Rules

Discussion in 'Big Gun Combat Warship International' started by crzyhawk, May 14, 2009.

  1. crzyhawk

    crzyhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,306
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    Are you guys looking at unifying some of the various "club rules" that exist out there? A quick example I noticed would be in the MBG, a torpedo launcher is allowed to reload, but in the MABG (I think) it's not allowed to.
     
  2. Droidling

    Droidling Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Posts:
    97
    I know Rob Wood suggested a uniform set of rule in a post on the Big Gun Yahoo group. I think it's great Idea but it tends to get difficult to come to an consensus. I would like to see a basic set of rules that each club could extend to there own needs.
    There are basically three types of rules safety, game play, and construction. Each needs its own type of treatment.
    The most important one to me would be a standard set of construction rules. If everyone built to a standard set of rules it would make it much easier to buy and sell ships. This would mean the newcomers with no building experience could by a ship online, being reasonably sure it would be legal for their local club. It would also mean that retailers could standardize products and put together kits that would be usable in any club. Also captains visiting another club or moving to a new area would be able to battle without waivers or reconstruction.
    The problem is that some existing ships will not be legal under the new standard. I've read both the NTXBG and WWCC standards. They are not really that far apart. If the other groups are as close a little judicious editing should keep most of the existing ships within the rules. The aberrations could be handled by allowing individual clubs to add an addendum to the building rules. The addendum could permit features that are legal under the clubs current rules to continue to be used at local events. It would be important to make sure that the addendum didn't outlaw anything that the basic rule allowed in order to keep inter-club compatibility.
    I don't see a real need for the major parent organization to dictate safety or game play rules, unless it is required to maintain insurance coverage. I would think a minimum set of safety rules and a some game play suggestions would be a good idea just to give new clubs a place to start.
    I'm throwing this out as a place to start the discussion.
     
  3. admiraljkb

    admiraljkb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Posts:
    145
    I know that unification of construction rules looks fairly easy with most of the clubs, but that has been one of the bigger cans of worms to deal with, and one that has killed this project in the past. Who knows, we might hold a Rules convention later and do massive standardisations, but right now, one step at a time. Have to walk before going into a run. :)
    The stated goal currently is to provide a central Big Gun oriented organization to help fledgling clubs get off the ground with assistance/information, to share information between clubs on rules changes and procedures, and where possible to standardize the most common things like Safety rules and such. Construction rules at this time is not on the table due to the problems that would create with different ships already constructed and regional preferences. Of course there is nothing to prevent clubs from examining each other's rules, discussing it within the BGCWI organization to find out about reasoning behind rules (or a lack of a certain rule) and also adopt/ditch certain rules. That is a large reason BGCWI is being revived for is to foster understanding between the clubs. We keep operating in the dark from one another too much.
    Cheers
    Jeff
     
  4. Kotori87

    Kotori87 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Posts:
    3,186
    The issue of rules is a complex one, but extremely important for the continued survival of the sport. The current system of independent clubs leads to some serious problems. For example, I asked the NTXBG last year if I could bring my Viribus Unitis (currently under construction) to NABGO, and was told, rather bluntly, that the ship could not participate because it had 3/8" added depth, which the NTXBG does not allow. This sort of thing is indicative of some serious problems. Other issues include buying and selling ships between clubs, and clubs not following their own rules.

    When we write up the BGCWI ruleset, it must be the most permissive of all current rule-sets. Not a single ship that is currently legal in any major Big Gun club must be made illegal by the BGCWI ruleset. This means looking through the each club's rules on depth, armor, armament, rib spacing, speed, hypothetical ships, etc. and pick the most permissive rules possible. From that point, individual clubs may add further restrictions.

    Once the initial draft of the BGCWI ruleset has been drafted, we then need to go over it with a fine-tooth comb to ensure that there is no ambiguity or room for alternate interpretations of any rule. I've seen the results of ambiguous rules, and the result can be devastating to a club. If we get the BGCWI ruleset right, then at least new clubs will have a good starting point.
     
  5. GregMcFadden

    GregMcFadden Facilitator RCWC Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2006
    Posts:
    2,348
    If I might offer a suggestion... when working on the rules, and writing them, consider carefully what you want to accomplish and what each rule's goal is... and write it in such a manner if possible. Try to avoid rules that tell you how to do something when a rule that would instead say what the goal is would do...

    Good luck, I hope this succeeds. I really want to see more big gun folks out there (heck, I want to see more of all rc warship combat folks out there, irregardless of the rules set)
     
  6. admiraljkb

    admiraljkb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Posts:
    145
    The stated aim up front is that we are intentionally avoiding construction rules at this time. Partly because that's going to dig up an old wounds of WWCC changing it's construction rules to be incompatible with the other clubs. :whistling: There were rather some large protracted and heated discussions about the 3/8" rule being applied to every ship years ago that I personally would rather not dredge back that whole mess back up. It wasn't considered an issue by WWCC then because WWCC wanted to do it's own thing. I can respect that, which is why the regional need clubs need to retain autonomy on construction for now. It's unlikely the rest of Big Gun will adopt WWCC rules, and at the current time it's unlikely for WWCC to revise some of the major deviations on construction rules. Soooo, that's probably best dropped until we've got a year or two under the belts and want to revisit it. :)
    Cheers
    Jeff
     
  7. crzyhawk

    crzyhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,306
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    I can't say that I blame you for wanting to avoid the rules issue. Defining rules seems to cause more hate and discontent then following them. Without standardized rules though, what is the benefit to unifying everything?

    Definitely not trying to pot-stir here, just trying to get a feel for the end goal ideas.
     
  8. Droidling

    Droidling Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Posts:
    97
    I can understand wanting to get the group formed before tackleing the construction rules issue. Hopefully we can still discuss it and see what we come up with.
    What I proposed was a way to have a standard set of construction rules but still allow deviations from club to club. The standard rules describe a ship that would be legal in any club. Then if the WWCC wants to allow extra hull depth it can. Visiting boats might be at a slight disadvantage at WWCC events, and WWCC boats that take advantage of this deviation would have to get waivers or not be able to sail in other events. The point would be to create a standard. I'm in the WWCC. I could still build a boat to the standard rules that I could run at home or away. Also, if I wanted to buy a boat I could ask 'How does your boat differ from the standard rules?" If I were a manfacture I could build a standard boat and market it as being legal in any Big Gun club.
    My concept is the exact opposite of what Kitori87 proposed. The standard rules would be the most restrictive. Individual clubs could relax these rules and continue operating exactly as they are now. The advantage is that there would be a standard that new clubs could adopt and neighboring clubs could work towards.
     
  9. admiraljkb

    admiraljkb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Posts:
    145
    The simple goal is greater cooperation, promotion, and standardization where possible. :) There is plenty to do in just getting the org on it's feet without adding a very divisive issue into it first thing. With that said, most clubs are already better than 90% compatible, and this framework would make it easier to standardize their rulesets and the BGCWI would be available to help with that. But right now there are more pressing matters on helping the various clubs as well as just getting this org off the ground. There is a constitution to get worked out, club membership requirements (ala what is the definition of a Big Gun club?), standardized safety rules/procedures, standardized presentation packets for property owners/govt's, proper procedural documents for club officers (CO/XO/SO/TO), and more. That should keep us busy for the better part of a year. If we can get that done, then should we choose, we can swing back around on the construction issue. :) I don't want us to get mired in a Kobyashi Maru scenario right off the bat. That's already ended this effort repeatedly in the past. I do not wish us to repeat those mistakes.

    Cheers
    Jeff
     
  10. admiraljkb

    admiraljkb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Posts:
    145
    Droidling -
    Yes, I think we're in 100% agreement. Thank you for stating it so well.
    thx
    Jeff
     
  11. GregMcFadden

    GregMcFadden Facilitator RCWC Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2006
    Posts:
    2,348
    It seems like a great path forwards. Good luck.
     
  12. Kotori87

    Kotori87 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Posts:
    3,186
    So... if the construction rules (which I thought was the primary benefit BGCWI would provide) aren't the first step, what is the first step?
     
  13. admiraljkb

    admiraljkb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Posts:
    145
    See my Welcome message. I've been compiling the list there. There are a LOT of things that need taken care of.
     
  14. wrenow

    wrenow RIP

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Posts:
    439
    Please do not misstate the facts.
    Per my recollection and on a review of the emails,
    The facts:

    The VU was not constructed at the time you asked the question (there is some question as to whether you had even started on or had completed cutting out the ribs), but my belief is that the keel had not been laid.

    You asked if you could build a ship specifically (and only) for battle at NABGO (that may or may not be legal under WWCC rules) but used the extra 1" allowance for construction rule of the WWCC.

    I told you:
    If you were building a ship solely for battle at NABGO, you should build it according to the NABGO rules (which allows an extra 3/8" for ships under 15,00 rons - VU does not, I believe, gualify)..
    If you wanted to build something to battle in WWCC, you should build it to comply with WWCC rules, and when completed, certified, and battled, we would consider it..
    If upu wanted something absolutely certain to be legal in both before you started, build it to the more restrictive of the two where there is conflict.

    Do you disagree with any of the three above suggestions?

    I also let you know we have a captain in NTXBG building a VU without the extra inch you were requesting before construction who might be a bit miffed if we were pregranting exceptions.

    Whether intended or not, your question as asked at the time amounted to, "can I cherry-pick the different rules and build a ship just for NABGO to get an advantage for myself." The answer to that question is "no." Sorry, but that would be unfair to the other participants.

    Your question was NOT "If I build a ship for combat in WWCC, and it happens to make use of the extra 1" rule, and I add 3/8" of that allowance and other different rules than NABGO, but is certified and battled in WWCC, can I be accommodated at NABGO." To which the answer is, "once the ship is built, and certified, and a regular battler in the WWCC, we can probably accommodate you." What form of accommodation that will take depends, of course on what we feel would need to made in battling to offset any unfair advantages, if any. Of course, you have been pretty vocal about combat rules like pump volume, speed, and battle reverse as well, so I am not sure how well you would take to making any sacrifices for accommodation.

    Rob W, I believe, has the extra 1" in his Le Fantasque, does he not? And was accommodated?

    But, we are not prepared to issue a blanket "bring anything you can imagine, you can run it" as that encourages people who want to build some sort of uber-doomsday ship to game the system and take advantage. Thus the position that -" if you have a ship that you think may have an issue, contact us first and lets see what we can work out." Seems to me o be a reasonable position.

    To give our blanket pre-approvals for ships not yet constructed is, to me, nuts.

    Consider also, the theoretical club of one or two members that lets you build 20 percent over scale and add flotation and double shot all guns (or double the guns of the prototype, or a minimum of 10 allowable torps per ship side), and allows Furishita hypos. This theoretical club could be created for the primary purpose of competing at NABGO. Allowing the ships in built under that club's rules would be grossly unfair to the norm, would it not? Would you want to battle them with ships built to those rules?

    Thus, while we do reserve the "right to refuse service" to a particular ship or captain at NABGO, no-one has ever been turned away (yet). In fact, a challenge has gone out from Mike to John Fox to bring his Alsace down for a grudge match 1 on 1 (whether it is allowed in the regular order of battle remains to be seen). BUT, if you want to be sure your ship is allowed, it is a good idea to follow the more conservative of the rules where they conflict. It is what I would do if building a ship to come to WWCC events. Then there is no accommodation necessary. By your own statements, most WWCC ships are "legal" for competition at NABGO. Why try to push NABGO to bend/break its rules when it is not necessary for most of your ships?
    Regardless, do not say you were refused entry when you never even applied to come and did not have an existing certified ship that was banned/denied entry.

    Sincerely,
     
  15. wrenow

    wrenow RIP

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Posts:
    439
    I know this is what you would like but why MUST it be? There are lots of ways to handle this. Further, you are saying all existing ships MUST be made legal under the rules adopted? Even the ones that are technically illegal now (but are on grandfather or other waivers)? Taking this attitude means the minority gets to dictate to the majority. Regardless of the needs/desires of the majority. I don't think that is how it is supposed to work.[​IMG]
    Also, you are saying that if other clubs have more restrictive rules, you have no complaint, right? They can run it how they want? And you will have no complaint about obeying their rules when competing in their theater of operations? But, then again, you are already complaining about following the majority........ or specifically about followin the local rules of enw event anyway. Seems you may have met yourself coming around that corner here.....:confused:
    More permissive rules is often the path toward entropy.
    Cheers,
     
  16. crzyhawk

    crzyhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,306
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    In the old fast gun days, they used to have two scales: 1/150 and 1/144. When the decision was made to go ONLY 1/144 scale, the 1/150 ships that were already laid down were grandfathered. I believe this was in 1992, but I am not positive as it was before my time. I believe the 1/150 ships are STILL legal in both Treaty and IRCWCC, and only recently finally outlawed in the MWC. Such an example could be workable in this situation. Decide on your construction rules, and grandfather the old ships that were laid down by X date. That way nobody with an "old" ship is getting shafted and having their ships declared illegal, and no new ships will be laid down to the obsolete rules.

    Seems to be a workable compromise to me.
     
  17. Evil Joker

    Evil Joker Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Posts:
    563
    mwc --Scale B-2 Any ship laid down after January 1, 1991 shall be built to 1/144 scale. Allowable error will be +/- 1/8" for the beam and +/- 1/2" for the length, or +/- 2% of prototype dimensions, whichever is greater. Ships which were legally built in 1/150 scale will be "grandfathered" if they battled in a sanctioned battle prior to December 31, 1990. This "grandfathered" period expires on 12/31/2012. After 12/31/2012, all ships must be 1/144 scale.
     
  18. Kotori87

    Kotori87 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Posts:
    3,186
    So let me get this straight. You want to piss off the majority of Big Gunners in the US by rendering a noteworthy portion of their fleets illegal, requiring a grandfather clause to continue participating? You'd rather ban from competition a collection of beautiful warships that have been fighting and sinking perfectly fine for longer than all other Big Gun clubs have even existed, simply because you can't bend an inch on your position? I'm sorry, but no. It doesn't work that way.

    Just to put things in perspective, how would you appreciate it if I were demanding that all ships be built with proper 3" penetrable windows, not 3" center-to-center ribs? Somehow, a number of clubs seem to have relaxed the original standard in that regard, but do you see WWCCers demanding that your ships be rendered illegal, requiring a grandfather clause to keep playing? No. THAT's why I say that any unified construction rules must be the least restrictive of all. You cannot single out any currently-existing club, especially the original Big Gun club, and arbitrarily decide its boats are illegal. But even more important, you aren't even qualified to be making such judgements. You haven't seen the fleets involved, and you're acting like issues in question are huge and big and impossible to reconcile without even looking at them in person. You have no idea whether your fears about WWCC rules are justified, and the statements you have made about them only highlight your ignorance about them. The two people I have talked to who have actually seen both the NTXBG and the WWCC say that the differences in our rules are minor at worst. I look forward to talking with the 3rd person who's put forth the effort. Maybe you'd learn something if you listened to them, too.
     
  19. crzyhawk

    crzyhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,306
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    I should say that I'm not a bigguner, I was simply offering a compromise. I'm not demanding anything.
     
  20. wrenow

    wrenow RIP

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Posts:
    439
    Having the rules fit the majority of clubs would only irritate those few captains in the WWCC who have non-compliant ships, not the majority of Big Gunners in the US, much less the International Big Gun community we are a part of (and who do not have the extra 1" rule that WWCC has). Further, by your own staetement, most ships in even WWCC do not have the extra 1". So the problem appears minimal.
    As for your point on rib spacing, As I recall you entered the sport some time after WWCC had its major rule enactment, where it threw out the old rules wholesale, so you were not under the old WWCC ruleset in 2000 were you? Do you have a copy of the pre-"New and Improved" ruleste you can point me to that supports your statement? And earlier copies of earlier clubs sets that show they have "drifted" on this issue? On review, I don't see any change on this particular issue in NTXBG since its inception last century.
    Calmnes, young Padewan. Many who you know not, insulting you are. Consistent are you not. Say you differences minor are, but angry over large things you seem.
    You have not been banned from NABGO, or any other event that I know of. As I recall, not only have you been personally invited, but some have made suggestions to help you accomplish the trip. But, is slamming the event and/or the organizers the way to make sure you are welcomed?
    Sincerely,