R/C Naval Combat

My understanding was that we voted to post Phil's carrier proposal on the forum so that the club could discuss it, and then vote to either allow it under R+D, or keep the old rule.
Same for Phil's proposed speed rule change.

We did implement the 45% hard area rule into the rules package, but that was because it was posted here on the forum under 2008 rule proposals and was supported by everyone that I contacted, so that those that were building hulls
could continue making progress.

Mikey

It does seem to be generating a little hate and discontent... I think the quadrant idea and the side defense guns could be a good thing to look into... but the role and purpose of carriers in general seems to have a lot of disagreement in the hobby.

Probably best thing, in my opinion is to get a bunch of carrier skippers together to get some input from them before writing a proposal, then posting the proposal for general discussion.

The WWCC rules seem to me to add more cannons on the smaller boats, with some winners and losers.

I think that using the existing construction rules as is, but adding a "carrier" score like the convoy score... in the style of the AusBG guys might be just the thing we need.

Mike

Has there been a concensis on the carrier rules yet. I'm predijudice since I have a Graf Zeppelin and would want to keep my secondaries, in addition to what ever you decide.

Bob

There's been no consensus... I think that the idea is still in the mulling over stage. If it were Robert's rules, then it would have died on the floor. I think that if you can manage to add in the secondaries to the carrier... more power to you :)

Makes ships like the Bearn and the Kaga? really interesting :)


Mike

You might be interested to hear that the WWCC is considering further relaxing of the armament restrictions on battleships. Almost every year, someone proposes that the club return to being fully armed. Every year, it has been voted down. Someone put in a proposal to increase the gun allowance, rather than going directly for fully armed, and it seems to be getting lots of support. Currently ships under 20k tons may be fully armed, ships 20k-30k tons get 8 main guns, ships 30k-50k get 6 main guns, and ships more than 50k tons get 8 main guns. The new proposal would have ships under 20k fully armed, and all ships greater than 20k tons get 9 or 10 main guns. There is still some debate about whether 9 or 10 guns is better. 9 guns favors ships like the Iowa and Yamato with triple turrets, 10 guns is a bit more flexible for ships like KGV and Nevada. Ships may trade one main cannon for two secondary cannons, so Bismarck would get 8 mains plus two or four secondaries depending on the final wording of the proposal.

Also, a few people are finally getting around to building carriers under the new rules, so we should get some feedback on that during the 2009 combat season.

That's the deal with carriers. They seem to polarize people, and both sides have good arguments that a neutral observer can see the merit in. The guys who hate them think they will look silly trading broadsides with battleships. They guys who like them say they annihilated battleships and should be viable combat ships.

For my part, I think that telling prospective captains "no, you can't build that" is generally a bad idea. I don't think it HELPS anyone. I'd rather have a ship I hate out there to pound on then nothing at all. As for my views on carriers, I am an interesting contrast. I am in the "carriers will look retarded shooting at battleships" yet I am building a CVL and arming it anyways, just because it will be different and interesting. The fact that I think it will be very nasty has to play in there somewhere as well. But I can't but help thinking how ridiculous it's going to look lighting up a battleship.