R/C Naval Combat

Topic created out of posts from MWCI deck layouts thread.

 I think I may have stumbled over a fix to some of the thin deck issues we have.

Right now the rule is that you can have a 1/4" weather deck in places where you have both a casement deck (1/8") and a Armor Belt or Bulge (1/8").  You can not have more than 1/2" total deck if a armor belt is used.  So for example the Baden can have a 1/4" weather deck, a 1/8" casement deck, and a 1/8" armor belt.  If I chose to, I could have a 3/8" weather deck and a 1/8" casement deck, but no armor belt as I would be over 1/2".

Why not give cetain ships the choice of where that 1/8" of measurement goes if they choose to not use a armor belt.  Example:  I would take the Baden casement area as such, a 1/4 weather deck, and a 1/4 casement deck.  I would take my allowed armor belt and give it to the casement deck to thicken it up.  

Rule Proposal would be:  Ships that include all three decks/stringers, IE.   the weather deck, the casement deck and a armor belt/bulge have the option to move the armor belt/bulge 1/8" allotment and add it to the 1/8" casement deck, thus making the casement deck 1/4".  This is done for added thickness.  Ships useing this rule may not use a armor belt/bulge stringer.

Nope you have it opposite, but that is at the captains descretion and is an advantage for the oppoasite team.  The captain currently can make the choice to not have the armore belt or bulge 1/8" stringer now, they just have to add it to the weather deck if they wish.  This rule would allow the captain to add that to the casement deck instead, to help him sturdy up the 1/8" casement deck.  No difference in point or penatrable area is done to the deck area, we would just be adding the measurement to the botom most deck not the top....

Not sure how clear this is..  hard to put in typing.

The idea came from Bob letting me know that the Moltke layout could have a 3/8" deck from bow to stern because they had NO armor belt.  I was not catching the 1/2" rule.  Once I understood that, the idea came to me about the stringer and how we could still keep the penatralbe areas for the casements and help captains out by giving them a choice to what deck to add that 1/8" to if they chose to not use the armor belt/bulge stringer.

Mike, by removing the armor belt and adding it to either the weather or casement deck, you are taking away an inpenatrable area in the SIDE of the hull and moving it up to the deck level, which is worth zero points anyway.  So it's of benefit to the builder by preventing the decks from warping (1/8" is too thin by far for a structural deck), and benefits the enemy by giving them a non-stringered hull to shoot at.

The Baden has an armor belt that is right under the casement deck. So it's OK to go 1/4" & 1/4" there if you want.
I don't have a problem with taking a stringer for a bulge or belt and putting it under the casement deck. Typicaly that bulge or belt is on the waterline (Kongo, Warspite) and now moves to above the waterline. This would open up higher points areas for holes. On my Kongo I take very few on the waterline hits as the belt stringer runs almost the whole length of the ship. I think my 2nd battle with the ship I had a score of 102-2-33, no sink either. Lots of holes but not many ons.
I don't know if taking the stringer out would be a good idea, the bulge on Kongo would tend to blow out as it's pretty sharp, unless you rounded off the ribs so the balsa was sheeted in a smooth line.

Moving the stringer is not legal, right now...

Posted By RichelieuBB on 01 Dec 2011 03:59 PM
I understand.

Though I can forsee someone putting the waterline on the 1/4" thick casement deck to prevent waterline shots. Practical? Doubt it ... but one never knows. Heh.

Mike

Armor belt at the waterline?  Been done.  USS Monitor

 I just would like to see it modified.  The rule is good despite my arguments against it at the start..lol  I just have a very serious issue with a 1/8 casement deck on a ship where that deck is the "Supporting Deck" for the entire mid section of the ship.

By modifying the rule just a little such as giving us the ability to move a stringer would be a huge help.

So one thing I dont understand with the new casemate rules, is my Baden considered sunk when the weather deck is awash or when my casemate deck is awash?

Because the lower deck is how it is normally considered sunk, but then I have penetrable area above that line? This makes no sense! Why should a casemated ship have penetrable area above what is considered a zero point line and is normally made impenetrable for that reason? Or is this just a lame rule to give the allied triple stern guns more to shoot at?

But if it is when the weather deck is awash then that would mean I have no impenetrable area above (this makes sense) but then that would mean D turret has to be underwater (assuming an even keel) for her to be considered sunk? If so, can I just seal her up and have an underwater firing cannon once she takes on some water?

edit: for mispellings

The back half of a Baden awash is considered sunk, if it's up to the casemates...sunk

plus at that point I think the ship would sink anyway unless there is some crazy good waterproofing on it.

Posted By Iceman on 03 Dec 2011 06:54 AM

The back half of a Baden awash is considered sunk, if it's up to the casemates...sunk

plus at that point I think the ship would sink anyway unless there is some crazy good waterproofing on it.

I don't know about your ships, but if my Baden was flooded down to the bottom of the casements / stern weather deck awash, it would be dropping like a rock for the bottom, as the remaining volume above water (namely the casement deck and superstructure) don't have nearly enough displacement to keep me afloat.  Assuming some air volume still trapped in hull (and not ventilated by pesky allied captains), it's theoretically possible to be afloat in this condition... very briefly .