@ Sea Queen

[Kapitan]

-My laptop, with my ASW planning spreadsheet for quick an easy calculation of various things that seem to pop up again and again (limiting lines of approach, CPA course, CPA distance, barrier effectiveness, area search effectiveness...). It's mostly navigational kinds of issues. Also I have the frequency list opened.

You said this in the resources thread can you explin all this please as to what you have and do alot of us are very intrested, also if you could supply it to the comunity im sure it wont go un noticed.

Cheers

[Bellman]

Yep - ''a lot of us are very interested'' You bet ! :ping:

But I wont give odds on the community getting much detail !! :o

[SeaQueen]

You said this in the resources thread can you explin all this please as to what you have and do alot of us are very intrested, also if you could supply it to the comunity im sure it wont go un noticed.
Cheers

Well... ya know... calculations are a part of seamanship. Navigation, for example, is intensely mathematical. One of the basic skills of seamanship for example, is being able to perform calculations on a maneuvering board. Being able to quickly come up with values such as CPA distance, or calculate intercept courses is an important skill. On the FFG it will calculate this for you, but in a submarine you have to do it yourself. I don't know how to work a maneuvering board (I'm trying to get the guys at work to teach me), but I know how to do vector algebra, so I stuck a bunch of calculations that come up frequently in my spreadsheet, and just let it run. I think in NROTC courses they show you how to do this on a maneuvering board.

There's other more complicated things too that I take from operations research and are useful for planning and scenario design. Probability of detection versus time is a good one. I put in a couple of search tactics that I use a lot, and it gives me an idea of about about how long things should go on average. You can get these kinds of things out of Wagner's Naval Operations Analysis, or Koopman's Search and Screening.

Then I also added a fun little calculation using Baye's theorem, where suppose I had cleared 95 percent of my OP AREA, and found two submarines. How confident am I that there's no more? I made this one using my own math after seeing a presentation a coworker of mine made.

Another good one to have is barrier effectiveness. Let's suppose you had a barrier so long, and you could see so far, and you were going to patrol at a certain speed, and you expected the bad guy to be going another speed. What's the probability of detecting him? This is another sort of Koopman/Wagner calculation.

Limiting lines of approach are very important. It'll tell you where you care about looking if you're screening a ship. I've noticed people tend to just sort of be random. Harpoon includes a similar tool in it's Formation Editor, but it doesn't say "this is the answer." It just hints at it. The formula is in Koopman.

Another good thing to keep in there is a random number generator. How often do you want a random number between 000 and 359, for example? People are frequently predictable. How often have you gotten hit by someone wire guiding a torpedo along a direction that he only could have guessed because he just figured out, "oh... he goes this way..." With an evasion course uniformly distributed, no particular direction is favored.

I've also been experimenting with calculating over what angles you should shoot a salvo of torpedoes given that the torpedo's seeker can see so far, the torpedo goes so fast, and the target is likely to evade at a certain speed. This is my own math, but it's just geometry and kinematics. It's a highschool physics problem, really.

I don't want to release this, though, because even though I haven't made use of anything classified for formulating it, I do use a lot of these calculations at work too, so I figure it's better to err on the side of caution. I'm also sort of skeptical of it's value. I'm trying to figure out how to integrate it into my tactics, and so far I've gotten worse, not better. :doh:

None the less, I strongly encourage you all to look into the literature on operations research for insight into the type of thinking I'm putting into these calculations. We're all sharp people here. I have a feeling it'd be interesting to see the kinds of creative solutions you'd all come up with. Some of the things in there are more useful for designing scenarios, than for playing them, but it's all fun to experiment with. Sometimes it will surprise you how things you thought were important aren't really, or things that you never thought of before are important. It'll also give you some interesting insight into why things on warships are the way they are.

[Sgian Dubh]

There's other more complicated things too that I take from operations research and are useful for planning and scenario design. Probability of detection versus time is a good one. I put in a couple of search tactics that I use a lot, and it gives me an idea of about about how long things should go on average. You can get these kinds of things out of Wagner's Naval Operations Analysis, or Koopman's Search and Screening.

Well, I am always up for more light reading....

So I checked Amazon. "Search and Screening" is available used for the hefty price of $288.00 US. Naval Operations Analysis is available around $35.00 US.

So I guess I know which one I will petition the Domestic Appropriations Committee Chairwoman for ;)

[SeaQueen]

Well, I am always up for more light reading....

So I checked Amazon. "Search and Screening" is available used for the hefty price of $288.00 US.


The out-of-print original version, yes. The Military Operations Research Society keeps "Search and Screening" in print. You can order it from them for about 20-30 dollars.


Naval Operations Analysis is available around $35.00 US.


Yeah... and it contains a lot of the same material as well as some other stuff that's of interest. The two books complement each other. Wagner is a little more generalized, while Koopman focuses on specifically search.

[Kapitan]

always have a scientifc calculator handy and note pad and pencil i do alot of calculations by hand.

[Linton]

Does anybody else have a spreadsheet programme that may be useful?

[Sgian Dubh]

This may be an ill-thought out request, but is there any place where some or all of these equations and formulas are available outside of the books?

Or perhaps the equations are useless out of contex?

If there was a place to start.... Just like there are places to start on Aeronautical navigation on the web to see if you 'take' to it.

[Bellman]

In RL these processes, I suspect, are computerised with software allowing 'what if ' prediction techniques.
The navigation computers on civil aircraft have some similar characteristics.

Given the emphasis on crowded waterways it would be interesting to know what techniques
players use to systemise the progressing of manual sonar.

[SeaQueen]

This may be an ill-thought out request, but is there any place where some or all of these equations and formulas are available outside of the books?

Or perhaps the equations are useless out of contex?

If there was a place to start.... Just like there are places to start on Aeronautical navigation on the web to see if you 'take' to it.

I know what you're saying, and from what I've seen these things don't really exist. OR seems to be the sort of thing people just sort of "fall into." It's sort of like asking "are there any good online sites that explain Bose versus Fermi statistics?" The content is really in the calculations. In order to get into it, you really need to know the details. Web sites rarely discuss these kinds of things.

James Dunnigan, a very experienced veteran of both civilian and military wargaming, who does The Strategy Page, wrote a book about operations research kinds of topics that deals with mostly land combat (his roots as an Army OR guy show). It's called "The Complete Wargames Handbook"

http://www.hyw.com/Books/WargamesHandbook/Contents.htm

Even then, it doesn't really get into the details of statistics and what not.

And yes, in the absense of data, they are useless. That's why they're unclassified. None the less, we as wargamers can go into the DB editor, and read the relevent game numbers out, plug them into our calculations and develop our own plans, tactics, proceedures, etc. based on the mathematics of search, firing, etc.

Ideally (and honestly, this has yet to play out for me in game play, since I've been trying to apply a lot of this stuff, I've actually gotten worse) it would give you improved performance in the long run.

[SeaQueen]

In RL these processes, I suspect, are computerised with software allowing 'what if ' prediction techniques.
The navigation computers on civil aircraft have some similar characteristics.

Some of it is still done by hand, just like in WWII. They still use maneuvering boards on ships. I've seen it done. Once you know what you're doing it's just as quick and easy as having a computer, from what I can tell. It's also more versatile. A manuvering board is essentially a paper computer.

There actually does exist a company that specializes in search related software for the Navy and the Coastguard. It's called Wagner associates. The guy who wrote one of the books I recommended founded it.

http://www.wagner.com/

From the website, apparently they were involved in some of the events described in Blind Man's Bluff, back in the day.

[Bellman]

SQ - ASUWTDA :|\
Pity about the scrambling (but understandable of course !)

I've been working for some time on a handy desk top 'manouvering board' for DW divers. A system for progressing updating and working-up sonar contacts whilst maintaining situational awareness during manouvers in high contact density environments. Its objective mirrors ATC data tags and has been developed from the rudimentary SVAK. Helps me a lot.

In fact the tasks are akin to ATC. Whilest talented 'plate spinners' see the process as an art, the constant updating of information, and changed states, depends on software systems. For those interested try London Control, ATC Simulator or Xavius software. I've hung up my boots now, but remain interested in related salty topics !

http://www.londoncontrol.com/
http://www.atcsimulator.com/
http://www.xavius.com/

The latter has currently witheld general release of Version 2.

[SeaQueen]

SQ - ASUWTDA :|\
Pity about the scrambling (but understandable of course !)


How interesting! There's actually enough information there to build a fun little DW or Harpoon scenario.


I've been working for some time on a handy desk top 'manouvering board' for DW divers. A system for progressing
updating and working-up sonar contacts whilst maintaining situational awareness during manouvers in high contact
density environments. Its objective mirrors ATC data tags and has been developed from the rudimentary SVAK.
Helps me a lot.

In fact the tasks are akin to ATC. Whilest talented 'plate spinners' see the process as an art, the constant updating
of information, and changed states, depends on software systems. For those interested try London Control,
ATC Simulator or Xavius software. I've hung up my boots now, but remain interested in related salty topics !



Interesting. I never thought of it in those terms.

[Linton]

Belman,I once visited west drayton for a famil visit.I got taken around the ops room and had a go on their simulator running LGW/LHR DEPs and ARR.Great fun.I asked if they had any set srtategies that were employed but the senior atco i was with said they just make it up on the day using experience.Radar headings and speed control work well in tactical situations with different categories of aircraft.Did you know that if a pilot turns his transponder off all atc info is lost

[Linton]

What if predictions on civil aircraft are mainly used for step climbs\descents.You tell the fmgc that you would like to change level and it tells you if it is economical to do so.You can also change crz mach in the box and look at time/fuel benefit.All you are really doing is getting it to recompute a different set of numbers.Going back to gaming I am more interested in probability of success of different torpedo attacks,and some nav stuff to determine time to target closure etc.Does anybody work out a manual run time for their weapons?

[Bellman]

SQ: There are similarities which remind me of our RAF procedures pre computerisation in so far only as employing
manual systems of information control. We had a SATCO who dreamed up a very original control process.

Linton: See my reference to 'plate spinners' - remember the stage act. In ATC its called ' keeping the flick.'
Information flow is vital for the controller and the modus of achieving that has relevance for manual sonar.
No SATCO would negate procedures. In practise they are highly regulated but the art is in adaptive flow control.
The art is in what you do when there is a computer outage or a storm front causes mutiple diversion requests.

In practise 'Local Control' is relatively easy. The old 'Tower' sim was fun but ridiculously easy even at maximum
traffic rates. Approach Control can be challenging at busy airports !

Re torp run times - a search around some old SC sites will show up several charts in various formats. TTT at various
speeds etc. All pretty basic stuff ! Sure TLAM and Tacman had some plus the docs folder for SCX11c.

[SeaQueen]

SQ: There are similarities which remind me of our RAF procedures pre computerisation in so far only as employing
manual systems of information control. We had a SATCO who dreamed up a very original control process.


I don't doubt it, at least with maneuvering board calculations and probably other stuff as well. The thing is, in the ocean, things happen a lot more slowly so you don't really need a computer. I'm sure the math is all the same, at least for maneuvering board calculations. Other stuff, as far as optimization problems of various types, I'm sure it's all very similar. All of those problems draw on operations research. It's actually a fun little field in applied mathematics. The other field that draws on it a lot is financial planning. If you ever want to make a computer model that will help you score big on the stock market, the math will come from OR.

It's kind of funny, because the other day at work we were talking about how it seems like people are reluctant to actually do even very simple calculations themselves. With all of these very powerful pieces of software which help people plan optimal resource allocation or whatever, people tend to assume everything is so complicated that only a computer could possibly take into account all the necessary variables to come up with a reasonable solution.

What's even funnier is that a lot of these computer programs are actually pretty simple in principle. They just do the same math you would have done by hand. In fairness, some of them are definitely not simple. Some of the ones that do a lot of the Bayesian revision, make use of genetic algorithms whatnot are quite complex. The thing is, sometimes, it just gives you the same answer as you'd come up with using a simple, old fashioned, linear program like they did in WWII, and there's a lot less to go wrong that way too.


Re torp run times - a search around some old SC sites will show up several charts in various formats. TTT at various
speeds etc. All pretty basic stuff ! Sure TLAM and Tacman had some plus the docs folder for SCX11c.

Hello!

distance = rate x time

That's all you need to know for that one. :-)

[Linton]

My question was on whether people in the game actually bother to work out run time or just use the auto side of the game?The maths for that is easy.I went on the radar sim at Drayton not the tower one.I think I had about 15 contacts on the go at one point.Great day out and the platespinners bought the beer!

[SeaQueen]

My question was on whether people in the game actually bother to work out run time or just use the auto side of the game?

They probably don't most of the time, if MP games are any indicator. From what I've seen is that they rely on their intuition and wire guidence to shoot. If you assign a target to your torpedo it will automatically calculate the intercept course for that one torpedo.

The trick is, that's not necessarily the best solution unless you're already fairly close, you're not using autocrew, and the target does a lousy job of evading. Ideally, the torpedo should acquire the target almost as soon as it enables.

For a longer ranged shot, where time late for the torpedo can be significant, particularly if the target does everything he can to evade, as soon as he hears the TIW call, by the time the torpedoes actually arrive at the calculated intercept point and activate, your target might be long gone!

That's where firing a spread of 2 or 3 becomes smarter, and to figure out how wide an arc you want to shoot them over, you need to know the torpedo run time.

[Linton]

SQ thankyou for your answer.I must admit i do both it just depends on how difficult the target is going to be to hit.A shallow stationary target with a lot of other clutter around it will always get a lot more attention to a firing solution than something just steaming along

[Bellman]

Of course as so often in diving an initiial torp range and course judgement must be revisited via wires when the diver
overcomes sonar cluttered with multi-counterfires (sic) and regains good TMA after his own avoidance manouveres.
Hence the need to adopt system/s which maintain full situational awareness of the OA during this partial
loss of the picture or at worst allow it to be regained as efficiently as possible. The diver who maintains the 'flick'
will have the edge and dominate.

Linton - any connection/s with Linton-On-Ouse ? No 1 FTS ?
If you have developed a taste for ATC from Drayton try 'London Control' and test your stress tolerance levels !
Some sectors are a moribund string of pearls where the controller may have a 30+ 'procession' and is only a traffic cop.
Others like Heathrow finals can induce a little perspiration.

With 'ATC Sim' you can drop into the seat at some pretty lively airports and choose your duty roster
at peak movement times 100+ p.h. departures and arrivals where a few crawling Props with poor comms
screw your day ! Then Spreadsheet paper only serves one purpose!! ;)

Sorry I have digressed - comes from a lifetime interest in all things aviation including many flight sims
and ATC packages. I regret my boots have been hung-up now ! :know:

[SeaQueen]

Of course as so often in diving an initiial torp range and course judgement must be revisited via wires when the diver
overcomes sonar cluttered with multi-counterfires (sic) and regains good TMA after his own avoidance manouveres.


To me, this means you have a bad firing solution in the beginning, and all of these are essentially just snapshots. You might as well just drop the wire and let them do their thing on their own. All of this adjusting and re-adjusting, it's nice to have the capability but it really means the shot was ill conceived.

If you have DEMON, then you should be able to develop an excellent firing solution. You should assume the bad guy gets a TIW call and begins evasion immediately. When your torpedo arrives where could he be? The answer is he is anywhere in a circle centered on the initial position with a radius equal to his maximum speed times the time late for the torpedo.

Now it becomes a question, for a given salvo size, what is the maximum range to target at which the entire arc subtended by his circle diameter and originating at your position at the time of firing, is covered by at least one torpedo sensor? Just inside that is your optimal firing range.

Take that distance, subtract it from your target range. That's your RTE. No sense in letting him pull a Marko Ramius on you.

This still doesn't defeat the problem of countermeasures, but it does insure that no matter what direction he runs there's going to be a torpedo there even if gets away from you on sonar.

The success of this tactic depends entirely on good TMA. If you don't shoot with an accurate range to the target, you're more likely to whiff. How much more likely depends on how big the error is.

If you have a good solution, though, it's creepy to watch in "Show Truth" how quickly the torpedoes acquire their targets. They're TOTALLY right there. I also think it's a really great way to shoot wakehomers.

For some reason, I think it actually does have some impact on countermeasures effectiveness, although I can't proove it. I suspect it has something to do with what the torpedo acquires first. With it enabling in just the right place and acquiring the target so quickly, it seems to acquire the target more often before it releases countermeasures. I dunno....

[Bellman]

:lol: SQ That wont do - you choose mischeivously to run with a convenient ''bad firing solution'' interpretation
of what was in fact a strong(ish) criticism of your suggested scatter-gun tactics.

It isnt possible on all occasions when one is fired upon to have a good TMA solution. :huh: But you rather defeat
your own argument because of course facing this scatter tactic one generaly has to counterfire with ''ill conceived''
possibly premature information.(Just your modus) The deal then is clear the datum, if necessary, collate information
work up the TMA adjust the run/s by wire. Exactly my point ;) We merely disagree on the causes,
the solution and the modus. Just a small chasm then ! :yep:

Post edited and pruned extensively in an effort to maintain good Anglo-American relations ! :oops: :lol:

[Linton]

Bellman-Nothing do do with Linton(-on Ouse),more Tubby Linton V.C. a little known (to some)RN submarine commander from Newport,Monmouthshire.SQ -interesting thesis about where a target could go when there is a Tiw,but it must become a big circle for a fast moving ff/dd.I generally fire in pairs.One noisy shot to get the target moving,having offset it first,followed by a passive shot about when the first torp goes active.They never hear the second one coming because they are always running fast from the first!

[Bellman]

:D Thats a favourite of mine - while the target churns the water avoiding the active you quietly stalk with the passive. ;)

[SeaQueen]

:lol: SQ That wont do - you choose mischeivously to run with a convenient ''bad firing solution'' interpretation
of what was in fact a strong(ish) criticism of your suggested scatter-gun tactics.

It isnt possible on all occasions when one is fired upon to have a good TMA solution. :huh:

That's true. After thinking it through and experimenting some, I've come to the conclusion that salvoing torpedoes in the absense of a good firing solution (i.e. counterfire) is wasteful. Counterfire is best with single shots or maybe two.

If you shoot more than that, you do increase the likelihood of killing your bad guy somewhat, but the lack of an accurate range makes it impossible to determine how many torpedoes to salvo most effectively. In light of that, the logical choice is that you have to salvo all of them.

If you salvo all of your torpedoes, the first problem is that the small-angle approximations used in the calculations I made become sufficiently inaccurate that gaps appear in the area searched by the torpedoes beyond anything but the shortest ranges. The other problem is that with the torpedoes activating early as is the case in counterfire, their speed is significantly reduced because they're snaking. So, their time-late increases and the arc of uncertainty surrounding the target increases. So the optimum firing range for the tactic is decreased well inside of where you probably OUGHT to have detected and developed a solution on the guy in the first place, unless the acoustics are truely awful. In that case, you have a close-in situation where the search width of a single torpedo is sufficient to insure a reasonable likelihood of getting the guy.

You do a little bit better, but not much. You also consume torpedoes astoundingly fast. I think the tactic works best on shooting fast targets at medium range, where you have a good firing solution, but you worry he might slip away from you.


The deal then is clear the datum, if necessary, collate information
work up the TMA adjust the run/s by wire. Exactly my point ;)


For counterfire, yes.

After working out the numbers, and experimenting in the sim, I no longer advocate firing spreads of torpedoes over an arc as counterfire. It doesn't buy you enough to worry about in a realistic scenario. Although in some of the MP free-for-alls (the scenarios that make me cringe) where everyone is piled on top of each other, it might still. The tactic in that case is pure munchkinism, but I don't care because those kinds of scenarios are cheesey anyhow. They're all about firepower, so if you've got firepower, USE IT.


Post edited and pruned extensively in an effort to maintain good Anglo-American relations ! :oops: :lol:

You'll never get my spreadsheet now.

[SeaQueen]

SQ -interesting thesis about where a target could go when there is a Tiw,but it must become a big circle for a fast moving ff/dd.

True. That's why you want to fire multiple torpedoes in an arc. If you imagine each torpedo searching out a strip of water. You want to space them so that the total width of all of the strips of water searched by all the torpedoes covers the entire arc originating at your ship and subtended by the the circle's diameter.

I generally fire in pairs.One noisy shot to get the target moving,having offset it first,followed by a passive shot about when the first torp goes active.They never hear the second one coming because they are always running fast from the first!

I'm still trying to decide if there's a best combination of seeker settings. I'm thinking of it from the perspective of defeating countermeasures.

[Bellman]

SQ: This thread has acquired continental drift, but on the issue of scenarios, I must go with your flow.
There is always an ongoing debate about the character of MP scenarios. Do they pander to the 'knife -fighters'
or have they huge maps, large search areas and long run-in times ?

Personaly I dont think it behoves any of us to get too sniffy about scenario types. The MP scenario market has to
serve widely differing tastes from the quick fix knife fight pseudo flight sim dogfighters to the ultimate reality
of ''real-time' missions. We simply have to cater for all tastes !

We have to face the fact that the main demand is for the former and the game scene has responded to
'Dogfighter'demand ! Now some of us are happy to mirror reality and search unproductively for days and
get a buz from it. But we should'nt expect a majority of players to enjoy and seek out this type of scenario.
Sub Command reality scenarios for MP, unfotunately, did not and will not be dominant.

It seems sensible therefore for the designer to try to meld together elements which are difficult to bring together.
To try to achieve in a single MP scenario a balanced menu without pandering to extremes in diet requirements !!
This allows for the not improbable concept that while we eat fish today its fowl tomorrow. Our tastes vary !!

Okhotsk is my first attempt to achieve these ends by marrying together in one scenario interest
hooks for many types of player. In a Team, one player can confront ,or draw,the opposition while the other adopts
stealthy practices, stays out of trouble and goes for the Boomer. Alternatively, if the blood is hot, both attempt
to fight their way through, IF necessary.

Developing the idea of 'hooks' further I am working on a Phillipine Islands scenario called 'Knife Edge'
The first hook is the Team does'nt know what the ROE are at SOG except 'Monitor XX team and YYY and staying
weapons range. Standby' Weapons Tight. An attempt to achieve RL reconnaisance stealth activity in preparation
for possible action. The second hook is that the timing is randomised within acceptable MP parameters
- so Teams are at the highest alert 'Ready' status for an indeterminate period - on the 'Knife Edge !'
The third hook is goal related and other hooks subtend.

As usual, the main problem is locating starting positions suitable for execution of the mission within the average
MP players available gameplaying timeframe. Thats the rub - and is always at the heart of attempts to achieve reality.
Kilo range and speed limitations add further dimension to the problem. Other factors include length of time
online to maintain connectivity and interest in Teams of 7 players in 'busy(ish) 'waters!

Another rub is my impression that the serious 'reality' players are in SP. But it would be sad neglect of all SAS have
achieved if we cant fully attempt to exploit the games MP potential by hopefuly bringing all types of players onboard
in scenarios.which endeavour to suit all tastes The sim has potent adrenalyn built in supercharged by the
multiplayer potential.

Its doubtful though whether the necessary discipline and self restraint necessary for 'reality' team simulation
can be maintained anywhere outside of the Fleets ! Elsewhere there are no sheriffs, no judges, no penalties just
a lawless frontier town with a casino, whisky and girls !! Heck made that sound too appealing !! ;)

[SeaQueen]

SQ: This thread has acquired continental drift, but on the issue of scenarios, I must go with your flow.
There is always an ongoing debate about the character of MP scenarios. Do they pander to the 'knife -fighters'
or have they huge maps, large search areas and long run-in times ?


My experience is that if you make a scenario too huge in DW, it ceases to be a good one. DW is best when there's just a few platforms doing something well defined. DW is not Harpoon. That being said, the scale on which they build most DW scenarios is wrong simply because, as I've said before, they've over simplified the search problem.

I like to think of DW scenarios as individual vignettes in a larger Harpoon-type scenario.



We have to face the fact that the main demand is for the former and the game scene has responded to
an influx of 'Doomers.' Now some of us are happy to mirror reality and search unproductively for days and
get a buz from it. But we cant expect a majority of others to have this approach.


No, but by the same token, I can't help but be resentful when I work out the statistics and given the scale on which the scenarios are designed, even the most ill-placed single shots are likely to hit SOMEBODY, because everyone is piled on top of one another.

Scenarios should be designed so that searching unproductively for days is possible, particularly against a skilled opponent, but unlikely. That's realistic. They wouldn't allocate a mission to just a few platforms if they felt it was most likely going to be impossible to accomplish. The Kara Sea search mission I made, for example, I sometimes start and finish in just a few hours. Other times it takes me a whole day.


The first hook is the Team does'nt know what the ROE are at SOG except 'Monitor XXXX and YYYY and stay in contact. Standby' An attempt to achieve RL reconnaisance stealth activity in preparation for action.


That's an interesting idea provided it is a challenge to acquire the target and avoid counter detection.


The main problem is locating starting positions suitable for execution of the mission within the average
MP players available gameplaying timeframe.


Play time is a fair restraint. It's actually not necessarily that difficult to figure out. What search tactic do you anticipate them using to acquire the target?



Kilo range and speed limitations add further dimension to the problem. Other factors include the maintaining
of connectivity and interest in Teams of 7 players online in 'busy(ish) 'waters!


I don't think it's a good idea to have more than two or three platforms on a side. One should actually be the most typical case for most submarines.


Another rub is my impression that the serious 'reality' players are in SP.


That's ultimately where I'm beginning to think all the interesting simulating is. I also can't help but wonder how many of the old submariners here have made scenarios inspired by things they remember but they're sitting on them because they're concerned about compromising things they may have been exposed to.

At it's worst, though MP is hopeless.

Single player also has the advantage of being able to "save game." It'd be nice if I could create a MP coordinated ASW scenario where the distance and time scales are correct, and if it started to run little long, we could quit and pick up where we left off tomorrow.

It's not like single player scenarios are really that much better, realism wise. They have their own shortcomings. In that case, they're often limited by the AI and communications issues.


But it would be sad neglect of all SAS have
achieved if we cant fully exploit the games MP potential by hopefuly bringing all types of players onboard
in muli-taste scenarios. The sim has potent adrenalyn built in supercharged by the multiplayer potential.


The thing is, I don't think you're ever going to satisfy both camps. The one camp is in it to shoot torpedoes. The other camp recognizes that the ASW game is about more than that, and is interested in it for a much wider range of tactics.

[Bellman]

SQ: I suspect that there is much truth in what you say, and we agree that there is a natural encampment of ideologies.

But 'bridging' theories, however improbable, should be tested. 'Composite' is worth a go and I remain optimistic.
Can you say the same for 'Scatter' - ' C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre ' ?

[SeaQueen]

SQ: I suspect that there is much truth in what you say, and we agree that there is a natural encampment of ideologies.

But 'bridging' theories, however improbable, should be tested. 'Composite' is worth a go and I remain optimistic.
Can you say the same for 'Scatter' - ' C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre ' ?

It's less about ideology and more about what holds people's attention. What fascinates me about naval warfare in DW is the sheer technical logic of it. I really enjoy doing TMA, estimating areas of uncertainty, calculating CPA distances, planning coordinated cruise missile strikes, etc. etc. For me, firing a salvo of torpedoes is the end of process. The whole of it fascinates me.

As for shooting salvos: You can believe whatever you want. I know what I know. All I can say is that they give you multiple torpedo tubes for more than just looking pretty. If all anyone ever did was shoot one, then nobody would care how many torpedo tubes any submarine had.

[Bellman]

:lol: Salvos - Cant recall anyone discussing single torp shots. Two to three 48s max (exceptionaly 4) is my norm
with a judicous mix of Actives and Passives and where appropriate above and below any layer.

I consider your scattergun counterfire method injudicious, wasteful and potentialy suicidal. A back-up of 'ready'
torps in the tubes is in itself a safeguard against unexpected attack/counterfire. Empty the lot with no reserves
and you are a Patsy ! A sitting duck ! And if a silent Kilo lurks undetected nearby - what then for our tubeless one ?
''The King is in the altogether, the altogether...........'' (Lyric) :ping:

But seriously 'scatter' is your theory and the burden of proof lies with you. It behoves you to mount some evidence
and ,should the maths proof difficult for the general reader, I'm sure there are those amongst us more than capable
of rising to the challenge.

I remain totaly unconvinced. Forgive me I dont mean to be confrontational its just that to put it mildy
I'm gobsmacked that the scatter theory comes from such a respected contributor. :hmm:

[Linton]

SeaQueens theory that a target could be anywhere in a circle based on its maximum speed is correct but is similiar to saying that the winning numbers in the lottery will be six different numbers in the range of 1-48.It is just not specific enough!Anti-torpedo tactics depend on many things.I could spend a lot of time here just trying to list them.In a 688i I will never launch more than 3 torpedoes.I always have one ready for the unexpected snapshot.usually two weapons are enough to at least disable the target.I always try to update the solution before launching the second weapon so that if the target has moved you do not launch the weapon into oblivion.

[SeaQueen]

:lol: Salvos - Cant recall anyone discussing single torp shots. Two to three 48s max (exceptionaly 4) is my norm with a judicous mix of Actives and Passives and where appropriate above and below any layer.

I consider your scattergun counterfire method injudicious, wasteful and potentialy suicidal.


I don't think it's suicidal, but it is definitely wasteful. I think I've said before, though, that after working out the numbers and experimenting a little, I decided that it wasn't a good counterfire tactic, but shooting spreads of multiple torpedoes over an angle is a very good deliberate fire tactic against certain types of targets.


A back-up of 'ready' torps in the tubes is in itself a safeguard against unexpected attack/counterfire. Empty the lot with no reserves and you are a Patsy !


Hence I say for deliberate fire shoot 2 or 3, but not 4. For counterfire shoot 1 or 2, but not more.


But seriously 'scatter' is your theory and the burden of proof lies with you. It behoves you to mount some evidence
and ,should the maths proof difficult for the general reader, I'm sure there are those amongst us more than capable
of rising to the challenge.

I remain totaly unconvinced. Forgive me I dont mean to be confrontational its just that to put it mildy
I'm gobsmacked that the scatter theory comes from such a respected contributor. :hmm:

Have you just not read what I wrote in a previous post? I said I worked out the numbers and there's really only one case where it works, well. Unfortunately, that is actually what most MP scenarios that I've seen consist of. Once again, though, that's symptomatic of distance scale of the scenarios being entirely contrived.

In realistic scenarios, it shouldn't work as well due to a combination of the torpedoes snaking early, which increases their time late to any potential target. That allows the target to evade them much more effectively (although not perfectly). It would work a little better on the Seawolf due to it's larger salvo size.

Large salvos as counterfire is not a total killer though in a realistic scenario. Only in the contrived, close-in MP scenarios does it make sense, these are, of course, totally unrealistic. In any other case, it really doesn't pay off.

[Bellman]

SQ: I certainly read what you wrote originaly in 'Surprise Torpedo evasion' about 'Scatter' and I recall
both Molon and I reacting with supressed horror. You suggested indiscriminate MP counterfire at ALL TIWs
so that is the 'scatter' effect not a salvo of torpedos counterfired at one TIW (2/3/4 = nit picking !)

Goldorak wrote: No, fire a snapshot only when you're pretty sure the torpedo has been fired at you.
No sense in giving out your position if you're not in danger.

SeaQueen responded: I used to think that too, until I wrote a little toy Monte Carlo to see what mattered. If you always shoot a snapshot, you do better on average.

I'm pretty convinced that if it's not shot at you, then you're actually in better shape than if it had been shot at you,
because now you've attacked the badguy first. It's like a page from Fleet Tactics. The bottom line is that if you hear a
TIW, you've either been detected first and are being shot at (therefore you should shoot back), or SOMEONE ELSE WAS
DETECTED FIRST** and is being shot at (therefore you should shoot at the guy shooting at them), or someone else is dumb and shot before they had a good shot at anyone, thus revealing their position needlessly (therefore you should shoot them).

The more torpedoes you can shoot at a badguy the better off you are. What's the worst that can happen? Someone else
shoots another ill-aimed torpedo at you down his LOB to you? Either way, nobody's torpedo is likely to hit anything. The
only thing you can do to skew the statistics in your favor is to increase the salvo size, ultimately. Probably the best
tactic is to fire all tubes and not just one. Maximum salvo size is a killer.

I believe it is much better to shoot lots of torpedos, whiff ten times and get the bad guy on the eleventh, than to spend
so much time setting up a shot with a silver bullet that you get wacked in the process.
More is always better. The truth is, if you watch how people play this game, they rarely do more than shoot what
essentially amount to snapshots anyhow. (**My capitals)

That you have now trimmed your position is understandable. That you are still very bashful about
proving your MP 'Scatter' theory is noted. That you are able to demonstrate it in practical MP unlikely.

In the absence of the above my interest in this theory is rapidly withering on the vine.
But my stance remains receptive but unconvinced.

[SeaQueen]

SQ: I certainly read what you wrote originaly in 'Surprise Torpedo evasion' about 'Scatter' and I recall
both Molon and I reacting with supressed horror. You suggested indiscriminate MP counterfire at ALL TIWs
so that is the 'scatter' effect not a salvo of torpedos counterfired at one TIW (2/3/4 = nit picking !)

It's not the counterfire that I rethought. I still say one should always counterfire at a TIW. The pay off is more than worth it, particularly if the scenario is constructed realistically. The only time I wouldn't would be if for some reason I could tell it was from a Starfish. Even then I can't help but suspect it might, on the off chance flush the guy who shot a Starfish at you first out. It's worth it for that.

I just don't think firing a spread is worth it as counterfire, unless one is in one of these contrived scenarios where everyone is within maybe 8Nmi of each other. In that case, I'm unclear why people bother to even try to detect each other.



That you have now trimmed your position is understandable. That you are still very bashful about
proving your MP 'Scatter' theory is noted. That you are able to demonstrate it in practical MP unlikely.


There's not a lot more I can do to prove it. Write your own Monte Carlo, or do the geometry. When several platforms are packed in an 8x8 Nmi box, you don't need to know where any of them are to shoot a maximum sized spread and probably kill at least one of them. That goes back to most MP scenarios being totally contrived.

On the other hand, in a realistic scenario, even a maximum sized spread from a Seawolf starts losing efficacy pretty quick. If you figure a torpedo has a search width of about 4Nmi, 4 torpedoes has a search with of 16Nmi. Suppose you just fired them in a 90 deg arc. Anything within about 16 Nmi / (Pi / 2) = 10Nmi will get homed on by at least one torpedo. That's neglecting the motion of the target, and countermeasures. After that, the probability of the torpedo acquiring a target falls off as about 1/R. That's just geometry. There's nothing complicated about it.

To a first approximation, the whole problem with the "shotgun torpedo" tactic is not the logic of the tactic, it's the scenarios which make the tactic make sense.

There's more things, though which make the tactic less effective. One of them is the motion of the target. That's actually pretty easy to calculate, though. The effect of that is to make the tactic even less effective. Even when you figure that out, though, it still leaves a good number of MP torpedo shootouts in a wholely unrealistic realm. Ideally the whole battle would have started well before one got in that situation.

Adding in countermeasures... you get the idea.

Using the same logic, though, against a target where you KNOW where he is, it is possible to calculate an optimized torpedo spread against him, so as to minimize the efficacy of a his evasion. That's a little bit different ballgame. In this case, what actually drives the salvo size and the firing range is the ratio of the torpedo speed to the speed with which you think he will evade.

This is a lot better tactic, PARTICULARLY in realistically scaled scenarios with realistic numbers of combattants. Now you're not just playing the odds, now you're working on ways to minimize the odds or the other guy by optimizing your firing ranges and salvo sizes to compensate for what you think he's able to do.

So... yeah... shotgun torpedo tactics... not a bad deliberate fire tactic if you can do the math. Rotten counterfire tactic in a realistic scenario. Cheese ball tactic in cheese ball scenarios. How's that?

[Bellman]

Abit, excessit, evasit, erupit.' Cicero.

He is gone, he is off, he has escaped, he has broken away.