Having the 1" minimal penetrable area is only an issue if you are going to count points. If you are counting sinks then its not an issue as anything 1" above the water doesn't make the ship sink. If you are counting sinks then scoring can be as easy as 1 point per gun that goes to the bottom.
Ah, but as she settles, the aboves become belows, making her sink faster, reducing her combat effectiveness, and saving the other team the hits. I DO NOT advocate counting holes. Dreadfully boring. I'm cool with points for cannons sunk. Easy. But I definitely want penetrable area to give the enemy aboves.
A cannon based sink point system is the way to go. I was just wondering if the intent was to legislate a standard target window for all hulls, because that seemed to be the attempt, or at least how I was reading it.
legislate..already Okay I know that you guys might not like what I say, so. This sounds very interesting just don't lose that fun factor in all the errata. Can we maybe use less big words or maybe more pictures for visualisation of what things people want? I started looking into this hobby because it sounded fun. It's just all the dang rules. And yes the military was once a long time ago okay for me. It's over now and I still flicking hate acronyms. Just spell it out for the newbs or maybe just for the intent of increasing this hobbies popularity and growth. Ships are pretty and building them can be fun often frustrating
see even I did it errata = wording, visualisation = visual pictures funny how from my phone Swype does not automatically put spaces in on here. it's like all the typing has to be manual.
My club only counts sinks and from experience if a boat settles an inch she is probably on her way down as too many holes are now letting water in. Any higher penetrations will only speed the process up slightly. If you are hitting near the waterline an inch is plenty above, if not then learn to aim better as your shots are ineffective anyway. Maybe make it a inch and a half, but counting sinks is a lot more fun than counting holes.
Indeed, J. I missed the acronyms. Did we buy some? The ship designations? BB, CAE (or AC), and PC? The plans that Steve sent me are really easy to understand, and the intent of me getting them is to do a photo-by-photo howto on a totally basic, unfancy armored cruiser build. I have fancy tools but the emphasis will be on basic tools. If someone builds to the basic plans, they don't have to worry about any interpreting of the rules. Perfect for people new to the hobby, who haven't built 50 or 100 hulls. Full disclosure, I haven't built 100 hulls. Yet.
I must come from easier ruled hobbies. Maybe that's why I get frustrated by all the rules plus.the old noggin doesn't work the same. paintball, hit call out, don't wipe, easy enough you would think, still cheaters. just collect now. counterstrike from beginning up till 2008, no hax, no camping, complete the objective. can't stand video games now. not color blind, just color deficient or just messed up. don't ask me to cut the red wire, I'd just cut them all to make sure I got the.red one.
This is pretty simple. Pick a size of ship. Build the hull exactly like the drawing. Put the right number of guns in it(1 to 4), and a drive system and a pump. Drive around and shoot people till they sink. The team that has the most guns sunk loses. I would add on, 'After the first battle, shuffle teams before starting the second.' But it's not rocket science. I've done rocket science.
Since we wont have Allied and Axis and mixing teams after each sortie, we would want to figure an easy method to give individual captains a running points tally like we do with tanks. Any ideas?
Maybe a variant on fast gun scoring? Assign each class of ship a weight factor (perhaps the same number as the number of guns). Total points per team = # of enemy guns sunk. Points per captain = [total team points earned/ (total # of allied guns at the start)]*weight factor for the captain's ship So if my AC and a friend's PC (total of 5 guns) fight two BBs (8 guns total), and we sink both BBs for the loss of my AC, the points break down: Me: [8/5]*3 = 4.8 Friend: [8/5]*2 = 3.2 Enemy#1: [3/8]*4 = 1.5 (Enemy#2 has same number due to same ship) This skews points towards bigger ships and towards ships on the team that sinks more enemy guns. This is fair and not hard to calculate. My example was extreme and wildly optimistic, but that was to show how the math works. Basically, if your team hits above its throw weight, it gets rewarded. There are probably several other ways to come up with a score, just throwing this one out there. Easily put into an android or iphone app so that any jackwagon could play scorekeeper without a degree in statistics.
I'm confused. Why do you get more points simply for having a bigger ship? This would encourage everyone to only build larger ships. Yes you might have helped more but the rule doesnt take that into account only the number of guns you brought to a fight. Say a fleet of one BB and two AC's sinks an enemy BB of a fleet of two BB's. The two aggressive AC's would get [8/10]*3 = 2.4 points each While the incompetent BB would get [8/10] *4 = 3.2 points Since most sinks are the result of several captains efforts, it is hard to accurately assign damage done in a fair manor. But this seems silly, as it has nothing at all to do with your efforts.
I did put my idea out there. Just count sunken guns. And for the record I do like the weighting system for teams. I tried to explain my thoughts in a respectful way. I didn't attack anyone. And I did provide an example of why it might not work well. Sorry you got offended. But pointing out why something doesnt work is part of theory crafting a system before it goes live. Exploring the good and the bad is important if we are going to find a system that seems to work. Or are you suggesting that your ideas are so awesome that we should tell you how great they are? EDIT: "Or are you suggesting that your ideas are so awesome that we should tell you how great they are? " Was a poorly worded jest. Of course no one here is that egocentric. Already talked to Clark about it.
