SH4 Pwns Me.

[ElAurens]

:o

I really do like this sim.

There is nothing, for me at least, that matches the "chess match" (as BBury calls it) of tactics in naval warfare. It is a very cerebral experience, especially compared to the knife fighting atmosphere of my other favorite, IL2. The scaleability of difficulty is well done from my perspective too. It allows me to concentrate on the situation at hand, and not worry about the minutiae of running a submarine. (Sorry grognards, but computing torpedo tracks is what I have an XO for).

When sorted this could be the best sim ever.

Be sure.

[CCIP]

Well well, another flight simmer who's come for the same reason :D

Yep, I also ended up in SHIII/IV for the very same reason. I love the slow and calculated tactics of naval warfare, it's a very different dynamic from air combat. It's kind of ironic actually - even though I've always been primarily a flight simmer, I have to acknowledge the fact that these subsims suit my own game preferences much better, especially with such an immersive campaign. I'm a very cautious player by nature, always preferring to watch, wait and consider escape before making my strike. That's why I make a good submarine captain and good bomber. Dogfighting, on the other hand, always gets me in trouble - I can't react nearly as well as I should once I get myself in the thick of some furball :p

Oh, and don't shy away from the manual torpedo firing for too long. Auto-targeting great as 'training wheels', but I guarantee you that manual solutions in SHIV are an amazingly satisfying part of the game. :yep:

[ElAurens]

I'll never stop flying, but SH4 is very satisfying.

As for manual torpedo calculations, I dunno. I am no wizzard at math or geometry, other than figuring out how to shave or lengthen a rifle sight to "zero" it, which is very basic compared to computing a target track. I may try it after everything is working correctly in the sim. but like I said, I don't want ot get bogged down with minutiae, for me the tactics are what make it happen.

:cool:

[con20or]

Cant vouch for SH4, the targeting system might be different, but I shied away from manual targeting in Sh3 for months, and once I did, I got into it very quickly. There are some great guides out there.

This is the one that got me up and running.

http://www.paulwasserman.net/SHIII/

once you've calulated the targets course the hard bit is done!

[CCIP]

SHIV is better with manual targeting than SHIII.

And eh, no harm playing it how you want, just saying that there's nothing to be afraid of there. It's really not a math solution, actually more than anything it's a quick-thinking and quick-mousework test - grab a quick range fix with the stadimeter, take your best guess at AoB, guess or use one of the community-recommended measuring ways for speed - and off you are. 90% of it is still not in the firing solution but how well you are positioned to fire.


I guess it's sort of like manual bombsights in IL-2. You can steer away from them if you want (and in IL-2 I mostly do), but when you learn to use them you realize they are pretty good and there's nothing like getting that bomb/eel right on the mark with your own numbers :)

[partyboy]

Manual targetting might seem intimidating, but it's really not that hard. It can take some time before you become really good at it, but you can perform reasonably well once you understand the basics.

Really, the satisfaction that can be gained is massive. With auto-targetting, it doesn't matter what the weather's like, what time of day it is, and you can even afford to be a little sloppy with your positioning. But once you have to start figuring out the data manually, every encounter becomes a whole new experience. You'll remember that time you landed in the perfect position in calm seas on a sunny day and fired a rocket right at your target. You'll remember the time you spent 20 minutes pulling your hair out trying to get into a good spot in the middle of a storm, at night, cursing the waves as they wash over your periscope, nose on the monitor trying to make a correct identification.

It's worth it!

[CCIP]

You'll remember the time you spent 20 minutes pulling your hair out trying to get into a good spot in the middle of a storm, at night, cursing the waves as they wash over your periscope, nose on the monitor trying to make a correct identification.

It's worth it!

And then you should mention those moments, like my favorite - a big enemy minelayer that I hit dead-on with two torpedoes after 3 minutes' running time, a perfect solution fired despite heavy swells :yep:

But we're digressing.
I really do wish more flight simmers try out the SH games. I have a feeling that those who haven't might surprisingly enjoy this one, and a lot.

I chuckle to myself when I compare the dynamics of the two genres - my boat can do a max 9kt underwater; my F-16 touches down at a minimum of 140kt. That just boggles my mind sometimes :doh:

[heartc]

As for manual torpedo calculations, I dunno. I am no wizzard at math or geometry, other than figuring out how to shave or lengthen a rifle sight to "zero" it, which is very basic compared to computing a target track. I may try it after everything is working correctly in the sim. but like I said, I don't want ot get bogged down with minutiae, for me the tactics are what make it happen.


Whatever floats your boat, but if this alone should ever get boring, the lads here are right: You don't have to compute or calculate anything. You just enter what you SEE. All this calculation stuff makes little sense from a cost-gain perspective.

- Get close. The closer you get, the less any solution errors will matter, since they increase with time. Be aware of the arming distance of the torp though. I think 300 yards. I mostly fire from just below 1500 or 1000 yards, like they did iRL. Well, the good ones you read about, anyway.

- You LOOK at the ship, enter the range via the stadimeter. Monkey work. Send it to the TDC.

- You LOOK at the ship, ESTIMATE the AOB, which will improve with practice. Do not think "Is this 42° or 45°?", but turn that nice ship symbol you got on that dial there so that it matches optically with what you can see in front of your eyes. You are at the 6 o'clock position of that dial. How does the target look to you? Send it to the TDC.

- You LOOK at the ship and GUESTIMATE the speed. Send it to the TDC. Merchants move mostly at 7 - 9 knots. You can get a feeling for different speeds from experience, and by looking at how your sub moves from different ranges at different speeds via the outside camera.

Data gathering done. What is important is that there not too much time between each step, because the data you entered already will get old. Now:

- Get the position keeper active. Voila, target is being tracked.
Close in to 1500 yards, update range while the crosshair is on target where you want it to hit (to update the bearing - iRL they had a "Mark" Button for that), and possibly the other data too if you feel your initial observation was poor (do not forget to hit the "Send" button again if you change any data), and fire 2+ torps in a spread, depending on how accurate you deem your solution.
I set the spread via changing bearing, not via using the spread setting, as I want to aim with the crosshairs, but this is personal preference. Most people also use the lock function which will keep the crosshairs centered on the target automatically, but I find this mostly annoying as I need to sweep the thing around often, keeping that destroyer in sight which is lurking around, and as I said, to aim with it. Those spread settings would just be another factor to take into account, like "hum, 0.5 or 2 degrees of center if I want to hit the stern?".

- Enjoy the sights and sounds.

This is how it was mostly done iRL, too, and the "firing observation" was always taken visually at the last moment.



As alternative to find out speed you can indeed mark the relative target position on the map two times or more, while noting the time those observations were done, and then easily calculate target speed by speed = distance / time, as back in high school. You need to do that from far out though, since the result will be more accurate the longer the time between the two observations (or the more headway the target will have made). From close in, you HAVE to guestimate, and this is what the skippers did iRL too, if the opportunity for prior plotting wasn't there or the target has changed course / speed. You could also get turncounts from sound, but I don't know where the table is which was done for SHIII and I don't know if it's similar to the ships in SHIV.

I almost never calculate the speed from visual sightings, I always guess, because I feel the time is simply too short to come up with a decent result before the target might have crossed the sweet spot, and especially during night attacks. This becomes different when surface search radar (SJ) is available. Then, you can start the plotting from way out, beyond visual range, and retrieve an accurate target speed easily.

[TheSatyr]

I have to admit that I've never used manual targetting in SH1,SH2,SH3 or SH4. To me,that's what my crew is for. I command the boat...I don't do everybody elses job too :D

[joea]

I'll never stop flying, but SH4 is very satisfying.

As for manual torpedo calculations, I dunno. I am no wizzard at math or geometry, other than figuring out how to shave or lengthen a rifle sight to "zero" it, which is very basic compared to computing a target track. I may try it after everything is working correctly in the sim. but like I said, I don't want ot get bogged down with minutiae, for me the tactics are what make it happen.

:cool:

I'm glad you see this can be more than "arcade". I will say, if you look up say "Run Silent, Run Deep" you can see the commander does have to get range (using the stadimeter) which could be more or less accurate depending on visibility skill etc. Same with AoB. Bearing was read by the XO as you know.

[heartc]

I'm glad you see this can be more than "arcade". I will say, if you look up say "Run Silent, Run Deep" you can see the commander does have to get range (using the stadimeter) which could be more or less accurate depending on visibility skill etc. Same with AoB. Bearing was read by the XO as you know.
Yep. While there was a "plotting party" on the boat, they were responsible for plotting the intercept from long range or radar contacts. The actual observations and reports on Range, AOB and speed were done by the CO, just like you can do in SHIV (while speed might have already been figured out by the plotting party), who then reports this data to the TDC party (akin to hitting the "Send" button in SHIV).

One notable exception to that was Mush Morton. He would have O'Kane looking through the scope, doing the reports, while he figured the hole picture out in his head and from watching the TDC dials, without ever seeing anything in the real world. His reasoning was he could then concentrate better on the tactical situation without being distracted by sightseeing. Once, when Wahoo took on another destroyer at AOB 0° and point blank range, he was asked if he wasn't afraid when that destroyer was coming right on top of them. He said "Why do you think I had O'Kane looking through the scope? He is the bravest man I know."

However, what Morton did is not like having auto targetting in SHIV, in a manner even today's modern subs can only dream about. If you wanted to simulate what he did, it would be like only recieving abstract bearing, AOB and ranges reports from another human being in multiplayer on the same boat (if this were possible, or another guy in your room sitting on the PC), who still has to deal with visibility conditions etc, drawing a mental picture in your head and then give the order to fire in the right moment without ever seeing anything.