Sarzonia
27-12-2005, 21:45
Author's note: This guide includes two paragraphs (the first two in the KISS section) written by Isselmere. Other than that, I wrote the rest of it. This post is entirely OOC.
I've noticed that several people have expressed interest in seeing a guide to creating designs for products in NationStates. I'll admit that my area of expertise is largely in the design and development of naval ships for this game, but I've found that some principles of design hold true no matter whether your design is a main battle tank, the next great air superiority fighter, or a ship that can put the Doujin to shame.
KISS off complexity
For the beginning designer, one piece of advice I've gotten from Isselmere, a player I consider one of my NS design mentors is this: Always start with the most basic design/engineering dictum, as stated by Kelly Johnson (designer of the A-4 Skyhawk), among others: "Keep It Simple, Stupid." The KISS motto holds for almost any design out there, whether it is a pistol, an aircraft, or an aircraft carrier. If you complicate the design, you have succeeded in lengthening the ever-elongating logistics train, in increasing the likelihood of it falling apart at the most awkward moment, or just plain not work, period.
Certain things require adding parts to them to ensure they work correctly, such as a gas piston as in the AK-47 rather than direct gas impingement (along with "dirty" powder) as in the M-16 to work the bolt in an assault rifle, but most of the time reducing the number of parts is a good idea (re: Native Americans with bows and arrows v. Europeans with muzzle-loading muskets, if one ignores smallpox, drink, etc.; Soviet T34 and KV1 v. German tanks).
Another lesson to keep in mind that I've learned over the years is that the more similar your new product is to its predecessor, the more readily you can learn how to use it. For instance, my father bought a new lawnmower, but I was using the old one until it died. When I could no longer use the old lawnmower and I was forced to give myself a crash course in the new one, I found that most of the operation was exactly the same as the old one, so I was quickly able to figure it out and easily finish the job that was becoming a labour-intensive nightmare with the old. If it had been a radically different design, I wouldn't have been able to work with it.
First thing's first
Before you get started, you need to ask yourself a question. What exactly do you want your design to accomplish. Bear in mind that simply saying you want a destroyer or a cruiser is not an answer in and of itself. What do you want the cruiser to do? Be a command centre for your squadrons, serve as an anti-aircraft picket, or be lone wolf preying on enemy shipping? You need to decide for yourself what you envision your ship's role to be and then you can start getting to work on the design.
Once you have decided what you want accomplished, for instance, an air superiority fighter, at the very onset, you should think about real life designs that are similar to what you want to accomplish before you start your design. If you want your fighter to be maneuverable and stealthy, there are certain features, such as radar absorbant paint, that can help the aircraft be more difficult to pick up using current radars. However, a pulse detonation engine (PDE) generates so much infared emissions that using it for greater speed would impede its ability to fly a stealth mission.
The reason I recommend using existing designs as a base is the fact that you can get an idea of what general dimensions to use for your design and you can find out what features work best for real life designs and realise the tradeoffs that people make in the development of military equipment. I had that sort of dilemma when I was designing my most recent main battle tank: Praetonia's MBT was built with a modular armour scheme to promote ease of repair, while Soviet Bloc's MBT was built without modular construction to improve the overall strength of the armour scheme. That meant I had to decide which of the two doctrines I wanted to follow and explain why I chose one over the other. Decisions like those can add some spice to an otherwise dry writeup.
Real life designs can be a base to get started
For beginning designers in NationStates, the idea of starting to design your own military equipment can be an intimidating experience, especially if you don't want to be considered a Godmoder or someone who has no concept of realism or whatever it is you think is valued among NS players. However, one problem you'll find if you use RL designs too liberally is the fact that many RL designs are hopelessly outgunned by their NS counterparts. There's been a recent saying that "everyone armours their escorts." This is absolutely true. Every NS navy builds armour protection into their native-built designs, possibly with the mindset that some nations choose to attack escorts first before taking aim at a SD.
In addition, each unique design IRL has its own strengths and weaknesses that will lead you to a decision not unlike my MBT decision. If there are elements of the Virginia class submarine or the Astute class that you like, you can do your best to incorporate them into one design, but realise that you will likely have to sacrifice something. I tend to give up some speed for armour protection and I tend to err on the side of having more guns on warships than some players. My reason for guns instead of missiles is simple: A vertical launch tube (VLS) is very difficult to reload at sea, so in RL navies, once a ship has expended its VLS tubes, it has to go dock and reload them.
Did I Godmode?
For a new designer who wants his or her design to be accepted by the NS community at large, this seems to be a common theme. There's no perfect answer to this because while some players accept without question the superdreadnoughts or the heavily armoured cruisers of the NS world, other players have different sensibilities about what they consider modern tech or "post modern tech" and have different rules about whether or not they accept certain technology. One suggestion I can offer you to avoid having a majority of players call your designs Godmodes is to post a design somewhere, be it here, in a regional board, or on International Incidents with your writeup as a "secret IC" document. That way, you haven't rolled out the product ICly and players can look at your design and offer feedback.
Conclusion
This guide may seem to be short on the minute details of design and I haven't written this with a specific design that I could walk you through, but this isn't intended to be an exhaustive manual for creating every design. Hopefully, you've gotten some ideas you can use to help you on your way to being the next great designer.
I've noticed that several people have expressed interest in seeing a guide to creating designs for products in NationStates. I'll admit that my area of expertise is largely in the design and development of naval ships for this game, but I've found that some principles of design hold true no matter whether your design is a main battle tank, the next great air superiority fighter, or a ship that can put the Doujin to shame.
KISS off complexity
For the beginning designer, one piece of advice I've gotten from Isselmere, a player I consider one of my NS design mentors is this: Always start with the most basic design/engineering dictum, as stated by Kelly Johnson (designer of the A-4 Skyhawk), among others: "Keep It Simple, Stupid." The KISS motto holds for almost any design out there, whether it is a pistol, an aircraft, or an aircraft carrier. If you complicate the design, you have succeeded in lengthening the ever-elongating logistics train, in increasing the likelihood of it falling apart at the most awkward moment, or just plain not work, period.
Certain things require adding parts to them to ensure they work correctly, such as a gas piston as in the AK-47 rather than direct gas impingement (along with "dirty" powder) as in the M-16 to work the bolt in an assault rifle, but most of the time reducing the number of parts is a good idea (re: Native Americans with bows and arrows v. Europeans with muzzle-loading muskets, if one ignores smallpox, drink, etc.; Soviet T34 and KV1 v. German tanks).
Another lesson to keep in mind that I've learned over the years is that the more similar your new product is to its predecessor, the more readily you can learn how to use it. For instance, my father bought a new lawnmower, but I was using the old one until it died. When I could no longer use the old lawnmower and I was forced to give myself a crash course in the new one, I found that most of the operation was exactly the same as the old one, so I was quickly able to figure it out and easily finish the job that was becoming a labour-intensive nightmare with the old. If it had been a radically different design, I wouldn't have been able to work with it.
First thing's first
Before you get started, you need to ask yourself a question. What exactly do you want your design to accomplish. Bear in mind that simply saying you want a destroyer or a cruiser is not an answer in and of itself. What do you want the cruiser to do? Be a command centre for your squadrons, serve as an anti-aircraft picket, or be lone wolf preying on enemy shipping? You need to decide for yourself what you envision your ship's role to be and then you can start getting to work on the design.
Once you have decided what you want accomplished, for instance, an air superiority fighter, at the very onset, you should think about real life designs that are similar to what you want to accomplish before you start your design. If you want your fighter to be maneuverable and stealthy, there are certain features, such as radar absorbant paint, that can help the aircraft be more difficult to pick up using current radars. However, a pulse detonation engine (PDE) generates so much infared emissions that using it for greater speed would impede its ability to fly a stealth mission.
The reason I recommend using existing designs as a base is the fact that you can get an idea of what general dimensions to use for your design and you can find out what features work best for real life designs and realise the tradeoffs that people make in the development of military equipment. I had that sort of dilemma when I was designing my most recent main battle tank: Praetonia's MBT was built with a modular armour scheme to promote ease of repair, while Soviet Bloc's MBT was built without modular construction to improve the overall strength of the armour scheme. That meant I had to decide which of the two doctrines I wanted to follow and explain why I chose one over the other. Decisions like those can add some spice to an otherwise dry writeup.
Real life designs can be a base to get started
For beginning designers in NationStates, the idea of starting to design your own military equipment can be an intimidating experience, especially if you don't want to be considered a Godmoder or someone who has no concept of realism or whatever it is you think is valued among NS players. However, one problem you'll find if you use RL designs too liberally is the fact that many RL designs are hopelessly outgunned by their NS counterparts. There's been a recent saying that "everyone armours their escorts." This is absolutely true. Every NS navy builds armour protection into their native-built designs, possibly with the mindset that some nations choose to attack escorts first before taking aim at a SD.
In addition, each unique design IRL has its own strengths and weaknesses that will lead you to a decision not unlike my MBT decision. If there are elements of the Virginia class submarine or the Astute class that you like, you can do your best to incorporate them into one design, but realise that you will likely have to sacrifice something. I tend to give up some speed for armour protection and I tend to err on the side of having more guns on warships than some players. My reason for guns instead of missiles is simple: A vertical launch tube (VLS) is very difficult to reload at sea, so in RL navies, once a ship has expended its VLS tubes, it has to go dock and reload them.
Did I Godmode?
For a new designer who wants his or her design to be accepted by the NS community at large, this seems to be a common theme. There's no perfect answer to this because while some players accept without question the superdreadnoughts or the heavily armoured cruisers of the NS world, other players have different sensibilities about what they consider modern tech or "post modern tech" and have different rules about whether or not they accept certain technology. One suggestion I can offer you to avoid having a majority of players call your designs Godmodes is to post a design somewhere, be it here, in a regional board, or on International Incidents with your writeup as a "secret IC" document. That way, you haven't rolled out the product ICly and players can look at your design and offer feedback.
Conclusion
This guide may seem to be short on the minute details of design and I haven't written this with a specific design that I could walk you through, but this isn't intended to be an exhaustive manual for creating every design. Hopefully, you've gotten some ideas you can use to help you on your way to being the next great designer.