WesWorld

The main tool to be used for Original WesWorld was springstyle and, later, various versions of SpringSharp that evolved from the original program. Most participants also used various spreadsheets to handle data for building and maintaining their fleets, and to generate their quarterly reports. With the extension of WesWorld into the realms of aviation and land-based equipment other tools added to the list, like plane builder. Further software in use by at least some players is BigGun and Facehard to calculate the power and effectiveness of naval armament.

For the set-up of WesWorld2 it has to be decided what tools shall be used, especially when it comes to ships. Pros and Cons have been traded before on SpringSharp but a jump to the latest beta-version was never approved by the community. The idea of improving the tool even further has also been tossed around but it seems questionable if a skilled coder is available to take on the task. So we may go with one of Ian’s creations in the foreseeable future, but which one? What about the various tools for tanks and planes? To the best of my knowledge these are Excel-based and cumbersome to use if you are not really into the stuff. Is there any chance to get something better, more easy to use? Probably some handy user interfaces while the math behind may still be done in the existing Excel solutions?

Some comments have also been made on reports, especially those that vary from the widely used format. The variety is an expression of freedom all participants enjoy, so they can focus on what they deem most valuable and interesting. However, the question must be asked if a general layout should be created and approved, making it easier for players to hand over their stuff to a delegate or successor when real life kicks in. The idea of a standardized report can also be coupled with the question for a standard tracking tool for industrial output, whatever that may look like in WesWorld2. Currently players use various things, from pen&paper to enhanced Excel solutions. It may be interesting to see if there is one among our community who is skilled enough to shape an Excel solution based on whatever rules for building and maintaining stuff we come up with, a tool that finally generates quarterly reports on a click in a standardized form. What do you think? Is this a good idea and is there anybody out there skilled enough to take on the task?

Naval : In my opinion, Springsharp 3 should be adopted.
As it allows greater customization of the vessels.

Engine weights for various technologies continues to be problematic, so "Gentlemens" rules for engines should be applied.
Diesel : 80% power, twice range
Triple expansion : 89% power ~1.2x range for <=10kt cruise
Light vessels : some SHP multiplier for every X tons under say 4,000.

Fuel & Ammo % not to exceed 20%

Each ship should list maximum speed for Excellent, good, average and poor seakeeping.

I would make Biggun the 'public' gun program representing expectations, with facehard being used by mods to figure out 'real' results.


Subs, craft <200tons... I prefer to echo historical vessels. "I'm fielding a 1935 O-1 class Sub..."

Tank : The only thing I know is tanksharp. I would prefer tanks to be standard units. You have a 1931 Lt/Md/Hvy/Amphib tank, congratulations. Perhaps have 3 types per period so folks can decide what flavor of tank design they favor - British cruisers? American Multirole? German expensive?

Airplanes : Again, I only know of planesharp. Again, I would prefer planes to be characterized by origin type.
I have a ...Divebomber 1935, Japanese ...ie faster and manueverable but lighter built. Excellent in the hands of skilled pilots but not forgiving.

I disagree on SS3, it is significantly more complex to use and was never finished so has problems that have not been resolved. It is used in N-verse and I really dislike it. The benefits do not outweight the problems.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
I disagree on SS3, it is significantly more complex to use and was never finished so has problems that have not been resolved. It is used in N-verse and I really dislike it. The benefits do not outweight the problems.

Agreed, which is why it was vetoed for Wesworld.

Now, if they ever come back and work out the bugs, then it might be viable...

Anybody tried to contact Ian on it lately?

Of the Excel-based simulations only SubSim has proved to work. Both Tanksharp and Planebuilder have errors in their calculations and can't be relied upon.

I think much depends on the start date, if we start between 1880-1905 we won't need planebuilder or tanksharp anyway for quite a few real years, perhaps allowing us to develop better versions ourselves when we need them later on? Even SubSim will only have limited use until the game really gets going. So that only leaves us with Springsharp. SS3 isn't fully finished and I'm not sure I find it as easy to use as the trusty old SS2. SS3 Beta 2 probably was easier to use and had some advantages over SS2 but the fact all the features don't work make it non-sensical to use it.

Again with an early start we won't have problems with radars, sonars ,airgroups etc. so misc weight headaches that we have now won't apply to the same extent. We probably won't need A/S mortar weight allocations within SS until around 2020! So IMHO SS2 will work just fine for the kind of pre-dread ships we'll be building if we reset early enough. If it's planned to reset within 1914-1925 then we'd need to look harder at SS3.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
I disagree on SS3, it is significantly more complex to use and was never finished so has problems that have not been resolved. It is used in N-verse and I really dislike it. The benefits do not outweight the problems.

I think the ability to specify the guns and armor distribution better is worth it- ...but that's why we all get our say

As long as one metric is official, I will be happy. Of course Im going to cast my vote for SS3 based on reasons that other players have stated, but SS2 works so no qualms about using it.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
I disagree on SS3, it is significantly more complex to use and was never finished so has problems that have not been resolved. It is used in N-verse and I really dislike it. The benefits do not outweight the problems.

Much as this might shock some people, I find myself in agreement with DesertFox on this one. SS3 and its beta follow-ons appear to have far more downside quirks than they might fix. As has been noted, they are incomplete, and it is unlikely that situation will change.

I would vote to keep SS2.1, with its known shortcomings, as our design tool for ships.

I am in agreement with Hood that Planebuilder and Tankbuilder are too full of holes for general use - and, as had been said, if we start early enough, that will not be an issue for quite a while.

Whats the consensus on sub builder? Not everyone can use but do we have access to someone willing to fiddle with designs for those who don't have it?

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Whats the consensus on sub builder? Not everyone can use but do we have access to someone willing to fiddle with designs for those who don't have it?

I've been doing so.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Whats the consensus on sub builder? Not everyone can use but do we have access to someone willing to fiddle with designs for those who don't have it?

Haven't used it.
I used to have some rules of thumb for SS2 subs that would make them sim out pretty good. Unfortunately I can't recall them- something to do with interior space before miscellaneous weight. Crush depths were hopeless though.

Personally, I'm inclined to favor SS3 - I really quite like the armor allocation and gun detail options, and there are already discussion options in place to allow the community to block unrealistic designs, so I don't think that the existing bugs would be a significant hindrance.

I don't, however, consider it a particularly important matter, as long as one or the other is set and kept.