Neat looking, but I think I would want to build a Pearl class cruiser. Speaking of which, brings up a question I've been pondering on for a while. With basic box hull under the water, does that eliminate the ram bows? (yellow area) Like seen in the photo.
So if I build a totally slab-sided hull (i.e. cut out the caprail and keelboard identically), and then decorated to taste, I'd be okay?
Since the proposed bow is going to be plumb, my thoughts on this is that the ram section would be replaced by a metal penetrator bolted to the bow. This allows us to regulate the size and shape of the ram and it would be removable for times when ramming would not be allowed. Think of a little metal tab attached to one side of the bow that protrudes a bit forward with a triangular shaped end. The ram could be sized where it could be a decisive blow but not necessarily an immediately fatal blow. On ramming, to keep PC's from running around and continually ramming, my thought is to add a timeout period for the rammer where they could not move or shoot. In addition, ramming would only be sanctioned when it was two on two or more. With such a setup, the implications requiring teamwork and thought as to when or if to ram are self evident. A captain would be foolish to ram unless his teammate was backing him up.
I think the consensus on this is that if you build a "stock" hull, then yes, you can decorate any way you want above the water line. If deviating from a stock hull, you would be required to build to scale. In the tank hobby, we originally started with the three foot rule where every tank had to be a minimum of 3'. Due to urging from the GI Joe scale guys (who never made tanks btw), we added a 1:6 scale option which allowed building tanks under 3' (and led to the inevitable scale arguments over the years). What about adopting something similar for this proposed format. We define the three "stock" hull beam and width's, and you can build any design you wish but it must be scaled to fit a stock size?
I like that idea. We already have to scale plans anyway, so scaling to a specific length/beam is not particularly tricky.
Cannon disposition was only a suggestion on my part. I'd prefer to avoid a rotate option as it allows undue complexity. I'm open to cannon suggestions. The question is, what's a good balance of firepower for the three classes? We're looking at a 6" beam for the PC's so from a safety standpoint, sidemounts could be doable on all classes. Is this something we would want, and if so, how do we configure it? Maybe a manual rotate on single-sidemount installations between sorties is an answer? Maybe all classes get the same amount of guns but we adjust ammo load for each class? Maybe we deduct a gun if the ship is equipped with a ramming spike?
I don't think that CAEs and PCs should have the same # of guns as BBs; they get more speed, they shouldn't have the same throw weight, even for short periods. Rotates can be tricky to get working, but ships this big have more room for systems and leaving large areas unguarded is not desirable.
Tried to finish this up last night but lost power. This is a proposed Steampunk type 3 hull (armoured cruiser). Length is 48" with a beam of 7.5". As drawn, she has 2" solid on each end with twenty one 1/4" ribs spaced on 2" intervals. This leaves a little over 80% open area which is 5% less than other formats allow. What's everybody's thoughts on the spacing? My thought is that the 5% difference isn't all that much, especially as were talking ramming in the format.
I can't see it (Army firewall, drat them), but 5% ain't much to worry about, especially with the 1/96 scale. There's plenty of shootable area. I like 2" spacing, and a stringer on the waterline. Why? Because with us allowing ramming, a stringer and 2" spacing will make a ram something to try to avoid (being hit by), but not make it an instant end-of-game for anyone, because the build constrains the damage. Update, I can kind of see the pic on my phone. Is the brown area just in front of the prop beveled at all? A flat wall there will not give much thrust, but if it were to get a V-shaped bevel in the horizontal, that would be very helpful hydrodynamically speaking. Like from the outside of the hull down to the width of the stuffing tube. The stringer might want to move down a hair; it'll take a good bit of ballast to get that to be the waterline. I will have more commentary after I get home where I can see the scale numbers and view it on a bigger screen. But overall, I like the layout and shape. Maybe we'll see one soon!
Yes, it is fiared in front of the prop. As drawn the model is displacing almost 37 pounds. I can trim 3/4" off the bottom which will drop displacement by 8 pounds or so. Sound good? Also Tug, what's the dimensions of your pump? I'm designing this around this $14 prop and shaft assembly from vac-u-boat.com. Anybody ever deal with Vacuboat? They seem to be big in the R/C tug community. This is a 1.75" prop. They also have a very cool coupling that looks better (and cheaper) than the Dumas.
Most ships of the Ironclad Era had rams as well as guns, so I don't see why you should take some of one away when you have the other. I personally would love to see cruisers get sidemounts. Not that it's historical (little ships slugging big ships), but so that new people that have limited budgets can build smaller ships and still get in on the close quarters combat. Maybe allow PC's to have 2 one unit cannons with the option of have one as a side mount and one as a stern gun, or both as stern guns, but not two sidemounts. This will allow the captain a nice offensive power, but so much that he will want to slug it out with the pre-dreads, possibly a shot or two with the ArCrs. I've always wanted to see a cruiser battle with sidemounts. Does this sound logical? Like this?
I'd rather not shell out money for something I could print instead, especially a prop that can be damaged. But $14 for a stuffing tube/shaft/prop combo is not bad, and replacement props are only $4 each. I like the way their coupling looks (twice as many points of contact in the uni, very cool), but I'd probably cheap out and print one. Although $6.50 for such a fine-looking unit is pretty cheap. Hard to not be attracted to t3h shineez! Dimensions of my pump... I'll have to check the file when I get home for dimensions. the current version fits any 550-sized motor, although you really want one with a shaft longer than 3/8". If we want to go with a smaller spec motor, let me know where to order some, and I'll design a pump mounting plate for that motor, and alter the impeller for a smaller shaft diameter. What I like about the spec hull is that a few guys can get together on a weekend and do it production-line style, one guy cutting ribs, another cutting the subdecks and keelboards, and another taking the big pieces as they're finished, and notching them on a router table. Watch in horror as the vonTugboat tablesaw has a 1/8" kerf blade used to notch the ribs for the stringer! (clamp like 10 of them together and run them through... I would still put in 3 hollow-square sections in place of ribs, just to help keep the shape square. One in the middle, and one towards either end.
How this sound? PC's: 2 cannons, one side mount allowed. Fore and aft quadrants, two cannons max and can be in same turret. AC's: 3 cannons, two sidemounts allowed, only one sidemount per side. Fore and aft quadrants, two cannons max and can be in same turret. BB's: 4 cannons, four sidemounts allowed, max two sidemounts per side, sidemounts cannot be in the same turret. Fore and aft quadrants three cannons max and can be in same turret.
Cannon mounting and down angle ideas: Cannon breach center line no more than 1" above deck it's mounted on Max 10% down angle No cannon exit within 1" of the waterline.
Remember, we are a flexible format! Feel free to put a cannon in secondary's, or superstructure even if your doing something like the Victoria.
