R/C Naval Combat

JM you write of needing/wanting something "more", and of making RC combat more fun.
However, there aspects that you may not have considered.
Every person that joins RC combat effects it some degree, they added a measure of what they think is fun.
Now the fun level in RC combat may not be the same for every person, but each person tends to find different things more/less fun.

For instance, you mentioned scenario play; at Nat we play two sessions of the battle type we call "Campaign".
It involves transports, shore bombardments and warships of different classes.
While some find is interesting, for some it is the best battle, while others could just as well skip it.
Scenario does not make for fun for everyone.

The other item you find important is "action". Is that action that last for hours, with something going on all the time (mostly with a few ships) or major fleet actions battling in battles as large as possible?

From my experence, the "hours long battles" tends to result in masive fatigue, and often degenerates into what real war was all about. Long streatches of bordom, with a few minutes of frantic action. So somehow, I don't think that is what you are looking for.

The second option is more easly possible. With the only real question as to how long you want it to last. If you make it too long, some people get board. Others might just find it too exhusting to maintain the level of aleartness requied for battle over an extented time. Basicly you have to make it playable.

If you look at most sports, they tend to have bursts of activity, with alot of getting ready in between. The lenght of the activity varies with the sport type.

quote:

---

Originally posted by specialist

JM you write of needing/wanting something "more", and of making RC combat more fun.
However, there aspects that you may not have considered.
Every person that joins RC combat effects it some degree, they added a measure of what they think is fun.
Now the fun level in RC combat may not be the same for every person, but each person tends to find different things more/less fun.

For instance, you mentioned scenario play; at Nat we play two sessions of the battle type we call "Campaign".
It involves transports, shore bombardments and warships of different classes.
While some find is interesting, for some it is the best battle, while others could just as well skip it.
Scenario does not make for fun for everyone.

The other item you find important is "action". Is that action that last for hours, with something going on all the time (mostly with a few ships) or major fleet actions battling in battles as large as possible?

From my experence, the "hours long battles" tends to result in masive fatigue, and often degenerates into what real war was all about. Long streatches of bordom, with a few minutes of frantic action. So somehow, I don't think that is what you are looking for.

The second option is more easly possible. With the only real question as to how long you want it to last. If you make it too long, some people get board. Others might just find it too exhusting to maintain the level of aleartness requied for battle over an extented time. Basicly you have to make it playable.

If you look at most sports, they tend to have bursts of activity, with alot of getting ready in between. The lenght of the activity varies with the sport type.

---

You shouldn't concern yourself with what I might want - I'm not a prospect. Consider all those who have checked out the hobby, but didn't join. Also, consider those who did get in for awhile, even showing up regularly, then drifted off - how many ships are gathering dust in garages? If they told you that "It costs too much", they were just being nice - or didn't want to go into a deep explanation. What they could have said was that, according to their value equation, it was a better deal for them to drive both the investment AND the payback down to zero - that is, to do nothing, choose not to participate, than to get or stay involved.

I'd go back to as many of those never-closed prospects & lost members as I could find. Ask them the classic car salesman question: "What would it take to get you to join|re-up today?"

Cost isn't the issue, value is. People will sell their own children to pay for something, if they perceive that enough benefit is going to be returned to them. You shouldn't expect to only change one side of the value equation (i.e. cost) to make the hobby more attractive. The ultimate effect of that strategy is to drive both cost & benefit to zero - in other words, people walk. You've got to be willing to change the benefit side as well. If not, you've got no business complaining that the overall value (as reflected by numbers of new people joining/staying) continues to decline.

Again, nobody will try to drag you, kicking & screaming, into some new, turbocharged, insanely complex & expensive version of the hobby. To those for whom it's perfect as-is, nothing will (or can) change.

JM

lol dang in so. cal we cant find a place to battel at least u have some be happy

I can say from folks that I have talked with who are in the Washington State area who would love to get into it but wont that the reason is DIRECTLY cost related... but with a slight twist... We only have 1 battle a month for the summer here (and for those of us east siders in the state that is 3 battles a year) and it is very hard to justify the expense and time commitment (time is also a cost) to build a ship in the winter (the time commitment is the thing that usually kills the interest, the money hurts but would be fine if the time commitment was not so much) only to battle three times in the summer.

Unfortunatly, due to the scarcity of east side battlers and battling ponds, it is not so easy to just "battle more often". If we get more folks, then that becomes an option but we need to get to that initial seed quantity of battlers that can sustain the east siders...

Well, you guys are always welcome in San Jose, CA. The WWCC has a wonderful pond that you're welcome to battle on any time. Just let us know before you show up, so we can let you in.

I'd heard that So.Cal. battlers were having pond problems. What exactly is going on down there?

All the ponds are parks so we can't fight there, cos we'll shoot people
They are trying to get in with the navy in Corona, some base so we can use their pond
We have a build on the 27th
"Scrap"
I'll talk to the guys and maybe we can set up a club battle
Thanks

Steve

opps your big gun you would kill us

quote:

---

Originally posted by archer183

I can say from folks that I have talked with who are in the Washington State area who would love to get into it but wont that the reason is DIRECTLY cost related...

---

That's easy enough to prove. Who's got extra ships that they can loan out? Get that cost driven down to or near zero, & you'll be up to your eyeballs in newbies. Everybody who has a spare ship needs to put it up for loan. Everybody else needs to build another ship, to get a new guy started. Cargo ships are easy to build, cheap, & can be used to let prospects drive. Give 'em a taste & they'll want a warship.

I've loaned out ships plenty of times - warships, even, if I judged the prospect to be good. If the prospect is good, it'll hook them. You do run the risk of never seeing prospect or ship again, though.

quote:

---

but with a slight twist... We only have 1 battle a month for the summer here (and for those of us east siders in the state that is 3 battles a year) and it is very hard to justify the expense and time commitment (time is also a cost) to build a ship in the winter (the time commitment is the thing that usually kills the interest, the money hurts but would be fine if the time commitment was not so much) only to battle three times in the summer.

---

WHOOPS!! First it was too much cost, now it's lack of benefit??? I'm confused. Are you trying to help make my point for me?

quote:

---

Unfortunatly, due to the scarcity of east side battlers and battling ponds, it is not so easy to just "battle more often". If we get more folks, then that becomes an option but we need to get to that initial seed quantity of battlers that can sustain the east siders...

---

Vicious circle: Can't have battles without people, but can't attract people without battles.

No sympathy here. I started a club from nothing, in the middle of suburbia. Made sure that there was something scheduled at least twice/month, & that somebody (even if it was only me) was there every time, on time. Having nobody there when a prospect DOES show (especially if they're responding to a flyer or other advert) makes a pretty poor 1st impression & makes it pretty unlikely that they'll ever show again.

Sounds like you guys are trying to convince yourselves, not me.

JM

unfortunatly , some of us have lives outside of warship combat that interfere (and rules surrounding the use of local ponds that preculde us using them). We are always there when there is a scheduled battle but when a ship takes hundreds of dolars and all winter to build (I don't have a spare ship at this time to loan out and the nearest other battler is 2.5 hours away) there is simply little good way to get someone to order a ship up to build.

the nearest known pond we battle at is 3.5 hours away from me.

Congrats on building up a club, but with no local ponds, and a serious lack of time right now, I do not have the time to even attempt that. I am not trying to convince you of anyting, quite frankly, I don't care what you think. What I need here to sell people is a reduction in one of the two costs or an increase in the "benefits". The benefits is not going to happen, which means that I need a ship that an interested person can drop 400-500$ on a ready to run ship that actually works (which I have yet to see, even purchased off of supposed veterans) and then resell if they don't like it. A couple of those, and the "benefits" could be addressed, but with one local person, I need at least one other (and a pond which I have yet to find)

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnmCA72


You shouldn't concern yourself with what I might want - I'm not a prospect. Consider all those who have checked out the hobby, but didn't join. Also, consider those who did get in for awhile, even showing up regularly, then drifted off - how many ships are gathering dust in garages? If they told you that "It costs too much", they were just being nice - or didn't want to go into a deep explanation. What they could have said was that, according to their value equation, it was a better deal for them to drive both the investment AND the payback down to zero - that is, to do nothing, choose not to participate, than to get or stay involved.

I'd go back to as many of those never-closed prospects & lost members as I could find. Ask them the classic car salesman question: "What would it take to get you to join|re-up today?"

Cost isn't the issue, value is. People will sell their own children to pay for something, if they perceive that enough benefit is going to be returned to them. You shouldn't expect to only change one side of the value equation (i.e. cost) to make the hobby more attractive. The ultimate effect of that strategy is to drive both cost & benefit to zero - in other words, people walk. You've got to be willing to change the benefit side as well. If not, you've got no business complaining that the overall value (as reflected by numbers of new people joining/staying) continues to decline.

Again, nobody will try to drag you, kicking & screaming, into some new, turbocharged, insanely complex & expensive version of the hobby. To those for whom it's perfect as-is, nothing will (or can) change.

JM

---

So you have no interest in an "improved" RC combat, but think there should be one? You don't see increased cost as a problem, as long as more of some unspecfied sort of action is the result.

Who would be the kinds of people intersted in the New and Improved Sport of RC combat?

I think part of the problem here is that there are two vastly different hobbys in RC combat.

1) "small gun" or "fast gun" (whatever) requires intence concentration, with action lasting 20-30 minutes at a time.

2) "big gun" with action rather slower, and battles lasting hours ?? ( I don't play big gun- so don't really know)

I can say that in "fast gun" the action is such that if you get caught naping, it can be all over in seconds. So the concept that something with more "action" seams not to be required.

The most common issue I have heard is Cost, then Time for people that stop playing RC combat. Lack of action never makes the list.

I don't think RC combat is ever going to make it to ESPN, and have cute spokesmodels handing out trophys and checks to professional captains.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnmCA72


You shouldn't concern yourself with what I might want - I'm not a prospect. Consider all those who have checked out the hobby, but didn't join. Also, consider those who did get in for awhile, even showing up regularly, then drifted off - how many ships are gathering dust in garages? If they told you that "It costs too much", they were just being nice - or didn't want to go into a deep explanation. What they could have said was that, according to their value equation, it was a better deal for them to drive both the investment AND the payback down to zero - that is, to do nothing, choose not to participate, than to get or stay involved.

I'd go back to as many of those never-closed prospects & lost members as I could find. Ask them the classic car salesman question: "What would it take to get you to join|re-up today?"

Cost isn't the issue, value is. People will sell their own children to pay for something, if they perceive that enough benefit is going to be returned to them. You shouldn't expect to only change one side of the value equation (i.e. cost) to make the hobby more attractive. The ultimate effect of that strategy is to drive both cost & benefit to zero - in other words, people walk. You've got to be willing to change the benefit side as well. If not, you've got no business complaining that the overall value (as reflected by numbers of new people joining/staying) continues to decline.

Again, nobody will try to drag you, kicking & screaming, into some new, turbocharged, insanely complex & expensive version of the hobby. To those for whom it's perfect as-is, nothing will (or can) change.

JM

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by specialist
So you have no interest in an "improved" RC combat, but think there should be one?

---

For the life of me, I can't see where I've posted anything that suggests I think that there should be an "improved" R/C combat, but have no interest in it. I'd love to see it, even more to participate in some way. If it can be cranked up to the level that I think it has the potential to reach, I may not qualify.

quote:

---

You don't see increased cost as a problem, as long as more of some unspecfied sort of action is the result.

---

I didn't say cost isn't a problem. I said that focusing on cost alone ignores at least half the issue. Cost ALONE does not stop people from doing something. The issue is the balance of COST vs. BENEFIT, to create VALUE. Example: I presume that you work, or have worked at some time in your life. When you work, you give up some portion of your life to your employer - that's the cost (to you). Your employer pays you - that's the benefit. You may also have the benefit of a highly enjoyable job. As long as the benefits vs. costs are favorable TO YOU, according to your own personal sense of value, then you'll continue working at your job. When it ceases to be "worth it", you'll quit.

quote:

---

Who would be the kinds of people intersted in the New and Improved Sport of RC combat?

---

I'd think those who are interested & able to compete at a very high level.

quote:

---

I think part of the problem here is that there are two vastly different hobbys in RC combat.

1) "small gun" or "fast gun" (whatever) requires intence concentration, with action lasting 20-30 minutes at a time.

2) "big gun" with action rather slower, and battles lasting hours ?? ( I don't play big gun- so don't really know)

I can say that in "fast gun" the action is such that if you get caught naping, it can be all over in seconds. So the concept that something with more "action" seams not to be required.

The most common issue I have heard is Cost, then Time for people that stop playing RC combat. Lack of action never makes the list.

I don't think RC combat is ever going to make it to ESPN, and have cute spokesmodels handing out trophys and checks to professional captains.

---

It may not. Certainly, if nobody tries, then it never will.

JM

We battle monthly here, year round. You're welcome to attend any of our battles, just let us know what flight you'll be on.

Some people see obstacles as challenges to be overcome, not as reasons to avoid trying. Frankly, I don't understand all the negativity & resistance to the idea of taking warship combat to a higher level. I'd think you guys would be all over it, full of enthusiasm & support - especially if it's somebody else who wants to do the leg work. A professional warship combat league can only benefit the existing hobby. Increased visibility through marketing & promotion is only going to expose more people to the game. The more fun it looks, & the more successful it gets, the more people will be wanting to get in somehow - & where will they start? Your club, for one. An influx of cash also means that there should be opportunities for builders & other infrastructure providers. Maybe it might finally even be practical for people to go into business full-time, supplying parts & equipment? That would benefit everybody, amateur & pro alike.

For crying out loud, "Competitive Eating" is an ESPN-worthy sport, with a pro circuit! Anybody who doesn't think warship combat has way more potential than a bunch of idiots stuffing their faces must have a pretty low opinion of their own hobby.

JM

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." - JFK, 1962

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - TR, 1910

The "sport" that is most like ours is the robot combat stuff. It was on TV for a year or two, have not seen it lately. How many people are in that? Does anyone know?
I would think that "sport" costs more and takes more time to do.
But they have a lot easier time finding places to battle, any parking lot should work.
If you want to go pro that is a model you could follow.
If you want to get more people involved localy you need to advertise and get people involved by holding regular events. Your core members need to show up to those events with ships that are ready to fight. Having loner ships to hand out to the new guy is also helpful.
Everyone should ask themselves, when was the last time my efforts recruited a new member? When have I help the new guy get on the water? Have I ever helped an existing member stay involved when he was leaving? If you have not done any of this, or it's been a while you need to step up. The more people you find the better the hobby will be. The more fun you will have. If you find enough then the hobby can go pro.

I agree with bob, going pro is a cool idea but the sport has to be strong first. And most people enjoy battling but then going pro would quickly take if from fun to a job. When you go from wanting to battle to having to battle the fun factor goes down real fast. Every thing I have seen and heard about the sport point to a quote me here now and then “I came for the battles and stayed because of the people." That speaks volumes for the sport / hobby. most ports that I have go involve with I do for the fun factor and people I get to know and find its a great deterrent to play , compete with some one that has to win and does not understand what sportsmanship is or cares. So if you want to get to the next level, bring the sport to the next level. Help other experience the sport. I was impressed that bob and the other members of the polar bear club do not hesitate to help a new comer and even openly offer the controls to a ship to someone who is interested in the sport. Having an extra ship or just a bunch of extra safety glass is a plus. The more the sport grows the more fun and challenging it will become.

I don't think it has to be a weekly "Battleship Sunday" sort of thing. If they only did Nats or NABGO, it would make a big difference. Ask the editor to place an emphasis on good sportsmanship and the interaction between captains on the shore. I seem to recall there is a sport where the winning team is required to buy the losing team drinks afterwards (don't recall which sport though).

quote:

---

Originally posted by archer183

unfortunatly , some of us have lives outside of warship combat that interfere (and rules surrounding the use of local ponds that preculde us using them). We are always there when there is a scheduled battle but when a ship takes hundreds of dolars and all winter to build (I don't have a spare ship at this time to loan out and the nearest other battler is 2.5 hours away) there is simply little good way to get someone to order a ship up to build.

the nearest known pond we battle at is 3.5 hours away from me.

Congrats on building up a club, but with no local ponds, and a serious lack of time right now, I do not have the time to even attempt that. I am not trying to convince you of anyting, quite frankly, I don't care what you think. What I need here to sell people is a reduction in one of the two costs or an increase in the "benefits". The benefits is not going to happen, which means that I need a ship that an interested person can drop 400-500$ on a ready to run ship that actually works (which I have yet to see, even purchased off of supposed veterans) and then resell if they don't like it. A couple of those, and the "benefits" could be addressed, but with one local person, I need at least one other (and a pond which I have yet to find)

---

Your situation doesn't sound all that different from what I had. It can be done. It may take lots of time & effort, with maybe some luck thrown in, but it is do-able. If you dwell too much on the obstacles, that can become all you see. You have to believe, & stay positive. That attitude will rub off on those that you meet & THAT's what will get & keep them interested. Weren't you all excited in another thread about having a garage? That's a GREAT place to host meetings & build sessions. Invite people over to build ships & work on stuff. Some will get hooked & come back. Show them how to do it. I've had strangers wander into my garage because they saw a "build meeting" listed on the web site. Most of those strangers are now friends. Somebody who has a pond (or a CNC mill, or ...) might very well stroll through your garage door someday, if you leave it open & keep putting the word out. I don't know how many Saturdays I spent out there, by myself, before they started coming, but they did come. ANYTHING can happen if you BELIEVE in it, but NOTHING will happen if you DON'T BELIEVE in it.

If I could put somebody into a RTF ship for $500, I think I'd charge them a $500 "initiation fee" to join the club. Let it pay for their gas, ammo, balsa, dope, & other "consumables" for 5 years. If they drop, then the club benefits. If they stay - then the club benefits! I think $1000 is a good minimum cost of entry. It keeps out the non-serious "window-shoppers" & "tire-kickers". Ever play poker or otherwise gamble? It's a lot harder to fold if there's a bunch of "your" money in the pot!

JM

Back to the original question.

I would change the Scale of " BIG GUN " i
really think Big Gun has out grown the 1/144th scale
It's great for small " Fast " gun because there cannons
are smaller but to really OPEN up the ships that could be
built with out Micro this and Micro that, GO BIGGER..

Most Big Gun clubs say build a BB for your 1st ship and once
you figure things out try something smaller. I really think
this has hurt the hobby because the poeple that want to do a
DD or a CA are tired of trying to get 10 gallons of SH!t in a
5 gallon bucket !! I know it's been done and there are several
working DD and CA's out on the West Coast that work but can you
imagine what you could do with more room ??

Look 1/96th is still too BIG if you want to include BB's and
1/144th too small so i say split it in the middle and go

1/120th !

Just do the math on your ship and see what you really get
room wise..

Just My 2cents
results my vary

Sharky

I disagree that 1/96 is too big, I've got a yamato nearly complete and thats as big as they come. there's some pics of its hull somewhere on this site

I have seen a 1/125 Blue Devil model Fletcher. It's still not big enough to fit in everything most people (especially new members) would want to fit in. You say the problem is trying to fit 10 gallons of stuff into a 5 gallon bucket. I think what builders need to learn is which 5 gallons they need out of the 10 gallons they want in their bucket. Heck, if you only put in 2.5 gallons, you might avoid leaks found near the top of the bucket.

Here's an example: I know a skipper who built an Atlanta with 12 bb guns and 6 torpedoes, but he didn't have room to fit a CO2 bottle (he's an experienced builder too, but seems to prefer quantity over quality...). He chose the wrong 5 gallons to put in his bucket. This same skipper built a Spahkreuzer and fit in 6 bb guns and 4 torpedoes, but they only worked half the time and the weight distribution severely hampered it's maneuverability. It was passed along the line and the most recent person to refit the Spahkreuzer stuck with 6 torpedoes and no bb cannons, and used the saved space to make the torpedoes sturdier and more reliable and improve the weight distribution. This second skipper sank 17 ships with the most maneuverable boat on the pond and won Most Feared Skipper two years in a row. I am, of course, referring to my brother Carl (Kotori87). His only rival was a skipper with a similarly simplified Capitani Romani. I am not imagining a difference here, it is quite real. The people who try to fit 10 gallons in a 5 gallons bucket are most likely to have problems on the pond (if they get there at all). If you give them a 10 gallon bucket instead of a 5 gallon bucket, they will try to put in 20 gallons.