[TorpX]

Originally Posted by Crannogman

I think you're missing the fact that figures 1 and 2 show the same thing - the sub is going due East & West in both, and the ships are traveling North-South. The change is this: in Fig1, the "camera" is hovering above the same spot on the earth. In Fig2, the "camera" is hovering above the same ship. Everything else in unchanged. The sub only appears to have a northward cant because the frame of reference is moving south. To a ship moving south, the same sub would appear to have a southward cant.
It's an exercise in relativity. The reason to use the ship's frame of reference is to visually display the area searched by the sub and the areas to which the sub is blind. Fig3 demonstrates that, as the speed of the sub increases relative to the speed of the ship, the gaps in its search pattern shrink until there is noplace to hide

Yes. This is exactly right.

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

You can do all the right things and still lose. It's fundamental game theory. Fluckey was by far the most successful captain of his era of the war. The reason was his strategy: search the maximum number of square miles per day consistent with your mission. Could he search and come up empty? Sure. Was his strategy totally valid? Look at his results. Look at the results of all other boats working in his time frame. What was the difference? Search methods.

Yes, he did very well, but O'Kane also did very well. Flucky's success was also due to his willingness to hunt in shoal waters, that other skippers avoided.

Originally Posted by ColonelSandersLite

You misunderstand. At no point are we assuming that we know the targets speed, location, or exact heading. We're discussing game theory and probability. Card counting as you put it. This isn't in any way about knowing what the target is doing. It is specifically about understanding how what we are doing interacts with what the target is doing and how it changes the odds. If you look at fig 2 above, we don't need to know the targets actual speed. We understand that if he is moving faster, the angles widen, giving decreased relative coverage. If he is moving slower, the angles narrow, giving increased relative coverage. Again, we don't need to know his speed, we're only working to understand the odds and how to play them.

We can make reasoned generalizations about the traffic direction in an area. We can also generalize speeds by saying that almost all merchants are doing 10 knots or less. This isn't black magic. Not unless you consider understanding the probabilities of your tactical situation such anyways.

This is also correct.







The point to the OP is not for me to convert everyone from patrolling in their favorite way, to patrolling in my favorite way, but rather to provide some kind of objective guideline for players (especially newer ones), who may not want to do the geometry.



A while ago, I was watching one of the 'Let's Play...' videos about SH4 (not anyone here). The author sailed from base to patrol area, and another area, burning through a lot of fuel at high TC. He seemed genuinely surprised and frustrated that he didn't find anything before having to find a place to refuel. As far as he knew, he was doing what he was supposed to, going to an enemy controlled sea, looking around, then going to another, and another... Most experienced SH players develop an intuitive understanding of good patrol practice, even if they can't follow all the math. They would not have made such a mistake. New, or casual, players may be in the dark about this.

Originally Posted by ColonelSandersLite

The actual math on this sort of thing was probably worked out a *long* time ago due to how pertinent this thinking is to every navy on the planet. The thing is that I have no idea where to find the information.

You know, you're right. They had to know this. Perhaps they didn't put it in all the usual manuals because they considered it elementary.





Oh, and the link should work now. I changed to a different table to make clear I was using Vu for sub speed, Vt for target speed, etc.