Observations on Realistic Realism and gameplay

[Bosje]

lol, actually it is about what's realistic, in the sense that realism is extremely subjective and as such, always worth a discussion from where i'm sitting.

Moving right along because i'm having fun writing this. stop me if i'm boring you guys and girls:


Flooding tubes one through four! Torpedo attacks.


Back in the days of playing SH1 and 2 on easy settings I always used to wonder why they called it the solution. After locking onto the target it said something like solution 60%, 70%, 80%, 85%... good enough, FIRE! I took the solution percentages to be the odds of hitting the target and that's what it basically amounts to. Here is why: your boat probably moves (if only at one knot), the target probably moves and the torpedo most certainly moves. So how do you get the torpedo to meet with the target at a specific time and place? This is the much discussed Torpedo Firing Problem and solving the problem results, logically, in a Solution. It's simply the angle at which you fire the torpedo so that it meets the target as they both move on their own paths. Torpedoes were the 'smart weapons' of their day, even if the early versions could do little else than maintain a certain depth (which they in fact failed to do during the early war years, in both theatres) and travel in a certain direction. For more information on this subject and on the interesting details of early war torpedo problems, please read Ducimus' excellent thread ( http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=128185 ).


How to come up with this solution to the torpedo firing problem? Generally, the idea of realistic gameplay calls for Manual Targeting to be checked ON in the realism options, because that will remove the 'point and shoot' function from the game. Some players are not interested in drawing lines and measuring ranges and speeds and angles on the chart, they choose to let their crew handle this aspect of the game. As with so many aspects of gameplay: each his own. Speaking for myself, I started to do manual targeting several months ago and it's both hard and rewarding. Somewhere halfway through a steep learning curve I started hitting some targets and it feels great to know you got it right, after carefully collecting all the required data. These forums feature many excellent guides, tutorial videos and suggestions on how to master the fine art of manual torpedo attacks and a basic search should give the player many hours worth of material to study.


An interesting compromise is to disable the point and shoot function but to still allow the weapon's officer (SH3) to calculate the solution for you. You can have a go at it yourself and then have the officer check it for you, if you will. Of interest in this widely discussed topic is the following notion from the documentary on US fleet boat attack strategies (Link Referral in Ducimus' thread):


Each individual skipper had his own style of attack, the necessary data was gathered by a team of crewmembers using all the different sensors and equipment at their disposal. Each commander had his own team organized to his own personal taste. Some commanders took charge of the attack from the periscope view, others had their XO take care of target data acquisition while the commander himself oversaw the whole team's efforts from the conning tower.


Interestingly, then, the skipper was not solely responsible for getting the data all by himself. If you watch 'Das Boot' there are two interesting scenes involving torpedo attacks. First they engage a destroyer from periscope depth where the commander has his eye on the periscope, calling out the values to the XO who is with him in the conning tower and then the XO transfers those values down to the crew who put them into the TDC (or German equivalent thereof). The other attack is a nightly surface run at a convoy where the commander does nothing except keeping an eye on the convoy and calling out which targets are to be engaged, the XO is on the UZO (German equivalent of the TBT) and calls the bearings, ranges, speeds and AoBs. ('Lage 60' translates as 'Angle on Bow 60', unless I am much mistaken).


So neither scene in 'Das Boot' features the commander having to go to the attack map and twisting all the dials and inputting all the settings, after calculating all those values in the first place from the navigation plot, after manually observing all the values from the periscope or UZO views to begin with... all of which needs to be done in a short space of time while the boat is in extremely close range of a heavily guarded convoy...but it's a game and in the end, it is the commander who decides which speeds and depths and triggers are to be used. It's just that the game requires you to set those values yourself, as well as all the other values if you go for manual targeting. (And to be honest, I wouldnt trust any AI to decide on torpedo depth and speed settings for me.) Tough.


But then, nobody said it had to be easy. Using the assistance of your crew when engaging a target with torpedoes is both historically accurate and realistic, if you want it to be. Doing it all yourself is equally real. Remember, it's all in your head.


Keeping this in mind, there is also a remark on the previously mentioned 'TMO vs RFB' thread which says: TMO with 'realistic map updates' OFF is actually more realistic than the stock game with 'realistic map updates' turned ON. For those who have no idea what I'm talking about here: 100% realism in the stock game results in contacts not being shown on your plotting map. Thus, you have to do draw every line on the plot by personally marking the bearing and the range at certain intervals in order to get the necessary data to hit the target. This is indeed a challenge but it's actually more of a challenge than that which faced the skippers of the day. Historically, the commander (you) would not have to do it all by himself, he had a navigator who plotted the target on the charts, based on the details given by the officers and crew on the bridge, or by the hydrophone operator, or by the radar operator, or by any officer who was looking through the periscope or UZO/TBT. Getting the exact speed and heading of the target was a process which involved time, multiple marks of bearing and range estimates, and more time to confirm if the estimated values were correct. So then TMO's dot on the charts with a basic mention of 'generally heading north east at slow speed' is a lot more 'realistic' than having to do that all on your own. Here we reach the weird conclusion that the stock game at 100% realism is not realistic at all, it is simply a very hard (and very satisfying, if you like that kind of thing) way of playing the game.


My roommate is very happy to play the game on low realism settings without mods, he zips through an entire war patrol in around 2 hours of real time, sinking at least 60k tons of shipping, he hates duds and yet, of course, he loves the game as he plays it, who am I to judge? He fails to see what possesses me to sit there for an hour, looking at a stopwatch, drawing lines, muttering numbers and punching on my pocket calculator, finally firing one torpedo and then cursing like a dockworker when the thing misses or fails to explode. Then going through another half hour of drawing lines because the target now takes evasive action and requires a new session of data collection. But I love the game as I play it, who is he to judge? I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but: Each his own.


Having said all that, here is my take on torpedo attacks: For those who want to have a taste of the problems, the careful collection of data, the anticipation of setting up for the attack, the excitement of hitting the target and the frustration of missing the target...in other words for getting the most out of an emotionally realistic approach to the game: I recommend getting familiar with manual targeting and all the different methods and styles which are available for it. Dick O Kane and Fast 90 appear to be the most famous but there are many ways to catch a monkey. Even shooting from the hip is possible, when you realize that one knot roughly equals one degree for fast torpedoes, provided that the target steams more or less at a 90 degree angle across your sights. I am by no means a crack shot myself but I have sometimes hit destroyers by aiming 15 degrees ahead of them as they made their turn around me: lucky shots, educated guesses, instincts developed after firing so many shots. And of course reading any relevant threads on these forums. There are the famous historical accounts of commanders using a protruding bit of metal as an improvised aiming device, of commanders using their instincts and experience to set their torpedoes loose on seemingly random guesses and hitting their targets, to the amazement and reverence of their crews. Experience will come to you too, in due time, and you will find yourself more and more confident about your aim. Personally, I think it's worth the time and frustration it takes to learn. But is point and shoot Unrealistic? Is using map updates Cheating? No. Developing your own style and having your team tasked and set up to personal taste is exactly what they did in real life.

The End

It got a bit out of hand but these are, for now, my observations on realistic gameplay, as they came to mind. If anyone finds this helpful in getting more enjoyment out of the game, then I consider the mission successful. (forgot all about external camera usage while under depthcharge attack etc, maybe some other time )