Speed to run is the same but what a bought maneuverability and size and the X factor ability of captains and tactics oh yes in my case don’t leave out luck and lots of it please ;-)
and that bugs me why a 50 km/h (27 knots) battle ship can run at the same speed of my 33 knots (60 km/h)heavy cruiser dam rules ;-)
Well, the battleships and battlecruisers often have two rudders in a side by side configuration, which enhance their maneuverability, where as most cruisers only have a single central rudder. The battleships are also fatter (lower length to beam ratio) which helps their maneuverability. This combination of length to beam ratio and rudder design/positioning usually means the battleship is going to be more maneuverable then the cruiser will. The Battleship has more hull volume as well, which means it's capable of taking more punishment then the cruiser can....assuming the pump capacity of the battleship is at least equal to that of the cruiser. So that's pretty much why 3.0 unit cruisers are not the most effective ships in the IRCWCC. You can't dish out the damage, you can't take the damage, you can't out maneuver the battleships and you can't out run the battleships. 2.0 and 2.5 unit cruisers may have a speed advantage, but I can't remember for certain. In the MWC, all cruisers have a speed edge over the battleships so a cruiser captain can attempt to make an escape and outrun a battleship. Both Big Gun and Washington Treaty use speed systems based on the original speed of the ships, so if a real cruiser had a speed edge, it will continue to have it. Only in the IRCWCC does a 36 knot cruiser (say Mogami) run at the same speed as a 26 knot battleship (say Nagato). So the thinking is, why build the cruiser when you can build a battleship AND get better performance from doing so. EDIT: Punctuation
Not everyone agrees with Chris on gun placement (like this guy in Region 3 with triple bow guns He is also not a fan of single rudder ships (especially big ones). So philosophically, I gotta say I differ on both counts. He's a nice guy, but I like having many different ships on the water rather than just the ones that fit the magic formula to be killer ships. The day I show up for a battle and it's all Nagatos and North Carolinas, I'm switching to a new hobby. Fortunately, that day will likely never come.
I'm starting to agree with you on the single rudder ship thing Tug. I watched Mikey Deskin's Strasbourg turn, and it was good. I saw Mike Pagagles (sp) Conte di Cavour turn, and it was good (almost as good as my Invincible). I've heard stories about how well Mike in region 3's Richelieu turns. I'm starting to believe that while dual rudders is an easy way to make a ship turn well, it's not the only thing. Shaft and rudder placement, rudder design, and props I am beginning to believe could make some ships which are considered less then optimal far more viable. An example would be KGV. If anyone ever figures out how to get one of those turning well, with those quad sterns Axis billboards like the Bismarck and Yamato had better hang on because they'll be in for a rough ride. I also agree with you on the whole ship variety thing. As long as guys have someone to fight with their "less then optimal" ships, they'll keep building them. When everyone on one side goes for the best ships (say a fleet of NCs) all of the Scharnhorsts and Derfflingers will disappear and be replaced with Nagatos and Badens. That's exactly why my Courageous will never see the water at another fast gun event. The last time I took it out in '04, there was a Scharny there, and he had mentioned he was having a hard time getting people to play with. Told him I'd have a go with the Courageous at him, those nice long ships would be good playmates. Well after the first pass, I had a Yamato glued to one side and a Defflinger glued to the other, and the Scharny captain and I never got to finish our little dance. The "better" ships were all over my "weaker" ship like white on rice and made me never want to run it again. Patching it wasn't any fun, not standing a chance wasn't any fun. In Treaty where I have the speed to escape those who out gun and out turn me, she may be a little more viable. In the IRCWCC she was just a damage sponge sucking up lots of holes and not dealing very many (dual sterns was a terrible idea on that ship). My Invincible is far more effective in that kind of combat then the long, un-maneuverable 32 knot Courageous that runs at the same speed as a 27 knot Yamato and can't really get away. Just some random thoughts in the morning.
I will be honest I wish there was a better gun placement for my Des Moines. Sterns are the best for it as it is a sniping ship. My other ships I am working on will have a lot more ideas to play with on gun Placement thank god.
While I run 1/144 under MWC rules, and get the extra second of speed for cruisers, I can feel the pain. But I think there will still be silly peeps like me that run whatever strikes our fancy, even in the face of a fleet of North Carolinas. I can swim If I get too chewed up, I'll turn off the pump close to shore. I say that last part because at Nats 06 I stuck it out thinking to avoid the sink points and wet feet, but the 34 belows and 105 aboves on my Invincible were something like 3 times my sink value. I take great pride in having good damage control (stock BC pump and some hard work) but taking that many points didn't help the team It's interesting to see the trend in Region 3 MWC (NC,SC,GA,& FL), which is towards smaller ships. Some of our diehards are still die-hard, but are tired of lifting battleships Glad we had some new blood come in with the big guns!
The best thing MWC could do is get rid of the hit points, and only count the sinks. Would simplfy everything, and I think make it more interesting, because you will stay in the fight to the end, instead of sinking to save on points. Which sounds like what some people now do, to help their side. Sorry about that Powder, but cruisers will be a tough fight in the IRC, just do the best you can, and go out and show them hows it done. Crossing your fingers might help also, lol.
I wouldn't worry about it too much Powder. The bright side is, that your cruiser isn't really worth the effort (in sink points) of chasing down and sinking. The other allied battleships are likely to be primary targets, and you'll be more a target of opportunity. If you keep the range open, you should be ok, but if you make a mistake and a BB gets in close to you, it might hurt a bit. You can still have the triple stern guns and can lay out some pain on people if you wait for your opportunities and don't try to force something that isn't there. Searoom is going to be your friend, and if you start to run slightly before they start to chase they still aren't fast enough to catch you. Also, it may sound a little cruel, but a lot of the guys in the hobby are older guys and their eye sight isn't the greatest. Take advantage of that and extend the fight away from the captain so he has a harder time seeing where he's shooting. Usually, they'll break off and come back to the fur ball and you can come back in and start sniping. Rinse and repeat. On the bright side, as far as cruisers go, the Des Moines class is fairly popular. Your Boston will have an advantage over them as you are a bit shorter and will turn better. In the MWC, the Des Moines has bonus rudder area. In the IRCWCC, your Boston will get that rudder area as well. So those Des Moines should be juicier targets when it comes time for them to start sinking cruisers. Your cruiser isn't going to be a BAD ship. It just isn't going to be the greatest, and I can guarantee you it will be loads more fun and effective to drive then my own HMS Courageous.
"The best thing MWC could do is get rid of the hit points, and only count the sinks. Would simplfy everything, and I think make it more interesting, because you will stay in the fight to the end, instead of sinking to save on points. Which sounds like what some people now do, to help their side." I couldn't possibly agree more. If I had to pick ONE thing only that I like about Washington Treaty as opposed to IRCWCC/MWC fast gun is that in treaty we only count sink points. What that does is keeps people from trying to farm points on aboves using things like triple sterns. This forces people to try harder to sink their enemies using sidemounts, and changes all the tactics and dynamics of the battle. Points IMHO just aren't worth the hassle they cause. Take them away, and suddenly those trip stern wielding NCs don't look quite as uber.
Counting only sinks would not be such a good idea from a game play stand point. It would make stern guns pretty much useless. And promotes some rather nasty sidemount tactics. Now people shoot at the other ships, and if they sink, the extra points are nice. But if the only way you could score points was to sink a ship, efforts would be made to force the issue. Game play would become rather more agressive, and focused a "weak link" ships. This would be very bad for rookes, as they would sink every battle. The defensive tactic of just sitting still would be rather effective. And would make for rather silly battles, as dammaged ship no longer manuvered. Not counting dammage would change the battle, but not in a positive way. Additional note: NCs are not considerd uber anymore. Someone figured out how to stomp them with a Bismark.
*shrug* to each their own I suppose. I really like not counting points in treaty. We didn't notice any ill effects from it, and the game play was for me, superior to what I had experienced in fast gun. Then again, we did a bunch of other things different then the other small gun clubs, and our ruleset works as the sum of its parts. it's quite possible that any thing that we've done taken nickel or dime would not work with another format.
Reliability is the key to any ship in any format. A Des Moines in small gun would be less likely to be hounded by the opposing teams capitalships if it is reliable. But if any of the sub-systems are known to be unreliable, then your opposing capitalships would find it worthwhile to spend the time and effort to chase you down and try to sink you, instead of concentrating on your teams capitalships. Mikey
