I'm curious what you guys think about allowing ships that were never built or never completed to compete in the hobby. I know some clubs allow you to build ships like the Montana class and the H44 and some don't. I personally think its really neat to have these "what-if" ships being built and battled. If it was up to you, how close to completion or construction does a ship have to really be in order to be considered fair? Laid down? Launched? Design more or less finalized? Materials collected for construction? An example would be the "Improved Tegettehoff" class dreadnoughts of WW1. Although never actually laid down, the design seems to have been finalized, and some of the guns may have been built and tested.
In Washington Treaty we allow all ships that a government placed an order for. That allows captains to build ships that had a realistic chance of being built (H-39) without allowing some of the more laughable monsters that came up (H-44). Personally, I do not have much of an interest in those ships. I do however have an interest in seeing people build ships they are going to be happy with, which is why I support our club's decision to allow people that want them to have them. Heck, if someone showed up with a Ticonderoga class missile cruiser, as long as it was built within the same standards as the rest of our ships, I'd say let it battle. I'm not much in support of telling someone "no, you can't do that" As long as it meets the same standards as the rest of our ships, let it battle in my humble opinion.
I am a little bit more restrictive. I always went for launched even if to clear the stocks as my standard when I was drawing up the ship lists for Battlestations.
Buckeye Battle Squadrons allows anything that construction was ever started on - no matter what part - so Montana is allowed, and I believe the H44 is as well.
Naaa... Just the parts that were completed. So for H-39: You can order 22% (14,055-tons) Have 9% delivered (5,800-tons) And finish 1% (766-tons) & for Montana.. you can order the thing; but that's about all.
The WWCC requires that ships be mentioned in Conways in order to be legal to build. The H44 is not given an individual entry, but is mentioned in the text of the H39 class, so it is legal. I don't fully know why anyone would want to build such a behemoth, but it is legal. There is some debate over the Alsace, because it is not mentioned by name. The Gascoigne is mentioned under the Richeliue entry, which also says that two sisters where approved which "may have been built to a new design". I am of the opinion that refers to the Alsace, and thus it is a legal ship. There was also a French ____ called the _____ that was captured by the _____ and was going to be converted to a _____, which is very interesting under the new rules because it was planned to be only ____, but it was also ____, allowing it to _____ with big nasties like the Iowa. You can imagine what the ____ will do to smaller boats when it's ____ cannons start firing every ____ seconds at close range! I shouldn't be telling you this, since ____ is planning on building it in complete secrecy, and hopes to have it done in time for the ____ battle. He hopes the sudden appearance of a secret ship will put the ____ off balance, so they won't be able to react to the real plan involving his other ship the ____. You see, the ____ will form a squadron with the ____ and they will strike hard and fast at the ____ which is likely to be the ____ weakest ship and skipper. To allow them to take out the ____, ____ and I will attempt to draw off several of the opposing ____ using the _____ and the ____ as bait. The loss of the ____ should push them back and break their morale. When ____ finally brings out the ____, it will be a wolf among sheep and will be the final, fatal blow in yet another glorious victory for the ____. This message has been approved by the ____ Ministry of Propaganda and Bureau of Censorship. If you know or suspect you know what any of the blank spaces are, please let us know. We promise not to charge you with espionage or treason, honestly. You and your family will be quite safe.
MABG rules state, any ship that was laid down. it did not have to be completed. That make the USS Illinois BB 65 and the USS Kentucky BB-66 legal. For personal reasons, I was thinking about building the USS Philippines. (the fourth ship in the Alaska Cruiser class.) I was told that though the ship is not legal, if I were to build it to the specks of the USS Alaska, the odds are that they would let me sail.
For MWC and Battlestations, you can name a ship anything from those of its class, so the USS Philippines would be legal, as it was a member of a class that got built. I can't speak for other rule sets, but it would seem to be a reasonable thing to do.
For MABG I think you can name the ship anything you want. I named a liberty ship Lumpy So the design for Alaska class is solid and well documented. Built to the class specs... I'd say you are free to build "knight's hammer"... but most will be well pleased with "Phillippines" instead Mike3
As a rule of thumb, I'm of the opinion that anything laid down should be permitted. However, with designs that were fully completed but not laid down, I'd only want to permit designs for which there is sufficient documentation of the hull and superstructure shape in existance from which one could build a relatively accurate model (such as government approved building plans, shipyard blueprints, etc.)
That's why we went by any ship ordered in treaty. Although there are some exceptions, most ships that were ordered actually had enough details to be built, such as the German O-class battlecruiser. While I personally don't care for the hypothetical ships (I prefer ships with a history) I've never heard a convincing argument as to why they shouldn't be allowed. If someone is interested in a ship that wasn't built as long as it get them on the water I am all for it. Where I draw the line is home-made designs. That's something I would never support.
Which is a good reason why we don't see more of them. The documentation is very sketchy on so many of the completed designs.
Personally, I prefer "laid down" as a date as well, which doesn't necessarily make it "right". A ship's keel-laying is one of several momentous dates (like Commissioning, De-commissioning, Loss, etc.) that is pretty easy to nail down. You've got various dignitaries such as admirals, senators, media, the wife/daughter of "whomever" that's the "sponsor" & is there to swing the ceremonial Champagne bottle, etc. It's a very well-documented affair & easy to place either within or outside of whatever range of dates you happen to pick. Things like "approved" are a lot looser, & hard to define precisely. Approvals take place at a variety of levels, & it can be open to a lot of interpretation whether something was ever going to be "real" or not. I like things that are clearly defined, black-&-white (as much as possible, at least) & I think that a "laid down" date reflects a serious intent to build that is pretty inclusive date-wise. JM
Thanks for the replies guys, I tend to lean much toward the "laid down" side of this issue as well. But some paper study ships do interest me as well, unless they are just absurd. I'm really suprised that nobody has built one of the Italian "super-dreadnoughts" that were laid down but not completed during WW1. The name escapes me but the first hull was completed and launched. ANB has plans. Also some of the 13.8" IIRC German battlecruisers were nearing completion as were two 15" ships very simliar to the Bayern class.
Yeah, there's a class of French superdreads, of which only the Bearn was finished (and even then only as a carrier), that would have been a cool class of ships. The first incarnation of Froggy quad turrets, and they actually had it right, with one in the back, not just the 2 up front.
I would include those German BC's. At least one was launched and floated for a while. Francesco Carriccola or something like that were that Italian ships. The turrets ended up in monitors.
I think that we are staring to get into the area of, why build a particular ship. From what I have seen, there are two groups here. One group looks at the combat capability of a ship. Thus builds a ship with the most guns and speed. The other group builds for personal reasons tied to a particular ship or nation. It seems that the bottom line is if it is mentioned in "Conways", then it is legal. As for me; I am part of the other group. That is why I the plans for the ORP Dragon on my work bench. She is slow and under armed. Her only saving factor for combat is her 12 torps.
