Sinking ships in port

[dharthoorn]

By experience I have found that as soon as I start sinking ships at port a number of unwanted side-effects WILL occur soon thereafter.

1. Strange external camera behavior.
I do have TMO installed enabled but I re-enabled the external cam. The cam fails to focus on any target whatsoever and returns errors like "out of sector" at all sorts of weird angles.

2. Performance degradation.
Especially noticeable during time compression >x1024. Frame rate gets choppy.

3. Strange behavior upon loading a game.
Whenever one or more of the above has already occurred and a game is saved and reloaded the game immediately applies what seems to be random damage to one or more (sub)systems. The damage can be repaired.

4. Crashes.
When I continue the patrol despite above errors the game also starts to crash at changing camera views (like pericope to bioculars). Memory leaks also seem to occur according to the task manager. At around 1.6Gig the game reliably crashes. Enabling LAA flag in the .exe does not seem to avoid this crash.

After ending a patrol the above seems to reliably fix itself. I can reliably replicate any and all of the above behaviors at any point during the pacific campaign. Sinking a few stationary ships at port is all it takes.

So now I don't sink ships at port anymore and it's not a big deal. This post is to inform those with similar game behavior what the cause may be. :salute:

[robustits]

By experience I have found that as soon as I start sinking ships at port a number of unwanted side-effects WILL occur soon thereafter.

Objects in ports have many bugs, like cockroaches, flyes. Do not be too close!

[merc4ulfate]

It seems your doing many things that contribute to your own errors.

Many learned years ago that saving near large groups of vessels can cause corrupt saves. You just do not do it. Also adding a mod then changing an aspect of it can give you game play issues if you have not adjust all factors from the resulting item that you change.

Time compression is fine over long distance with little shipping traffic but around ports and convoys it is always taught that it should be avoided. Another issue that causes compression issues is what you have running on your computer along with the game. Sure we have better CPUs and ram these days but with the added load of OS's your still going to get compression issues from a game that is around 20 years old playing on a new system.

Of course if you have saved a game where you have deliberately put yourself in a situation where compression or large item mapping has to be saved your asking for trouble. It is one of the first things people are told to avoid doing when saving at sea. It is not an issue saving at port but when you pull up along side a convoy of 34 merchants and 10 escorts there is no guarantee that every single lat and longitude, speed, draft, where the wave was, where the smoke was and all of those other factors of every single vessel will be saved and then reinitialized upon resuming game play. Save in bad places will get you bad saves. Many games out there have holes where a player may fall into and then be trapped in between mapped textures and then if they save it they will not be happy when they try to play again. Same goes for SH.

You should take the time to read many dos and dont of the game ... none of these items are new to players who have been at it or years.

It sounds like it would do you well to read through a few of these threads.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=107783

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=146795

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=128517

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=131872

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=222

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=158234

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=155786

Everyone one of those will have real gems in them

[dharthoorn]

It seems your doing many things that contribute to your own errors.

Indeed it seems to be so. This game seems to have quite some do's and don'ts. Thanks for the useful many links and the tips already mentioned in your post.

[TorpX]

Not everybody finds SH4 to be fussy. It may be due to different hardware people have.

I've had very few problems with saves, but I'll admit, I don't push the game to it's limits either. For instance, I do not use very high levels of TC, I only use the external cam sparingly, and don't make a practice of harbor raiding. I also make it a habit to make each save to a unique designation.

I will sometimes save in the presence of enemy ships, while submerged and all, SH3 bugaboos notwithstanding. However, since I do not chase after large fleets, that will usually involve only a small number of ships.

[Armistead]

I run TMO, RSRD and several other mods and don't have those problems. The only time you should get an out of sector error is if you use the cam to go through the subs exterior walls.

I did play on a older system, but frames still held about 40 in ports. Now if you get around ports with lots of ships, does place a load and can slow the game down some.

I've played for years on the older system with numerous setups and as long as I use the right mod setup, never had a problem with crashes.

[merc4ulfate]

The out of sector issue is a normal thing for any computer game when you understand that some section are not modeled and the designers never intended anyone to go to those places.

CTD happens so rarely with the game I do not even worry about it. 99% of the time it is because of bad saves. The only time the game has thrown me out due to over load would be the one time where I got to close to Truk. Prior to a certain date if I got to close there would be multiple convoys and task forces spawning at a continuous rate. The sheer number of ships in the lagoon overloaded the game engine and crashed. I think it was only when I ran the fall of the rising sun mod too.

[Father Goose]

I have found that as soon as I start sinking ships at port...

Harbor-Raiding...uhg! :nope:

[Rammstein0991]

Harbor-Raiding...uhg! :nope:

Hey, as long as they get sunk, thats supplies the Japanese wont be getting :D

[dharthoorn]

Harbor-Raiding...uhg! :nope:

I don't see any moral issues whatsoever with sinking ships anchored at port. As long as they are bearing enemy flag in wartime in disputed territory, that makes them active participants and thus fair game according to every rule of engagement known to mankind.

Perhaps in WW2 history it didn't happen so often because of the tactical disadvantages (even pre-MAD) involved for a sub to be in shallow coastal waters. Alternatively, I cannot think of any tactical advantages in waiting until freighters leave port with DD escorts to start sinking them. Hell, sink the DD's at port FIRST and come back later for the freighters...

[Father Goose]

Hey, as long as they get sunk, thats supplies the Japanese wont be getting :D

I don't see any moral issues whatsoever with sinking ships anchored at port.

Apparently you skippers have never been called to the office of Admiral Armistead. :nope:

[Anthony W.]

You can't tell me you've never been right around Saipan with no contact in days and thought, ''There's 50,000 tons in there...''

[MarkCt]

The Tirante sank a ammunition ship and two escourts at anchorage in the northern shore of Quelpart island. Targets were getting scarce near the end of the war. There is even a film of it.

[TorpX]

I don't see any moral issues whatsoever with sinking ships anchored at port. As long as they are bearing enemy flag in wartime in disputed territory, that makes them active participants and thus fair game according to every rule of engagement known to mankind.

Perhaps in WW2 history it didn't happen so often because of the tactical disadvantages (even pre-MAD) involved for a sub to be in shallow coastal waters. Alternatively, I cannot think of any tactical advantages in waiting until freighters leave port with DD escorts to start sinking them. Hell, sink the DD's at port FIRST and come back later for the freighters...



The reason many players frown upon harbor raiding, is that the SH4 game harbors have weak and puny defenses. Both sides knew that their harbors had many valuable ships and protected them accordingly. It simply isn't realistic, the way the game allows one to waltz into a base and start sinking stuff.

[dharthoorn]

The reason many players frown upon harbor raiding, is that the SH4 game harbors have weak and puny defenses. Both sides knew that their harbors had many valuable ships and protected them accordingly. It simply isn't realistic, the way the game allows one to waltz into a base and start sinking stuff.

I've tried to find evidence of what you say on the Net and Wiki but I can't find that much to support your claim. Which ASW defences *would* there have been at harbors like Saipan that would pose a serious threat to raiding subs even at night?

Planes had nothing but visual to go on at the start. I don't know if the Japanese had the resources to allow for continuous multiple DD patrols doing active sonar sweeps that would deter a sneaky sub raiding a port.

Also, even IF there would be well equipped ASW harbors I would assume not be ALL or even a LOT of them -barring perhaps Japanese Mainland ports- especially not at the start of the war (let's say pre '43).

History supports your claim in the sense that it didnt seem all that common. I just do not understand what the actual defences would have consisted of that would be so effective. Again, especially at the start of the war.

[Dread Knot]

The way I see it there are five factors in real life missing from the game that kept WW2 skippers from just nosing into a harbor when they got bored.

Lack of good maps. The ones in the game are perfect. You even have an optimal overhead GPS view of where you are all the time. In the actual war, there often were no good maps at all. When Mush Morton made his famous recon of Wewak, he had to rely on a crude blow-up from children's atlas that one of his crew had providentially brought aboard. A serious difficulty for both sides with naval operations in the Pacific was the lack of good hydrographic charts. In some cases, the only available charts were British Admiralty charts dating from the 19th century. These were reproduced and issued by the US Navy, but often with disastrous results as they were inaccurate and out of date.

Shallow Water. In SH4, the bottom is always flat, fairly constant and in reality, featureless like a swimming pool. All those rocks you see are simply graphics there for show. You can pass right through them. It's almost impossible to run aground unless you ram the beach. In the real world, the bottom of any harbor can be a minefield of unknown obstructions. Logs, coral heads, wrecks, reefs, rocks, planted obstacles, dredging spoils, sand bars, etc. Anyone of which could damage or hole a submarine. Shallow water always tends to be more subject to treacherous tides, eddies and currents probably all of unknown strength (due to poor charts) which would be difficult for the electric motors of a submerged submarine to overcome. There are none of these in SH4. In addition a submarine is far more visible against the bottom in shallow water by aircraft.

Harbors are busy. In SH4 most harbors (even the big ones) are rather thinly populated and lifeless. In the real world major ports are a crowded hive of constant activity. There are lighters, barges, auxiliaries, coasters, yard oilers, motor boats, tenders, coastal minesweepers, ferries, tugs constantly on the move, even at night. Most happily dedicated to putting out the alert if they spot periscopes or any strange activity. The game doesn't even begin the simulate the diverse number of small craft that took part in the war in the Pacific. Most Japanese mainland ports also had a dedicated contingent of shore patrols and searchlight posts manned by men who did nothing but scan the waters day and night.

Nets. Most large harbors had them, not only at the port entrance, but often deployed around important vessels as protection against torpedoes and frogmen as well. These harbor nets had dedicated tenders who would be another obstacle to dodge. In addition, most warships had a constant patrol conducted by armed members of the crew who would man a boat and row about the anti-torpedo net in shifts to maintain them.

The Unknown. In SH4 by living multiples lives and careers you learn the AI's predictable habits and which harbors are weak. In the real event, no one had anyway of knowing what sort of nasty surprise was waiting in any particular port. The US and Allied navies often assumed that Japanese harbor defence procedures were the same as their own (after Pearl Harbor quite stringent) and acted accordingly. A US skipper thinking of penetrating an enemy anchorage had only to dwell upon the well-publicized Japanese midget submarine operations into harbors which invariably ended in either suicide or captivity with little gain. That sobering fact probably wasn't lost on him.

[Sailor Steve]

:sign_yeah:

I'd say that sums it up pretty well.

[dharthoorn]

What a well written answer. :yeah:

Sure wouldn't want to run my sub aground in/around an enemy port...imagine the embarrassment. I'd could never go to a veteran party even if I survived the Jap prison camp.

Now I will just have to restrain myself next time I pass a harbor with a phat BB or bunch of freighters just sittin' there.

But come on man...it's like being in a strip club and having to look the other way. I wish there weren't any ships in port.

[merc4ulfate]

Very nicely written Dread Knot.

[Father Goose]

:sign_yeah:
I'd say that sums it up pretty well.

Harbor-Raiding...uhg! :nope:

I thought I summed it up well too. :D

[Dread Knot]

Thanks guys!

I guess my one last caveat to the issues of harbor raiding is that a ship sitting in 40 feet of water isn't always lost forever. I'm sure to a casual observer on December 7th, 1941, all the battleships of the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor looked like goners (save maybe Pennsylvania in drydock) But by war's end they were all back in the fight, save the Arizona and the Oklahoma. (Oklahoma was initially to be salvaged too, but by the time she was righted from her capsized position in 1944, it wasn't seen as worth the effort) Incredibly, the shattered destroyers Cassin and Downes that you often see in pictures of the aftermath were pieced back together, although probably more out of pride and defiance than need.

Even the Japanese destroyer that Mush Morton broke the back of, in that shallow inlet at Wewak, was eventually beached, salvaged and put back into action. Unfortunately, the game is all or nothing and doesn't credit damage.

[merc4ulfate]

It is amazing how people can come together, put their differences aside, forget about politics, religion, social justice and work tireless hours of the day to go off and murder their fellow man.

I kind of like how Willy Dixon put it in his song:

http://youtu.be/Yil7_XsLN1M


Thanks guys!

I guess my one last caveat to the issues of harbor raiding is that a ship sitting in 40 feet of water isn't always lost forever. I'm sure to a casual observer on December 7th, 1941, all the battleships of the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor looked like goners (save maybe Pennsylvania in drydock) But by war's end they were all back in the fight, save the Arizona and the Oklahoma. (Oklahoma was initially to be salvaged too, but by the time she was righted from her capsized position in 1944, it wasn't seen as worth the effort) Incredibly, the shattered destroyers Cassin and Downes that you often see in pictures of the aftermath were pieced back together, although probably more out of pride and defiance than need.

Even the Japanese destroyer that Mush Morton broke the back of, in that shallow inlet at Wewak, was eventually beached, salvaged and put back into action. Unfortunately, the game is all or nothing and doesn't credit damage.

[TorpX]

Dread Knot's excellent post covered everything very well, but I'd like to touch on a couple minor points.




Planes had nothing but visual to go on at the start. I don't know if the Japanese had the resources to allow for continuous multiple DD patrols doing active sonar sweeps that would deter a sneaky sub raiding a port.



You're quite right that the Japanese couldn't really afford to devote scores of fleet destroyers to ASW work, but most of local harbor defense would fall to smaller craft, often referred to as patrol boats or sub chasers. While not much good for fleet operations, they could be built, manned, and maintained for a fraction of the cost of a fleet destroyer. Even better, they were more maneuverable (important in harbors), shallow draft (almost immune to torpedo attack), and most of their armament was devoted to ASW platforms. To take on two or more of these in shallow water, would be nearly suicidal. The game focuses on large ocean-going ships, so we don't see too many of these small vessels.


History supports your claim in the sense that it didnt seem all that common. I just do not understand what the actual defences would have consisted of that would be so effective. Again, especially at the start of the war.


Most of the penetration of harbors occurred against poorly defended anchorages, not against large, well established, heavily defended ones. Wewak, Lingayen Gulf, and Namkwan Harbor (Fluckey's raid), fall into this category. The German's torpedoing of Royal Oak is the only exception I can think of at the moment.

The defenses of IJ harbors was probably less effective at the start of the war, than it was later, but so too the effectiveness of our sub and naval forces was also very much less.

[Rammstein0991]

You can't tell me you've never been right around Saipan with no contact in days and thought, ''There's 50,000 tons in there...''

Realistically speaking it would also be a morale blow, as the Japanese soldiers would be sitting there helpless watching their ammunition, food, and medical supplies be blown up with them helpless to do anything about it.

[Dread Knot]

Realistically speaking it would also be a morale blow, as the Japanese soldiers would be sitting there helpless watching their ammunition, food, and medical supplies be blown up with them helpless to do anything about it.

Historically, the greatest blows to Japanese Army morale on Saipan took place on the high seas. On May 30th, 1944 a convoy of seven transports carrying more than 7,000 troops of the 43d Division sailed from Japan and headed south to reinforce Saipan. It was subjected to almost continuous submarine attack, and within three days five of the seven transports were sunk. The two remaining vessels picked up the survivors and steamed the rest of the way to the Marianas.

About 80% of the troops of this convoy were saved and landed on Saipan, but they arrived as demoralized survivors without artillery, tanks, weapons or equipment. The 118th Infantry Regiment lost about 850 men, and the survivors had virtually no resemblance to the organized fighting team that had left Japan. So little time was left before the American invasion that the regiment could not be reorganized and re-equipped sufficiently to raise its combat efficiency much above nil.

Sink the same ships in port in shallow water and likely most of the equipment can be recovered and far more troops survive. It's a lot easier to swim ashore from a few yards away, than thousands of miles away.

[TorpX]

I don't mean to pile on, but playing armchair admiral is about the only fun I have...

It comes back to the age-old question of whether to attack the enemy when he is on the march or when he is in a protected position. In land warfare, it is usually considered to be better to ambush the enemy on patrol, rather than attack a fortified place. Of course, there are successful commando attacks against heavily fortified places, but they are always fraught with risk.

Merchant ships, to do their job, must traverse the open seas, and thus are inherently vulnerable. Since you have the choice of where to attack them, isn't it easier and safer, to attack them while they are in transit?

Of course, it is different with air operations. With heavy or medium bomber operations, it was generally more worthwhile to attack ships in port, attacks against moving ships at sea, not being very successful.

[MarkCt]

If you were given a photo ops mission in a well protected harbor, and you did your very best to get in there without being detected, after taking the pictures, would you torpedo any of the ships or just try to slip back out?

Most of the harbors I did photo ops in just had a few patrol boats and freighters but one had a couple carriers, BB's and a sub. All the other times I would just take the photos and leave but that time the temptation was just too great.

[TorpX]

Oh, if I actually had to go into a protected anchorage, and had the opportunity to torpedo valuable ships, I would do it. That is to say, if I could do it without committing suicide. :dead:

I don't like shallow water operations, though. If I get insanely dangerous orders, I consider that they were "garbled in transmission".

[magic452]

If you were given a photo ops mission in a well protected harbor, and you did your very best to get in there without being detected, after taking the pictures, would you torpedo any of the ships or just try to slip back out?

Most of the harbors I did photo ops in just had a few patrol boats and freighters but one had a couple carriers, BB's and a sub. All the other times I would just take the photos and leave but that time the temptation was just too great.

I had the same issue, two big fat CVs just couldn't pass them up and sank both. Unfortunately I did so BEFORE I took the photos. :/\\!!:/\\!!
Nobody was interested in pics of floating debris. Couldn't complete the mission as there were no CVs to photo.

Magic

[Dread Knot]

The funny thing is that the vast majority of submarine recon missions in the war were conducted against isolated atolls and islands. Not against large bases like Singapore or Hashirajima well stocked with carriers and battleships. It was more usually places like Kwajalein, Tarawa, Marcus Island, Ponape, Attu, Yap, Iwo Jima, etc. Their purpose was to obtain photos of possible landing beaches - taken through the periscope and thus showing the beaches from the perspective of an approaching landing craft. Must have been useful to brief and familiarize the ground stompers on how the objective will look like from their angle of view.

Usually outposts like these didn't have the fancy breakwaters, docks and cranes like we see in the game. Maybe just a jetty or pier.

[Sailor Steve]

If you were given a photo ops mission in a well protected harbor, and you did your very best to get in there without being detected, after taking the pictures, would you torpedo any of the ships or just try to slip back out?
In real life you won't find any recon missions involving protected harbors. The events depicted in movies like Destination Tokyo just didn't happen. Given the locations involved it looks like recon missions were dedicated to checking the enemy's land forces, not his shipping.
http://www.valoratsea.com/recon.htm

For argument's sake, though, lets pretend they did. Why would you be sent into a heavily protected harbor to take pictures in the first place? Because the higher-ups wanted to know what was there. Why would they want to know what was there? Because with that information they could plan surface and air attacks that could devastate enemy forces, not just sinke a couple of ships. If, once you took your pictures, you proceded to sink ships you would alert the enemy to the fact that American forces had plans involving that harbor, thereby defeating the very purpose you were sent there for.

Most of the harbors I did photo ops in just had a few patrol boats and freighters but one had a couple carriers, BB's and a sub. All the other times I would just take the photos and leave but that time the temptation was just too great.
Missions assigned by the game are total fiction. I used to do the same in SH1 until I figured that out. After that I refused to go on missions involving major naval bases, not because they were dangerous but because they never happened in real life.

[TorpX]

For argument's sake, though, lets pretend they did. Why would you be sent into a heavily protected harbor to take pictures in the first place? Because the higher-ups wanted to know what was there. Why would they want to know what was there? Because with that information they could plan surface and air attacks that could devastate enemy forces, not just sinke a couple of ships. If, once you took your pictures, you proceded to sink ships you would alert the enemy to the fact that American forces had plans involving that harbor, thereby defeating the very purpose you were sent there for.





You make a good point. A sub wouldn't be sent on such a hazardous mission, unless there was a very good reason; a desire for general information hardly qualifies.

It would be nice if the game were smart enough to come up with more authentic or rational special missions.

[Webster]

Missions assigned by the game are total fiction. I used to do the same in SH1 until I figured that out. After that I refused to go on missions involving major naval bases, not because they were dangerous but because they never happened in real life.
It would be nice if the game were smart enough to come up with more authentic or rational special missions.


well I think its hard to judge because just like in RL you wouldn't have a clue why you were there or why you are taking pictures instead of sinking ships so the "unexplained" is perfectly realistic IMHO.

lets say they have info that ship "x" is going to meet up with force "y" or lets say the yamato, something that can have an affect on the war if following a ship like that rather then sinking it, can lead you to a more serious threat they have been looking for. to do this you may well need to be going to a major port with little chance of success if the need was great enough.

simplistic example maybe, but im sure many scenarios like that played out during the war.

so having no other info then go to point "x" and take pictures keeps the true goal secret in case you are captured and in truth you have no need to know anything about the "true" mission you are on

[Dread Knot]

lets say they have info that ship "x" is going to meet up with force "y" or lets say the yamato, something that can have an affect on the war if following a ship like that rather then sinking it, can lead you to a more serious threat they have been looking for. to do this you may well need to be going to a major port with little chance of success if the need was great enough.



The problem is I can't come up with a historical instance where a submarine's mission was to shadow a warship to see where it goes, or follow it into a port. A submarine is a poor platform for such a job since it won't be able to keep up with most warships, speed wise even on the surface. When I look at Steve's list of historical sub recon missions I mostly see beach recon missions. That likely means an Army or Marine liaison officer is aboard and since he can't steer the ship to want he wants to see he is going to have to confer what he wants to the sub's skipper. If he wants to get close enough to see the lay of the land, to photograph machine gun nests and anti-boat gun emplacements he will have to convey that information as well.

[TorpX]

well I think its hard to judge because just like in RL you wouldn't have a clue why you were there or why you are taking pictures instead of sinking ships so the "unexplained" is perfectly realistic IMHO.

...........



True enough.



However, I was thinking that this:

...proceed to zone A2 and be on station no later than 1200 hrs. Jan. 15 .......then orders are received detailing that enemy ship movements are to be monitored from as close in to port as practicable, but avoid contact and under no circumstances are attacks to be made - report findings for operation sledgehammer [you wouldn't necessarily know much about the operation, or optionally would learn the details after returning to home port]........at a certain time you are cleared to attack enemy shipping after 1000 hrs., and to intercept any large enemy ships fleeing (bombing attack occurs. Some enemy ships attempt to get to safer port after attack, some have damage).


is more interesting than this:

Go on random mission to major enemy base and sneak past inexplicably weak defenses to photograph important enemy capitol ships. (Torpedo helpless anchored capitol ships at your discretion.)

Well, you get the idea.

I guess the bottom line is that a lot more could have been done with the concept of special missions. For example, they ignored mining operations entirely.

[MarkCt]

I have to agree with Webster. You have to play this game not knowing what you'll find in any port you go into. We're all looking at this because we know what happened in history. I've been playing RSRDC which is as close to history as this game allows. We are given a mission to photo ships in a port but we already know that it was not realistic so why do it? Because that's the game and the admirals somewhere in that game world told us to do it.
But being a game you can chose to play it any way you want. For me I want to follow orders as best that I can. So if I go into a harbor to to take pictures that's my mission BUT, while I'm in there I come upon a carrier, cruiser or other capital ships I would definitely take a shot at one.

Like others have said there's not much of a challenge sailing into an unprotected harbor and sinking ships that don't fight back.