Miller7D
Ensign
Posts:190
 | | 03 Apr 2010 11:55 PM | | Hi All, I'm looking for feedback from builders/battlers who have built/battled the Brooklyn-class cruiser and the Iowa-class battleship from Strike Models (or Battler's Connection), or who have scratchbuilt their own ships. I'm a rookie builder and I am strongly considering the Brooklyn for my first hull and the Iowa for my second, just because someday I want to put a big heavy hitter on the water. Photos, tips, tricks, assessments, reviews, gun arrangements, anything and everything would be extremely welcome. Thanks in advance, M7D | | | "I'ma learn you a thing or three real good-like..." | |
|
Greg McFadden
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1414
| | 04 Apr 2010 12:27 AM | | What ruleset are you planning on playing in?
-Greg | | | |
|
Miller7D
Ensign
Posts:190
| | 04 Apr 2010 01:56 AM | | | | | "I'ma learn you a thing or three real good-like..." | |
|
El Jefe
Lieutenant
Posts:494
| | 04 Apr 2010 02:36 AM | | A lot of people start with cruisers, but I've found they usually wish they'd picked something bigger. A WW1 battlecruiser or dreadnought is more forgiving since they provide more space to package everything in to. Given your interest in US ships, would something like the Arizona or Tennessee appeal to you? If you do have your heart set on a cruiser, Brooklyn isn't a bad choice. | | | |
|
SnipeHunter
Commander
Posts:699
| | 04 Apr 2010 10:24 AM | | My rookie boat was a Brooklyn, I battled it for ~5 years before moving on. Its a pretty good boat, not the best cruiser in the world but still more than capable. Of course dont expect to be the terror of the Axis fleet with it you dont really have the firepower to go out and sink ships on a regular basis. But the other side to that is if you battle it well its very easy to give much more than you get which always feels nice. Also that often means very little patching between battles and at night so more time to hang out or troubleshoot other problems. And of course they are a lot of fun in campaign however with the prdred rule that passed i imagine we'll see fewer cruisers and more predreds. Its a fairly straightforward build, the thing I always had the most trouble with was getting it balanced correctly such that you dont list to one side or the other. It turns like a single rudder cruiser, of course it is a single rudder cruiser so thats to be expected. Just dont get into any turning battles. Set it up with dual sterns like you would most other cruisers. It works pretty well since the stern is about 4 inches across that is flat and all gets to be impenetrable so when you're backing down on someone all they can see is your duals pointing at them and a big shield that they cant shoot through. You get to choose your targets since most battleships wont come after you since they cant catch you so pick the big billboard type targets and have some fun. Yamatos were always a favorite target of mine, basically anything thats slower, and has tons of freeboard is fun to shoot at. | | | |
|
Miller7D
Ensign
Posts:190
| | 04 Apr 2010 09:09 PM | | Posted By El Jefe on 04 Apr 2010 02:36 AM
A lot of people start with cruisers, but I've found they usually wish they'd picked something bigger. A WW1 battlecruiser or dreadnought is more forgiving since they provide more space to package everything in to. Given your interest in US ships, would something like the Arizona or Tennessee appeal to you? If you do have your heart set on a cruiser, Brooklyn isn't a bad choice.
The Arizona, Tennessee and South Carolina appeal to me as ships with more than 3 units and also are classified as battleships, sure. One of the main reasons I am considering a Brooklyn is because of its rating as a good rookie starter boat, and it's US Navy. I've also considered the DKM Deutschland/Lutzow, but I'm going to go USN for my first build. The Iowa-class is my first choice for a battleship because it's a gargantuan ship either in 1/144 scale or in real life, and I have a real thing for big ships; the Iowa also doesn't seem to be a very common ship in MWC, at least from the videos I've seen, especially courtesy of Bob H. As much fun as it would be to build an Iowa for my first ship, practicality and prudence suggests a different, not-quite-so-huge ship to start with.
Do you have any opinions, remarks, or reviews to offer on the Arizona/Tennesee hulls? I'm perfectly willing to consider other options so long as I can get my hands on a fiberglass hull of the ship; I lack the fine tools and some of the skills necessary to scratchbuild. | | | "I'ma learn you a thing or three real good-like..." | |
|
Tugboat
Veteran
Admiral
Posts:4437
| | 04 Apr 2010 09:19 PM | | You are choosing wisely not to do an Iowa for your first boat. I personally lean towards the subtle beauty of the German cruisers, but to each their own 
If you want to check some reviews on the available 1/144 hulls, I highly recommend the reviews page on SCRAP's website.
http://www.scrapcombatships.com/hulls.html | | | |
|
Anachronus
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2182
| | 04 Apr 2010 09:32 PM | | I have to agree. The Hippers with the "Atlantic Bow" have to be some of the prettiest warships built. This is coming from an affirmed Pre-Dreadnought fanatic. | | | I am prepared to meet my maker, whether He is prepared for the ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
-Sir Winston- | |
|
Miller7D
Ensign
Posts:190
| | 04 Apr 2010 10:17 PM | | No argument that the Germans knew what they were doing aesthetically when they were designing and building their warships. I just want to go light side before I dabble in the dark, lol. | | | "I'ma learn you a thing or three real good-like..." | |
|
Kotori87
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2277
| | 05 Apr 2010 12:19 AM | | Posted By Miller7D on 04 Apr 2010 10:17 PM
No argument that the Germans knew what they were doing aesthetically when they were designing and building their warships. I just want to go light side before I dabble in the dark, lol. (in a deep voice, with heavy breathing in the background) So, Lonestar, now you know that Evil will always triumph, because Good is UGLY. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1qVJ8bTwuw   
| | | There are 101 different types of people: those who understand binary, those who don't, and those who just can't count... | |
|
El Jefe
Lieutenant
Posts:494
| | 05 Apr 2010 03:41 AM | | I agree starting with an existing fiberglass hull is the way to go. Before going further recommending the ships you might want to think about, it's a good idea to consider the type of battling you want to do.
Cruisers tend to be snipers. Since they are outgunned and not very maneuverable, they usually use their superior speed to keep their distance from everyone else. They typically take pot shots from a distance and move in close for the kill against ships that are already in trouble. Greatest strength is speed but greatest weaknesses are maneuverability, small interior space, and lack of firepower (at least in MWC & IRCWCC style battling).
The WW1 era dreadnoughts and battlecruisers tend to be fairly slow but are well armed and usually very maneuverable. They fight "hug and slug" meaning they tend to use their maneuverability to turn inside opponents and slug it out at close range. Greatest strengths are maneuverability, fairly small target area, and decent internal volume but greatest weakness is speed.
The WW2 era battleships and battlecruisers are usually somewhere in between. They tend to use their speed to keep away from the hug-and-sluggers early in the battle but swoop in like sharks as the battle wears on, using their greater firepower to finish off weakened targets. Greatest strengths are firepower and internal space that provides reserve buoyancy but greatest weakness is lots of target area to patch up.
Part of your decision process should include the kind of battling you want to do: Getting in close the "fur ball" to do lots of shooting or hanging out on the fringes for targets of opportunity. | | | |
|
Miller7D
Ensign
Posts:190
| | 05 Apr 2010 05:23 AM | | Sound advice, El Jefe. My strategy thus far is to do a mixture of sniping from range and getting broadside to broadside, so to speak; whatever ship I end up building (or buying used, because I would be foolish to ignore reasonable second-hand opportunities) I would probably set up to be versatile. For example, watching the video of NATS 09 that Bob H sent me, the Iowa seen in that video used its stern gun (or guns) to either snipe at range, sort of, or get in close and pound someone while taking advantage of its own impenetrable stern (sort of) and its forward guns were depressed low in order to get into a full-on slugging match and really hand out below-the-waterline punishment.
Truth be told, I really want to build an American battleship, and while an Iowa would be the ultimate expression of that a Tennessee would probably be a more rookie-friendly kit to go with, and I see that you own one, Jefe, in the form of USS California. What's your impression of the ship?
---
Lol, Kotori; excellent use of pop culture.
| | | "I'ma learn you a thing or three real good-like..." | |
|
Tugboat
Veteran
Admiral
Posts:4437
| | 05 Apr 2010 06:33 AM | | If you want to mix between long range stern gun action and hug and slug, you want a battlecruiser. There's a very complete SMS Von der Tann on the Port Polar Bear website for (I think) $500, which is a real deal considering the raw materials cost more than that, and this one's had the bugs worked out. | | | |
|
Miller7D
Ensign
Posts:190
| | 05 Apr 2010 09:58 AM | | I've looked at that VDT, and while it's a good deal and a good boat, I'm on the fence (and I don't have $500 to spare). No slight to the boat's builder, but I really want to go Allies, specifically US Navy, for my first boat. The Tennessee looks like a decent mid-range battleship, and while a lot of the cons to the Iowas and class 7 ships make sense, the temptation to be an Axis-friendly rookie is strong, lol, at least with regard to big battleships. | | | "I'ma learn you a thing or three real good-like..." | |
|
Bob
Posts:599
| | 05 Apr 2010 10:20 AM | | No one should every build Iowa/Yamato. But you don't really know that until you've battled one. They look so cool, but are not cool to lift off the table and haul around your house. Unless you're young and strong leave them alone.
A Brooklyn is OK, I'd rate a North Hampton, Houston much better. Chris "Two Hole" Kessler did a great job with his Brooklyn. His score after every battle was 0-0-0. The only time he got holes was campain and cruiser battle. When he got more agressive. | | | |
|
SnipeHunter
Commander
Posts:699
| | 05 Apr 2010 11:01 AM | | Why get holes you dont have to? That just seems like extra work with no reward. Its easy enough in fleet battle to hang out and just peck at people that arent paying attention to you, fun too. The only sinks I had in that boat at NATSs were from rams. As much as I liked it I dont think I could go back to a crusier, either something with sidemounts or a destroyer and the two min rule in campaign. But crusiers are good rookie boats. | | | |
|
Miller7D
Ensign
Posts:190
| | 05 Apr 2010 01:41 PM | | It sounds like the primary objections to Iowas/Yamatos/Vanguards breaks down to their weight being the biggest turnoff (because 50 pounds feels like 200 when you gotta haul it off the bottom of a lake) with the very close runner-up being the amount of visible target area. They are simultaneously the most vulnerable, so to speak, and the most powerful.
The good news is I am young and strong, so hauling around a 50-pound battleship wouldn't be horribly taxing... the first few times... | | | "I'ma learn you a thing or three real good-like..." | |
|
SnipeHunter
Commander
Posts:699
| | 05 Apr 2010 02:35 PM | | They can be decent but I think they tend to be overrated on the whole due to them being the biggest and heaviest armed. They do make excellent tugboats. If you build one make sure you have a wingman, they work a whole lot better if you have a teammate to work with. Going it alone in one is a good way to get in trouble. | | | |
|
Tugboat
Veteran
Admiral
Posts:4437
| | 05 Apr 2010 02:37 PM | | The major objection for an experienced builder/battler is as you say, Miller... for a new battler, complexity is the big objection. I have a Wisconsin hull hanging in the rafters for someday when I feel I'm ready Looks awesome hanging in the overhead. But 50 pounds plus 8 gallons of water is a lot of boat to lift! | | | |
|
Miller7D
Ensign
Posts:190
| | 05 Apr 2010 03:18 PM | | Posted By Tugboat on 05 Apr 2010 02:37 PM
The major objection for an experienced builder/battler is as you say, Miller... for a new battler, complexity is the big objection. I have a Wisconsin hull hanging in the rafters for someday when I feel I'm ready Looks awesome hanging in the overhead. But 50 pounds plus 8 gallons of water is a lot of boat to lift! Very true, Tugboat, very true. Almost a hundred pounds of dead weight (or more than a hundred pounds) plus lifting through several feet of water (in the least ideal sink scenario). It would almost be worth buying the kit just to experiment with various ways of lifting the hull from the depths. Almost. I suppose I just have to wait for the irrational notions in my head to die away before I do something foolish in a manner of speaking. All of your feedback has been very helpful so far, guys; keep it coming! | | | "I'ma learn you a thing or three real good-like..." | |
|