Does anyone know what the original rationale for the rudder bonus was? It's not inconceivable that there was some bias in proposing it, but I can also see that it could have simply been that dual rudder ships were given a bonus since they had two rudders to divvy up that area for. Perhaps it was a compromise to do two rudders get x in square plus 50% instead of two rudder ships getting x inch square PER rudder. Maybe understanding the rationale can help us either accept how it is, or make a good case for changing things.
Bob, In your opinion, what are the "high class" Allied ships? How do they compare with the "high class" Axis ships? I might suggest that the Axis getting bigger and younger might be because captains are able to do the same research that I have done Keith Doing what I can to help the Allied cause
It's not just ships it's the people. You can take a great captain in a ship that people don't think is great and he will still out preform and good or average captain in a ship people think is great.
First off, great job on the enhanced site, looks great. Nick Myers dropped a note on the IRCWCC mailing list about some discussions that may interest some of us, especially those who don't generally monitor this forum. It being quiet at the firehouse tonight I dug into the vault to dig up some numbers that may or may not shed some light on the Axis domination but I hope you all find it useful. Background on me. Joined IRCWCC in late 1996, battled SoDak rookie year 1997, then a Derfflinger for the next 10 years before moving to a Helgoland in 2008. Also run a 1.5 unit Japanese mine laying light cruiser as a secondary boat for convoy and as a backup boat if the main ship goes kaput. I've also been the IRCWCC Axis Fleet Admiral since 2002. I went through the score sheets for the 2006-2014 period mentioned above, 2005 being the last year the IRCWCC Allied Fleet won NATS (and the only NATS I ever missed). Contrary to what the scores may tell you there have been few NATS since the breakup (see the numbers for 1997-1998) where the either Fleet outnumbered the other by a significant margin, 2009, 2012 and 2014 being the exceptions. Notice in 2009/2012 the fleets were way out of balance but the Axis still won, in 2014 the Axis gave the Allies a Mogador (rookie), 2 Nagatos and a Mogami (all experienced captains with broken in ships) to even the numbers and still won again. Here is how each year breaks down (I hope the crude table works ;-) : Year AXIS # ships / # units / # sinks 1997 13 / 77 / ?? 1998 18 / 88.5 / ??* 2006 11 / 53.5 / 2 2007 15 / 76.5 / 8 2008 10 / 45 / 0 2009 9 / 46 / 7 2010 15 / 81.5 / 11 2011 12 / 73 / 12 2012 7 / 36 / 7 2013 8 / 37.5 / 4 2014 12 / 56 / 4 Total sinks 55 * My SMS Hindenburg sank at least 4 times alone Year ALLIES # ships / # units / # sinks 1997 24 / 100.5 / ?? 1998 23 / 122 / ?? 2006 11 / 60 / 4 (given 2 Richeliu BB's) 2007 16 / 81 / 23 (given 2 Richeliu BB's) 2008 13 / 61 / 9 2009 14 / 74 / 16 2010 12 / 76.5 / 23 2011 13 / 68 / 18 2012 12 / 63 / 19 2013 7 / 39 / 17 2014 11 / 51.5 / 21 (given 1 French DL, 1 IJN CA and 2 BB's) Total sinks 150 So what do these numbers (in conjunction with the scores) tell us. 1. Generally more Allies show up to battle (admittedly trending the opposite direction the last couple years) 2. When Allies and Axis each bring nearly the same number of ships the number of units are generally equal 3. More Allied ships sink (3:1) 4. No matter the numbers, the Axis win! #3 is the killer for the Allies so concentrate on that and ask Why?? Why do Allied ships sink so much more often? Reliability, shot placement, morale. Reliability If you look at the score sheets at the IRCWCC website (http://www.ircwcc.org/NATS.html) you'll find certain ships each week sink multiple times. For one reason or another they fail during the rigors of combat, frequently the failures involve either the drive train (motor or switch fails, lost dogbone/gear/shaft/prop, etc.), power (battery low, wire shorted or vibrates loose), the pump (priming, switch failure, etc.) or RX (lost bind, water incursion, etc.). And if the ship sinks in the first battle or two the odds of it sinking again go up. In my experience the Axis ships have been more reliable and so stay above the water more. And Axis captains know that if they have a problem on the water they can just send out a signal and the Fleet will bring "the cradle of love" to keep the Allies at bay. Shot Placement The week after the IRC 2013 NATS I found myself in a cabin in the woods with no TV and time on my hands, so I ran some calculations on shot placement. The average hit percentage for the Axis Fleet for the week was 19.6% against the 8.3% hit rate the Allies achieved. Our Axis ships generally put more BBs on target, more below the waterline, racking up greater points. Why? Read the above - maneuverability and freeboard. Add in a generally higher level of reliability within the Axis Fleet that keeps their ships in the more battles longer allowing them to use all their BBs negates any unit advantage the Allies may have. Morale You hear lots of talk about the Axis boats being better than the Allied boats. Or it is the captains that are better. To me it is confidence in your boat, yourself and your team. Mix these in the right proportion and you have a captain confident in the workings of his ship and thus ready to press the attack home. Lack one part and the captain is someone waiting for the next shoe to drop, ie what will fail next, and holding back. Keeping back means using bow/stern guns or ranged out sidemounts to keep the fight at arms length, 10 point shots instead of 25/50 point ones. The Axis like the "knife fight in a phone booth" concept. So do some Allies (Tim K., Ronnie H. in either fleet, Rob A., Dave R., etc.) - and sometimes they get the mix right and the Axis lose the battle. Great example, 2013 NATS. Don Fisher gives a great pre-battle pep talk, the Allies build a plan around it and execute it perfectly. Result - more Axis ships sunk than Allied that battle. Reliable ships, working well, handled well by captains that support each other, raises morale. And high morale is contagious. In closing let me tell you that it has truly been a privilege to lead the IRCWCC Axis Fleet these past 12 years. Vicious, intuitive, observant, flexible and hard charging, my captains earn the victories, I just get to take home the sword. There is much more to add but I'll end it here and hope you all have a good build season and Happy Hunting in the Spring! v/r, Tom
Tom is you have another slow night look back at the scores and find out how many ships on each side sank with light damage. Any ship with a full unit pump that sinks with less than 25 combined below/ons and less than 70 aboves I would consider light damage. A ship that sank with 40-5-13 had some kind of failure. Could be pump died, forgot to turn on the pump, the ship just does not take damage well. I'm going to guess that the Allies 3-1 sinks will jump much higher in the light sinks. Hit % comes from captain skill more than anything. Good battlers hit more offten. The other thing that can tip the % is bbs that don't get fired. If a gun fails or a ship sinks with bbs in their guns that can really change the total %. A good captain tends to not have gun failures and they tend to not leave bbs in their guns. 18% hits is pretty normal. Stern guns should have a higher % than sidemounts. In thoery the Allies with more sterns should always hit at a higher %.
Tom, it sounds like the Allies are trying to match the Axis, and failing due to less-suitable ships and lower reliability. In Big Gun, the situation was exactly the opposite: the Allies have better battleships, and the Axis (at the time I joined) had less-reliable ships. In 2004 we made one major attempt to match the Allies ship-for-ship, and lost spectacularly. Our post-battle analysis revealed that we had to extensively change our strategy in order to stand a chance. That's where we came up with the idea of battlefield roles. We built torpedo-cruisers, monitors, minelayers, transports, dreadnoughts, etc. All the quirky ships with unusual properties, that the Allies would have trouble dealing with. Rather than trying to play their game of large displacements, heavy armor, and heavy guns, we made them play our game with fast ships, maneuverable ships, and other oddballs. Our ships filled specific purposes in the fleet that the general-purpose Allied battleships couldn't match us at. If the Allies cannot match the Axis sidemount-for-sidemount, then don't even try. Build other ships: cruisers, destroyers, etc. Counter their sidemounts and turning ability with speed. If they can never bring their sidemounts into play, then that advantage becomes irrelevant and they become wasted units. Oddball ships like casemate-heavy predreads can be a lure for Axis ships desperate for a sidemount fight, encouraging them to waste ammunition on a low-value boat instead of running down the larger threats. I've also heard that certain Allied armored cruisers have excellently placed casemate guns, well-suited for killer shots.
Tom, I agree with you 100% Reliability is the absolute most important thing. I can definitively see where you are going with this. Why?? Why do more captains that spend the time and effort to make sure that they have the most reliable boats choose Axis? Hmmmm...... Keith
The assumption that Axis take the time to make boats reliable is somewhat false. Perhaps in some formats, but in others reliability is equal between the Axis and Allied Fleets. I did an after Nats analysis of my first IRCWCC Nats. Nearly every aspect, from hit percentages, damage done, etc was equal except for sinks. Diving deeper, I counted the "light damage" sinks. During the Nats, the Axis had one. For the same week, the Allies had 13. Reliability is key to staying on top of the water and into the second sortie.
Keith you have it all wrong... Why do the Axis choose to work on their boats.. that is the question. Most of it has to do with the amount of time in the hobby and the individual captains ability to LISTEN to the VETERANS. Listening to good advice is a key component to improving a ship. I personally didn't listen to advice and embarked on a 3 year study of electronics and different things I wanted to try. What I learned, in the end, was that I should have listened to the veterans FROM THE START. So I rebuilt my ship one last time, studying video to see where/how I was making mistakes, concentrated on making myself a better shot on the water, worked on pumps for reliability, improved my wiring so no more connectors broke or corroded.. and BANG I had a reliable boat that was tough to deal with. I had already chosen the Axis fleet and initially I was good for points and sinks every battle. We MWCI Axis had no choice but to be few in number but high in quality.
You mean besides the fact that the axis built better looking ships? Or that it's fun to cut loose and be the "bad guy"? I don't believe in a super ship. And I dont believe there's a deliberate bias in the rules. The difference between mwc and irc over the same time argues against that. Some ships are better than others a certain things, yes. That means that each fleet has to use different tactics. That's what makes the hobby more interesting.
The never ending story of the sink, why, how, and when. In the IRCWCC as in any other fast gun club reliability is the game and add to that some knowledge of your boat and you have a winner. If you can't keep it running battle after battle, issue after issue then you don't have a chance in winning a Nationals. The Axis just have more time in the boat and game. Allied tend to build new every year or two thinking that this next build will be a "World Beater". This generally makes it hard to shake down and fix all the little issues in new construction, this is a very important step in making a reliable boat, be honest with yourself. When it doesn't work, then acknowledge that fact and fix it. Sound simple but I am constantly in awe at battles when I see a captain pound on the top of his boat on shore and expect that this will make his pump or gun work as intended. If you had to pound your fist on the deck of your boat you are not being totally truthful with yourself. Low damage sinks are always because something failed (either boat or captain). l
That's an interesting theory. Since the Axis have fewer ships to pick from people who battle Axis tend to build one ship and stick with it for longer. Allies have more ships to pick from and bounce around more. Over time Axis ships get better and their captains get better in them. While the Allies change too much to get their ships and skills in them to their max potential. I wonder if numbers would prove this out.
Interesting that I came to quite the opposite conclusion. Allies may have more ships, but Axis have more "class ships" ALLIES Queen Elizabeth Iron Duke South Dakota North Carolina Erin? thats about it.... Even N.C and S.D. with their trip aft not being particularly effective against heavily casmented foes. AXIS Nagato Bismark Baden Konig Kaiser Helgoland Nassau Fuso Viribus Unitis Von der Tann
No, how about: Maryland Wee Vee Colorado So Carolina Mississippi Iowa (when driven well) Suffern (WOW even a Frenchie) and maybe more but my head is starting to throb
It has already been stated that a superb captain can do well with a mediocre ship. I will continue to maintain my point that if I am going to sink $1000 into a hobby, I don't want to start with my foot in a hole Maryland, Wee Vee, Colorado are all severely penalized with tiny single rudders Foot is in hole. See top of thread. So Carolina, Mississippi are severely penalized with tiny single rudders. compounded with only 2 drive shafts (read no drag props) Iowa = Great big Massive unmaneuverable target. but you keep building those YUMMY Yamatos Both would require VERY good captain to be successful. My back hurts just thinking about them. Suffern - I'll give you that one
