Observations on Realistic Realism and gameplay

[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.

[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."

[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