DicheBach Questions

[DicheBach]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Let's keep score. Surcouf encounters a merchant with three deck guns running by itself. It's pretty even: Surcouf's two 8" guns against the frieghter's three 5" guns. However the frieghter is a very superior gun platform to Surcouf.

Although the 8" guns have longer range, Surcouf's lousy surface handling properties mean that she must be at lower range to get any hits. Let's say they both open up at 6000 yards. Surcouf is carrying only 60 shells, barely adequate to sink one and if very fortunate, two freighters. However one hit from a single shell to Surcouf's pressure hull means that the submarine can still dive but will never surface again. It will take several dozen hits from Surcouf to cripple the freighter. My money is on the freighter to sink the Surcouf without suffering a single hit.

Surcouf was fancifully built as an "underwater cruiser." Obviously the crazy French had fantasies of running gun battles between Surcouf and some cruiser out there. It would have been her last and would have lasted several minutes.

Surcouf: Frankenboat! Failure as a cruiser, failure as a submarine. Looks cool though!

Yep, probably a very fair assessment of how it would play out. Still would be fun to play with in the game, if it were represented anything like 'reality' just to see what it maybe could have done.

There was some weird ass **** they came up with in the 1920s, actually quite a bit into the 1940s too . . .

There was a web page I found years ago through one of my WWII game communities that I've lost the link to. It had a series of "fanciful" parody WWII technologies for each nation, each one meant to reflect the fanciful notions that each nation seemed to entertain in engineering and operational doctrine. So for example, the Japanese tech was a bicycle powered balloon lofted "bomber" that had a basket with either bombs or rabid dogs underneath.

The Soviet one was this enormous bomber with like 12 engines, etc., Wish I could find that stuff.

This Surcouf thing seems pretty good as an analogy of French interwar fantasies, sort of a Jules Verne thing

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by DicheBach

Yep, probably a very fair assessment of how it would play out. Still would be fun to play with in the game, if it were represented anything like 'reality' just to see what it maybe could have done.

There was some weird ass **** they came up with in the 1920s, actually quite a bit into the 1940s too . . .

There was a web page I found years ago through one of my WWII game communities that I've lost the link to. It had a series of "fanciful" parody WWII technologies for each nation, each one meant to reflect the fanciful notions that each nation seemed to entertain in engineering and operational doctrine. So for example, the Japanese tech was a bicycle powered balloon lofted "bomber" that had a basket with either bombs or rabid dogs underneath.

The Soviet one was this enormous bomber with like 12 engines, etc., Wish I could find that stuff.

This Surcouf thing seems pretty good as an analogy of French interwar fantasies, sort of a Jules Verne thing

Yes, it's EXACTLY what you'd expect to encounter in a Jules Verne novel. We had some real winners too, like a plane mounted to the deck of an S-boat and the Nautilus with two 5" deck guns .

The Japanese had huge subs with aircraft hangers on deck and torpedoes with incredibly long ranges that couldn't be aimed well enough to hit anything at that range (it's always something....)

The Germans had little submarines up against 1000 ship convoys so that if they hit a different ship with each of their not enough torpedoes they still wouldn't have any influence on how many supplies got through. And they chatted on the radio like schoolgirls, then wondered why they were being sunk all the time.

Americans had this super sophisticated TDC that succeeded in making targeting more complicated but not more effective. All had deck guns and AA guns, whose main function was to make noise when submerged so enemy escorts could find them easier.

[DicheBach]

I think I'm getting the hang of this American TDC . . . or rather "better" with it. Of course, if one indulges in all the unrealistic perks afforded by "Hard" mode, hitting is just a matter of constant flipping back and forth between the nav map and periscope. Still a challenge, but it gives an unfair advantage.

I haven't figured out how the actual periscope operator would determine the course of the target, and I would think the TDC would include features for that. But the way I do it (which is maybe only "partly" unrealistic).

I use either a visual contact (more realistic) or a sonar contact (possibly less realistic, but I notice those sonar prongs tend to be pretty far off of the ship blob determined visually, so maybe not so "unrealistic") and plot two dots at a sufficient time interval = enemy course and speed. This is ideally done with the target already on a more or less perpendicular course and closing toward the subs vector, maybe 2500 yards? That seems to be about what the TDC can lock on reliably even in ideal atmospheric and sea conditions . . . maybe 3250.

With those two bits, it can be done without going away from the periscope (now that I've tinkered with it to make sure how it works).

Assuming he doesn't change course and assuming the intersect of the two vessels course is in fact 90 degrees (and I would guess that having the sub at very low speed if not stopped is important to the math too): then the relative bearing in the periscope IS part of the equation for determining the AOB (this was what I had inferred based on the geometry, I mean hey . . . triangle can only have 180 degrees inside eh!?)

180 - 90 - Relative Bearing = Angle on the Bow.

With the speed already plugged in from the sonar/visual plot and assuming the courses remain the same it becomes a relatively simple matter.

1. Set AOB dial on the TDC to some future value based on the targets actual relative bearing right now. For example, if the middle of the target is at 60 relative bearing (actual AOB = 30 right now) then assume you'll be ready to make the shot in 10 or so more degrees (if he is going "medium" speed of 6 knots). So 90 - 50 = 40. Dial in 40 AOB.

2. Start taking range measures. Repeat every couple seconds so you're confident you are in the ballpark. Try to time one last range measure with the stadimeter when the middle of the target is at about 48 or 49 bearing.

3. Fire one.

4. Dial the AOB up a few degrees (maybe 45). Take another range measure.

5. Fire two.

I had one perfect setup in a career (glassy seas clear night one old fast merchant at 6 knots going almost exactly south into the Surabaya harbor) and I replayed that a couple times and managed to get 3 hits in a row using that method.

I'm still not sure the "Position Keeper" is that useful, but it does seem to adjust the AOB so I may experiment with it too.

With the Position Keeper you could replace step two with:

2. When you get a range measurement you are confident of and with the relative bearing very close to what you had "predialed" for corresponding AOB. Hit Position Keeper.

3, etc. Just starting firing at intervals

I guess there was some sort of an socket that connected the TDC to each torp? The TDC must've had a bunch of gears and cogs in it that calculated this ****, and would adjust settings based on the last readings when Position Keeper was set. At the moment fire tube command was given, the last set of data from the TDC set the gyro on the torp to correspond to what the current position keeper values were?

[Sniper297]

"whose main function was to make noise when submerged so enemy escorts could find them easier."

Until the GUPPY class, none of the US subs could go fast enough for long enough submerged to make either streamlining or flow noise a real issue. I understand your distaste for deck guns and AA guns, but the theory at the time was if caught in shallow water and/or with low batteries, it was better to have secondary weapons and not need them, than to need them and not have them.

"the relative bearing in the periscope IS part of the equation for determining the AOB"

Nope. If your heading is 000 true and the relative bearing is 090 he's off your starboard beam and also at 090 true. If he's heading 270 the AOB is 0, if he's heading 180 the AOB is Starboard 90, if he's heading 315 the AOB is Port 45. The Angle On the Bow is how YOU bear from HIM, not his bearing from you.

As for the PK, the primary purpose for that was to keep track of his "probable" location while the periscope was down - in the game you can unrealistically leave the scope sticking up indefinitely outside 1000 yards, in real life they tried to keep the exposure down to a 10 second observation every 2-3 minutes, which made the PK actually useful. Again the PK assumes no change of speed or course by the target between observations, it was considered a "working fiction" strictly to assist the tracking.

[DicheBach]

Originally Posted by Sniper297

Nope. If your heading is 000 true and the relative bearing is 090 he's off your starboard beam and also at 090 true. If he's heading 270 the AOB is 0, if he's heading 180 the AOB is Starboard 90, if he's heading 315 the AOB is Port 45. The Angle On the Bow is how YOU bear from HIM, not his bearing from you.

As for the PK, the primary purpose for that was to keep track of his "probable" location while the periscope was down - in the game you can unrealistically leave the scope sticking up indefinitely outside 1000 yards, in real life they tried to keep the exposure down to a 10 second observation every 2-3 minutes, which made the PK actually useful. Again the PK assumes no change of speed or course by the target between observations, it was considered a "working fiction" strictly to assist the tracking.

Whaa, whaa, what!?

Oh man, I cannot believe I had that wrong.

But that just does not make sense to me. If I set AOB to 0, the corresponding image on the dial is of a ship's cross section with the bow pointing toward zero. If I set it to 180 it is the ships bow pointing away from 180.

If him coming at "me" at a right angle to my heading were to equal "AOB" zero, then setting AOB to zero, speed to zero and range to max should cause the torp to gyro out in as extreme a starboard turn as it can make, no?

But that is not what it does. It goes straight out and maintains a trajectory in line with that of the ship at the time it was fired (zero relative bearing if fore tubes or 180 relative bearing if aft tubes).

Either what you just said doesn't make sense or I'm completely confused.

How do you determine AOB in the most "realistic" way you can in this game, i.e., using nothing but the periscope?

[Sniper297]

Determining AOB was more of an art than science, real sub skippers practiced using tabletop models with protractors and odd stuff like that. Again, one of the main reasons I use auto targeting instead of manual is because in real life I would have had a whole plotting team to do all the math for me, and it's just too much tedious work for a game. It's supposed to be entertaining, and I am not entertained by math problems.

That said, I would advise using training wheels - use auto targeting but take notes and screenshots to use it as a learning experience rather than loafing along with your mind in neutral.

AOB illustrated (with the AOB dial moved over for a smaller pic):



In this one the relative bearing FROM ME TO HIM is about zero, the AOB (Relative bearing from HIM to ME) is about Starboard 42.



Relative bearing here is about 355 (close to the same) but since he's facing directly toward me, the AOB (again, relative bearing from HIM to ME, not the same as from ME to HIM) is about zero. The "mini TDC" part of the scope view shows YOUR SUB in the lower dial, and the target in the upper dial, which gives you a tactical picture of what's going on.

[DicheBach]

Ah thanks Sniper. Training wheels is a good suggestion!

I DO like math (especially geometry) but not "good" at it; gotta work at it, but I tend to enjoy it.

ADDIT: yeah I think those pics you posted will do the trick and help clear it up for me. Thanks.

One other question though: I see you have the same periscope as me--must be an improved one that is common to good mod packs (or maybe you too use FOTRS?).

What are the hash marks on the two axes in the periscope? Degrees? If that is the case, then I suppose that even without the stadimeter, if you know the mast height, and can do the trig, calculating the range is easy. Same principle as what the stadimeter is based on but without that annoying image to match up.

[Sniper297]

Ever since I got ahold of Silent 3ditor;

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/down...o=file&id=4489

I've been modding and tweaking the game to suit me, so the periscopes, TBT, and binoculars are all changed so they do 3 different ranges. Couldn't tell you exactly how since it's been a long time since I made a lot of these tweaks.

As for real life, yeah, the hash marks were used to estimate range and lead angles - again, using the training wheels, take screenshots and get an idea of how many "divisions" in high and low power different ships fill at different ranges. Do that long enough and you'll have a fair idea of approximate range at first glance. Like the old joke about how do you get to Carnegie Hall...

[DicheBach]

That is a good one


I can see how the navy of the era would've appreciated something like Silent Hunter. But at this point I guess the torpedoes know pretty much what they are doing all by themselves . . . Still practice makes perfect I suppose.

[propbeanie]

Originally Posted by DicheBach

Had a little jaunt in the Nautilus (this is with Fall of the Rising Sun mod, which is quite good, not sure if the V-boats are in stock). Neat boat but boy is it slow to dive. That career was going good for about a month, then I befell a common foible I make: interloping into enemy harbors and either detecting naval mines or sub nets (or stealthy Krakens, I'm not sure) the "wrong" way. As they say, any ship can be a minesweeper . . . once.

I'll generally give myself one or two "reloads" or esp. when it was for reasons other than me just making really bad decisions. Reloading right before turning point moments in battle can be a good way to learn how different choices work out. But in general I prefer a "dead is dead" playstyle in character-based games like this one. It forces you to learn to be better I think. Plus lots of restarting careers helps to iron out the exact mod configuration, which for me is just FOTRS for now (albeit with the changes from Crew Fix plugged in manually by me).

I guess I'll start a new one in a Salmon class in Cavite. The Nautilus seems awfully vulnerable to aircraft attacks and I'm bad about forgetting/risking going to periscope depth in daylight. The S-boat was interesting, but of course the main goal is "survive long enough to get assigned a better boat." Would be neat to check out those two 6" guns in a brawl, but Rockin' Robbins had gone and given me a complex about my big gun fetish so I guess I better learn to rely 99% on torps like a real sub ace

Actually that reminds me, a "sub" that I'd love to see in this game: the the French "submarine cruiser" Surcouf!



It was on its way to the Pacific under Free French command and it got plowed by a freighter coming out of the Panama canal. Not a hard "what if" to consider that it didn't get rammed and actually wound up serving in the Pacific. Would be very cool to see how it performs!

I just stumbled across this again: [REL] Free French Submarine Surcouf mod I've never tried it myself, but anything from Keltos is good. It'll give you an idea of what the beast could - er, couldn't do...

[DicheBach]

Wow! Ask and ye shall receive!

[DicheBach]

General question about how "closely" the enemy spawns match historical events.

As an example: in my Yank career (starated in Cavite in a Sargo and now in a Gar out of Brisbane), I've just arrived at the patrol area for my 5th or 6th patrol, northwest of Bourgainville Island (north of the strait separating the Rabaul cluster on the west and the other Solomons on the east).

I'm aware that, in a few days, there are about to be some very famous and interesting battles down southeast near Guadalcanal. Most notably:

7 Aug: U.S. landings on Guadalcanal begin
August 8-9, 1942: Japanese battleships attack the American fleet.

August 20, 1942
Nineteen Wildcat fighters and twelve Dauntless dive bombers arrive at Henderson Field.
August 21, 1942
General Ichiki orders the first attempt to retake Henderson Field.
August 21, 1942
General Ichiki commits ritual suicide.
September 12, 1942
Japanese attack Henderson again but fail losing 1200 men, the Americans only lose 446.
October 11-12,1942
Japanese cruisers Furutaka and Fabuki are destroyed.
October 13, 1942
Japanese battleships Kongo and Haruna shell Marine positions at Henderson Field.
October 14, 1942
Japanese cruisers Chokai and Kinugasa bombard the Marines.
October 24-25, 1942
Battle for Henderson Field.
October 26, 1942
Battle of Santa Cruz Islands.
November 12-15 , 1942
Naval battle for Guadalcanal. Japanese lose battleships Hiei, Kirishishima heavy cruisers Kinguagasa, three destroyers and seven transports. American loses heavy cruisers Atlanta, San Francisco, light cruisers Juneau, and seven destroyers. Japanese heavy cruisers Suzuya and Maya.

etc., etc. all the way through eventual Japanese withdrawal in I believe Feb of '43 . . .

How much trouble is it worth to try to be "on scene" to try to get involved in any of these battles?

So far, I have not been impressed with how easy or clearcut it is to get involved in famous historical battles in a career campaign, even when the game is giving me signals that that battle is about to take place, and/or is taking place, and subsequently more messages that it took place.

More than once, I've been smack in the middle of the general region where the Japanese carrier TF should have been during Battle of Midway. I saw crap tons of planes behaving in ways that convinced me I could follow their trajectories to find me an aircraft carrier kill . . . but to no avail. I must've spent 10 hours of game play and nearly a full week in game trying to hone in on Kido Butai and save VT-8, etc. from the carnage, but . . . nope. No dice.

So tell me: is there any point at all in trying to participate in historical battles in a career campaign in this game?

[propbeanie]

The battles are not very accurately modeled, and for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is a bother of nth degree to get even close to the ship level, much less accurate ship representations. I have no idea how many different types of vessels there were in each of the navies in WW2, but I do know that even with FotRSU, that you don't even see 10% of what was there as far as "Classes" go. Then there's the shear number involved in the battles. The game chokes sometimes on one airplane and four ships, so imagine if you've got something with hundreds of planes and hundreds of ships. lurker_hlb3 tried to be reasonably accurate with his RSRDC (Run Silent Run Deep Campaign), but had to make "compromises" with the available ships and numbers used. One of the big things is that if you get within 20km of a spawn site, the entire group will not spawn, so you might be short a few dozen vessels / planes from the scenario if you're in the "wrong" place. On top of all of that, the opponents and their associated AI do not "perform" battles very well. The airplanes won't even shoot at each other... All that said, it's still grand fun, and I couldn't care less about "historical accuracy"...

[DicheBach]

Originally Posted by propbeanie

The battles are not very accurately modeled, and for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is a bother of nth degree to get even close to the ship level, much less accurate ship representations. I have no idea how many different types of vessels there were in each of the navies in WW2, but I do know that even with FotRSU, that you don't even see 10% of what was there as far as "Classes" go. Then there's the shear number involved in the battles. The game chokes sometimes on one airplane and four ships, so imagine if you've got something with hundreds of planes and hundreds of ships. lurker_hlb3 tried to be reasonably accurate with his RSRDC (Run Silent Run Deep Campaign), but had to make "compromises" with the available ships and numbers used. One of the big things is that if you get within 20km of a spawn site, the entire group will not spawn, so you might be short a few dozen vessels / planes from the scenario if you're in the "wrong" place. On top of all of that, the opponents and their associated AI do not "perform" battles very well. The airplanes won't even shoot at each other... All that said, it's still grand fun, and I couldn't care less about "historical accuracy"...

Very interesting, thanks Beanie!

I'll be honest, I'm a bit disappointed to have my observations confirmed: the game is not a historical war game, so much as a "sub simulator" based on WWII. I come from the hard-core "spreadsheet" paper-&-chit historical war game school of thought, so naturally that is my implicit expectation.

But yeah, I can totally appreciate how difficult it would be to make this particular game bridge from "shooter" scale (with all the quality it currently achieves representing that scale) all the way to the "strategy" scale. And yes, it is great fun just how it is.

But I think if a team really set out to get this engine to span that "divide" it could be done.

So RSRDC does more along this line than FOTRSU does eh? Sounds like I should get an RSRDC install going with MultiSH.

ADDIT: as far as the "number of ships" I don't think SH4 is too far off, at least based on my "War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition" knowledge base. Until Leyte Gulf, my undertanding is that, the numbers of ships and planes in the air at any given moment rarely got into the ~20 ships & 200 planes ballpark. These battles were very dynamic things so it is difficult to generalize but . . . take for example the Battle of Sunda Strait I was looking up the other day (when I was trying to meet up for that battle in the strait between Java and Sumatra in a recent career playthrough)

Strength
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
American:
1 heavy cruiser
Australian:
1 light cruiser
Dutch:
1 destroyer
---------
Japanese
1 light carrier
1 seaplane carrier
5 cruisers
12 destroyers
1 minelayer
58 troopships
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Casualties and losses
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 heavy cruiser sunk
1 light cruiser sunk
1 destroyer sunk
1071 killed
675 POWs[3]
---------
1 minelayer sunk,
4 troopships sunk or grounded,[3]
1 cruiser damaged,
10 killed,
37 wounded[4]

Anecdotally, that is a pretty typical "battle." Some were bigger, some were smaller and bigger ones tended to happen more as time went along (leaving aside Pearl Harbor which was a lot of airplanes in the air at one time, though not really that many ships being attacked).

I'd have to go back and consult the exact chronicles, but even Midway . . . any given engagement during those four days of running battles? Maybe 8 or 12 ships in a task force being attacked by 30 or at most 40 aircraft and defended by 20 or 30 at any given time?

Originally Posted by DicheBach

Sounds like I should get an RSRDC install going with MultiSH.

I thought you were playing the RSRDC ...
The campaign is included in my ModPack.