Rules

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

  1. wrenow

    wrenow RIP

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Posts:
    439
    When considering local rules, many clubs, including NTXBG, have tried to consider what effect any paticular change would have relative to other clubs (and not just nearby clubs, but those in the international community at large). We have strived for, if not conformity, at least harmony of spirit. We appreciate and try to support our brethren battlers, whether East Coast, Central, West Coast, or from the Netherlands or Australia. Yep, the Kiwis in NZ, too. If I have left anyone out, I apologize. And we sincerely appreciate the support they have provided us. That is, I believe, one of the goals of BGCWI, to further the cooperative spirit and mutual support.
    We also appreciate our Small/Fast Gun brethren in IRCWCC and MWCI and Treaty. There is much we can learn from each other, even though we take a slightly different path. I thank you for your input on how your group handled the issue. I will note, for the sake of IRCWCC/MWCI interest only, that in the NTXBG, our rule is 1/144 +-5%. Turns out I have a couple of "purported" 1/150 hulls. They are, or will be when complete, well within our spec. One has a couple of dimensions pretty much dead on (due to errors in the mold). One would even fit the tighter IRCWCC/MWCI dimesional specs in at least one dimension (length, as I recall), and could probably be adjusted in width to fit with a little stretching in the middle. I don't recall about draft.

    I would hope we can continue to move in the direction of cooperation and utual support. Time spent in anger and tearing at others is less than productive towards these goals. I, for one, will try.

    Sincerely,
     
  2. froggyfrenchman

    froggyfrenchman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Posts:
    3,358
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    All
    I have not read all of the discussions about the differences in the various rule sets, but I have read some of them.
    I don't want to tell anyone else how to run their show, but I am willing to give you an idea as to how we try to run ours.
    This is our third battling season in Treaty. We are perhaps the youngest of the r/c combat groups. But we are meeting with quite a lot of success, and I think the main reason, is that we respect everyone's right to participate in whichever format of combat that they choose, for whatever reason, and we support them in that.
    Starting with our first event, we have made a habit of inviting the other formats to attend our events, and battle to their rules either in-between our sorties, or in an un-used portion of the pond (if they choose to battle all day, instead of having sortie type battles).
    In going aboit it this way, we, for the most part, take the "my format is better than your format", or "my rules are better than your rules" attitude out of the picture, and simply suggest that we are tickled with our rules, and we are also tickled that you are tickled with your chosen format, or set of rules.
    The long and short of it is that our supporting you in what you are doing, to some extent supports us in what we are doing.
    You get to battle to your rules, and we get to battle to ours. But, more importantly. We all get to do it in the same place, and at the same time. Together.
    So to make a long story even longer. I am wondering if there would be a chance of someone hosting a really BIG big-gun event, where all of the big-gun clubs are invited, where they would have the ability to participate in more than one arena?
    Say in one part of the pond the battles are run-what-you-brung, where WWCC folks can battle with NTXB folks. While in another area of the pond, the NTXB folks would battle sortie type battles in between the sorties of WWCC folks.
    I am not sure how many folks would attend if Treaty did the hosting out in our neck of the woods, but we could, and would be willing to make it happen.
    Mikey
     
  3. froggyfrenchman

    froggyfrenchman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Posts:
    3,358
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    All
    There has been some discussion about Treaty attending NABGO next year, and utilizing an un-used portion of the battle site, so that we can battle to our own rules.
    I f we do in fact attend this event, we would be doing sortie style battles that last approx. 30-40 minutes, after which we re-arm, which takes approx. the same amount of time.
    That means that we could invite another format/club to battle in between our soties, in our portion of the pond.
    My original idea was to invite the fast-gun clubs (IRCWCC and MWC), as they are very similar, and could battle as one format.
    I am not sure how many fast-gunners would attend (as both clubs have their Nationals events about that time of the year), so it is not the best timing. But it appears that the site is great, and location is great as well.
    At the same time. In the past. There was not much incentive for a fast-gunner to attend NABGO, if they were going to have to comform to big-gun rules.
    But if they are invited to NABGO, to battle other fast-gunners, to fast-gun rules.. Well that is altogether another thing.
    We might possibly have folks from every format in attendance.
    Thoughts please.
    Mikey
     
  4. admiraljkb

    admiraljkb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Posts:
    145
    In 2003, there was the major invitational battle hosted by Jason Annen/MBG where most clubs of size at the time were represented. That got the ball rolling, as we liked that a LOT, getting to intermingle with different clubs and differing construction. Then from 2005 forward there has been NABGO (sponsored by Star Brand Ranch Executive Retreat) where all clubs have been invited to. Some years have been bigger than others. The recession hit this last year for sure, but it was still a really good time. Would love to have some MBG guys show up, since ya'll aren't too far away.
     
  5. froggyfrenchman

    froggyfrenchman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Posts:
    3,358
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    I have not been to NABGO yet. I have been reading some about it.
    Over the last couple/few years, Treaty was invited to come out and play, but there was a stipulation that we had to run big-gun speeds, and follow the big-gun rate-of-fire. Which is less than attractive to someone running a battlecruiser with 1/32" balsa sides.
    Currently, there is some discussions about letting Treaty battle to our own rules, but not against, or with the big-gunners, which is an entirely different matter. Much more attractive.
    As far as big-gunners though.
    I was under the impression that all big-gun ships would have to follow the local rules if they attended NABGO.
    What is the stipulation on that?
    Mikey
     
  6. wrenow

    wrenow RIP

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Posts:
    439
    Pretty much. However, we have been pretty accommodating. Western Warships wanted to bring a destroyer with their extra depth allowance, and we agreed, specifying it might need some handicap to be agreed on. I do not recall what, if any, handicap the captains agreed to.

    Also, with Treaty and Small/Fast Gun, it was proposed that we allow the guns to be treated as if they were the secondaries, if the ship had secondaries, to bump up the rate of fire to 2 sec. I think there may have been a proposal to allow treaty ships with one barrel serving the place of a twin to be bumped up to a 1 sec. ROF. And, if you were reskinning prior to NABGO, you could, of course go to the allowed ilegal thickness if important to you. We had 2-3 (maybe more) ships skinned during NABGO this year. Maneuvering, speed, etc. would need to be followed. no takers, though, so nothing was fleshed out.

    We did have one Small/fast gun ship that was planning on battling under our standard rules (without the concessions on ROF), but his electronics glitched out on him just as he was getting ready to take it off the bench. We were pretty bummed, wanted to se how it worked out. Sigh.

    Cheers,
     
  7. mabgfounder

    mabgfounder Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    41
    A common rule-set has been tried several times and never seems to get far. I think in the end it boils down to this: no common set of rules is not going to upset some existing member of most clubs and the benefits of a common rule-set are not as compelling as one disgruntled member is.
    The different clubs have significant differences in their rules now. So we can't make a inter-club set of rules that would not make someone's ship illegal. No club is going to alienate one of their existing members to comply with some inter-club organization when doing so provides little real benefit. The fact is that any one existing member with a ship is worth more to most clubs than being able to comply with standard set of rules. We can talk about ease of visiting other clubs or selling ships between clubs. However, most members don't travel between clubs and the inconsistant quality of the ships makes people very hessitant to buy ships they have not seen (with good reason). Yes, some people would benefit but most members would not care and only one of them needs to have their ship become illegal to raise a stink. In many, if not most clubs, they will convice their club to bail on the common rules rather than risk loosing a member.

    Even if we did somehow get all the clubs on the same set of rules in five years everything would be splintered again. The first time each club came up with something that they thought was better than the standard rules they would adopt it. One club will have members that will think they need to encourage a certain type of ship or style of play and they will make changes to do so. Another club will have too many of that same type of ship and start restricting them. Another club will have a really clever builder who finds a way to make an instant kill ship which imbalances their play - but the other clubs who don't have that problem will not care. This has all happened before (torpedo cruisers and aircraft carriers being great examples)

    This all becomes terribly compounded if any club feels they are not fairly represented. However, that has all the same sorts of issues. The small clubs don't want to be 'bullied' by the larger clubs. The larger clubs don't see any reason to change because of half a dozen people they don't know on the other side of the country (or world).

    If someone wants to be in a position to unite the clubs I recommend they find a way to provide something the clubs want, or better yet, need. Otherwise this entire discussion is pretty much academic. I am not saying I like it, or that I think this is how it should be, but that is what it is.
     
  8. JohnmCA72

    JohnmCA72 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Posts:
    681
    I agree; the focus needs to be on something other than "rules". "Rules" is not something that any club needs. They either already have their own, or can copy somebody else's easily enough.
    Start with a simple question: "What do the clubs need, that they don't have already?" I dare say, the answer isn't going to be anything involving more rules.
    Be careful, though. I've been ridiculed plenty of times in this & other forums, for proposing this basic methodology (i.e. pose the question first, then try to answer it). The prefered way in this hobby seems to be to define an "answer" (solution), then try to define a "question" (problem) that fits, even if it's not necessarily a very good fit, & I'm too stupid to understand why it's a good idea to do things that way. It seems to be the same, whether the topic is marketing, technical, or in this case rules.
    What's stymied the effort so far is that nobody seems to be able to come up with a suitable question, the answer for which is, "More rules, more-complex rules, and another layer of rules." It's kind of like a bad episode of Jeopardy ("I'll take 'SNAFU' for $1000, Alex!").
    JM
     
  9. froggyfrenchman

    froggyfrenchman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Posts:
    3,358
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    What I was proposing was that someone host an event where there was more than one arena. That way all of the big-gunners could get together at the same place, at the same time, and battle to perhaps two different sets of rules.
    The rules seems to be the big hurdle here, so instead of trying to resolve the issue, simply avoid it.
    Either take turns battling sortie style battles in the same area of the pond, or use two areas of the pond at the same time.
    And have one large pit area so that everyone can hang out together, and discuss the boats, which is one thing that we all have in common.
    Mikey
     
  10. admiraljkb

    admiraljkb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Posts:
    145
    Rules are being dealt with currently and are NASR based (which was based on SCBG). They will only apply to BGCWI sanctioned events which presumably would be one or two events a year, or to a local club that doesn't want to mess with maintaining a ruleset and adopts them. They will give a common set of build guidelines for those captains that like to venture forth outside their home clubs without all the construction questions popping up currently. It also gets event organizers out of trying to figure out how to deal with different ships. It also provides a common baseline when selling a ship between clubs. A BGCWI standard ship is known to meet certain standards. Basically giving a known quantity to things. The unknown bits seem to get people on edge.

    Rules are NOT the primary focus of what BGCWI is supposed to be, but with all the hullabaloo, its being dealt with in a more direct manner covering the BGCWI events and how to handle that, but as has been noted before, local clubs still retain local autonomy.

    At the moment I am in a position to provide *some* unity, but I'm NOT going about it in the way Randy and others did in the past to intentionally unify all rules into the holy grail that everyone must obey. That was doomed to failure before as we've seen, and wouldn't succeed now any better. I assume that local clubs have some things they want to do different, and leave it at that. BGCWI Construction and Combat rules are in large part for the interclub events where the organizer needs *something* to go by. Folks battling between Big Gun clubs (with actual ships rather than on the forums) has actually been increasing over the years, and those rules differences keep coming to the forefront reducing the fun factor.

    The primary purpose restated was to provide for cooperative promotion and growth of the hobby. In large part that involves providing extra assistance to the smaller clubs with little experience in dealing with govt officials and pond owners or even running a club. The backing of a larger group also helps them so that when they are talking with a govt official or a pond owner, they just don't look like "a couple guys with a toy boat that shoot WHAT?". If they're part of a larger more global organization of guys that have a organized sport/hobby, it helps get a little more respect at the local level, just due to the larger organization's presence.
     
  11. Droidling

    Droidling Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Posts:
    97
    The funny thing is that what started this was that back in May I asked why can't we have a standard set of construction rules so that if I want to buy a ship I can be reasonably certain I will get something that can be run in my club? Jeff said he had been working on starting the BGCWI. He really didn't want to tackel rules up front. The concensus of the discussionat the time was that the most valuable thing the BGCWI could off the existing clubs was a common set of build rules. it is also interesting to note that first and virtually only thread in the BGCWI forum is titled simple "Rules". The issue is not whether we need common rules. It is how can we make there implementation painless.
    I do think that a discussion on events is in order as well. A 'Bright Ideas', or 'What should BGCWI do?' Might be what John is looking for. I guess what I am trying to get across is we keep going back to rules because no one has come up with an alternative. I'm goin to start one even I am currently out of bright ideas. lets see wht happens.
     
  12. shakeyboba

    shakeyboba Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Posts:
    60
    I have a question , First I applaud Jeff in trying to cordinate a set of Construction Rules. Second What do the fast gunners do at a national event if they hav not built ships acording to the Current MCW rules ? Can they play with what ever they want? Is their a set of international rules? If so what is the fuss?
     
  13. thegeek

    thegeek Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Posts:
    1,164
    Location:
    Mongo
    Yes there is a set of International rules, IRCWCC.org.

    If you come to a Nationals and want to play with boats not built to
    that clubs rules then you will probably run the video camera.
    Rules are there to make it clear what is and what isn't legal, sometimes
    they aren't very clear and that is why we type and post to forums like this.
    Carl
     
  14. shakeyboba

    shakeyboba Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Posts:
    60
    If the above is true then it only stands to reason that to battle at a Treaty or Big Gun International event then the Treaty or Big Gun International Construction rules would also apply. Is This correct ?

    Bob
     
  15. thegeek

    thegeek Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Posts:
    1,164
    Location:
    Mongo
     
  16. shakeyboba

    shakeyboba Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Posts:
    60
    I just checked map Quest and you are 3 hours and 56 minits from me. All things are possible. I have never seen a battle other than big Gun . ( except on U Tube)

    Bob
     
  17. froggyfrenchman

    froggyfrenchman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Posts:
    3,358
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    Yes, and no.
    When I was battling with the MBG, we would at times issue a ship that was not legal to big-gun rules a waiver, in order to let them put the boat on the water and participate in the game.
    The waiver was not a free pass to continue running the boat forever, if the issue gave the boat an unfair advantage over anyone else. Over time, the skipper was expected to fix some (if not all) of the issues, in order to continue to attend events.
    This is the approach that we have taken in Treaty.
    At our first event a few years ago, we had a skipper show up with a fast-gun Yamato. There were several things that were not in compliance with Treaty rules.
    We helped to slow the boat down to our speed, and reduced the pump capacity, and asked that he follow our rate-of-fire, and muzzle velocity rules.
    In doing these things, the captain was able to participate with us at that event, and the rest of the issues were waived for that event. Had the captain brought the same ship back to another event, there were other things that would need to be fixed. Some of them easy to change, like smaller drag disks, and I think the twin sidemounts might have been toed in.
    Mikey
     
  18. wrenow

    wrenow RIP

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Posts:
    439
    Mikey,
    Interestingly, this is one of the goals of BYOB at NABGO though it is in the same arena. Friday is basically AUSBG style battling with Cargo is King (only cargo runs are scored, though we do keep track of other things for various awards). On Saturday morning of BYOB, it is usually more like a standard NTXBG type battle, and, in the afternoon, kind of Battler's Choice. In 2008, this was a WWCC style afternoon. In 2009, it was Surigao Strait. Then on Sunday morning is Texas Cage Match, where many of the rules are peeled away as time goes on.
    One of the primary purposes of NABGO is to hang out with other clubs and share ideas/techniques/etc. And to "cross steel," of course.
    Cheers,
     
  19. DarrenScott

    DarrenScott -->> C T D <<--

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2006
    Posts:
    1,077
    Location:
    Australia
    How did the AusBG style battle work out? Did the merchants get escorted by their warships? What about the skippers? Did they enjoy that style of battle?
     
  20. admiraljkb

    admiraljkb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Posts:
    145