R/C Naval Combat

How about this hypothetical topic for discussion.

Assume for a moment, that effective subs exist, they are armed with scale locomotive torpedoes. They can remain submerged and attack with stealth... The torpedoes, although not 100% effective, are potent weapons that can easily cripple or sink a battleship.

Also assume, that battleships can engage smaller ships (like destroyers) at well beyond the effective range of small caliber weapons.

In your opinion, would a more fleet like battle be more fun than the current one on one slugfests?

I know somebody will chime in and say, "We already battle like that."

But... I'm talking about going a step further. What if ships had to stay with other similar ships to survive?

What if you wouldn't want to have a lone battleship putting around on the pond for fear it would be torped?

What if you needed a screen of destroyers to look for minefields or subs before you drove your highest value targets (the battleships) right over them?

What if ships like armored cruisers, too weak to "fight in the line" had more freedom, do to higher speed, to move about the pond looking for targets or opportunity, pick off crippled ships, or to act as bait to lure bigger ships towards minefields or submerged subs?

Would that be more or less fun for you?

Sure, the glory of a one on one kill wouldn't be there. But your buddies would be right beside you to help you out, and individual ship performance (like top speed and turning circle) would be less critical.

Any thoughts?

Nobody?

Let me fill in a little more. Lets say the typical "fleet" size is...

6 Dreadnought Battleships
4 Predreadnoughts (as a reserve)
8-10 Light Cruisers and Destroyers
3 Armored Cruisers or Battlecruisers (seperate from the fleet)

... and 4 submarines hiding somewhere in the pond.

And lets also say the opposing fleet is of similar size.

Unworkable.

I am not sure it is unworkable, but I don't think it will come to pass. Most people simply don't want to use the smaller ships, certainly not in those proportions. Destroyers and small cruisers are a pain to make work under most rules sets and generally the experienced folks like their battlewagons. The weapons technology is also not to a point where it makes sense to have fleet actions.

Personally, I'd run a smaller ship just because I like them.

Subhunting in scale is not so problematic, as the person controlling it has to see it, and it has to be close enough to the surface to receive signals (assuming that we are not entrusting weapons fire to an onboard AI).

I would see it as a cool thing to fit one's submarine with a computer that can execute 'macros' like "dive the ship to 20cm, proceed 30m ahead at AIII, execute 45degree turn, proceed 5m, come to A1/3, and come to PD. Continue straight at A1/3 while awaiting instructions." Basically a programmable navigator that lets you send it out, out of sight to everyone, and get into an advantageous position. You'd have to have a VERY reliable sub and computer, but that's the challenge, ain't it? I wouldn't leave firing up to the computer (range safety issues), but driving is fine.

One issue is scoring the battle in such a way as to reward realistic action in battle. An example would be: You, as a destroyer captain see several torpedoes launched against a slow-moving capital ship, do you let the capital ship take the hits, or do you get in the way and earn that MOH by being the torp sponge for the much more valuable BB? Manly stuff :)

To answer the original question, I'm not sure how to encourage captains to operate in realistic squadrons beyond telling them that it makes sense :) If I'm driving my Nevada around (in BaS), and someone has, say, a Pennsy, I'm going to ask him if he wants to run in squadron. Self-preservation from my perspective. In scaled speeds, my DN can't outrun a torpedo cruiser or destroyer. Having TWO DNs to shoot at that Kitakami makes for a more secure future :)

I like the concept of using a DD or CL as bait to lure a BB where it shouldn't go :)

I agree Tug,

Especially in larger scales, when going up to 1/72 or 1/96, the smaller ships become more ideal for people with ailing backs or beginners. In 1/72 scale, IIRC, a 4500 ton light cruiser would weigh around 25 pounds. Not that big, but not that small either.

An increase in scale would actually begin to merge the qualities of Big Gun and Fast Gun together... smaller, fast ships armed with rapid firing BB caliber guns, and larger (but somewhat unwieldy) capitol ships with slower-firing, but longer range and more powerful ball bearing guns.

You do bring up an interesting point when it comes to scoring. "Hero" points sounds like a good idea, but I'm not sure how they would best be awarded. Lets take the "torp sponge" scenario:

Should points be awarded if the battleship could have evaded them? How would we keep people honest? What if the destroyer captain didn't see the torps and just drove into them? What if the destroyer doesn't stop all of them and the BB still takes a hit?

So far, in the rules set I'm writing, scoring is based on tonnage, with different amounts awarded for ships sunk, or ships taken out of action (ex. can't be repaired and returned to the pond in a certain amount of time), and ships that surrender.

Computer controlled subs, huh? You think like me! I've been thinking about how I could make an auto-dive feature for my planned UD-1 model.

I don't know how I would work scoring (as far as if the BB could have avoided the shots, etc...).

As far as computer control, I have no qualms with using technology :) Model sub guys (non-combat) already use auto-ballast systems to keep their subs on depth. I'd love to see a sub AI that can use sonar to work up attack solutions without surfacing :) That would take some of the human challenge out of it, though.

I was looking into sub AI to streamline the controls of a sub.

UD-1 has ten torpedo tubes and 4 deck guns which would be a handful to control, but then if it is also a static diver... its even more difficult.

But giving it a "dive" brain has other advantages as well. I can slow down its dive time by doing a series of events one at a time.

To dive: Shut down smoke generator, close exhaust valve in funnel, extend dive planes, flood ballast tanks, 15 degree down angle on planes, level planes, and then wait 15 seconds before reducing engine power to submerged maximum.

To surface: 15 degrees up on planes, blow tanks, level and retract planes, open exhaust valve, power up smoke generator, wait 20 before increasing engine power to surface maximum.

Since UD-1 would have been steam powered, it would have been very fast on surface but taken longer to dive than a diesel boat. By slowing its dive time down in scale, diesel boats have an advantage in dive speed, but the steam boats are faster on the surface.

But I digress... back to fleet actions.

I agree, they do seem to make more sense. A group that builds together as a team, fights together as a team, is more likely to stay a team.

I think it would benefit rookies more as well. Lets say that in a larger scale FNGs would encouraged to build light cruisers and destroyers. They are of reasonable size, have fewer guns than are almost always BB caliber, they are less complicated and less expensive than large scale DNs.

But as a rookie driver of a light cruiser, the new guy knows he is a vital part of the fleet, the vetern with the DN depends on him for protection. But he depends on the veteran for protection should something bigger get too close to him.

To me that sounds like more fun than, "Hey noob, your blocking my shot..."

Argh! I'll just have to give up one of my recent sub ideas... If the speed differential is key to your plans, then why not use a switch/servo to power a draw down propeller system of some sort from the power given to the dive motor... Submerging is a combination of static/dynamic, and the speed drops too... Just a thought :)

I think the multi role combat will only be sustainable in a large club. When you are scraping everybody together to sustain meets... I think the potential for imbalance is high. Once your club is big enough, let's say thirty active skippers, I think it will be a blast.
Here's part of my reasoning... under age skippers need something to do... and minelaying and sweeping is a good non firing combat activity.
Unarmed convoys can be fun, but everybody wants to shoot... at least some of the time. Due to the difficulty scaling combat, if the torp cruisers are getting out of hand... then there should be a corresponding arms race of destroyers, and screening ships :)

Mike Horne

Excellent idea Mike,

And definately worth considering in smaller subs that might have trouble fitting a static diving system. My only two concerns would be power drain and difficulty bottoming the boat. I'd worry that a pull down prop would suck up weeds and mud off the bottom and clog.

With my UD-1 model, I consider the ability to hard bottom the boat a high priority. I want to be able to sit there drawing a minimum of power and wait, a long while if need be, for the chance to slip back to periscope depth and fire off a spead of torps.

In order to set traps with subs, the have to be able to hide for a while. Using power to drive the sub underwater and holding it there decreases your run time.

Mine laying and mine sweeping would be excellent task to help get younger skippers involved. In WW1, the British used converted trawlers as minesweepers. Simple and small.

Unarmed convoys... another interesting possiblity exists here, Q-ships. ASW doesn't scale down too well, and attacking subs would be much like WW1, the lucky gun shot or a chance to ram a surfaced sub, maybe a mine if your really lucky. But a Q-ship, with hidden guns, might lure a sub to the surface.

Sure... you'd know which ships in your club could be Q-ships, but you would never be sure which ships were armed at the time. [8D]

I think Q-ships would work best with something like the Kotoris' 4 identical convoy ships, just arm one or two of them. Or, arm all of them, and pin the guns on one that's being used as a pure convoy ship. Surprise!

Exactly...

Great pains could be taken to make a Q-ship appear feable, or to feign mechanical or radio trouble, etc... In my bulkhead idea was adopted, Q-ships should get addtional bulkheads vs. their cargo ship counterparts to make them tougher to sink.

Anybody interested in Q-ships should pick up Robert Massey's Castles of Steel, lots of good reading.

To keep it interesting, Q-ships should not gain points for completed convoy runs, since they were intended only as bait. Armed convoy ships and aux. cruisers should recieve points.

And you could rig one to drop bulkheads on a deck house like the real thing. Just depends on how fancy you want to make it.

Oh heck yeah, J :) Dropaway panels are the core of the coolness :D

Don't forget hidden, submerged torpedo tubes [}:)]

I have always wanted to have Q ships have some mechanism to capture the other fleets convoy and have those ships switch sides. I think a lot more q ships would be built. It certainly would be interesting.

Mike

Ah, armor. I have thought that if I had to start over, that an extra layer of 1/8 balsa over the machinery spaces would better represent 5 inch guns not poking holes through the battleships. But, I am straying into heresy here :)


Mike

No, your just starting to sound like me [:D]

Provided the presence of a sufficiently large pond in which to battle and a more historically-accurate distribution in the types of ships on the water, a way of awarding points to individuals/ships could be dictated differently according to the classes of vessels. i.e. battleships awarded points for the number of enemy battleships sunk, cruisers (or merchant raiders in an assymetrical scenario perhaps) awarded points for merchant ships and destroyers sunk, destroyers awarded points for percentage of friendly capital ships afloat/not damaged...or something similar along those lines.

Instead of awarding "points" for damaging parts of the hull, issue objectives to each team. If a goal is defined such that it favors cruisers, then cruisers will be used, etc. by any team that's serious about achieving the goal. There have been some discussions of this in the Scenarios topic.

The above/on/below combat scoring system favors the "melee" type of action that we normally see. If you want to see something else, adjust the scoring to promote the behavior that you want to achieve. 1:1 navies don't score "point"; they control the sea (or not). How many "points" did it take to win WWII in the Pacific?

JM

The only scoring system that accurately reflects warfare: "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women" scores 1 point; everything else scores 0.