Observations on Realistic Realism and gameplay

pinging would work in theory but as soon as you ping they will start zig zagging and any escort nearby will race in on your position so its not a good tactic to use.

[Rockin Robbins]

I will inject my normal observation that map updates on with TMO or TMOplot (works with any game configuration) is much more realistic than map updates off.

[Bosje]

indeed, as per the first post
i would love the thing which Tater describes but well, you know...

the whole point of this thread is how to play the game (as allowed by the engine) so that you get as close as possible to the real thing
For me, that is still a weird combination of cheating/using exploits/ignoring certain given info

as long as you sometimes miss, you are getting close. weird, huh

[tater]

^^^I actually agree. I keep contact reports on, but only use them for speeds, etc, when I am making radar observations. If I have to use the scope, I use only the scope, and plot myself.

I don't make sound-only attacks.

[NEON DEON]

Sometimes reality will come up and bite you on the arse.

Case in point: The Mark 14 torpedo.

Plain Jane SH IV did a good job modeling the Mk 14.

Fire the torpedo the way it was intended and you will pull your hair out in frustration as you miss over and over again. However. Know the history of this infamous torpedo and you will change your dud rate from 70 % or more to 10 %* or less.


The terrible triad:

Bad magnetic exploder/weak firing pin/improperly positioned depth meter.

All of these things are factored in to the game.

What is not factored in is the knowledge of the SH IV operator.

Know that the firing pin bends at high speed so you set at low speed.

Know magnetic exploder is garbage. Turn it off and set to contact only.

Know the torpedoes run deep. Set them shallow.

Bing bada boom.

Infamous Mk 14 turns into a reliable old friend.

Of course, you could start your career in July 1943 and avoid the torpedo drama altogether.

* Assuming you fire all shots at 90 degrees and about 500 m.

[ichso]

Originally Posted by Bosje

indeed, as per the first post
i would love the thing which Tater describes but well, you know...

the whole point of this thread is how to play the game (as allowed by the engine) so that you get as close as possible to the real thing
For me, that is still a weird combination of cheating/using exploits/ignoring certain given info

as long as you sometimes miss, you are getting close. weird, huh

How close the game gets to the real thing depends on what the real thing is for you.

In part 3 (the last one) of your observations, you wrote that TMO with _no_ map contact updates is more realistic than the stock version _with_ map contact updates.
But even that depends. If you want to play the game fully from a commander's point of view, then some of the 'realism' options are in deed unnecessary. But the stock version _with_ map contacts (for example) just simulates you being the whole crew of this sub and not only it's captain. Because you're also doing all the needed work in estimating the right course for intercepting some vessel.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by ichso

How close the game gets to the real thing depends on what the real thing is for you.

In part 3 (the last one) of your observations, you wrote that TMO with _no_ map contact updates is more realistic than the stock version _with_ map contact updates.
But even that depends. If you want to play the game fully from a commander's point of view, then some of the 'realism' options are in deed unnecessary. But the stock version _with_ map contacts (for example) just simulates you being the whole crew of this sub and not only it's captain. Because you're also doing all the needed work in estimating the right course for intercepting some vessel.

I would have to agree here. I keep map updates on. Come on, I got a man for plot...he needs to be plotting. I go look at what he's got on the plot. I make plans for attack. Look, I have enough on my hands just setting up the attack, setting up torpedoes and keeping from being detected. What next, do I need to start making the bisquits in the galley also

[MonTana_Prussian]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I would have to agree here. I keep map updates on. Come on, I got a man for plot...he needs to be plotting. I go look at what he's got on the plot. I make plans for attack. Look, I have enough on my hands just setting up the attack, setting up torpedoes and keeping from being detected. What next, do I need to start making the bisquits in the galley also

I agree as well. I used to play with contacts off,but came to the same conclusion,there is a quartermaster who is supposede to keep the plot,and I CAN walk over and look,soooo....I do

[XLjedi]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

I will inject my normal observation that map updates on with TMO or TMOplot (works with any game configuration) is much more realistic than map updates off.

And I will add my usual rebuttle...

That's only true from the captains perspective... and if you argue that map updates are more realistic from the captains perspective because there's a tracking party working on it, then it would also be more realistic to have your XO automatically feeding you the firing solutions.

A blank map is far more realistic for manual tracking than knowing perfect target position just as manual targeting is far more realistic than a perfect XO solution.

[gimpy117]

somebody's gotta build a bridge to play this game on...like a big projector and all

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by aaronblood

And I will add my usual rebuttle...

That's only true from the captains perspective... and if you argue that map updates are more realistic from the captains perspective because there's a tracking party working on it, then it would also be more realistic to have your XO automatically feeding you the firing solutions.

A blank map is far more realistic for manual tracking than knowing perfect target position just as manual targeting is far more realistic than a perfect XO solution.

And that's why the game has options. Some people LIKE to drive the plane with a paper bag over their head... Others are happy being normal old VFR pilots. They would be really happy if IFR meant "I follow roads."

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

I will inject my normal observation that map updates on with TMO or TMOplot (works with any game configuration) is much more realistic than map updates off.

This has been a complex issue for me...map updates and realism. I don't want everything laid out for me, but at the same time I can hardly pull off an attack with updates off against a fast TF. Usually my tracking is off, takes forever to figure course. I've gotten better using the nomo. Then getting speed down...the ping thing doesn't work. Just no way to get the ping to hit on the 3 minute mark or I'm just stupid..and then the dd's are alerted.

Sure, single merchants or small convoys are not much or a problem, but get a fast TF, it's almost impossible to have to do every job in the sub.

Also when attacking you're limited to needed info without updates. Basically you get info on the closest target, but no crew member will let you know 3 other dd's are coming from different angles. You can't watch several ships, there directions, ect, by yourself. It would be great while attacking if each watchman updated you about his sector, but that ain't gonna happen.

At first I thought updates gave too much info, but now I play with updates on most the time. Most of the info updates give is info the equipment and crew would have on hand. Still, there is a thrill when you have them off and get it right. I now alter patrols with updates on or off, depending on how much time I have. I think updates on and cams off make a decent game.

If there is a better way to determine course with updates off, I would play that way. I find I can only do it with pinging or radar and then I'm off 20 degrees. I can't do it eyeballing. What am I missing?

I would prefer a balance. No tails anywhere and within say 3000 yards, no blobs or anything. I would prefer planes not show up at all, just the crew info...and another dozen things. If I just got a message giving me the course and general speed I would be happy.

[DaveyJ576]

Here is one of my takes on "realistic realism" (I love that term!).

SHIV is actually harder to play in one aspect than real life! That is the concept of "spatial vision" during an attack, i.e. being able to maintain a mental picture of what is going on above you.

While in the conning tower, especially while using the periscope, you have many visual, aural, and physical cues to tell you which direction you are looking, and in which direction the enemy is in relation to you. For instance, if you are looking out of the scope and the helmsman is to your left, then you know you are looking to starboard. If you are on #1 scope and while turning it your butt hits #2 scope, you know you are looking ahead. Once you become finely tuned to the environment around you, you can even make a fairly accurate guess as to the actual bearing you are pointed to, even without looking at the bearing ring above your head. Even after you have lowered the scope, all of these cues, when combined with what you saw allows you to develop a three dimensional picture in your head of the tactical situation on the surface. This greatly aids in effectively maneuvering your boat either for attack or evasion, especially when things go south and you have to make a snap decision on how to maneuver.

SHIV is two dimensional and is utterly lacking in all of these cues. If you are using the scope and spinning it around, the only way to know which direction you are looking is to glance at the bearing display, but to do that you have to take your eyes off of the scope picture! And then for a nub who may not know right away that 000 means dead ahead, 270 is on your beam to the left, 180 is astern, etc. it is even more confusing.

I think that the game adequately makes up for this situation by providing you with the map updates with the boat and ship cursors.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't SH1 use true bearings instead of relative bearings used in SHIV? That makes it even more difficult because you have to constantly convert true to relative and vice versa.

Interestingly, the brand new Virginia class SSN's no longer have a traditional periscope. They use a "photonics mast", which is essentially a sophisticated TV camera on an extendable mast. The image from the camera is displayed on a computer screen in the attack center. The mast can be turned left and right and the camera rotated up and down. The true bearing to which the camera is pointed is displayed on the screen with the image. This puts our modern day submarine warriors in the exact same situation as we are in with SHIV! I am obviously simplifying the situation a little and our modern submariners have other tools to work with, but I can see it providing some problems with spatial vision and the mental picture of the battlefield.

[ichso]

This is a very good point.

This phenomenom you mentioned, usually comes into effect in simulators of aircraft for example. There you have much less 'feel' for the control over your vessel, even with a very good force feedback joystick, pedals, many monitors, ...
What is lacking, is that just every input like from centrifugal force and gravity are missing. And controlling a plane just from visual inputs makes it like ten times harder than to do it in real life. You react slower and less reliable. (At least I imagine it this way when comparing it to driving a car in real life).

Your explanation sounds like a nice way to find the same kind of effects in a submarine simulation to. How they effect situational awareness and orientation in space. Which is just much harder when sitting in front of a flat screen.

[Morpheus]

i like this thread

You have to think in Layers.

Shrek: NO. Layers. Onions have layers. Ogres have layers. Onions have layers. You get it? We both have layers.

Donkey: Oh, you both have layers. Oh. You know, not everybody like onions

kr morph