Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
prevans

torpedo running patterns

39 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

146
[-THOR]
Members
173 posts
2,326 battles

With the introduction of the Asashio and its highly specialized (and controversial) torpedoes, it got me thinking about implementing another idea for torpedoes. 

I know the Germans developed torpedoes for their U-Boats that would turn around if at first they did not hit their targets.  This was particularly effective in a situation with many targets, such as an Allied convoy.  The illustration below sets out the basic idea. 

Now, before you say that would be gimmicky and unrealistic since only a tiny fraction of torpedoes operated that way, I'll just say "deep-water torpedoes". 

Lageunabhangiger_Torpedo_-_running_pattern.svg.png

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,565
[WOLF7]
Members
11,361 posts

Reality meet arcade game....Did you even stop to consider the balance issues of such a change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
146
[-THOR]
Members
173 posts
2,326 battles
3 minutes ago, awiggin said:

Reality meet arcade game....Did you even stop to consider the balance issues of such a change?

There's no question you'd have to balance it in some way, e.g. longer reloads, fewer torpedoes, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
[RMOVE]
Beta Testers
815 posts
4,388 battles

If we're getting into this territory then we might as well throw in wake homing or acoustic searching torpedoes, neither of which I can see as a good idea. I think the gimmicky but cool deep waters are enough variety for torps. Game balance is going in a better direction I think and this would take it either drastically towards or away from a DD-centric meta depending on how they balanced it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
739
[NWNG]
Members
2,770 posts
4,646 battles

Deep Water torpedoes were a thing. Except all torpedoes are capable of deep water travel. Fun Fact: Torpedoes have a depth setting. You set that before launching, and the torpedo will do its best to maintain said depth. As such: need a torpedo that travels 5 meters under the surface, set it to travel 5 meters under the surface. Need it to only travel 1 meter under the surface: you simply have to set it for such travel. Need one that'll travel 10 meters under the surface: no problem, just set the depth for such travel. That's how it was in real life, for ship launched torpedoes. It's called a depth-keeping-device...


As for the torpedoes being able to turn around: They were designed to only do that once, and at a given, preset distance (set before launch). After which, they would continue in a straight line until it strikes something, or runs out of fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
515
[INTEL]
Beta Testers
1,793 posts
4,986 battles

Personally, I don’t see a need for even deep water torpedoes in the game.  They just gimp the DD’s that carry them.

But that’s just my opinion.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,698
Supertester, Alpha Tester
6,051 posts

I can see it now.

"Evasive action! Flank speed! Torps!"

"Umm where'd the torps come from?"

"From us! They're ours. Faster! Faster! You fool! You fool!"

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
[RMOVE]
Beta Testers
815 posts
4,388 battles
2 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

Only if the torps have a chance to turn around and hit the launching dds.

 

 

USS Tang 2.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,132
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
10,588 posts
15,896 battles
1 hour ago, prevans said:

There's no question you'd have to balance it in some way, e.g. longer reloads, fewer torpedoes, etc.

 ... leave it out of the game ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,876 posts
5,819 battles

Can you see how many friendly fire kills that would cause. Its bad enough when they run straight.:Smile_facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
146
[-THOR]
Members
173 posts
2,326 battles
4 hours ago, Counter_Gambit said:

Deep Water torpedoes were a thing. Except all torpedoes are capable of deep water travel. Fun Fact: Torpedoes have a depth setting. You set that before launching, and the torpedo will do its best to maintain said depth. As such: need a torpedo that travels 5 meters under the surface, set it to travel 5 meters under the surface. Need it to only travel 1 meter under the surface: you simply have to set it for such travel. Need one that'll travel 10 meters under the surface: no problem, just set the depth for such travel. That's how it was in real life, for ship launched torpedoes. It's called a depth-keeping-device...


As for the torpedoes being able to turn around: They were designed to only do that once, and at a given, preset distance (set before launch). After which, they would continue in a straight line until it strikes something, or runs out of fuel.

I understand how torpedoes work.  I played a lot of Silent Hunter III back in the day.  That was what I was getting at with my comment - that "deep water" torpedoes are silly because all torpedoes are potentially "deep water".   Also, I'm fairly certain the torpedoes could turn more than once; depended on how much fuel they had, how fast they were going, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
146
[-THOR]
Members
173 posts
2,326 battles
4 hours ago, Capt_Barkhorn said:

If we're getting into this territory then we might as well throw in wake homing or acoustic searching torpedoes, neither of which I can see as a good idea. I think the gimmicky but cool deep waters are enough variety for torps. Game balance is going in a better direction I think and this would take it either drastically towards or away from a DD-centric meta depending on how they balanced it. 

So deep water torpedoes are great change to torpedoes, but anything else is a slippery slope towards ruining the game?  Got it.  What would be good is the ability to choose between "deep water" torpedoes and "normal" torpedoes in game.  It would be a rough approximation of depth selection, which is all that deep water torpedoes represent (almost all torpedoes could go at whatever depth that was set at the time they were launched).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
146
[-THOR]
Members
173 posts
2,326 battles
3 hours ago, Raven114 said:

Can you see how many friendly fire kills that would cause. Its bad enough when they run straight.:Smile_facepalm:

Acknowledged that it would lead to more friendly torps, but probably not by a significant amount.  The idea is that they go out, e.g. 12 kms and then double-back only 2 or 3 kms.  You probably wouldn't have wanted to shoot normal torpedoes in a circumstance where these types of torps would threaten your comrades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
739
[NWNG]
Members
2,770 posts
4,646 battles
1 hour ago, prevans said:

I understand how torpedoes work.  I played a lot of Silent Hunter III back in the day.

quite frankly you don't. getting your information from a game, no matter how realistic the game tries to be, is a poor place to get information about a ship, or other piece of weaponry... Those torpedoes only had the ability to turn themselves around once, and that was it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
[RMOVE]
Beta Testers
815 posts
4,388 battles
1 hour ago, prevans said:

So deep water torpedoes are great change to torpedoes, but anything else is a slippery slope towards ruining the game?  Got it.  What would be good is the ability to choose between "deep water" torpedoes and "normal" torpedoes in game.  It would be a rough approximation of depth selection, which is all that deep water torpedoes represent (almost all torpedoes could go at whatever depth that was set at the time they were launched).  

I don't think I said the deep water torps were great, just gimmicky and different. At the end of the day, game balance takes precedence over everything because this is ultimately a game. Uniqueness and variety are nice, but when they affect the meta in such a drastic way they need to be carefully thought out. Switching torp depth mid battle sounds cool, but that leaves room for choosing consumables during battle as well. i.e. Switching between def AA and hydro, or between smoke and radar etc. I think THAT is a slippery slope that could lead to serious balance issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
136
[VIP-2]
Members
814 posts
2,914 battles
2 hours ago, prevans said:

I understand how torpedoes work.  I played a lot of Silent Hunter III back in the day.

Hahahahaha

My son has served on multiple special forces units, and i am the best golfer that ever lived.  Not to mention if the the princess is kidnapped by a T-rex, i got us covered, i did some time as a plumber.

Actually funny story, i was an instructor when we were putting on some classes for a bunch of PMC's about 4 years ago,  and one of the contractors had a doctored photo where he replaced himself with a KIA SEAL, one of the other attendees knew the photo and who belonged in it. 3 years that guy had worked for a big name, and almost everything was fake. But for that long he also convinced coworkers and managers he was also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
189
[WOLFB]
Beta Testers
1,456 posts
8,158 battles
13 hours ago, prevans said:

With the introduction of the Asashio and its highly specialized (and controversial) torpedoes, it got me thinking about implementing another idea for torpedoes. 

I know the Germans developed torpedoes for their U-Boats that would turn around if at first they did not hit their targets.  This was particularly effective in a situation with many targets, such as an Allied convoy.  The illustration below sets out the basic idea. 

Now, before you say that would be gimmicky and unrealistic since only a tiny fraction of torpedoes operated that way, I'll just say "deep-water torpedoes". 

Lageunabhangiger_Torpedo_-_running_pattern.svg.png

Sudoku Warships.. LOL 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
216
[ANZAC]
[ANZAC]
Members
614 posts
5,528 battles
8 hours ago, Counter_Gambit said:

I understand how torpedoes work.  I played a lot of Silent Hunter III back in the day.

8 hours ago, Counter_Gambit said:

quite frankly you don't. getting your information from a game, no matter how realistic the game tries to be, is a poor place to get information about a ship, or other piece of weaponry... Those torpedoes only had the ability to turn themselves around once, and that was it.

Quite frankly you're a fool. And a condescending fool at that. Because you are wrong. So very, very wrong. And Google is at your fingertips...

Image result for LUT I torpedo patternImage result for LUT I torpedo pattern

The FAT I ran up and down parallel lines either 800 or 1600m long after the initial launch run. You could chose left and right turns up to 5 times. The torp ran in an S shaped "ladder" pattern.

The FAT II had the same short/long ladder pattern and an additional circular pattern after the initial launch run .

The FAT III/LUT I had a zig-zag pattern rather than the loops, with the LUT being able to change the torpedoes course to a preset heading after it was launched before starting the pattern run.

14 hours ago, prevans said:

With the introduction of the Asashio and its highly specialized (and controversial) torpedoes, it got me thinking about implementing another idea for torpedoes. 

I know the Germans developed torpedoes for their U-Boats that would turn around if at first they did not hit their targets.  This was particularly effective in a situation with many targets, such as an Allied convoy.  The illustration below sets out the basic idea. 

Now, before you say that would be gimmicky and unrealistic since only a tiny fraction of torpedoes operated that way, I'll just say "deep-water torpedoes".

I say we save this idea until we gets subs in the game. :etc_red_button:

Reference: for anyone interested - http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-257A/U-257INT.htm

Edited by HyperFish
Added interesting references
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
146
[-THOR]
Members
173 posts
2,326 battles
9 hours ago, c3shooter said:

Hahahahaha

My son has served on multiple special forces units, and i am the best golfer that ever lived.  Not to mention if the the princess is kidnapped by a T-rex, i got us covered, i did some time as a plumber.

Actually funny story, i was an instructor when we were putting on some classes for a bunch of PMC's about 4 years ago,  and one of the contractors had a doctored photo where he replaced himself with a KIA SEAL, one of the other attendees knew the photo and who belonged in it. 3 years that guy had worked for a big name, and almost everything was fake. But for that long he also convinced coworkers and managers he was also.

Have you ever played the game ?  Even in Vanilla, you can select speed, depth, and read all about the various torpedoes in game.  You need to check the manual (recreation of what was issued to actual U-Boat captains) to verify the keel depth on the ship you are targeting as you generally wanted to hit the magnetic warhead about 1m below the keel.  You can even turn on realism settings where you have to calculate the target's speed and develop a firing solution manually.  

Don't forget I didn't say that I could command a WWII sub, which is what your comparisons seem to suggest.   If I played a lot of some baseball manager game, I could say that I understand how the MLB draft works.  I'm not saying I could actually run a team, just that I understand how teams make their selections, etc.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
146
[-THOR]
Members
173 posts
2,326 battles
2 hours ago, HyperFish said:

Quite frankly you're a fool. And a condescending fool at that. Because you are wrong. So very, very wrong. And Google is at your fingertips...

Image result for LUT I torpedo patternImage result for LUT I torpedo pattern

The FAT I ran up and down parallel lines either 800 or 1600m long after the initial launch run. You could chose left and right turns up to 5 times. The torp ran in an S shaped "ladder" pattern.

The FAT II had the same short/long ladder pattern and an additional circular pattern after the initial launch run .

The FAT III/LUT I had a zig-zag pattern rather than the loops, with the LUT being able to change the torpedoes course to a preset heading after it was launched before starting the pattern run.

I say we save this idea until we gets subs in the game. :etc_red_button:

Reference: for anyone interested - http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-257A/U-257INT.htm

Thanks.  Reminds me of an old College Humor video with the line,  "don't call bu**sh** unless you've got the link to prove it."   You certainly had the link, Counter_Gambit did not.  Very informative site by the way.  It looks like Silent Hunter III was right!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,944 posts
7,332 battles
15 hours ago, grumpymunky said:

A suggestion like this so soon after new penalties for repeated teamkilling?

It's Darwin at work.  I say bring it on.  It'll be painful first few weeks, then the idiots will all be stuck in coop.  Sucks for coop players, but I'm selfish and don't want the window lickers with me in randoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
739
[NWNG]
Members
2,770 posts
4,646 battles
5 hours ago, HyperFish said:

Quite frankly you're a fool. And a condescending fool at that. Because you are wrong. So very, very wrong. And Google is at your fingertips.

1. I was condescending because someone said something stupid. What was said (paraphrased) "I play video games, therefore I know what I'm talking about when it comes to weapons of war." Video games should NEVER be a source of information. Sure video games could get one interested in certain subjects, and what not, but getting information strictly from a video game, just makes one look stupid.

2. The burden of proof has been on prevans. prevans made a claim, and all he provided was a crude picture of what he was talking about.  provided 0 sources (until now), leaving what he said completely "unverifiable." Just because we all have Google at our fingertips, does not mean one can skimp out on your burden of proof. It is his job to cite his sources, and his job to provide evidence. It is not my job to find the evidence for him, that's a "burden of proof fallacy."
 

2 hours ago, prevans said:

Thanks.  Reminds me of an old College Humor video with the line,  "don't call bu**sh** unless you've got the link to prove it."   You certainly had the link, Counter_Gambit did not.  Very informative site by the way.  It looks like Silent Hunter III was right!

I refer to you the "Burden of proof fallacy." It's not my job to provide evidence/sources, for someone else's claim. A claim presented without evidence, can be dismissed just the same. You made a claim without evidence, so I dismissed it without evidence. But hey, if you don't mind using logical fallacies, please, keep saying it was my job to provide evidence.

Just because a video game got it right, does not mean it should be used as a source of information. It can be a source of information concerning the game itself, but anything outside the game, DON'T USE VIDEO GAMES TO JUSTIFY INFORMATION! Else I could claim that I know everything about WWII because I played Call of Duty Finest Hour. Or hey, WoWS got certain details about certain ships correct, therefore WoWS is a great source of information when talking Warships IRL! Again: No matter how realistic a game tries to be, NEVER use it as a source of information. You can draw comparisons between IRL and the video game, but using the video game itself as a source of information, is a no-no.

Edited by Counter_Gambit
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
146
[-THOR]
Members
173 posts
2,326 battles
25 minutes ago, Counter_Gambit said:

1. I was condescending because someone said something stupid. What was said (paraphrased) "I play video games, therefore I know what I'm talking about when it comes to weapons of war." Video games should NEVER be a source of information. Sure video games could get one interested in certain subjects, and what not, but getting information strictly from a video game, just makes one look stupid.

2. The burden of proof has been on prevans. prevans made a claim, and all he provided was a crude picture of what he was talking about.  provided 0 sources (until now), leaving what he said completely "unverifiable." Just because we all have Google at our fingertips, does not mean one can skimp out on your burden of proof. It is his job to cite his sources, and his job to provide evidence. It is not my job to find the evidence for him, that's a "burden of proof fallacy."
 

I refer to you the "Burden of proof fallacy." It's not my job to provide evidence/sources, for someone else's claim. A claim presented without evidence, can be dismissed just the same. You made a claim without evidence, so I dismissed it without evidence. But hey, if you don't mind using logical fallacies, please, keep saying it was my job to provide evidence.

Just because a video game got it right, does not mean it should be used as a source of information. It can be a source of information concerning the game itself, but anything outside the game, DON'T USE VIDEO GAMES TO JUSTIFY INFORMATION! Else I could claim that I know everything about WWII because I played Call of Duty Finest Hour. Or hey, WoWS got certain details about certain ships correct, therefore WoWS is a great source of information when talking Warships IRL! Again: No matter how realistic a game tries to be, NEVER use it as a source of information. You can draw comparisons between IRL and the video game, but using the video game itself as a source of information, is a no-no.

Where to begin... 

Let's start with the fact that I did provide evidence.  It wasn't, in your opinion, a reliable source of evidence.  Also, at least I prefaced my comment about the fact that the torpedoes could turn around several times with "I'm fairly certain".  You took it on yourself to state that I was wrong, and provided no evidence in support of your assertion of fact.  You then proceed to state that it was my job to provide substantial evidence from the outset, as though that somehow justifies your mistake in asserting something that was wrong.  You didn't just state - "I've never heard of that; what's your source on torpedo running patterns?"  That would be "dismissed it without evidence".   You went one step further stated that it was, as a matter of fact, wrong.  If we're talking about logical fallacies, perhaps it's important to remember that just because you doubt the source of information being presented, it doesn't mean the opposite of that information is true.

Next, let's deal with the other logical fallacy in your post - the "straw man" fallacy, i.e. misrepresenting my position.   I didn't say that I knew everything there was to know about the Battle of the Atlantic because I played SH3.  I said that I knew how torpedoes work because I've played a game that holds itself out as a simulation on U-Boats in the battle of the Atlantic. You should probably look into SH3 before you dismiss it outright. 

Which brings me to my last point.  Broad statements like you can "never" trust information in a video game are ridiculous.  It depends on the game and it depends on the information.  If I want to see what the TO&E was for a 1945 German Fusilier Battalion was, I trust that certain well-researched games will provide an accurate list (e.g. Gary Grigsby's War in the East, Combat Mission).  Likewise, if I see in WOWs that the Arizona had 356mm guns, I can trust that the Arizona did indeed have that caliber of guns in real life.  Now if the question is about naval tactics, I probably wouldn't consider WOWs a reliable source.  WOWs doesn't hold itself out to be a simulation.  To use another example (yours), CoD could be a reliable source if your question was "How many rounds did the M1 Garand have in a clip?".  If you're citing CoD as a source for how American artillery bombardment was routinely conducted in WWII, then yeah I'd agree that it would not be a very reliable source. 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×