Ship List

Discussion in '1/96 Battlestations' started by rcengr, Jun 20, 2011.

  1. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    Eventually I am going to come to the conclusion that it is some form of temporal vortex that seeks obscure ship plans from the depths of time.
     
  2. Kotori87

    Kotori87 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Posts:
    3,525
    Dunno about the BC, but I CAD-modeled the Borodino-class PDN in DELFTship. Can I interest you in that instead?
     
  3. Tugboat

    Tugboat Facilitator RCWC Staff Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Posts:
    8,298
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    Um, upon checking, I have the PDN. I might have stashed the BC in another folder, have to look after work when I have time.
     
  4. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
  5. Tugboat

    Tugboat Facilitator RCWC Staff Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Posts:
    8,298
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    And so the wizard-archivist waved his arm, and the plans appeared...
     
  6. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    It's all in the wrist. Seriously, I did not know that I had them, but upon checking the Russian section there they were.
     
  7. Kun2112

    Kun2112 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Posts:
    710
    Methinks this might be a good topic to sticky. Possibly with a note that the full list is in post seven (with speeds three seconds too fast)?
     
  8. KeriMorgret

    KeriMorgret Facilitator RCWC Staff Vendor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Posts:
    609
    Location:
    Seattle, Washington
    I'm happy to put this as a sticky. RCENGR, what about instead you edit the first post and put up a link to the current/correct ship list?
     
  9. dietzer

    dietzer Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    739
    In going thru this topic, I don't think anyone ever answered Mark's original question: which ships should be deleted from the hypothetical list.

    Personally, I'm a purist at heart. I think that for any ship to be on the list, at least 1 ship from its class must have been launched and commissioned by Sept, 1945. After all, we are trying in some aspect to recreate history here, not just build our own what-if superships that can kill everything else on the water.

    That being said, I can live with any ship that was launched by Sept, 1945 if that's the way others want it. But I would definitely be against including any ship that was never launched before WWII ended.
    What say the rest of you?
    Carl
     
  10. absolutek

    absolutek -->> C T D <<--

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Posts:
    1,807
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I'm going to have to disagree with you on the end date as it would preclude the use of ships Such as the Des Moines and Worcester class cruisers. I think going with 1949 as an end date would better as it would include conventional gun ships launched late in the era, that we would want to see on the pond.

    Chase
     
  11. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    Some of those were not even laid down until 1946.
     
  12. Kun2112

    Kun2112 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Posts:
    710
    I am a fan of the modified Treaty list for several reasons:
    • It is a very specific, well researched document. Granted there are some holes especially with pre-dread rudders, but it is the most comprehensive list I have personally seen.
    • Some hypos are allowed like the P-cruiser, Kaga, Montana, and H-39, but the more fanciful "design studies" like the Tillman, H-44, and Super-Yamato are not. The Treaty list are ships that were orderd and very likely would have been built had naval treaties or the course of war not thrown a wrench into the works.
    • The Treaty list (rules of inclusion specifically) has been stable for five years. I believe it evolved from the old MBG list, which leads to:
    • Most of the hypos on the treaty list have been built and run in big-gun clubs. Since Battlestations is basically big-gun writ large, it makes sense for a ship allowed in the WWCC, NTXBG, AUBG, MABG, etc... to be allowed in the larger scale.
    • I really, really, really like seeing boats that are rare in the hobby-at-large on the water. Bizmarks and SoDaks are fine, but I want to see a Lion face off against a Lyon. HMS Swiftsure? Not hypo, but rare, so yes, please. An Improved Tegetthoff wouldn't turn as well as its little sibling, but that would be awesome to see.
    • Several hypos have plans, waiting for your purchase from Strike Models. Stephen even states on the website that he will resize them for you to a different scale. Good plans can be difficult to come by, and a quick look shows seven or eight sets of hypo plans saying "buy me". Oh, and you don't have to deal with the stoned clerk at the copyshop who doesn't know which type of machine he has and produces a lovely set of plans for the HMS Hood in 1/36 scale.
    Granted, my local group is Treaty, and that is what I know, but my reasons for liking it are stated above. I know some hypos have been activly discussed at the local level with a very high level of interest for one or two ships that might be excluded.
    The list has been sitting online since late June as a probable list. Someone might have taken that as a fixed list and started work on a ship that might not be allowed. IMHO, I want to see ships on the water, and LOVE seeing keels laid.
     
  13. dietzer

    dietzer Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    739
    Well, I'm all for democracy. :D
    Perhaps we should refer to the results of the poll Tugboat put together back in June (this is stickied at the top of the Battlestations! board):
    http://www.rcnavalcombat.com/ForuSm...fault.aspx
    To summarize the poll results for allowed ships:
    15% (2 captains): Only ships that were afloat and in commission (or sailed, for civvies) between 1895-1946
    31% (4 captains): Above, plus ships that had their hulls hit the water
    46% (6 captains): Above, plus ships that were laid down
    8% (1 captain): Above plus ships that had plans drawn but went no further

    So the majority ruled that any ship from 1895 - 1946 whose hull was actually laid down is allowed.
    As I said before, I am a purist. One of the reasons I was attracted to Battlestations! in the first place was that the original group (of whom only Mikey and myself remain) supported only ships whose hulls hit the water. However, Dustin had some good points regarding hulls being laid down, so I am ok with supporting hulls that were laid down but not completed. But I confess to still having problems with ships that were drawn up but never started construction.
    BTW, no mention was made in the poll for ships after 1946, so maybe that is a separate discussion/vote...?
    Carl
     
  14. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    I like the Treaty rules too.
     
  15. Kun2112

    Kun2112 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Posts:
    710
    Carl, I think the only difference between your thoughts on the matter and the treaty list is that Treaty allows ships that were ordered, but not laid down. An order is government paperworrk, and that never goes away :D
     
  16. absolutek

    absolutek -->> C T D <<--

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Posts:
    1,807
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Well I was one of the people who voted for "Above, plus ships that were laid down", but I still think we should allow all-gun ships like the Des Moines & Worchester class which weren't laid down/commissioned until 1949. I would like to see end date moved from 1946 to 1949. I don't think anybody can come up with a good reason not to, but I'm open to hearing what concerns there may be with doing so.

    --Chase
     
  17. glaizilla

    glaizilla Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Posts:
    375
    If I can weigh in, I think that what was decided (after I angered a few of the veterans) is that the Treaty shiplist, was the Battlestations shiplist, regaurdless of the order/laid down/wet hull/launched/etc stipulation, if that is the case, then the Roanoke and the Des Moines are legal. I firmly beleave that no ship hypothetical or otherwise will be a world ender, take the Lyon for example 16x7/32? still isnt that large of a ship, still isnt that fast, still has to be reliable, still has to be skipper'd effectivly. If there is a ship wanting to be built by someone that actually is wanting to participate in Battlestations, and it is not on the very inclusive shiplist, then just bring it up on the forum/battlestations website. There is a German Predreadnought that I have been wanting to build for years, but its a year or so prior to the cutoff for the list, in more than one disccusion online, it was determind that no one would object to a vessel that had been built prior to the 1895 date, so long as it participated in a combat role in WWI.. a great many vessels that fought in the great war, were older than the cutoff date, on the other end, you have ships like the Roanoke. I am not sure what would be the effective cutoff past the end of the war, perhaps being ordered before Japans surrender? The underlying message I wish to convey is this: Build ships/ fight ships, dont build sumthing from the American civil war, and dont build an Aegis Missle cruiser. Look over the shiplist, which we can convert to the big scale, and if its not included, figure out who is going to be battling you, and discuss it, I cant see anyone refusing to sortie because a cruiser was a year late being finished, or an old predreadnought was old during the great war. just my 2cents....
     
  18. absolutek

    absolutek -->> C T D <<--

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Posts:
    1,807
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    No, what I'd like to avoid is having somebody drive 12+ hours to a battle and having somebody complain about it. Maybe we could change the wording to something like "Anything that was floating or ordered between 1895-1946" not including "civil war ships, sail ships, modern era ships etc".

    Easier to head off arguments before they start.

    Chase
     
  19. mike5334

    mike5334 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Posts:
    1,877
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Eh. Lets just say "run what you brung" and be done with it. :p
    Really though, that is why there is rules. If someone wanted to battle in BattleStations, then they can read the rules and build to them.
     
  20. dietzer

    dietzer Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    739
    Ok, sounds like most people want to use the Treaty ship list. So if it's on that list its allowed, if its not on that list, you need to get approval.

    Sound good to everyone?

    Chase, can you go ahead and put Mark's ship list on the Battlestations96 website?

    Thanks,

    Carl