Torpedoes - Trust or Proof - THREE DAY POLL

[Carthaginian]

This is only going to apply to Torpedoes; for the problem with Mines I have a simpler solution.

Ok, guys - here are the options:

1.) Miscellaneous Weight Only - in this method, you add the torpedoes in to the design, allocate Miscellaneous Weight as per Springsharp's recommendation in the appropriate location and we accept the fact that the weight is doubled as how Springsharp works.

2.) The Compromise - in this method, you add the torpedoes to the design, note the weight that Springsharp recommends and add it under Miscellaneous Weights in the appropriate location, then remove the torpedoes, adding the number and location of tubes by hand in the Notes.

3.) Springsharp Only - In this method you add the torpedoes to the design, do not allocate anything to the Miscellaneous Weight, and then save the file; after saving, you reload and continue working on the ship with the weights of the torpedoes added in by Springsharp.


I will make no bones about it, folks-  I like the OPTION #2.
It does not penalize you twice, but it does mean that the weights for the torpedoes are in the Miscellaneous Weight category where everyone can see they are accounted for properly.
Option #1 does seem to penalize people hard, and Option #3 requires a lot of fact-checking if a vessel is called into question due to the flaw in SS.
On the downside, Option #2 does mean that you have to type in the number and location of tubes by hand... but it can allow us to better describe how they are located (a small plus amidst the minus).

So, the poll is open for 3 days... be sure to get your voice heard!



As far as mines: the mine rules will be amended so as not to use the Springsharp mine racks.
We will simply enter their weight under the Miscellaneous Weights in the appropriate location and their number in the Notes.

[snip]

I feel that option two is the best out of them. It gives us a single standard to judge weight by that does not overly penalize tight designs as option one would and without any trust issues that may spring up from option three.

[Walter]

I vote option #2, though I will just sim it with x tubes, x torpedoes and y tons miscellaneous weights for a z number of torpedoes. Also, if you sim it in one go without reloading it after saving, the sim should be similar to the option #2 way.

[Nobody]

Question:
SpringSharp only accaouts for tubes - not reloads - and only after save/load, right?

[Carthaginian]

Question:
SpringSharp only accaouts for tubes - not reloads - and only after save/load, right?

KWorld's research says it accounts for both- in addition to mines and ASW mortars- but only after you save the first time.

[Nobody]

Question:
SpringSharp only accaouts for tubes - not reloads - and only after save/load, right?

KWorld's research says it accounts for both- in addition to mines and ASW mortars- but only after you save the first time.

But I can't specify the number of reloads! Or am I missing something?

BTW I think there is simpler solution than resimming every ship: For ships which have torpedoes the sship file has to be appended. Then you could rather quickly check if the posted report is identical with the one posted.

[Delta Force]

Question:
SpringSharp only accaouts for tubes - not reloads - and only after save/load, right?

KWorld's research says it accounts for both- in addition to mines and ASW mortars- but only after you save the first time.

But I can't specify the number of reloads! Or am I missing something?

BTW I think there is simpler solution than resimming every ship: For ships which have torpedoes the sship file has to be appended. Then you could rather quickly check if the posted report is identical with the one posted.

I just discovered that this web site has a drop down menu for attachments. Seeing that, we can use option 3 except for we will have proof that it works instead of having to go ahead and resim it.

[KWorld]

Question:
SpringSharp only accaouts for tubes - not reloads - and only after save/load, right?

KWorld's research says it accounts for both- in addition to mines and ASW mortars- but only after you save the first time.

But I can't specify the number of reloads! Or am I missing something?

BTW I think there is simpler solution than resimming every ship: For ships which have torpedoes the sship file has to be appended. Then you could rather quickly check if the posted report is identical with the one posted.

You can specify the number of reloads, just change the mounting type from the default to above water or submerged reload as appropriate.

[Carthaginian]

Question:
SpringSharp only accaouts for tubes - not reloads - and only after save/load, right?

KWorld's research says it accounts for both- in addition to mines and ASW mortars- but only after you save the first time.

But I can't specify the number of reloads! Or am I missing something?

BTW I think there is simpler solution than resimming every ship: For ships which have torpedoes the sship file has to be appended. Then you could rather quickly check if the posted report is identical with the one posted.

This will eat up attachment space on the boards.
I do not know our limit and would prefer not to test it.
I will take this suggestion under advisement; in the event of a tie, it might be what is used... space available.

[Delta Force]

Question:
SpringSharp only accaouts for tubes - not reloads - and only after save/load, right?

KWorld's research says it accounts for both- in addition to mines and ASW mortars- but only after you save the first time.

But I can't specify the number of reloads! Or am I missing something?

BTW I think there is simpler solution than resimming every ship: For ships which have torpedoes the sship file has to be appended. Then you could rather quickly check if the posted report is identical with the one posted.

This will eat up attachment space on the boards.
I do not know our limit and would prefer not to test it.
I will take this suggestion under advisement; in the event of a tie, it might be what is used... space available.

My SpringSharp files are only 2 kilobytes. As a comparison, Wikipedia says that a full page of text is about 2 kilobytes. The files probably take up no more data than the text reports we copy and paste. The site would max out on capacity from all of the other text on the board long before uploading torpedo boat files would become an issue.

[Carthaginian]

I want to than you all for participating in this poll.
At the moment, 8 of the 9 active members have voted.
Option #2 is apparently the winner.
When the last member votes, we'll lock the voting down.

Again, I'll take the attachments under advisement.
We might use them if there is an issue with a design.


In Important News: This has been a test of the Treaty Alteration System. If this had been an actual Treaty Alteration, you would have spent the next several days completely redesigning any ships you planned to lay down in the next budgetary period. This concludes this test of the Treaty Alteration System.

Wow- it worked better than I hoped:
Of 9 members, 8 voted within 6 hours.
We achieved a majority on a single option without a run-off.

This topic just offered the first proof that the 'International Treaty' ruleset might just be workable.
Thanks for the hustle on voting guys...

[KWorld]

Heh, not that it will matter, but I'll vote for Option #3.

[Delta Force]

How do we handle adding the extra weight? Deck torpedoes get weight added to miscellaneous deck weight, submerged torpedoes get added to the miscellaneous below freeboard weight?

[Carthaginian]

How do we handle adding the extra weight? Deck torpedoes get weight added to miscellaneous deck weight, submerged torpedoes get added to the miscellaneous below freeboard weight?

Deck mounts - On Deck
Submerged Mounts - Below Waterline

Heh, not that it will matter, but I'll vote for Option #3.

Whether or not it seems like it matters, it does.

[Delta Force]

For some reason the graph for this particular poll is not showing the vote total for me (it works for the other poll). How many votes did each option get?