to want to trade sidemounts with.
