warspiteIRC Veteran
 Lieutenant
 Posts:451

 | | 29 Oct 2009 09:48 PM | | As I mentioned in one ot the other forums, the two crew ship was tried in IRC at about the 3th or 4th year of competition(about 1980). It did not work well. The Captain (steering and throttle) and the gunner did not see eye to eye as to which target was the one they were attacking (among other things) and the ship was not seen in competition ever again. They had practiced at another lake the day before battle but it did not seem to help. | | | |
|
warspiteIRC Veteran
 Lieutenant
 Posts:451

 | | 29 Oct 2009 10:04 PM | | Oh Yes, People who have not done any combat come up with the damnest things at first. I have had suggestions from everything from heated bb (to set the other ship on fire), acid poured on the water or shot at the enemy ship to melt the other ship, firecreackers and other explosives, complicated gear boxes (which accually worked!), lines towed behind the ship, timers to cut out functions in the ship, switches to cut out functions when hit by enemy bb's, to mention a few.
Our different types of combat: Big Gun, Fast Gun, treaty, large scale offers many different ways to do combat. Some of the ideas in one type do not translate well into the other forms (example: torpedoes in Big Guns have no equivilent in Fast Gun.) But in everyone of the forms, if you haven't tried it yet, you really do not know what is there and what improvements are needed. Personally, my view is if you haven't built your own boat, you are not a combatant yet and don't know enough to make suggestions. In the IRC, if you haven't been to Nationals you get less votes, and (personally, if you haven't been in a battle with at least 10 ships on the water at the same time, you don't know enough to change the rules.
The advice to actually do combat before suggesting better or improved ways to do is a good one. Vets are usually not impressed with the new ideas that may or may not have appeared in the past until some experience is gained to make the suggestions from. | | | |
|
Kotori87
 Rear Admiral (RADM)
 Posts:2279

 | | 30 Oct 2009 07:56 AM | | I hope we haven't scared you off, Metal.
Big Gun combat, with its rotating turrets, definitely benefits from having additional crew. At the very least, having a dedicated gunner means you've got one person who's thinking purely about hitting the other guy, while the skipper gets to think about tactical maneuvers and such. This provides a significant boost over and above single-skipper ships. It's also a good way to recruit new members, especially if transports and/or shore batteries are unavailable.
Crewed ships have actually been tried several times throughout the history of Big Gun. They definitely reported an increase in the ship's combat effectiveness. However, they also discovered a few downsides. the first downside to having crewed ships is that two ships with one skipper each can outfight one ship with dedicated skipper and gunner. This is a major disadvantage in smaller clubs, where putting one person in the gunner's seat instead of another captain's chair can make a significant difference in the numerical balance between teams. The second disadvantage is that most participants want to have their cake and eat it too. They aren't satisfied, for very long, with just running the guns or just sailing the ship. One person or the other builds a ship, and then they both take full control of their own ships. | | | There are 101 different types of people: those who understand binary, those who don't, and those who just can't count... | |
|
Metal Thunder
 Midshipman
 Posts:6

 | | 30 Oct 2009 11:17 AM | | You haven't 'scared' me off so much as convinced me I am wasting my time with this group of people. You obviously have what you want, and don't have room for anyone else or any other ideas. I wont go into the long of it, but frankly I expected more intelligence from a group of naval combat enthusiasts. I do not patronize, I simply say what I think. It's nothing personal, because I don't know any of you personally. I am confounded on one hand, but on the other hand I get it. RC naval combat has nothing to do with RC naval combat! It is model ship building with an occasional 'fight' to see who can sink the other guys model ship. I don't want to go on too long on this because I think the horse is already dead, but I will say that I am very disappointed with this community, and expect it to die out quickly in the future. When eating is a more popular sport than sinking ships, there is a serious problem. I will post here again, once I set up a suitable space for this to be discussed for those who are interested in becoming part of the future, and not languishing in the past, hanging on to your life ring while the future sails off over the horizon. | | | |
|
JustinScott Founder
 Rear Admiral (RADM)
 Posts:2176

 | | 30 Oct 2009 12:08 PM | | We can't make everyone happy; apparently including you. I wish you well in your journey. | | Cheers,
jks
DKM Tirpitz | |
|
crzyhawk
 Rear Admiral (RADM)
 Posts:2130

 | | 30 Oct 2009 01:11 PM | | I was going to let this go with a simple "good luck to you", but the more I read that last post, the angrier I get. First of all, this hobby has been around since the 70s. Dying off in the near future? I don't think so. You analysis of the "problems" with RC combat are WAY off base. The primary drawback to our hobby (which you would know had you built an actual combat ship and participated in a battle) is the lack of ready to fight ships on the market. As a society today, we are all about instant gratification. Look to RC aircraft for an example. You can go into just about any hobby shop these days, and walk out with a ready to fly aircraft, to include warbirds...with everything including the transmitter. You take it out of the box, charge the batteries and go fly. Simple. No wait. Very little patience in construction required. If RC naval combat had the same thing, it would be much bigger. Bottom line. As far as simulating real big gun naval combat, simply adding a gunner and someone to do what the captain says doesnt even come close to simulating the real thing. With no aircraft (tell the crews of Oklahoma, Arizona, Yamato and Musashi that you dont need to worry about airplanes), no ability to safely simulate plunging fire (the greatest ship killer among surface to surface battles...ask the survivors of Hood...all three of them...), no effective submarines, no long range fire control etc you can't simulate a real battle. Perhaps, Battlestations: Midway on your PC or XBOX-360 is more up your alley. That's a better simulation of the real thing for you. The complete arrogance you show is quite frankly, insulting. You're never built a ship, you've never participated in a battle and yet you have the audacity to come here and tell us we're doing it all wrong? We see this ALL the time. Some new guy who doesnt know a poppet valve from an ESC, comes in with some REVOLUTIONARY new idea that's going to change the RC combat world, and they THINK that everyone who's been doing this is just too stupid to have thought of those things themselves already...then they get all butthurt when people don't like the idea. Feel free to bring your three headed monster out here and put it on the water. It's not illegal. We've already established that, but you want to FORCE your idea on everyone else which is what's not cool. Nothing is stopping you from putting a crewed ship out there, other then your desire to have forced everyone else to play the game YOUR way instead of the way we've been playing it for years. I'll be happy to blow it out of the water for you. I'll even hold your three transmitters when you go out to get it. EDIT: Sorry Justin, feel free to delete this post if necessary. | | | HMS Invincible
USS Salem (CA-139)
USS Belleau Wood (CVL-24)
| |
|
radollar2000
 Ensign
 Posts:120

 | | 30 Oct 2009 10:01 PM | | Thank you Hawk. You put that much more eloquently than I would have. | | | |
|
Greg McFadden
 Rear Admiral (RDML)
 Posts:1416

 | | 30 Oct 2009 10:35 PM | | I would add one thing to 'hawk's' note. Most of us are quite willing to help anyone try almost anything new/different/old but lets try it again, so long as it is safe and isn't a "my ship basically is a BB hand grenade on the water and I will shred all those around me with immunity", even when we think that where they want to go is not the best (or even feasible) way to do things. Where the line is drawn for most folk is when one of a handful of things happen:
1. someone takes a my way or the highway approach, and insists that there be no disagreement on the validity or value of some approach/change/whatever -no idea will be ok with everyone. some will like it, some won't. Some will vehemently disagree, while some will agree as strongly. most will help an idea succeed even if they don't think it of value so long as item 1 is not violated. That is the nature of not just the hobby but life in general. As soon as the "my way or the highway" attitude is trotted out, things get ugly, and no good comes from it.
2. Something is blatantly unsafe or illegal.
that is about it. | | | |
|
Evil Joker Veteran
 Commander
 Posts:615

 | | 30 Oct 2009 10:36 PM | | Its all about picking,building and fighting your own ship i have 4 and have no problem letting someone use one for a battle or two.
You dont drive a car with two people We still all drive. You do have a point tho you can play with your wife/girlfriend or kid to get them started
then thay get there own ship. Dont nok what you don't know | | Southern California Region Attack Patrol (SCRAP) http://www.scrapcombatships.com
SMS Konig - Battle Ready
SMS Von der Tann - Battle Ready
DMB Scipione Africano - Battle Ready
DKM Prinz Eugen - Battle Ready | |
|
froggyfrenchman
 Rear Admiral (RADM)
 Posts:2988

 | | 31 Oct 2009 04:35 PM | | Interesting thread. I am building a 96th scale Strasbourg for the Battlestations group. At one time, I was considering arming all of the secondaries, so that I could drive the ship, and shoot the scondaries. As this ship has two main turrets forward. I was planning to have each of the main turrets controled by my kids. Rotation, depression, and firing. The theory was not to have it set up that way to make it a better ship for the combat. But to give the kids a chance to participate in the combat. That is not to say that it might not have been a really nasty boat to deal with in combat (if we got good at working together). As in most things. Revolutionary thinking will work for some. Not for others. The key is to make it work for you. In that respect. I am of the oppinion, that in some instances, instead of telling everyone that your idea is sound, it is better to show everyone that your idea is sound. Mikey | | | |
|
Chris Easterbrook
 Rear Admiral (RDML)
 Posts:1391

 | | 01 Nov 2009 06:27 AM | | I agree with you Froggy if it works for you then I say great but remember that it may not work for everyone. The idea of a two person boat would work for letting spectaters have a go at the hobby if no spare ships are present. Would it invigorate the hobby I do not think so. The lack of pre built ready to go ships keeps this hobby from becoming as large as model planes or helicopters. I there was a place you could buy them even online for a reasonable price I think the hobby might grow but that is just my two cents. | | | That which does not kill me, makes me stronger. | |
|
warspiteIRC Veteran
 Lieutenant
 Posts:451

 | | 01 Nov 2009 11:19 AM | | so how much should the "RTR" boat cost? We can't go with the foam that RTR planes use which are priced for $100 to $250. Is someone going to pay $600 plus for a RTR ship? | | | |
|
JustinScott Founder
 Rear Admiral (RADM)
 Posts:2176

 | | 01 Nov 2009 11:55 AM | | Rtr planes don't have a radio, so we wouldn't have to ship that.
The cooler rc cars are right around $350. I think we could do a $350 single cannon warship. More cannons are 'hop ups'. | | Cheers,
jks
DKM Tirpitz | |
|
jadfer
 Lieutenant Commander
 Posts:570

 | | 01 Nov 2009 11:56 AM | | many local clubs build their own guns. It should have no guns so that can get the type they want or get them made by the local club. guns are easy - either buy them or make them. | | | |
|
Chris Easterbrook
 Rear Admiral (RDML)
 Posts:1391

 | | 01 Nov 2009 02:09 PM | | Smaller boats I would think go for about 350-500 dollars, larger ones upwards of 1000-1500 dollars. I would think a RTR boat should have cannons installed so its load install your reciever and batteries then your on the water. That would increase the ease for new people to get started and alot of people today want it done for them. | | | That which does not kill me, makes me stronger. | |
|
Greg McFadden
 Rear Admiral (RDML)
 Posts:1416

 | | 01 Nov 2009 02:20 PM | | I'm with chris, particularly for fast gun gameplay. As simple as cannons are to make and mount once you have done it a few times, doing it right the initial time can be troublesome for new folk. Just ask phill what my I-boat's cannons looked like when I first showed up with it all those years ago. | | | |
|
Rob Wood Veteran
 Ensign
 Posts:120

 | | 09 Nov 2009 02:45 PM | | In my particular club, we've seen amazing growth in the past year (over 20%). One of the main reasons is that we have actively sought to recruit all ages, and have added three boys under 11 years of age since May, bringing our number of kids under 12 to a total of 5. Of course, those kids' parents become their "crew" (so-to-speak), so we naturally will recruit the parents, as well. What is happening is that, in our club, at any rate, family involvement is becoming increasingly important. The way I see it, this approach will revitalize any club, and it's basically a very simple approach. It just takes an attitude adjustment on the part of the club members - not a technological adjustment.
Let me say that I love experimenting, and I love technology. I love to tinker, and to try out new things - especially things that other people say are not possible. I was one of the first people in my club to get a destroyer to be an effective fighting vessel. I built a PT boat (although haven't yet figured out how to arm it). I built a working 1:144 LST that can deliver an RC tank to the shore. But I have learned that technology is only good as it supports the mission, and to me, the mission is to get 20 - 25 ships on the water in battle, each and every combat event. In my club, we're steadily moving toward that goal.
Consider the logistical problems with each ship having a three-person crew. 25 ships x 3 = 75 people required to meet my goal, as opposed to 25. How would the 3-person teams communicate? What would happen if one receiver failed? That would mean three people out of action, as opposed to one. Do I think it would be fun to have multiple people attempt to operate an RC warship combat ship in battle? Sure! Is that what's needed to grow a club (which is, after all, growing the hobby)? No. It's a novelty that could be entertaining in a public demo, though.
This is what I think, for what it's worth: If you want to grow your club, focus on the family and community dynamics, and promote yourselves that way. Just looking at the incredible growth of social media, it's obvious that people are hungry for a community to become a part of. Grow your club's heart, and reach out to people around you - especially kids and their parents - and your club - and the hobby as a whole - will grow.
One last thought, though, and that is the idea of off-the-shelf "ARF" (Almost Ready to Fight) combat boats that could be mass-produced and purchased in hobby stores, and the effect it would have on growth of the hobby. I don't share the enthusiasm that others seem to have for this idea. As it stands, people need to learn to build, engineer, repair and maintain combat ships. It's the last of the RC DIY avenues left. It's also not expensive at all, compared to virtually any other RC hobby. People routinely spend hundreds of dollars for RC airplanes and helicopters, which at any moment can become trash. Our ships, if built and engineered carefully, can last a lifetime. If you want to jump-start a new recruit, maintain some club loaners, and develop a mentor program, pairing a veteran with a greenhorn for that first built project. The fact that our ships are so hands-on is bringing our young club members and parents together, because they have to work together to succeed. Take that away, and we will have lost something that I believe is really important.
Rob | | | |
|
pamnjay Veteran
 Rear Admiral (RDML)
 Posts:1134

 | | 10 Nov 2009 09:21 AM | | I agree with Rob, I don't think buying a 'plug and play' boat is the way to go. If an individual doesn't put anything into the boat, that individual will look at it after it is sunk and wonder "now what?" I bought Scharnhorst in as close to ready to rock condition as possible. It was fun driving it around but I didn't really get into the hobby until I torn it apart and rebuilt it. Now I understand the little things that didn't make sense when I bought the boat, but are important to keep it floating, moving and fighting. Also, if something goes wrong at the lake, I can fix it (so far at least) but that is only because I put it together and understand how it all works together. And finally, even a new guy has good ideas that work, (surrounding my pump in filter foam to keep crap out), but that wouldn't have happened if someone else built it. Innovation comes with experience... or was it trial and error, I can never remember. J | | | "There it is again...kind of a BOOM sound" -short lived Allied lookout | |
|
Greg McFadden
 Rear Admiral (RDML)
 Posts:1416

 | | 10 Nov 2009 09:50 AM | | I am going to disagree, because all these same arguments about Ready to Fly aircraft were trotted out at my local RC aircraft clubs as to why ARF's were a terrible idea, would destroy the hobby, wouldn't increase active membership, would get rid of folks building and creating neat and new stuff, reduces father-son time, etc (heck I made some of them at the time).
All of them were false proven.
We had all the same suggestions for increasing membership that rob has put up previously in the aircraft clubs without having to resort to ARF aircraft. While they did work, they paled in comparison to the influx of new blood seen when the ARF's truly hit the sceen.
Even the most avid builders around here who still still builds/ creates/ etc, has ARF aircraft, as they let one get in the air while working on that other project. I suspect the same would happen here... you would end up with some folk that would only run the RTR boats. Some would use them to get back into the combat aspect while working or reworking other ships (I could really have used that a year ago). Those folks that are interested in doing something different and innovating still will. Those folks that really are not interested, and just want something to work, no longer will have to. A properly designed RTR boat would not require complex maintenance or engineering. Honestly, nothing in these boats when properly designed is that complex to keep running. The complexity comes in the DIY part of it (The DIY part being one of those parts of they hobby I absolutely love most). Maintaining a properly designed ship is no more complex than doing your car's oil changes, assuming suitable instructions are supplied.
That being said, I think the odds of anyone getting a RTR boat going for the hobby are fairly low, simply because we do not have enough of a market yet to justify the initial development cost of the boat. One could argue there is an opportunity market, but when I add in the liability such a thing might create for its parent company (doubly so in light of the winning of the lawsuit against an aluminum bat manufacturer, for making a product that worked exactly as advertised), I simply don't see how anyone would actually go and do it. | | | |
|
jadfer
 Lieutenant Commander
 Posts:570

 | | 10 Nov 2009 01:58 PM | | Liability is a main reason that RTR ships wont be sold in hobby shops. IMHO the safest way is to sell ARTR ships that are already tested to fit with a cannon set that could be ordered and installed on their own. If the owner arms the ship then its their problem not the store that sold it (yes I know you can sue anyone for any reason so what is different). An additional reason is that it would keep some mischievious teenager from just walking in with money and walking out to the pond and killing all the waterfowl or shooting swimmers. They could do that regardless of course but if they have to go to the trouble to order to have their parents order the cannons then the parents would at least be aware of what they could do. In addition it would most likely require veteran assistance to get them working properly anyway so any new user would at least get basic safety instruction. Lets not forget about all the RTR Boat and Car guys that wanted something better and later built their own boat or bought a rolling race chassis and customized it. The same would apply to our hobby. I for one would have purchased an RTR and armed it. I of course would then want a different ship and with the basic knowledge of how the air system worked and such I would be able to better choose my ship and its components. In the end you have to think about what the target market or end result is. A large number of guys working in their garages, mostly alone, preppign for a battle with a few other boats OR Fewer guys in the workshop prepping for a battle with a lot of boats on the water to shoot. We are in Model Warship Combat not Model Warship Construction and as I see it its all about the COMBAT !!! Woooo Hoooooo! (I had a blast at my last battle, only my second.. sorry) So maybe we should work on this? | | | |
|