SH3/GWX2: Are the Allies really aided by radar?

[MarkShot]

It's 1943 and I find that Allied radar is helping me more than hurting me. How so?

(1) The radar lets me know of their presence earlier than I might. Especially when I am surfaced. My detection range seems to exceed visual range. Only personally listening on sonar might be more sensitive and watching the TC clock for a pause or stutter.

(2) The radar provides me ranging and bearing information on the convoy. Thus, like passive sonar, Allied radar emissions allow me to generate an exact track on a convoy.

(3) An exact track facilitates a submerged attack ... which at that point the radar is no aid to the convoy.

(4) The radar provides for a detailed and early acounting of the number of escorts with a convoy.

So far for me, I think the Allied radar is doing more to help me than hurt me. Of course, I am probably benefitting from game play loopholes and exploits. This may not be historically accurate, but it seems that radar is like having a homing beacon personally placed on convoys for me.

Comments?

[bigboywooly]

Aye to a certain extent
But while you are tracking their radar they are tracking yours

And even though radar will help you find warships there is nothing to say they are in a convoy
Could well be a TF or HK

Even then you have to get inside the screen

Thems the game breaks

[Platapus]

(2) The radar provides me ranging and bearing information on the convoy. Thus, like passive sonar, Allied radar emissions allow me to generate an exact track on a convoy.

(3) An exact track facilitates a submerged attack ... which at that point the radar is no aid to the convoy.


Most interesting thread.

How does allied radar give you the range of the convoy? By analyzing the radar detection bearings can you get a positive location of the emitter and hence, over time, a track?

Are you using any mods? With my clearly limited capabilities, I can only get an approximation of where the emitters are but not accurate enough for me to get an accurate plot/track.

Ya gots any tricks o the trade you can share to would help me plot these emitters better?

plleeeaaasssseeeee :p

[MarkShot]

First of all, I keep my radar turned off. I am doing just fine watching the TC clock for stutters/pauses, doing sonar sweeps, and monitoring passive radar detection.

Just like sonar contacts if I zoom out one click beyond individual ships, then I get an aggregate LOB and range line for a convoy's emissions that gives me a fairly exactly location. Get two of those over time and you have everything you need to work up a complete attack profile.

[Jimbuna]

(2) The radar provides me ranging and bearing information on the convoy. Thus, like passive sonar, Allied radar emissions allow me to generate an exact track on a convoy.

(3) An exact track facilitates a submerged attack ... which at that point the radar is no aid to the convoy.


Most interesting thread.





Interesting!!.....really!!

Looking for game exploits then posting the findings.

I should imagine this sort of behaviour will only serve in putting people off playing the mod.

Try comparing the stock version with reality first, then come back and post said findings.

My advice to anyone who doesn't like the mod for whatever the reason, is quite simple.

Don't play it http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/pirate.gif

[Pablo]

Hi!

Allied convoy escort radar is much more of a help to the Allies than it is to your U-boat. The reason is that the escorts' radar prevents you from approaching and attacking on the surface, thus denying your U-boat the maneuverabilty and ability to rapidly re-engage the convoy that a surface attack brings, and which the early U-boat aces, e.g., Kretschmer, Prien, and Schepke, used to great advantege before the escorts generally had radar. You may win a tactical victory while submerged by bagging a couple of ships, but the Allies win the strategic victory because the other 30-40 ships will arrive safely.

Denying you this tactical advantage far outweighs any advantage you will obtain by being able to use their radar emissions generate a track, especially since you can generate the track anyways by other, historical means; however, since you've taken the effort to point out this exploit, which has existed since stock Silent Hunter III, we will take a look and see if we can close it up a bit.

Thanks! :)

Pablo

[Avatar]

I unfortunately came too close to a convoy during a fierce storm and a river class came looking for me. I know it was by radar, because I couldnt see 300m infront of me. I let him slip in and then dove to PD and ruined his day with a Falke. Their radar works like our radar, you can be detected further than you can detect. Although Ive had success with the radar that looks like a matress spring(sry forgot the name). It was in bad weather and I was on the surface. My computer didnt stutter so I had no idea he was there until the radar contact call came from below.
If you have problems with the radar dish being washed over and retracting, just go to the charts and open the radar on/off icon from your radioman icon. When you go to high tc you can see if it retracts, then just start it up again. That way you wont have any surprises, as I think that most people use high TC when looking at the charts.

[MarkShot]

First, I've repeatedly said that I am not criticizing the GWX Team and thank you folks for your efforts. However, sometimes, I do get the impression that all discussions about game and mod behavior is viewed in a negative light no matter how many times one qualifies ones remarks. You folks have done a fine bit of work and deserve the admiration and respect of those who use it. At the same time, I don't understand why any discussion of game play and behavior has to be taken in a negative context.

I am sorry, but I have designed systems for 30 years, beta tested games for 7 years, and am a partner in a PC game development studio for two years. I like discussing games (their design and behavior) as a pastime and I see nothing wrong with that. I regret that some find that offensive.

As far as SH3/GWX, I just play it. I am not hunting for exploits. I just simply try to play as best as I can and take advantage of all the tools which are at my disposal. As long as I am having fun with the game, then there is no good or bad in the way I play it. I am not attempting to destroy anyone's fun in playing the game, but if someone asks a question, I see no reason not to answer it.

Like anything else, people can play however they want to play. As long as they have fun, what does it matter? Amazingly after I posted my screenshot with red contact lines, I received numerous requests for the mod which does that. One correspondent even said he served on a sub and that they would always produce LOBs and tracts color coded to make things easy on the captain. However, they never used red due to interior red lighting making the lines hard to see. So, by accident, colored lines on maps was in fact realistic. What do you know? :)

Take care.

[bigboywooly]

You play how you want to play
All should

Yes they used coloured lines on subs but you wouldnt be able to say with 100% accuracy which ship was a warship and which a merc
Hence the all grey lines in GWX
To " dumb " down the game
Tis too easy otherwise

The coloured contacts mod has always been available for GWX so its hardly new

[Kpt. Lehmann]

First, I've repeatedly said that I am not criticizing the GWX Team and thank you folks for your efforts. However, sometimes, I do get the impression that all discussions about game and mod behavior is viewed in a negative light no matter how many times one qualifies ones remarks. You folks have done a fine bit of work and deserve the admiration and respect of those who use it. At the same time, I don't understand why any discussion of game play and behavior has to be taken in a negative context.

When one "qualifies" a remark, it does not necessarily change the basic meaning of a comment.;)

The problem as I see it concerning your "analysis", is that your logic is flawed. You are not effectively accounting for any change and/or improvement using GWX with SH3 as you have not made similar, systematic postings/analysis with STOCK SH3.

I am sorry, but I have designed systems for 30 years, beta tested games for 7 years, and am a partner in a PC game development studio for two years. I like discussing games (their design and behavior) as a pastime and I see nothing wrong with that. I regret that some find that offensive.

That is rather arrogant IMHO, nor does it influence the price of tea in China.

Einstein made bad grades in math... but that didn't prevent him from writing the Theory of Relativity.

GWX devs and crew could also state credentials... but choose not to publicly.

Logical thinking either exists or it does not.


As far as SH3/GWX, I just play it. I am not hunting for exploits. I just simply try to play as best as I can and take advantage of all the tools which are at my disposal. As long as I am having fun with the game, then there is no good or bad in the way I play it. I am not attempting to destroy anyone's fun in playing the game, but if someone asks a question, I see no reason not to answer it.

Frankly, yes you are hunting for exploits. You have stated as much in previous posts.

One could also say it is umm... overmuch ...to open a new thread any time you feel the need to "answer a question." Typical practice is generally to answer a question on the thread containing the question as opposed to opening a new thread.

Assuming you are responding to a question as you imply... what is the answer?

Like anything else, people can play however they want to play. As long as they have fun, what does it matter?.

Absolutely correct.

HOWEVER, the problem is, that for many, posting about exploits/cheats/loopholes/spoilers etc. is death to a game... because once you have learned a thing... you cannot unlearn that thing.

Any time you post an opinion, you shouldn't be surprised to see opposing reactions.

In days past, you've already established that your baseline for comparison is Aces of the Deep and previous Silent Hunter releases that were constructed by entirely different development teams using entirely different game engines.

So be it.

However, if you wish to contine deconstructive "analytical" performance of the sim... you should first remove GWX... and test/post/analyze STOCK SH3 with as much passion/persistence as you have done with SH3+GWX.

Are your posts negative? I believe that collectively they most certainly are. You've demonstrated a systematic approach to finding deficiencies and readily point out that it is GWX you are using to make your comparisons. They are indeed worded politely for the most part...

...but if I were to coat a plate of poo with chocolate... and politely slide it onto the dinner table... it would still be poo... wouldn't it?:lol:

No offense is intended, but I don't feel that you understand exactly what we CAN change and what we cannot. Therefore, putting GWX into your line of fire is difficult to understand without a previous history established (by you) of similar "analysis" of STOCK SH3.

You've stated directly that you had previously shelved SH3 as a result of your assessment... and brought it back out with the release of GWX 2.0. Sometimes, it boils down to making do with what you have got... or moving on.

Even with all the modding power behind GWX... we cannot make a magic bullet for everything.

[Jimbuna]

You know something....I'm always touched with a tinge of sadness when threads degenerate to this level.

Far better to communicate via PM when you are involved in comments that in any likelihood may be perceived as negative, critical, or even subjective.

When an individual decides to post such comments publicly, it is entirely reasonable to expect a public response.

Might I respectfully suggest any further comments are treated with the above criteria in mind.

We (the GWX team) are proud of what we have achieved and have given this fine community in the way of enriching their sub simming enjoyment.

I'm confident the vast majority of subscribers would agree to the above.

I offer this post in the spitit of friendship. :D

Take care.

[Mush Martin]

@ Markshot, No your not confused. This is indeed your thread and this
is the Players forum for discusions on tactics and strategies for shIII and its mods. so you have posted on the correct forum.

Well done. Good tactic.

might I offer you a good tactic in return.
Ignore it, I do.

Regards
M

[MarkShot]

Assuming you are responding to a question as you imply... what is the answer?


Question:


How does allied radar give you the range of the convoy? By analyzing the radar detection bearings can you get a positive location of the emitter and hence, over time, a track?

Are you using any mods? With my clearly limited capabilities, I can only get an approximation of where the emitters are but not accurate enough for me to get an accurate plot/track.

Ya gots any tricks o the trade you can share to would help me plot these emitters better?

plleeeaaasssseeeee :p


Answer:


Just like sonar contacts if I zoom out one click beyond individual ships, then I get an aggregate LOB and range line for a convoy's emissions that gives me a fairly exactly location. Get two of those over time and you have everything you need to work up a complete attack profile.


Paranoid attitude that any analytic discussion has to be an affront/attack on the GWX Team:


Looking for game exploits then posting the findings.

I should imagine this sort of behaviour will only serve in putting people off playing the mod.


You are right. I have been polite and respectful. Perhaps even to the extreme having seen past reactions by the GWX Team. But then in fairness, there are those who have attacked your work and failed to respect the great deal of effort which went into it. However, by now we all know each other well enough to know that I am not one of those people and your comments are entirely uncalled for. Of course, you do need to step in and stand up for your Team members, because that is what a project manager does. Unfortunately, in this case, you have jumped in where no one has given one of your Team members a shove.

Besides being in systems and all that, I've published guides and been the public eye of PC video games before there was an Internet. One has to learn not to get so bent out of shape by the few bad experiences that one snaps at anyone who might appear that they have something to say about your work as has happened here.

As has been said already, GWX is a fine and reaching piece of work. However, it is so, because of what it is, and not because it is aggressively defended or promoted by you in this forum. It wouldn't hurt the reputation of GWX or the Team to learn to park their egos at the door and let the work speak for itself instead of picking a fight with someone easily smacked down, since he never met you anyone any offense. Well done! :)

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Assuming you are responding to a question as you imply... what is the answer?


Question:


How does allied radar give you the range of the convoy? By analyzing the radar detection bearings can you get a positive location of the emitter and hence, over time, a track?

Are you using any mods? With my clearly limited capabilities, I can only get an approximation of where the emitters are but not accurate enough for me to get an accurate plot/track.

Ya gots any tricks o the trade you can share to would help me plot these emitters better?

plleeeaaasssseeeee :p


Answer:


Just like sonar contacts if I zoom out one click beyond individual ships, then I get an aggregate LOB and range line for a convoy's emissions that gives me a fairly exactly location. Get two of those over time and you have everything you need to work up a complete attack profile.


Paranoid attitude that any analytic discussion has to be an affront/attack on the GWX Team:


Looking for game exploits then posting the findings.

I should imagine this sort of behaviour will only serve in putting people off playing the mod.


You are right. I have been polite and respectful. Perhaps even to the extreme having seen past reactions by the GWX Team. But then in fairness, there are those who have attacked your work and failed to respect the great deal of effort which went into it. However, by now we all know each other well enough to know that I am not one of those people and your comments are entirely uncalled for. Of course, you do need to step in and stand up for your Team members, because that is what a project manager does. Unfortunately, in this case, you have jumped in where no one has given one of your Team members a shove.

Besides being in systems and all that, I've published guides and been the public eye of PC video games before there was an Internet. One has to learn not to get so bent out of shape by the few bad experiences that one snaps at anyone who might appear that they have something to say about your work as has happened here.

As has been said already, GWX is a fine and reaching piece of work. However, it is so, because of what it is, and not because it is aggressively defended or promoted by you in this forum. It wouldn't hurt the reputation of GWX or the Team to learn to park their egos at the door and let the work speak for itself instead of picking a fight with someone easily smacked down, since he never met you anyone any offense. Well done! :)

Well, we hope you will excuse us for failing to realize that your points of view, methodologies of analysis, and freedoms of speech are somehow more valid than ours.

Interesting sermon concerning egos though... Considering the source it seems a bit circular IMHO.:|\\

[MarkShot]

[
However, if you wish to contine deconstructive "analytical" performance of the sim... you should first remove GWX... and test/post/analyze STOCK SH3 with as much passion/persistence as you have done with SH3+GWX.

Are your posts negative? I believe that collectively they most certainly are.


At the risk getting snapped at again ... here goes.

You look at all this and see negativity. You see that, because you start from a posture which is already defensive.

Yes, it is true that I perhaps only played the stock game 1.4b for about just a week.

You take it to mean that I wanted to move on to immediate deconstructing and begin assailing GWX.

On the contrary it could mean that I felt that anything beyond a week with the stock SH3 was a waste of my time. I actually started with GWX 1.03 and only went to the trouble of upgrading to 2.00 after you explained to me how the campaign layers had been rewritten to vastly improve randomness and convoy behavior. I had shelved SH3/GWX for six months for reasons that had nothing to do with the game.

However, I resumed with GWX and not one of the other total mods. If you weren't caught up looking for negative attacks, it might be seen that I picked up GWX, since it held the reputation of being the top contemporary WWII sub simulation available. It might be seen that I continue to play it, analyze it, and post about it, because it holds great interest and presents an interesting challenge. My life isn't so small that I have time to waste tearing apart the work of you and your team. You might see these post (all very polite) for the enthusiasm they are.

Instead despite knowing my background in games and systems, you reject my sincere interest in examining the game closely (as I do with all games I play). I understand quite well the limitations which not having the source code imposes upon modders. So, I probably know better than most how much you've done with what the limited tools you had. Finally, everyone gets touchy when other games get mentioned. Well, this is, in fact, a subsim Web site as opposed to the UBI forums. It should be possible to mention other titles if it they are discussed in the context of SH3.

Bottomline: You and the rest of your team could just easily find praise and respect in my posts if you weren't on the defensive to begin with. The way this thread turned out is a shame. In general, it is better for the health of GWX and its evolution to encourage discussion and risk someone degrading it, than to be seen slapping down someone who is sincerely interested in it as has happened here. Too much of this and you end up with the Harpoon community where there are nothing but feuds and noobs learn quickly not to post.

[ReallyDedPoet]

The member says that he likes discussing games, understanding how they work, I tend to believe this from seeing his various posts and threads on the subject. Has he ruffled a few feathers with some of his
posts ( not counting this one :D ) yeah he probably has, but who among us hasn't at some point in time here. Who at SUBSIM has a flawless posting record? Easy answer to that, nobody. I should also mention that MS has posted similar questions over at SH4 regarding that game and it's various mods. So I don't think there are any ill intentions, just a better understanding of how it all works.

That in itself is a testament to the quality of GWX. Many folks play it, others want to understand it.

Yeah I guess this is easy for me to say, I did not invest the time and energy ( and I am
not saying this lightly ) into making GWX what it is, it's a great mod. But maybe that is why it makes it easier to offer an opinion here, as somebody from the outside looking in and observing this.


RDP

[Kpt. Lehmann]

[
However, if you wish to contine deconstructive "analytical" performance of the sim... you should first remove GWX... and test/post/analyze STOCK SH3 with as much passion/persistence as you have done with SH3+GWX.

Are your posts negative? I believe that collectively they most certainly are.


At the risk getting snapped at again ... here goes.

You look at all this and see negativity. You see that, because you start from a posture which is already defensive.

Yes, it is true that I perhaps only played the stock game 1.4b for about just a week.

You take it to mean that I wanted to move on to immediate deconstructing and begin assailing GWX.

On the contrary it could mean that I felt that anything beyond a week with the stock SH3 was a waste of my time. I actually started with GWX 1.03 and only went to the trouble of upgrading to 2.00 after you explained to me how the campaign layers had been rewritten to vastly improve randomness and convoy behavior. I had shelved SH3/GWX for six months for reasons that had nothing to do with the game.

However, I resumed with GWX and not one of the other total mods. If you weren't caught up looking for negative attacks, it might be seen that I picked up GWX, since it held the reputation of being the top contemporary WWII sub simulation available. It might be seen that I continue to play it, analyze it, and post about it, because it holds great interest and presents an interesting challenge. My life isn't so small that I have time to waste tearing apart the work of you and your team. You might see these post (all very polite) for the enthusiasm they are.

Instead despite knowing my background in games and systems, you reject my sincere interest in examining the game closely (as I do with all games I play). I understand quite well the limitations which not having the source code imposes upon modders. So, I probably know better than most how much you've done with what the limited tools you had. Finally, everyone gets touchy when other games get mentioned. Well, this is, in fact, a subsim Web site as opposed to the UBI forums. It should be possible to mention other titles if it they are discussed in the context of SH3.

Bottomline: You and the rest of your team could just easily find praise and respect in my posts if you weren't on the defensive to begin with. The way this thread turned out is a shame. In general, it is better for the health of GWX and its evolution to encourage discussion and risk someone degrading it, than to be seen slapping down someone who is sincerely interested in it as has happened here. Too much of this and you end up with the Harpoon community where there are nothing but feuds and noobs learn quickly not to post.

It is unfortunate that you feel "slapped down" or "snapped at." My response was quite tempered... and dare I say logical... beyond being produced purely from a supposed "defensive posture." Looking at all the other threads you've produced to scrutinize GWX... I don't think you appreciate just how cool we have been given the recurring theme of your posts and criticism of GWX.

In return for questioning your line of reasoning, and pointing out that marching behind your credentials does not remove the validity of our own thoughts... you've painted (specifically me) up to be a paranoid, egotistical despot. Seems to me that your true colors have just seen the light of day. That is your spin on things.

Coat it with as much sugar as you like. You established the pattern.

If it looks like a duck... well...

Markshot, if you can't survive opposition on occasion, you aren't going to enjoy your time on ANY forum.

Edit: <cross-post RDP>

[ReallyDedPoet]

Better to end this now. -sigh-


RDP