Manual Targeting in TMO different from stock game?

[Gray Lensman]

Originally Posted by jldjs

Don't quit in a rage, try the Ctrl-N cheat to immediately change the weather!!

Did not know that one... Thanks

Seriously, though, to me, the weather model in this game is the only thing seriously flawed enough to ruin the gameplay. I'm hoping that's one of the things addressed in Webster/Rockin Robbins new mod.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Gray Lensman

Did not know that one... Thanks

Seriously, though, to me, the weather model in this game is the only thing seriously flawed enough to ruin the gameplay. I'm hoping that's one of the things addressed in Webster/Rockin Robbins new mod.

You know, that one wasn't even on the radar. But now it is!

Yes, people have asked "if the US submarine TDC was so all-fired sophisticated compared to the German one, why didn't they sink a lot more ships!"

Complexity results in errors. Sometimes complexity results in unquantifiable errors that can't be mitigated. The real Achilles Heel of the stadimeter measurement of range/bearing (yes, in the game, both are always sent together to the TDC when you press send) is that it absolutely depends on correct identification of the target. Most targets in the real war were identified WRONGLY. That will result in an error that can't be predicted or quanified. The secondary problem of the stadimeter is the difficulty of judging exactly where the tip of the mast is, or exactly where in that thick line is the waterline. A one-click error can be a significant number of yards. When combined, these two error sources are a barrel of laughs.

The Germans, and us if we use a constant bearing technique like the Dick O'Kane method, didn't give a rat's patootie about identifying a target except maybe for bragging purposes in the bar between cruises. Range didn't matter much to them because their targeting method only cared about the angle between target track and submarine course and the speed of the target. Get those two somewhere close, close the range to 600 meters and the target goes down.

Simplicity is the simplest way to eliminate error. Every step you can eliminate. Every calculation, every measurement you do not need to make adds to the accuracy of your shooting.

[Mallet]

Can i ask why range doesn't factor in the Dick o'kane method? Kind of confuses me how you could pick any range and the torpedo wouldn't just turn way left to catch a target 10000 yards away versus 1000.

[Rockin Robbins]

When your gyro angle is near zero (angles less than 20 degrees were called "straight shooting" by American manuals) then the lead angle does not change for a target traveling at the same speed on the same course regardless of range. That really sounds opaque and is hard to understand. Try this:



Now you can see that all you need to know is the shoot bearing. Sight down that bearing and when juicy parts of the target present themselves you pull the trigger. Each shot is aimed as a specific spot on the target. It doesn't matter what the range to the target is--you will hit your spot if the target speed and your angle to the track are correct. And that, gentlemen, is what made German U-boats and a select few American sub skippers including Dick O'Kane, so deadly. Simplify! Then simplify more.

Target identification? Who needs it! Stadimeter? What in blue blazes is that doing on my boat? Toss 'em out and lets sink some targets!

[Gray Lensman]

Originally Posted by Mallet

Can i ask why range doesn't factor in the Dick o'kane method? Kind of confuses me how you could pick any range and the torpedo wouldn't just turn way left to catch a target 10000 yards away versus 1000.

edit> RR beat me to it, LOL His small video is a great "perfect" situation example and gets the point across quite elegantly, however, in the real world the torpedo wakes of the first couple of torpedo(s) will most likely be seen traversing in front of the closest targets (unless of course you are using wakeless electric torpedos, gotta love those). That's one of the reasons I prefer the angular standoff shot... less chance of the wake being observed by the closer ships.

Just to clarify, in his (RR's) Dick O'Kane video he accomplishes the straight shot (zero gyro angle) by backing the TDC range setting down against the minimum range stop point.

[Rockin Robbins]

Yes, where multiple ships are concerned you must make several deals with the devil to shoot several. The further away from 90 degrees from the track you get, the smaller chance for a hit and the less error tolerant the solution becomes. Furthermore, if you shoot from ahead of the track the ships are more apt to see the oncoming torpedoes and only need to turn a fraction of a right angle to turn into the oncoming torpedoes and make them miss.

Of course you can sit 90 degrees to the track and use Mark 18s--too slow and THAT reduces your chance of hits while keeping them from seeing the wake.

Dick O'Kane, and I agree totally, said that we get darned close, target ONE target at a time and put her on the bottom. Again, simplifying the process gives maximum success. Return and target another. Repeat until the escorts split for home because they have no merchies to herd.

Yes I've seen fancy videos of multiple ship targeting and they look cool. But in practice you'll come up empty more than bag two or three. One premature explosion with six torpedoes in the water targeting three ships and all three ships go crazy and you waste a great portion of Uncle Sam's money.

Dick O'Kane said that when you have to schlepp back 6000 miles for a torpedo refill you aim every shot and keep it simple. Limit the fancy stuff!

[Gray Lensman]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Yes, where multiple ships are concerned you must make several deals with the devil to shoot several. The further away from 90 degrees from the track you get, the smaller chance for a hit and the less error tolerant the solution becomes. Furthermore, if you shoot from ahead of the track the ships are more apt to see the oncoming torpedoes and only need to turn a fraction of a right angle to turn into the oncoming torpedoes and make them miss.

Of course you can sit 90 degrees to the track and use Mark 18s--too slow and THAT reduces your chance of hits while keeping them from seeing the wake.

Dick O'Kane, and I agree totally, said that we get darned close, target ONE target at a time and put her on the bottom. Again, simplifying the process gives maximum success. Return and target another. Repeat until the escorts split for home because they have no merchies to herd.

Yes I've seen fancy videos of multiple ship targeting and they look cool. But in practice you'll come up empty more than bag two or three. One premature explosion with six torpedoes in the water targeting three ships and all three ships go crazy and you waste a great portion of Uncle Sam's money.

Dick O'Kane said that when you have to schlepp back 6000 miles for a torpedo refill you aim every shot and keep it simple. Limit the fancy stuff!

Generally, if I setup a multi-target solution, it will only be against 2 targets and of course to keep it simple they will be along the same line of sight using an angular vs perpendicular sub line-up and 10-15 AOB/Periscope lead from there, then almost always go deep and wait for the others to pass and perform an end around for a repeat on remainders.

If they are in line, I'll use slow setting torpedo(s) for the first ship, followed by fast setting torpedo(s) for the trailing second ship

If they are side by side, I'll use the fast setting torpedo for both targets as they cross the wire.

This is the part of the game simulation that I particularly enjoy, shooting, escort avoidance, and scooting, instead of immersing myself in all the stadimeter/AOB complications discussed earlier.

Morton/O'Kane did this for efficiency reasons, I do it for immersion enjoyment. LOL

[Rockin Robbins]

What I enjoy is setting up my TDC by radar information half an hour before I maneuver the boat into position and shoot! The work is already done. All I do is verify and shoot. It really helps to keep the workload down and the situational awareness up.

That being said, I've been working on understanding the wrinkles of the stadimeter/conventional American submarine attack. I don't think it's been taught right yet and I want to make a video as clear and easy to understand as my Dick O'Kane, John P Cromwell and vector analysis videos. I want people not to just be robots, plugging in numbers for unknown reasons, but having a reason and a verification and a backup plan for everything.

I don't do it much, so I'm getting enough experience that I won't be an idiot about it.

[Gray Lensman]

Originally Posted by Gray Lensman

Did not know that one... Thanks

Seriously, though, to me, the weather model in this game is the only thing seriously flawed enough to ruin the gameplay. I'm hoping that's one of the things addressed in Webster/Rockin Robbins new mod.

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

You know, that one wasn't even on the radar. But now it is!

<snip>

The actual weather graphic effects especially TMO's are quite OK, it's the weather duration timing that's the real problem, both directions, meaning it stays wind flat 0 way to long also, just as bad as pegged out 15 for game weeks.

Don't know if its possible but there needs to be a way of the weather generator algorithm or internal lookup charts to minimize the super long time maxing out. Doesn't matter if a maxed out effect suddenly turns the other way. That's somewhat realistic at the onset/trailing time of storms, but the only time a sub might have the possibility of the long term weather effects in game would be IF it was traveling in the same direction as the prevailing winds to/from it's base. I wouldn't even advocate for that in game either because it is the most boring part of the game traversing to/from the home base, no need to pester the gamer with a storm following him back from Japan to Midway

I believe Ctrl-N is a stock keyboard command and I've used it TMO as well. Perhaps you have a different keyboard key assignment?

[Gray Lensman]

Originally Posted by jldjs

I believe Ctrl-N is a stock keyboard command and I've used it TMO as well. Perhaps you have a different keyboard key assignment?

Well that's helping to pin down the lack of it on my TMO installation

Even though I'm running TMO, it's in combination with RSRDC overlaying it. This probably confirms what Rockin Robbins implied in another thread that RSRDC did not just stick to varying the campaign files when combined with TMO, it also changed Ducimus' underlying keystroke modifications also and now I'm suspecting other things.

This is relatively minor, but now I'm really wondering what else really was deliberately changed in TMO's behavior when RSRDC was overlaid on top of it.
Everything I read in the various RSRDC documentation files implied that

Quote: (from some RSRDC documentation)

"Run Silent, Run Deep, the Campaign" (RSRDC) is a major rewrite of the campaign layers of SH4 and is designed to overcome the following major "stock" campaign problems..."

Notice the wording "campaign layers", I specifically took that to mean that RSRDC was JUST a campaign layer overwrite, and so was specifically designed to overlay the stock or other MODs without changing their other underlying behaviors. Evidence that the key assignments were changed contradicts the implication that RSRDC "is just a campaign layer overwrite".

Rockin Robbins is probably right when he implied that when playing the TMO/RSRDC combo you are no longer playing TMO... In his (Rockin Robbins) words, that combo is like an "alien" taking over the TMO body.

to Rockin Robbins for opening my eyes to pay attention to noticing subtle differences in TMO