Realism mod (discussion)

[schurem]

Well, since the 1.01b patch, the soviet subs take a lot of killing, that's for sure. In 1.0 one Mk-48 would usually end a Victor's active career. In 1.01b it takes at least two to shut them up.

They also keep firing even after blowing emergency ballast or sinking to the bottom. I once steered my Mk-48 into the nose section of a Victor-I in order to disable its tubes, but to no avail. It just kept on spitting fish at me.

On another occasion, I managed to put three Mk-48s in a Typhoon and it sat on the bottom but still launched two fish at me. I took one hit and managed to lure the other into the hissing wreck of the Typhoon. That did him in in the end

[PL_Harpoon]

Originally Posted by schurem

Well, since the 1.01b patch, the soviet subs take a lot of killing, that's for sure. In 1.0 one Mk-48 would usually end a Victor's active career. In 1.01b it takes at least two to shut them up.

They also keep firing even after blowing emergency ballast or sinking to the bottom. I once steered my Mk-48 into the nose section of a Victor-I in order to disable its tubes, but to no avail. It just kept on spitting fish at me.

On another occasion, I managed to put three Mk-48s in a Typhoon and it sat on the bottom but still launched two fish at me. I took one hit and managed to lure the other into the hissing wreck of the Typhoon. That did him in in the end

True. That's why I'm thinking about reducing US hull strength instead of buffing theirs.

[cj95]

Given the power of modern torpedoes and the great stresses modern sub hulls are under is there any "realistic" scenario where more than one torpedo would be needed to kill a sub?

(except maybe for a monster like a Typhoon)

I see videos of torps snapping destroyers in two and have to wonder how anything survives even a single hit.

(has there ever been a test of such a thing?)

[FPSchazly]

Any major breach of a US pressure hull with explosives is pretty much game over. US subs can't survive flooding of any one compartment. The double-hull configuration of most Soviet subs gives them more reserve buoyancy, so they have a greater chance of surviving a torpedo hit. I have no data to back this up, however I don't think any smaller Russian SSN would survive a MK48 hit, that torpedo just has such a huge amount of explosives. Lightweight ASW torpedoes, yeah it would probably take more than one. Something big like an Oscar or Typhoon could definitely be a different story.

[PL_Harpoon]

Originally Posted by cj95

I see videos of torps snapping destroyers in two and have to wonder how anything survives even a single hit.

(has there ever been a test of such a thing?)

Yeah, these videos got me thinking as well. However, the torpedo was able to snap it in half because it detonated below the ship. Direct impact would probably produce lesser results.
On the other hand it still has a powerful warhead and as far as I know it was like that from the start.
So, perhaps we should set player hull modifier at 0.6 and enemy at 1 or 0.8.


On another note, I did some testing regarding ship acceleration. And by testing I mean comparing CW to DW. Turns out it take almost twice as much time to reach flank speed in CW, than in DW. (LA class: 1:52' in Cold Waters vs 0:58' in DW). The problem is, it looks like CW doesn't take screw speed into consideration when calculating accelerations, so 0-5kn time is the same with 1/3 power as with full power.
Below is a comparison of various times done with a simple stopwatch:

[FPSchazly]

Originally Posted by PL_Harpoon

On another note, I did some testing regarding ship acceleration. And by testing I mean comparing CW to DW. Turns out it take almost twice as much time to reach flank speed in CW, than in DW. (LA class: 1:52' in Cold Waters vs 0:58' in DW). The problem is, it looks like CW doesn't take screw speed into consideration when calculating accelerations, so 0-5kn time is the same with 1/3 power as with full power.
Below is a comparison of various times done with a simple stopwatch:

That is a good point. Are there any real-world submariners out there that can comment on this? It's like driving a car. Cruising on the highway, you're using a certain throttle (making turns for that speed, as it were). If you were to accelerate to that speed using the cruising throttle, it would take forever (infinitely long in a mathematical sense). So, you use more throttle to accelerate to that cruising speed and then reduce throttle to maintain that speed once you attain it. I'm curious as to the distinction for this in naval turns. "Make turns for x knots" means (I would think) turn the propeller at the speed necessary to maintain x knots indicated. Would there be a situation where you apply more throttle to get to speed x more quickly and then reduce throttle?

[Skwabie]

the reduced warhead weight on beta 1.01 is double edged.

it makes tactical game play more interesting.

it makes the player able to survive hits easier.

However. it makes campaign play harder. because player has to travel a lot more back to base for reloads and miss mission time windows.


considering the latter i've reverted to 1.00 weights. plus from the looks of data, the reduced weight is not "universal" i.e. only a few weapons got it. the Mk48 has almost the same warhead as MK37 in beta1.01 due to its warhead weight reduction, but in RL the mk37 is much lighter.

[PL_Harpoon]

Originally Posted by Skwabie

the reduced warhead weight on beta 1.01 is double edged.

it makes tactical game play more interesting.

it makes the player able to survive hits easier.

However. it makes campaign play harder. because player has to travel a lot more back to base for reloads and miss mission time windows.


considering the latter i've reverted to 1.00 weights. plus from the looks of data, the reduced weight is not "universal" i.e. only a few weapons got it. the Mk48 has almost the same warhead as MK37 in beta1.01 due to its warhead weight reduction, but in RL the mk37 is much lighter.

Yeah, Mk37 should have 149kg warhead, not 225, but that's easily fixable. Overall looking at the numbers the new warhead sizes are closer to real ones.

[ScreamingElectron]

Originally Posted by FPSchazly

That is a good point. Are there any real-world submariners out there that can comment on this? It's like driving a car. Cruising on the highway, you're using a certain throttle (making turns for that speed, as it were). If you were to accelerate to that speed using the cruising throttle, it would take forever (infinitely long in a mathematical sense). So, you use more throttle to accelerate to that cruising speed and then reduce throttle to maintain that speed once you attain it. I'm curious as to the distinction for this in naval turns. "Make turns for x knots" means (I would think) turn the propeller at the speed necessary to maintain x knots indicated. Would there be a situation where you apply more throttle to get to speed x more quickly and then reduce throttle?

Also, consider that cavitation will reduce the output thrust of any propeller. A spin speed adequate to run 25kts on the surface will (if cavitating) generate a higher speed at non-cavitation depth. There are tons of variables and factors to consider here. Being a Unity developer myself, and having looked at the source for this game, I can assure you that the poor programmer(s) is already dealing with a mind-crushing amount of variables and functions.
Give them some more time to fine tune.