Quote:
Originally Posted by BarracudaUAK
As far as an "Attack Map" is concerned... "In the real world" could be a piece of paper (maybe graph paper?), with a 'mark' in the center, a ruler, and a 360deg protractor (preferably one with a short ruler attached at the center, seen a few of these).
The 'mark' would be my sub. When a bearing is called out by radar/sonar, I can mark it down, and then 'order', i.e. set the bearing on the dial, when range is called, by stadimeter/radar/sonar, I can measure with my ruler to that distance, and mark/draw a line, and order/set dial to the range, do that twice, deduce speed and bearing, and order/set the appropriate dials....
(I would love to have all of the "tools" on the navigation map on the in game "attack map" too!)
I can then look at the TDC/PK and say ok, it says shoot X degrees, so I can place my ruler (or swing the one that is attached to the protractor) over that bearing, and say ok, I agree/don't agree with that. (Mimicking the "line" on the in-game attack map.)
Barracuda
|
Actually the submarine had a chart table, never a hand held map. This table was clear, with a lighted "pip" representing the sub position driven under the table to follow sub movement. The table was permanently mounted in the control room (the game sub interior is pretty accurate on this one) and usually referred to as "the plot."
Firing procedures involved in getting a TDC/PK target bearing from the TDC operator and comparing it with the periscope bearing. If they were different then the TDC solution wasn't accurate and you didn't shoot. This is pretty well reproduced by our attack map, which shows the position of the real target and the position of the PK target. If they are different then it's good not to shoot. But at no time did anybody plot an attack with a hand held piece of paper.
Granted, they didn't get it completely right. But what they did was really darned good for the primitive computer systems we had nine years ago and for the slightly less primitive systems we have now.
You also have to realize that the game production methods are just broken. The programmers could be working on a first person shooter or a puzzle game next week. They don't know much about submarines and certainly don't have our deep understanding of how things are supposed to work. They have unrealistically tight schedules, no incentive to fix problems after you buy the game, and are just overhead expenses to the game company.
Then you get really stupid stuff, like crewmember special abilities, ability to call in air strikes or command surface units. You really have to wonder what the developers were thinking sometimes. In spite of all that they got it right far more often than we're inclined to give them credit for.