Keith, I thought on this for a while and I think I can simplify what we are talking about. Rudder Bonus - give extra to single rudder or take away bonus from those that have it. I am not sure if you are an MWC member (we as members are not allowed to know this information.. another story) however I have not seen you at Nats, and as such you may not be aware of discussions. I would like to enlighten you on a few things. The first notion is that of the 'boat breaker' rule. This is the type of rule that takes away, reduces, or changes a boat for the worse. These rules leave people very upset, with grudges, and very resentful. I can tell you that for a fact because I am one of them. A rule that takes away the dual rudder bonus would 'break' the current dual rudder ships for all fleets.. so I doubt you would get much support for that. The second is what I will refer to as a 'slanted' rule. To ME, others may differ, it means a rule that provides a performance increase to a group of boats on one fleet OR it provides the performance advantage to a large group on one fleet and a very small group on the other fleet. Once again.. the results are the same as a 'boat breaker' rule.. resentment etc. A good rule, in my opinion, is a rule that can't be classified as one of the above, which in essence would make it a balanced rule. This typically would apply to performance based rules, not things like paint, timers, etc. So if you give single rudders ships a bonus, how many ships on each fleet would be affected? Would it be balanced or slanted? And if you take away the bonus, as I already pointed out, it would be a 'boat breaker' rule. I hope this helps you understand where some of us folks are coming from.
I know, it's issues that have come up in the 13 years I've been in the hobby. Mostly the same stuff over and over again trying to come up with a solution. I would hope any MWC guys that go over to the IRC will stay out of the rules & government process for a couple years. I like several things in the MWC rules better than IRC rules, but I'm staying out of it for a while and will encourage other to also back off.
hurhhhwhaa? Let us be blunt: People are largely self-interested and self-serving and will support and oppose things accordingly. Rational actors make choices that maximize perceived value to themselves.
Yes, MWCI does not allow its members to know the membership of the club. We are not even allowed to know who is in our region.. makes it hard to invite folks to a battle when you aren't sure who is or isn't a member. Oh well...
Full circle. I interpret the original question as "why are dual rudder ships given 50% more"? More of a history question to better understand why the decision was made.
Jadfer, Here is where I am coming from. When I decide to sink $1000.00 into a hobby, I want to start with the “best starting point for being competitive” posible. That is the advise that I would give to any new captain in the hobby. I would hope that all veterans would do the same regardless of which side someone will be battling on. I have had the feeling that some of the Axes folks have been deliberately stonewalling when asked what the “best starting Points for being competitive” Allied ships are. My analysis is that the best ships “best starting points for being competitive” are ALL axis. The “worst starting points for being competitive” are almost all on the Allied side. In addition the Axis has more “best starting points for being competitive” than the Allies do. (discussion point) YES, making an adjustment to single rudder boat would help MANY more Allied boats than Axis, BUT single rudder boats would still not perform as well as dual rudder boats. This is already established looking at the performance of inline rudder boats. I tried to show with the silly cartoon drawing at the top of this thread how the different configurations cover the different drive shaft configurations. Sorry if I have scratched at the scab of some old wounds. Keith P.S. I have always wanted to get to Nats. One of these years I will figure out a way. It is a long long long way from here.
I think the "best starting point for being competitive" for most beginners is to build something on the smaller side, Class 3 or 4 (Heavy Cruiser, Pre-Dread, or BattleCruiser) and spend a year or two in that learning all the other aspects of the hobby. That way when they go ahead and build their world beater it works and they can battle it well. CEF, dual rudders, casemates, etc all have their place but if you're new you should be much more concerned with having your guns fire correctly, pump pumps reliably, drive train functions well, and all your electronics are properly waterproofed. Not to mention learning how to actually battle and the basic tactics. These are the things that really make a ship good. Min/Maxing the first boat isn't really going to help a rookie a whole lot in the long run. Just because a Nagato or a Bismarck has a good CEF doesn't mean they will actually be good on the water. I'll take a good vet captain in a Tiger over a rookie in a Bismarck. CEF and "paper performance" doesn't always track with what happens in the real world. IRCWCC had given the Bismarck an extra .5 unit since all they ones they had seen in combat were so shoddy. After a year or two of Rob and I running ours at 7 units they brought them back down to 6.5 (and I'm not bitter, I wrote the rule proposal to decrease them) because they were silly at 7 units. (They are still silly with dual sidemounts but, meh, people don't seem to mind too much.) So they are exactly back where they started but aren't dogs anymore, the only thing that changed was two effective examples showed up on the water. My point is that often it isn't ship ability on paper that limits performance, it is the captain and the build of a given ship, however the performance we see on the water is what drives our biases as to what ships/tactics are good. I've seen plenty of QE's that were very good as well as a number that were terrible, again the difference was the build quality and effort expended in the workshop/testing/in the pits. It's much more important for a rookie to learn how to build a ship and maintain it than to try and rule the pond on day 1. That is why I and a lot of other guys I know suggest Class 3/4 ships that often aren't going to be superstars but will be easier to maintain and keep running. (also they tend to be cheaper to build, and while this hobby is still cheap compared to a lot of other more "mainstream" hobbies keeping costs reasonable doesn't hurt) Anyway once you've got a season or two under your belt and have a better idea of how to build a good boat and what type of combat you prefer (hug & slug vs run & gun) they can make the choice what boat is suitable. If they only want to build something that has triple sterns or casemates or a high CEF or whatever, people can limit themselves however they like.
Best Allied ship: Cruiser You choose when to engage, you don't get sunk repeatably because you don't get into slugging fights.
All the more reason to try and dispel inaccuracies and misperceptions. CEF is very limited in its ability to show a ship's actual value on the water because it doesn't account for the most important factors : reliability and captains skill. There's also the fact that there is some subjectivity to the actual calculations involved. I don't think single rudder ships are as handicapped as the original post would seem. There's been plenty of comments arguing that done right they can be quite competitive. And absent information otherwise, I think dual rudder ships have actually given up some of their advantage in that they get only an extra 50% instead of 100%. The idea that the rules are biased in favor of one fleet or the other is poisonous and not good for the hobby. We need to try to dispel that when we can. I just want to do my personal best, which fleet wins at nats or locally is not really that important. Winning is cool, but I can have just as much fun sinking in glorious combat against superior forces.
Yes, there has been some Allied posters to this thread, me being one of them having battled Allied every year since 2007 with the exception of one year. Notice my earlier post where I cited ship reliability being more important than having the "best" ship.
Anything to back that up. I haven't done the research on "real" ships, but I am pretty sure that the single rudders were bigger than each of the individual dual rudders. I only included CEF as a point of reference. It also does not give any value for amount or lack of freeboard. And clearly over rates a Nelson
Nope, it's entirely an opinion. Be nice to know the considerations of the origin of the rule. I imagine if there had been hard data on most ships actual rudder areas, the rule would have been historical size (maybe with a % bonus since water doesn't scale). Have you considered documenting the historical rudders on ships you'd like? I think our rules still beat historical size but you may find something there. I think the clubs let actual rudder trump the existing rule. I'm of the opinion that there are probably some hidden gems out there that no ones found yet. As far as the cef, I don't think it's junk, I just don't give it as much weight. It's okay as a general comparison, I just think the other factors far outweigh it, and that at the end of the day, I'm gonna build what I want to, not what the numbers say. I know, I'm building a Bismarck, but that's the first thought I had when I stumbled on the hobby(ooh ooh I wanna build a Bismarck!). At the time, 2001, they were pretty much meat on the water, so I didn't do one as my rookie boat. Now, since I'm limited financially and vacation wise, I won't be battling as much as i want. So I'm going to build the ship I want and perfect it as much as I can. The fact that others have shown how to make it a great ship? Bonus. But I'm of the opinion that you should build the ship you want, and make it work. And that with the exception of a few ships, that's not going to hamper your competitiveness.
Well I guess that would be one strategy. Shoot a couple of holes in the enemy then run away. 100 to 30 in a fleet battle IS a win.
As it was brought up recently by Snipehunter.. rookies rarely build a 'competitve' boat regardless from where they start. A rookie ship will most likely fail one or more systems and sink at its first few battles, while the rookie Captain learns how to operate and maintain their new ship. Starting with a small ship or cruiser may not necessarily be the 'best competitive starting point' but it's most like the best starting point for a rookie. I think that is because many true Axis guys, such as myself, don't run the Allied boats and don't have the experience to tell you what you want. I could tell you ships that I don't want to see go up against my boat BUT it mainly depends on the Captain. For example: Put a rookie in a QE and I will be happy to trade sidemounts with that ship all day long. Put Tyler, Jeff, Bob, or Tim (or 1 of many other good Captains) ... and I will be much more cautious about trading, what gun I use against them, how much damage I am willing to take. Its not the boat I would be worried about.. that is the main point. As a rookie it doesn't matter what boat you use... if you trade with me I will most likely win.. there are exceptions however. I think the I-boat is a great starter boat for an Allied Captain, good speed, maneuvers well, can engage the enemy at a distance allowing you to have points positive exchanges. When it comes to cruisers though.. I don't feel the Axis has a good cruiser on the level with Allied boats.. we have a few .. very few. So for Allied I would recommend an I-boat for a capital ship and the Minneapolis Class / Frog for a cruiser. Axis would be a VDT and I have no good recommendation for a crusier but I typically run German only.. our cruisers suck.
Koln, just build it light. Off set turrets and 15 degrees, might as well call it a haymaker! Built and battled one when the hulls first came out, was fun but not the boat I wanted at the time. Italians have some very good cruisers, look at Tyler and his Duco. Why do I recommend a cruiser for a new captain, because the captain is a liability until he has been to a NATS in any format. You bring a Bismarck to Nats, you will get yourself into trouble (been there, got the shirt). If you only battle local, build whatever you want and have fun. For me the hobby is a blast, it is a test of my building skill, battling skill, situational awareness, strategy, teamwork, lunch choices (gotta have that as a priority), equipment selection, batteries and their maintenance, and many other smaller parts that make up a NATS. I battle locally to get ready for NATS. Now, back to the topic. Seems this group (myself included) is way to young to understand the complicated reasons for the 50% on duals, I just say live with it. There will always be something else around the corner to tip the scale in another direction (fish tailed rudders).
