Sinking neutral ships

[jaxa]

I'm reading Clay Blair's "Hitler's U-boat War" now (fourth or fifth time - one of the best book about U-boats ever written in my opinion) and I always wanted to know why in SH3/GWX we are punished for sinking neutral ships. German Uboats sinked many neutral ships without any problems from BdU (or with minor problems) during WW2 and Kaleun's lists of sink were increased by neutral BRT as same as hostile.

[STEED]

Hitler allowed attacks on neutral ships coming from America more so Russian Tankers in 1940, the U-Boats had to make it look like they struck a mine so they could get away with it.

[Happy Times]

I think NYGM "cloned" ships so that in convoys you could sink them. I dont know why GWX hasnt done this.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

I think NYGM "cloned" ships so that in convoys you could sink them. I dont know why GWX hasnt done this.

Because doing so would nearly double the size of the GWX download. Heavy price for little return.

Doing so would also likely double the loading times. We feel that if we must increase the loading times that we'd rather do it using completely new units.

You are not heavily punished for sinking neutrals in GWX... but you do get enough "punishment" to reflect that the world frowns on such practices.

Though sinkings of neutral ships did happen in RL... it did not happen every ten minutes... It was uncommon.

It is also irresponsible IMHO to indiscriminantly sink targets without identifying them.

Footnote: I recommend doing nothing more than enjoying the view if you happen across a hospital ship.;)

[Pablo]

Hi!

U-boats did indeed sink many neutral ships during World War II. Sometimes there was a problem, such as when Mexico declared war on Germany after Kapitänleutnant Reinhard "Teddy" Suhren in U-564 sank the Mexican tanker in Portrero de Llano May, 1942. At other times there were not, as when neutral ships were sunk while traveling in escorted convoys, or if an aggrieved country felt it was less damaging to suffer occasional predation by U-boats rather than risk general war with Germany.

One reason for this apparent discrepancy was that neutral ships sailing in a convoy protected by warships of a belligerent power were not considered "neutral" from the standpoint of the Hague Conventions, but neutral ships sailing alone and illuminated were considered "neutral." For example, Mexico claimed as casus belli the fact that the tanker that Kapitänleutnant Suhren sank was illuminated, though Suhren claimed it was not illuminated; on the other hand, Kapitänleutnant Erich Topp (U-552) sank the (ostensibly) neutral destroyer USS Reuben James in October 1941 without penalty because U.S. warships were acting as belligerents, although sinking U.S. merchant ships sailing alone was forbidden.

Stock Silent Hunter III treats any neutral ship as a neutral ship, regardless of whether it is in an escorted convoy or traveling alone. In game terms, it penalizes a player for sinking every possible target in sight without checking its flag to see to which country it belongs.

GWX simulates real life as far as possible by having a few illuminated ships that are used only by countries are currently neutral, but creating an illuminated "neutral" version of every merchant ship would be a lot of work as well as adding a lot of ships (and size) to GWX. The U.S. situation would also be fairly complex towards the end of 1941, with "hostile" warships and "neutral" merchant ships. Yikes! :o

Pablo

[melnibonian]

An easy way to get around the negative renown for sinking neutral ships is to edit the Cfg files. I usually set the renown to zero for neutral ships. That way you don't get penalised but you also don't get any rewards. I feel it's a good compromise given the limitations of the game that Kpt and Pablo explained above.

[Jimbuna]

I disagree with tweaking the renown :nope:
Sinking a neutral is a war crime :yep:
Many of the neutrals sunk were carrying women and children :yep:
Mistakes do happen in times of war...but sometimes just a little more attention to detail by the sub might have avoided such senseless waste of life...it's not as if the neutral was attacking the sub and a rushed/pressurised decision was called for :nope:
Heavy loss of renown in-game is the least one should expect :arrgh!:

[melnibonian]

I disagree with tweaking the renown :nope:
Sinking a neutral is a war crime :yep:

I think we will agree to disagree in this one Jim. I feel that sinking neutrals was fair game (as fair as sinking ships and killing people it can be) as long as they were inside exclusion zones, carrying cargo for the oposing sides etc. If any of the neutral cargos wanted to be left alone (having passengers on board for example) they could either have a Red Cross on them, or ask for speical passage. In any case it doesn't really matter. It's just a game and in my opinion the altering in renown reflects the Prize Rules that all countries followed (some more than others it needs to be said ;) ) during the war.
Enjoy the game however you like it. That's my view :D

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Well, no offense is meant to anyone, but concerning implementation in the un-modified GWX mod files, it will remain as a "negative" experience for the player.;)

[melnibonian]

Well, no offense is meant to anyone, but concerning implementation in the un-modified GWX mod files, it will remain as a "negative" experience for the player.;)
No offence taken Kpt. We all agree that for the general public GWX has to be versitile. That's the beauty of it. You can do small changes that allow the individual to customise the game. GWX Rocks :up: (with or without negative renown ;) :p :rotfl: )

[Jimbuna]

I am shocked mel :o
This kind of viewpoint/opinion is certainly out of sync with the UN/peacemaker image :lol:

Sinking neutrals was then and still is now akin/similar to an illegal act/war crime as defined in every interpretation of the the Geneva Convention :yep:

IMHO the very least GWX can do to penalise the player is to set a 'negative renown' tariff against the transgressor :arrgh!:

[melnibonian]

I am shocked mel :o
This kind of viewpoint/opinion is certainly out of sync with the UN/peacemaker image :lol:
Not really mate. UN/peacemaker is a good thing, but when war breaks out you have to win ;) :lol:
Sinking neutrals was then and still is now akin/similar to an illegal act/war crime as defined in every interpretation of the the Geneva Convention :yep:

It actually depends on the cargo the ship is carrying and on its position. If it carries valuables cargo to the enemy, or it is inside the exclusion zone it is legal to sink it. Obviously you need to provide for the crew as well, but nevertheless sinking it is legal.

[Jimbuna]

Well....you go on sinking em and I'll save the women and children an early bath ;)

[danurve]

PMS detected in this thread. :roll:
And Im not talking about pepperoni mushrooms and sausage.

"Sinking neutral ships" does sound neutral, no pun intended. But jaxa did then point out a sh3/gwx question. Stock game has a negative default attribute as a penalty. Not to mention now you have a new enemy for 24 hours or some jazz. Glad pablo addressed this. I am aware of no 'mod' that actually changes this to a neutral state, it is therefore the players call to change that, if they are comfortable making the edit for themselves. If the question was how to change this then a different question or "search" would reveal an easy answer and at least a few other threads covering neutrals.

Certainly seems like the modders are more uptight about their files being edited then the players being upset about neutral ships in convoys. And perhaps they have a right to be considering the work done for free. I certainly wouldn't want work I did re-edited then distributed that way. But then again I don't belive that is the point. The question basically was why the punishment in the game, which was answered.

[Jimbuna]

Pray tell Kaleun would you kindly explain what you mean by 'PMS' ?
I am not familiar with such a term or the use of such jargon. :hmm:

[bigboywooly]

:rotfl:
You might know it as PMT Jim

:rotfl:

[Henri II]

I am shocked mel :o
This kind of viewpoint/opinion is certainly out of sync with the UN/peacemaker image :lol:

Sinking neutrals was then and still is now akin/similar to an illegal act/war crime as defined in every interpretation of the the Geneva Convention :yep:

IMHO the very least GWX can do to penalise the player is to set a 'negative renown' tariff against the transgressor :arrgh!:

I don't think it was seen as a war crime even then. There is more neccessery to be considered neutral than just flying the flag of a neutral country. There were many neutral ships sunk in escorted convois or for other reasons that made them fair game, not a single case was ever prosecuted either during or after the war.

[Jimbuna]

:rotfl:
You might know it as PMT Jim

:rotfl:

But my periods ended months ago after I had the hysterectomy :oops:

BTW Hunter ICX is over on TS calling you worse than a pickpocket to a new member from Lithuania :rotfl: :rotfl:

[bigboywooly]

Damn clog hopping tulip muncher

[melnibonian]

Certainly seems like the modders are more uptight about their files being edited then the players being upset about neutral ships in convoys. And perhaps they have a right to be considering the work done for free. I certainly wouldn't want work I did re-edited then distributed that way. But then again I don't belive that is the point. The question basically was why the punishment in the game, which was answered.
If you're talking about the exchange I had with Jim you're wrong. We just had a nice discussion and we both expressed our opinions. We are not uptight and we always believe that the most important part of the game is to have fun. I don't see what Jim or I said can be considered as uptight. In any case as you said the question is answered so we can all go play and enjoy the game with or without renown punishment ;)

[Brag]

[quote=jimbuna]I am shocked mel :o
This kind of viewpoint/opinion is certainly out of sync with the UN/peacemaker image :lol:

Sinking neutrals was then and still is now akin/similar to an illegal act/war crime as defined in every interpretation of the the Geneva Convention :yep:

IMHO the very least GWX can do to penalise the player is to set a 'negative renown' tariff against the transgressor :arrgh!:

I don't think it was seen as a war crime even then. There is more neccessery to be considered neutral than just flying the flag of a neutral country. There were many neutral ships sunk in escorted convois or for other reasons that made them fair game, not a single case was ever prosecuted either during or after the war.

/quote]


During WWII, both sides made gross violations of neutrality. THE U.S. was a blantant violator, especialy when the USN began hostilities against U Boats. Germany and Spain, in turn , did violate neutrality by using interned ships to supply U-Boats.

But sinking neutrals without orders didn't do a U-Boat commander any good to his reputation, therefore penalizing for sinking neutrals in the game makes sense. You loose face, renown or whatever you want to call it.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Certainly seems like the modders are more uptight about their files being edited then the players being upset about neutral ships in convoys. And perhaps they have a right to be considering the work done for free. I certainly wouldn't want work I did re-edited then distributed that way.

@Danurve,
Incorrect. This issue was resolved concerning the renown issue interpretation for neutrals in GW/GWX many moons ago, after recurring debates on this very issue. My statement concerning the un-modified version of the GWX mod files was intended to clarify matters concerning GWX itself, for any who care... It was not intended to dictate to anyone, how they may or may not mod their personal files.

Players will do what players will do. Your statement muddies the water.:nope:

Besides, if GWX users and builders agreed on everything... life would be pretty dull IMHO. Some of the best things in GWX have come as a result of debate.

It might surprise you to find that I was initially against adding the Black Sea and Indian Ocean operational theaters to GWX. I thought it was too risky.

[danurve]

Kpt. Lehmann, You are certainly entitled to your opinion as am I. But thank you for taking time to further explain your thoughts. Although I thought in a way I was defending what modders put into said files after reading your post it occurs to me I need not bother. I don't mod much at all, just some jazz to my liking and so perhaps it's not my place to comment about the modders feelings. It seems strange though if indeed it was resolved why some of the senior members here had such reactions to the thread. That kind of water is just as muddy. Perhaps it matters not as I belive we can agree it is the players game.

Just on the side I think the Indian ocean addition gives GWX a distinct advantage.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Kpt. Lehmann, You are certainly entitled to your opinion as am I. But thank you for taking time to further explain your thoughts. Although I thought in a way I was defending what modders put into said files after reading your post it occurs to me I need not bother. I don't mod much at all, just some jazz to my liking and so perhaps it's not my place to comment about the modders feelings. It seems strange though if indeed it was resolved why some of the senior members here had such reactions to the thread. That kind of water is just as muddy. Perhaps it matters not as I belive we can agree it is the players game.

Danurve, the thing is that the decision implemented in GWX compliments the grey contacts and the necessity to identify a target before destroying it.

Additionally, changing that method in GWX would break that system... and the need to identify targets. A decision was made and the project moved forward and beyond it. It will remain the same.

Nothing muddy about that. You can't please all the people all the time.

Players that wish to change it in their files can do so by changing the following element in the Basic.Cfg: (file segment is from stock SH3... but it matters not)

[RENOWN]
RenownReachGridObjCompleted=500
RenownPatrolGridObjCompleted=200
CompletedPatrol=100
NEUTRAL=-1 <----Change this value to "0"
ALLIED=1
AXIS=-10
WrongShipSunk=-5000
FirstRankRenown=1000
SecondRankRenown=3500
EndCampaign=-5000

Changing the above value will remove the penalty for sinking neutrals.

Also, if I recall correctly, neutral tonnage is still added to your total. (feels like cheating to me... to purposefully sink neutrals)

[danurve]

Yeaup that is the edit alright.
Been there done that a while ago but I don't go about sinking lone neutrals, merchat or not. I do however have no mercy for neutrals clearly moving war materials in a convoy being escorted. Ok whats on the decks is just graphics or eye-candy but it adds an element to the game I like.
You may be correct about the tonnage, that is worth checking next time out. Ehhh, having said all that they are still secondary.
I guess it's not unusuall to have a shortcut just for editing that file. I've removed SS from deck-gun and added the amount to HE (another personal edit).

Added a sub-page to the community manual about sinking neutral ships for informational purpose. Used the edit info you provided if you don't mind.

[Jimbuna]

Certainly seems like the modders are more uptight about their files being edited then the players being upset about neutral ships in convoys. And perhaps they have a right to be considering the work done for free. I certainly wouldn't want work I did re-edited then distributed that way. But then again I don't belive that is the point. The question basically was why the punishment in the game, which was answered.
If you're talking about the exchange I had with Jim you're wrong. We just had a nice discussion and we both expressed our opinions. We are not uptight and we always believe that the most important part of the game is to have fun. I don't see what Jim or I said can be considered as uptight. In any case as you said the question is answered so we can all go play and enjoy the game with or without renown punishment ;)

I thought the sigs might of been a bit of a giveaway :lol:

BTW mel.....galley duty for you my old son....be a good boy and do as COB says :arrgh!:

[melnibonian]

BTW mel.....galley duty for you my old son....be a good boy and do as COB says :arrgh!:
:doh: Yes Sir. At your Orders Sir :shifty: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[joegrundman]

Sorry to reopen this old thread.

When playing GWX you get this message shortly after war breaks out in 1939

"1939/09/03|U-BOAT WARFARE AGAINST SHIPPING IS AT PRESENT TO BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL RULES. ATTACKS ARE TO BE AIMED AT SHIPS WHICH, BY THE PROTOCOL, MAY BE SUNK WITHOUT WARNING: 1.TROOPSHIPS, I.E. VESSELS WHICH ARE OBSERVED TO BE CARRYING TROOPS OR WAR MATERIAL, OR WHICH MAY BE IDENTIFIED IN OTHER WAYS. 2.ANY VESSEL ESCORTED BY ENEMY WARSHIPS OR AIRCRAFT. 3.VESSELS TAKING PART IN ENEMY ACTIONS OR ACTING IN DIRECT SUPPORT OF ENEMY OPERATIONS."

Seems to me that according to item 2, neutral US merchants headed to Britain as part of a British escorted convoy are totally fair game and shouldn't be penalised at all.

Is this how it worked historically?

[Gezoes]

...I do however have no mercy for neutrals clearly moving war materials in a convoy being escorted. Ok whats on the decks is just graphics or eye-candy but it adds an element to the game I like...

I agree, in my latest case it wasn't a cargo, but I sank a tanker that way. There were actually two of 'em, but just like in Das Boot, they doubled up. Besides, I was feeling very happy about penetrating the middle of the convoy and franticly firing away :rotfl:

[STEED]

1943 TOTAL WAR

Sink them all. :arrgh!:

[CapZap1970]

...I do however have no mercy for neutrals clearly moving war materials in a convoy being escorted. Ok whats on the decks is just graphics or eye-candy but it adds an element to the game I like...

I agree, in my latest case it wasn't a cargo, but I sank a tanker that way. There were actually two of 'em, but just like in Das Boot, they doubled up. Besides, I was feeling very happy about penetrating the middle of the convoy and franticly firing away :rotfl:
I am with you... :up:
Why should I consider a ship neutral if escorted by my enemies??:nope:
Sink them without remorse, I say!!!:yep:
CapZap

[Jimbuna]

The day of the pirate returns :arrgh!:

[STEED]

The day of the pirate returns :arrgh!:

:arrgh!: Jim lad :arrgh!: X marks the spot :arrgh!: Sink them all :arrgh!:

[joegrundman]

i think that according to the international rules mentioned above, sinking neutrals in an escorted convoy should not be considered piracy at all.

That would also go for neutrals found in the exclusion zone, i.e. neutrals found in places which mean it must be supplying Britain, although that's not made explicit in the cited message above..

In 1939 and early 1940, there are a lot of nowegian small merchants found sailing to and from british ports.

Am I right in saying that in game terms, sinking neutrals in either of these conditions is penalised?

Historically, were american and norwegian ships clearly trading with britain considered fair targets?

If the answer to both these questions turns out to be yes, i might mod the files to let neutral tonnage and reknown be the same as for enemy ships and i'll just follow the correct rules myself. I've never yet sunk a neutral not under those conditions despite the intense provocation that a floodlit Linienschiff presents :arrgh!: