I woulder in like which would be the easiest to do and which is fairly cheap compared to the other's? I would like everybodies imput.
Fast Gun (MWC or IRCWCC) is the most widespread and has the most stuff commerically available which makes it easier to get into. Of course there is no need to buy everything as there are a lot of things you can build yourself if you are so inclined. While Ive never built a big gun boat cost wise they seem to be in the same ball park as fast gun boats (ie $500-$1000 for a basic boat with some boats worth much more), unless you go with an unarmed transport as your first boat which is really only an option in big gun. Not sure why youd want a boat that doesnt shoot anything if you were getting into this hobby to shoot and be shot at but apperently some people do. The biggest factor I would consider is your location and whats within reasonable travel distance. If the closest big gun club is 1000 miles away and you have a fast gun club in the next town over fast gun is the way to go and vice versa. I would wager that most of us have spent a lot more money in this hobby traveling to events than on boats, if not you need to go battle more!
I never advise anyone to pick a rule set first. As SnipeHunter said, the most important thing is to find a club nearest to you and visit them, regardless of what rules they follow. That club and it's members will be the single most important source of information on building ships you can find. That is the key to getting involved and staying to complete your first boat: visiting battles, talking to people and inspecting their boats.
Genarally I have to agree with everything posted. Generally, I advise folks to not pick a rules set (or format) first, but to try to hook up with the closest combat group to them and, participate in their battles. That is the best way to get a boat on the water. And if they decide they like another format better, then by all means, start building a ship to the new set of rules, and participate in that format as well. But it is always nice to continue battling with the local group, even if it is not your favorite format. However.. If, for one reason or another, you cannot hook up with any of the groups, in order to battle with them. And you are looking to start a local group, then Treaty would almost certainly be the least expensive. Treaty was designed to some extent, to help new folks get started in the hobby of R/C warship combat, with less work, and less money spent on their first ship. A lot of folks have discovered this wonderful hobby over the years, but sadly enough, never got their first boat finished, and just faded away. Some got their first boat finished, but then didn't have the ability to travel to distant events, and couldn't find anyone else to battle with locally. Again, not good. Our theory is this. The key is to help you get your first boat finished, and on the water, with the least amount of time, effort, and money, spent doing it. The less time, effort, and money, you invest in your first boat. The more of each of these you will have to either help someone else get their first boat on the water, or build your second boat, so that you have a better chance of getting someone else locally interested. Treaty ships are in the same scale as both Big-gun, and Fast-gun. And as the construction rules are fairly similar. One could probably take a Treaty ship to an event with the other formats, and participate with them with little (or no) alterations. And if down the road, you decide you want to convert the ship over to another format, you are in pretty good shape. For fast-gun you probably just add more cannons. For big-gun, you change out the small-gun cannons, and some of the plumbing, for the big-gun stuff. Treaty combat is a welcome mat to the house of R/C warship combat for those that are building on a budget. Mikey
Alan You are welcome. We are here to help you. There is a wealth of information here on this site, and a grunch of great folks. And we would love to see you build a combat boat to any set of rules. Keep in mind that if one is building a boat on a budget, it doesn't actually rule out the chances of building a boat to any of the various formats. But it may limit what boats can be built in some of the formats. For instance.. In Big-gun. The cost of the cannons is where the money goes. And to some extent, making the turrets move. Rotation, and elevation. So the trick to building a big-gun boat on a budget, is to purchase less turrets, and perhaps not make them move. Especially in the early stages. You can always add the rotation, and elevation stuff later. So a Richelieu class battleship with just the 2 main turrets outfitted, would be less expensive than say an Alabama with 3 turrets, which would be less expensive than say a Bismarck with 4 turrets. But they all have about the same fire-power. In fast-gun, arming the small-gun cannons is part of the expense, so one could build a boat with less cannons. But it seems that over the years, the costs have gone up more due to the increased pumping capacities, and rates-of-fire. Higher cost pump motors on the pumps, and expansion tanks, circuit-boards, and solenoid valves for the cannons. Perhaps more motors for starting, stopping, reversing as well. So although I would like to say that the trick to building a fast-gun boat on a budget would be to build something small and fast, like a large destroyer, or smallish light cruiser, so that pumping, and rate-of-fire is not needed. There are other challenges to building those small ships. Everything needs to be light-weight, which might be more expensive. And room is at a minimum. These ships are generally not looked at as beginner boats. At this stage of that game. I might think that a pre-dreadnaught might be the best choice. But I am just guessing on that. In Treaty. The cannons are small-gun, but we allow more ammo in less cannons. So any given ship would have the same amount of ammo as it does in fast-fun, but it can have fewer cannons. There is a limit on the rate-of-fire of the cannons, so there is no need for solenoids, circuit-boards, or expansion tanks. The pumps are limited to how much they can pump, so stock pump motors are more than enough. Just my observations. Mikey
Hi I pretty much agree with Mikey. Look around as to what clubs are close to you and pick their brains!See how ships are built, work and what kind of maintence they need that way you get a really good idea as to what you are getting in to. When it comes time to pick a boat thats when you have be sure as to what kind of rule set you are going by.I have found over the years that most of the time it is not so much as to the battleing that keeps a persons interest, but the comradeship of fellow members! And I have to say this dont just jump into your first ship because some one says it is the best for beginners, I have told many , to look until you find the one. You have to really like the ship you pick,if you dont you will not be happy and will struggle with it. Those that looked around and really liked their first ship went through the teething process easily and really got envolved and stayed to help their clubs grow. Just a few of my thoughts here. Buddy
Hey Mikey, you may be interested to hear that at least one Big Gun club has cut down the cost of starter ships considerably. The WWCC just passed a rule allowing three torpedo tubes to be represented by a single cannon firing three balls. Thus a rookie cruiser can use a pair of $25 MJV cannons built with off-the-shelf parts, instead of two $150 cannons that require machine tools to manufacture. Not only does this save cost, it also reduces weight and saves space. Several skippers are currently building Gearing-class destroyers to experiment with and sell to new members as needed. The cost of a top-of-the-line Big Gun battleship may not be dropping, but low-end warships with competitive armaments are definitely getting more budget-friendly.
That is indeed good news. The locals around here have always thought that the torpedo cruisers were perhaps the best way for someone new to get into big-gun. Lower cost. Less mechanical stuff. And we put a couple on the water, and they were probably some of the funnest boats to run. But the torpedo cannons dried up on this end, and we couldn't get the local cannon makers to make any more. Well done. Mikey
Query: Are you talking about Arizona cannon with a 3 shot magazine or a single shot cannon tith three balls in the tube (triple shotted). Cheers,
Wreno, It sounds like the (fairly) standard Big Gun rule for using one barrel to approximate the rest in a single turret where the rest of the barrels in that turret aren't armed. Interestingly, I'd never *properly* though of that as a way of keeping costs down. It bounced around in the back of my head, but never quite surfaced. But I'm now kinda wondering if that's not why that rules been on the books all these years. Locally in NTXBG we've discussed removing that rule since the rate of fire restrictions would be difficult to quantify with a single barrel shooting off a lot. If it comes up again, I think we need to keep in mind the collateral damage of removing that rule. Although I think a additional clarification of that rule in relation to accumulator size might help keep the gun from rapid firing and still have enough oomph to do damage. Cheers Jeff
The rule refers to using a non-reloading MJV-2 Arizona cannon that has been triple-shotted, firing three balls simultaneously. The primary reason to do this is to save space in small destroyers. The AK-47 Torpedo Cannons used in the infamous torpedo cruisers were very bulky and expensive to make. It was difficult to fit them into anything smaller than a light cruiser with added depth. Although one member of the WWCC has made a few compact and light-weight triple-barrel, non-reloading torpedoes that can fit well in CLs and DDs, it's still considered to be a challenging build. The MJV-2 can operate effectively with a MAT-2 accumulator, which is much smaller than the accumulator needed on even the compact triple torps. This has a couple secondary effects as well. One very noticeable benefit is that the parts for the MJV-2 cannon are much cheaper, and assembly doesn't require much in the way of machine tools. It's a very simple and reliable cannon, which was one of the strengths of the older cannons. The other effect is that the balls will have a vertical spread as the boat rocks when firing. I believe this will reduce the chance of causing a devastating chunk, but will increase the chance of scoring a hit in the first place. Ideally, one ball will hit below, on, and above the waterline as the boat rocks from the recoil. We won't know for sure until this gun sees action. There are currently two Gearings being built with the new torpedo rule, and a Cossack and possibly a Le Fantasque being refitted with the compact triples. Hopefully we'll get a good comparison between the two. We're seeing a good mix of battleships and destroyers under construction now, which looks good for creating variety on the pond.
