active sonar doctrine question

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Renzie said as much, way back in the day.
The TMA has been improved (which is to say has had more error added to it) in the 1.03 patch, so this has been partially addressed.

It surprises me that they did it the way they did, then. Speiss and Ekelund both have a certain amount of error built in. I guess the hard thing is getting it to know what ranging techniques to use when. *shrug*

[Kapitan]

i use auto crew purely because im to busy to work all the stations even during a battle im only in one place and i dont shift from there

its not cause i cheat its cause i havnt the time to figure out tactics or next move while operation some other piece of the boat

im only one person you know

[jason taylor]

Using autocrew seems appropriate. For one thing it allows me to gradual learn. For another it is realistic. One can picture a busybody captain going around the different stations to check up, so me doing the same thing is not unrealistic. It is harder to picture handling all at once.
I avoid using the autocrew on the Active though. I don't know if it can really go active without my orders*and I don't want to find out in an inconvenient manner. How much active may be used is obviously a matter of opinion but I am sure that that is a decision I definitely want to reserve to myself.


*isn't it to bad that you can't threaten virtual crewmen with an assignment to garbage duty?

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Using autocrew seems appropriate. For one thing it allows me to gradual learn. For another it is realistic. One can picture a busybody captain going around the different stations to check up, so me doing the same thing is not unrealistic. It is harder to picture handling all at once.

Yeah.. but in real life the stations demand more of your attention too. The way I see it, realism wise, is that they're both "realistic" in some sense. I think it's more of a matter of personal preference.

I *like* doing TMA and fussing over bearing rates, so I do it.

The missions I like to play are frequently very long compared to what a lot of other people play too. It's not always possible for me to stare at a sonar screen all day, so I let my autocrew fill in, mostly so I won't miss something. Honestly, though, by this point, based on the mathematics of things, I usually have a pretty good idea of about when I need to start paying attention anyhow. If I know about how long it takes my Pd to reach about 0.5 given the assumptions I've made about my speed and what not, then I start worrying around the median time to detect. It seems to work pretty well. I call it a victory for Koopman. :-)

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by SeaQueen

Yeah.. but in real life the stations demand more of your attention too. The way I see it, realism wise, is that they're both "realistic" in some sense. I think it's more of a matter of personal preference.

I *like* doing TMA and fussing over bearing rates, so I do it.

The missions I like to play are frequently very long compared to what a lot of other people play too. It's not always possible for me to stare at a sonar screen all day, so I let my autocrew fill in, mostly so I won't miss something. Honestly, though, by this point, based on the mathematics of things, I usually have a pretty good idea of about when I need to start paying attention anyhow. If I know about how long it takes my Pd to reach about 0.5 given the assumptions I've made about my speed and what not, then I start worrying around the median time to detect. It seems to work pretty well. I call it a victory for Koopman. :-)

____________________________________________
By the way there is a story in the RN about a Corvette captain who when he went out on maneuvers clapped a headphones on and waited in the CIC for days, sleeping and eating with the headphones on. During the maneuvers he suddenly woke up from sleep saying, "thats a submarine". When questioned he explained, "it had a metallic sound."

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Black_Dingo

I dont profess to know anything about how the doctrines work, but ive been pondering this one for a long time.

AI submarines and active sonar. in DW they basically dont use it. True, that there are very few occasions where a submarine would need to or want to use it. But, I feel there are certain instances where it would be used.

There are two instances where I feel active sonar would be used in a tactical situation:

1. Rapid detection of a time-sensitive target. in other words, if you were a sub searching for a submerged target and needed to find it quickly and destroy it before it could do something you wanted to prevent it from doing, such as launching an SLBM, sending a radio message, deploying commandoes. You might find the need to send out a blast or two of active sonar.

2. Counter-fire snapshot. If by chance youve been made by the enemy and he's got fish in the water after you. you might want to fire snapshots down the bearing of incoming fish and later send out a blast of active sonar to firm up your solution just before you turn tail and evade his fish. This is a common soviet tactic from the cold-war days when the soviets felt that NATO boats would more often than not get to shoot first. The russian tactic would be to fire snapshots and hammer away with active sonar before taking evasive action.

Any way to implement this into the game for AI subs? like I said before, I know nothing about editing in this game, im just curious and wanting a new experience.

____________________________________________
Active has become more popular with the advent of the Akula. It is wondrously quiet and often needs active to find.
Active is also sometimes used to make the final targetting as you implied.
And it is a way of saying "gotcha". As most of modern naval experience is cold rather then hot war, a means of doing this is advantageous. Obviously that is not the primary purpose but it is a use.