R/C Naval Combat

 Hello, this is my first post on this forum; however I would like to say I greatly enjoy reading it.

I would hope the fact that I have not posted here before will not take away from your opinion of my proposal.

Before I begin, I would like to give a little background on myself so you can understand and hopefully appreciate my positions and benefit from my experience. 

I am the 12 generation of naval service in my family,  I served 8 years in the US Navy as an Operations Specialist.  I was the Naval Warfare Publication Custodian for my ship, as well as assistant intelligence officer, LAAWC, and wrote real war game scenarios for US Navy training.  I served aboard a combat vessel in actual naval combat during the first Gulf War, and in Somalia.

I will be upfront; I have not participated in RC warship combat before, however I have studied it for some time.

I have heard some talk of the future of this hobby/sport and complaints of the cost to participate, and some concerns about letting anyone participate.  I think I have a solution that will take this sport to the next level, in addition to address the concerns of cost of entry, turning away kids (I’ll dive into this issue in more detail further down), and participation.

How can all this be accomplished, you ask?  Very simply! With a minimal cost increase per ship, but a great increase in participation, I believe this is the future of this hobby/sport, and without it, RC warship combat will slowly die out.

Personally I think that would be a great tragedy.  But before I go into great detail on my proposal (and I will), I think it is important to go over WHY I think this is the future of this hobby.

I have seen some posts on here about the fun vs reward of naval ship combat, and I mostly agree with the concept that people are willing to do things more and spend more if they are fun.  The problem is people’s definition of fun varies from person to person.  The way the hobby is set up now, it dumps the entire proposition on one person.  I think this is a mistake, and I’ll tell you why.  You have to forget Hollywood, you have to forget most of what you know about how navy ships work because there is not anything really close to the reality in the media or movies.

Some of the things I have read about how most people understand how a ship works is laughable.  Blind helmsmen comes to mind as probably the most ludicrous thing I have heard yet.  There are a myriads of things I could go into, but I don’t want to get too far off topic.

Let me break this down, a ship is not it’s Captain.  The Captain is simply the figurehead that represents the ship. A ship has a crew.  More than that a ship IS IT’S CREW.  A Captain is nothing without a crew, and a ship is nothing without a crew.  Nothing in any navy survives without the crew and teamwork of the crew.

So the short of my proposal  is that this need to become a team hobby/sport.

Now I am not one to simply suggest and idea, but rather provide a solution to the problem.  Therefore I have worked out a way to transition to this format from what I call phase one witch could be implemented by your next club battle, to phase three witch will require some technology that will need to be adapted for our purposes.

Let’s talk about the team.  What is a typical naval team?  Well as you can imagine there are hundreds of not thousands of people aboard a large naval vessel, this is not practical to simulate for our purposes, so lets wattle it down to what I call the ‘core’ team.  I will list the core tem members and what their job would be.

Captain – Responsible for coordinating the crew – has radio contact with all other friendly captains

Helmsman – Responsible for steering and setting the speed of the ship.

Gunner - Responsible for aiming and firing weapons

This is the minimum core team for each ship.

What this means is that each ship on the water will have a minimum of three people to operate that ship.  This does not limit the team compared to larger ships; which will have more people to fill more positions.  For example, each turret can be manned by a different gunner, or one gunner can man the forward guns.  There are advantages and disadvantages to each method that the ship’s captain and crew will have to decide how they want to do it.

Now there are a lot of other jobs that need to be done, but before I go into those, I think it is important to note a couple of things.  First, multiple positions can be held by the same person.  So even though every ship has more than three positions, you can fill those positions with only three people.

Here are the positions that I think need to be implemented to get the true feel of naval combat and make an interesting and fun experience for the participants:

In addition to the three core team positions:

Admiral – Coordinates all ships on a team – Has radio contact with all friendly captains

Weapons Officer – responsible for coordinating multiple weapon systems

Chief Engineer – Responsible for in-battle repairs – only one of two allowed to touch ship during battle

Engineer’s Assistant – Helps the Chief engineer with in-battle repairs – Also allowed to touch ship during battle

Damage Control Chief – Responsible for anti-list ballasting, bilge pump operation, and any other device designed to prevent a ship from sinking

So, the next question is ‘How is this implemented?’

Phase one is simple, I will give a couple of examples and explanations:

The Captain does not have a remote to the ship, however he does have a radio link to the other captains for coordination.

The helmsman has a radio that controls speed and rudder (plus any other functions his other positions require, IE if he is also the damage control officer, he would have the ballast and bilge controls as well.)

The gunner has a radio that controls turret direction, elevation and firing.

Simple, right?  Now let’s say you have a large ship with 2 front turrets, one rear turret and two side turrets.  There are a couple ways to do this, you could have one gunner control all turrets (lest effective), or one gunner control both front turrets, one gunner control rear and side turrets (more effetctive), or one gunner for each front turret, one for the rear turret, and one for the side turrets (most effective).  This will be up to the ship’s captain and crew how they want to run their ship.  The downside to so many controls is that you need to have more people.  This reflects real naval combat.  Bigger ships have more crew for this very reason.  Once you have 3 gunners, you will probably need a Weapons officer to coordinate these gunners to comply with the captain orders.  This is how the real navy does it.

Phase two is what I call ‘Consoles’

Phase Two is Similar to phase one, but with simple consoles that can be made for each crew member to sit at with semi-realistic controls that are connected to the radio link to control the ship.  I think these consoles would be easy and cheap to construct but would add more depth and elements to the game.  Phase two would be essential before phase three can be implemented.

Phase Three is what I call ‘Advanced Consoles’

Phase three takes phase two one step further, by adding cameras and telemetry along with sensors on the ship.  Gunners get gun cameras and monitors on their station for aiming and firing their guns.  There are remote sensors on the ship that can indicate damage that can knock out a crewmember from their station.  This then requires someone to take over that station thereby reducing the effectiveness of a ship as it takes damage.  This is what is known as ‘casualty play’.

So why the fundamental change in how it’s done?  What’s wrong with the current way? Nothing is ‘wrong’ with current play style, however, I feel this offers a whole lot more to the hobby/sport  to more people than the current play style.   I know that a lot of people are resistant to change, but by the same token, what is the harm in trying something new?  Worst case is you don’t like it, best case is you do like it!

Further, I think this will address a few issues that I see with the current state of the game.  This reduces cost by splitting it amongst multiple players per ship. How many people will play if they can invest $100 or less to play on a team where they don’t have to necessarily build their own ship and can learn about the hobby over time without a huge initial investment?   And this will address what I think is the biggest issue I see.  Not allowing people under 18 to play is the worst thing you can do to a hobby/sport.  No successful sport excludes young people.  This will allow young people to participate without any of the concerns of danger, they can be helmsmen, they can be engineers, they can be captains!  The only thing they can’t be is a gunner.  As long as the gunner is an adult, the weapons are just as safe as they are now. 

I have more of this worked out, but as I am currently in Chemotherapy for cancer, I will stop at this point as I am exhausted.  I would presume there are many questions, and I probably have answers for them, so ask away!

Posted By jadfer on 24 Oct 2009 10:12 AM
I like this idea, but we have discussed it before. I see two main problems and the main one is the lack of warm bodies. The other main problem is that many of the current captains dont like new technology or change. Another main factor is although it is fun to work on the ships the thrill of driving the ship, pulling alongside another, and then pounding them with your haymaker (stern sidemount) really gets the heart pumping. I cant see anyone enjoying being the Captain or helmsman for long.

It seems a little like eating chicken parmesean, my favorite, and giving the chickenn to one person, the sauce to another, and the cheese to the third. Its all good but individually its not very exciting.

In addition this idea will take serious hardware to make a reality. The only one making anything remotely close to what you need is Stephen Morgret's ship controller and its a one man device and has been in development for a long time. We do have several EE and embeded guys in the hobby but this is major hardware and software development and wouldnt be ready for years assuming they had the time to work on it and there was a suitable market for recovery of the time and research development expenses.

Now, take your idea, put it into ships large enough to hold it like 1/96 or 1/72, make it more like a robotics competition like battlebots where teams do compete, then you have something there. Then you have a new hobby which would be easier to sell than changing the current clubs. I also think this would be better suited for more modern ships rather than the older ships. Then you could allow bow thrusters, jet propulsion, etc.

The fast gun guys will never change their ships, never, I know this for a fact.

I do like the idea and when it was brought up in the past we all liked the novelty of the electronics but I dont see how it can happen without a large committment from some kind of electronics manufacturer.

Johnny

I understand some of your concerns, but am not following you as far as the technical feasability?  Phase one can be inplemented today, and have any ship battle ready by next weekend.  I forgot to go into the detail on the technical, but basically you just have multiple recievers and radios per boat to accomidate te different positions.  I had also thought of bigger ships being better for this type of setup.  I also realize this is not a suitable system for fast gun ships.  The required electronics for phase two and three is all off the shelf stuff readily available, it just needs minor adaptation.

As far as other comments about not enough people, the point of this is to bring in new people, not consolidate current members.  how many people don't show up because they don't have a boat ready and don't just want to stand around?  How many people would like to try it out without buying a whole ship.  This proposal is about growth, not about reducing the number of ships on the water.

I do think it would be better in a bigger scale, however, I think using big gun scale as a proof of concept would require little modification that can easily be put back and get people a taste of the system.  I think this is far easier than it sounds!  I live in southern California, and would be glad to assist anyone near this area in trying this out.  As I am currently out of work on medical leave, I am available most of the time.

I also think you are dead wrong about nobody wanting to be captain or helmsman.  I bet if you tried it, you would not find it boring at all, but the point is this makes it a team sport, and not everyone gets to be quarterback!  But key plays by each team member is going to make or break the ship.  Would you rather help a team win, or sit on the sideline wishing you could do something?

I realize that most people fear change, it is very common, especially when dealing with ideas they can't understand.  It is the way of the world, people adapt or fall by the wayside.  The only constant is change.  I don't think this is something that needs to be forced on people who don't want to change, but rathered offered to those who do.

This type of play is goign to require a fundamental shift in how people perceive the game, and play the game.  It's not something that is going to catch on overnight.

Welcome aboard!

(edited out suggestion to move:  my mistake, I thought this was a different sub-forum)

You make a fatal basic assumption: That there is any real interest on the part of participants in creating anything approaching a realistic simulation of naval operations (including combat), on any level. That's not a put-down of the hobby, just a simple reality. "It is what it is", & what it is not is a realistic simulation. A lot of people have a lot of time & money invested in the status quo, & are going to resist any changes, no matter how much of an "improvement" they represent. Your ideas have been discussed before. My best advice would be to just go ahead & do it, but do it elsewhere. You won't find much support among the existing R/C warship combat hobby, although there are a few individuals who might be interested in taking up discussions outside of this forum (myself among them). Realistically, you're not going to get there from here; you may get there by some other course, though, & if you do you may attract some current R/C warship combat participants. Your core audience is probably elsewhere, though.

JM

Posted By JohnmCA72 on 24 Oct 2009 12:26 PM

Welcome aboard!

(edited out suggestion to move:  my mistake, I thought this was a different sub-forum)

You make a fatal basic assumption: That there is any real interest on the part of participants in creating anything approaching a realistic simulation of naval operations (including combat), on any level. That's not a put-down of the hobby, just a simple reality. "It is what it is", & what it is not is a realistic simulation. A lot of people have a lot of time & money invested in the status quo, & are going to resist any changes, no matter how much of an "improvement" they represent. Your ideas have been discussed before. My best advice would be to just go ahead & do it, but do it elsewhere. You won't find much support among the existing R/C warship combat hobby, although there are a few individuals who might be interested in taking up discussions outside of this forum (myself among them). Realistically, you're not going to get there from here; you may get there by some other course, though, & if you do you may attract some current R/C warship combat participants. Your core audience is probably elsewhere, though.

JM

I appreciate your honesty, and you may be right, but this seemed like a logical starting point.  As much as I think this is a great idea, my health and other situations prevent me from taking up this idea all on my own.  I was hoping to enlist some help in at least trying this out.  If it's just not going to happen because of people being Luddites, then I really feel sorry for the hobby and have no sympathy for those who complain about it's current standing.

Perhaps it would be better to strike out on another front , but honestly I just don't feel up to it.  I am open to suggestions though, and if you have any I'm all ears, since you seem to have some interest in this, what do you think a good course of action would be?

Posted By Metal Thunder on 24 Oct 2009 12:39 PM

...

Perhaps it would be better to strike out on another front , but honestly I just don't feel up to it.  I am open to suggestions though, and if you have any I'm all ears, since you seem to have some interest in this, what do you think a good course of action would be?

Sometimes you're better off just starting over fresh.  It's going to take a fair amount of time, money, & personal commitment from somebody to get what you want done.  Most of those already in the hobby have pretty much all of those resources committed already.  E-mail me if you'd like to discuss this more:  johnm(at)boreal(dot)org.  Put "SHIPFIGHT" in the subject & you'll clear the spam filters.

JM

There are huge differences between our ships and the real ships.  Our guns are gravity fed, eliminating the need for a team of people to operate the magazine and hoists.  Guns are aimed by eye, eliminating the need for a team to operate rangefinders, fire control computers, and spot the fall of shot.  It's all done by the model's captain.  Bilge pumps take over the job of damage control crews.  Electric motors simplify the drive train and eliminate the need for an engine crew.  Nobody dies in the end (although electronics will get wet on occasion).  Essentially, the "captain" of a model takes over many jobs, hands some of them over to electronic systems like the radio or electronic speed controller, or eliminates them with things like gravity fed guns.  The systems are so simple that one man can operate them using a hobby radio.  It is not necessary to have a team of people, and in fact can be more of a hindrance in getting everyone to show up to the pond.

Even if we switched over to using three-man crews, the ships themselves do not accurately recreate historical combat.  Even big gun ships, which strive to imitate history the most, have serious historical issues.  We fire solid round shot from smoothbore guns at short range, horizontal trajectories at ships protected by wooden armor and no internal subdivision.  It is like playing Battlefield Heroes, a game inspired by World War 2, as opposed to Men of War, a game that attempts to accurately recreate World War 2.  The team idea is great, but not always possible.  Silent Hunter 4, one of the top naval simulators, involves a single player comanding a submarine alone.  Even the massive battlefleets of Jutland can be commanded by a single player (it's awesome, I highly recommend it).

The teamwork element of the currrent hobby comes from people operating individual ships and discovering the role each is suited for on the battle pond.  Slow battleships can slug it out with other battleships, but can't run down cruisers or transport vessels.  Torpedo boats can deliver a nasty punch, but can't stick around and can't survive much damage.

All this does not mean you have a bad idea.  It is a different hobby from mine, although it is definately related.

Firstly, I would like to apologize for not replying to anything sooner, as I started a new chemotherapy last week, and it's really hammering me, I just haven't been up to doing much of anything.  Rather than try to answer everyone individually, I will try to answer some questions all in one post.

First thing I think is funny, is Mr Tugboat needs to lookup the definition of Luddite!

But it wasn't directed at individuals, just the hobby in general, though admittedly the hobby is made up of individuals.

As far as the technical aspects, I'm not sure what exactly people think can't be done, perhaps if someone had a specific question I could answer it.  I think maybe people are over-thinking the proposal.

I appreciate that there are people who won't want to play this way, and that's fine.  However, that in no way should prevent them from participating or using other ideas they have to help with this sort of game play idea.

Please keep the comments coming, and please try to stay positive for those who are interested.  Posting several paragraphs about how your not intereseted is not really what I am looking for, and adds little to the conversation!

I agree with thunder that there is nothing that can't be done with existing off the shelf tech. Its just a matter of controlling the ship with two Rxs instead of one.

Infact, I have (inadvertently) setup my Tirpitz to support this; as is today.

Posted By Tugboat on 27 Oct 2009 04:22 PM
Definition: opponent of new technology: an opponent of technological or industrial change.

I was redefining it to a slightly more appropriate 'one who opposes change for the sake of change, without regard for an undesirable delta in reliability that proceeds from such change'. If a new technology makes things better, by all means, go with it. I defy anyone in the hobby to show me that 3 captains running one ship can outperform three captains running 3 ships. Or even one captain running one ship. Adding the systems specified (compartmentation, extra radios, variable ballast) will increase cost of the ships, as well as making them harder to construct. While I have a full shop and friends with CNC machines (Greg, for example), many people do not. It is not a question of technical know-how on my part, I spent several years in the nuclear navy and have the usual schools that come with such things.
One comment that I have never heard from someone building their first ship is, 'Gosh, I wish this could be more complex!'

Most battlers, if they don't reject it out of hand, are going to repeat my advice to try a battle and then suggest changes. Look at it from the perspective of the captains who've been doing this for years (and some even decades): A new E2 or E3 arrives on board from A-school and starts making suggestions on how to completely change all the SOPs, without having actually operated with a ship before. How would you react?

I understand what you are saying, but I'm not advocating 'evolution' I am advocating 'revolution'.  While there may be a path from here to there, it is not necessary to traverse it.   You don't really have to have experience in something to know if it's being done wrong or not.  And I'm not saying it's being done wrong, I'm just saying there is a better way.  You can only point the right way, people are going to choose their own path no matter which way you point.  Think of this thread as being for people who want to try something new, and if your not interested, I would just leave it alone.

In any case, just to be clear, I do not disagree with what you said, I just think you're missing the point of this thread.

1st off Thunder, intentionally or not, patronizing people is not a good way to get them to listen to you. Secondly, I would like to say that your idea is very interesting and seems to have brought about at least one good idea for the inclusion of new comers into R/C Warship Combat world. However, you say that your way is better, but I would like to ask, better for whom? From my personal experience, there is a big difference between the you tube videos and actually being there. I watched all the You tube videos and read all the web sites I could find and I still wasn't prepared for what I experienced when I went to my first battle down at the Bayou. Once your able to get out and about again try to get to one of the battles or try to get one of the guys in you area to show you around. Maybe someone will even let you borrow a boat for a battle. Then maybe you can make suggestions on different ways to change the system after seeing first hand why some things are they way they are.