Treaty Carriers

Discussion in 'North Atlantic Treaty Combat Fleet' started by Bob Pottle, Sep 16, 2008.

  1. crzyhawk

    crzyhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,291
    Bob-

    Your ship's pump only costs .5 units, so you DO get the extra 25 rounds. I'm at work atm, so I cant look up the exact wording of the rule to post, but I am positive that carrier pumps cost .5 units as per the rules. I'll try to remember to look it up when I get home.

    I'm sure of it because I looked it up for my Belleau Wood, and was very surprised when I read it, since I had originally thought my pump was going to cost me a full unit.

    Have you thought of adding a depression mechanism for your stern gun(s)? It's an idea Eric Noble and I had been kicking around when he was talking about building a Lexington.
     
  2. Bob Pottle

    Bob Pottle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    1,948
    Location:
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Mike,
    I haven't used a depression mechanism since my first RCNC model of HMS Terror in 1984. Its freon powered cannon came with a fitting on the mag to attach an elevating/depressing servo.

    The Ibuki's guns will be installed with my usual threaded elevating/depressing system that allows the range to be preset, but not changed during a battle. The slope of the Ibuki's quarterdeck and low freeboard (just over an inch) would allow hits on the waterline at 2' or less but with a cruiser type hull my practice is to fire at 6'-8' range.

    Bob
     
  3. froggyfrenchman

    froggyfrenchman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Posts:
    3,358
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    Interesting question here.
    I have copied and pasted the two rules that would come into play here.
    One mentions the 3 unit cruiser rule.
    Our intentions with this rule are pretty simple.
    The 3 unit cruisers had to utilize a full unit as a pump in the fast-gun clubs and had two units left over for cannons.
    Where the 2.5 unit cruisers could utilize a half unit for the pump, and also had two units for cannons.
    The theory was to give the class three cruiser captains the ability to decide for themselves just how to alocate their units to get the most utility out of their ship given their style of battling.
    So it might be said that we overlooked the chances that someone would build and enter into the combat an aircraft-carrier with 3 units.
    I think that is exactly what happened here.
    However, I think that the splitting a full unit rule applies here and covers the three unit carriers.
    Your oppinions please.
    Mikey

    g) Three unit cruiser rule – Three unit cruisers may break down one of their units into two ½ units. In so doing, they can then use a ½ unit for a pump and add the other ½ unit to an existing cannon or create a ½ unit cannon.
    A one unit cannon carries a load of 50 bbs fired singles shot, or 15 bbs if spurted. A 1/2 unit cannon carries 25 bbs fired singles shot. A 1/2 unit cannon magazine may be added to a 1 unit cannon magazine, making a 11/2 unit cannon with 75 bbs. Cannon units may not be subdivided into smaller cannon units (a 1 unit cannon may not be made into two 1/2 unit cannons). A ship may mount only a single ½ unit cannon in its offensive armament. In Ship Classes 3 and above, any legal 1/2 unit may be used as cannons with 75 bbs in the magazine. Only Class 1 ships may be armed with (1) spurt cannon.
    a) All Class 1-5 ships may use their extra half unit as either a cannon or a pump.
    b) All Class 2 and smaller ships are allowed to split off a separate half unit to use for a single pump. For example; a 2-unit ship could have a 1/2 unit pump, a 1 unit cannon, and another 1/2 unit cannon.
    Splitting a full unit cannon – Captains can split full unit cannons into ½ units and add the ½ units to already existing cannons.
     
  4. froggyfrenchman

    froggyfrenchman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Posts:
    3,358
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    It does appear that the difference is that a 3 unit aircraft-carrier does not get the option to add an additional half-unit cannon to their ship. So they could not have (2) full unit cannons, and a half unit cannon as well.
    They can only add the 25 rounds (half-unit) of ammo to an already existing cannon.
    So they can have a one-unit (50 round) cannon, and a 1.5 unit (75 round) cannon.
    Thoughts on this please.
    Mikey
     
  5. Bob Pottle

    Bob Pottle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    1,948
    Location:
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Obviously I support that interpretation! That gives me an extra 0.5 unit to add to one of the two BB cannons and I lose no pump capacity while counting the pump as 1/2 unit without losing pumping capacity.

    I'm waiting to see what happens with the bow and stern arcs for carrier guns before finalizing the BB cannon installation plan.

    Bob
     
  6. crzyhawk

    crzyhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,291
    the rules on pumps state:

    a) Battleships and fleet aircraft carriers converted from battleship hulls.
    i. 1.25 gal./min. capacity for a full one unit pump
    ii. If a battleship pump is operating at ½ unit, the capacity is limited to the same as a battle cruiser
    iii. If a battleship allots two or more units to pumps then each pump will be reduced to the battlecruiser capacity
    b) Battle cruisers and fleet aircraft carriers converted from battle cruiser hulls.
    i. 1 gal./min. capacity for a full one unit pump
    ii. If a battle cruiser utilizes either 1/2 unit for the pump, or has more than one pump, then the pump, or each pump will be reduced to the .75 gal/minute amounts.
    c) All other warships pumps can pump .75 gal./min. even if they only allocate ½ unit for the pump.


    I'd like to draw your attention to item C, where it says all other warship pumps can pump .75 gpm even if they only allocate 1/2 unit for the pump. As an "all other warship" carrier pumps cost only .5 units.
     
  7. froggyfrenchman

    froggyfrenchman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Posts:
    3,358
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    That is correct.
    Mikey
     
  8. the frog

    the frog Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Posts:
    209
    Bob the stern quadrant rule did not get past the founders but that doesnt mean that you guys cant implement it as a house rule. I would like to see how a carrier does with 30 or 45 degree archs
     
  9. Bob Pottle

    Bob Pottle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    1,948
    Location:
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Frog,
    That makes it more difficult for long, poorly turning fleet carriers like Furious to use their combat units effectively. We'll discuss trying out the proposal here to see how it works. John C. could try it in his Shinano, which is the only Class 4+ carrier we have so far.

    Bob
     
  10. sinkin321

    sinkin321 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Posts:
    282
    Yes i think the rule would make a big differance on the Shinano. stern guns will be hard to use on something that turns like a bus towing a bus I think i will try and put them in on an angle of 45.
     
  11. the frog

    the frog Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Posts:
    209
    Excellent it sound like people up there know what is needed to grow the fleet
     
  12. Bob Pottle

    Bob Pottle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    1,948
    Location:
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Go for it John. Remember that in Treaty you can divide and recombine combat units for bigger magazines and fewer cannons. A Shinano with 4 x 1.5 unit BB cannons in a four cornered set-up (cannons trained out 30-45 degrees from bow and stern) and 2 x 1.0 unit pumps should be able to inflict a fair amount of damage and would be almost unsinkable. With a third radio channel for the BB cannons one pump could be replaced by a 1.0 nuit stern gun pointed straight aft.

    Bob
     
  13. crzyhawk

    crzyhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,291
    Given that you can place guns at the very rear (or front) of the hangar, it's possible to make a Shinano quite effective and keep guns within the 15 degree quadrant. A Shinano could theoretically have quad sterns angled off 15 degrees and mounted high enough up that you can have the full 15 degrees down angle as well. When someone chases, you let them get in close, kick the rudder hard over and hit 'em with the quads. If the guns are on target for as much as 3 seconds, that's the potential for 24 belows...not to mention chunking and gashing to make really big holes.

    You could also slave the quads to the helm so they go from 15 degrees on one side to 15 degrees on the otherside, based on the angle of the rudder. A system like this allows you get on target that much faster. You can also add an elevate here to range out a long distance if you wish.

    You've only used 4 units of your 8 so far, so you can still add triple bows and have a 1 unit pump, or twin bows and 2 pumps if you wish.

    I've seen some Yamatos that turn very well, so I see no reason why Shinano would be any different. That turning and the fact that you can place your stern guns at the extreme aft section of the ship (as opposed to only being able to stick them in the main battery turrets) makes me believe that these ships can be VERY lethal even without side firing guns.
     
  14. Chris Easterbrook

    Chris Easterbrook Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,333
    Mike I have ran that boat and the wind takes it all the time and makes it turn much worse than a Yammy.
     
  15. the frog

    the frog Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Posts:
    209
    I think a 75 at each corner at 45 degrees would be the ultimate easy setup .Since you get the bb 1 unit pump of 1.25 gal I would be tempted to put that extra 50 round out the front for long range sniping
     
  16. sinkin321

    sinkin321 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Posts:
    282
    I was toying with the idea of 2 sets of tripples each at 20 degrees off the stern, one pump and a bow gun. This would be easy to do and my radio will handle it. The other thought is quads
    straight off the stern with a set of tripples right on top of them. Makes coming up from the rear a nightmare and it allows one set of guns to fire between the count of the other. Still checking out the arrangments, options open
     
  17. sinkin321

    sinkin321 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Posts:
    282
    Chris: at full wieght and slower speed the boat handles much better than before and the wind is not as big a problem.
     
  18. froggyfrenchman

    froggyfrenchman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Posts:
    3,358
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    In my own personal oppinion..
    There were several reasons the aircraft-carrier rule didn't get very far down here.

    First off.
    When Treaty alloted units to the carriers based on tonnage, we gave them a considerable increase in units from a small-gun prospective. In some instances the units of a ship were double. In some cases almost tripled.
    That in itself was probaly not a bad thing, but that nobody put one of these ships out in the battles of our first two season, has probably left some wondering if we didn't already make them too powerful, as they have still not seen one in combat.

    Secondly..
    Most of the discussions against giving the carriers more anything, until we have a chance to see what they are capable of in combat, considering that we have already given them a considerable number of units, lead to almost no counter-proposals.
    So the options were limited to one of two things.
    1. Give the carriers wider fore, and aft quadrants.
    2. Vote against it, if it even came to that point.

    Thirdly.
    There is a pretty healthy number of aircraft-carriers currently under construction, which indicates to the founders that the current rules seem to be working.
    And if something seems to be working, you need to hesitate to mess with it, even if the theory is that you are trying to make it better.

    In addition.
    The proposal only got to the founders because I (a founder) co-signed on as the third supporter. Keep in mind that the founders where planning to sit off to the side, and let the members come up with any proposals that they wanted to see.
    So without me co-signing, the proposal was not getting enough support from the membership to get off the ground.

    What this proposal really needed was a happy middle ground that would allay the concerns of those that were already concerned with the past changes, and at the same time, allow those that are interested in building the carriers a little more flexability when it comes to how they can utilize their alloted units.
    Mikey
     
  19. froggyfrenchman

    froggyfrenchman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Posts:
    3,358
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    I think the first step would be that any change to the quadrants would need to be passed as R+D, just in case the amount of units, with the added flexability as to relaxed quadrants is found to be too much change.
    Another possibility would be to limit the percentage of cannons off of either end (bow, and stern), that can be to either side of the center-line.
    An example would be something like this.
    If a class 6 carrier has 3 stern cannons, then no more than half of the stern cannons could be on the starboard side of the center-line.
    So one could have a 1.5 unit cannon 30 degrees to starboard, and a 1.5 unit cannon 30 degrees to port.

    Or they could have (3) one unit cannons.
    One to port, one to starboard, and one straight off the stern.

    That way the non-carrier folks don't have to be concerned with too much fire-power concentrated off to the sides of the carriers, like a triple barreled pivoting stern mount, or the likes.
    Just my oppinions.
    Mikey
     
  20. crzyhawk

    crzyhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,291
    Excellent posts Mikey.

    I agree with you and think that ALL rule changes should go through a 1 year R&D period, in case they don't work out as planned. I dont think ANY rule should ever go straight into the books as gospel.

    I also find it very interesting that the Shinano handles better at slower speeds then with the faster ones. Do you think it's more an issue of the displacement?