Yeah, your pic is retarded. Clearly meant for fashion and not to actually tell the time. By "minimalist" I meant straightforward design without gimmicks or unnecessary elements. Here's some I found from an image search (no pics on tor, sorry):
farfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/iwc-international-watch-company-schaffhausen-roman-numeral-vintage-wristwatch.jpg
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Roman_Watch.jpg
farfo.com/images/corum_roman_numeral_steel_classic_watch2.jpg
To be sure I don't think these are great watches, they just illustrate my point of not cluttering the face with gimmicky, "just for show" dials and gauges. I'm not against all extra features also, for instance a sunset/sunrise gauge, day/month, moon phase, etc. if you actually use those frequently, but it seems silly to have 100 m sprint timers when you don't do any sprinting or have some rotating ring to mark time intervals when it's easier to just remember a time.
for instance has three whole dials dedicated to a chronograph (if I'm reading the manual right). I happen to have a job where I often need to time actions with second precision - it's always easier to just look at the normal second hand of my watch than use the chronograph. In theory the chronograph on this watch can measure down to 50 ms, but in my experience it's hard to even click a mouse with less than 0.5 sec precision, and pushing watch knobs is even slower. So if you really need sub-second precision, I suppose the chronograph is justified, although your measurements will have huge error so the precision is mostly wasted. And how often do you really need to measure things that precisely? Many times I've set up devices that required sub-second precision to operate, but I've always used a specialized apparatus for timing rather than relying on my own reaction time, which would have been far too unreliable and inaccurate. Obviously my own experience is limited, though, so perhaps I'm missing some significant application of this 50 ms precision chronograph, but the marketing of 99% of these watches seems to regard it as just a gimmick nobody will actually use.
Or for example, (again not to knock it but just to illustrate the point): Why have a whole separate seconds dial when you can just put the second hand in the main dial where the markings are much easier to distinguish? What purpose does this serve except to clutter up the display and make the seconds hand less useful? Maybe some people like the aesthetic but to me it seems like a watch meant to look good to people who don't understand how watches work.
If you look at the Амфибия, the rotating bezel is just the same 0-60 subdivisions that are already present on the watch face, and hence are superfluous. But ignoring that, what indeed is the utility of a tachyometer? A whole mechanical computer just to do a division you can easily do in your head, or on paper? A memory aid that can only store one variable? If you really need to do calculation that often, you would carry a dedicated mechanical calculator like a small plastic slide rule or precalculated table. And if memory is an issue the better solution is a notebook and pen which can store any number of values and also aids in calculation.
Yes, but you wouldn't want a swiss army knife of a watch. Each feature should be balanced in terms of how likely you are to use it, how well it works compared to a dedicated tool and how much space it takes on the watch. Besides actually telling time, I would love to see some watch functions that actually work well and are useful in your actual life, not "just in case" of some contrived scenario like being shipwrecked on a deserted island. Closest thing I've heard is basically an astrolabe, which (assuming you know how to use it) allows you to navigate and determine the season without access to electronics, which is still a bit contrived but at least clearly useful in an SHTF context (or if innawoods and too cheap to get a proper GPS device).
