Miss, no straddle

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.

JHS · 08-14-15, 08:39 PM

After many playtests, I have noticed an anomaly in the wind effects. In "Pacific Fleet" one could aim fairly accurately by accounting for wind direction and strength. In "Atlantic Fleet", there seems to be no rhyme or reason to wind strength and direction. If a very strong wind is blowing in the same direction as my line of fire, I, naturally, aim very short. My shells still fly way over the target, even in the case of very heavy dreadnought shells. I have found no logic to the wind effects. Often, I am able to hit accurately just by aiming right at the target, even when I am shooting in a strong wind. I did check to be sure wind was toggled in preferences.

Same oddness in all varieties of wind and directions. This is frustrating because I basically have no idea where my shells will land, and the AI, unless I am zigzagging or making large course changes, is hitting accurately regardless of wind effects.

In PF, I could aim short to get devastating hulling hits. I try this at cliose range in AF, and found his very hard to to do.

Killerfish Games · 08-16-15, 08:48 PM

Just to check: you're aware that wind doesn't effect shell flight unless you turn the option on to for it to do so?

Wind always effects aircraft payloads though.

08-16-15, 08:48 PM	#5
Killerfish Games Cold Waters Developer Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 274 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Just to check: you're aware that wind doesn't effect shell flight unless you turn the option on to for it to do so? Wind always effects aircraft payloads though. __________________ Visit Killerfish Games for more info and ongoing discussion.

08-12-15, 07:52 PM	#1
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	#2
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	#3
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.

08-14-15, 08:39 PM	#4
JHS Watch Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 22 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	After many playtests, I have noticed an anomaly in the wind effects. In "Pacific Fleet" one could aim fairly accurately by accounting for wind direction and strength. In "Atlantic Fleet", there seems to be no rhyme or reason to wind strength and direction. If a very strong wind is blowing in the same direction as my line of fire, I, naturally, aim very short. My shells still fly way over the target, even in the case of very heavy dreadnought shells. I have found no logic to the wind effects. Often, I am able to hit accurately just by aiming right at the target, even when I am shooting in a strong wind. I did check to be sure wind was toggled in preferences. Same oddness in all varieties of wind and directions. This is frustrating because I basically have no idea where my shells will land, and the AI, unless I am zigzagging or making large course changes, is hitting accurately regardless of wind effects. In PF, I could aim short to get devastating hulling hits. I try this at cliose range in AF, and found his very hard to to do.