Matching depth of opposing submarines!

[Badger6052]

Just a quick question from a newbee, "How do you match depth of an opposing submarine(i.e. determine the depth of another submarine)?" Am I missing something in the manual? Need help!:arrgh!:

[Henson]

There's generally no need to. While submarines fight in a three-dimensional battlespace, TMA is essentially a two-dimensional problem.

[Nexus7]

Just a quick question from a newbee, "How do you match depth of an opposing submarine(i.e. determine the depth of another submarine)?" Am I missing something in the manual? Need help!:arrgh!:

I asked this question a few weeks ago and got no utlimative answer... I suspect those procedures are classified?

[SeaQueen]

I asked this question a few weeks ago and got no utlimative answer... I suspect those procedures are classified?

Whether or not they are is irrelevent.
A) You don't need to
B) You don't have the capability in DW to do the things that you'd need to do in to do it anyway.

[Ori_b]

Btw,
In light of the latest torp tweaking in LWAMI-4.0 - giving the torp a limited depth tracking cone, wont this lack of tools be a problem? what can we do assure that we are in the right depth for launch (or at least the idle depth for the given situation)?

Or is it a "shot in the dark"...wet dark it is...

[Nexus7]

Btw,
In light of the latest torp tweaking in LWAMI-4.0 - giving the torp a limited depth tracking cone, wont this lack of tools be a problem? what can we do assure that we are in the right depth for launch (or at least the idle depth for the given situation)?

Or is it a "shot in the dark"...wet dark it is...

In absence of other means I would check if the sub is over or below the layer, and then fire a combo at each 1/3 of the size of this layer (hoping he doesn't switch layer) :hmm:

As a precautional measure, if he's below the layer I'd fire from over the layer and vice versa.

[LuftWolf]

Btw,
In light of the latest torp tweaking in LWAMI-4.0 - giving the torp a limited depth tracking cone, wont this lack of tools be a problem? what can we do assure that we are in the right depth for launch (or at least the idle depth for the given situation)?

Or is it a "shot in the dark"...wet dark it is...

Well, it's not really that bad. :)

Any torpedo that is going to be seriously effected by the changes will have the ability to set a vertical search pattern (actually all have some vertical pattern now, even the ADCAP).

If you are in water less than 1000ft, even with a layer, a few hundred feet oscillation will be more than enough in moderate sonar conditions to get reasonable coverage with an average torpedo. In deeper water with a layer, you can judge your opponents position using the layer...

In any case, I find my depth considerations just "come to me" after I've been doing the work of tracking the target and getting a 2-D solution. I guess, at least for me, I'm happy with a good guess on the depth of my target, and set my torpedoes to account for me being partially wrong.

Cheers,
David

[Ori_b]

Ok, good answers.

on another subject, I installed LWAMI 3.02 -jsteed version, is there a way for a noob like me to know that the mod is actually loaded when i load the game again?

Is there some kind of guide for the mod? or just the readme?

thanks,

[compressioncut]

Just a quick question from a newbee, "How do you match depth of an opposing submarine(i.e. determine the depth of another submarine)?" Am I missing something in the manual? Need help!:arrgh!:
I asked this question a few weeks ago and got no utlimative answer... I suspect those procedures are classified?

That's because you don't do it. I am a current, real-life ASW operator and do not exactly determine the depth of the opponent. You can relatively easily determine if it's deep or shallow, above or below the layer, and that's all the depth information you need. You can determine more or less exact depths in certain situations but it is not tactically useful and you certainly can't do it in DW so it doesn't matter.

You have to realize you're dealing with 1,500, maybe 2,000 feet of vertical movement at most. Submarines are not airplanes operating in a 50,000 foot envelope, so anti-air warfare thinking does not apply to ASW.

Nothing personal, but that's a minor pet-peeve I have about answering questions around here - I or Henson or some other current, serving ASW guy or submariner will provide information and no one will believe it.

[SeaQueen]

Nothing personal, but that's a minor pet-peeve I have about answering questions around here - I or Henson or some other current, serving ASW guy or submariner will provide information and no one will believe it.

I wouldn't worry about it. If one just posted the relevant documents, I have a feeling someone would second guess them, even as they hauled the poster off to prison. It's the nature of computer geeks.

[SeaQueen]

Btw,
In light of the latest torp tweaking in LWAMI-4.0 - giving the torp a limited depth tracking cone, wont this lack of tools be a problem?

Yes it will be.


what can we do assure that we are in the right depth for launch (or at least the idle depth for the given situation)?

Nothing.

Honestly, I was perfectly happy with torpedoes as they were.

[compressioncut]

I wouldn't worry about it. If one just posted the NWPs, I have a feeling someone would second guess them, even as they hauled the poster off to prison. It's the nature of computer geeks.

Good point. We call them NCPMs up here (Naval Combat Procedures Manuals).

[SeaQueen]

Good point. We call them NCPMs up here (Naval Combat Procedures Manuals).

In think-tank land, we get a whole class of documents. They're probably similar to the things you see. I dunno... this conversation is rapidly going places we probably shouldn't go. It's probably not a smart idea to post exactly what we all have access to on the Internet, ya know? It's a good way to end up with an Iranian calling us up telling us about the kiddie porn they're going to find on our computers if we don't do what they say.

[Nexus7]

Nothing personal, but that's a minor pet-peeve I have about answering questions around here - I or Henson or some other current, serving ASW guy or submariner will provide information and no one will believe it.

I wouldn't worry about it. If one just posted the relevant documents, I have a feeling someone would second guess them, even as they hauled the poster off to prison. It's the nature of computer geeks.

NOw there's a reason why I have doubts, and I think a good one. I once did talk with a real submarine officer of a TMA station and asked him exactly this question. answer: "of course you can!". But then going into details the answer turned into "we are quickly entering the classified zone here", and so I was denied that info.

But if it looked like deniyng you respect I am sorry, that was not meant to be. I use to consider your and Henson posts of high quality and "thrustable".

[SeaQueen]

Now there's a reason why I have doubts, and I think a good one. I once did talk with a real submarine officer of a TMA station and asked him exactly this question. answer: "of course you can!". But then going into details the answer turned into "we are quickly entering the classified zone here", and so I was denied that info.

But if it looked like deniyng you respect I am sorry, that was not meant to be. I use to consider your and Henson posts of high quality and "thrustable".

It isn't that it can't be done. A good sonar guy can get a pretty good feel for all kinds of things. The point is that it really isn't necessary, and DW doesn't have the stuff in it you'd need to do it anyhow.

[sonar732]

True SeaQueen...there are a lot of tell tell signs that gives away the depth of a boat and just a few have been discussed. One thing that I've begged for is the sound of hull popping to be "hearable" thru your BB display instead of only that player who's performing the evolution.

[LuftWolf]

Ok, good answers.

on another subject, I installed LWAMI 3.02 -jsteed version, is there a way for a noob like me to know that the mod is actually loaded when i load the game again?

Is there some kind of guide for the mod? or just the readme?

thanks,

What version is this?

jsteed has not be directly involved in the production of LWAMI, although we are using some of his tools and guides and he has advised us on particular game engine issues, for which I am very grateful to him.

The readme is all this is available for LWAMI 3.02 currently, although LWAMI4 will necessitate further documentation I'm pretty sure...

[LuftWolf]

Btw,
In light of the latest torp tweaking in LWAMI-4.0 - giving the torp a limited depth tracking cone, wont this lack of tools be a problem?

Yes it will be.


what can we do assure that we are in the right depth for launch (or at least the idle depth for the given situation)?

Nothing.

Honestly, I was perfectly happy with torpedoes as they were.

Well, I think you see DW as a tool with the necessary resolution.

Most of the people who are interested in mods see it as a simulation with variable complexity and verisimilitude.

[SeaQueen]

Well, I think you see DW as a tool with the necessary resolution.


That's not the case at all. If all I wanted out of DW was another tool, I'd live at work. I've got tools galore, many of which make DW look like a tinkertoy. That's not what I'm in it for.

There is something to be said, though for asking about necessary resolution. This is something we run into a lot at work as well. Sometimes it actually gets kind of nasty. Just the other day I thought it was going to come to blows across the hall from me.

With wargames, as in all computer models, it is possible to be "precisely wrong," with simulations. It makes no sense to attempt to model details which the simulation lacks the tools to exploit, understand, and interact with in a realistic way, and, don't really matter anyway because if you had those tools it'd stop mattering. I wish I could be more explicit here, but I really can't. It gets into details that I can't talk about. It is sufficient to say, though that in this case, it is actually more accurate to have less detail in the sim.

Wargames like DW, Harpoon, Global Conflict Blue, Sub Command, Jane's Fleet Command, are always abstractions. They're computer models. You can't avoid that. DW makes you a CO, XO, OOD, AO, and FCC all rolled into one. You can't do the job of what in real life takes a small team of individuals. Why bother adding a bunch of stuff that a subordinate would take care of so you wouldn't have to worry about it? It makes no sense.

You actually end up learning less about naval warfare that way.


Most of the people who are interested in mods see it as a simulation with variable complexity and verisimilitude.

Do you think I'm not interested in the mods? If I wasn't interested I'd say nothing. :-)

[SeaQueen]

True SeaQueen...there are a lot of tell tell signs that gives away the depth of a boat and just a few have been discussed. One thing that I've begged for is the sound of hull popping to be "hearable" thru your BB display instead of only that player who's performing the evolution.

I agree. Transients like that would definitely be the coolest thing they could add to the sim right now. I want to be able to look at the that gram, or listen to my headphones and be able to tell you about every time my opponent twitches. If they did that, I also wish they could take out the TIW call and let me figure it out by looking at the grams and listening.

THAT would rock and it'd make the sonar station even more interesting.

[LuftWolf]

With wargames, as in all computer models, it is possible to be "precisely wrong," with simulations. It makes no sense to attempt to model details which the simulation lacks the tools to exploit, understand, and interact with in a realistic way, and, don't really matter anyway because if you had those tools it'd stop mattering.

I agree with this statement.


I wish I could be more explicit here, but I really can't. It gets into details that I can't talk about. It is sufficient to say, though that in this case, it is actually more accurate to have less detail in the sim.

Wargames like DW, Harpoon, Global Conflict Blue, Sub Command, Jane's Fleet Command, are always abstractions. They're computer models. You can't avoid that. DW makes you a CO, XO, OOD, AO, and FCC all rolled into one. You can't do the job of what in real life takes a small team of individuals. Why bother adding a bunch of stuff that a subordinate would take care of so you wouldn't have to worry about it? It makes no sense.

You actually end up learning less about naval warfare that way.



Well, of course, I'm simply an "amateur tinkerer" as someone said... but regarding DW, this is one interpretation.

But I always find it interesting to hear repeatly how limited DW is, from people who know not very much about it.

DW is designed so that individual missions have specific databases and doctrines assigned to it. As a professional, if you used those tools to their full extent, your ability to use the sim would be significantly improved.

[LuftWolf]

Expanding on this... I can infer this from the features provided in the database and doctrines but not implimented in the commerical version in any particular instance.

When DW is used in the government versions, I would suspect, the doctrines, database, and mission files all come in a single package, with individual missions being paired to doctrine sets and database files.

If a team of scripters and testers spent about a week or so on a single mission package, using data fit into the sim from classified sources and real world experience, they could have a simulator experience that came damn close to modelling the necessary functions in specific tactical situations with real values in play.

This of course is using the government-only DW NSE and interface.

The way we use DW, as a universal database and doctrine set for various missions, is one reason why we are limited in our sim experience, although not really enough for anyone to consider themselves deprived of a lot of minutae and waiting around.

Cheers,
David

[SeaQueen]

Well, of course, I'm simply an "amateur tinkerer" as someone said... but regarding DW, this is one interpretation.

But I always find it interesting to hear repeatly how limited DW is, from people who know not very much about it.


There's nothing necessarily amateurish to what you do. As I've said before, we frequently run into parallel issues in professional wargames. They're frequently quite similar. I think it's fascinating to watch.

I didn't argue there that DW was limited, although sometimes it is. There's stuff that just isn't in there, for whatever reason. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though. I'm sure that if you asked everyone here what their wish list included, it'd be something different. I really like DW.


DW is designed so that individual missions have specific databases and doctrines assigned to it. As a professional, if you used those tools to their full extent, your ability to use the sim would be significantly improved.

That's neat. Being able to modify the database is absolutely essential if you were to use DW as an analysis tool. I can do that. As it stands, though, I don't really care to use DW as an analysis tool. I have better things available, anyway. For me, it's a way to go home and play, "I'm the captain," for the evening. I don't think my ability to use the sim is all that poor, either. Although, the missions I most enjoy probably require a lot less in terms of doctrine language and scripting than most people's. I'm a big fan of simplicity.

[SeaQueen]

The way we use DW, as a universal database and doctrine set for various missions, is one reason why we are limited in our sim experience, although not really enough for anyone to consider themselves deprived of a lot of minutae and waiting around.


You're not really as limited in DW as you sometimes say you are. There is an awful lot to be learned by playing around in DW, modded database and doctrines or not. It's a good sim. Sometimes I think people tend to worry too much about the particulars of system X or system Y.

You're in the COs chair, HELLO! People should worry about the things a CO worries about! A CO is the commanding officer, he or she COMMANDS. DW is great for that. It's about tactical decision making, not noodling around with knobs, switches and buttons. All that is just a means to an end.

But... computer gamers are techies, not officers. That's not their first instinct. They like their knobs, switches and buttons. That's what they're used to worrying about so they tend to focus on that. And besides in all fairness, COs of warships are techies on some level too. It's no accident that the even the English majors at the Naval Academy end up taking a curriculum heavy on science, engineering and math courses. You can't be fascinated by warships and not be a technophile.

Personally, I think DW strikes a great balance between the two extremes to make a fun tactical simulation. What's wrong with that?

[LuftWolf]

Well, like I said, that's one interpretation, but I have a different understanding of where the line should be drawn, afterall, that understanding is the whole basis for what I do with the software.

[LuftWolf]

Also, the crowd that I'm modding for tends to be bored with simple things and desires escalating levels of challenge.

When the bulk of the opinion is that I've added too many features, I'll take that as a compliment and consider myself finished. :yep: :lol:

Basically, I'm modding for the Molon Labes of the world. ;)

Cheers,
David

[SeaQueen]

Also, the crowd that I'm modding for tends to be bored with simple things and desires escalating levels of challenge.

I mean simple not in the sense of something being easy to accomplish, but in the sense that something is conceptually clear.


When the bulk of the opinion is that I've added too many features, I'll take that as a compliment and consider myself finished. :yep: :lol:


It shouldn't be about more or less features it ought to be about what's correct. Did you get to the essense of the subject? I don't care if there's a million features and half of them are wrong, oversimplified, or else just plain ill informed. That's how you turn a simulation into a mere game.

[LuftWolf]

I agree... but I've completely lost the thread of what this has to do with DW...

So, what you are advocating is keeping the game at the "fire from menus" level, where the player gets no reward for considering shots and can guide as many torpedoes as one has torpedo tubes from 25nm away?

It sounds like your ideal mod, would fix nothing. :-?

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

SQ, you should remember that before we started doing this work, I ran a poll, and the results of that poll expressed an overwhelming opinion http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=92860 ... that we should do as much to improve the torpedoes as we possibly could.

And that's what we are doing.

[Nexus7]

You're not really as limited in DW as you sometimes say you are. There is an awful lot to be learned by playing around in DW, modded database and doctrines or not. It's a good sim. Sometimes I think people tend to worry too much about the particulars of system X or system Y.

You're in the COs chair, HELLO! People should worry about the things a CO worries about! A CO is the commanding officer, he or she COMMANDS. DW is great for that. It's about tactical decision making, not noodling around with knobs, switches and buttons. All that is just a means to an end.

But... computer gamers are techies, not officers. That's not their first instinct. They like their knobs, switches and buttons. That's what they're used to worrying about so they tend to focus on that. And besides in all fairness, COs of warships are techies on some level too. It's no accident that the even the English majors at the Naval Academy end up taking a curriculum heavy on science, engineering and math courses. You can't be fascinated by warships and not be a technophile.

Personally, I think DW strikes a great balance between the two extremes to make a fun tactical simulation. What's wrong with that?

I like to play the role of the commander, not of the technician in DW. Before DW was released someone posted a pool regarding the option "multistation".

The question was: what would you like to control in a multimanned sub? If I remember well most votes went to

a) Fire Control Operator
b) Commander

Stuff like TMA operator or Sonar operator received less votes.

My personal preferred position would be commander :smug:

In that position I would like to receive as much info as I can get (yes inclusive the damn contact's depth, but forget about it :) ). Other things I would like are messages or features like:

a) the contact has flooded the torpedo tubes
b) the contact is opening the torpedo tubes
c) missile launch at bearing ###
d) contact is changing depth.
e) ...

A lot of info can be gained mastering the manual TMA (I once was able).

IMHO all those little things would help making tactical decisions and would increase the thrill.

Possibly they would increase what I believe to be the right way to play DW, at his full capabilities: MULTISTATIONS.

If you deliver the sonarman with features like the above you would like to have someone doing exclusively waterfall analysis.

Increasing the complexity of the fire control might result increasing the will to go multistation also.

A good person in the TMA station is an incredible source of info also.

About "the lot of things to learn in DW" what do you address? If it's tactics, then you need a human opponent anyway.

[SeaQueen]

The question was: what would you like to control in a multimanned sub? If I remember well most votes went to

a) Fire Control Operator
b) Commander

Stuff like TMA operator or Sonar operator received less votes.

My personal preferred position would be commander :smug:


For multistation, I think it often makes more sense to give people a couple stations rather than one person to one station. Weps and TMA or sonar and TMA should go to one person. No station in DW is so detailed and complex that it requires the attention of a single individual full time. Those stations are so interelated that it makes sense in my mind to have one person doing all of them, particularly if the person is fairly competant.

Personally, I prefer giving sonar and TMA to one person because the person with sonar can often get a feel for bearing rates, whether the towed array is stable or not, and other things like that. If you do TMA like I do TMA, then that's ideal. I someone doesn't do TMA like I do, though, I'd rather do it myself.

Periscope, helm control and EW go to the "CO" Really, though, I think subs are probably at their most efficient with two or three people running them, provided everyone REALLY knows what they're doing.

I agree, though, it would be a lot of fun to sit down and really build a working TEAM for this game in multistation. I'd probably end up getting frustrated, though. I'm a freak here, I guess, in the sense that I see depth in things that a lot of people take for granted, and don't obsess over the things a lot of people seem to think are important.


a) the contact has flooded the torpedo tubes
b) the contact is opening the torpedo tubes
c) missile launch at bearing ###
d) contact is changing depth.
e) ...


All of that is information revealed by transients. That goes back to what sonar was saying earlier. I also wish that the TIW call went away. If you can't recognize a torpedo on your sonar screen, then you're SOL in my opinion.


A lot of info can be gained mastering the manual TMA (I once was able).

IMHO all those little things would help making tactical decisions and would increase the thrill.


Absolutely. It'd change the game in a lot of ways.


About "the lot of things to learn in DW" what do you address? If it's tactics, then you need a human opponent anyway.

I don't think that's necessarily the case at all. I suspect this is another case of people's experiences being driven by the distance scale, though. :damn:

[Nexus7]

I prefer to have a single person on TMA, me as CO deciding about maneuvers, a person on the sonar (given the missile launch transients and the muzzle door transients are given... you miss it, you'll know to late), the fire control to a person... while i maneuver i want to order "launch countermeasures" at the exact moment, and also "prepare to engage sierra##" while I have to care about topo and tactic.

The perfect game is when you manage to have players that can follow orders, that means execute the order without to think twice.

This way I won a quite populate multistation game thank to the firecontrol operator being always ready to perform any order. Quite an experience :rock:

[micky1up]

in real life knowing the depth of the oposing sub is of great tactical importance although in the game you really dont have to worry about it

[Nexus7]

I don't think it's totally pointless even in the game to know contact's depth, If the opponent is able to fire asrocs or has to attack land targets I can actually make use of that info.