Miss, no straddle

JHS · 08-12-15, 03:37 PM

I could have easily accepted abrstaction in the time of flight and in ship movement between turns. I think most others could have, too.

And, secondary fire and torpedoes could have been abstracted to center the game on big guns. Certainly, shooting star shells could have been abstracted. Having to laboriously plot a routine star shell shoot is ridiculous.

The great pity is that all this ingenuity is just to give the no brains gamer crowd a nautical "Angry Birds". This is a fairly sad commentary. Everything was subordinated to the high-tech "Angry Birds", the shooting, the torps, the incredibly silly air game.

JHS · 08-12-15, 03:58 PM

Squiggly lines over a track chart signify a big zero. Realism, no. The old cardboard counter and paper map ship battle games resulted in ships producing track charts resembling Abstract Expressionist paintings. In fact, in real surface battles you do not see a lot of squiggling because shooting accurately required keeping a straight course. I have the impression this is modeled to some degree in the game, but, at any rate, if you want to hit, you sail straight ahead because it is easier for range calculation. If the other side maneuvers, you have problems. I have noticed that turning about 25 degrees to one side or another can usually throw off the firing of an enemy. The trouble is you usually throw off your own shooting.

The game is assuredly popular, but "Likes" do not make something good. There are designers who are making realistic tablet games which are doing very well. No brainer games are not the only ones making money on tablets.

Julhelm · 08-12-15, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHS

In fact, in real surface battles you do not see a lot of squiggling because shooting accurately required keeping a straight course. I have the impression this is modeled to some degree in the game, but, at any rate, if you want to hit, you sail straight ahead because it is easier for range calculation.

In WW1 this is true. In WW2 the majority of firecontrol equipment is capable of maintaining the target solution even with ownship doing a 360 degree turn.

We have plots for every historical battle featured in the game and we modelled the AI's behavior after historical research.

Go look at the plots for Denmark Straits and North Cape then look at how the AI behaves in Atlantic Fleet.

If the game is crap, then why has it gotten excellent reviews from the likes of SimHQ, Pocket Tactics and this very site? Are those people no-brains gamers too?

CCIP · 08-12-15, 05:55 PM

Don't worry, I assure you that earning a self-entitled hater is a sign that you've done well with the game

JHS · 08-12-15, 07:52 PM

If you had done your research, you would know Captain Langsdorff of the SPEE was heavily criticized for excessive helm changes in the Plate battle. It is not true that WWII fire control computers could predict where a maneuvering ship would be from one second to the next. There was no link between the spotter, computer, and the shell like in contemporary munitions. The computers were able to predict where a ship would be if it mantained a steady course. The Gunnery Officer could guess what a ship was going to do, this was his job to override the computed solution if he thought necessary.

The game is a guilty pleasure. It is annoying, but I like it.

These days ninnies like to label somebody a "hater" if they are not completely enamored of something. Linguistically this is absurd. The real hater is a person who hates so much they would sink to calling somebody a hater. If I hated the game, I would not bother to offer some tips. Criticism is not hate.

I wish you would do a "professional version" for all the surface battle gamers who have nothing to compare with "Silent Hunter".

And, the game really needs a save game feature in case you have to go to the door so you do not lose the custom match you had been playing for an hour and a half.

JHS · 08-12-15, 08:43 PM

The Naval Staff report is in an appendix in Dudley Pope's book on the Plate battle. It specifically states that own ship's helm changes threw off gunnery solutions, and abhored unnecessary maneuvering (Langsdorff was constantly evading). The WWII USN made a cult out of straight course shooting in order to get optimum solutions. This inadvertently played into the hands of Japanese torpedomen in the Guadalcanal surface battle because USN cruisers followed a steady course in battle---and ran right into torpedo spreads. Of course, the late-war USN gunnery radars were so accurate they sometimes gave very good results on the fall of shot. But there was still time-of-flight which could be up to a minute at long range. Nothing could be done to correct the fall of a shell once it left the muzzle.

Julhelm · 08-13-15, 02:12 AM

On the other hand the gunnery of the USN and IJN was pretty bad throughout the war.

We actually had an early realtime prototype that played a lot more like Taskforce 1942 with real distances and more realistic gunnery.

You can have that in a realtime setting because everything happens at once. With the turnbased format you have to make concessions to gameplay or the player will have to suffer through excessively long turns and get bored.

We did actually model degradation of ownship target solution when you maneuver. But because the player has an infinite time to figure out the correct aimpoint this matter little because turnbased. Needless to say this worked better in the realtime prototype.

It was just a bit too ambitious for what we felt we could achieve at the time and it's definitely a concept we want to return to. One has to learn how to walk before he can run.

08-12-15, 05:55 PM	#4
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	Don't worry, I assure you that earning a self-entitled hater is a sign that you've done well with the game __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

08-12-15, 03:37 PM	#1
JHS Watch Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 22 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	I could have easily accepted abrstaction in the time of flight and in ship movement between turns. I think most others could have, too. And, secondary fire and torpedoes could have been abstracted to center the game on big guns. Certainly, shooting star shells could have been abstracted. Having to laboriously plot a routine star shell shoot is ridiculous. The great pity is that all this ingenuity is just to give the no brains gamer crowd a nautical "Angry Birds". This is a fairly sad commentary. Everything was subordinated to the high-tech "Angry Birds", the shooting, the torps, the incredibly silly air game.

08-12-15, 03:58 PM	#2
JHS Watch Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 22 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	Squiggly lines over a track chart signify a big zero. Realism, no. The old cardboard counter and paper map ship battle games resulted in ships producing track charts resembling Abstract Expressionist paintings. In fact, in real surface battles you do not see a lot of squiggling because shooting accurately required keeping a straight course. I have the impression this is modeled to some degree in the game, but, at any rate, if you want to hit, you sail straight ahead because it is easier for range calculation. If the other side maneuvers, you have problems. I have noticed that turning about 25 degrees to one side or another can usually throw off the firing of an enemy. The trouble is you usually throw off your own shooting. The game is assuredly popular, but "Likes" do not make something good. There are designers who are making realistic tablet games which are doing very well. No brainer games are not the only ones making money on tablets.

08-12-15, 07:52 PM	#5
JHS Watch Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 22 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	If you had done your research, you would know Captain Langsdorff of the SPEE was heavily criticized for excessive helm changes in the Plate battle. It is not true that WWII fire control computers could predict where a maneuvering ship would be from one second to the next. There was no link between the spotter, computer, and the shell like in contemporary munitions. The computers were able to predict where a ship would be if it mantained a steady course. The Gunnery Officer could guess what a ship was going to do, this was his job to override the computed solution if he thought necessary. The game is a guilty pleasure. It is annoying, but I like it. These days ninnies like to label somebody a "hater" if they are not completely enamored of something. Linguistically this is absurd. The real hater is a person who hates so much they would sink to calling somebody a hater. If I hated the game, I would not bother to offer some tips. Criticism is not hate. I wish you would do a "professional version" for all the surface battle gamers who have nothing to compare with "Silent Hunter". And, the game really needs a save game feature in case you have to go to the door so you do not lose the custom match you had been playing for an hour and a half.

08-12-15, 08:43 PM	#6
JHS Watch Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 22 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	The Naval Staff report is in an appendix in Dudley Pope's book on the Plate battle. It specifically states that own ship's helm changes threw off gunnery solutions, and abhored unnecessary maneuvering (Langsdorff was constantly evading). The WWII USN made a cult out of straight course shooting in order to get optimum solutions. This inadvertently played into the hands of Japanese torpedomen in the Guadalcanal surface battle because USN cruisers followed a steady course in battle---and ran right into torpedo spreads. Of course, the late-war USN gunnery radars were so accurate they sometimes gave very good results on the fall of shot. But there was still time-of-flight which could be up to a minute at long range. Nothing could be done to correct the fall of a shell once it left the muzzle.

08-13-15, 02:12 AM	#7
Julhelm Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Icy North Posts: 693 Downloads: 189 Uploads: 0	On the other hand the gunnery of the USN and IJN was pretty bad throughout the war. We actually had an early realtime prototype that played a lot more like Taskforce 1942 with real distances and more realistic gunnery. You can have that in a realtime setting because everything happens at once. With the turnbased format you have to make concessions to gameplay or the player will have to suffer through excessively long turns and get bored. We did actually model degradation of ownship target solution when you maneuver. But because the player has an infinite time to figure out the correct aimpoint this matter little because turnbased. Needless to say this worked better in the realtime prototype. It was just a bit too ambitious for what we felt we could achieve at the time and it's definitely a concept we want to return to. One has to learn how to walk before he can run.