Manual Plotting

[Thomas Kenobi]

With the discussion about SHV being practically monopolised by the controversial DRM, I believe there are some potential issues with the new walk-around system, that may have gone unnoticed. Specifically the inability to move between the attack scope/UZO and the plot quickly.

To clarify matters: The way I personally conduct an attack in SH3-4, is by taking bearing and distance readings every 3m15s and subsequently plotting them on the navigational chart. I continue this until I have 3-6 readings, conditional on the apparent quality of the solution, and then I use them to estimate target course and speed. Essentially, I employ the methods described in the excellent Wazoo's Tutorial with the one exception, that I'm using purely mathematical calculations to compute AoB.

Now, in order to conduct an attack in this manner, one must be able to move quickly from the attack scope or the UZO to the plot, so as to be able to mark the location of the submarine, before it strays too far from the point it was in, when you took the reading.

My question to those who have had the opportunity to try SHV is thus the following:
A). Is there a shortcut to take you immediately from the attack scope/UZO to the plot and
B). In keeping with the captain-simulator direction, that SHV is taking, is it possible to have one of the AI crewmembers make the plot, while you stay on the conning tower or the bridge. i.e. An interface through which you can enter bearing and distance, causing the AI to automatically draw the respective lines on the plot.

[TarJak]

Greate questions well thought out and expressed. Another outstanding question I'd like answered. The ability to move between the map view and the scope is critical to my way of shooting also.

[ichso]

I think it is more the other way around from what you proposed.

That not a crew member is doing the plotting while you are at the periscope (that would be cool though) but rather that you can fix a target and frequently ask about relative bearing and estimated distance and do the plotting yourself.
I think that wouldn't be out-of-role either that the captain mans the map charts and some WO mans the periscope/conning tower.

At least this is what I would assume from what the older SH titles gave us. But I would be pleasantly surprised if they offered us something new here, too.

[TarJak]

From the looks of this hot keying to a control station is out: http://www.simhq.com/_naval/naval_035a.html

It also means that you can’t just teleport from one section of the sub to another. Keyboard commands are much more limited than in Silent Hunter 3 and Silent Hunter 4. You are the captain of the boat and in the game you should walk around and interact with the crew. It also means you might have to run, and I mean run, back to the bridge to take a look through the periscope or to give orders.

[Thomas Kenobi]

Greate questions well thought out and expressed.

Cheers! :)

I think it is more the other way around from what you proposed.

That not a crew member is doing the plotting while you are at the periscope (that would be cool though) but rather that you can fix a target and frequently ask about relative bearing and estimated distance and do the plotting yourself.
I think that wouldn't be out-of-role either that the captain mans the map charts and some WO mans the periscope/conning tower.

At least this is what I would assume from what the older SH titles gave us. But I would be pleasantly surprised if they offered us something new here, too.

Well, if memory serves, standing procedure for U-boot attacks was for the captain to man the attack scope and the XO to handle the plot, while conducting a submerged attack, and the other way around, when conducting a surface attack (XO manned the UZO and the captain stayed below). However, it is my understanding, that this procedure was modified and deviated from according to every captain's individual preferences.

As far as shortcuts are concerned, truth be told, I won't really mind, if I can't teleport around, as long as option B). from my original post exists (or at least the ability to mod it. It's been mentioned that the UI is now modable using Python. Does that include the plot? And to what extent?).

[Hitman]

standing procedure for U-boot attacks was for the captain to man the attack scope and the XO to handle the plot, while conducting a submerged attack, and the other way around, when conducting a surface attack (XO manned the UZO and the captain stayed below)

No. From my research, it worked like this:

Submerged attack: Captain at the scope, officer operating the TDC. Captain would provide estimates of range, AOB, speed from the scope, which the operator would feed into the TDC. Only rarely did the captain also ask the navigator to keep a plot. Values for speed, range and course were estimated by naked eye or using the periscope aids (reticle, fixed line, AOB finder sometimes)

Surfaced night attack: IWO provided estimates of range, AOB, speed from the UZO, which the operator would feed into the TDC. Captain was at the bridge, conning the uboat and being aware of the tactical situation. Again values were generally estimated, and steering paralell course and speed was the preferred method of getting enemy's course and speed.

The only time when plotting was conducted is when doing the high speed end around on surface, with only tip of the masts of enemy ship visible. The uboat tried to keep a constant distance from the enemy (Move away when masts grow, go closer when masts dissapear) and overtake it. The navigator combined own ship motion with bearings provided by the captain, and made his estimate of enemy speed and course.

[Thomas Kenobi]

@Hitman: Thanks for the info. Personally, I find the mathematical precision of the plot more appealing, than using visual estimates, but it's quite interesting to know how things really worked at the time.

[Frederf]

Specifically the inability to move between the attack scope/UZO and the plot quickly...plotting them on the navigational chart.

Now, in order to conduct an attack in this manner, one must be able to move quickly from the attack scope or the UZO to the plot

Do you mean quickly or instantly? If the attack plot and the periscope are both in the conning tower then they must be a very short walk apart. While this is how I do attacks in SH3 too, it would be better if the crew assisted in some ways. I would happily readjust my methods away from old habits to achieve a more historical or team-oriented new method.

Is there a shortcut to take you immediately from the attack scope/UZO to the plot?
I think any shortcut keys will direct your character to walk to the destination without the labor of manually WASD'ing there yourself but in the same amount of time.
In keeping with the captain-simulator direction, that SHV is taking, is it possible to have one of the AI crew members make the plot, while you stay on the conning tower or the bridge. i.e. An interface through which you can enter bearing and distance, causing the AI to automatically draw the respective lines on the plot.
This would be my ideal, having AI crew plotting from player input. Even if close range attacks were done by estimated values, at least I could plot the enemy with the crew's help in end-arounds.

[Thomas Kenobi]

I just got some information over at SimHQ forums. It would seem, that the resizeable map in the attack scope screen includes all the usual plotting tools (ruler/protractor/compass). Thus we can create a plot without jumping screens. I suspect this means we won't be able to order a crewman to do the job for us, but overall it should work better than SH3.

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/2960827.html


@Frederf: How fast you need to act depends on how quickly your U-boot is moving. e.g. at 6-9kt you have considerably more leeway than at 14-17kt
As for the plot, I believe that it is located not on the conning tower, but rather in the command room below. Therefore, if we had to travel between the two rooms, it would be wasteful in terms of time and rather tedious.

About the shortcuts, that would actually be a very good idea to supplement the interface -having the captain automatically walk to a certain station-, but I doubt it's there. We would have heard something about it by now.

[msalama]

I would happily readjust my methods away from old habits to achieve a more historical or team-oriented new method.Me too, provided there's some realistic randomness involved. But if the WeO still gives us a perfect solution every time, then absolutely nooooo way whatsoever :nope:

[Frederf]

I just got some information over at SimHQ forums. It would seem, that the resizeable map in the attack scope screen includes all the usual plotting tools (ruler/protractor/compass). Thus we can create a plot without jumping screens. I suspect this means we won't be able to order a crewman to do the job for us, but overall it should work better than SH3.

Ew, one man band again playing that lonely tune. It could be worse?

As for the plot, I believe that it is located not on the conning tower, but rather in the command room below. Therefore, if we had to travel between the two rooms, it would be wasteful in terms of time and rather tedious.

Not the navigation charts, the attack plot. No real captain draws his attacks on his world-wide charts they use blank pieces of paper. The only reason we Silent Hunter players used the nav. charts is that was the only map we could draw on. I think (don't know) the attack plot would be up with the rest of the targeting party.

About the shortcuts, that would actually be a very good idea to supplement the interface -having the captain automatically walk to a certain station-, but I doubt it's there. We would have heard something about it by now.

Yeah I stole the idea from some preview people who suggested it should be added. They call it "auto walk."

[Thomas Kenobi]

Ew, one man band again playing that lonely tune. It could be worse?

True, but at least it's a more effective one man band. One aspect of simulators, that really bugs me, is being forced to blitz around in order to handle tasks, that would normally be handled by other crewmembers. Whether we're talking about WWII subs or modern airliners, that unfortunate aspect usually makes its presence.


Not the navigation charts, the attack plot. No real captain draws his attacks on his world-wide charts they use blank pieces of paper. The only reason we Silent Hunter players used the nav. charts is that was the only map we could draw on. I think (don't know) the attack plot would be up with the rest of the targeting party.

I know. That's what I was talking about as well. I don't think the conning tower has room for a table to draw a plot on, while there is a table large enough in the navigator's station. Plus I haven't seen a table in any screens or videos featuring the conning tower.


Yeah I stole the idea from some preview people who suggested it should be added. They call it "auto walk."

Well, I second it.

[jerm138]

I'd be happy with either one of these solutions:


A capable crew that can do the plotting for you when you call out range and bearing (preferred solution)
If I have to be a one-man-band, I want the ability to 'teleport' to different stations, even if I have to take a realism hit.



I'm not a big fan of having the attack map and periscope together as a solution to this problem. For one, when you're looking through the scope, that's ALL you should be able to see. Also, the scope should be down if you're going to be off doing other tasks, like plotting. Why leave it up and risk detection?

[makman94]

here is how the manual plotting should be done :

Manual Plot (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=156860)

[Frederf]

Is there any document that is the German U-boat equivalent to this USN manual? It would be cool to see at least what the textbook method of conducting an attack was in terms of people, duties, positions, etc.

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/attack/index.htm#chap04

[tater]

Manual plotting is flat out wrong in SH. The crew has jobs. Plotters plot.

If I take a bearing/range, it should be plotted for me. Someone (crew) can then trace a line between two observations---and since they are well trained, they'll will have used a stopwatch, so I now have the speed and course assuming my observations were good.

That's what I want. Not me playing the role of 3-4 people at the same time, and not magical, perfect, GPS animated plotting.

[Thomas Kenobi]

here is how the manual plotting should be done :

Manual Plot (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=156860)


I largely agree with Donkey-Shot's proposal here. Although, personally I would be happy with a much simpler system. i.e.


You enter a distance on the notepad (hey I like the notepad :P ) calculated as usual and centre the scope on the target ship.
You start the stopwatch and press a mark button located next to the "send to TDC" button.
The crew plots the following info: Own location, target ship location, line connecting the two, index (mark #1, mark #2 and so on) and time. Time could be either game time or, in my opinion preferably, stopwatch time. So mark #1 could have a time of close to zero, mark #2 could have a time of 3:15 etc. Of course if the stopwatch is not running, then game could be used instead.


Implementation details aside, it's good to see that this idea is popular around here. I spotted a lot of modders on the other thread and that makes me hopeful that if such a thing can be modded in for SHV it will happen.

[Hitman]

s there any document that is the German U-boat equivalent to this USN manual? It would be cool to see at least what the textbook method of conducting an attack was in terms of people, duties, positions, etc.

More or less, yes, and it is in that same web. It's the U-Boat commander's Handbook.

[Frederf]

I have a paper copy of the U-boat Commander's Handbook and it doesn't really cover the information I'm referring to.

[TH0R]

Manual plotting is flat out wrong in SH. The crew has jobs. Plotters plot.

If I take a bearing/range, it should be plotted for me. Someone (crew) can then trace a line between two observations---and since they are well trained, they'll will have used a stopwatch, so I now have the speed and course assuming my observations were good.

That's what I want. Not me playing the role of 3-4 people at the same time, and not magical, perfect, GPS animated plotting.


Excellent suggestion! I too would like my observations and target data plotted on the map. So I can see for myself.

I like doing it myself, but it is the job of the crew, not the captain and should very well be in the game - represented visually.

[tater]

Yeah, want animated crew eye candy that is at least useful? Forget the soup.

You take bearings—give us the ability to tell the crew which target we are observing, BTW—then go to the plotting table, and your plotter is plotting your observations. The firing party is the only interaction I care about.

Ideally, you'd find a target, then hit a button to do what on a US boat would be the skipper saying "Bearing, mark." If you take a range then bearing and range. The additional element would be that you'd then label the contact by hitting a single key (any letter or number). The plotter would plot the contact with that letter/number scribbled next to it. When you take a 2d observation, you need to then take a bear/range AND properly ID which of your targets you are plotting. If you pick the wrong one, tough, the plotter will connect the dots and you'll have a bad solution. Be careful.

No more magical auto-plotting, no more absurdly complicated manual plotting (that the RL skipper would not have done). Player as skipper should be the goal. Design the process and UI to reflect that. The observations are important, and messing up should screw up the shot.

[Nisgeis]

If that were done, then you'd have to go down the ladder to look at the map and pull the scope down. The way it was with magic teleportation between statios, you could quickly flip between screens and see what was what. The 'plotting' way it will take more time and also gives you a potential for losing a target, or losing track of the situation. Which is a good thing.

[Hitman]

I have a paper copy of the U-boat Commander's Handbook and it doesn't really cover the information I'm referring to.

What specific info/answers do you want?

[Frederf]

I want to know the U-boat submerged (surfaced) attack process in detail from a crew member role and process point of view. Who stood where, when were measurements taken, how often, who took them, who operated what machinery, how was target data deduced, etc.

[Steeltrap]

Yeah, want animated crew eye candy that is at least useful? Forget the soup.

You take bearings—give us the ability to tell the crew which target we are observing, BTW—then go to the plotting table, and your plotter is plotting your observations. The firing party is the only interaction I care about.

Ideally, you'd find a target, then hit a button to do what on a US boat would be the skipper saying "Bearing, mark." If you take a range then bearing and range. The additional element would be that you'd then label the contact by hitting a single key (any letter or number). The plotter would plot the contact with that letter/number scribbled next to it. When you take a 2d observation, you need to then take a bear/range AND properly ID which of your targets you are plotting. If you pick the wrong one, tough, the plotter will connect the dots and you'll have a bad solution. Be careful.

No more magical auto-plotting, no more absurdly complicated manual plotting (that the RL skipper would not have done). Player as skipper should be the goal. Design the process and UI to reflect that. The observations are important, and messing up should screw up the shot.

Yes, all this has been kicking around for a long time; I know I and others (and possibly you, too) posted this sort of thing in the forum last year about what we were hoping for from SH5.

They have, essentially, just stuck with the same old system, with the added potential of making it even more difficult by forcing you to move from point to point in the sub like some trained monkey.....

[jerm138]

Yes, all this has been kicking around for a long time; I know I and others (and possibly you, too) posted this sort of thing in the forum last year about what we were hoping for from SH5.

They have, essentially, just stuck with the same old system, with the added potential of making it even more difficult by forcing you to move from point to point in the sub like some trained monkey.....

I REALLY hope I'm missing something with the whole "must-walk-to-every-station" thing. I hate to sound pessimistic, but it sounds extremely tedious and would become very annoying very quickly. I wouldn't mind the walk-around thing IF there is a competent crew, and I don't have to do everybody's job for them... but if I have to observe targets, plot dots, listen to the hydrophone, reload torpedoes, and serve soup all by myself...

[Thomas Kenobi]

I REALLY hope I'm missing something with the whole "must-walk-to-every-station" thing. I hate to sound pessimistic, but it sounds extremely tedious and would become very annoying very quickly. I wouldn't mind the walk-around thing IF there is a competent crew, and I don't have to do everybody's job for them... but if I have to observe targets, plot dots, listen to the hydrophone, reload torpedoes, and serve soup all by myself...


I'm concerned as well that crew interaction may get tedious rather fast. I suspect the cook dialogs will be some of the first to go, when the mods start coming out.

However, all this is just speculating and we'll have to wait for the final product to see for our selves. My hopes at the moment is that the game is indeed as moddable as it is claimed.

[Steeltrap]

I'm concerned as well that crew interaction may get tedious rather fast. I suspect the cook dialogs will be some of the first to go, when the mods start coming out.

However, all this is just speculating and we'll have to wait for the final product to see for our selves. My hopes at the moment is that the game is indeed as moddable as it is claimed.

Yes, and I just read Neal's preview. I noticed the details of the "1st mission" as captain: patrol British coastal zone and sink 50,000t on the Eastern coast by June 1940, starting September 6th 1939.

50,000t. Only 84 commanders managed that (or better) in their entire careers.

Sigh. Another stupidly unrealistic yippie-shoot-tonnage-monster.....

Oh well. I won't be playing it, so it hardly matters.

[Thomas Kenobi]

Yes, and I just read Neal's preview. I noticed the details of the 1st mission as captain: patrol British coastal zone and sink 50,000t by June 1940 (think that was the case).

50,000t. Your 1st mission.

Sigh. Another stupidly unrealistic yippie-shoot-tonnage-monster.....

Oh well. I won't be playing it, so it hardly matters.


I think the absurd thing here is not the tonnage required for success, but the fact that there is a quota in the first place. Imho, in a true simulator there can be only one absolute objective: Get home alive.

[tater]

If that were done, then you'd have to go down the ladder to look at the map and pull the scope down. The way it was with magic teleportation between statios, you could quickly flip between screens and see what was what. The 'plotting' way it will take more time and also gives you a potential for losing a target, or losing track of the situation. Which is a good thing.

Exactly.

Some things should happen faster—having the crew plot instead of you doing it yourself—while others should be slower.

[Bilge_Rat]

In terms of manual plotting, my favorite system was in the Sonalyst series. In "Dangerous Waters", the crew will identify and plot target bearing/range/speed but only based on currently available data from sonar/radar/periscope, so the estimate will be grossly off at the beginning, but will be gradually refined as more info is collected.

Your job as captain was to help collect the info and judge how accurate was your crew's target solution.

I had always hoped the SH series would eventually adopt that method rather than the current choice between GPS Auto-plotting or no plotting whatsoever.

[Hitman]

I want to know the U-boat submerged (surfaced) attack process in detail from a crew member role and process point of view. Who stood where, when were measurements taken, how often, who took them, who operated what machinery, how was target data deduced, etc.See if this helps. Also sent it to you by PM, in case you miss this thread :salute:

When an uboat sighted a ship (mast tip, smoke column) the captain would be called to the bridge inmediately, while the officer in command at the deck would order the uboat to put his bow to the contact bearing. This served two purposes: A) Determine if the target is moving left or right, B) Minimize own ship silhouette. As the captain arrives to the bridge, he ascertains the contact with his 8x60 binoculars. Those are more powerful than the crew ones (7x50s), because they are conceived to see better details of something already detected, and not to scan a wider area. By then the contact will have moved either left or right, and the captain will have decided -based on the area he is patrolling, possibility or air cover, etc- his course of action. Asuming he is decided to stay surfaced, he will put the boat on full power in the direction of the contact, seeing it grow above the horizon. When mast heads are clearly visible, and before the superstructure appears, the captain will have enough data to know wether it is a merchant or warship, and a rough idea of his angle on the bow (Bsed on mast separation). The next step is to order the helmsman (On the conning tower interior) a course which he considers is paralell to the target, and the navigator (Also on the conning tower) to keep a log. The captain will then watch on regular, 5 minutes intervals, wether the ship is coming closer or dissapearing below the horizon, and as such will correct the uboat's course and speed to ensure he steers a paralell course, while overtaking the enemy. Each time an observation is done, he will shout to the navigator the result of it, bearing (Obtained from the graded scale of the UZo by the IWO and called out), rough distance and AOB. Knowing that the horizon is at a distance of 9 km from the uboat's bridge, the captain will be able to estimate roughly distance to target by making a guess about the mast heigth of the enemy ship, and calculating with a simplified formula how far behind the horizon it is. It will also allow him to note how much closer/distant the ship came each 5 minutes. Comparing how fast he overtakes the target with own ship speed, he will also be able to make an estimate of enemy ship speed (Like when you overtake another aumobile in the highway slowly, you know he is in paralell course to you, and more or less how much slower than you)

Comparing own uboat course log and the bearings to target, the navigator will determine the zig-zag pattern of the enemy ship, and its speed and base course.

Once determined, the commander will accelerate as fast as the uboat permits and gain attack position in the front quarter of the enemy. Outside 45º left or right from the bow of the enemy, the uboat has the less chances to get close enough for a torpedo attack, specially if he needs to approach submerged. Depending on the hour of the day, the captain will decide wether to make a surfaced night attack, or a submerged day attack.

SURFACED NIGHT ATTACK:

The uboat will gain position in the front quarter of the enemy, and reverse course to approach from approximately 60-45º AOB using a dog-leg curve. This means that the uboat will proceed at moderate speed (5-8 knots) to prevent a large, phosphorescent bow wake, and will be constantly making small turns to point its bow to the target, presenting the smallest silhouette. The captain will direct the attack from the bridge, while the IWO will direct the shooting from the UZO. A petty officer will man the TDC in the conning tower, and the navigator will keep a log from the attack, as well as follow the compass repeater to give the commander an idea of the uboat's position. When the uboat approaches the target, captain and IWO will discuss its details and determine wether friend or foe, as well as its dimensions (Using naval construction porportions for ships, counting number of cargo bays and multiplying with average tonnage, etc.). Up from then, and if the attack is continued, the IWo will be constantly calling the estimated AOB, range and speed to the petty officer, who will be making inputs in the TDC so as to have a ready solution in all moments. He will make his estimates of range based on the amout of lense covered by the target (A 125 metres target wll cover the full optics at 1000 metres, half the lense at 2000 and so on), AOB based on naked eye, and speed also on naked eye, and guided by the bow and stern wake, and the general speed of movement of the enemy. He might double check his speed estimates using a chronometer and the fixed vertical line in the UZO. If the night is too dark or data are deemed not reliable, he will resort to the ones gathered during the day time end-around. The commander will be looking constantly in all directions, keeping the best situational awareness possible, specially of any possible threats, and will plan the route of escape after the shooting, while the IWo will concentrate in the firing solution.

When the IWO is ready to shoot, he will ask the commander for a constant course, a constant turn for a fan shot, or an abort of the attack, and the commander will decide the most apropiate course of action. The IWO will also instruct the petty officer the type of shooting he will do, and the fan spread if applyable. If the commander presses the attack on, he will give the IWO authorization to commence shooting, and the IWO will then shout at the TDC petty officer his last instructions and train the UZO some metres before the target. This will alow the TDC's analogic mechanism to turn all dials and compute the solution (Our modern computers do it instantly, but WW2 analog technic required some seconds before teh cascade of dials moved) The operator will shout "ready", and the IWO will wait till the target's juicy parts cross the wire for shooting. He will press the handle in the UZO column each time a torpedo has to be released. When all torpedoes have been discharged, the commander will conn the uboat out of the zone through the best route, and at maximum speed. The TDC operator will keep a log of the time to impact because the TDC shows in a partition the estimated torpedo run (And knowing the torpedo speed, he will use the chronometer to estimate the moment of impact)

SUBMERGED DAY ATTACK:

The procedure is very much the same until the moment the uboat has gained attack position, but this time it will submerge and have the captain conn and direct the attack from the periscope. He will do it from the attack one in bright light conditions, and from the observation one in low light/twilight ones. Estimates of distance, AOB, speed can no longer be done by naked eye easily, because the monocular periscope causes to lose a lot of depth perception, and therefore the captain has auxiliary tools like stadimeter or graded reticle for distance, and fixed line for speed.

VARIATIONS:

In the surfaced night attack, if the uboat found the target at night and was not able to follow it for a while in daytime, the commander will conn the uboat on paralell surfaced course and speed, at night visibility limit for the enemy, to ascertain enemy speed and course. Then he will accelerate and turn to the target to proceed as described.

In the daylight submerged attack, if the uboat had to submerge before ascertaning the target data, the commander will conn the uboat at right angles to the enemy, progressively turning to it if the bearing moves backwards, until a constant one is achieved (collision course), and will have the navigator plot the enemy course by giving him regular estimates of distance and bearing. He might however also decide to base the firing solution purely in naked eye estimates, if the situation does not allow enough plot to be done.

EDITED to correct some typos and some info.

[frau kaleun]

^^ = awesome.

:yeah:

[Thomas Kenobi]

@Hitman: Awesome post indeed!

[Georg_Unterberg]

thanks hitman - great! I haven't seen that detailed procedures before.

The best thing I read in this forum so far!

[Frederf]

Pah, me not seeing the thread. :har: That's slightly more specific info than I had before but it's still very "soft" compared to the U.S. Navy documents. In places where the "Kaluen would use a certain formula" and the German info leaves it at that, the U.S. Navy equivalent info would actually show you the formula, give you a diagram, and examples. Instead of "shout to the Petty Officer (which?) corrections" the U.S. Navy documents give very exact quotes and phraseology. No explanation on how certain things are done.

This info gives a good feel for "how it was generally done" but not good enough to do it yourself from the description; or better yet, mod Silent Hunter 5's design so it more accurately matches historical.

Compare: http://www.hnsa.org/doc/attack/index.htm#chap05

The difference in detail between any German info I've found and the U.S. Navy info above is staggering. The German info is always a "guide" or "tips" or an "overview" while the U.S. Navy info is assuredly a manual/textbook. What I'm trying to tickle out is if these differences in information mean that the German U-boat attack was more "fluid, casual" and the Fleet Boat attack was more "process, rigid" or if no one has found the truly detailed German info.

[Hitman]

I know that US manual, and have readed it through several times :up:

If you are looking to the german equivalent, then good luck. I have been researching this matter for YEARS in a lot of different sources, and still haven't been able to find such stuff, probably because it simply never existed (As I haven't found references to it either). German officers went to a common naval school, where they were taught all matters common to all type of ships, and that included artillery and torpedo shooting. I know there were official text books, but I have NEVER seen mentions of specific phraseology to the level of detail in the US manual for submarines.

What I'm trying to tickle out is if these differences in information mean that the German U-boat attack was more "fluid, casual" and the Fleet Boat attack was more "process, rigid" or if no one has found the truly detailed German info.

In uboats at least it was like that, and there are good reasons for it. From the procedures I have described, you notice the enormous difference between the approach to the matter in US and german submarines. German submariners relied way much more in intuitive, fluid procedures, with the commander playing a key role. In the US subs, you had a big amount of people assiting the commander, and such chaos had to be rigidly organized. The TDC operator gave info to the plotter, the radar operator also did, and the plotter had to compare them and provide results to the captain, who directed the approach at the periscope. If you don't create a procedure and phraseology to organize such amount of input, it is easy to cause a chaos. But in german subs the captain stood alone in the tower with the TDC operator. The sonar man was down in front, in the sonar station, as well as the navigator in the control room (Like the helmsman and diveplanesmen). Everything was done in a more intuitive way, based on seaman's eye, and not in rigid procedures and sophisticated electronic devices (radar, TDC with position keeper), and communication was mostly in one direction: The captain or IWO provides data for the TDC operator or conning orders to the engoneer. Of course there were certain words and phrases for such orders, but the communication and double-checking of information with other crewmen was almost inexistant. Let me give you a good, representative example: In the US periscope (Find a picture of a museum boat conning tower and see it for yourself) the captain would peer through the ocular and move the stadimeter handwheel BUT the results in bearing and distance was not readed by him through the ocular, but instead by an assitant who placed himself at the back of the scope, and whose only function was, when the captain shouted "Mark" to red the bearing vernier on the roof, and the wiz-wheel indicator for distance, which is placed in the back of the scope! (Where its operator would never see it). In contrast, the uboat commander peered through the ocular and saw in a partition the bearing indicator, and the resulting range measurement if stadimeter was available. Thus he had no need to communicate with anybody or follow any procedure at all. All he did was issue firing data orders to the TDC operator and ask him to switch between "Lage laufend" or "Lage nicht laufend" (With these words, on those I'm positive) when he wanted to do a look around (i.e. telling him to lock/unlock the TDC to the optics).

[Steeltrap]

One thing I wonder about this 'new' system in SH5: how do I set it up so that, after setting AoB and speed, I can just point and shoot for ANY target?

Remember the great 'fast 90' method? I used to set up all my solutions in SH3 using the mathematics i.e. compare the target course with my own, work out difference hence set a dummy 90 AoB when the periscope was pointing at the right bearing; the only thing that mattered then was speed and torp depth.

How do you do that in SH5?

[derblaueClaus]

Very interesting Information Hitman, thank you. :up:

[John Channing]

I think the absurd thing here is not the tonnage required for success, but the fact that there is a quota in the first place. Imho, in a true simulator there can be only one absolute objective: Get home alive.

That was certainly the objective of many of the US Captains during the early part of the war.

Of course, the downside was that they didn't remain in command very long.

They were quickly replaced by younger, more aggressive commander who understood that the objective of the patrol was (in the immortal words of Adm. Lockwood) "Sink enemy shipping".

JCC

[Thomas Kenobi]

That was certainly the objective of many of the US Captains during the early part of the war.

Of course, the downside was that they didn't remain in command very long.

They were quickly replaced by younger, more aggressive commander who understood that the objective of the patrol was (in the immortal words of Adm. Lockwood) "Sink enemy shipping".

JCC


You misunderstand. I'm not referring to the objectives handed down by the HQ or the mentality of the captains. I'm referring to the absolute objectives set down by the game, i.e. Sink xxxxx tons of enemy shipping or the mission is failed and you have to repeat it.

In those terms the only objective is to stay alive.

[Frederf]

haven't been able to find such stuff, probably because it simply never existed (As I haven't found references to it either). German officers went to a common naval school, where they were taught all matters common to all type of ships, and that included artillery and torpedo shooting. I know there were official text books, but I have NEVER seen mentions of specific phraseology to the level of detail in the US manual for submarines.

I'm coming to the same conclusion as well. I'm trying to get a good hold on what makes a good Silent Hunter 5 targeting interface; what is too automated vs. what is too clinical vs. what is too "off the hip."

In the US periscope (Find a picture of a museum boat conning tower and see it for yourself) the captain would peer through the ocular and move the stadimeter handwheel BUT the results in bearing and distance was not read by him through the ocular, but instead by an assitant who placed himself at the back of the scope, and whose only function was, when the captain shouted "Mark" to red the bearing vernier on the roof, and the wiz-wheel indicator for distance, which is placed in the back of the scope! (Where its operator would never see it).I'm aware that was normal procedure, the "periscope dancing partner" but if you look at SH4's periscope the stadimeter whizwheel is on both sides back and front.

through the ocular and saw in a partition the bearing indicator Wait, big deal! The ocular view was partitioned such that the bearing was visible through the eyepiece? And stadimeter result?


---

One thing I wonder about this 'new' system in SH5: how do I set it up so that, after setting AoB and speed, I can just point and shoot for ANY target?

Remember the great 'fast 90' method? I used to set up all my solutions in SH3 using the mathematics i.e. compare the target course with my own, work out difference hence set a dummy 90 AoB when the periscope was pointing at the right bearing; the only thing that mattered then was speed and torp depth.

How do you do that in SH5?

Having the AoB update with the periscope bearing (like SH4's EasyAOB and I believe real life German U-boat) effectively makes the AoB wheel a "target course wheel." In other words, when you turn the periscope the AoB changes such that the target course doesn't change.

Watch http://www.youtube.com/user/Subsim#p/u/5/t3sOA-UWk74 at 1:25, 2:50. Notice how the AoB changes as the periscope is moved. I think that when "Bearing: Follow my Periscope" mode is on, AoB updates in this way. This way Fast90 and similar "Auto AoB compensation" works just fine.

You misunderstand. I'm not referring to the objectives handed down by the HQ or the mentality of the captains. I'm referring to the absolute objectives set down by the game, i.e. Sink xxxxx tons of enemy shipping or the mission is failed and you have to repeat it.

In those terms the only objective is to stay alive.

You say that if you don't meet objective X you "fail" and have to retry the mission/campaign segment? Are you sure? Maybe it is a branching question. Play Campaign A, if score>X then goto Campaign B, if score<x then goto Campaign C.

This is OK right? Even if it is very hard to goto Campaign B it is not as though your "failed" by going to Campaign C... just a different path.

[Hitman]

Wait, big deal! The ocular view was partitioned such that the bearing was visible through the eyepiece? And stadimeter result?

Yes, while looking through teh ocular, in the upper part you could see a small window showing the current bearing. That is 100% sure in observation scopes, and in attack ones also for those not of the fixed-heigth type.

I'm trying to get a good hold on what makes a good Silent Hunter 5 targeting interface; what is too automated vs. what is too clinical vs. what is too "off the hip."

I can't provide more details for procedures and specifically phraseology, but I can provide many details regarding the optics, TDC, and Torpedo shooting/parameter devices.

[Steeltrap]

Watch http://www.youtube.com/user/Subsim#p/u/5/t3sOA-UWk74 at 1:25, 2:50. Notice how the AoB changes as the periscope is moved. I think that when "Bearing: Follow my Periscope" mode is on, AoB updates in this way. This way Fast90 and similar "Auto AoB compensation" works just fine.

Ah, thanks. Didn't know they had a "Bearing: FMP" mode.

Cheers

[Thomas Kenobi]

You say that if you don't meet objective X you "fail" and have to retry the mission/campaign segment? Are you sure? Maybe it is a branching question. Play Campaign A, if score>X then goto Campaign B, if score<x then goto Campaign C.

This is OK right? Even if it is very hard to goto Campaign B it is not as though your "failed" by going to Campaign C... just a different path.

I was speaking in the abstract about sims in general. I don't have any specific information about how the game handles this, but I would be surprised if it actually forced you to repeat a mission. That would be a return to SH2 days.

The point I was initially trying to make was that being given an objective of the sort "sink xxxxx tons of shipping" detracts from realism and game immersion.

[Bilge_Rat]

Something just occurred to me.

In SH4, when I play with full realism settings (i.e. manual TDC + no map updates), I use the pause key liberally on the theory that I am doing the work of a half-dozen men and therefore want to take me time say flipping through the recognition manual, estimating range/AOB from the periscope, plotting target range/course/speed on the NAV map, fine tuning the torpedo settings, etc., etc.

I am not sure how that is going to work if my virtual Kaleun has to sprint from station to station...:hmmm:

[coronas]

Thanks, Hitman! Something new to learn.
:salute:

[jerm138]

Something just occurred to me.

In SH4, when I play with full realism settings (i.e. manual TDC + no map updates), I use the pause key liberally on the theory that I am doing the work of a half-dozen men and therefore want to take me time say flipping through the recognition manual, estimating range/AOB from the periscope, plotting target range/course/speed on the NAV map, fine tuning the torpedo settings, etc., etc.

I am not sure how that is going to work if my virtual Kaleun has to sprint from station to station...:hmmm:


This is the same concern I have with it. The game needs to either provide a competent crew that can do those things for you, or allow you to "teleport" from station to station since you're not really teleporting, just changing roles.

If it forces you to play all the roles, like in SH4, AND forces you to run to each station, then it could get real tiring in short order, and make it nearly impossible to play on high-realism.

Obviously, I'm just speculating though since I haven't played it...

[Bilge_Rat]

Agreed.

I thought Neal had posted that there was a way to switch rapidly between stations, but cannot find that post. Perhaps I misread it.

[Bilge_Rat]

Unless I am totally misreading these screenshots, there appear to be shortcut controls in the bottom-left and top-right corners.

http://www.pcgames.de/aid,705472/Silent-Hunter-5-Mehr-als-30-neue-Screenshots-zur-U-Boot-Simulation/PC/Bildergalerie/?menu=browser&mode=article&entity_id=218712&image_id=1251552&browsersize=fullscreen

http://www.pcgames.de/aid,705472/Silent-Hunter-5-Mehr-als-30-neue-Screenshots-zur-U-Boot-Simulation/PC/Bildergalerie/?menu=browser&mode=article&entity_id=218712&image_id=1251574&browsersize=fullscreen

[Steeltrap]

The point I was initially trying to make was that being given an objective of the sort "sink xxxxx tons of shipping" detracts from realism and game immersion.

I view that as a consequence of appealing to 'casual' players.

They know bugger all about history unless it was last week.

They tend not to like games that don't lead them by the nose (they might have to, well, think...).

The fact that telling someone to sink x'000 tonnes is an absurdity won't bother them in the slightest, as they don't realise it IS an absurdity. To them, games have clear objectives with pretty pictures.

Empire Total War is another example in that people are perfectly willing to overlook its many, many failures as a claimant of a strategy game because it looks so nice. 'Professional' reviewers aided and abetted this.

So it doesn't surprise me at all. It's also one of the main things to which I attribute the fact that, for me, the overwhelming majority of games are linear, unimaginitive and very tedious from a long-term, replayability factor (which is why I hardly buy any games these days, despite building a fairly high-spec PC).

Cheers

[Frederf]

The point I was initially trying to make was that being given an objective of the sort "sink xxxxx tons of shipping" detracts from realism and game immersion.

As an objective, yeah it's wrong, but as a campaign branching condition it's fine.

[Thomas Kenobi]

I view that as a consequence of appealing to 'casual' players.

They know bugger all about history unless it was last week.

They tend not to like games that don't lead them by the nose (they might have to, well, think...).

The fact that telling someone to sink x'000 tonnes is an absurdity won't bother them in the slightest, as they don't realise it IS an absurdity. To them, games have clear objectives with pretty pictures.

Empire Total War is another example in that people are perfectly willing to overlook its many, many failures as a claimant of a strategy game because it looks so nice. 'Professional' reviewers aided and abetted this.

So it doesn't surprise me at all. It's also one of the main things to which I attribute the fact that, for me, the overwhelming majority of games are linear, unimaginitive and very tedious from a long-term, replayability factor (which is why I hardly buy any games these days, despite building a fairly high-spec PC).

Cheers

Agreed. Gaming has long since gone past the stage of enthusiasts making games for enthusiasts. Now the targeted market share are the majority and the majority generally doesn't require all that much from their games.

Don't get me wrong, simple games that require little thought have their uses, i.e. they can be great for stress relief and relaxation and I'm not being sarcastic here. The trouble is how prolific they have become to the detriment of "deeper" games.

I myself still hold hope that indy developers will revitalise the gaming industry. This was certainly a promising year for indy games.

As an objective, yeah it's wrong, but as a campaign branching condition it's fine.

As long as it is hidden from the player I'm fine with that. The player shouldn't have so exact information in a war game.


edit: This thread has started to slip away from the original topic it seems.