Two little details - easy to build up but huge affect

[Rosencrantz]

Two things I would hope to see in SHIV:

1. Convoys using zig system
2. Boats behavior correct so that you can't stop your boat if submerged without loosing the depth control.

Number one:

Now in SHIII the hole hunt can done just like a turkey shot: Plot the targets course in 10 minutes (target will keep it's course) - raise ahead - dive - take your boat on normal course (90 degree track angle) - stop the engines - wait - shoot!).
I'm sure the system could be build up easily to count the basic course and after that, targets to use different zig codes you have to deal with. The zigging system should not be the easy "target is allways doing 30 degrees legs". There should be some variation in the system.

Number two:

If the boat would loose the depth control if under water speed is 0 (like it's in RL, usually), the only way to "sit down" is either to dive to the bottom or staying on surface. No more turkey shot pictured in the part one.

These two little things would take the hole tactical planning and approach prosedures also to a totally new level.

Opinitions?

-RC-

[Threadfin]

Agree on the zig plans. Not every ship used one, so there should be some ships not zigging too. But overall, the Japanese ships certainly used zig plans. But these are true zig plans, not weaving like ships in SH3. a 30 degree port leg for 20 minutes, a 50 degree starboard zig for 15, and so on.

For the second point, no problem with that. US TDCs had position keepers, which inputted the sub's own movements into the torpedo solution calulation, so maintaining some speed will not make targeting more difficult, as it does in SH3.

To make things interesting, they should model scope shake at high speeds. In many accounts it's mentioned how they would need to slow to 3 or 4 knots for periscope observations, otherwise the scope picture would be blurred.

[DeepSix]

Second your ideas, Rosencrantz, plus Threadfin's additions. :up:

[Loaf]

Didn't the convoys zig in SHI? I seem to recall that they did...

Convoys in SHII just went in all different directions and collided.

[Driftwood]

To make things interesting, they should model scope shake at high speeds. In many accounts it's mentioned how they would need to slow to 3 or 4 knots for periscope observations, otherwise the scope picture would be blurred.

High speeds also create a "feather" that makes you more likely to be spotted by the enemy.

[Rosencrantz]

Driftwood wrote:

Threadfin wrote:

To make things interesting, they should model scope shake at high speeds. In many accounts it's mentioned how they would need to slow to 3 or 4 knots for periscope observations, otherwise the scope picture would be blurred.


High speeds also create a "feather" that makes you more likely to be spotted by the enemy.

In the official doc "Torpedo Fire Control Manual" from 1950 (USN) it's said:

502. PERISCOPE TECHNIQUE:

... (b) There are no set rules which can laid down which will apply under all conditions. The following, if followed, however, should be of assistance:

(1) Make enough observations during the early phasesof the approach to insure an early target speed solution.

(2) During the later stages of the approach and during the attack observations should be required only to maintain a correct target course solution.


(3) The likelihood of detection depends more upon amount and legth of periscope exposure than upon the diameter of the periscope head or the number of looks.

(5) Have the periscope in low power when it breaks water. This insures maximum field of vision and helps to locate the target.

(6) ...

(7) Change depth as necessary to insure that only the minimum amount of periscope required for the observation is exposed.


(8) Make observations only at 1/3 speed when within 6000 yards unless tactical situation demands otherwise.

(9) When making high speeds at long ranges, where air cover is not present, do not deny the Fire Control Party information to maintain speed. A quick observation should not be detected.

(10)...

(11)...

(12)...

Greetings,

-RC-

[Trout]

1) THis would be a great feature if we had a command that allowed the boat to automatically maintain a shadowing distance from the target. It should also be a difficulty setting too as it will really screw up novices

2) Having read enough sub books I know that maintaining depth control was often very difficult. Boat speed, currents, temperatures, and most of all, damage state, skill level of the chief are all factors. While being attacked a boat could also have depth issues that would make it broach or dive suddenly downward out of control.


I know it is not the captains job to worry about this, but I think it would be fun from time to time to manualy adjust the ballast, flood tanks, or blow them a little while under attack.

I'm starting to see that a lot of us here dont find the game very challenging!
Trout

[Rosencrantz]

To Trout, few notes:

I have to say, I don't agree with you about the trim procedures availible for player. I consider a) this might be asking maybe too much "building time" from Devs (they have to keep themselves between the limits given by the company)
and b) this is basicly irrelevant.

BUT, at least the boat should loose it's balance if it's underwater speed is 0. SHIII seems to lack this.

Second: Personally I can't understand "the casual player problem". Have you EVER heard about the game which is well done + not easy + that customers hate it? I haven't and I think it's just the companies excuse for not ready / easy / short / stupid gamy game. I think the more challenging the game is, the more popular it'll be. Sure, if our intention is to sell something to a 15 years old lad with just tiny nerves, the subsim is not our choice. Personally I don't believe subsim as a genre can ever deal with traditionally more popular war games. Just because, IMHO, subs are suchs a special subject most of the people just can't find as interesting. BUT, anyway, I think when we want to keep our old customers and maybe have some new also, the challenge is one of the main items then.

;)

Greetings,

-RC-

[don1reed]

Great Post with a lot of nifty ideas.

...for me...

a finely crafted Kollmorgan with split image range finder.

It's difficult to get range with SH3's scope in foul wx; however, with a split image range finder, both ships in the scopes view are syncronous. The ship you're viewing may be bouncing around, but the split image still allows you to easily stack them (hull on reflected image on top of mast of real image) to determine range--bouncing or not.

edit:

how's this?
http://img276.imageshack.us/img276/3333/kollmorgansplitimage1uy.jpg

There's still room for human error--like what happens if you don't guess the masthead height correctly? :up:

[Rosencrantz]

Hello don1reed!

Have you ever thought how unstable the sub is in SHIII at PD? Ok, type II for example is just a little boat but anyway I think Devs haven't got boats behavior to be modelled correct. I mean, now the boat is going up and down along waves which, I think, is wrong. Waves should go over the scope if the weather is good, not that the boat herself is going up and down. This means horizontal line in the scope should actually be pretty steady if sailing pretty calm waters. Storm is different, sure. So I think Devs tried to model how the waves have their affect to visibility but that they didn't got it right.

Anyway I don't use autostab. because I think that's would be more unrealistic.

The basic idea is that even a small boat is much more stable in PD than on the surface.

Greetings,

-RC-

[don1reed]

Oh I agree fully, Rosencrantz, I was just dreaming about SHIV and having the functionality of the scopes modeled on the Gato & Baleo class boats.

I fondly remember trying to use the orig SH scope in foul wx also...not good...follow the bouncing ball :lol:

[Sailor Steve]

I, on the other hand, disagree. The water is constantly moving, and can be doing so at great depths. In a storm, at periscope depth the boat is going to be bouncing around quite a bit, even in real life.

I don't know how much this affected actual u-boat captains, but the water is always in motion.

[don1reed]

Howdy Steve, (fellow ex radiomen :) )

I agree with that also. I'm just saying--bare me out--that with the Kollmorgen scope as indicated above, the split image, both ships in the viewfinder oscillate in unison (syncronous)in the viewfinder, thereby allowing the operator to adjust the reflected image to the top of the thru-the-scope image, no matter how turbulent the sea. This was/is a unique feature of the scopes aboard USN subs. Also, see here: http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/periscope.html Go about 1/3 of the way down.

edit: I guess the best way to describe the experience of viewing thru a split image device that is understandable to the uninitiated. ... back a few years, ahem...before SLR cameras, there existed "split image" view-finding cameras (Argus C3 comes to mind)...you could be standing on the back of a bucking bronco and still focus the split image device.

another device comes to mind: Marine Sextant. Standing on the deck of pitching-rolling ship I can view the horizon (seeking Index Error) and see and synchronize both images of the horizon into a single line without fail. For that matter, I can view a ship on the horizon with a sextant and using the split image, tell how far off the ship is (range) guessing at it's masthead height. Or view the Cape Hatteras lighthouse (208 ft.) thru the sextant or periscope and know how far off I stand...in a Beaufort 7. The same concept applies to the USN Kollmorgen periscope.

It is my hope, that the Devs model this "puppy" in the upcoming SHIV. I don't mean--Just looking like a Kollmorgen--I mean functioning like a Kollmorgen.

edit: If the Devs ever get a chance to read this post--its my fondest wish that they go here: http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/pscope/index.htm


Best rgds,

[Sailor Steve]

Oh, I completely agree about the Kollmorgen 'scope (your picture is delightful, by the way). I've looked through split-image 'stereoscopic' rangefinders, and they are different in that you get two haves of the same image-when the image looks like a complete ship you look at the scale to get the range.

I didn't know the split-image periscopes gave you two images...looks cool!

[Rosencrantz]

Have to say I agree with you, Steve.

I have read more than one document where the skipper is telling he was unable to carry out attack in submerged because of hevy weather. Boat could also lost control near surface and either bump on the surface or dive. My point was the boats behavior in calm weather, 5 - 10 m/s. I can't be totally sure but I'm wondering if the type II was really rolling that much in RL in conditions pictured above. Sure, it's rolling, but that much and also that fast?
But, I might be wrong...

BTW, didn't we have discussed this before, I think.

:hmm:

-RC-

[don1reed]

Not very much info has filtered down to us since the end of WWII regarding the periscopes used by the Kriegsmarine as compared to all the declassified Technical and Field Manuals (TM's and FM's) from the USN and their periscopes; however, the results of tonnage sunk by the Germans indicates that weather/sea conditions did not play a major role in any Navy's submarine forces in obtaining bearing and range.

I agree with you, Rosencrantz, that other factors such as broaching or generally, being unable to keep a stablized depth due to the weather/sea conditions is the culprit, not the sight picture in the scope.

It was my thought to bring split-prism rangefinder issue to the front, because it's obvious to me after a little research, that all WWII submarine sims and their periscopes up til now have been arcade games regarding range finding.

The nearest thing to real so far is SHIII's scope--sorry to say, but not enough information is available to know if the German's had a built-in rangefinder to make that part of the job easier for the skippers.

Further research shows that the orig scopes were two mirrors at 45° angles inside a pipe back in the mid 19th century (US Civil War)...this idea(re submarines/periscopes), travelled back across the Atlantic to Germany were it was further developed to what we know today (short history course)...names like Kollmorgen, Koeffel & Esser, Zeiss, etc., sprang forth.

So, if a major Naval combat force of WWI was the KaiserMarine and their outstanding record, it stands to reason then, if the USN had the split prism...so did they.(presumption on my part) You might say, it was 'top-secret' for the times.

The USN did not perform time consuming sliderule math if they didn't have to. They read the range off the scope. Be assured that the Approach team plotted the info in order to acquire course and speed; I doubt whether the Germans really did unecessary math either.

A lot of the whiz-wheels they used did not filter down to us as well. Here's a look at a rare WWII German U.Boat model: http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/894/tdcwheel8tf.th.jpg (http://img19.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tdcwheel8tf.jpg)

...ok, enough of this, I'll stop....

I just hope the Devs are reading....I won't say anything about the thru the scope radar that appeared later in the war...


cheers,

[DeepSix]

FWIW I think the split prism scope is a good idea. Might be a good idea to make it part of the "difficulty options" so that it could be turned on or off, but I think I would like it.

[don1reed]

Howdy Deepsix,

...in addition...the Devs could refrain from publishing exact masthead heights (MHH) and ship length overall (LOA), or at least let these be variables that change with each convoy or incident.

As far as the split image as an option...the player wouldn't have to touch the corresponding control see below.


http://img311.imageshack.us/img311/1230/scopecontrols3yn.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[DeepSix]

Howdy Deepsix,

...in addition...the Devs could refrain from publishing exact masthead heights (MHH) and ship length overall (LOA), or at least let these be variables that change with each convoy or incident.
...

Hmmm... that gets me to thinking - from reading Blair it seems like U.S. skippers (or their execs or watch crews, etc.) misidentified Japanese ships and/or their tonnages rather often. Usually with warships - mistaking cruisers for battleships, for instance. Since SH3 uses a "stock" model for any C3 or T2 or whatever, every encounter is with a target of known dimensions, even with manual targeting. In other words, this C3 is the same as the last one. If mast height and LOA could be randomized in SH4 it would certainly make things less formulaic or routine - but I don't know how it could be done. You'd either have to have hundreds of models, each with individual quirks ( :nope: - that'd kill the performance) or you'd have to have a script or something. I say "or something" because that gets into programming and there I'm out of my depth.

Anyhow - just thinking out loud; it's an interesting idea. :up:

[Edit: Oh yeah - "focus control" in that diagram. Some might say it would be just a cosmetic realism element if it were modeled in SH4 - but on the other hand it's kind of silly how the SH3 scope is always in focus, no matter what you point it at.]

[Rosencrantz]

Just wondering... if we'll finally see the scope which is really going up and down when raised/lowered.

:hmm:

Wouldn't be essential but nice.

-RC-

[CCIP]

Just wondering... if we'll finally see the scope which is really going up and down when raised/lowered.



Wait, it does in SHIII. :hmm:

Or you mean the periscope interface itself?

[don1reed]

but I don't know how it could be done.

...I'm thinking MHH/LOA could be RANDOMIZED, like what JScones, gouldig, Hemisent et al, have done with SH3Commander.

edit: Teddy Bär has the draft of merchants randomized in NYGM TW, I believe...

If I recall, the scope travelled up/down in SH and AOD...but, its not a mission killer if it doesn't

focus: it'd prolly be good enough as it is when awash--blurry.

[don1reed]

Here's a better view of the actual rangefinder on the base of a USN scope.
The Asst or the CO or XO would dial in the guessimated MHH on the rangefinder and when viewing the target thru the scope would turn that knobby dial on the right hand side which would elevate/split the dual target image until the hull rested on top of the mast of the real target, (measuring the angle of elvation), which would simutaneously turn the indicator on the rangefinder to the target's range. Simple, but effective.

http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/9994/rangefinder6vy.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

or, just using the vertical/horizontal graduations on the scope's viewfinder, this Nomograph (slip-stick whiz-wheel) was used to determine range. The Nomograph is almost like what Wazoo has developed for the F5 screen, btw.
http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/1308/nomograph3an.jpg

Either way, let the player decide...

rgds,