Guides and Training

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Hmuda

I would like to clarify a few things.

The method I use is when I take a few measurements, place the solution ahead of the target's course and then fire as those vulnerable parts cross the wire. Is this what the 'Constant Bearing Method' is, right? If the target doesn't do something unexpected, I almost always score a hit (duds included :P ).

Now, I read in the DOC method that you can safely alter the bearing a few degrees without loosing enough AOB to miss. My question is: why do you suggest we go from bow to aft on the target? Is there a special reason, or can we just as well go from aft to bow?

On the first question, yes, these are constant bearing attacks. They are called constant bearing because you aim for an constant bearing and wait for your quarry to cross your sights. You are just timing the shot to hit where you want. So with a constant bearing attack you are aimed at a constant spot and waiting for the target to be there. The Dick O'Kane, John P Cromwell and Vector Analysis Techniques are all constant bearing attacks.

Second question: There are two basic families of torpedo spreads, longitudinal, where all the torpedoes follow a single path to the target or targets, and a divergent spread, where each torpedo takes an individual path. The paths in a divergent spread fan out from the submarine.

With a constant bearing attack, the easiest spread to shoot is the longitudinal spread because the bow crosses the wire and you shoot, the main stack crosses and you shoot, the aft crane passes and you shoot. And that is where your torpedoes will hit because of the timing of the shots.

So why wouldn't the bow, MOT, stern attack be best all the time? Well, in a John P Cromwell attack, where you are 45º ahead of the target, here comes three torpedoes in a single line toward your ship and you sight them. All you have to do is turn into them so that line doesn't intersect your new course and you've avoided all the torpedoes.

But suppose in the submarine, you take the trouble of reversing the procedure and shoot stern, MOT, bow. That is the most divergent possible spread, with the torpedoes taking the most widely separated 3 paths to the target. Not only that but the stern is further away than the bow, but you shoot that first. So not only are there three paths to avoid but as long as you can shoot in a moderate hurry all three torpedoes will strike at almost exactly the same time! MEGABOOM!

I'm playing too much Unreal Tournament 3. The game isn't so good, but the commentator booming MEGAKILL! is just awesome. It makes the game really addictive.

[Hmuda]

Got it, that's a useful thing to know. Thanks.

[vanjast]

When I could, I always did that constant longitude attack in SH3 - managed to nobb 3 ships (1 sank and gunned the other 2 a few hours later).

This depended on where the juicy ships were.

[groomsie]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

So why wouldn't the bow, MOT, stern attack be best all the time? Well, in a John P Cromwell attack, where you are 45º ahead of the target, here comes three torpedoes in a single line toward your ship and you sight them. All you have to do is turn into them so that line doesn't intersect your new course and you've avoided all the torpedoes.

But suppose in the submarine, you take the trouble of reversing the procedure and shoot stern, MOT, bow. That is the most divergent possible spread, with the torpedoes taking the most widely separated 3 paths to the target. Not only that but the stern is further away than the bow, but you shoot that first. So not only are there three paths to avoid but as long as you can shoot in a moderate hurry all three torpedoes will strike at almost exactly the same time! MEGABOOM!

RR, you specifically cite the JPC attack in this example--does the principle work for the DOK method and vector analysis method as well?

I ask because I use the JPC when I can set up for it, but typically I'm doing the DOK. Using the stern-middle-bow shots I seem to get more misses and have been avoiding it thus. I do re-click the settings (re-input) with new wire angle, so maybe that is throwing my solution out to lunch?

[Rockin Robbins]

Oh yes! It works just the same for the Dick O'Kane technique or vector analysis method. And it has the same limitations there. You are going to absorb some AoB error, which is inconsequential at the right angle Dick O'Kane attack and more and more consequential as the torpedo track angle increases or decreases from 90º.

Personally, at night I don't bother with this. During the day, where there is danger of the target seeing and avoiding, the stern, MOT, bow shot becomes more and more useful.

[groomsie]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Oh yes! It works just the same for the Dick O'Kane technique or vector analysis method. And it has the same limitations there. You are going to absorb some AoB error, which is inconsequential at the right angle Dick O'Kane attack and more and more consequential as the torpedo track angle increases or decreases from 90º.

Personally, at night I don't bother with this. During the day, where there is danger of the target seeing and avoiding, the stern, MOT, bow shot becomes more and more useful.

So do you reclick to send data to the TDC when resetting the scope firing bearing? Or do you just fire after restting the scope firing bearing and assume the change in AOB and such is negligible? I'm assuming at this point the latter.

[Rockin Robbins]

Setting the AoB would involve going to the AoB dial and resetting. We don't have time for that. What we WILL have to resend is the periscope shoot bearing. You'll re-aim ahead of the target, hold the periscope on that new bearing, click send range/bearing and wait for your new juicy part of the target to cross the wire, at which time you'll send your regards to the Emperor for that part of his ship.

So it's shoot the stern, leapfrog ahead (click), shoot MOT, leapfrog ahead (click), shoot the bow, watch the fireworks.

[ichso]

Those tutorials are still too easy

Since I used the Real Navigation mod in SH3 I was forced to track the movements of my own boat from the start of my map drawings on, too (because the mod removes all of the magically real time updated sub markes from all maps).
This makes the whole process quite more interesting. You can't just position yourself along the course line of your target anymore, you have to estimate in which direction you would have to travel for how long to get into the desired position and would also have to recheck your targets range and bearing constantly to become aware of errors in the process soon enough to adjust for them.
It was still a ery successful method using the fast 90 tactic. I'm still new to SH4 and got a bit confused by the TDC a bit.

When I feed the TDC with range, AoB and speed of the target but the PK is turned off, the gyro angle still gets calculated, right ?
The input in SH3 felt a bit more 'manual', or I just need more time getting used to the matter.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by ichso

Those tutorials are still too easy

Glad you like 'em! My aim is to make tutorials so easy my cat can do 'em. Actually my cat outshoots me every time. Your first reaction after putting one of my tutorials into practice should be "I was afraid of THIS?" That's why the advanced targeters rag me a bit about being too basic. I toss out every complication I can, plus irrelevant precision in calculation to arrive at successful manual targeting for the beginner. From that point it's easy to introduce more complexity and better technique.

Originally Posted by ichso

Since I used the Real Navigation mod in SH3 I was forced to track the movements of my own boat from the start of my map drawings on, too (because the mod removes all of the magically real time updated sub markes from all maps).
This makes the whole process quite more interesting. You can't just position yourself along the course line of your target anymore, you have to estimate in which direction you would have to travel for how long to get into the desired position and would also have to recheck your targets range and bearing constantly to become aware of errors in the process soon enough to adjust for them.
It was still a ery successful method using the fast 90 tactic. I'm still new to SH4 and got a bit confused by the TDC a bit.

That's where "Real Navigation" conflicts with real plotting. On your target plot, you could care less what your geographic position is, because you're always "here." And all target positions are plotted in relation to "here," wherever that is, as if we cared. What I'm getting at is that you WOULD know the relative positions of target track and your sub to the accuracy shown on the nav map. "Real Navigation" throws out the baby with the bathwater though, because relative plotting is lost along with geographic positioning. You're denying yourself information that would be available to a real sub crew. It's like piloting an airplane with a paper bag over your head. You can do it, and it's admirably difficult, but unless you're being taught instrument flying you're being a bit eccentric.

Originally Posted by ichso

When I feed the TDC with range, AoB and speed of the target but the PK is turned off, the gyro angle still gets calculated, right ?
The input in SH3 felt a bit more 'manual', or I just need more time getting used to the matter.

Yup, the TDC works just fine with the PK turned off, it just doesn't update the gyro angle with time. The PK tracks the actual motion of your submarine and the inputted motion of the target for a continuous update of gyro angles. When we use a constant bearing technique like Dick O'Kane or John P Cromwell, there is no need to track target motion. Our target is an empty spot in the ocean soon to be occupied by our hapless victim. With the vector analysis technique we can use the entire TDC for a paperweight!

Just take your time with the American TDC. It WILL make sense after all the mental short-circuits with the German TDC are broken and new connections can be made. Sounds like you're well on the way to figuring it out. Welcome to fleet boats, where the rules are just a bit different!

[MikeVictor]

Can I determine the true course of the target via the TDC only...after I take a couple range/bearing readings and calc/enter the speed...

I would think that two range/bearing checks would plot two spots that could be connected automatically in the TDC and the course thus determined.

Or is the only way to determine course by plotting two points on the chart and drawing the true course on it?

What is the fastest method to estimate the true course..

I've watched the videos on how to use the TDC for all targeting set ups.

Mike

[MikeVictor]

So you see a convoy on the plotting map....

How do I determine the range to a single target ship using sonar, can I somehow pick out the ship I'm pinging?

Need to do this to determine course and speed, but not sure how to pick out one via sonar to do that. Perhaps I have to use either radar or periscope to do that?

Mike

[Rockin Robbins]

Well, hey there! Thanks for dropping by. Pull up a chair and feel free to pull yourself one of those semi-adult beverages over there whilst I dig up a couple answers here:

Well, if all you want to do is take a couple of range/bearing observations and not plot them on the chart (why would you want not to use a plot?) there is a way to find the course and speed using only the TDC. Our game developers crumbled to repeated requests and included a calculate speed and course button on our TDC. I think that's a tragedy, but here's how it works.

You take two different stadimeter readings of range/bearing at least 10 seconds apart. Then you proceed to the speed input mode of the TDC input dial and press this button:



Now your accuracy is strictly dependent on the accuracy of your two observations and is rendered more accurate by increased time between observations. Keep in mind that stadimeter and accuracy are two words that probably shouldn't be allowed to occupy the same sentence.

With radar, using the plot and actually measuring the distance between two positions three minutes apart, drawing the course and measuring it is a technique that will give you MUCH more reliable information on all parameters, speed, course and range.

The fastest method of determining true course is to spend an unreasonable amount of time playing with gutted's Solution Solver, quizzing yourself with his AoB sight determination gillhickey on there. With MUCH practice you can do like the real sub skippers used to do: sidle up to the periscope, take a gander and intone "Angle on the bow 47º starboard." As long as an accurate bearing is in the TDC, entering the AoB will cause the target's bow on the output dial of the TDC to point to that AoB. You'll notice an outside ring of numbers there also. They are the true course, which you can read outside the AoB number. WernerSobe's video on manual targeting explains and shows this process.

Well, that's the good news. The bad news is that picking out a single sonar contact in a crowd is pretty impossible. Contacts have to be several degrees apart to resolve them as individuals. Even when you can resolve them, how do you know you are picking up the same one for two different pings? Even with continuous monitoring (which would keep you from skippering your sub, most un-commander like) two contacts could cross and you could be following a different one for your second ping. The verdict: sonar only is not suitable for convoy situations.

[KlassenT]

Boy, this is gonna turn out to be a bit longer than expected. Guess I'm full of questions today, but you've been given fair warning.

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Well, that's the good news. The bad news is that picking out a single sonar contact in a crowd is pretty impossible. Contacts have to be several degrees apart to resolve them as individuals. Even when you can resolve them, how do you know you are picking up the same one for two different pings? Even with continuous monitoring (which would keep you from skippering your sub, most un-commander like) two contacts could cross and you could be following a different one for your second ping. The verdict: sonar only is not suitable for convoy situations.

Actually, RR, that brings up one of the only gripes I have about SH4, and some historians 'round here might even set about proving me wrong and showing that it's accurate, but here's the skinny: I've always been frustrated as all get out that I have commands for 'report nearest contact' and 'follow nearest contact,' but no 'follow current contact.' (Ideally, would be used identically to follow nearest, but would rely on the current hydrophone bearing to pick up the initial contact) Assuming that you're facing a light convoy, perhaps a few little merchies with a pair of DDs in a flanking escort, there should certainly be a point where it becomes viable to track a single sonar contact. I've done it myself many a time for TMA in unfavorable conditions where it's either too muddled to see squat, or too clear to risk exposure, so as far as SH4s mechanics are concerned, I see it as viable, prima facie.

Now, though, the test; are the sonar mechanics modelled with enough accuracy in this case that such a task would have been feasible? Of course you're going to get a fair bit of interference for long-range convoy intercepts, but I'm concerned primarily with low-volume surface traffic, not rushing headlong into a carrier TF bound for Midway. If it does seem plausible enough, does anyone know if there have been any efforts to implement this via modding? It seems a bit silly to jump back and forth from my comforting protractor and compass to continually take hydrophone bearings to complete my TMA plot. Almost started pulling my hair out when I spied a large modern composite cruising along in an otherwise unremarkable mini-convoy, but my soundman was only interested in the DD playing catchup from behind my juicy freighter-snack.

I'm certainly not opposed to having realistic situations where you could lose a sonar track from ships crossing (though I doubt the engine allows for that much flexibility) but the exclusion of a seemingly-obvious feature like this has always stumped me.

---

On another note, I've still been playing stock for some time, and I think I'm finally hitting the cusp where I'm confident enough in my approach and intercept tactics to take on Ducimus' DDs. I do, however, want to finish out my career (And maybe squeeze in a few S-boat excursions for kicks and grins) but there are a few 'secondary' mods I recall hearing about but no clue what they might be called. Before I make the transition to full-fledged TMO/RSRDC, I intend to grab TMOkeys to speed up the inevitable learning curve, and get my grubby paws on the 360d bearing plotter as well. One thing I've never much cared for is the impeccable accuracy of my hydrophone crew when it comes to giving me exact ranges from passive listening. I share the opinion that 'map contacts off' is just about as silly as the uber-contacts in place by default, so I'm still hunting for that happy medium. One of the mods I read about in passing, as I understood it, converted all sonar contacts into extended dashed lines, and it sounds like it's right up my alley for the balance I'm looking for. Anyone have a name I can go drum into the mods page?

---

Final question (Promise!) any special concerns that pertain to running JSGME on digital distributions? (STEAM in my case). I know where all the relevant program directories and such are, but just wanted to make sure that there weren't any special considerations for electronic editions.

Thanks in advance for puttin' up with me!

[Rockin Robbins]

First of all, that's what this thread is for: good questions like yours. So let me take my time and go through these.

Yes, a follow current contact instruction would be VERY logical. In an unambiguous situation, that would save us a lot of grief as our brain-dead operator keeps switching targets to the closest warship or just the closest enemy vessel, depending on your orders. Heck, he doesn't even do that reliably. Actually, he should be able to follow a current contact while still retaining the ability to advise you of new developments that could change your orders.

Were that idea implemented in the game, we would then be talking about how the sonar operator is so perfect in a convoy situation, able to continue following a single target even when you couldn't pick him out if you were using the sonar yourself. Every silver lining has its cloud, you know, and Ubi could have turned this into another iteration of perfectly plotted visual sightings and plotted passive sonar spikes whose lengths tell you the range.

Now, if you think about it, the MOST confusing situation would be a small convoy of merchants. Why? In a warship convoy, you have many different types of target, all with different sounds... Well, not in SH4 because we only have two sounds: merchant and warship. These are played at a finite variety of speeds to convey slow, medium and fast. That's why we can't do turn counts, which is good, because WWII subs really couldn't convert turn counts to speed either because they didn't have sufficient data on non-warships to do so.

In a merchant convoy, you are more likely to be dealing with half a dozen to a dozen identical merchants with no difference in sound to speak of. They are lined up in columns and rows in such a way that even when you are close, the contacts are continually crossing, giving you a random choice, when the single contact divides in two, of which one is your original target. However, let me suggest that you try tracking the closest target in front or at the rear of the convoy. This way, every time contacts cross, when they divide, you automatically pick the front or the back one! I think this should work even in the game as we have it now, so long as the AoB is less than 90º. After 90º, the lead target would always lag the crossing target and the last target would always lead.

That should be no problem, as your plot would show you the parallax situation created by the AoB and you would know what to expect. Is anyone else following my reasoning or am I being way too abstract here?

Along with grabbing TMOkeys (which you will like much better than the stock keyboard layout, once you are used to it. I bet you'll use it even if you stick with the stock game), you might also grab TMOplot, which will let you play with the TMO plotting system. TMO tosses out the ship silhouettes, the target ID text, and the friend/foe/neutral colors. That's why I only found out I sank the USS Essex after I returned to port. That's why I fired the torpedo. I had no silhouette telling me it was an aircraft carrier and it wasn't green. Result: bustin' rocks! What's not to like?

As far as the passive sonar spikes telling you the position of the target, why plot those points? I just note that particular target seems louder than the rest and leave it at that. Certainly a competent sonar operator would tell you that. He would also tell you that local listening conditions could mean that the loudest contact is not really the closest, but we are talking about an imperfect game here. I treat it just like I treat visual sightings. Plotting positions and making speed and course measurements are a no-no for those two categories of info in SH4.

I look at having sonar spikes extended to the edge of the screen as the same thing as turning map updates off: the solution is worse than the problem when a little discipline in not taking measurements from those positions is all that is needed. After all, in real life that competent sonar operator is making decisions about what information to pass on to you as commander based on his assessment of which are the closest targets of concern.

I am running JSGME with a Steam installation of Left 4 Dead (amazing how all those other games use the brute force method of mod installation. Dummies!) and it works flawlessly. I've also used it with a non-Steam installation of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and it worked marvelously there too.