R/C Naval Combat

quote:

---

Originally posted by crzyhawk

The emphasis for safety first.

Mike D

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kotori87

Yeah, I think that damage and sinking is the most important part of this hobby that distinguishes it from all other forms of RC combat. Almost as important as that is a relationship between the amount of damage sustained and the probability of sinking the ship. This is an issue that my club will have to face soon. Before the Crimson Scourge of torpedo cruisers first hit the WWCC, almost every ship that sank went down due to some form of pump failure. The Crimson Scourge actually sank a few large vessels whose pumps were working just fine, which terrified the general membership and has provoked a strong move towards disarmament of torpedoes. There are several rule proposals currently being processed that, if passed, hamstring torpedo-cruisers and remove the club's last real chance of sinking ships by damage. Once the torpedo-cruisers are effectively eliminated as competitive ships, the club will be back to relying on pump failures for their fill of sinks. I prefer to not rely on random chance (pump failures) for my fill of sinks at a battle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kotori87

Well I've heard some people object to the range that torpedo-cruisers attack from, and some people object to them reloading on shore. I've even heard some people object to the (fully legal and club-sanctioned) practice of loading two 1/4" balls per barrel into torpedo tubes, but at the heart of their complaints is the simple fact that torpedo-cruisers have been sinking ships nearly ten times their size. Never mind the fact that there has been 3 torpedo-cruisers for every battleship on the pond in the last two years, or the fact that the 4 or more torpedo-cruisers are sunk for every battleship casualty, they don't like the fact that their battleships are getting sunk.

The WWCC's last battle of the season saw one sortie with 6 battleships and 2 torpedo-cruisers. Contrary to their expectations, the torpedo-cruisers didn't sink a single ship, and in fact played very minor roles in the battle while the heavier gunships slugged it out. Also worthy of note is the fact that not a single ship was in danger of sinking during that entire engagement.

To me, that is conclusive proof that the problem with torpedo-cruisers was not their armament, nor their use in combat. It was their numbers. With two of three ships from the elite Battleship Buster Brigade no longer playing (one skipper is building a battleship, the other a transport) and a few more skippers from the Candy Cane Express division building new capital ships, the "problem" that other WWCC'ers are complaining about is fixing itself naturally without any need for rule changes.

---

I know this is a bit of a necro-post. I came into the WWCC after all the torpedo problems happened, and I am currently having to navigate the resulting maze of rules. I have a question or two for those who were there.

If the problem was that small cruisers were sinking too many battleships why are the torpedo rules for vessels over 20K tons so much more restrictive than for smaller vessels?

Was the the problem that the capital ships were being sunk, as opposed to the fact that they were being sunk by small ships? I.E. a ship that in reality would not have been a threat to a battleship.

Posted By BoomerBoy17 on 01 Feb 2009 11:52 AM
Well, torpedoes were always a huge threat to Capital ships, but my view is, that to dissuade torpedo cruisers from torpin' a big ship, that ship needed escorts, which they may not have had in the wcc. Thats an idea, escorts.

We will never have a realistic number of ships of the proper type to form a proper battlegroup. I would have thought that in a one on one confrontation the torpedo cruiser would turn and run, or be likely to get blown out of the water before they were in torpedo range. Am I way off base?

The original capital-ship torpedo restrictions were, as best as I can tell, an Allied attempt to limit the effectiveness of Axis battleships.  Take a look through the statistics, and see which big bruisers had torpedoes.  Mostly it was the Axis.  Now take a look and compare gun caliber, armor thickness, and number of barrels per turret.  In most cases, the Allies walk away with heavy armor and 1/4" guns in triple turrets.  The Axis (except for two less-popular boats) get EITHER triple turrets OR 1/4" guns.  Furthermore, some of the skippers who date back to the time of the arms limitations have fairly explicitly stated that the torpedo restrictions on capital ships were specifically designed to discourage their use on the Scharnhorst and Tirpitz class battleships.  Whether they knew that would make the Axis fleet the statistical underdogs for not, the effect was plain to see.  The club didn't try any specifically Axis-vs-Allies battles until the year I joined the club, with the first annual Campaign Battle, and it took some major fleet re-organization before the Axis started winning those.

Do not worry much about the torpedo rules this year.  A number of club members have an up-gunning proposal in the works for next year that will, among other things, clean up the torpedo rules (especially the stuff about 50% max, min. two per side, etc).  So go ahead and put in the torpedos you want, then plug off the barrels you won't use this year with a dowel and a pin.

Posted By Droidling on 01 Feb 2009 12:49 PM

I would have thought that in a one on one confrontation the torpedo cruiser would turn and run, or be likely to get blown out of the water before they were in torpedo range. Am I way off base?

 

Depends on which skipper is at the helm of the torpedo-cruiser.  If it's me, it's balls-to-the-wall and I'm going to deliver those torpedoes no matter what the other guy does.  Other skippers may be a bit more cautious, but in general the torpedo-cruiser skippers know they're ultimately considered expendable.  From a tactical standpoint, however, there is a lot you can do as a torpedo-cruiser skipper to make your approach (and retreat afterwards) relatively safe.  In general, if you follow these rules of thumb, the most dangerous time is when you're actually delivering your munitions to the opponent.

1) approach from the bow or stern.  This limits the number of guns that bear on you.  A bow approach has the further benefit of reducing time in the danger-zone, but requires faster reflexes to score a hit.

2) until you are ready to fire torpedoes, point your bow directly at your opponent's guns.  This limits the target area you present to your opponent, provides you with the benefits of extremely sloped armor, and helps you close to torpedo-range quickly.

3) if you have to present your broadside while maneuvering into position, do so from beyond 10 feet range.  Most skippers can accurately hit at about 6 feet range.  out to 10 feet, and there's still a noteworthy chance of a hit.  Beyond 10 feet, most hits are pure dumb luck, and usually are high and dry above the waterline.

4) aim for "blood".  Don't aim for the grey,.  Don't even be satisfied with black.  If there aren't holes in the red, and your opponent's pumps spraying, when you pull away, then you didn't really hit.  Other ships can make holes to let the air out.  Your job is to let the water in.

5) if possible, attack your target close to shore, and stand where you can clearly see where your guns are pointing.  I know this sounds like common sense, but many people don't realize how much of a difference this makes.  This is how I scored a majority of my sinks when I operated a torpedo-cruiser.  The downside to the near-shore attack is that your opponent can hit your right back, if he doesn't panic and fire his guns right away.  This is also how I got damaged and/or sunk the most, too.

Posted By Kotori87 on 01 Feb 2009 01:21 PM

Posted By Droidling on 01 Feb 2009 12:49 PM

I would have thought that in a one on one confrontation the torpedo cruiser would turn and run, or be likely to get blown out of the water before they were in torpedo range. Am I way off base?

 

 

Depends on which skipper is at the helm of the torpedo-cruiser.  If it's me, it's balls-to-the-wall and I'm going to deliver those torpedoes no matter what the other guy does.  Other skippers may be a bit more cautious, but in general the torpedo-cruiser skippers know they're ultimately considered expendable.  From a tactical standpoint, however, there is a lot you can do as a torpedo-cruiser skipper to make your approach (and retreat afterwards) relatively safe.  In general, if you follow these rules of thumb, the most dangerous time is when you're actually delivering your munitions to the opponent.

1) approach from the bow or stern.  This limits the number of guns that bear on you.  A bow approach has the further benefit of reducing time in the danger-zone, but requires faster reflexes to score a hit.

2) until you are ready to fire torpedoes, point your bow directly at your opponent's guns.  This limits the target area you present to your opponent, provides you with the benefits of extremely sloped armor, and helps you close to torpedo-range quickly.

3) if you have to present your broadside while maneuvering into position, do so from beyond 10 feet range.  Most skippers can accurately hit at about 6 feet range.  out to 10 feet, and there's still a noteworthy chance of a hit.  Beyond 10 feet, most hits are pure dumb luck, and usually are high and dry above the waterline.

4) aim for "blood".  Don't aim for the grey,.  Don't even be satisfied with black.  If there aren't holes in the red, and your opponent's pumps spraying, when you pull away, then you didn't really hit.  Other ships can make holes to let the air out.  Your job is to let the water in.

5) if possible, attack your target close to shore, and stand where you can clearly see where your guns are pointing.  I know this sounds like common sense, but many people don't realize how much of a difference this makes.  This is how I scored a majority of my sinks when I operated a torpedo-cruiser.  The downside to the near-shore attack is that your opponent can hit your right back, if he doesn't panic and fire his guns right away.  This is also how I got damaged and/or sunk the most, too.

Good advice, but I was really talking about how it would go down in a real full scale situation. Even you might be a bit more cautious if the potential damage was a little more serious than cleaning the pond scum out off your servos. I was just trying to get at whether one or even a couple of torpedo cruiser sinking a battleship without any other help was a reallistic situation. I'm not arguing the point either way, just trying to learn.

As for the ships I'm putting together I may have to give you a call to talk about a couple of options that would take me in completely different directions, depending on the torpedo rules.