A neat little trick?

[swimsalot]

Originally Posted by Kurushio

People like this is why I've pretty much given up playing online. My opinion.

Look me up, I'll dive with ya any time!

And ML summed it up quite nicely.

Originally Posted by swimsalot

Look me up, I'll dive with ya any time!

And ML summed it up quite nicely.

Thanks...I might do that.

[LuftWolf]

I have played games with many people from subsim, and I've never had a problem.

[swimsalot]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

I have played games with many people from subsim, and I've never had a problem.

Agree!
Gamespy for some reason seems to be where alot of "interesting" things happen. Don't know why.
ICQ is 249-548-432 by the way, look me up for a dive guys

[Three14]

Originally Posted by Fish

Agree with ML and Goldorak here.
About exploiting such things, I know in 688 all kinds of exploits are used, for example after six years of multiplayer someone found you could "easely" evade torpedos, going all back emergencie, using High Freq sonar to follow the torps.
Also you can go 40 knts at the surface following shallow torpedos with your radar.
I don't think we should punish a diver for using a SLMM as a decoy, in war you use all you have to survive. It's not a cheat in my opinion and when you don't like what he is doing your free to look for a other diver.
As ML< I tested the SLMM as decoy, but the torps won't be spoofed.
Remember the Chinees (Worker) are restricted in there internet use bij the Chinees covernment, I wonder if that has something to do with the problem. cq LAG.

I figured out the all back thing a long time before -- actually, the true mechanism has to do with the CM programming in multiplayer. Going backwards isn't necessary at all, unless you really lacked confidence. I wrote something and sent it through my fleet when I discovered it (while trying to time how long it took for CM to expire), but I guess nobody thought it was very big or they didn't want to upset the play anymore than it already was (probably the former).

Broke the game for me. I kept playing because of the nice people, but the game itself lost a lot. It wasn't much a submarine game before that, and it was less afterwards. Fortunately, although I freely explained what I was doing and why it worked (and why some evasion tactics worked when slight variations didn't), not many people digested it and so only some basic tactics came out of it (like driving backwards).

[Three14]

Some random information:

I lived in China for awhile, and I'm actually involved with some cross-border research. I don't know if it bears on this, but we're doing something between Guangzhou and Texas and our pings are around 500ms. That's not great, but it's a sub game...

However, what is particularly bad between our two research centers is the packet loss. We don't have a good way to get around it, although our HK site connects to the US without problem. My guess, after looking at tracert, is that it's the Chinese backbone that is giving us trouble. We might try calling HK and connecting via dialup.

--

I haven't read Bluebook in awhile, but the SLMM tactic I remember (born in the 688 days) was to use the SLMM to blow up the incoming torps. I didn't find this method that useful, myself, since evasion was always very easy in that game, but blowing things up had other uses (like masking firing).

What did stick out about the Bluebook was that it involved tactics for a game. Some tactics were from real life that worked in the game (and some probably didn't but nobody knew for sure), but the best ones were for the game. So, in the game world, an SLMM is not metal. There is no water. The stuff on the screen in active is probably just randomly generated with a blip for real contacts (which explains why you could mark targets when you see nothing, but not mark nothing if the noise looked good). It may or may not register as a contact to torpedoes. If, in reality, an ADCAP torpedo could not differentiate between a WW2 era torpedo and a 300+ foot-long submarine, I'd say that somebody owes me a tax refund.

Anyway, it's a game, and there are different reasons to play. Playing to win, or get kills, is nice, but I would then not expect the "winning" way to play to correspond to a Tom Clancy (or even cheesier) novel.

Can we stop with the Tom Clancy bashing? He's my hero.

[jason taylor]

I have no comment here. However I have been looking for this thread for a long time so I thought an easy way to mark it was to make an irrelevant post and look it up when I want to read more. A "sonobuoy" if you will.

[Pisces]

How about just using the search option on this forum. If everyone does this it sure is goint to clutter.

[jason taylor]

I didn't remember the threads title

[Pisces]

In that case, another option that is far easier than adding another post, is to add to your bookmarks in your browser.

Oh well, you got the point I'm sure.

[jason taylor]

In any case this whole thing seems to depend on whether it is viewed as a game or a simulation. If a game then it has set rules. If a sim, well in war there is no such thing as fighting fair(if you except basics like-"thou shalt not shoot shipwrecked sailors", etc).
It is obvious from history that nobody really knows what will happen. What if the real torpedo had a corresponding bug in it?
Moreover even if doctrine is wrong murphy's law must always be accounted for.
If the torpedo was not decoyed by the SLMM what did happen. Did it just cruise by merrily? Did it stop to sniff at the SLMM for half a second then move on. Did it change course near the SLMM at any time(in which case maybe it really was decoyed).