|
Ever since I upgraded to Windows 7 (on 8 now, and get similar issues,) I can't get SH4 to work with TMU or RFB, and I can't get GWX to install on SH3. It's like a subsim penance.
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 12:00 |
|
|
Strange I'm using Windows 7 and I got both working without (so far) incident.LordPants posted:I can never remember the math to working out the speed. Well, for U-boats it was hundreds of meters traveled in 3m15s. Dunno what it is for Yards though, but the nav map has a handy nomograph added (a much more usable one that GWX's) that I can use instead. Mmmm, Nomographs, is there anything more groggy in simulations? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Whats the general consensus on War in the West? I originally dismissed it because it looked like WitP:AE but with all the charm and emergent narrative substituted for more spreadsheets. Is that the case?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
For imperial measurements, you plot the target's location, wait 2 minutes and 58 seconds, plot the target's location again, and measure the distance between the two points. The target's speed is 1 knot for every 100 yards traveled. If the target's plotted locations are 1400 yards apart after 2:58, the target is moving at 14 knots.Lockmart Lawndart posted:Whats the general consensus on War in the West? I originally dismissed it because it looked like WitP:AE but with all the charm and emergent narrative substituted for more spreadsheets. Is that the case? gradenko_2000 posted:I was in the beta and really did not like it at all. The scale does not work well for the sort of combat that went on the Western Front - there are no sweeping encirclements or desperate defenses to be found here. The game boils down to counting individual unit factors and checking on logistics and shuffling counters around for single-hex gains, back and forth. Which would be fine if the game actually made it easy to pull all that data together, but it doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:For imperial measurements, you plot the target's location, wait 2 minutes and 58 seconds, plot the target's location again, and measure the distance between the two points. The target's speed is 1 knot for every 100 yards traveled. If the target's plotted locations are 1400 yards apart after 2:58, the target is moving at 14 knots. Hey, did you still wanna play a game of WITE?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Hello, Chitose*. drat, its really rough seas, and nearing dawn. I'm barely able to close with her at full submerged flank speed. She's already zig-zagging There is a destroyer(?) somewhere off to the right of me, relatively close, and two more a mile or two behind me still (hopefully) poking around where they detected me in the first place (Which is why Chitose is zigzag). Not sure if I'm gonna be able to get a good angle to attack. Maybe I can just fire some fish straight ahead and hope for a hit that blows her props to bits or maybe be Man, I forgot how fun/tense sub sims can be. * Or maybe Chiyoda Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Sep 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Or you could break off, shadow them for another day and try again the next night (assuming they're not travelling too fast).
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
That screenshot is going to make me relapse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:Or you could break off, shadow them for another day and try again the next night (assuming they're not travelling too fast). First attack failed. Tried to fire a best guess 4-torp spread, the torpedo I had on the event camera went wide to the rear by a few dozen yards. Moved away, surfaced and sprinted ahead of them, setting up another attack. I just completely botched it because I thought my Periscope was zoomed in and thought it was some distance away, actually it was like 350yds. Tried to open the distance (hurray for having set up a rear spread shot) and desperately fired a spread. I got two Hits! Which bounced because it was inside the minimum arming range. Or maybe I just got Mark 14'd. Who knows.   Learning experiences! Now the destroyers are coming.  Time to Run Silent, Run Deep. [edit] Nevermind they're looking in the completely wrong direction, guess I dove deep fast enough for their pinging to fail to get a good fix.Also, the lack of external camera (besides the very limited event camrea) is killing me. Never realized how much I cheated using it in SH3. I miss the eyecandy screenshots though. Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Sep 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:That screenshot is going to make me relapse. Yeah, thankfully (?) I have a mac now, so it's not an option. But part of me so very much wants to spend hours and hours on this again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:Yeah, thankfully (?) I have a mac now, so it's not an option. But part of me so very much wants to spend hours and hours on this again. Boot. Camp.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
Thats it, I'm calling this off. Got into position for a third attack, but the ASW Trawler (or Corvette or whatever, its too small to be a destroyer) somehow spotted me and started pinging me. I tried to hold out, to wait for the Chitose/Chiyoda to reach firing position, but when I swiveled the scope around to check the trawler it was like 300 yards away and beelining right towars me. Hard to dive fast to get away from it. Also, while hiding from the trawler, I learned clicking on one of the dudes blows ballast! gently caress! Thankfully I was deep enough that I was able to stop the ship from actually surfacing, but gently caress that was scary when the ASW ship started pinging me again right after I accidentally did that. My nerves are shot.  Anyways, I'll STFU now. Sorry for anyone I made reinstall. (Confession: The vast majority of my hours in SH3 were spent in Type-IIs in the early war picking on lone merchants.) [edit] Actually a quick question, can seaplane tenders/carriers actually launch aircraft? It'd be funny if the only reason that ship didn't own me was because the waters were too rough for it to launch seaplanes to find me. Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Sep 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:[edit] Actually a quick question, can seaplane tenders/carriers actually launch aircraft? It'd be funny if the only reason that ship didn't own me was because the waters were too rough for it to launch seaplanes to find me. Wiki states the Chiyoda had 4 catapults, so it definitely should've been able to. Launching at night might not be a thing since they wouldn't have spotlights or radar and so would've been useless anyways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 09:20
|
|
|
Second and third attacks were in the daytime. Though like I said, the weather was poo poo. High winds, churning seas, and "light" fog that cut visibility range to like, a mile, definitely not flying weather. [edit] Having finished my "recon" of the south Luzon straights in spectacularly incompetent fashion, they're now sending me NW of Okinawa. I can only presume it is as punishment. Maybe I'll find some solo merchants I can pick on for old time's sake instead of escorted Seaplane Tenders. What the gently caress was that thing even doing that close to Luzon. I guess performing support of the landings at the northern tip? Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 09:34 on Sep 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Second and third attacks were in the daytime. Though like I said, the weather was poo poo. High winds, churning seas, and "light' fog that cut visibility range to like, a mile, definitely not flying weather. Using recon planes to spot US fleets trying to intercept landing forces? From what very little I know about catapult launches, I doubt it would be a smart idea to try and launch a plane in choppy water.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 09:35
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Using recon planes to spot US fleets trying to intercept landing forces? The launch is the easy part. It's recovery that is tricky in heavy seas. That said, floatplane ops were possible in heavier seas than one might immediately expect. For the USN, landings were often made directly into the wake of the ship, which is roiled by the screws, but is generally calmer than the surrounding water, and the aircraft was then attached to a trailing sea sled, which would winch the aircraft alongside into the correct position to be hoisted aboard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The launch is the easy part. It's recovery that is tricky in heavy seas. Wouldn't launching in rough seas be difficult because of the constantly changing angle of the catapult? I had/have an effort post on the Kingfisher, but it shames me that I didn't add a photo or two of the actual sled/recovery process they used.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Wouldn't launching in rough seas be difficult because of the constantly changing angle of the catapult? This is an issue for flat-deck carrier ops, as well. It's solved by the cat officer timing the cat shot/takeoff roll release for a rising deck angle. They get it wrong occasionally. Aircraft ops at sea is loving dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
It seems one of the really ancient Combat Mission games is on say for $6 at GoG.com.Unlikely to get it myself (submarines are consuming me) but I thought I'd mention it in case anyone was interested. 3 or so days on patrol in the East China Sea and I've found 1 merchant so far, both torpedoes I fired hit, but didn't explode. gently caress Mark 14s/BuOrd.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Man, I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but I cannot seem to get the American TDC to work. I've missed shots on 2-3 freighters now that I know I would've hit if I was using the SH3/GWX TDC. I'm using the old reliable easy-90 method and I just keep missing. I'm no sure why. I think it might be because of the position tracker, but even trying to play by its rules I hosed up. The fact that the american TDC doesn't automatically adjust poo poo as the periscope/UZO moves might be stymieing me as well. Like seriously, how the gently caress did I miss a shot at 800-900yds range on a 90 degree angle?  (not the firing point, but yeah) [edit] Wait a loving second, my AoB is 10 degrees off there. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
So whats the general opinion on the Decisive Campaigns series? A game about Barbarossa is coming out and it looks really enticing. http://www.matrixgames.com/news/1774/Barbarossa..Decisive.Campaigns.3.Beta.Call!
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
DC is some of the best operational-level wargaming around that's still comprehensible-enough to be played through in an afternoon. I'm very excited for the Barbarossa game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
quote:
Sounds really cool and seems to correct a lot of the things that just don't "feel" right in War in the East as a simulation of the Eastern Front. Did the other Decisive Campaigns games have all these features of are these new?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Most of those features are new to the series, primarily because the previous DC games mostly dealt with different battles: the entire invasion of Poland, the entire invasion of the Benelux and France, and Fall Blau/Operation Saturn and Uranus. They didn't have nearly as many political, logistical and command-hierarchy mechanics because you didn't quite need those at the level being simulated, but you do need them for Barbarossa, and so it goes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
Each game in the series has its own strengths and weaknesses really. Warsaw to Paris has some interesting scenarios and is amazing in multiplayer, since you can have multiple players per side. Case Blue has the better AI and just general improvements, but lacks the cool multiplayer feature if Warsaw to Paris. That other game from the same guy, Advanced Tactics or something, looks sorta interesting but I think it has too many design problems for me. Though I absolutely love the idea of a wargame on a randomized map and customizable nations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
Ok, after repeatedly reloading an intercept about 5 times, I've figured out something very important. My Sonar man is consistently sending an incorrect bearing to target when I push the "Send bearing to TDC" button at the bottom after pinging. At least now I know its (mostly?) not the Mark 14s or My fault. Bearing to target set manually using the TDC dials and UZO. Looks very good.  After pushing the "send bearing to TDC" on Sonar menu. Looks very bad. Is it because he's "looking" at the props or is he just bad an inaccurate? His normal tracking callouts seem fine, bearing-wise.  This explains why my first attempts kept missing to the rear, even when I set my speed 1-2 knots above what I estimated the target to be travelling. Anyways, hopefully this is what was loving me up on previous merchant attacks. If it did, I gotta say, American Fleet Boats Rock. The TDC position keeper and active sonar ranging systems are awesome. Also ice cream. My enlightenment was quite well rewarded too. When I finally hit with a two torpedo shot (Fifth time's the charm!), I broke the ship's back somehow. I set the torpedoes to run minimum but left the magnetic exploders on, I wonder if one ran deep and did a keel-breaker hit.  Akita Maru   
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Also ice cream. Ha, I love that US subs actually had ice cream makers in them. I read Iron Coffins (U boat commander's memoirs) and he describes how they would be eating mouldy bread after two weeks at sea. All the while, the US had submariners eating ice cream on their subs. Makes you think really. Why would you pick a fight with a country that can put loving ice cream machines on their subs while you're eating mouldy loving bread. Man, Hitler and Tojo were real idiots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
Also, is it normal for the weather to not change at all after about 10 days? I don't even think the wind has changed direction, constant 74.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
There is a bug where the time compression keeps whatever weather you were at I think. You could have a month worth of stormy weather in sh4 it is a game with a lot of personality. (its a fat girl)
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
The obvious solution is to only play at 1x time compression.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
Tried that once. Never again. I like to take it slow in this game, but never.dtkozl posted:There is a bug where the time compression keeps whatever weather you were at I think. You could have a month worth of stormy weather in sh4 it is a game with a lot of personality. (its a fat girl) Same old bug from SH3 eh? I rarely use more than x128 so I didn't think I'd get hit by that. And actually, the weather finally did change, its gone from foggy and windy to foggy and calm seas. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
DC2 did a lot more with rotating objectives (Hitler will send your rear end to Stalingrad unless you really focus on not doing it etc). The prestige and objective stuff added so much historical flavor. I'm looking forward to more of it. I do mourn the 7 goon mode though from WtP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Tried that once. Never again. I like to take it slow in this game, but never.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
Maybe a bit different from most games here but has anyone tried the new Nobunaga's Ambition? It has been getting some good reviews from what I have seen so far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
Goetta posted:Maybe a bit different from most games here but has anyone tried the new Nobunaga's Ambition? It has been getting some good reviews from what I have seen so far. I've been thinking about picking it up. If there are good reviews (or, better, someone in here who has played it) I'd be real interested in hearing them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:There is a bug where the time compression keeps whatever weather you were at I think. You could have a month worth of stormy weather in sh4 it is a game with a lot of personality. (its a fat girl) Even on real time the Silent Hunter games do week long storms. Don't think they expected people to do it, so it's understandable that they didn't balance the game for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Well, I finished my first patrol. 5 merchants worth 24,000 tons, including a 10,000 ton tanker I attacked in a rushed night time surface attack on a small convoy (2 escorts, 2 merchants) where I decided "gently caress it, no time to calculate, I'm close to 90 and they're nearby, fire a full spread at 5 degree spread between each torpedo! I knew the tanker was close, but uh... didn't realize it was THAT close...  Hit the tanker and the other merchant with one torp each. Somehow the Tanker exploded and split in half and started sinking as I swerved to avoid and dive before the Escorts realized poo poo just went to hell. Not sure why the tanker died that easy. Sadly the other merchant didn't go down, but was completely dead in the water. After evading the escorts I came back and put my last two torpedoes into it, only to have both fail to detonate.  Anyways, I enjoyed this patrol, learned a lot, but I dunno if TMO is for me. These ships sank really fast from only 1-2 torpedoes each. Like, gone in minutes, and they didn't even list or roll over or anything, just sank nose/end first each time. Having two ships (including that 10k tanker) split in half from a single side-impact torpedo was a bit surprising. I was also surprised at how easily the fifth Maru I sank went down from sporadic and imprecise deck-gun fire. I think I am gonna switch to RFB. I read the manual for that mod on the way back to Surabaya and it sounds like it uses a much better damage system, comparable to what I'm used to from GWX3. Finally, I was a bit amused that I was awarded the Navy Commendation Medal, on January 11th, 1941. That award won't be created for almost 2 years.  [fake edit] What is the "rescue survivor" button for, if not rescuing dudes from ships you sink? Can you get missions to pick up downed airmen and such like submarines sometimes did during the war? [real edit] Actually reading the thread for RFB I'm starting to think twice. Sounds like it wasn't really ever finished, and it makes some changes I don't like the sound of. EG: Removing the sonar lines on the map and the torpedo track on the attack map? Granted that is a bit of an advantage, but it helps me line up marking plots and poo poo. I'm all for realism, but if we were being "Realistic" I'd have a whole team of officers to help me with this poo poo. Might just stick with TMO afterall. I just wish I could get ship sinking physics like GWX.  [edit2] Anyone used this mod with TMO?
Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 09:53 on Sep 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
Nah man, try real fleet boat it's worth it. You don't need to plot stuff, just work out how fast they're travelling, point the scope at 'em and pull the trigger. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 11:12
|
|
|
Just noticed that the devs of Vietnam '65 have officially announced the Afghanistan-themed sequel. Sounds like it will be similar to the original but with a bunch more content and a few new additions like building civilian infrastructure, delivering aid, destroying poppy fields etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 12:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 12:00 |
|
|
 Vietnam 65 was great, so that's some exciting news. Gonna Rumsfeld it up with this as the final boss:
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 13:31
|
|