Community

Here is the revised Class Limitations list (researched and provided to us by Weedsrock2; thanks for tackling this). I've included Mike's notes so everyone can see his reasoning on some of these choices. 

Changes are underlined. Please review and comment here, and we'll incorporate the fine-tuned list into the existing class limits document. 

Steve

1. HMS Hawkins - Five Hawkins class CA's were built. Raleigh sank in 1922. Cavendish/Vindictive became a training ship in the mid-30's and then a repair ship during the war with one funnel removed and most of it's armament removed. I think we are down to three. Now for the questionable one - Effingham. She was rebuilt with a single trunked vertical stack (so very different looking) and three triple 6 inch gun turrets. So she was very different looking and armed from the Hawkins and Frobisher which still had their two raked stacks and original 7.5 inch guns in single shields. So you guys need to call it. (Rich Baker called it -- two.)
2. ORP Dragon. I put one since you guys seem to go by country. There were 8 in the class.
3. Algonquin and Uganda. Again, I put 2 for Algonquin since your precedent is 3 for the Australian DD's. I added Uganda as a 'missed' one from the earlier sets.
4. I did not increase the Bismarck or Yamato class. I assume the class limit is still 2 with a 'choice' among the three.
5. Changed Archangelisk to Arkangelisk to agree with the card.

Thanks Steve. I think.

Steve, I messed up on Sheffield. It should not be on the list with a class of 5 (or greater).

Oct 28, 2011 -- 3:19PM, AH_weedsrock2 wrote:

Steve, I messed up on Sheffield. It should not be on the list with a class of 5 (or greater).

Out of curiosity, what is the error?  It looks like at least the four other ships of the same group are good to go.  If you consider the later three ships of the program (Gloucester, Manchester, and Liverpool), it could be 8.  

After reading this comment I decided to check out the accounts and looked at photos and diagrams in Alan Raven and John Roberts' British Cruisers of World War 2.  The differences are pretty subtle between the first five ships of the group and the later three.  Conway notes that the armor is a bit improved in the latter set but I am not sure we would notice that at WAS scale.  Details! Details!  I've always wanted to see the Manchester released (in part because I periodically drive by the Birmingham and Manchester offramps in Encinitas - both ships were stationed together on patrol in the pursuit of the Bismarck) and this would be pretty close.

A limit of 2 Dragons for Poland is reasonable for tournement games but that shouldn't make anyone hesitate to use them as proxies for their British counterparts for scenario based matches.   We may see a solid Brit reprint in a future release or we may not (and both ships were under the British flag for the early years of the war).

Oct 30, 2011 -- 10:29PM, Antshrike wrote:

Oct 28, 2011 -- 3:19PM, AH_weedsrock2 wrote:

Steve, I messed up on Sheffield. It should not be on the list with a class of 5 (or greater).

Out of curiosity, what is the error?  

The error is ships with a class of greater than 4 do not need to be listed. By the rulebook there is no restriction on classes greater than 4. 

Steve,

It looks like Sheffield is the only error in the document. Comments on Forumini were 'explainable' other than Sheffield.

weeds

Oct 31, 2011 -- 9:08AM, AH_weedsrock2 wrote:

Steve,

It looks like Sheffield is the only error in the document. Comments on Forumini were 'explainable' other than Sheffield.

weeds

I thought Gustav V was a three unit class, maybe one sank before the war? I'll admit the Swedish navy is not a strong area of knowledge for me

Steve, two possible corrections...

There were three Sverige-class coastal defense ships for the Swedish navy: HMS Gustav V, HMS Sverige, and HMS Drottning Victoria.

Although only one Danae-class cruiser served in the Polish navy at any one time, it could be argued that the class limit for ORP Dragon is two. She was replaced by her sister ship HMS Danae after she was sunk. The Danae was renamed ORP Conrad.

Oct 31, 2011 -- 1:37PM, Alerian wrote:

Steve, two possible corrections...

There were three Sverige-class coastal defense ships for the Swedish navy: HMS Gustav V, HMS Sverige, and HMS Drottning Victoria.

Although only one Danae-class cruiser served in the Polish navy at any one time, it could be argued that the class limit for ORP Dragon is two. She was replaced by her sister ship HMS Danae after she was sunk. The Danae was renamed ORP Conrad.

You are right about he Sverige-class. My mistake.

I listed Dragon as one for the reason you gave that there was only one with a Polish crew at any one time. Much like HMAS Shropshire is not counted with HMAS Canberra and HMAS Australia.

I would also add the Sho-Go Yamato to the Yamato/Musashi listing. A rules Lawyer like me might tell you as it is NOT listed it can be used in any number

It is somewhat interesting that all the Fantasies are listed to be one in a kind... - and NOT the planned numbers.

All,

I will get this stickied as soon as I can.  I am currently religated to my mobile and it does not play well with this site.

GW

OK, I think we have everything updated. Here's the file; have a look and let me know if there are any mistakes.

Steve

Thanks Steve!

Steve,

You need to edit the Hawkins to a class limit of 2. It still has the '2 or 3?' question I asked on the original.

Thanks.

Can you fill me in on Hawinks having class limit two

I always thought this was a class of 5 (reduceing that to three after one was sunk between wars and another converted to a CVL)

That still makes a class limit of three the 3rd was lost earlyin the war thats true, but she still fought...

Dec 1, 2011 -- 8:50PM, AH_weedsrock2 wrote:

Steve,

You need to edit the Hawkins to a class limit of 2. It still has the '2 or 3?' question I asked on the original.

Thanks.

Effingham                   wrecked 18 May 1940
Frobisher                    broken up 1949
Hawkins                      broken up 1947

Sure looks like three to me. You may have confused Effingham with Raleigh, which was also wrecked but in 1922.

Cavendish was converted to an aircraft carrier (HMS Vindictive) in 1918.

LT

H.M.S. Effingham was extensively renovated in 1937/8, and those changes altered her appearance and capabilities drastically. For that reason, we decided not to class her with Hawkins and Frobisher. If Effingham is ever statted up, she probably will be considered a class of her own.

Steve 

Dec 2, 2011 -- 2:06PM, Huscarl wrote:

H.M.S. Effingham was extensively renovated in 1937/8, and those changes altered her appearance and capabilities drastically. For that reason, we decided not to class her with Hawkins and Frobisher. If Effingham is ever statted up, she probably will be considered a class of her own.

Steve 

You're right, of course. I started with the 1906-1921 Conway's and didn't read the 1922-1946 volume carefully enough. Mea culpa! Mea culpa! Mea maxima culpa!

LT

Just to be clear, the most recent list is dated 'December 3, 2011'. You can also tell it is the most recent version because the class limit for the USS West Virginia was added.

Interesting concept...

Sure Effingham was rebuilt , but when did that stop you before to "throw" different looking ships together ...

only one Example Fuso and Yamashiro - same sculpt different apperarance.

Does this mean you do correct sculpt + stats in the future ? ... ?

I believe (though this is far from my area of expertise) that the rebuilt Fuso and Yamashiro still carried equivalent armament, whereas Effingham was substantially more powerful than her sister ships after the refit.

Steve 

Putting aside what was done in the past, I did some of the background research on the history of the five ships built for this class for the draft list. In my note to RB I expressed my opinion that Effingham was different enough in armament to justify a separation from the other two remaining active cruisers.  Replacing seven old open mounted 7.5 inch guns with nine modern 6-inch guns in three turrets is a very significant change in armament. And the removal of two boilers that led to one stack also reduced her speed a bit. A single stack and a radically different main armament means a different ship to me.

I could have gone with either decision ( 2 or 3), but I think 2 is more accurate. Anyway, if we get to Set 10 or 11 we will need Effingham as a new rare sculpt.

Dec 5, 2011 -- 7:19PM, AH_weedsrock2 wrote:

Putting aside what was done in the past, I did some of the background research on the history of the five ships built for this class for the draft list. In my note to RB I expressed my opinion that Effingham was different enough in armament to justify a separation from the other two remaining active cruisers.  Replacing seven old open mounted 7.5 inch guns with nine modern 6-inch guns in three turrets is a very significant change in armament. And the removal of two boilers that led to one stack also reduced her speed a bit. A single stack and a radically different main armament means a different ship to me.

I could have gone with either decision ( 2 or 3), but I think 2 is more accurate. Anyway, if we get to Set 10 or 11 we will need Effingham as a new rare sculpt.

weeds... 6 inch guns would make her uncommon...


at least nurnburg listed as a one-off hopefully means RB plans to do a leipzig and possibly as a new sculpt  

I do not doubt that Fuso and Yamashiro share similar abilities and Effingham would warrant different stats.

Its just that Yamashiro and Fuso had visible OPTICAL differences (turret orientation), but share the same mold.

In the same way I think Effingham could use the Hawkins sculpt, but with the (deserved) new stats

A precedent "Might" be the Richelieu/Jean Bart - same sculpt (- one turret I agree) different - much different - stats, but one class... The HAwkins and Effingham would be much more similar...

BTW I would prefer a one off UK Carrier instead of a modernized one off Cruiser - that could easily represented by a reprint instead of a new sculpt for the Cruiser...

Dec 5, 2011 -- 10:32PM, enabrantain wrote:

weeds... 6 inch guns would make her uncommon...


at least nurnburg listed as a one-off hopefully means RB plans to do a leipzig and possibly as a new sculpt  

My bad. Good point. And another reason they differ enough to not be counted together.

Dec 5, 2011 -- 11:32PM, AH_Richter_von_Manthofen wrote:

I do not doubt that Fuso and Yamashiro share similar abilities and Effingham would warrant different stats.

Its just that Yamashiro and Fuso had visible OPTICAL differences (turret orientation), but share the same mold.

In the same way I think Effingham could use the Hawkins sculpt, but with the (deserved) new stats

A precedent "Might" be the Richelieu/Jean Bart - same sculpt (- one turret I agree) different - much different - stats, but one class... The HAwkins and Effingham would be much more similar...

BTW I would prefer a one off UK Carrier instead of a modernized one off Cruiser - that could easily represented by a reprint instead of a new sculpt for the Cruiser...

I personally think a change in funnels is enough to 'justify' a new sculpt let alone the turrets. If you really want to point out a past 'mistake' the Renown/Repulse is a much more obvious one IMO.

But just because previous mini's have taken more 'license' than we think they should have doesn't mean this one has to as well. As Enabrantain pointed out changing the classification from a heavy cruiser to a light cruiser is a fairly significant factor too.

Another example for you: The USS Lexington should have had its full width forward flight deck. Lexington had the upgrade to the flight deck before the war started. Saratoga did not have the flight deck modification until spring of 1942. The Saratoga miniature is an accurate pre-war sculpt for both carriers prior to 1940. And I like it a lot! But the Lexington sculpt is a wierd half-right (removed 8 inch turrets) half-wrong (old flight deck) sculpt.  I am glad RB changed the guns for a nice way to differentiate the two, but it is certainly still not accurate. To make things even more confusing, I think the sculpt has the post-refit shortened stack.

I understand that the goal of this game is not a detailed simulator so I don't let most of these things bother me. Except minis that are grossly out-of-scale like Ciao Duilio and Buffaloes. I am really glad RB held back ORP/HMS Dragon for a re-scale. It is just a shame it had to be an uncommon slot!

I'd rather have a misscaled Dragon and a Java instead of c correct Dragon...

The correct scale for the D-class could have come with a later "reprint"

I think we all have different tastes, but I would think that a list that is updated with each new set could have done in a way that uses the same criteria foa all ships

If Hawkins and Effingham a re different the At Least Richelieu and Jean BArt should be considered different too

If the French BBS are considered same class then the Hawkinses should be same class too

Its really not a big issue, just one more of the little things that just make me mad about this game

Dec 6, 2011 -- 11:35PM, AH_Richter_von_Manthofen wrote:

I'd rather have a misscaled Dragon and a Java instead of c correct Dragon...

That's an interesting thought. I would agree if I thought 1) they would bother rescale it and make a new mold (very expensive) as a reprint, and 2) I was confident there are going to be enough sets going forward to see it again.

Overall, it is usually better to get it right the first time.