Realism- and gameplay-related hardcode fixes for SH3.EXE

[Depth Charger]

@ Slipper and Rhodes

I think that WB's mid patrol orders might be a hassle for you. I removed it and also did a clean install of SH3 Cmndr which seem to sort things for me.

Have already past hints at H.Sie that it would be really nice if we could get Patrol Orders but I don't know if it is feasible and they are getting millions of requests now...

Kindest and hope this helps

DC

[Sailor Steve]

Excellent points, LGN1, and probably the best way to do it. It doesn't make much sense to use a so-called "realistic" problem and then leave the player a way to skate around it, other than to just turn off that function.

[Dani]

@h.sie

@Dani: I was able to program random torpedo failures (took less than one hour). I like these quick-fixes.

This is GREAT news.

September 1939 - April 1940: p=25%
(the failure rate from November '39 to March '40 was 26%. See page 83 in the document posted here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom//sho...17607&langid=1)

April 1940 - June 1940: p=35% (or 25% )
(the failure rate during the invasion of Norway was considered higher than before. However, opinions vary whether this is really true.)

June 1940 - June 1942: p=10%
(maybe (if possible and depending how hard to implement) with an additional probability that the torpedo runs 1-3m deeper than set).

June 1942 - : p=0%

[Hitman]

I agree with you in principle, LGN1, however I'd like to point out some things:

1) It is to be taken utmost care to ensure that the failiures modelled do not add to those already programmed by the original game/modder. Since the only ones hardcoded till now were related to sea-state and pistol, I suppose that what you have in mind is that the hardcode fix should simply overrides both those with whatever probabilities you set.

2) The problem is that by doing so, the rate of failiures would be the same when using, f.e. magnetic or impact pistol, and when shooting in bad or good weather, which is not realistic. That should be adressed IMHO as follows:

a) In bad weather, there shall always be increased possibilities of failiure, no matter what pistol or depth is used.

b) The player should have a desire to use the magnetic pistol, even if it might prove more faulty. Setting the same dud rate for pistol and impact would accomplish this, because if facing the same odds, the player will always prefer to have a chance to "break the back" of the target with an impact below the keel.

For instance, today we know that the torpedoes ran deeper than set. If you know this you simply set your torpedo as close to the surface as possible in SH3 and (in most cases) your problem is solved.

Not so if you program the depth variation at random and exclude the pistol from triggering if the torpedo is less than 1 metres deep. That would simulate "porpoising torpedoes" quite well. Since tha player knows anything can happen, he will set the correct depth and pray the torpedo doesn't malfunction.

The same holds for the influence of the impact angle. We know that if it is too large we will have a dud. Therefore, we only launch torpedoes which will have an impact angle close to 90°. And since we know that the premature detonation probability in SH3 increases with the range, we try to get as close as possible.

Real Kaleuns were well aware of both those two points, so no need to adress them specifically.

[andqui]

One thing to keep in mind is that for stretches of the war- such as after the Norway campaign until Dec 1942- uboats were ordered not to use magnetic fuses on the torpedoes at all because they were faulty, and torpedoes in that time used impact. So during this time, the only error affecting torpedoes was a known depth problem that showed up in approximately half the torpedoes due to an air pressure problem in the depth-keeping mechanism. If a uboat tries a magnetic shot until Dec 1942, it should have a very high chance of failure, but after May 1940 the impact fuses should reliably work with a bit of depth variance.

So while it might not be possible or wise to simulate all the failures, I don't think a blanket % would be a good idea either.

[Schöneboom]

Guten Tag,

Re the speculation about interference from SH3 Cmdr -- it's vital, I think, with Vista & Win7 systems, that both SH3 and SH3 Cmdr be installed to folders outside Program Files. Also, check the boxes for WinXP Compatibility Mode & "run as administrator" for SH3, JSGSME, & SH3 Cmdr. (forgive me if this is already universal knowledge)

I recently made the mistake of installing in Program Files and found the game would run (H.sie's version + GWX + SH3 Cmdr) but it wasn't quite right in certain details. I'm reinstalling to a new folder tonight, crossing fingers & toes.

Gute Jagd!

[h.sie]

@Hitman:

a) I agree. I also think wave height dependency should be added. Easy to do.

b) The torpedo failure effect that I program is different from the already existing mechanism (premature explosion), thus, it is *added* to the existing mechanism, is does not replace it. Magnetic and impact will have the same failure rate, thus, the player will have the desire to use magnetic. So we also agree in this point, I think. Right?

Not so if you program the depth variation at random and exclude the pistol from triggering if the torpedo is less than 1 metres deep. That would simulate "porpoising torpedoes" quite well. Since tha player knows anything can happen, he will set the correct depth and pray the torpedo doesn't malfunction.

I see no advantage in that idea, except from more assembler lines necessary to code it . In my (and LGN1's) solution, the player also sets the correct depth, prays that the torpedo works well, and the result is (with a certain chance p) a wrong depth, resulting in no ship damaged. You only see a difference between your and our solution, if you use the event camera and follow the torpedo. Is it really important which depth the torpedo has? Not in my opinion. The most important thing is that no ship has been sunk.

Guys, please remember that my options are restricted. I cannot program all I / we want (even if that may look different after the wolfpacks). Thus, I can offer compromises (which are hoprfully better than the current situation), but I cannot offer perfect solutions - not without SDK.

Originally Posted by h.sie

@SSB: AFAIK the failure rates of that option are too low. As you can see in the post #2539, Uboats were quasi disarmed in the early time due to massive failures.

I like your work, but on the other hand I wouldn;t want to see it overdone.

In early war there was indeed high number of dud that reached about 50% of all torpedoes malfunctions (dud, premature explosions, depth keeping problems)

However this quantity in percentage was taken from all the subs at the time, so you shouldn't overstrech it more then it is already.

BTW, are we done with wolfpack option already ?

P.S. aren;t there anything else that should be fixed regading gameplay ? Say sonar guy takes position on dive and leaves it when boat brakes the surface ? Etc, etc..

[h.sie]

@PapaKilo: LGN1 suggests 25% failure rate.

BTW, are we done with wolfpack option already ?

I don't understand. What do you mean?

Originally Posted by h.sie

@PapaKilo: LGN1 suggests 25% failure rate.

BTW, are we done with wolfpack option already ?

I don't understand. What do you mean?

I don't know why you always rely mostly on LGN1 as your history facts adviser. But from what I've seen in documentry movies, there was a phrase I still remmember: German Unterseeboot navy suffered from malfunctions of torpedoes that reached up to 50% in total.

If you want I can try to dig this documentry out for u..

Regardinig wolfpack mod I ment to ask, is it stable already ?

I'm asking this because we had a long time discussing about wolfpacks here and suddenly u jumped to another topic regarding torpedo failures ?

Kind of unexpected

If you got tired and wouldn't mind to take some rest, we all appreciate that

Or else you might end up like toasted cutout one day

[Hitman]

I don't know why you always rely mostly on LGN1 as your history facts adviser. But from what I've seen in documentry movies, there was a phrase I still remmember: German Unterseeboot navy suffered from malfunctions of torpedoes that reached up to 50% in total.

If you want I can try to dig this documentry out for u..

I have here in the shelf one of the most reliable sources, Blair's U-Boat War and nowhere do I see support for such a high failiure figure as a 50%. A TV documentary, with all respect, is not necessarily a reliable sources in such details, so I agree with LGN1 essentially .

I see no advantage in that idea, except from more assembler lines necessary to code it . In my (and LGN1's) solution, the player also sets the correct depth, prays that the torpedo works well, and the result is (with a certain chance p) a wrong depth, resulting in no ship damaged. You only see a difference between your and our solution, if you use the event camera and follow the torpedo. Is it really important which depth the torpedo has? Not in my opinion. The most important thing is that no ship has been sunk.

If the end result is the same regarding player's attitude towards the shot, then I agree completely with you

[Hitman]

I don't know why you always rely mostly on LGN1 as your history facts adviser. But from what I've seen in documentry movies, there was a phrase I still remmember: German Unterseeboot navy suffered from malfunctions of torpedoes that reached up to 50% in total.

If you want I can try to dig this documentry out for u..

I have here in the shelf one of the most reliable sources, Blair's U-Boat War and nowhere do I see support for such a high failiure figure as a 50%. A TV documentary, with all respect, is not necessarily a reliable sources in such details, so I agree with LGN1 essentially .

I see no advantage in that idea, except from more assembler lines necessary to code it . In my (and LGN1's) solution, the player also sets the correct depth, prays that the torpedo works well, and the result is (with a certain chance p) a wrong depth, resulting in no ship damaged. You only see a difference between your and our solution, if you use the event camera and follow the torpedo. Is it really important which depth the torpedo has? Not in my opinion. The most important thing is that no ship has been sunk.

If the end result is the same regarding player's attitude towards the shot, then I agree completely with you

BTW, are we done with wolfpack option already ?

I think considering the limited options available to you, there is not much more that can be added for now. With much more gameplay hours and experience, we might consider revisiting this in the future to fix/add things

Originally Posted by Hitman

I have here in the shelf one of the most reliable sources, Blair's U-Boat War

Soo.. what makes you think it is the most reliable source ? This particular one ?

[h.sie]

PapaKilo wrote: I don't know why you always rely mostly on LGN1 as your history facts adviser.

I rely on LGN1, because:

- We speak the same native language, this makes critical discussions much easier. English words, especially written from non-english speakers, I have to read multiple times in order to guess what they mean.

- He tends to work reliable, his arguments are funded, and his research isn't shallow. These are characteristics not easy to find (speaking from almost 20 years experience of work in science & research). And - very big advantage: He often has the same opinion than me, what makes discussions much easier.


BUT: I also rely on (and appreciate) other peoples knowledge (Stiebler, Hitman, and others!). Exactly this is the reason why I decided to post here about my current work. Otherwise I could have done it alone via PM with LGN1.

---

I took the 25% failure rate from LGN1 not as the absolute truth, but much more in order to demonstrate that I don't plan to overdo it, as you suspected. Now you come with 50%.....don't overdo!

Yes, please, try to dig out that document.

Wolfpack is for now finished. It is still beta, but seems to be stable. One guy with a long mod list had a CTD, but it is not clear whether the CTD was caused by my code. I still wait for some response from him. In the past, 97% of the CTD were caused by corrupt installations / mod salad.

After having read all these different opinions regarding torpedo failures, I indeed came to the conclusion that a rest would be adviseable. I thought, this would be an easy relaxed fix, but turns out to be very complex. This is not what I wanted.

Originally Posted by h.sie

Yes, please, try to dig out that document. I decided to post here about my current work in order to get other peoples opinions / knowledge.

Ok jus't don't expect it to come right away, I have a bunch of ww2 naval documentry archive, and I deffinetly can't remember on which one that was said.