U-boote logs
#1
Posted 13 January 2007 - 06:12 PM
#2
Posted 18 January 2007 - 09:24 PM
#3
Posted 23 January 2007 - 06:21 AM
#4
Posted 02 February 2007 - 10:14 PM
#5
Posted 04 February 2007 - 06:40 PM
#6
Posted 04 February 2007 - 06:43 PM
#7
Posted 05 February 2007 - 11:21 AM
The decision to attack and when to break off had a great deal to do with battery power. If it was low the sub could not maneuver, and would be in poor condition to withstand a prolonged attack. ASW is usually measured in hours and even days, so the amount of battery life left to the sub was an important consideration for its captain.I don't know if battery status was such a major issue in sub captain's mind during an attack.If it wasn't, I think that giving it such a huge importance (just for the sake of it) isn't helping to move the simulation toward historicity.
Both the noise of a sub moving through the water and the noise from the sub's internal machinery and need for crew handling both increase at higher speeds.I don't know if submerged higher speeds did make the sub more noisy; if this was the case, then that could be the way to go in order to limit the sub commander's speed options.Another way may be to drastically randomize initial charge level, simulating the variables involved in getting in a proper attack position or simply in closing the range.
ASW is and has been a particular interest of mine for a long time. Several years ago I ran a March 1943 convoy PBeM campaign using another set of rules. It was difficult to coordinate all the info for the players, and keep the game moving. Mal Wright devised an interesting set of ftf rules for ASW, that do work. But gaming ASW still proves difficult due to several things:[ul]the need for double-blind information places enormous responsibility on the refereethe large amount of time that subs take to set-up attacks and for escorts to prosecute contactsthe relative low piece density for one side and the high piece density for the other[/ul]Lonnie is the best one to comment on the Ship Logs' accuracy.Good luck!GregoryRemaining battery cells could also be used as a morale check trigger to see if the sub captain may prefer to let the targer go rather than losing his main survaivalability asset.All this could (and should) provide the needed constraints without departing from reality.I did send you my u-boote log long ago, but never heard of it anymore.did you get it?Did I submitted it in a wrong way?here attached I send it to you again (slightly modified)
#8
Posted 05 February 2007 - 12:11 PM
That definitely calls for an important change in turn representation.I'm not that much into ASW combat, but according to what you say 18 to 30 minutes turns (or even more) seem more appropriate.ASW is usually measured in hours and even days, so the amount of battery life left to the sub was an important consideration for its captain.
IIRC, unless silent running, sub's detection isn't modified by its speed.Adding a couple of modifiers if running at high speed should 'suggest' a more proper slow running in order to remain at a lower level of detection.This should work better than a artificially higher cell consumption.Both the noise of a sub moving through the water and the noise from the sub's internal machinery and need for crew handling both increase at higher speeds.
#9
Posted 05 February 2007 - 03:06 PM
The rules we used for the PBeM game had three-minute tactical turns. To mitigate the slowness of the combat, I required at minimum two turns of plotting. Sometimes I had one side or the other establish up to five turns worth of advance plotting, especially for the sub approach prior to its detection and the sub following its attack. The convoy and its escorts had established, unchanging plots prior to a successful attack or sub contact. In any case, one can always break in to pre-plotted moves and foreshorten the turn.That definitely calls for an important change in turn representation.I'm not that much into ASW combat, but according to what you say 18 to 30 minutes turns (or even more) seem more appropriate.ASW is usually measured in hours and even days, so the amount of battery life left to the sub was an important consideration for its captain.
You are correct for GQIII, and this is due both to a desire for simplicity, and that subs were not yet capable of enough speed to cause noise meriting another modifier. It would become an issue as sub speeds increased with the advent of the true submersible.IIRC, unless silent running, sub's detection isn't modified by its speed.Adding a couple of modifiers if running at high speed should 'suggest' a more proper slow running in order to remain at a lower level of detection.Both the noise of a sub moving through the water and the noise from the sub's internal machinery and need for crew handling both increase at higher speeds.
I am not sure that replacing the rules method will produce a better result. Try it out and let us know.GregoryThis should work better than a artificially higher cell consumption.
#10
Posted 05 February 2007 - 04:29 PM
#11
Posted 09 February 2007 - 11:38 PM
#12
Posted 11 February 2007 - 06:12 PM
#13
Posted 12 February 2007 - 05:06 PM
Ah, a brother Mac user! Wingdings are not always loaded into the various versions of MS Word, but are readily available. I found three separate wingdings files, that overlapped somewhat with the "webdings" font already on the Mac. For the sake of those enlightened few who use the best computer, I am attaching a conversion for "wingdings 2" font, so that the proper numbers can be used.[file name=Wingding2_GQIII_format.pdf size=23203]https://www.odgw.com/components/com_simpleboard/uploaded/files/Wingding2_GQIII_format.pdf[/file] Cheers,GregoryAs far as windings characters are concerned, I must admit I had some troubles in using the ones available in the blank sheet, as I'm working on a macintosh, and, apparently the same typing gets different characters.
#14
Posted 16 February 2007 - 10:22 PM
#15
Posted 16 February 2007 - 10:57 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users