One Club or Two??

I had a long chat with Mike Deskin about the Washington Treaty Combat club last night. He asked if our Nova Scotian group wants to be a separate entity with its own 'house rules' or be part of a larger international club that uses the same rules, votes together on rule changes, and holds competitions in both countries.

I told him there'd been no discussion about that issue but as far as I knew the local group's members would have no objection to being part of an international club, and would be willing to host a Nats (or 'Internats') competition.

One rule change we discussed is giving the WWI Armored Cruisers the same units as the IRCWC does. (I'd previously sent data on ACs to tretay founders supporting the higher units - ACs only have 2.5 units under the present Treaty rules.)

Another point of discussion was battle scoring. Although the latest Treaty rule set discusses counting points in the same way the IRCWCC and MWC does, in practice the U.S. group has been counting sinks only. This prevents some ships from becoming 'BB magnets' which leads to them not being built for other styles of combat, and gets a greater variety of Treaty models on the water.

According to Mike we have the options of counting points if so desired, or just counting sinks. For the latter a Class 6 sink would count for more than a Class 5, and a Class 6.5 would be worth more than a Class 6. If each side was tied, say each lost a Class 5 ship, the ship with the greater tonnage would count for more, giving the side that sank it the win.

Sometimes in the U.S. battles no one bothers to figure out which side won, as was the case for the recent U.S. Treaty Nats and our second NATCF battle in October. The main point is that everyone had fun and no one was concerned about counting BB holes or deciding if a penetration was complete or not.

Mike asked if the NATCF could host an international competition in July or August 2009. I described our new site to him and the arrangement with Uniacke House, which wants us to stage a large battle or display next summer. Mike said the Treaty members in the U.S. who would be willing to travel to a midway point between Ohio and NS (say Rhode Island) would be equally willing to come all the way to Nova Scotia. Should we meet to discuss hosting an 'Internats' in 2009?

Bob

 

Yes, it would be a good idea to meet. We can eather use the office in Burnside or my place in Ardoise, about half way for all.

 

The stuff about not counting damage is in "battle scoring"
3 (c)
c) Sink points only may be counted and not count damage. Based on either class of ships sunk, or max tonnage of the sunk ships (if they are the same class).

Mikey

 

Had another talk with Mike Deskin last night. We've been asked to participate in pending discussions of Washington Treaty rule change proposals.

We haven't had a formal meeting yet but there has been no disagreement with the idea that we follow the WTC system for battling and that NATCF will be a member club of the Washington Treaty Combat organization.

Mike will be posting the rule change proposals in a few days so watch for them on the WTC forum and feel free to participate in the discussion and voting.

Bob

 

All
We have begun our rule proposal process on the Treaty Yahoo site for the 2009 battling season.
Anyone that has battled to Treaty rules can take part.
If anyone has trouble with yahoo, please contact me so that we can all stay on the same page.
Mikey

 

All
The armored cruisers unit allotments proposal passed, so we have adopted the IRCWCC's units for armored cruisers.
We will up-date our rules file shortly.
Mikey

 

Since it's been established that the NATCF is a Washington Treaty Club affiliate I'm 'hijacking' the original purpose of the thread to apply it to the local IRCWCC and WTC clubs. If you've visited the NABS forum lately you'll see the issue of one versus two regional R/C naval combat clubs is being discussed.
Since the summer everyone involved in the 2008 NABS split has been interacting amicably, whether a NABS, NATCF or NABS and NATCF member. I haven't heard of any recent 'bad blood' and didn't see any signs of it when NATCF and NABS members got together for the combined October battle. Everyone 'played together' well, helped each other with ship problems, and (other than those with nonfunctioning models) had fun chatting and battling.
Several members of the NATCF also have an interest in IRCWCC style naval combat and some have suggested NATCF and NABS members form a single club. However, those NABS members not involved in Treaty do not want a two format club. They are open to people belonging to more than one club and probably need 'dual format' NATCF battlers in NABS to remain a reasonably active club.
The NATCF is a Washington Treaty Club affiliate but there is no reason our members can't get together for any style of combat outside of Treaty battles, whether with NABS or within our own club. An occasional dual format competition like those organized by the WTC could be fun. Opinions?
Bob

 

Hi Bob,
I think thing worked pretty well last year, and I see no need to make changes at this time. Two clubs are fine, but the door is always open for a re-merge down the line sometime....

 

"Everyone 'played together' well, helped each other with ship problems, and (other than those with nonfunctioning models) had fun chatting and battling.".... So I guess people without functioning boats needed to be pointed out?? Thanks Bob, really helped with my self-esteem of trying to get Miss Mog on the water...
I cant go any further or else I will be banned.....

Dont like my opinion.. SHOVE IT UP YOUR HULL
Have a nice Day!

 

Jay Jennings and Stephen Hill called yesterday and today respectively to discuss their one club/two format proposal for NABS. Steve is the sole member of the NABS executive and is asking NATCF members to attend the NABS meeting on Feb. 8. (Most of us were NABS members and paid dues for at least 2007-2008.) See John's 'Meeting' thread on the NABS forum for the meeting location.
Although some NABS members want NABS to remain a single format club it seems there are more NABS members (several of whom are also NATCF members) who want a single club battling two formats. This will be discussed at the NABS meeting and some time later there will probably be a vote. Steve would like to have as many R/C naval combat captains as possible in attendance to discuss the future of our hobby in this area.
I've found we can no longer email each other via this forum so have no way of contacting Jason Clark. If anyone has his phone number or email please pass Steve's message on to him. Scott Foster (USS Little Rock) and Ian MacMillan (HMS Hood) are at sea/ in training so can't attend. I hope everyone else will try to be there. Due to my mother's death last week I will probably be back in NB that weekend visiting my father.
Bob

 

hi bob i am always looking on here i may not post very often but as the admin i look over here once or twice a day

 

OK Jason, I hadn't seen any posts from you lately and didn't know you were monitoring regularly.
What do you think of Steve and Jay's one club/two format merger proposal?
Unfortunately, another NABS forum post this morning indicated some NABS captains haven't been able to move on from last year's unpleasantness. I haven't seen any evidence of that among our club members, or among the NABS members who plan to particpate in our club activities and are building or converting models for Treaty combat. We are fortunate to have a friendly group focussed on having fun.
The majority of NABS members in NS are either members of NABS and NATCF, or have been interacting regularly with us and getting along very well. In fact the I-400 hull project starting this weekend is a joint venture between some NABS and NATCF members.
Do you think it would be a good idea to 're-merge' clubs if NABS goes dual format? Rob doesn't see any need to merge now, but he's open to it in the future. John, Jay, and Steve are in favour of a merger as dual NABS/NATCF members. As another NATCF/NABS member I'm waiting to see what happens in NABS.
If a majority of NABS members votes for a dual format club this year any members with 'bad feelings' and 'bad blood' will probably be even more unhappy, which could cause ongoing problems for NABS.
The recent 'bad blood' type posts on the NABS forum are also worrisome. Would it be wise to 're-merge' while some NABS members allegedly have so much 'bad blood' they don't want a reunified club?
Bob

 

Hi there Treaty club!

I decided to come on for the first time in forever to offer a solution to your "bad blood" issue. I personally have only issue with one person.... Pottle put your hand down.... it isn't you, we already had our well publicized pissing match and personally, I've stayed out of the issues.... especially because one of us was consulting a lawyer.... that's when I said, have your cake and eat it too, buddy. You reap what you sow. The issue is dead to me. I can't speak for about seven others... who smile to your face.....So I concede this to you.... have your boat club... it is yours and well played! I think that as someone who has put that kind of energy into this that you have should have your own slice! Keep it that way. NATCF should be the multi-format club. Not NABS. Enjoy it have fun and peace be with you. You have upwards of ten guys that will play your format. Take the gear. The Halifax face of NABS has changed since Curt and I left and that is fine. NATCF is primarily a Halifax club and so it shall stay. You are not interested in Russel, Chuck, Joy, Gregory, Paul, Brechin, Me, Chris, WIll, Heidi, Bob, Jim, Dave, Christian, Osborne, Curt or Faye... and that is fine. Let NABS go back to Curt who, both he and I have been instructed to stay out of this and as of tonight I put my foot down and said enough is enough, you guys take the tanks and fill station which is what this is really about. MOVE ON. No one wants NABS to be multi-formated. Let it go. Steve, Jay, Paul, Curt, Chris, Chuck, Joy, Easterbrook, you and I were NABS over the last few years and of those people, you wanted treaty. Invite who you want and let the rest go.

The event here will be a multi-format/multi-club event. We are encouraging everyone regardless of their boat make-up to compete. If that means nobody shows well.... at least it was tried. So I put the olive branch out there. The real issue should be that NATCF be the Multiformat club. The gear can go with you folks.... no one here will shed a tear for it. We have all the gear needed to run a fifty+boat event. As far as NABS in the NS. Curt, Easterbrook and I all had a chat this afternoon. As the last voted President and Curt as the longest serving member and president we both agreed that NABS is a regional club. Not to be run by people in one area. Curt would hold NEWF.... I or Osborne or Easterbrook here in NB and Paul or Chuck or Joy in NS, or all of the above. As these are the members who have an interest in keeping NABS running as an IRCWCC club. I also think that any other combat styles can battle with us.... but that dual format will have to be looked at and voted on. It is an IRCWCC club and should remain so.

Anyways.... best of luck to you all and I hope this clears the air once and for all.

Let's stop acting like a bunch of spoiled children, who have no idea which way is up and play a game!

I for one, will be out this year..... that is all I can say for me..... If I offended anyone.... I apologize and you need to learn to take critisizm as I have.

Sparrow

 

Hi Craig,
Good to hear from you and thanks for expressing your opinion. As you said, we had our conflict and I believe we've both put it behind us, judging from our cordial correspondence about your excellent school project on R/C naval combat. There are just a few points or misunderstandings I'd like to clarify.
If you read my last message you'll see I have reservations about a unified 2 format club and am taking a 'wait and see' attitude. I passed on the invitation for NATCF members to attend the Feb. NABS meeting (as requested by Stephen - the only remaining member of the NABS executive), but have stayed out of the NABS forum debate about 1 vs 2 formats. My only contributions to the thread were to help complete the captain/ship/format list of r/c naval combat hobbyists in the region.
Though technically a NABS member until the 2009 dues are in (and maybe after that) my main interest is in Treaty combat, not IRCWCC. I have no interest in being involved in another NABS fracus and getting tarred with the same brush. The last one was regretable and damaging to both of us (and to others). The fact is that other well established NABS members do want a dual format club and NABS members will have to resolve that issue.
I feel it was unfair to say I'm not interested in the people you listed. That was a negative assumption about me and who and what I'm interested in. (I'm not pointing fingers - I've done it too.) At present I'm most interested in the welfare of my father and family after the death of my beloved mother from cancer last week - you know what that kind of loss is like.
I don't recognize many of the names you listed (new members?) but I've been a friend of several of the others for years and didn't know the rest well. I'm grateful to Curt for getting me back into the hobby in 1995 after a 10 year hiatus. I put a lot of work into getting Brechin's 2nd hand HMS Suffolk on the water (gratis!), and enjoyed Russell's battling and CD'ing when he was active in the hobby. I've considered them friends. Even you, except for our blow-up!
Another misunderstanding seems to be that I was the originator of the NATCF. After the NABS split I thought there'd be two IRCWCC clubs. As Moderator Jason can confirm, he was the person who proposed a local Treaty club. I think Scott and Rob were familiar with the concept though I'd never heard of it. Those of us not fully satisfied with IRCWCC style combat (especially the high speeds and collisions) checked out the rules and thought Treaty was a good idea, and it has been. The NATCF is not my club but is the joint, 'executive-less', product of our group of hobbyists.
The 'bad blood' issue is not mine. Chris raised it on the NABS forum this week and maintains it does exist. If several people still feel that way it's disappointing and rather sad. Even so, my thought is that if seven people are 'smiling to my face' despite whatever 'bad feelings' they might have about me, are participating in the hobby, having fun and behaving courteously at lakeside, one cannot ask for more. Not everyone likes everyone else. To paraphrase you, we should act as adults and 'play cooperatively'.
Equipment access is no longer an issue for NATCF members. At least four of us have or will have fill stations for club use this year. The NATCF is not after NABS' equipment; we don't need it. What NABS does with it's equipment is an internal NABS matter and has nothing to do with the Treaty club. Unfortunately, unfounded negative suggestions like that can keep the 'bad blood' boiling in NABS and I sincerely hope that wasn't someone's intent. Anyway, I'm confident that rumor didn't originate from you.
I appreciate your invitation for members of other clubs/styles to attend your events this year and know NATCF members will do the same, as we did in October. It was good to see so many people enjoying the hobby, whatever club they belonged to. Craig, I respect your opinion and hope everything works out for the best in NABS. I hope we can exchange BBs this summer.
Bob

 

Hello Bob! First off.... absolutely. I agree and thank-you. We can both play at the same pond.... you bring your class 1 I'll bring Bismarck! I know I will still sink.... But I'll have fun shooting at you all the same.

>Good to hear from you and thanks for expressing your opinion. As you said, we had our conflict and I believe we've both put it behind us, judging from our cordial correspondence about your >excellent school project on R/C naval combat. There are just a few points or misunderstandings I'd like to clarify.

Thanks for the Feedback Bob on the project and Agreed, please proceed.

>If you read my last message you'll see I have reservations about a unified 2 format club and am taking a 'wait and see' attitude. I passed on the invitation for NATCF members to attend the Feb. >NABS meeting (as requested by Stephen - the only remaining member of the NABS executive), but have stayed out of the NABS forum debate about 1 vs 2 formats. My only contributions to the >thread were to help complete the captain/ship/format list of r/c naval combat hobbyists in the region.

Absolutely Bob, a two format club just has a bad taste in my mouth. I wouldn't want NABS to be that way and as my dues were not returned as asked, I am still a member until my dues are requested again. As are most of us. As far as Steven goes, as far as I can tell, he is battling Treaty now for the most part and should move on to that format. I didn't even think there was an executive anymore as nothing was ever sent my way no contact at all, and as far as I knew the pieces of NABS were there but for the most part dead. Steven took over treasurer because someone else dropped the ball, and that was the end of it I thought.

>Though technically a NABS member until the 2009 dues are in (and maybe after that) my main interest is in Treaty combat, not IRCWCC. I have no interest in being involved in another NABS >fracus and getting tarred with the same brush. The last one was regretable and damaging to both of us (and to others). The fact is that other well established NABS members do want a dual >format club and NABS members will have to resolve that issue.

Here is the thing Bob.... I completely agree again, but must bring this point up.... the only members pushing for this are the members in Halifax. If it is the dual members... the ones who want to play both, they are not looking at the big picture and are knocking 75% of the participants out of the loop.

>I feel it was unfair to say I'm not interested in the people you listed. That was a negative assumption about me and who and what I'm interested in. (I'm not pointing fingers - I've done it too.) At >present I'm most interested in the welfare of my father and family after the death of my beloved mother from cancer last week - you know what that kind of loss is like.

Oh My Gosh Bob! I had no idea. And for that I feel your loss and my thoughts and prayers are with you. Please be well. As far as the assumption, I was going on what information was given to me.... yes.... we are both guilty for that I apologize, I know were it comes from now. I know you are getting the support you need right now, but if you need to drop me a private line please do!

>I don't recognize many of the names you listed (new members?) but I've been a friend of several of the others for years and didn't know the rest well. I'm grateful to Curt for getting me back into >the hobby in 1995 after a 10 year hiatus. I put a lot of work into getting Brechin's 2nd hand HMS Suffolk on the water (gratis!), and enjoyed Russell's battling and CD'ing when he was active in >the hobby. I've considered them friends. Even you, except for our blow-up!

Well yes....that was classic. Out of proportion, yes, but shows the passion we both have for this sport/hobby and the two different ways we come at it. It is really too bad we can't compromise and come to some kind of common ground... the hobby would be better for it! As for the others, they are potential members... looking at ship kits (Gagetown rocks) and if they saw how embarassing all this on-line crap is .... they would walk away.

>Another misunderstanding seems to be that I was the originator of the NATCF. After the NABS split I thought there'd be two IRCWCC clubs. As Moderator Jason can confirm, hewas the person >who proposed a local Treaty club. I think Scott and Rob were familiar with the concept though I'd never heard of it. Those of us not fully satisfied with IRCWCC style combat (especially the high >speeds and collisions) checked out the rules and thought Treaty was a good idea, and it has been. The NATCF is not my club but is the joint, 'executive-less', product of our group of hobbyists.

Alright again.... point taken.... I love the 'executive-less" portion there Bob. That is the way these clubs should be. No need of that. I will say though that when it comes to intel on NATCF your name, none of theirs come to the forefront. Organization-wise, internet-wise....etc.... championing this, most would see it is your baby.... just throwing that out there as I probably am not the only one thinking you have point on this.

>The 'bad blood' issue is not mine. Chris raised it on the NABS forum this week and maintains it does exist. If several people still feel that way it's disappointing and rather sad. Even so, my thought >is that if seven people are 'smiling to my face' despite whatever 'bad feelings' they might have about me, are participating in the hobby, having fun and behaving courteously at lakeside, one >cannot ask for more. Not everyone likes everyone else. To paraphrase you, we should act as adults and 'play cooperatively'.

I'm glad you agree that there are "several" people gritting their teeth... and as you said, as long as people act accordingly who cares... we don't have to have dinner together afterwards, right? Yes the bad blood issue concerns me, as I am sure there were some here at CANNATS 10 that may not have been 100% sincere.... oh well... I had a blast I hope others did! Unfortunately due to last years online "events" there are some harbouring a grudge.... *shrugs shoulders*

>Equipment access is no longer an issue for NATCF members. At least four of us have or will have fill stations for club use this year. The NATCF is not after NABS' equipment; we don't need it. >What NABS does with it's equipment is an internal NABS matter and has nothing to do with the Treaty club. Unfortunately, unfounded negative suggestions like that can keep the 'bad blood' >boiling in NABS and I sincerely hope that wasn't someone's intent. Anyway, I'm confident that rumor didn't originate from you.

Well.... your confidence is well founded here Bob... as I have said, I have been out of the loop have not got the finer points on some things... these were things that were an issue back three months ago before I started school... When I was talking to Curt and Chris E. today, the discussion seemed to fall to the infrastucture and figured it was the hang-up.

>I appreciate your invitation for members of other clubs/styles to attend your events this year and know NATCF members will do the same, as we did in October. It was good to see so many >people enjoying the hobby, whatever club they belonged to. Craig, I respect your opinion and hope everything works out for the best in NABS. I hope we can exchange BBs this summer.

I think we will Bob.... I think we will....We just might not have a choice in the matter, Bismarck is ready! (er almost.... one cannon to tweak) And I also Appreciate your opinion Bob.

As far as the rest goes.... I think you'll agree then to what Curt, Chris E. and I came up with for NABS. It simply should not be an issue.... right? Let it go and move on. If anything dissolve the excutive and move on. So if anything I would do that and keep NABS as is. Then we can get back to business as usual!

Thanks for the great post and for clearing some things up Bob it feels good to be back in the loop, I needed the time away.... I'M BACK!

Admiral Sparrow.

 

Craig,
It's good to be seeing eye to eye again. As NABS member #3 I have no problem with Curt keeping the NABS name. Having two separate, single format clubs sharing some members has worked since August. There's no reason it shouldn't continue to work. That said, I don't agree with a proposal I saw that NATCF members who join NABS should be restricted from certain roles in NABS. That is not how things are done in the NATCF, where everyone has the same privileges.
The fact that someone in our region is unhappy and resentful enough to keep spreading divisive rumors in such a small hobby is sad and unfortunate. That situation is best discussed with the person(s) by other members of the same club, but allowing that behaviour to continue could have serious consequences for our hobby. Besides, we've all had enough BS in the last year to last a decade!
It's good to hear you'll be battling this year after all.
Bob

 

Hi Guys: After reading all posts and thinking about this, I have to admit that the way is clear. Two single format clubs are in. I have most of my ships in treaty now and will convert the rest over to this format asap. This will be easy to do and I injoy the slower speeds and more options for the carriers I have.
I have heard about the 1-400 being done and just to let you know I have started an ocean liner this weekend and should have it in the water for spring.

 

Hi John,
I'll be doing little IRCWCC style battling because I enjoy the Treaty format more. I hope to attend the IRCWCC NATS again this year with the Krasni Krim and a couple of smaller ships. You're building a liner... which one? Hopefully a big target so it'll be harder to sink!
Jay, Steve, new member Dave Johnston and I met for 4 hours this afternoon to decide on mods to the I-400 plan and discuss potential sub tactics in Treaty. See the post just started on the I-400.
Bob

 

Bob,

Thanks again and yes... there is a force at work here that is being extremely disruptive. I have steered clear and have really no idea what has been happening... I came back as I heard things were on the verge of getting out of hand again.

I am a big fan of no postions so I am not 100% sure where the positions between clubs comes into play, unless I have misspoken something above, but I have reread and it seems fine. I just know that things work best when all input is considered, no matter how bizarre or off base. The hobby cannot handle this "BS" and angst as you say.... I agree and wish that whatever force or forces are behind this would cease their activity and simply go away. I have my thoughts as to who it may be, but, find it hard to 100% go after anyone.

Anyway.... enough on this for now... eye to eye is good.... as I said before combining our resources is best suited to the future... there is a wolf in sheep's clothing Bob... It's sad, but, someone here loves strife and misery of others.... perhaps doesn't even like battling.... just in it for those reasons, to watch people suffer.

Keep a sharp eye Bob, as I will from here, you just don't know who it might be. Could it be one of the two of us....not likely. Our passion, desire and let's face it... love of this hobby, keep us in it. I believe in "whatever doesn't kill it makes it stronger" That's where I think we are... I am the blunt and brazen one... you are the watch and react... maybe we can use these to our mutual advantage and uncover the truth. Neither of us want this entity to envelope the region as it is threatening to.

Talk soon,

Craig

 

Yes Bob it is a big target Europa, 936' x 102' I have had the plans for a long time. Started a small liner this weekend and then thought I may as well jump in with both feet and go for it. This will be done slowly as it will take a lot of room in the work shop. As a result i will be using the Roberts as my ship this year as it is ready and requires only tweeking to put into battle besides its a fun little ship.