Treaty Ship Info (general)

Crzyhawk,
Minotaur is equipped for IRCWCC combat with a 1.0 unit pump, and dual stern guns (1.0 and 1.5 units), with an option to disconnect the aft 1.0 unit cannon and connect a 1.0 unit cannon mounted in the bow turret.

For Treaty it may be best to replace the aft 1.5 unit magazine with a 1.0 (all my mags can be switched out in seconds), retain the option of a bow and stern gun versus dual sterns, and change the pump to a 0.5 unit.

Bob

 

I really like that idea, it's got a lot of utility to it. Unless people are observant, they won't know whether to expect the bow gun or not. Until you shoot it, people will just have to respect it and assume it's hot until proven otherwise!

it gives you the opportunity to see how you're going to battle it too. Are you going to spend a lot of time on the defensive or on the offensive? Then you can adjust your weapons loadout accordingly.

 

Doesn't ships of the same class get the same units? The Bismark and Tirpitz comes to mind. Or am I thinking of a different rule set?

 

hmmm ordinarily that would be the case, but I am not sure how the bart fits into that because of the completion schedules and such. If it still counts as the same "class" then they should all be equal. If not then I can see a difference. I don't think they both completed with the same armament and such so might technically count as a separate class.

 

Bob
We carried our list of ships over from the BBS, which resembled that of MWC.
I recall seeing that on occasion someone listed the Scharnie class armored cruisers as 3 units, or possibly 3.5, but always thought it was a typo.
I was not aware that the older cruisers had different unit values in the two large clubs.
Can anyone explain when these ships units changed, and why?
When we laid out the units in Treaty, we simply based everything off the BBS list in general, but fixed a couple of the ship classes if they differed from either the IRCWCC, or the MWC.
Mikey

 

So, I am hoping that someone knows why the armored cruisers have different units assigned in the IRCWCC, and MWC.

That being said.
Just in case the units of these ship was assigned based on game-play..
It would be interesting to see some discussion on how these ships were armed, and armored, and if they are where they need to be in the Treaty game, where historical accuracy is also taken into consideration.
Mikey

 

We do generally follow the ships of the classs rule when it comes to speeds and such.

But we felt that the MWC dealt with the differences between the Richelieu, and Jean Bart in a fair way, by simply listing the bulged Jean Bart as sort of a sub-class of the Richelieu class battleships as laid-down.
Not that this may have been the best way of dealing with this issue, but we felt it was the correct route to take.
Mikey

 

I don't know why the armored cruisers are rated 1 unit lower in Treaty than in the MWC and IRCWCC - a typo maybe?

All of the British WWI ACs were heavier than the RN's WWII CAs (10,800 - 14,600 tons standard vs 8,200 - 10,000), had heavier armour (6" vs 3.5-4.5"), and comparable or greater weight of broadside. Most had heavier guns (9.2").

It's easy to see why all but the Devonshire Class (2.5 units) were rated at 3 -3.5 units by the other clubs. Their only disadvantage in game terms is that they are slower.

Bob

 

It's definitely not a typo. The IRCWCC is the only club which allows ACs to have more then 2.5 units. The MWC still lists them at their original values just as Treaty has them. This was changed in the IRCWCC a little while before I joined in 2004.

 

Hey Mikey, Eric,
What speed was the Yamato?

 

Conways' list her at 27 knots.
Anatomy of the ship lists 27.4 knots.
Eric has the axis version of Battleships.
Mikey

 

Yes,
I have a copy of what Eric has, Graskie I think. It list it at 28 knots.

 

what about the german H-44 - it would have been the worlds most dangerous ship ever

 

The H-44 is not allowed under the rules.
Most reference sources, state that it was nothing more than a design study, to see how big a ship could possibly be built.
And that there was no serious thoughts of building the ships.
We do allow the H-39, as it was actually laid down.

I have to admit..
That I would love to see someone build a model of the H-44 just to run it around the pond.

Mikey

 

H44 would be a wonderful target. I'd love to have one to shoot at.

 

Would the USS Indiana(BB1), USS Massachusetts(BB2), USS Oregon(BB3), USS Iowa(BB4), USS Kearsarge(BB5), USS Kentucky(BB6), USS Illinois(BB7), USS Alabama(BB8), USS Wisconsin(BB9), USS Maine(BB10), USS Missouri(BB11), USS Ohio(BB12), USS Virginia(BB13), USS Nebraska(BB14), USS Georgia(BB15), USS New Jersey(BB16), USS Rhode Island(BB17), and USS Monadnock(BM3) be allowed?
Also, is the 1895 date the Laid Down date, Launched date, Commisioned date, or Service?

 

Im pretty sure all those ships would be legal.

 

Would the Stalingrad Class Battlecruiser be legal? It was designed in 1941, approved in 1945 for construction, but building didnt commence until 1950. Thanks.

 

No sir it would not. If it were laid down during the war it would be.

 

All
We are currently working on our ship list.
Adding in the speeds, and also the hypothetical ships.
I am not exactly sure when we will have it finished. But hopefully in the near future.
Mikey