BoomerBoy17
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2099
 | | 13 Jan 2009 04:09 PM |
| What about giving convoys a pump?(1/2 or 1 unit depending on weight)
I think that this would increase convoys and allow more playability it regular meets. Also, because they will have more of a chance, the rules can be lessened, as to make it more fun for the warships. Also, possibly increase points value as to make them more important.
Any ideas? Changes? | | | Even though I walk
through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
-Psalm 23. | |
|
Phill Lowe
Ensign
Posts:189
| | 24 Jan 2009 02:33 AM |
| Without a pump, a single hole will eventually take out a convoy ship. WCC has set up some fairly long courses in the past. We haven't played with the cargo ships in a few years so maybe some changes may make it interesting again. I'm interested in the idea of a capacity limited pump. My Liberty ship has lots of unused space inside... | | | WCC Minister of Misinformation. | |
|
hullbuster
Ensign
Posts:60
| | 15 Feb 2009 06:38 AM |
| Pen the rule and propose it. You may get lucky ...
| | | IJN Yamato (active)
IJN Nagato (active)
IJN Shinano (active)
RN Vittorio Veneto (active)
RN Conte Di Cavour (active)
RN Scipione Africano (active)
SS Conte Di Savoia (on the blocks)
| |
|
BoomerBoy17
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2099
| | 15 Feb 2009 08:48 AM |
| I wont be at NATS until thursday, and maybe not at all. Otherwise, i would do that myself. Im looking for a captain willing to submit it, and maybe write it, as im not sure of the wording to use. | | | Even though I walk
through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
-Psalm 23. | |
|
BoomerBoy17
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2099
| | 15 Feb 2009 09:06 AM |
| Im thinking something along the line of this:
Replace Rule Part 5 Section C Number 5 with :" All convoy ships may have one (1) .5 unit pump only".
Remove Rule Part 5 Sections D, E, and within G, ( sections 2, part c) also, cut the values in the table of Section K, part 5 in half.
Any ideas, help, ectetera. | | | Even though I walk
through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
-Psalm 23. | |
|
Chris Easterbrook
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1391
| | 22 May 2009 04:52 AM |
| Hello all we up here in NABS in Canada have upgraded the Bismarck class to a class 7 three years ago and it has worked out great. The ship has turned into a real threat for the allied ships. We have had no problems or complaints about the change, have you thought about doing the same thing? I do have one question why was nagato moved from a class5 with 5.5 units, as her as built specs clearly put here in the class 5 with 5.5 units. | | | That which does not kill me, makes me stronger. | |
|
SnipeHunter
Commander
Posts:701
| | 22 May 2009 10:14 AM |
| Posted By BoomerBoy17 on 15 Feb 2009 09:06 AM
Im thinking something along the line of this:
Replace Rule Part 5 Section C Number 5 with :" All convoy ships may have one (1) .5 unit pump only".
Remove Rule Part 5 Sections D, E, and within G, ( sections 2, part c) also, cut the values in the table of Section K, part 5 in half.
Any ideas, help, ectetera. Why do you want to give convoy ships pumps? Remove Rule Part 5 Sections D, E, and within G, ( sections 2, part c) also, cut the values in the table of Section K, part 5 in half. So you want to remove the parts about convoy ship duties and attacking them and make them worth less points? What are you trying to do with this? Have you ever taken part in a campaign battle? I dont get what you're trying to do or your reasoning behind it. Does a 7 unit Bismarck get dual sidemounts? A dual stern sidemount in a Bismarck would be pretty nasty. | | | |
|
Chris Easterbrook
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1391
| | 22 May 2009 11:34 AM |
| I armed mine with a set of duels in a and b turret one faceing each side and a duel stern. The other bismarck here has a 2 sets of duals in the stern at 15 degress of to each side and a set of duals on one side. Both setups are good. It has given the Bismarck class some much needed teeth as we have found at 6.5 units it was under gunned for its size.The one other change we made was that the Iowa class has a speed of 23 sec as it was faster than any other battleship and was as fast as alot of cruisers. | | | That which does not kill me, makes me stronger. | |
|
Iceman
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1186
| | 22 May 2009 11:35 AM |
| Boomer seems to be quiet lately, I'm not seeing the 100+ post a day. IRCWCC has the bis at 6.5 for now but we are going to add changing it to 7 at the rules meeting. We'll vote on it and see what happens. | | Rob A.
USS Alabama
USS Arizona
USS Saratoga
DKM Bismarck
USS John Brown
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NYBG/ | |
|
Chris Easterbrook
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1391
| | 22 May 2009 11:51 AM |
| It might be exam time, the two complete bismarcks up here have work really well and it gives the axis a counter to the Vanguard. | | | That which does not kill me, makes me stronger. | |
|
t_josef
Ensign
Posts:50
| |
Chris Easterbrook
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1391
| | 22 May 2009 12:31 PM |
| We just did the Bismarck as most sources list him at about 42000 tons but in reality he was closer to 45000 - 46000 tons when his atlantic bow was installed. Tirpitz was even heavier at aout 48000 - 50000 tons as tirpitz was completed as bismarck was not. Bismarck was missing some equipment and did not have torps. These were the reasons only the Bismarck class moved. | | | That which does not kill me, makes me stronger. | |
|
BoomerBoy17
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2099
| | 22 May 2009 04:53 PM |
| Posted By Iceman on 22 May 2009 11:35 AM
Boomer seems to be quiet lately, I'm not seeing the 100+ post a day. IRCWCC has the bis at 6.5 for now but we are going to add changing it to 7 at the rules meeting. We'll vote on it and see what happens.
sorry rob, been busy with school, life has been getting in the way. No real progress since i was last up in NY
| | | Even though I walk
through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
-Psalm 23. | |
|
Iceman
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1186
| | 22 May 2009 10:06 PM |
| I know how that life thing goes.... Littorio class has never been discussed . It's not that it couldn't be bumped up, I just don't think the club as a whole wants it bumped. There is much discussion about the Bismarck, probably for the same reasons as listed. | | Rob A.
USS Alabama
USS Arizona
USS Saratoga
DKM Bismarck
USS John Brown
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NYBG/ | |
|
RichelieuBB
Veteran
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1344
| | 23 May 2009 01:58 AM |
| Wasn't there some discussion a while back about bumping heavy cruisers to 23 seconds and light cruisers/smaller ships to 22 seconds? It might help the small ships survive against the 24 seconds BB by giving the cruisers an option to run. It may even promote more people building cruisers.
| | Mike Mangus
Beware the French Revolution!
Operational:
HMS Erin DN
FN Richelieu BB
FN Verite PDN
Under Construction:
FN Mogador DE
FN Gascogne BB (Treaty)
FN Bretagne (1/96) (delayed)
Le Requin Xebec (AoS)
Mothballed:
FN Bearn CV
| |
|
Chris Easterbrook
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1391
| | 23 May 2009 06:17 AM |
| I agree Mike the light and heavy cruisers with a speed advantage would stand a better chance of survival. | | | That which does not kill me, makes me stronger. | |
|
pamnjay
Veteran
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1133
| | 23 May 2009 09:26 AM |
| Just a thought, why not knock a second off of the bigger ships? 24 to 25 seconds and 26 to 27 seconds. That builds in the speed advantage of the cruisers to at least a useful difference.
J | | | "There it is again...kind of a BOOM sound" -short lived Allied lookout | |
|
Greg McFadden
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1416
| | 23 May 2009 02:01 PM |
| Oddly enough I think the bumping down by one might be the better option (rather than speeding some ships up), simply from the power supply side perspective. It would end up reducing the power consumption (and hence energy storage requirements) of the smaller ships when compared to the option of speeding them up by 1. | | | |
|
pamnjay
Veteran
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1133
| | 23 May 2009 03:15 PM |
| I'm all about conservation! 
J | | | "There it is again...kind of a BOOM sound" -short lived Allied lookout | |
|
Iceman
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1186
| | 23 May 2009 09:45 PM |
| There's a lot better chance of speeding them up. It also matches MWC (I think) and every other captain won't have to change their boat. I understand about the inflation and the energy requirements but cruiser captains can change out their batteries and ought to be able to make most battles. | | Rob A.
USS Alabama
USS Arizona
USS Saratoga
DKM Bismarck
USS John Brown
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NYBG/ | |
|