General comment on this one to Joe K, you might be better served not using the textured maps. Use the plain gray ones instead for the most accurate representation of coastlines (i.e. what those non-textured maps represent are the same data the GE is using to decide when something is aground).

I understand, though you had also made the comment that this happens to you almost constantly. I'm simply saying that it almost never happens to me.

 

Hmmm... Well, constantly isn't really accurate... but, it does seem to happen frequently - if the course takes things anywhere near land.

 

Okay, so you understand formation zones and all that. Good. I think I stated earlier that when transiting narrow bodies of water, I try and shrink my own formations to their lowest common denominator. So, moving on ...

 

As do I - unfortunately, even that doesn't always help me!

 

Again, this has not been my experience. If we know that water depth is a function of distance from land, and the land certainly is readily determined from the map graphics, and we know that we can find out water depth at any particular point by clicking on the map at that point, then setting a course to avoid running aground is an achievable task.

 

Achievable... but extremely time-consuming, at least given the techniques that I'm aware of. :-}

 

I recall the 'snap' behavior in laying courses that you mention, but since the zoom feature was considerably expanded many versions ago, I can't recall it being a problem anymore, except maybe at very high zoom. I have not seen the 'waypoints over land in the GE' issue you mention, though I suppose its possible if a person was laying courses at low zoom in areas of constricted waters. But then, why would anyone want to do that?

 

I notice the snap-to-grid behavior at least at mags of 64x or more - about the same point that the pixels become really noticable.

 

The "over land" issue relates to the course line between the waypoints, not at the waypoints themselves. What I mean is that when attempting to lay a course among islands (like in the Phillipines area, for example), I may have to plot a highly-zig-zagged course in the attempt to avoid the obstacles. If these waypoints aren't far enough apart, then the course between them can tend to bring the unit too close to the "pylon". If I can see this condition, then I can correct it by adding an intermediate waypoint... otherwise, I have no way of knowing there is a conflict until it "bites" me. FWIW, I've gotten into trouble even at max mag and placing waypoints at the corners of each pixel - although this doesn't seem to be so much an issue of the connecting lines as it is a function of the graphics not necessarily being "aligned" with the GE's data. Looking at it a different way, it's sort of like the problem of trying to use the graphics to figure out which way to move a grounded unit in order to get it back into "the channel".

 

There are some very small islands on the maps that do not show until you really zoom in. (Proximity to land aside). Otherwise, I am not aware of any 'shoals' on the maps. Can you point to a specific scenario or map location?

 

Not recalling for sure, but it seems like I've run into that in the past in mid-ocean in the Atlantic Convoy scenarios, and more recently in the Oubliette scenario, where I hit something in the open area about halfway across the large open basin that's generally to the East of the boomer's designated destination.

General comment on this one to Joe K, you might be better served not using the textured maps. Use the plain gray ones instead for the most accurate representation of coastlines (i.e. what those non-textured maps represent are the same data the GE is using to decide when something is aground).

 

That's good to know... I'll take a crack at laying the tight courses with the texturing disabled and see if that helps. Thanks.

General comment on this one to Joe K, you might be better served not using the textured maps. Use the plain gray ones instead for the most accurate representation of coastlines (i.e. what those non-textured maps represent are the same data the GE is using to decide when something is aground).

 

I've tried using using the non-textured maps during course lay-down, and it does help quite a bit (although it's still difficult to guage the position of formation members relative to the baseline course, which often leads to running units aground anyway, especially in the areas between waypoints).

 

I still have trouble plotting sub courses, though, because there is no direct way to tell depth along the course, so I rather frequently have subs being forced to shallower depths somewhere along their courses, which is typically undesirable in a "hot" environment - especially if they get forced to surface! Is there any good way around this?

I've tried using using the non-textured maps during course lay-down, and it does help quite a bit (although it's still difficult to guage the position of formation members relative to the baseline course, which often leads to running units aground anyway, especially in the areas between waypoints). I still have trouble plotting sub courses, though, because there is no direct way to tell depth along the course, so I rather frequently have subs being forced to shallower depths somewhere along their courses, which is typically undesirable in a "hot" environment - especially if they get forced to surface! Is there any good way around this?

 

Nope, you maneuver with your environment.

I've tried using using the non-textured maps during course lay-down, and it does help quite a bit (although it's still difficult to guage the position of formation members relative to the baseline course, which often leads to running units aground anyway, especially in the areas between waypoints). I still have trouble plotting sub courses, though, because there is no direct way to tell depth along the course, so I rather frequently have subs being forced to shallower depths somewhere along their courses, which is typically undesirable in a "hot" environment - especially if they get forced to surface! Is there any good way around this?

 

Nope, you maneuver with your environment.

 

So, you're saying there is no way to "pre-lay" a course, but instead I must "micro-manage" each group's movements on-the-fly - by constantly taking "manual" depth measurements near my subs as they move? (Arrgh!!! What a pain! )

So, you're saying there is no way to "pre-lay" a course, but instead I must "micro-manage" each group's movements on-the-fly - by constantly taking "manual" depth measurements near my subs as they move? (Arrgh!!! What a pain! )

 

Yeah, painfully easy in my experience.

So, you're saying there is no way to "pre-lay" a course, but instead I must "micro-manage" each group's movements on-the-fly - by constantly taking "manual" depth measurements near my subs as they move? (Arrgh!!! What a pain! )

 

Yeah, painfully easy in my experience.

 

Hmmm... I must be missing something here. I can't imagine that it would be "easy" to micro-manage each group's course - in the midst of everything else that's typically going on. Even if it was only one group involved, it still seems like it would be an excessive amount of effort for the "theatre commander" to put into managing an individual group. Where are the ships' officers when ya need 'em??

Hmmm... I must be missing something here. I can't imagine that it would be "easy" to micro-manage each group's course - in the midst of everything else that's typically going on. Even if it was only one group involved, it still seems like it would be an excessive amount of effort for the "theatre commander" to put into managing an individual group. Where are the ships' officers when ya need 'em??

 

I don't know how to say it any more clearly: I do not find navigating and determining water depth to be a chore in any way.

I don't know how to say it any more clearly: I do not find navigating and determining water depth to be a chore in any way.

 

Perhaps you have a lot more patience than I... or perhaps my understanding of your techniques is incorrect.

 

As far as I know, there are only two possible ways to navigate a group:

1) Lay-in courses via the "course editor", and allow the GE to execute such courses, or

2) Manually navigate each group by constantly setting its current direction (without using courses).

 

Since it appears that approach #2 would be extremely tedious and time-consuming, I'm assuming that method isn't the "very easy" approach that you're alluding to, correct?

 

That leaves method #1. However, as far as I know, the only way to use courses in conjection with depth determinations would be to take some number of manual depth readings all along the planned course, and then somehow correlate the exact positions of the various depths to the placement of the course during course-editing mode (because, as far as I know, there is no way to take depth measurments once you're in course-editing mode), correct? But, unless I'm missing something here, doing this would not only be quite tedious, but also rather error-prone, because I don't know what you'd use for reference points.

 

So, apparently, neither of the navigation methods that I'm aware of can be the very easy method that you use... so, I'm out of guesses. Uncle!

Perhaps you have a lot more patience than I... or perhaps my understanding of your techniques is incorrect.

As far as I know, there are only two possible ways to navigate a group:

1) Lay-in courses via the "course editor", and allow the GE to execute such courses, or

2) Manually navigate each group by constantly setting its current direction (without using courses).

 

Since it appears that approach #2 would be extremely tedious and time-consuming, I'm assuming that method isn't the "very easy" approach that you're alluding to, correct?

 

I guess I use a hybrid of the two approaches you mention, as I usually set courses that are fairly short.

 

To be honest, setting a course for a submarine and then making sure it doesn't broach or hit the bottom is hardly ever an issue of concern.

 

If my submarine is navigating in the open ocean, then worrying about striking bottom is a non-issue and I am far more concerned about sonar conditions, best speed, and my ultimate destination.

 

If my submarine is navigating in restricted waters, then I (if need be) determine the water depth in the area of my intended path, and set my course accordingly. Most often, this is going to be Intermediate or Shallow, because the nature of the restricted waterway is going to dictate that my foes will be fairly close at hand when I do detect them.

 

In neither case do I set a course and then forget about the sub for long periods of time. I am constantly monitoring its progress, its position, its heading, its sensor performance, etc. So beaching it or running headlong into the shallows is just not a concern.

 

I am a micro manager when it comes to HCE. What you might find 'tedious' or 'burdensome', I relish. Our method of game play seems to be so fundamentally different that we are just not on the same page.

To be honest, setting a course for a submarine and then making sure it doesn't broach or hit the bottom is hardly ever an issue of concern.

 

If my submarine is navigating in the open ocean, then worrying about striking bottom is a non-issue and I am far more concerned about sonar conditions, best speed, and my ultimate destination.

 

Hmmm... I have to disagree: The times that I've been "bitten" with subs usually were times when I was moving through what appeared to be open ocean, but apparently had unseen "sea mounts" -or something- that, with my luck, I managed to "find".

 

 

If my submarine is navigating in restricted waters, then I (if need be) determine the water depth in the area of my intended path, and set my course accordingly. Most often, this is going to be Intermediate or Shallow, because the nature of the restricted waterway is going to dictate that my foes will be fairly close at hand when I do detect them.

 

For whatever reason, I've actually had more trouble with running ships into the ground in 'restricted' waters... while my sub problems mostly show up in spots that ought to be fairly open - but apparently are not. Granted, I was using the textured maps to give me my clues about water depths, so that didn't help matters.

 

I guess the thing that bothers me about trying to use manual soundings to figure out where to put the course in 'restricted' areas is the question of how close together to do the soundings - because it's obvious (from experience) that the depths can change quite abruptly -and unexpectedly- in such areas... and I'm unsure how much "granularity" needs to be accounted for when trying to detemine the depths along a prospective course.

 

 

In neither case do I set a course and then forget about the sub for long periods of time. I am constantly monitoring its progress, its position, its heading, its sensor performance, etc. So beaching it or running headlong into the shallows is just not a concern.

 

As I mentioned earlier, this would be managable if we're dealing only with one or two groups - but I have serious trouble just keeping all the air groups out of trouble, and so I have to rely on the ship and sub groups to sort of take care of themselves - especially during the peaks of air activity.

 

 

I am a micro manager when it comes to HCE. What you might find 'tedious' or 'burdensome', I relish. Our method of game play seems to be so fundamentally different that we are just not on the same page.

 

Well, it's a double-edged sword: One of the aspects that I like about HCE is that it can be managed from several levels - that is, you can be a theatre commander if you want, and stand back and manage things "globally", or you can be a task force commander where you sort of micro-manage atthe group level, yet you also can (sort of) be a pilot or a ship commander and really "micro-manage" the actions of individual units. That's cool!

 

But, the downside is that in order to be successful in the game, you can't be only an upper-level commander, and you are forced to micro-manage each group or even each unit - because if left to their own control, then they have a strong tendency towards self-destructive actions. Some of the more prominent examples:

 

- Of course, all of the stuff we've been discussing here about micro-managing sub and surface groups and units - lest they run aground or "expose" themselves.

- Aircraft will run themselves out of fuel if you don't keep constant tabs on each one - especially difficult with mixed groups.

- You have to micro-manage almost all aspects of aircraft re-fueling operations, or it simply doesn't happen.

- Aircraft won't attack SAM or AAA sites unless you manually fly them right up to the site, and only then issue the attack order.

- Aircraft won't take evasive action on their own during an engagement, so if you don't micro-manage them, then most likely they'll get shot down in the process of conducting an attack; for example:

-- If left to its own control, an aircraft group that is attacking a surface target may launch some of its missiles, but then just keep flying right at the target (where it's likely to get shot down)

-- After expending all of its anti-surface weapons, an air group will just "park" over the target - but if the target hasn't been destroyed, it'll likely continue shooting down the planes.

-- After a group launches its missiles at an air target, it'll continue moving directly at the target - and right into any return fire, without evading.

-- Recon groups make no effort to avoid detected interceptors

- Land units require constant attention, as they can't be ordered to close and engage, but must be moved in manually and then ordered to engage at the "right moment".

 

Now, all this sort of stuff may be "fun" to manage manually in a single engagement... but the problem is in a typical situation, there are multiple engagements going on simultaneously, so it becomes work overload when the player is required to micro-manage all aspects of multiple engagements or group actions all at once. That's my concern.

 

It would be better if the individual groups had some minimal "intelligence" or "canned tactics" which would allow them to engage and/or evade in a more realistic fashion on their own, without needing manual intervention. Perhaps we need a "switch" to set each group to "manual" or "automatic" control, in order to accommodate the need for automatic control in furball conditions, while allowing manual control for "fun" situations. (?)

Hmmm... I have to disagree: The times that I've been "bitten" with subs usually were times when I was moving through what appeared to be open ocean, but apparently had unseen "sea mounts" -or something- that, with my luck, I managed to "find".

 

You can disagree all you want but I am relating to you my own experience and I expect you will have a hard time convincing me otherwise. I have never struck a 'sea mount' in HCE, but I have never been aboard the USS San Francisco either.

 

I guess the thing that bothers me about trying to use manual soundings to figure out where to put the course in 'restricted' areas is the question of how close together to do the soundings - because it's obvious (from experience) that the depths can change quite abruptly -and unexpectedly- in such areas... and I'm unsure how much "granularity" needs to be accounted for when trying to detemine the depths along a prospective course.

 

I have to question why you seem to insist on putting your submarines into such shallow waters. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, HCE manages water depth as a function of distance from land. Its really quite simple. With all due respect, I don't hear anyone else clamoring about they are constantly beaching submarines.

 

As I mentioned earlier, this would be managable if we're dealing only with one or two groups - but I have serious trouble just keeping all the air groups out of trouble, and so I have to rely on the ship and sub groups to sort of take care of themselves - especially during the peaks of air activity.

 

Unless I am ignoring my ships and submarines and leaving them to their own devices, I just don't have this problem. And since we added the ability to 'pause' the action, and sort out such things, its easier now than it has ever been.

 

Now, all this sort of stuff may be "fun" to manage manually in a single engagement... but the problem is in a typical situation, there are multiple engagements going on simultaneously, so it becomes work overload when the player is required to micro-manage all aspects of multiple engagements or group actions all at once. That's my concern.

 

Maybe you should be sticking to the simple, linear scenarios, then? If I was finding myself frustrated and overwhelmed by too many things going on, I'd probably want to pick another scenario to play. To each his own, and all that.

 

It would be better if the individual groups had some minimal "intelligence" or "canned tactics" which would allow them to engage and/or evade in a more realistic fashion on their own, without needing manual intervention. Perhaps we need a "switch" to set each group to "manual" or "automatic" control, in order to accommodate the need for automatic control in furball conditions, while allowing manual control for "fun" situations. (?)

 

Sounds like 'wish list' material to me. If you've seen the Wish List subforum, you'll note that there are many things that we'd each like to have. An enhanced AI is certainly one. Whether its reasonably within our grasp to introduce such code without breaking something else is quite another.

Hmmm... I have to disagree: The times that I've been "bitten" with subs usually were times when I was moving through what appeared to be open ocean, but apparently had unseen "sea mounts" -or something- that, with my luck, I managed to "find".

 

 

Hmmm ... is your sub in the centre of its formation? Because if it's not, then it isn't where the icon you're navigating with portrays it as being.

Hmmm ... is your sub in the centre of its formation? Because if it's not, then it isn't where the icon you're navigating with portrays it as being.

 

That's a good point, Warhorse. The Group Map will show your submarine as being in the centre of its formation, but the Unit Map will show where it actually is, in terms of what sector of its own formation it has been assigned to patrol. If you're anywhere near land, this could prove a critical factor.

 

I can only wish that something as simple as that would solve JoeK's particular problem.