A brief discussion and proposal over in the IRC's yahoo group to eliminate maximum model weights that I thought was interesting and relates to more rulesets than just the IRCWCC. Seems most people were in favor of this, afterall, if you pile an excessive amount of stuff in, you have little to no reserve bouyancy. It did however lead into a more interesting discussion: Should there be a MINIMUM weight? And whether or not semi scale meant that you were free to reduce the overall height of a vessel to maintain limited freeboard while cutting draft and weight. I'm very curious to see the opinions of the range of members we have here on these. And if you are in a non IRCWCC club, does your group regulate minimum and maximum weights?
One issue to think of is that increasing draft increases hull drag. This will allow the captain to increase drive power and still keep to allowed speed. This could benefit turning and acceleration much like drag props. I see this benefiting the later WW2 blue water ships more due to their higher freeboards. As I abhore Yahoo groups and refuse to use it, I was wondering what started the discussion?
Don't know exactly what. Marty posted that he agreed with something regarding weight limits amidst a more general discussion of ideas that had been initiated by Charley. Seemed to be from an off-list conversation - I couldn't find a reference for it otherwise-, people asked what he was referring to, he elaborated. Some time later Ron Hunt put forth a fleshed out proposal (below) for it.
Max weight is not the issue... a heavy boat is harder to turn and accelerate. Minimum weight is the issue... if we all had a fixed weight it would cut down on super-light ships that are 10-15 pounds lighter than they should be....
Treaty doesn't have a minimum weight, but the ship is required to float at the scale waterline (+-1/8"). I ran my Hawaii pretty light, about 2 lbs under standard displacement or around 3000 tons light. The ship's fuel capacity was 3,685 tons of oil, so I've always considered that I was in the range of scale displacements and no one complained. If the ship is light, the windows have to be deeper to maintain the 1" below the waterline, making for more penetration area. Unless you shortened the hull, which would lead to stability problems pretty quick. So in Treaty there wouldn't be much benefit to coming in way under standard displacement.
Presumably by drawings. In reality, it's probably more often done by marking the ship where it floats. So while the rule exists, enforcing it is problematic, particularly since we tend to go for a large variety of ships. So the first check is THAR (that look about right) and documentation may be requested for those that appear to be outside normal. Now if you buy one of my kits, the top of the stringer used to define the bottom of the penetrable area is exactly 1" below the waterline... at least according to the set of drawings that I used.
Sounds like a rule proposal put forth by those who favor lots of batteries and multiple pumps. Generally speaking I would oppose that. To me you should be giving more damage than you receive. The strategy of I can take more damage because I can carry more batteries and multiple pumps is not where I would want the hobby to go. I would even take it a step farther. We should pass a rule that only 1 pump is allowed. Pump discussion has been moved to https://rcwarshipcombat.com/threads/multiple-pumps.444776/ If you wish to reply to Maxspins' comments regarding pumps, please do so there.
I was the evil one that mentioned the minimum weight as a issue. A boat made to a minimum but has the bonus of being a large unit count could be a issue. With battery tech as it is and getting better a large boat can be powered by small batteries if changed every sortie. This benfits everyone equally so there is no bias, except that we really should impose a minimum to keep the "A" types from pushing it. Post originally contained content relating to the multiple pump discussion. That content has been migrated to a new thread: https://rcwarshipcombat.com/threads/multiple-pumps.444776/
For me a minimum weight makes some sense, but I see the bigger issue as the question of the alleged hull height chopping that has been said to be happening. From the way I see it, choosing to run light or heavy is legally (unless you run over maxweight right now) trying to gain one advantage or another, in exchange for something (most prominently: reserve buoyancy). But if you are allowed to lop off a half inch to an inch of that freeboard (target area AND putting your guns lower) while still staying light, then that is across the line for me.
Seems like a good reason to pick a unified reference even if it is not always quite right (Conways) and use that for overall dimension.. E.G. hull must meet within some tolerance: beam, length, draft or beam, length, weight. It would be easier to override and document the rare exception to conways than anything else I can think of.
I prefer scale waterline, but to each their own. Post originally contained content relating to the multiple pump discussion. That content has been migrated to a new thread: https://rcwarshipcombat.com/threads/multiple-pumps.444776/
I think the question here is actually more about the "Spirit of the Law (Rules)" vs. "The Letter of the Law". The "Spirit of the Law's" goal is to duplicate as much as reasonably possible in a scale model the realism and capabilities of the actual ship being modelled. If someone is "trimming" and/or altering a ship outside the actual parameters of the original ship to gain an advantage in this game....SHAME ON THEM! If you have to cheat....why even play? If you have someone that is deliberately bending and breaking the rules to gain an unfair advantage, perhaps they need to find another hobby. If however, there are slight alterations within the Spirit of the Law to gain more realistic play that is a different story. For example: in 1/144 scale allowing the smaller vessels to extend the keel one half inch so that they can even work in the game and sail realistically I don't see a problem with that. In the Age of Sail having extended weighted keels are necessary for these scale model ships to even stay upright out on the water when under sail (their main means of propulsion). That's not cheating and adheres to both the Spirit and Letter of the rules. Post originally contained content relating to the multiple pump discussion. That content has been migrated to a new thread: https://rcwarshipcombat.com/threads/multiple-pumps.444776/ We should expect, actually demand, to have a high level of honesty amongst our skippers, after all this is supposed to be fun. Cheating ruins it for everyone and personally I think there is no excuse for such behaviour. Someone that has to cheat to win should be shunned and politely asked to leave....or their boat sunk by dropping a BIG ROCK on it to get the point across. Naw....that's probably a little extreme, but you get the idea. Let's keep it honest, fun and fair. Ironbeard
IRCWCC Ironbeard not Big Gun this thread is ment for that rule set in regard to pumps. And no cheating is observed, just that we should tighten up the weight restrictions.
in fairness, i did expand the question in the initial post to non IRCWCC groups to get a read on how they handle it as well. hadn't intended to have a discussion about pumps, just weight requirements Discussion regarding multiple pumps has been migrated to a new thread: https://rcwarshipcombat.com/threads/multiple-pumps.444776/
Unfortunately no one really bothered to codify the 'Spirit of the Law' in most rule sets. What one person sees as following the rules, another sees as bending the rules, and a third sees as an outright breaking of the rules. Makes shaming, shunning and banning difficult in most cases and can readily build plenty of ill-will and schisms.
Sorry, I must have misunderstood the question. I kind of got hung up on the issue of hull chopping and waterline altering to gain an advantage. My bad.
As to chopping down hulls, don't much care for it. I think we should be striving for at least some semblance of scale. Heck, I don't even like the idea of adding to tiny ships and making them non scale, but I get the reason behind that and can't really object other than aesthetically. Post originally contained content relating to the multiple pump discussion. That content has been migrated to a new thread: https://rcwarshipcombat.com/threads/multiple-pumps.444776/
Not that I am any sort of expert, but I think scale waterline, if more than Max weight is needed, then it's needed. Scale freeboard, no matter what happens below the waterline. I.E. of a small ship needs more hull below the waterline to be a viable option for combat, then OK, but otherwise scale as per the prints is how it should be. Post originally contained content relating to the multiple pump discussion. That content has been migrated to a new thread: https://rcwarshipcombat.com/threads/multiple-pumps.444776/
Wishes granted. Pump content moved to new thread, can of worms opened, let loose the howling monkeys! https://rcwarshipcombat.com/threads/multiple-pumps.444776/
