Attack Map Question

[Segwin]

Been so long since I've played - doesn't the attack map have the same tools as the nav map (compass, ruler etc)? If so there not on the screen.


Using TMO only.

[twm47099]

Originally Posted by Segwin

Been so long since I've played - doesn't the attack map have the same tools as the nav map (compass, ruler etc)? If so there not on the screen.


Using TMO only.

Don't know about TMO, but in stock it does not have the tools.

Tom

[Rockin Robbins]

Nor in TMO.

[Hylander_1314]

Just torpedo controls on the map is all I know about.

[TorpX]

There were never any tools on the attack map. God knows why they made it that way.

[Segwin]

Thanks guys -

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by TorpX

There were never any tools on the attack map. God knows why they made it that way.

Yeah, there you go. There was never a valid reason to separate the functions into two separate maps at all. It's just one of those baffling decisions game developers make that leave you cold.

[Hylander_1314]

Should be an option to turn off the attack map. Can't watch your torpedo trajectory? Neither could real life skippers in WWII.

[doulos05]

Originally Posted by Hylander_1314

Should be an option to turn off the attack map. Can't watch your torpedo trajectory? Neither could real life skippers in WWII.

True, perhaps, but you also can't see the plot from the PK. Something approximating the marks made by the approach party on a mobo or similar paper.

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

There was never a valid reason to separate the functions into two separate maps at all. It's just one of those baffling decisions game developers make that leave you cold.

Should be an option to turn off the attack map. Can't watch your torpedo trajectory? Neither could real life skippers in WWII.

With RFB, the "attack map" is for all practical purposes, OFF. You can look at it all you want, but there is only your boat's icon and nothing else. You have no map contacts, and can't make any marks yourself. I hardly ever look at it.


Two maps could have been useful, if they had been incorporated intelligently. If I could revamp the game the way I wanted it, I would have the Nav map for navigation only. You could use some kind of celestial/real navigation scheme and blank out your sub icon. You would have to estimate your position in one way or another. The attack map would still have your sub icon, but no land masses, grid lines, or cheats, and you could mark enemy contacts as you find them. Having your sub icon here is important, as it helps greatly in plotting your approach. Otherwise, whenever you turn or change speed, you must estimate the distance covered/turning radius, and that is a pain.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Hylander_1314

Should be an option to turn off the attack map. Can't watch your torpedo trajectory? Neither could real life skippers in WWII.

Actually, yes they could and with nearly the same accuracy as our attack map. They listened to the shot with passive sonar, noting the bearing the torpedo was on and listening for sounds that indicated a circle runner, abnormal speeds, broaching on the surface, etc.

Look at it this way. Because the torpedo proceeds forward in a straight line and then makes its turn to the gyro angle, a bearing automatically gives you the range of the topedo. When you plot that bearing on the projected torpedo plot, you get the exact position of the torpedo on the plot with astounding accuracy.

For a zero gyro plot, you know the speed of the torpedo and how long it takes to get there. It's just a matter of listening to ensure the torpedo stays on bearing and motor sounds don't change. Then again, it's a piece of cake to plot positions as accurately as our attack map shows for the entire torpedo run.

Our attack map does a stellar job of reproducing what the targeting team did on every single torpedo firing and running without it is operating your submarine with a paper bag over your head. The real sub crews would not have fired a torpedo without the ability to check a solution before they fired and to track the torpedo on the way to the target. We shouldn't either.

The attack map is legitimate. It is important.

A main reason I don't use RFB is that they, even after lengthy explanation, just did not understand the attack map and it's function within the game. I established in much more detail than this that the attack map performs functions actually performed by real crews. They nerfed it anyway and I was done with RFB.

[Hylander_1314]

A sound aid, like the sonar man listening and relaying info would be fine. The map with visual aid should be optional.

[TorpX]

Ahh, the map contacts debate here again, biting me on the ankle like an angry schnauzer. Ouch!

Before everyone pronounces (attack?) map contacts to be good, true and legitimate, let me point out a few things.

...yes they could and with nearly the same accuracy as our attack map. [..etc.,etc.]

Yes, ideally, the crew could track a torpedo on the way to the target. But this is largely dependent on circumstances. Tracking a single torpedo, going straight ahead toward a single target is easy. But, would tracking a four torpedo spread, going out on a gyro angle, while there are multiple targets churning the water, and your inexperienced soundman is trying to figure out if that pesky escort is moving closer or not, be easy? A careful tracking of your torpedo, presumes that you're not changing course, and that your sound operator is not doing anything else at the same time. Good luck figuring out that the one circle runner out of the spread, is not going where it is supposed to, and reacting to this unexpected information in time to do much about it. Did that first torpedo go off course, or just get lost in the noise? Maybe it just sank? Hard to tell with so much going on. Tick-tock.....

The real sub crews would not have fired a torpedo without the ability to check a solution before they fired and to track the torpedo on the way to the target. We shouldn't either.

I don't dispute that crews checked their solutions whenever possible. The question is how well could they check them. They had limited tools at their disposal. They had the visual obervations, they had sonar, they had radar (later), and they had their plot. However none of these were perfect, and the last one, the plot, was a compilation of information obtained from the others. As such, any errors in the others were likely likely to be transfered to the plot. So while they could check over their firing solution, and make sure it conforms to the plot (assuming they had enough time), they really had no independent means of being sure the plot was accurate.

If real-life captains and crews had this kind of super accurate, god's eye view, few enemy ships would have escaped. Apart from torpedo malfuctions, what would ever go wrong?

A main reason I don't use RFB is that they, even after lengthy explanation, just did not understand the attack map and it's function within the game. I established in much more detail than this that the attack map performs functions actually performed by real crews. They nerfed it anyway and I was done with RFB.

I don't know why the RFB team deep-sixed the attack map, but it appears to me that since they were unable to fix it, they decided that the lesser evil was to eliminate it. I would have done the same thing.

If we could have an attack map where your obervation errors were replicated on the map, (with perhaps some chance of a few others being added by your crew), it would be a worthwhile addition to the game. As it is, we can have a perfect, error-free plot to work off of, if we want that. This might be a good idea for a casual game, or a "learning mode", but not for a serious simulation.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Hylander_1314

A sound aid, like the sonar man listening and relaying info would be fine. The map with visual aid should be optional.

Surely not OUR sound guy! We had an intelligence contest with our sonar guy and a rock. The rock won two out of three times...

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by TorpX

Ahh, the map contacts debate here again, biting me on the ankle like an angry schnauzer. Ouch!They had the visual obervations, they had sonar, they had radar (later), and they had their plot. However none of these were perfect, and the last one, the plot, was a compilation of information obtained from the others. As such, any errors in the others were likely likely to be transfered to the plot. So while they could check over their firing solution, and make sure it conforms to the plot (assuming they had enough time), they really had no independent means of being sure the plot was accurate.

Sure they did! They usually had three cross-checks: the plot, the TDC and some poor victim on an is-was. The last thing that happened was that the firing officer asked if all three were in agreement. We have the TDC. We have the attack map. If those two are in agreement we have done the same check as a real crew. I would never press the fire button, and if I remember right, Edward Beach in the Run Silent Run Deep trilogy, he also had episodes where the TDC was not agreement with the is-was guy or the plot and he just lowered the periscope and began another approach.

If real-life captains and crews had this kind of super accurate, god's eye view, few enemy ships would have escaped. Apart from torpedo malfuctions, what would ever go wrong?

I'd be in agreement with you there as far as following the torpedoes' exact path to the target. They didn't have that ability, and we use it all the time to determine whether the torpedo went under or missed ahead or behind. They just knew they missed.

BUT as far as the plot of torpedo path, impact point and timing to impact, they had that in their plot. Using that on the attack map is entirely consistent with reality. Yes, there is no possibility of human error on the attack map plot. As with many aspects of the game, we have no choice but to accept the limitation or drive the car with a bag over our heads, explaining seriously to our passengers that it is "realistic." Sometimes with the bath comes the bath water and separation is not possible without causing worse problems than the problem.

I don't know why the RFB team deep-sixed the attack map, but it appears to me that since they were unable to fix it, they decided that the lesser evil was to eliminate it. I would have done the same thing.

I explained that. They simply did not understand the function of the attack map and considered it an appendix on the intestine of SH4. Extensive conversation went nowhere in aiding their comprehension.

If we could have an attack map where your obervation errors were replicated on the map, (with perhaps some chance of a few others being added by your crew), it would be a worthwhile addition to the game. As it is, we can have a perfect, error-free plot to work off of, if we want that. This might be a good idea for a casual game, or a "learning mode", but not for a serious simulation.

If "ifs and buts" were candy and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas. But they are not and we don't have the targeting system that a simulation deserves. Different observation methods should also have appropriate magnitudes of random error too, and we don't have that.

There is much that is simply wrong with Silent Hunter 4 and cannot be fixed. Just turning off flawed functions leaves us playing Pac Man on a Playstation 1. We're forced into playing the flawed game we bought and enjoying that for what it is.

Certainly putting the paper bag over our head does nothing to improve the realism. I've never seen a sub movie where all the crew members were blindfolded. In real life you had 70 guys, more or less, who each helped each other run the boat. Our boat is empty except for us. The inherent disadvantages of that unrealistic aspect must be balanced by other unrealistic aspects just for us to "break even."

In the final analysis, these are not real submarines in a real war. They are swarms of electrons parceled out to different functions, none of which is wet. SH4 is nothing but an imperfect analogy. No matter WHAT is fixed it will never be real.