Ship List

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

  1. Kun2112

    Kun2112 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Posts:
    710
    Alright, I've decided that I need to offer full disclosure. I don't want anyone to think I am trying to "game the system".

    I have started on a ship, that according to my previous understanding, would be allowed. Honestly, I thought the issue was settled, but there seems to be some discussion left, and some very strong feelings on the subject.

    Is it on the treaty list? Yes. Is on the IRC list? No. Is it big-gun legal? Yes--in fact, I know of at least two that were built. At least one did battle.

    Has the keel on my project been laid? No. However, money has been spent on getting plans printed and buying parts/supplies. Other deals and barterings have been agreed to as well. Some calculations and systems design have been drawn out on drafting paper. I am quite proud of one aspect--assuming it works as designed.
    Am I past the point of no return? No. I would be out some money, but less than $100 of what has been spent so far would be un-usable in another project.

    I was really wanting to keep this one close to the chest because the local fellas like to drop secret projects on everyone. Matt's New Jersy was unknown until fitting out assistance was needed. Mark's St. George was unknown until he showed up to the pond with it. There are one or two other "secret projects" in the works according to projections from the intellegence section. I think a lot of people would like seeing the boat on the water. I sure think it is a cool boat.

    That said, if people feel strongly about the issue, I will tell everyone what the ship is and leave it's fate in the hands of the membership-at-large to decide.
     
  2. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    St. George? A G3?
    Or was it this one:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_St_George_(1892)
    Either would be fine with me. But I would prefer teh 1892 version.

    :D
     
  3. mike5334

    mike5334 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Posts:
    1,877
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Just to put things into perspective ...

    Going off the restrictive MWC ship list which only includes ships that were launched between 1905 - 1945 inclusive and commissioned, there are over 400 classes of ships legal for that format. That does not count the number of ships built in each class.

    So with 400+ ships available to build (even more if including ships that at least hit the water and were never commissioned, or ships built from 1900 - 1905), why is so many people adamant about building hypotheticals?

    There seems to be plenty of ships available to build that have never been built for the hobby. That was one of the reasons I built an HMS Erin and FN Verite.

    Just food for thought. Heh.
     
  4. pba

    pba Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    Posts:
    215
    Location:
    dayton
    I have been with the MBG the treaty group and the battlestations group since the inception of all three. I have never seen anyone drive 12 minutes or twelve hours and get complained about in any of the formats. The hole premise behind treaty was to make a less cutthroat venue wher every one could relax and enjoy a day of battle without all the complaints and accusations inherent with the other formats. If a ship is way out of spec or has an unfair advantage we deal with it in a civilized maner and i have never seen anything even approaching a heated arguement at any of our meets,EVER. Battlestation should be the same way because it has the same core group. I know for a fact Mikey hates rules arguements because it detracts from the fun at hand. To me the main difference between Treaty,and now hopefully battlestations and the other formats out there is that in treaty we assume the person is there to have fun and has built to legal specs,we do not ask them to prove before they start that they are not cheating. If you cheat and win you have won nothing.I think the existing ship list with current hypos will give the most opportunity for excitement and fun and I vote to keep it that way
     
  5. dietzer

    dietzer Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    739
    I am fine with the majority rule. The majority wants the treaty list.

    Although I was voicing my opinion, I don't feel strongly about it. I'll do Battlestations with or without the hypotheticals. I was just voicing my preference. I certainly won't complain if someone builds a hypothetical, even though I'll never build one myself.

    I believe the majority wants the Treaty ship list, so I say we adopt that and get building. :)

    Carl

    P.S. And Dustin, I like figuring out mysteries... :)
     
  6. pba

    pba Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    Posts:
    215
    Location:
    dayton
    If it is a Bearne or a Normandie count me in I will share all costs.[script removed]
     
  7. Kun2112

    Kun2112 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Posts:
    710
    James,
    It is the USS St. George, an seaplane tender based on the C3 hull.
    Pics: www.rcnavalcombat.com/Forum/tabid/5...fault.aspx
    Carl,
    I really didn't mean to kick the hornets nest on this one.
    Phil,
    I can neither confirm nor deny those ships, but you will like this boat.
     
  8. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    USS St. George...I guess my RN focus is showing. Nice looking boat though.
     
  9. dietzer

    dietzer Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    739
    No worries, Dustin. It's all good.

    To take an old joke and give it a nautical twist: wherever there are two captains, you'll find three opinions. :D

    Carl
     
  10. absolutek

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

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Posts:
    1,807
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Should I be putting the Hypo ship list on there too? Should it be combined with the non-hypo list? And would it be possible if I could get the original spreadsheet version instead of the PDF?
    --Chase
     
  11. Kun2112

    Kun2112 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Posts:
    710
    Right now the full list has hypos included. The first post hypo only list has the ordered but no keel ships left off.
    I have the original treaty list in .xls, and can do the formula changes. However, I run Open-Office instead of Office so there might be a slight formatting change.
    Scale data output changes from the Treaty-legal list would be length, beam, std. displacement, max displacement, and speed.

    Dimensions changes would be from =CELL/12 to =CELL/8.

    Displacement changes would be from =CELL*2240/144^3 to =CELL*2240/96^3

    Speed will need a closer look by me at the rules on min/max (if any) and a modification of the chart data on worksheet 2 to reflect 33=33. I might add a hidden 1/96 DSS column so it is available if we ever decide to switch to that method.

    The Class (i.e. 1-8) field could be replaced with balsa armor thickness.

    Primary gun calibers and number of barrels are entered, so that could be converted to caliber of ammo for the primaries to replace the Battle Units.

    Warship pump capacity can be added too, as the displacement data is already there.

    Two of the six can be done quickly, but the others might require a tiny bit of spreadsheet-fu. I could probably have it done by Monday even with my schedule this weekend.

    Can anyone else think of any other scale aspect fields we can add with the existing full scale data?
     
  12. dietzer

    dietzer Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    739
    Mark's full ship list (post#7) already has the hypotheticals in it. I'd just post that. That's the full Treaty ship list...

    Thanks,

    Carl
     
  13. glaizilla

    glaizilla Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Posts:
    375
    I believe that we have enough votes in to call it a quorum. Treaty shiplist is the Battlestations shiplist.

    I find it puzzeling that we are all still discussing this, I am going with what we originally decided, sorry if this hurts anyones feelings, if there are those looking for paper lions in the rules, good luck, I firmly beleave that no hypo has an unfair advantage, and that reliability and skippering mean more than how many rudders, how many seconds, how many barrels, etc. If people out there want to discuss rules, how bout the drop test for penetrability for the thicker armor types? thats a rule that is unsettled as far as I know, what boat we need to disallow should be a mute point by now. I am now considering shelving my Ramilies and installing the cannons in an H-39 in Battlestations, why? because its a hypo, and I like the boat. slower, turns slower, longer, same armament as a bismarck. I might be missing something, the rational behind this ongoing rules debate, but I know that at the very least its holding back people adament about building, I am sure the discerning skipper can pick something more obscure to debate than an issue that to my knowledge was allready voted on, sorry if my lack of sleep has prevented me from seeing an obvious rational for the ongoing ship debate.

    Dustin, build the boat you want to build, no one will prevent her from sailing, atleast no one with a Battlestations ship that will be sailing against her in our neck of the woods.
     
  14. buttsakauf

    buttsakauf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Posts:
    695
    Location:
    Waycross, GA
    Almost 9.5' with a 15" beam! Yikes. Wouldn't it be a 100lbs or so too? More power to ya. It is still my personal favorite looks wise.
    Mike Butts
     
  15. pba

    pba Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    Posts:
    215
    Location:
    dayton
    BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME
     
  16. pba

    pba Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    Posts:
    215
    Location:
    dayton
    Mat give me a call I have some horse trading to do[script removed]
     
  17. glaizilla

    glaizilla Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Posts:
    375
    My Jersey at normal displacement water line is 137lbs, If I run her heavy I am guessing 150lbs
    Its tuff to pick a ship as handsome as an H, esp if you think Darth Vador's wardrobe is in fashionable LOL,
     
  18. Kun2112

    Kun2112 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Posts:
    710
    I was offering to convert the ship list into a more web-publishing friendly format, didn't mean to stir it up again.
    Matt, keep the R-class for at least the spring battle. Then sell it sans-cannons to get more captains on the water if you want to move them to an H, or sell the ship complete to get money for NEW cannons. :)
    Phil, I might want to discuss some trading with you also...
    Mike, Matt loves building insanely large ships. It is in his DNA as a former tank gunner, I think.
     
  19. rcengr

    rcengr Vendor

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Posts:
    1,291
    Location:
    Ohio
    I added a link to the full ship list in both pdf and xls format to the first post. I had always intended to post the spreadsheet, I just never got around to it. Feel free to modify it, or let me know what you need done and I'll work on it. Remember, all the hypos are marked with and "*" in the date column.
    So Dustin, based on your dimensions there are only three hypos that qualify, and as far as I know, no one has done the Sovyetskiy Soyuz, so that narrows it down to 2. And given your preferred alignment, I can guess which one you are working on. BTW, are you insane?!
     
  20. rcengr

    rcengr Vendor

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Posts:
    1,291
    Location:
    Ohio
    I updated the ship lists for speeds of 33 knots = 33 seconds. I wasn't real clear on if minimum speeds were determined, so I left them unchanged. The files can also be accessed directly in the user/Treaty folder also.
    In addition to the updates Dustin mentioned, the ship list needs to include torpedo reloads, although I'm not sure where to find this information. I also plan to add some more the of the smaller destroyers which are not feasible in 144 but could be done in 96 scale.