R/C Naval Combat

All
We are starting phase 1 of the rules process at this time.
If you have battled at a Treaty event in 2008-2009, then you can propose,
counter-propose, second, or third rule changes.
Phase 1 will end next Saturday at noon.
The founders

 

All
This year we are posting up-dates on the proposals just to help everyone stay
informed as to the status of each proposal.

So far. This is what we have.

Proposal # 1
Warship classes time frame.
Move the start date for launching back to 1895.
Proposed by Mikey.
Seconded by Bobo.
Thirded by Mike D.

This proposal is set to go to phase 2.


Proposal # 2
Rudder area rule.
Not having to hook up linkages to auxiliary rudders in order to utilize the
additional 50% rudder area on the main rudder.
Proposed by Jeff S.
Seconded by Phil A.


Proposal # 3
Pre-dreadnaught side-mount rule.
Allow pre-dreadnaughts to have side-mounts.
Proposed by Eric N.
No seconds. 3 counter-proposals. (below)

Counter-Proposal to # 3 (A)
Allow pre-dreadnaughts with a beam of at least 70 to have side-mounts.
Proposed by Mike D.
No seconds.


Counter-Proposal to # 3 (B)
Widen the bow, and stern quadrants to 60 degrees (total) for ships in class 4 and above (and pre-dreadnaughts).
Proposed by Mikey.
No seconds.

Counter-proposal to # 3 (C)
Widen the bow, and stern quadrants to 60 degrees (total) for ships in class 3 and above, and any ship with a beam of at least 70'.
Proposed by Phil A.
No seconds.

Proposal # 4
Class 2+3 side-mount rule.
Allow class 2+3 to utilize (1) unit as a side-mount.
Proposed by Eric N.
No seconds.

Proposal # 5
Ships with all-forward mounted main turrets.
Allow (all) ships with all-forward mounted main turrets to utilize a single stern cannon.
Proposed by Mike D.
Seconded by Mikey.
Thirded by Bat.
 

Additional supporters.. Bob P.

This proposal is advancing to phase 2.

That is it so far, as of Wednesday evening.
The founders.

 

Proposal 3 (C) has a third supporter.
It also advances to phase 2.
The founders

All
Less than one day into phase 2, the results are looking very good indeed, with three of the proposals so far getting unanimous support.
Here is what we have so far.

Proposal #1 (Move time frame back to 1895 for ships being launched).
5 yes votes.
0 no votes.

Proposal # 5 (All ships with all-forward main turrets can have a stern cannon).
5 yes votes.
0 no votes.

Proposal # 3 (D) (Allow sidemounts on pre-dreadnaughts with 73' or more beam for 2010 battling season), (under R+D).
5 yes votes.
0 no votes.

Although the outcome at this time is still undecided, it is looking very good for these three proposals.

Proposal # 6 (Widen the bow, and stern quadrants for the large aircraft-carriers to 60 degrees total), (under R+D for 2010 season).
3 yes votes.
2 no votes.

Proposal # 3 (C) (Widen the bow and stern quadrants for ships in class 3 and up, and ships with a beam of 70' or more to 60 degrees total).
2 yes votes.
3 no votes.

The outcome of these last two proposals are still very much in question.
The aircraft-carrier proposal is getting a little more support than the class 3 and up, but there are still a lot of folks that have not cast their votes yet.

We will continue to post daily up-dates.
Thank you.
The founders

All
This post is more for some of the newer folks that may not realize the theory behind the proposed changes.
For the most part.. These are my oppinions..

Proposal #1
Move the time frame back to 1895 for ships being launched.

Currently, the start date for ships allowed to be built does not go back far enough to allow some of the ships that actually faught in WW1 to be built.
If this proposal does pass, then more of the ships that were in service, and saw action during WW1 would be allowed to be built.
We are simply proposing widening the window (or time frame) for ships that can participate.

Proposal #5
All ships with all-forward mounted main turrets can have a stern cannon.

Currently the rules allow capital ships with all their main turrets mounted forward (Rodney, Richelieu, Dunkerque) to arm a single stern cannon in the after superstructure, in order to protect their sterns.
But the current rules do not mention ships below class 4 (non-capital ships).
So there are a couple/few cruisers that are allowed to be built, but cannot have a stern cannon. They must have the cannons mounted in the forward part of the ship.
Some of the ships in question are the Tone, and Oyoda.
We are simply proposing changing the wording of the current rule covering capital ships (only), with all-forward mounted main turrets
to cover all ships with all-forward mounted main turrets.

Proposal 3 (D)
Allow sidemounts on pre-dreadnaughts with a beam of 73' or more for the 2010 battling season. (Under R+D).

Currently, all pre-dreadnaughts are in class 3, which means that they are not allowed to carry side-mounts. All of their cannons must be placed in the bow, and stern quadrants.
Pre-dreadnaughts are basically old battleships. Some have beams that are wider than some of the class 4 ships that can currently have side-mount cannons.
We are proposing that all pre-dreadnaughts with a beam of at least 73' be allowed to have side-mounted cannons.
R+D is research, and developement.
If a proposed change is listed under R+D, for one year, then it allows us to implement the proposed change for a year, while taking a look at the way it affects the game-play, so that we can then take another vote the following year to add it to our rules package.
In this way, we can then vote on the proposal based more on knowledge gained through experience, and less on theory.
We are proposing that we implement allowing the larger pre-dreadnaughts the ability to have side-mounts, for the 2010 battling season, so that we can then put it to a more informed vote for 2011.

Proposal #6
Widen the bow and stern quadrants for the larger aircraft-carriers with a beam of 80' or more to 60 degrees (total), (30 degrees to either side of the centerline).
Cannon units must be devided evenly to port and starboard of the centerline.(Under R+D for the 2010 season).

Currently, the rules allow the aircraft-carriers to have bow, and stern mounted cannons only. They are not allowed to have side-mounted cannons.
Some of the larger aircraft-carriers have beams in excess of 80-100' or more.
We are proposing that we widen the bow and stern quadrants for the larger aircraft-carriers to 60 degrees (total), in order to give them more flexability in how they set up their cannons, so that they have more coverage than the smaller ships (like cruisers), but still do not have side-mounts like the larger capitalships (like battleships and battlecruisers).
In addition. By dictating that the cannons in the bow and stern quadrants be evenly devided to port and starboard of the centerline, these ships will not be able to have twin cannons firing out to the 30 degrees unless they are at least class 7 ships.
This is also under R+D for one year, so that we can take a look at how it affects game-play, before voting on it again at the end of next year.

Proposal 3 (C)
Widen the bow and stern quadrants for ships in class 3 and up, and ships with a beam of 70' or more, to 60 degrees (total).

Currently all ships have a bow, and stern quadrant that is 30 degrees wide (total). So 15 degrees to both sides of the centerline.
All ships in class 3 and less (and all aircraft-carriers) must have their cannons mounted in these bow, and stern quadrants.
We are proposing that the bow, and stern quadrants be widened to 60 degrees (total), or 30 degrees to each side of the centerline, for ships in class 3 and above, and ships with a beam of 70' or more, in order to give the larger cruisers, aircraft-carriers, pre-dreadnaughts, battlecruises, and battleships more flexability in how they mount their cannons in the bow, and stern quadrants.

Mikey