Beam/Turrets, what players desire of Mod role.

[snip]

The only one needed is metric, as every measurement comes down to its metric equivalent per the definition of the rules.

[maddox]

I see it as a design challenge.

Engineers will design/build solutions for the client.   If the client wants a quad 380mm turret on a 5m beam, it can be done, with a lot of compromises in other respects. Maybe the guns will be stacked like a Kearsage, maybe the barbette will be part of the hull. Doesn't matter.

After all, is SS3 says the design works, it will work. 

Now, will it be a good design?  Does it matter?   Only 2 things matter.

• Is it inside the simple as possible rules?
• Aren't there glaring flaws? 

The first is easy enough. The design is, or isn't.
The second, if people have their second toughts about a design, share them. If the concerns have merrit, the designer will adjust. And if not, and the concerns are justified, RNG will solve the issue when the time is ripe. 

And to avoid confusion or accusations later on, a "marked or flamed design" that is in service, it just gets a moderator mark. This will give the user the option to work with it.
Maybe even getting the mark removed by clever overhauls/rebuilds or even stories.

[Kaiser Kirk]

After all, is SS3 says the design works, it will work. 

We have a difference of opinion. SS3 is not sophisticated enough. So I don't like simply relying on it.

That said, your other two points are valid in that what really matters is how the players here want to call things.

The idea of player review "flaming" a design and it getting marked has some flaws.
-one, people's time and availability vary. A design may not get much review, then "marking it" has no point. The player can/will insist it's fine and go forward with it.

Wesworld had no "rules", so it was all review, and it would get heated, and players would simply reject the criticism and go forward, and I saw other players announce they would refuse to have conflict with them as a result because their ships were invalid in their eyes.

Edit : Based that wesworld experience, I also think that relying on players to critique other's designs without a "judge" to call on for a final decision can lead to players upset with each other. It can be a negative experience.


That is why I subtitled this "what players desire of Mod role".
A) Should I get involved in just enforcing the rules and guidelines
B) Should I get involved further on what's good & reasonable practice?
It's sounding like just A). I honestly think it should be A & B, but that not seem to be the desire.

Snip :

I started that formula years ago for myself.  Inches and meters is just what was in my head.

The excel sheet I posted has a draft of the idea , to show it's workable.

Put in the gun bore, type of turret, your TDS, put in the BC you want...and you get a minimum beam.

So it's customizable for our Springsharp designs, and various turret types and TDS widths we want.

So..the Linear regression method is KISS, but is calibrated for the average hull.

This is more complex, but would allow customization to go with our customized ships.

If folks want that, then a little calculator like the Trial speed one would be in order.
I will also also note Walter, Jefgte and Foxxy (at least) are doing their guns in English units. Walter and Foxy have English hulls too.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Here you go Snip,

All metric now.
Though there's a little conversion field at the top.

Excel is attached.

[Desertfox]

Wesworld had no "rules", so it was all review, and it would get heated, and players would simply reject the criticism and go forward, and I saw other players announce they would refuse to have conflict with them as a result because their ships were invalid in their eyes.

I think the tech tree goes a long way towards fixing those issues. A ship may be too "advanced" for its OTL time period, but as long as it fits the rules everyone is on a level playing field.

That is why I subtitled this "what players desire of Mod role".
A) Should I get involved in just enforcing the rules and guidelines
B) Should I get involved further on what's good & reasonable practice?

How about strict on A and more of a guidance role on B? Belt height is a good example of B, usually I go by "ehhhh that sounds about right", without actually knowing if it is, so its always good to hear from someone more knowledgeable. 

A simple linear regression, as I take it you did, should allow extrapolation.

That would be the KISS approach.

Not quite a linear regression of all ships, since that would just give the average. I took the ships with the lowest beam per gun size and did a linear regression thru them (Exeter/Rs and Wichita/Nevada) so every other ship should be above the resulting line. That doesn't quite work for the CDSs and Fisherites, so I did do a straight linear regression for them. The pocket battleships being all on their own.

If folks want that, then a little calculator like the Trial speed one would be in order.

Whether we make it an actual guideline or not, a calculator would still be nice. Because if there is someone that will be running into issues with beam, it will be me. 

[Kaiser Kirk]

Well Fox,
Do you mind looking at the little Excel sheet I made and giving your opinion of the two approaches?

Right now I don't have a lot of data point, for most TDS I will have to scale off pictures, as folks don't list them.

Don't really want to do that work unless players view it as a valid and desirable approach.

[Desertfox]

Your method does work reasonably well with the two extreme examples of Vainamonen and Lutzow. It really boils down to whether we want to make it an actual "Ship Design Guideline" with possible mod consequences, in which case I would favor the KISS approach, or if we go with the "Best Practices" approach were its only a suggestion, in which case I would favor the more complex version. Basically if I have to do it, I want simple, if I merely should do it, I can deal with more complex.

[Kaiser Kirk]

It's funny,
I would have guessed the opposite answer.
The little sheet is more complex, but gives you more control over how you do your design.

I'll look at fox's numbers a little closer Thurs/Friday

Otherwise I'll leave the various discussions running with a goal of making a decision Saturday.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I feel like the CDS based ships and certain cruisers should probably be excluded and use a separate equation. Based on Rocky's excel sheet I can get pretty simple line fits for both twins and triples as long as those specific ships are excluded.

For twins: Beam = 4.4 (Gun in inches) + 23
For triples: Beam = 5.5 (Gun in inches) + 18
For CDS: Beam = 4.4 (Gun in inches) + 12 (+18 for triples)

So I took your numbers and Rocky's sheets.
I went through and looked for what I would consider minimum valid hulls.

It looks to me like the following might be slightly better :

For twins: Beam = 4.4 (Gun in inches) + 23
For triples: Beam = 5.5 (Gun in inches) + 15
For CDS: Beam = 4.4 (Gun in inches) + 13 (+19.5 for triples)

The regrettable thing is so many ships exceed the results, but we don't know how hard the designers were pushing for the minimum. 

I then went back to my method and picked out some ships for that. I had to scale some TDSs.
For my equation I fiddled around with various approaches and settled on one that generates a minimum beam within 1.5% of "true".
Since my way needs a historic BC, and I don't have that for the CDS, I have green numbers for those BCs. 
The BCs generated look reasonable for those vessels.

Right now... I'm just thinking
Allow your method for a range of BCs - 0.5 -0.6 or so.
And mine for any.

[snip]

I think if there is any formal rule implemented, it needs to be one concrete standard, not a mix. If its going to be a best-practice guideline, I'm ok with multiple methods.

[Desertfox]

Since turreted ships are now required to have 1.0 hull strength, I am voting for keeping it a "best practices guideline". That option gives everyone more flexibility, allows one offs (like the USS Arkansas class), and reduces the mod workload, also allows people a quick and dirty method to check their ships and a more detailed one to check their TDS. 

[Kaiser Kirk]

I'm torn.

As a player, I really don't want to see ships that I look at and go "that wouldn't work'.

I can easily design ships that meet our rule standards, but I have no reason to believe would work in reality.
In history,  were trying for fast heavily armed ships, and still didn't shrink the beam like SS allows.

I thought we had mod review of the designs that took care of this issue... apparently we don't.
So my vote would be absolutely to have some means by which we say "that ship does not work".

As Mod...this would be more heading off potential problems....which might not arise.
Throughout this discussion, I've seen mild interest, but folks really don't seem to be clamoring for something binding.

This is a cooperative SIM.
So... I will drop it.

Perhaps if we wind up with designs that folks object to, we'll revisit the issue.