Figured I would move this topic out of the other thread and into it's own thread. Normally, I wouldn't propose a rule or modification to the rules before the rule in question has been tried in a battle. But with the spirited discussion on torpedos and torpedo armed ships, I thought about bouncing an idea off this group to see what they think. As the rules stand now, a ship can pretty much arm all of it's torpedos as long as at least half of it's main gun armanant is armed. This opens the door for ships like the Kita and Ooi that have massive numbers of torpedos to essentially "one shot, one kill" another ship (my opinion of course). Previous discussions ranged across letting the ships arm all of the torpedos to limiting the number of torpedos down to three on each side. Admittedly, I kinda favor limiting the number of torpedos to prevent a small ship from racing up next to my battleship and putting 18+ 1/4" holes into it with one shot. Proponants of arming all torps rightly state that the ships in question do not have much in the way of main guns to arm and would be at a disadvantage against other cruisers with more traditional armanant. So that got me thinking ... what can we do to limit the number of shots a torpedo ship can put on a another ship in one blast, yet still let them have enough armanant to be competative with their main gunned counterparts. So after all that build up (heh), this is what I propose ... We stay with the rule that allows a ship to arm all of it's torpedos as long as half of it's main gun armanant is armed (rounding up). The ships are limited to the number of torpedos they may have in a single quadrant ... perhaps 3 each. All other torpedo rules apply. Essentially, a ship like the Kita or Ooi could arm at least 12 single shot torpedos; 3 in each of the side quadrants, 3 in the bow, and 3 in the stern quadrant. The captain could apply the single barrel represents multiple torpedos rule and essentially fit all the torpedos in, albeit with a 12 physical barrel limit on the ship. So what we get is a Kita or Ooi (or any other ship that has lots of torpedos) that has it's designed torpedo punch yet limits how much damage it can do with one shot. Since the torpedos are set into quadrants, the captain would have to manuever the ship vs simply running alongside another ship to get shots in ... much like any other ship on the water has to do. The torpedo ships would still be dangerous, but not overpowering IMO. With this torpedo rule, even I would build one of the Kitas or Oois and feel comfortable that it wasn't overpowered to the point that people stop battling because of it.
I agree that a max of 3 per quadrant is fine, but I would keep the 'arm at least half the guns of the main battery' requirement as well.
True. Some concessions have to be made somewhere though. Heh. I wonder how many people out there was actually considering building a Kita or Ooi for Battlestations. Is not having a full 20 torpedo broadside something that will prevent them from making a Kita or Ooi? Frankly, if someone really wanted to build a ship for Battlestations, then the torpedo thing wouldn't be an issue. They would either build the torpedo ships no matter which rule or ruling happens because they really want one, or build something else to participate in Battlestations. Which takes me off on a side track from the torpedo thing; we reallllly need to get ships on the water for a couple reasons. One, to see how the rules package works. And two (more importantly IMO), to get Battlestations on the water versus chatting about it on a forum. I think there is only one Battlestations ship launched so far: Mikey D's Strassburg. I'm guilty of procrastinating as much as anyone else by putting off a 1/96 scale build for the past three years. That is changing this year. In fact, I feel so strongly about it that I am delaying ALL of my scheduled 1/144th scale ship builds indefinately and moving up the 1/96 scale build to immediately. Kotori's flat plate stacked cannon design has made cannons more affordable and buildable, which eliminates a major reason I have put off the build. There will be a new 1/96th scale Battelstations ship on the water by summer's end. Err ... ok. I'll get off that soapbox now ... heh.
I think the gameplay will balance itself out. 1/144 Big Gun doesn't seem to have very many DD/CL's armed with guns, since guns can't really damage the heavier balsa of captial ships, so torps are the go to weapon. I'm thinking in 1/96 there will be greater percentage of DD/CL/CA on the water, I'm sure the guy running a Kita with all those torps and only a few bb guns will be frustrated when he gets chased all over the pond by the gun (or gun/torp) armed ships on the opposing team.
Cant most destroyers out run the kit and oi (forgot their speed ) ? Arming all 20 per side would have the builder challenged in wait right?
The Kuma class is listed at 36 knots. That is as fast as or faster than most DD's. Even the Swift! I do tend to agree with HMCS, the killer cruiser will lead to a killer cruiser killer.
In 1/96 scale, I bet I could figure out a way to get all those torpedoes into the ship. The point here is not that the torpedo ship is slower and may get sunk. The point is to avoid the one shot kill a 20 torpedo per side ship can do.
I have to agree. Though I don't think a one shot wonder like that would be much fun to play or play against.
We should wait and see if anybody actually does one with 40 tubes. If I did one I'd have a single barrel for each torp mount, just for KISS sake, less headache and probably a good thing as it would allow more guns to be armed and/or other upgrades like rotation/depression. 40 tubes is great if your attacking a BB, but not so great when your being swarmed by faster,smaller DD's pumping rounds in you every 2-3 sec.
The part in the rules about scale location,trajectory,elevation may help too, torp boats won't be able to close in and scrape sides and ensure a below hit with extreme angled barrels.
I dont have a dog in this, but if you simply wait until someone builds one and blows your sheeting off in one shot and then ban them, youll be throwing away a lot of a persons work, and it'll feel rather unfair to them. Not a good way to start things out in my experience.
It is good to hear that most people here are not in favor of one-shot-kill weapons. I've seen them used, I've used them myself, and I've had them used against me. It's fun the first time, maybe the second time, but after that it sucks. It really, really sucks, and it's boring. It's like nuclear war. Once one nation has atom bombs, everyone else has to get their own in order to compete, and then nobody wants to fight because it's MAD. The question, then, is how to allow torpedoes in a fun, fair, and reasonably historical manner, while dis-allowing one-shot-kill weapons. I can assure you that the current rules do not do this. And, as Nick pointed out, it's a bit too late if you wait to change the rules until after someone has already built a fully armed 1:96 scale Kitikami or Oi. Better to prevent it from happening than to outlaw it after the fact.
I am not building one, nor do I ever plan too, I just dislike the thought of being ahistorical lol Speaking of one shot kills, I can't remember where I heard this(maybe I made this up in my mind??) but I recall hearing that at one time Big Gun used 1/32" armor for merchant ships(possibly DD's too?) and it was dropped due to the heavier cannon being able to rip out entire panels with one hit from a double or triple turret.
That is correct, big gun did indeed use 1/32" balsa for ships that were unarmored to differentiate them from ships that merely carried very thin armor like light cruisers. I have no idea why it was changed, but that was probably fairly early on because nobody I've talked to remembers when it was changed. The more balls fired into a target, the more likely for wood to split and break apart. This gets worse if they hit at the same time. Triple and quad turrets have a slightly higher chance of this happening, however it is still a very small chance. Most people prefer a single triple cannon to two double cannons because the single cannon is simpler: fewer valve to get stuck, fewer air lines to leak, and you'll never hit with both double turrets anyway. I dug up a few videos and photos to show some tactics used by torpedo-boats. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSU8nQ7o0u4 This one shows a few clips of Kotori's Spahkreuzer in action during the 2006 Last Man Standing. 2006 was the last year double-ball torpedoes were allowed. You can see short clips of Spahkreuzer maneuvering and attacking various ships, including two pocket battleships and the final duel against the Scipione Africanus. If you look closely, you can see Spahkreuzer score a nasty hit deep below the red on Scipione. When double ball torpedoes struck deep below the waterline, they typically left clean holes. In this case, the three barrels left three clean holes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iVaVqBjiqM This one shows a full clip of Spahkreuzer and Scipione Africanus tag-teaming the Admiral Scheer at the 2006 Last Man Standing. This was the last year that double-ball torpedoes were allowed. If you look closely, you can see Spahkreuzer's first shot cave in a section of balsa just above the waterline. Double ball torpedoes that struck at or above the waterline were likely to spread out, sometimes caving in a section of balsa, such as seen here. Most hits were not so damaging, but enough were that Kotori led the campaign to reduce them to a single ball. It usually took a second hit to get the target low enough for the gaping hole to flood, conveniently provided by Scipione here. http://www.westernwarshipcombat.com/chartroom/album58/IMG_7635.jpg In this image, Kotori shows off the guts of the newly refit Spahkreuzer. You can see the bulky three-barrel torpedo guns. There is no room for a bottle, but it is far simpler to just use a Schrader valve. You will notice that the torpedo barrels arc up and down. This is for two reasons: it's the minimum radius of the tubing bender we had at the time, and it also happens to be a half inch above the torpedo mount there, as per WWCC rules.
I would like to add one more comment here, that the downward-angled torpedo cannons are aimed down at least partly for safety reasons. You can see in the videos how tippy a cruiser is. With the torpedoes aimed a few degrees down, the ship has more room to rock before it starts aiming guns above horizontal. Gascan and I experimented with non-depressed torpedoes on his first cruiser, the Luigi Cadorna. It had nearly the full extra inch of depth allowed by the WWCC for stability, and six pounds of lead ballast in the bilges. It was one of the most stable ships on the pond, even beating out many of the battleships. Despite this, I still shot myself twice on the one day Gascan let me drive it by accidentally firing the wrong side of torpedoes. After one year of battling, we made new barrels with some down-angle, simply for safety's sake, and things improved immediately. A few other ships in the WWCC have nearly-level torpedoes, but they are entirely dependent on the skipper not pulling the trigger at the wrong time. I don't know how much of this will apply to the larger, hopefully even more stable 1:96 scale ships, but it is worth keeping in mind, in case you encounter problems.
I would just say damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead. But it looks like this is something that needs to be addressed sooner than later. Perhaps a starting point would be to determine who is currently involved in this format. Mikey
