Realism of the Map and WO-generated Fire Control Solutions

[sayaret]

i get your point, but as somone said already, things like experience or being tired in reality wouldnt affect map plotting at all. These are two diffrent things.

[Ragtag]

Another thing is the way of "knowing" your crews skill. When you know your crew ain't experts, you definatly know that the solution you get will be wrong 90% of the time. Due to this you know that you will miss unless you check for a solution yourself. It kinda makes a feature like this useless. It would be cool with a random feature like this but i don't think it would work well gamewise.

[Leif...]

Even if the crew isn't experienced in real combat, they should be well trained and fully capable to what they where trained to do, even on their first mission.

[Hitman]

I simply assume that it's my crew that's taking down the bearings from the guy manning the periscope and plotting them on the map.

But in a real WW2 UBoat that guy was YOU as commander

When conducting surface attacks at night it was the IWO who gave the target data to the TDC operator, and the commander simply directed the uboat and payed attention to the tactical situation. But in all submerged attacks, it was the commander who did it all.

It would be awesome if in SH5; the quality of your map depended entirely on how rested and well trained your crew was -- a poorly trained bridge crew that's tired would plot an attack map that bore no relation to reality -- ships misidentified, ranges wrong, bearings wrong; and slow to update.

A plot was conducted only in surface during daytime when doing an end-around a convoy or fast ship. In those cases, it was again the commander who conned the boat and gave to the navigator bearings and ranges to make a plot.

Likewise; when I lock onto a ship and tell my Weapons officer to give me a bearing to fire in SH3; I wished that the accuracy and speed in which he generated a fire control solution depended on his experience.

That would be absolutely correct in historic terms

[Donkey-Shot11]

Getting an accurate range, speed and angle on the bow using only visual aids takes a lot off skill and experience.

Reading and writing down the information gathered takes only one skill: litteracy!
I can imagine that crew qaulity might have dropped a bit as the war dragged on.
But I don't think the Kreigsmarine dropped the ability to read and write from the list of crew requirements.

For the guy making a plot on the plotting table, the folling basic skills are needed:
- he needs to be able to hear the bearing and range the captain/XO calls out
- he needs to be able to write this information down
- he needs to be able to draw said info on the plot table

Not exactly rocket science, is it? From there he should easily be able to make a plot. It's something I learned when I was 16 and I learned it one afternoon.
No amount of fatigue or inexperience should render him: deaf, blind and unable to hold a pen, ruler and a set of compasses.

I think it's reasonable to assume that, since the guy is on the boat, he had training and he actualy passed his exams.
And if I, as bearly interested 16 year old, was able to learn to plot on a plotting table in one afternoon; I think it's reasonable to expect a fully trained and qualified u-boot crewmember would be able to do the same, if not a hell of lot better.

I raised this point in an earlier post, I don't remember wich one, and got the comment "well, they didn't have radar, so accurate ranging was impossible".
That's right, they didn't have radar. They did have a stadimeter and, this is where experience does kick in, they had a good seamans eye.

So, with the info gather by the captain (you) or your XO, the assigned crewmember should be able to easily make an accurate plot with the info you gathered for him.
Natuarly it follows that: if you got the range and/or (a hell of a lot less likely) the bearing wrong, the plot won't be worth much either.

Just my two cents. By the way, I rather liked the way the map was updated in 688i, you mess up your readings, the maps gonna give an accurate representation of your screw up.

[Apocal]

Originally Posted by Donkey-Shot11

For the guy making a plot on the plotting table, the folling basic skills are needed:
- he needs to be able to hear the bearing and range the captain/XO calls out
- he needs to be able to write this information down
- he needs to be able to draw said info on the plot table

Not exactly rocket science, is it?

Dunno how the KM set things up in WW2, but the guy was supposed to provide estimations of the target's position based on said plot, minutes after the last observation when I was first familiarized with it.

[PL_Andrev]

Good!
If you as a captain do mistakes (wrong distance measurement, unit type), why your officers are perfect?

In SH4 (SH3 too?) was the command (available on surface) "distance to the nearest target" - perfect measurement at 100% difficulty level.

I wish tolerance depends from crew experience and especially weather conditions.

[Donkey-Shot11]

Originally Posted by Apocal

Dunno how the KM set things up in WW2, but the guy was supposed to provide estimations of the target's position based on said plot, minutes after the last observation when I was first familiarized with it.

Wich is easy, as long as the target (or targets) haven't changed course and/or speed. If you're initial plot is accurate and if your target(s) continue on a steady course and speed, it's a simple matter of extending the targets track and update their position on time passed/distance travelled.

If target is heading 90 degrees true and his speed is 10 knots.
One hour later he'll be exactly 10 nautical miles east of his last known position.

Again, not exactly rocket science.

Things get a little more interesting off course if the target changes heading and/or speed.