Very nice! A utility like yours is certainly a help. I expect the future of gaming lies in the application of such aids to the game board. As for GQ3.3; well, the authors are decidedly not computer savvy enough to venture into that arena, I'm afraid. A good friend of mine (who writes apps for a living) and I ran through some ideas of an app for GQ3.3. Our idea was a tablet (or phone) app that would handle the ship logs and firing. One idea was to have the firer results (generated on the firer's platform) "thrown" to the target's platform (where the determination of damage would be handled by another subroutine), thereby eliminating the hand logging of the results. (When we discussed this, the tech was just coming on line; today, it might be doable). A lot of interesting possibilities....
This is the very first thing I thought of when I got back into Naval Gaming:
Create an App for phone or Tablet (I could do the iPhone/iPad app, but not a Droid or Windows Phone App).
But my idea was to keep information to a minimum. The App would give out damage to ships, but the firing ship would not know the results of the damage, unless it was something very obvious (listing ship, fire, bow/stern missing, torpedo or shell explosion, etc.).
The coding for this is actually trivial, and the XCode App actually has a drag-drop system for many of the code modules you would need. Sending data to-from other phones - it is just an SMS message, at the most basic, but the means of display (which app receives the message) is indicated by a code module, or a line of code (in whichever language the App is programmed in - I know C++, and a few other derivative languages for iPhone dev work. But most languages work the same, syntax just differs slightly).
But this is just a basic set of enumerated choices for all actions and outcomes.
This is something that should be done.
To address some other aspects of such an App that removes the die-rolling from the players.
I used to play a LOT of GM moderated games in the 1980s (mostly from Game Designers Workshop (which is NOT GW, it is GDW, for any who might accidentally confuse the two): These games ranged from Napoleonic Warships (Technically an Avalon Hill Game), to Modern Ground Warfare, and Sci-Fi (Traveller related).
In Dallas, Texas, there was even one of the big names of WWII Naval Gaming: Chuck Delafield, who would sometimes run such games.
The players still learned tactics, which are completely divorced from die-rolling.
What the players did in such games was to issue orders to their troops as if they were the actual force commander. They learned that these orders take time to send/recieve, and that actions do not occur instantly.
They also learned that IRL you do not have omniscient knowledge of the battlefield, and cannot tell much about the effects of fire other than the things I mentioned previously (catastrophic effects, or effects which produce a highly visible artifact). It meant that they would not be able to make decisions such as shifting their fire from a ship that was still afloat (but which typically everyone would know was doomed to flounder/sink within a turn or two) to fresh targets simply because of the public knowledge that the ship was doomed. Which In Real Life might not be known (many ships can list without sinking, or flooding compartments can right them, giving the appearance of less damage than actually has occurred).
And it taught players the benefit of planning, and organization, and having a battle doctrine.
The die-rolling is just a distraction that gamers have become used to. When you remove the mechanics from the players, all that is left is strategy and tactics. They must then learn how to give cogent orders, and learn other means of controlling the action and narrative than little boxes checked off a log.