Are Number of Warships Realistic in Stock Game?

[kikanjuu]

In Silent Hunter 4 Stock game, are the number of Japanese warshisp, especially destroyeres realistic?

As far as I remember, at the start of the pacific war Japan Navy had around 120 destroyers in total...
I hope in the SH4 stock game, DD does not appear endlessly...

[TwoGamers]

Yes and no. Say you go to Japan and sink 8 destroyers. Next patrol there will be four less destroyers. If you then sink 2 more destroyers next patrol there will be 3 less the patrol after.At least this is how my game seems to work (I modded it so i can see how many types of ships are in game at the moment)

As for the number being realistic no it's not. It just spawns a number into the game depending on where you are at the moment. If your in Japan it might put 15 destroyers into that grid(s) area.

Hope this helped:)

[Armistead]

Nothing really realisitc in numbers. If a group spawns 8 DD's, you could sink them all, lose the group, find it again and they will all be back. Now some mods will eliminate certain ships historically, such as RSRD when the ship was sunk for good, but until then you can sink it as many times as you can find it. For instance, you could sink the Yamato 100 times in game, even though only two existed.

[kikanjuu]

Yes and no. Say you go to Japan and sink 8 destroyers. Next patrol there will be four less destroyers. If you then sink 2 more destroyers next patrol there will be 3 less the patrol after.At least this is how my game seems to work (I modded it so i can see how many types of ships are in game at the moment)

As for the number being realistic no it's not. It just spawns a number into the game depending on where you are at the moment. If your in Japan it might put 15 destroyers into that grid(s) area.

Hope this helped:)

Where to download your mod to show numbers of ships by type?

[TorpX]

If you want realistic shipping, use RSRDC. It provides the most historical/realistic shipping levels. Stock puts out too many ships (or so I'm told).

[TwoGamers]

kikanju I mad eit I haven't put it online

[Gibus]

... Stock puts out too many ships (or so I'm told).

Do not believe everything that is told ....
There is NO mod that depicts each of the IJN ships and making them disappear to when they sank.
Some mods have at least one ship per class, except for DD Kagero, Shimakaze, CL Nagara, Oyodo, Tenryu, Yubari, CVE Hosho, Kaiyo, Ryuho, Ryujo, Chitose after 1943, CV Akagi, Kaga and many others ...
Such work would require months of preparation and would inevitably tarnished error because nobody knows it all.
Some modders have simply copied a similar profile to make a new ship, but this is an illusion.

[tater]

Not even close to realistic. The stock game has late war DDs at the start of the war, and in a single 1942 time frame there are vastly more DDs at sea that japan had during the entire war (including kaibokan) combined.

The stock campaign is worthless.

[TorpX]

There is NO mod that depicts each of the IJN ships and making them disappear to when they sank.
Some mods have at least one ship per class, except for DD Kagero, Shimakaze, CL Nagara, Oyodo, Tenryu, Yubari, CVE Hosho, Kaiyo, Ryuho, Ryujo, Chitose after 1943, CV Akagi, Kaga and many others ...
Such work would require months of preparation and would inevitably tarnished error because nobody knows it all.
Some modders have simply copied a similar profile to make a new ship, but this is an illusion.

Your points are well taken, but I'm thinking more along the lines of the volume of traffic, than the particular ships. Substituting a similar ship for one not in the game database, or not eliminating one that was sunk at a particular date is one thing, spawning five times as many ships in the game and throwing them out where they would have no rational reason to be, just to make the game more "exciting", is quite another. Some seem to harbor the idea that patrolling in a submarine is very boring if you do not encounter an enemy ship every single day. :doh:

[tater]

The game can't count ships, so there are no limits on how many of a class can be spawned. The trick is to make it so at least too many don't show up in a given group, or ideally patrol for some. It's a fundamental flaw of the game engine that should have been addressed given attacks on capital ships (you sink Yamato, then Musashi, then the next patrol they are back again).

Not as critical for merchants since they are meant to be somewhat generic (hard to model hundreds of different merchants).

[Armistead]

Torpx, I think you're looking for something like RSRD with more loops and percentages, rather than fixed groups. As you know many complain there is no traffic in RSRD, that is until they figure it out, then you can attack the same groups over and over at will. Have you tried TMO alone?

[TorpX]

My comments are meant as more of a general observation, than as a personal complaint. I have not yet managed to finish the war, and don't have an encyclopedic memory of battles and campaigns, so RSRDC is ok for me. However, I know some have either read enough, or played enough to know the SH campaign too well, and a randomised campaign would be a great benefit for them, no?

Have you tried TMO alone?

No, but if I can ever finish a RFB-RSRDC, I want to try it.

[Armistead]

My comments are meant as more of a general observation, than as a personal complaint. I have not yet managed to finish the war, and don't have an encyclopedic memory of battles and campaigns, so RSRDC is ok for me. However, I know some have either read enough, or played enough to know the SH campaign too well, and a randomised campaign would be a great benefit for them, no?


No, but if I can ever finish a RFB-RSRDC, I want to try it.


I've played and studied it enough I can pretty much attack any group I want, but since it has so much traffic, often I'll just hunt in locations I don't know as well. However, I have added numerous sub hunter groups, ships and convoys that are more generic and use lots of loops.

TMO was fun for awhile, the convoys zig more, use more speed, loops, percentages, generics, so it changes things up.

Still, attacking a group, regardless of mods can become boring once you learn the AI, so I work more on harder settings. Many of the groups I added aren't historically correct, such as 6 elite escorts guarding one tanker or troopship.

Give TMO a try without RSRD.

[Subnuts]

Are you currently speaking Japanese, but aren't actually Japanese?

Then, no.

[mdewals]

wouldn't it be nearly impossible to have a realistic number of ships unless you play an historically correct campaign?

if you, the player sink 1 ship more or 1 ship less, wouldn't that affect the war in some way?

For example, what would happen to Japan if you sink 10 ships more in a single month compared to what really got sunk? Would it make the home front work harder on new ships or would it destroy the morale?

[Dread Knot]

wouldn't it be nearly impossible to have a realistic number of ships unless you play an historically correct campaign?

if you, the player sink 1 ship more or 1 ship less, wouldn't that affect the war in some way?

For example, what would happen to Japan if you sink 10 ships more in a single month compared to what really got sunk? Would it make the home front work harder on new ships or would it destroy the morale?

It probably wouldn't destroy home front morale as most Japanese weren't kept informed on how badly the Japanese merchant marine was being devastated. Frankly, most average Japanese didn't find out how poorly the war had been going until it was over.

It did force the Japanese to eventually keep the fleet in the south (Borneo) where the oil was as enough fuel couldn't be shipped to Japan to keep both the fleet and industry going.

Ultimately, it took the combination of the destruction of the entire Japanese merchant marine, the firebombing and atomic bombing of Japan and the Russian invasion of Manchuria to get Japanese homefront morale even close to a breaking point.

[tater]

Also, as it was we sank virtually everything. Nothing a player could do would have a terribly macroscopic effect on the war except perhaps the sinking of certain critical warships very early in the conflict. Locally they'd certainly send ASW assets to areas they had spotted subs (later in the war, particularly, read Thunder Below for good examples).

Regardless, the devs clearly thought about this, but it never got turned on. There are names for ships in class that are not used by the engine at all. Sinking warships, at the very least should result in 1 fewer of that type. Ideally the engine would then have used that to possibly alter random occurrences of that ship type. Ie: 2xYamato class. On a campaign pull for a random BB (or superBB), if a group has chances for 2, there should never be more than one if one has already been sunk. But it doesn't work that way, sadly.

[Armistead]

Also, as it was we sank virtually everything. Nothing a player could do would have a terribly macroscopic effect on the war except perhaps the sinking of certain critical warships very early in the conflict. Locally they'd certainly send ASW assets to areas they had spotted subs (later in the war, particularly, read Thunder Below for good examples).

Regardless, the devs clearly thought about this, but it never got turned on. There are names for ships in class that are not used by the engine at all. Sinking warships, at the very least should result in 1 fewer of that type. Ideally the engine would then have used that to possibly alter random occurrences of that ship type. Ie: 2xYamato class. On a campaign pull for a random BB (or superBB), if a group has chances for 2, there should never be more than one if one has already been sunk. But it doesn't work that way, sadly.

I think they just settled for a balance. Even with harder AI settings it's still rather easy to wipe out a TF with one sub. For instance, I can take out five carriers in one patrol early war, next patrol do basically the same. The issue is a player could have great effect on the war, sinking numerous capital ships the first year. The way the game is, one sub could basically win the war in one year. Realistically if I took out 8 capital ships in a few patrols, it should effect the overall plans and campaigns of the enemy. I don't see that the AI could ever generate properly based on what a human may do against it.

Still, I think we can make a better campaign mod. Most mods lack the proper ASW response. I corrected this by adding more sub killer groups and many roaming assets around ports and shipping lanes and tweaking the contact time and range. In places like Formosa, I can hardly escape after an attack, as planes and escorts come a looking and hunt for several hours. One aspect of Travs mod I liked was certain planes would shadow your sub from long range, not attacking, but calling in assets as long as you remain on the surface.

[Dread Knot]

I think they just settled for a balance. Even with harder AI settings it's still rather easy to wipe out a TF with one sub. For instance, I can take out five carriers in one patrol early war, next patrol do basically the same. The issue is a player could have great effect on the war, sinking numerous capital ships the first year. The way the game is, one sub could basically win the war in one year. Realistically if I took out 8 capital ships in a few patrols, it should effect the overall plans and campaigns of the enemy. I don't see that the AI could ever generate properly based on what a human may do against it.

Still, I think we can make a better campaign mod. Most mods lack the proper ASW response. I corrected this by adding more sub killer groups and many roaming assets around ports and shipping lanes and tweaking the contact time and range. In places like Formosa, I can hardly escape after an attack, as planes and escorts come a looking and hunt for several hours. One aspect of Travs mod I liked was certain planes would shadow your sub from long range, not attacking, but calling in assets as long as you remain on the surface.

To me this is indicative of another problem with SH4. You simply run into major units of the Japanese Navy too often. The vast majority of US skippers never saw a Japanese carrier through their periscope. However, with historical foreknowledge of where they will be, or because the system spawns them too often it's fairly easy to do in the game.

[tater]

A reason that it is so very easy to sink more than we should is also a failure of the game engine.

Zig-zagging (real ZZing, not the pathetic, reactionary constant-helming we see) was SOP, for example. This would make it harder to shoot. I tend to buy the TMO notion that it's worth making the IJN ASW better than it historically was in order to drive player behavior (fear of death, really) to be more cautious and thoughtful.

There are some other possible ideas, too, but not in the SH4 engine.

[Armistead]

A reason that it is so very easy to sink more than we should is also a failure of the game engine.

Zig-zagging (real ZZing, not the pathetic, reactionary constant-helming we see) was SOP, for example. This would make it harder to shoot. I tend to buy the TMO notion that it's worth making the IJN ASW better than it historically was in order to drive player behavior (fear of death, really) to be more cautious and thoughtful.

There are some other possible ideas, too, but not in the SH4 engine.

I think you hit the point on the head. I like TMO's more zig pattern, but the evasion helming is pointless, not only that the group ususally slows down, making it more pointless.

What is strange is often groups will break up, go in different directions, different speeds, then regroup later, much more realistic. I wish I knew what caused this behavior, but assume it's coded, along with the silly helming.

It seemed to me changing the merchants crew ratings to elite made them respond much better and break from the group, but I would have to test it more. I think I now have about every ship in RSRD set to elite for more realism.

I don't play much anymore, but they're still several things that could be done to make the game more realistic

[Armistead]

To me this is indicative of another problem with SH4. You simply run into major units of the Japanese Navy too often. The vast majority of US skippers never saw a Japanese carrier through their periscope. However, with historical foreknowledge of where they will be, or because the system spawns them too often it's fairly easy to do in the game.

Yep, stock spawns too much and with RSRD it's easy to figure out where they will be. Why I kept hoping tater was going to write a new campaign.:D. This is one issue that could be corrected, just takes so much time no one wants to do it, including myself.

[tater]

I mean real ZZ patterns, too, not /\/\/\/\/\/\.

[Armistead]

Yea, I know what you mean. I wish there was a way to increase the helming to at least 1 nm, but I assume it's coded.

[TorpX]

There are a lot of good ideas here. It's too bad we can't re-engineer the game.

Something else that a thinking, living enemy would do, is to route their shipping around the danger. They may not be able to sink your sub, but once located, they could steer their merchants away from your position.

[Nicolas]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=162080

#x Class, Type, Group, Count, AppearanceDate, DisappearanceDate

Group:
1=Battleships
2=Carriers
3=HeavyCruisers
4=LightCruisers


#1 BBYamato, 20, 1, 2, 19411216, 19451231
#2 BBKongo, 11, 1, 4, 19140101, 19451231
#3 BBFuso, 11, 1, 2, 19131120, 19450101
#4 BBIseConv, 11, 1, 1, 19430223, 19451231
#5 BBIse, 11, 1, 1, 19130101, 19430701


#6 CVEAkitsu, 8, 2, 2, 19380101, 19450101
#7 CVEShoho, 8, 2, 2, 19380101, 19441025
#8 CVETaiyo, 8, 2, 3, 19410915, 19450916
#9 CVHiryu, 9, 2, 2, 19390705, 19450809
#10 CVHiyo, 9, 2, 2, 19420801, 19450809
#11 CVSChitose, 8, 2, 3, 19380101, 19450101
#12 CVShinano, 9, 2, 1, 19441101, 19441201
#13 CVShokaku, 9, 2, 2, 19410808, 19461231
#14 CVSoryu, 9, 2, 1, 19390705, 19451231
#15 CVTaiho, 9, 2, 1, 19440327, 19440719
#16 RCVUnryu, 9, 2, 3, 19440608, 19450809

#17 CAFurutaka, 7, 3, 4, 19260331, 19451011
#18 CAMaya, 7, 3, 4, 19300501, 19451201
#19 CAMogami2, 7, 3, 2, 19430430, 19441025
#20 CAMogami, 7, 3, 3, 19350101, 19441125
#21 CATakao, 7, 3, 4, 19300501, 19451201
#22 CATone, 7, 3, 2, 19380101, 19450728

#23 CLAgano, 6, 4, 4, 19421120, 19460702
#24 CLKatori, 6, 4, 3, 19200831, 19460810
#25 CLKuma, 6, 4, 5, 19200831, 19460810
#26 CLNaka, 6, 4, 4, 19240529, 19460810
#27 CLTenryu, 6, 4, 2, 19200831, 19441101
#28 CLYubari, 6, 4, 1, 19410615, 196901018

[msumpsi]

Not even close to realistic. The stock game has late war DDs at the start of the war, and in a single 1942 time frame there are vastly more DDs at sea that japan had during the entire war (including kaibokan) combined.

The stock campaign is worthless.
Yes, i agree. Not worth playing without RSRD.