Rules (Draft)

[Desertfox]

I would suggest if people want to build to 1.1 or 1.2 give them a bonus, but don't penalize us KISS folk.

[Sachmle]

I would suggest if people want to build to 1.1 or 1.2 give them a bonus, but don't penalize us KISS folk.

I don't seem to follow for some reason. What is so un-KISS about building to a higher overall strength? You design a ship you like, see that it's overall strength is only 1.02 or whatever, see that your tech level requires 1.1/1.2/1.05/whatever, add tonnage until you meet that requirement, viola..new ship. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Tanthalas]

I would suggest if people want to build to 1.1 or 1.2 give them a bonus, but don't penalize us KISS folk.

Post it in every topic DF (is htis the second or third place?) the answer from me will remain the same.  I see no problem with 1.10 (as I belive is the current discussion)

[Barcaii]

I have never played this game asnd am very new to springsharp but can't see any problem with aiming for 1.1 or whatever. :) 1.1 is the new 1.0.

[Desertfox]

Because its one more thing to keep track off and is one that will change based on date and tech. If someone builds a ship, you have then have to check if they can do so on that specific date and if they are capable of doing so. Its bad enough that we have to switch to SS3 without adding in more rules. I do like that the engine year tech rule is mostly gone

[Carthaginian]

Because its one more thing to keep track off and is one that will change based on date and tech. If someone builds a ship, you have then have to check if they can do so on that specific date and if they are capable of doing so. Its bad enough that we have to switch to SS3 without adding in more rules. I do like that the engine year tech rule is mostly gone.

SS3 has nothing to really figure out.
If gives you a lot of extra composite strength to work with, and it makes ships generally lighter and faster.

I can't understand the 'complicated' argument.

[Sachmle]

The only things "extra" in SS3 off the top of my head are:

Shells for all batteries, not just the main battery

Weapon caliber for the guns

Distribution of Misc weight (which is optional, as you can just as easily put it all above deck like SS2 does)

Length of torpedoes (not rocket science, just look up some OTL ones on NavWeaps and WAG it.

Internal Beam. The only one that is really tricky.

Single/Multi-deck deck armor. Effects nothing other than words in the report.

Strengthened/Additional bulkheads for the TDS. Does effect overall and TDS strength. Strengthened would be old school/early TDS/Bulged rebuilds whereas Additional would be US Standard Era multi-layer TDS.

[Jefgte]

 8)

I would like to see a SS of Modos or other members
of real French BB Dévastation with overall strength of 1.2 !!!


Jef  ;)

[Carthaginian]

The only things "extra" in SS3 off the top of my head are:

Shells for all batteries, not just the main battery

Weapon caliber for the guns

Distribution of Misc weight (which is optional, as you can just as easily put it all above deck like SS2 does)

Length of torpedoes (not rocket science, just look up some OTL ones on NavWeaps and WAG it.

Internal Beam. The only one that is really tricky.

Single/Multi-deck deck armor. Effects nothing other than words in the report.

Strengthened/Additional bulkheads for the TDS. Does effect overall and TDS strength. Strengthened would be old school/early TDS/Bulged rebuilds whereas Additional would be US Standard Era multi-layer TDS.

All of these are simply ways to more precisely control the weight of a ship, making it easier to achieve a given displacement with the desired capabilities. You build your ship using the SS3 defaults (very much similar to the SS2 ones) and then tweak the 'extra' variables to more historic values.

Desertfox is pretending this is introducing algebra, when it's just adding a few more + and - signs.

[Ithekro]

I think I put one of my Korean battleships into SS3 and got a 1.3 overall.  She's a little too overbuilt.  I'll probably bring them down to 1.2 or 1.15 as I want them intensionally overbuilt as a design style (the 1590s era Korean ships were overbuilt compared to the lightly built Japanese ships and it helped them survive...historically anyway.)

[Desertfox]

All of these are simply ways to more precisely control the weight of a ship, making it easier to achieve a given displacement with the desired capabilities. You build your ship using the SS3 defaults (very much similar to the SS2 ones) and then tweak the 'extra' variables to more historic values.

The problem is that there's a gazillion new variables. There's like twice as many screens and each with three times as many pull down boxes...

Desertfox is pretending this is introducing algebra, when it's just adding a few more + and - signs.

Algebra I can deal with, adding more + and - is what I don't want.

[Tanthalas]

All of these are simply ways to more precisely control the weight of a ship, making it easier to achieve a given displacement with the desired capabilities. You build your ship using the SS3 defaults (very much similar to the SS2 ones) and then tweak the 'extra' variables to more historic values.

The problem is that there's a gazillion new variables. There's like twice as many screens and each with three times as many pull down boxes...

Desertfox is pretending this is introducing algebra, when it's just adding a few more + and - signs.

Algebra I can deal with, adding more + and - is what I don't want.

HINT, build a sensible ship in SS2 (basicly you can copy them off Wikipedia) then just open it in SS3.  In my oh so recent experiance they actualy come out around a 1.20, then you just tweak things till you like it.

[Carthaginian]

The problem is that there's a gazillion new variables. There's like twice as many screens and each with three times as many pull down boxes...

Algebra I can deal with, adding more + and - is what I don't want.

Desertfox,
SS3 is no harder than SS2- if you can deal with algebra, you can simply devote the time spent complaining to learning how to tweak your designs a little harder and produce a better product.

Like me, you are just going to have to learn to deal with all the shit that you don't like in the new sim.

[Logi]

Regarding the oddball guns. Although I haven't worked on it in a while, I'll try to package up the little Java Ballistic program I made a while ago.

It works quite well for simulating oddball guns. It can estimate shell length, course deviation (due to latitude), impact angle (impact angle is almost permanently off historical data by ~10 degrees) and penetration. I estimated my F factor based on historical data from US,KM, and UK guns and it's reasonably accurate.

Nobody's should be better at penetration and quick range-tables.

Give me a day or two if you want it.

[Nobody]

Since I already had the GNP data from the borrowing discussion, I thought I might as well calculate the economic growth. Of course that alone wouldn't be correct, so I searched and found data about the US inflation rate, too. The result of combining both (hopefully) in the correct way can be seen below.

• the long term data (1791 to 2010) shows a average real growth rate of ~3.5%
  
• for the time that interests us most (1850 to 1950) the average is ~4%
  With the proposed economic rules we'll likely have ~3% - which isn't so bad - but the maximums is barely above 4% (inc contrast to not so uncommon values in the 5 to 10% range OTL). I'm missing greater variations. Maybe we should add (or subtract) a varying global "trend"?