Rudder Study IRCWCC Fast Gun

Mr Geek, sir,

I find it interesting that you will not allow yourself to be drawn into discussing the merits of some ships vs others. After 31 years I can’t believe that you don’t have an opinion.

Given that I must look at your actions as well as your words. In general I tend to believe actions more than words

You say Rudder area and dual rudder configuration are not that important, but The boat you chose has the most advantageous drive shaft rudder combination in the hobby.

You drive a Nassau.

You must find an advantage in the incredibly short length to width ratio, combined with the single drive shaft. Just asking you to be honest with us. I have walked you all through my decision process. What was yours? After 31 years you expect us to believe that you picked the Nassau on a whim?

Keith

 

That's my question as well, though one could assume that since we have a set rudder area by class, that adding 50% was splitting the difference between no bonus for dual rudders (which I think is silly from a historical perspective-see jadfer's point) and allowing ships with dual rudders double the area (rudder area by class being PER rudder)

 

I find your tone to be offensive:
But I will respond,
For 13 years I drove a Musashi, so I do pick different size boats to drive, and yes two rudders are better than one.
And yes I find that my Nassau is lighter, better turning and fun to drive and transport.

 

One thing that I think is being missed here is the jump in area between the class 4/5 boats and the class 6 boats. There is a world of difference between a US Class 5 single rudder at 3sqin and the normal class 6 combined area of 6sqin

Much bigger than the difference between the class 4 and class 5 ships

(And has been noted, the proportions on a 6sqin single rudder can appear absurd when put next to a 3sqin rudder of identical (%) length/width/thickness)

 

I apologize for the tone. I have tried to not attack anyone personally. I should have sat on it for a while before hitting send.

Thank you for the honest answer

Keith

 

Perhaps 'bonus' was not the best word used in the rule. Perhaps if they had said 'equalizing' it would have made more sense. If the real ships had two full size rudders why would we have two half size rudders in this hobby? As it stands now, I believe the single rudders are still larger than a single rudder on a dual rudder ship as the 'bonus' is only 50% more split in two (unless I am wrong). So where is the advantage in that?

Allowing a single rudder ship to have a larger than normal rudder in order to improve its turning, is in fact giving the advantage to single rudder ships. If we followed real ships then dual rudder ships would get 2 rudders equal to the size of a rudder on a single rudder ship. Obviously not scale size because it is too small.

Another important question.. SHOULD a dual rudder ship turn equally or less than a single rudder ship? The answer is easy.. of course not..



PS: Everyone is forgetting on little thing about the Nassau.... its less than 500 ft.. of course it will turn well... all short ships do.

 

How would giving single rudder ships the 1.5 "bonus" give them an advantage over dual rudder ships. They still would not turn as well. They would turn similar to inline ships that move all the rudder surface to the back rudder. You act like this is in any way similar to "real" ships.

Why not? It's a game! It's not as if we are fighting our toy boats in any way similar to a period naval battle. Your answer doesn't make sense.

PS: The video of the Bismark turning inside its length is out there for all to see.

 

I didn't say advantage 'over' dual rudder ships, I said 'advantage' which means better performance that it would normally have with a standard sized rudder. I am not comparing historical performance to this hobby but the ship's features. Historically ships with dual rudders had two full sized rudders while single rudder ships had one. That is the way they were made, no different than the German dual gun turrets vs. the American triple gun turrets... its the way they were made. I am not sure your data on inline turning ships is accurate, do you have any data so we can evaluate your theory?

I am sorry, but no, a single rudder shouldn't turn as well as a dual rudder ship, not because the rules dictate it but because it is fact, two rudders turn better than one.

If we are to use the rules to equalize ships then the only logical conclusion is what we refer to as 'battle boats' ... aka Nascar COTF.. we all drive the same ship with the same units and exact same performance..... and its been said before.. Nobody wants that.

However if you pass a rule to enhance single rudder ships, then they get to keep all the inherent advantages that particular ship may have, with increased performance, while taking away 1 of the few advantages the competing fleets ships have. What compensation will you offer the dual rudder ships that now have no turning advantage?

Thanks for referencing my video.. I am not sure why you did but it was nice to see it again.

One question, if its just a game then why not give my Baden 24 seconds? Triple sterns? Dual side-mounts in every turret? 12 units?

 

Then do you want to make all ships perform the same? Do we penalize some and hit others with extra until everyone turns the same? Make speeds the same? There's the steampunk guys trying to get that off the ground. Personally, I like the differences in ships/tactics. It adds flavor to the game.

That Bismarck in the video isn't a crime, it's a great accomplishment. When I started, bismarks were considered meat, one of the reasons I avoided one as my rookie boat. And iunnrais said that the vanguards were a match for the bismarks. Why not see if there aren't a few tricks out there within the current rules to improve the ship you want? Like those funky fishtail rudders. I'm sure there's plenty of guys out there willing to throw you some ideas. I've never met anyone in this hobby who tried to hide their building/battling wisdom.

You say that the ships would still not turn as well, even with an extra bit of rudder, so why change the rules? You can always see if a rule proposal will get some traction in one of the clubs, who knows? But I'm just not convinced. Sorry. I wish you the best of luck with it. We're all in this for the fun of it, and I hate that this issue is such a negative for you.

 

Now, now, Jadfer...be nice. One reason would be our Baden's would drive themselves underwater at 24 seconds.

 

It's easily tested. Stick a 4.5" rudder on Palmer's WV and run a turning test vs your Baden. I'll go ahead and put a burger down that you still out turn him by far

I'll even go so far as to say a QE and VdT would still out turn the WV. (4.5" rudder on a WV should turn about the same as my Iron Duke).

Does that make it a killer? nope. It does make it much more viable to build. Would I bring mine out of retirement? Nope. Duke still has a better setup for both haymaker and bow sidemount. I'll take the ID and 25 less BBs over the bigger ship and not quite as good gun positions.
If I didn't have the Duke and the rule changed? I probably wouldn't have built the Duke and just refit the Colorado instead.

 

I've spent many hours of phone calls, emails and conversations trying to convince poeple that the rules are not slanted to the Allied side. Now we're talking about how the rules are slanted to the axis side.
I've never really thought the rules favored one side over the other each side has things the other does not. It makes it more interesting that way.

 

'Making a ship viable' has been a phrase used frequently since I joined the hobby, and it was usually accompanied by a request for rules to provide a ship with performance enhancements in order for someone to build it.

For example: If you give me dual side-mounts in the Bismarck, it would be a viable ship for me and I will build it. Now most folks would say the Bismarck is already a viable ship. Truth be told that for the past few years in MWC we have had some Bismarck's that turned well but were in no way as effective as Tim was in his. Are ALL Bismarck's for the rest of the century to be 'viable' because Tim did amazing things in his? Will all Vanguards be high performance, highly viable ships because Tim did well in his?

So sure, I will build any ship if you give me enough performance enhancements to make it 'viable' but it would be a better challenge to build based on the rules and try to do well with it. Haha I just realized that's what I have been doing all along.. building ships to the current rule set. Im so silly.

As far as the WeeVee goes I don't think we give Tom Palmer enough credit for being the 'Tim Beckett' of that ship class and making it a 'viable' top level, elite Allied ship. He has done some amazing things in that ship and I am not sure many other folks could do it. Congrats to Tom!

 

What is the argument for the rules being slanted to the Allied side? I have repeatedly asked, What are the Allied Super boats. All I ever get is a (well rehearsed) "its not the boat, Its the captain".

 

I would tend to agree with that. Just because a "super captain" can make a dog viable does not mean the boat isn't a dog. A WeeVee would never be a "recommended" ship due to its relatively poor turning performance. If you do recommend it to some poor new Allied captain, SHAME ON YOU!

Keith

P.S.
Jadfer, I question my tone a little bit on this one as well. I'm just not sure on a better way to put it. The WeeVee and similar ships are at the center of this discussion

 

It's not rehearsed, just the truth. Allied super boat? The one Tim Beckett is driving.

Kidding aside, the better question would be which ones are a better starting point for being competitive. But that's it, a starting point.

 

There were several issues:
The casement rule changed, making some Axis ships open up more of their hulls. Didn't really change any Allied ships. This was a long "Axis vs Allied" rule debate.
There was some drag things some Allies started, then Axis guys came up with more creative ways to do it. Then rules were passed to stop them. Since the Axis upgraded the ideas it was looked on as Axis guys pushing the rules.
The Allied guys came up with cast directional props on backwards to back up fast. Axis guys started the use of ESCs setting them up 70% forward and 100% reverse to back up fast. Then a rule got passed to limit that. This was also looked at as an Axis created problem
Several Allied guys built their ships with some questionable methods. When the Axis guys called them on it the Axis guys were looked at as complainers.
There was a new better way to make pump outlets. Allied guy came up with it, shared it with only Allies before NATS. At NATS an Allied guy started complaining about Axis pump outlets.
Several times rules have been proposed to bump up WWII Scharny to class 6 or give Lutzow trip sterns and failed.
There was a proposal to give a Jap CA (Mogami?) 3.5 units that failed.
Two Jap Predreads were reclassified as a protected cruiser. But this was proposed by Japan ship experts in the club.

There's been more, but it all comes down to perception. People think an Axis guys pushes the rule so that's what they believe. People think the Allies guys, there's more of them, make rules to hurt the Axis so it's what they believe. In reality both side do stupid things for some past thing that may have wronged them. Get over it and battle.

 

Bob these are MWCi issues not IRCWCC,
interesting what next year will bring