View Full Version : Sinking Times
Wijbrandus
11-13-06, 11:01 AM
I am using Sub Hunter III 1.4b with Grey Wolves 1.1a installed - all the latest versions. I am also using Sub Commander, also the latest version.
I notice that ships take a long time to sink. I very rarely get a ship going down fast. I ofted have to place the time compression on max, and sit and wait for the ship to sink, sometimes for 20 or thirty minutes of real time at 32x speed, or I have to put more torpedos into the target.
How do I know if a ship is going to sink? If it hits a speed of zero, is it going to go down? If I continue my patrol, and a ship sinks where no one can see it, did it really sink? Will I get credit for it?
Last night, I caught a larget cargo and a large tanker running together. I fired a spread that put a torp half a meter under the keel on each one, almost simultaneously impacting. The tanker stopped dead. The cargo limped on, and I had to chase it down and hit it three more times before it stopped. Then I had to hit it again for it to heel over and sink. This took quite a while, as it was dodging all over the place, and the conditions were pretty rough - night, rough seas, rain, and wind.
Almost 12 hours had passed by now, and when I went back to the tanker, it was still afloat, decks awash, and not moving. My last torpedo was used, and it finally went down.
Is there a way I can speed up the speed at which ships will sink so that I can get on with the game? I'd love to sit and circle the target for a few hours watching it slowly ease into the depths, but I only get a little game time anymore, and I feel I'm wasting it in observation time. I feel like I'm "wasting" torpedos on targets that will sink eventually, if given enough time, but that my outside concerns are impacting the way I have to play the game.
Respenus
11-13-06, 11:14 AM
Sink times are OK. Don't question them, they are correct in GW. It's more realistic! :yep:
AVGWarhawk
11-13-06, 01:07 PM
If you do not see it sink you do not get credit for it.
Sink times are dead on. A lot of vessels made port while smoking and full of torpedo holes.
The only way to know it the ship will sink is sit and wait or come back if she is dead in the water. I stopped a c2 and chased a small coast that was travelling with the c2. I sunk it and returned to finish the job on the c2.
I do not know how to change this time to sink. GW has made a mod to compartmentalize the ship like in life. These were air tight via bulk heads. You must not keep hitting the same spot over and over, you must hit in two to three spots. Sometimes you do get that lucky on one torpedo and she sinks quickly. Sometimes you have to fight for the sinking!
Oh yeah, if the ship is in bad shape use the cannon to finish it off. Save a torp or two.
hyperion2206
11-13-06, 01:16 PM
I think it's realistic that bigger and newer vessels don't think so fast, but most of the ships were really old ones dating back to WWI and most of them went down after only one torpedo. I think that should be modeled as well, don't you think? However, don't get me wrong: I love TGW!!!!!!:lol:
I have just finished reading a book about the 7th U-Boat Flottilla which states that "some ships went down very quickly, but others remained stubbornly afloat and it was not too uncommon to encounter empty wrecks refusing to sink".
So I shouldn't worry too much about them going down as TGW creates the realism, unless you want to use most of your torps and gun ammo.
I also think hanging around will have brought back pretty soon as no doubt the merchants would have sent a message.
Wijbrandus
11-13-06, 01:29 PM
I'm all for realism, that's why I downloaded TGW yesterday.
My issue is I don't want to spend my one or two hours of game time an evening waiting for a ship to sink, and using multiple torpedos to sink it is bad for my score.
I read in another thread that to make them flood faster you need to poke holes in other parts of the ship. I'll try that tonight. Center shot to stop the ship, and a shot in the bow or stern to help it along, see if that helps.
If it works, great. If not, I'll have to consider going back to Vanilla. :(
Wijbrandus
11-13-06, 01:30 PM
I have just finished reading a book about the 7th U-Boat Flottilla which states that "some ships went down very quickly, but others remained stubbornly afloat and it was not too uncommon to encounter empty wrecks refusing to sink".
What book was that? I'm interested in reading all sorts of U-boat histories. Was it worth the price?
The publisher is Spearhead and the title is 7th U-Boat Flottilla Doenitz's Atlantic Wolves by Angus Konstam & Jak Mallman Showell. It's only 96 pages but got loads of photos.
The website for the publisher is www.ianallansuperstore.com (http://www.ianallansuperstore.com)
Yes it was worth it but it was in the sale at a third of the price!
Actually I've just seen it on Amazon.
Herr Russ
11-13-06, 01:47 PM
I have hit a few C3's with my last 2 torpedoes and had it sit with zero speed and decks awash for over an hour (Real Time) with TC on 32. The weather was bad so I couldn't finish it with the deck gun. I finally gave up and continued back to base or to my grid for the renown..
Hate it when that happens..
AVGWarhawk
11-13-06, 02:06 PM
I think it's realistic that bigger and newer vessels don't think so fast, but most of the ships were really old ones dating back to WWI and most of them went down after only one torpedo. I think that should be modeled as well, don't you think? However, don't get me wrong: I love TGW!!!!!!:lol:
Just because they were old does not mean a thing. In fact they usually survived better then the newer vessels. What usually would happen is the older vessels would make port but usually scrapped out because of the torpedo hit. I read this in 'twilight of the U-boat".
You can always try aiming for weak points like just to the rear of the fuel bunkers or on warships in the ammo magazines. This tends to blow the ship apart with one shot. The community wiki has some screenshots with the weakpoints marked.
Wijbrandus
11-13-06, 04:20 PM
You can always try aiming for weak points like just to the rear of the fuel bunkers or on warships in the ammo magazines. This tends to blow the ship apart with one shot. The community wiki has some screenshots with the weakpoints marked.
Do these apply with the TGW mod?
Also, does TGW use the same, or similar, sinking rules that NYGM uses? I've done some reading and think I understand what's happening, if it's similar.
Maybe I'll just have to unlock the deck gun and see about putting a few rounds at the waterline. I wonder how many it will take in the same spot to make a new "flood zone"?
At least they don't seem to be radioing for help. Yet. Oh happy times, do not fail me...
Cue-Ball909
11-13-06, 04:37 PM
You can rest assured that ships will call for help. Whether or not there's anyone close enough to assist is another matter.
If you want realism you definitely want to use TWG or NYGM. The sinking times seem to be very realistic with both. If you just want ships to explode and sink within two minutes stick with the vanilla box-stock game, but don't try to fool yourself into thinking it's realistic.
Just the other night I encountered a convoy. My first torp was a perfect ammo bunker hit on an Auxillary Cruiser. It blew up and sunk within 5 minutes or so. My second torp hit the engine room of a T3 tanker, starboard side. It stopped dead but did not sink. My third fish was a starboard hit on a troop transport about 1/3 way from the bow. It slowed to about 2kts but also did not sink. I didn't see the last two of three because I was diving and fighting for my life against the escorts. I managed to sneak away and recharge my batteries, then returned to finish off the tanker and troop transport. One torpedo to the fuel tank (starboard side) split the tanker in half and she sunk immediately. I closed on the port side of the troop transport and setup a shot about a third of the way down the hull. As I was readying my shot I spotted one of the convoy escorts coming back to assist. I was able to get off my shot (she now had two hits 1/3 of the way back, one starboard and one port) and dive before the excort arrived. The transport sunk shortly after. So, it's easy to see that ships, even the big 10,000 ton ones, CAN sink from just one or two shots if you hit them in the right spots.
Compare this with my last patrol. I hit a C2 cargo about 1/3rd back on the starboard side. The ship continued to creep along at just a couple knots while I dealt with other ships in the convoy, escaped destroyers, recharged batteries, etc. I made my way back to the ship about 3 hours later (game time) and she was decks awash in the front and the props were half out of the water in the back. I lined up another shot, this time to the port side. Again, i tried to hit about 1/3rd of the way back for two reasons; 1) the back of the ship was riding so high that I doubt a torpedo would have detonated and 2) since she was already nose down i figured it wouldn't take much to tip her all the way down. My shot hit perfectly with a 3m depth and impact trigger. Still the ship kept creeping along, nose all the way in the water, props making foam on the surface. My deck gun was damaged and I was now out of fish, with the last shot using up my final one. I stuck around for 4 hours and the ship never did sink. I finally set sail for home and resigned myself to the fact that it might take 6 months, but that ship would probably eventually make it to England.
If you want realism and uncertainty, TGW fits the bill. If you want shoot-and-they-die gaming, stick with vanilla.
LeafsFan
11-13-06, 05:21 PM
I remember reading a book when I was a kid about convoy SC-7. many ships were torpedoed with a cargo of lumber. In some cases the ships were nigh on unsinkable. On the other hand ships crews hated loading iron ore. If you were hit....
HB
I just need to vent now!!!!
Just torpedoed that damn King George V, she ate 8 (!!!!) eels (no duds) the first got her engines and so she stopped.....I then waited till the flooding took the Rest of her NOTHING!!!!
OK, I blasted my last 4 Torps right under her 2. forward Turret, where the Ammo Bunker should be which I hoped would blow up, NOTHING. No explosion and the flooding STILL wasn't enough.
I'm using GW......Guys PLEASE ADJUST THAT DAMAGE MODEL!!!! I know that was a Battleship...but.....c'mon......8 TORPEDOES!!!!
Even though I edited the Zones.cfg and decreased the critical flooding of almost all ships and increased the critical hit probability, this seems to have no effect at the game. I still need 2 Torps for a 2000-ton coastal merchant everytime! (10. Patrol now).
(Its OK for ships to survive more then they should SOMETIMES, but not everytime)
I dont mind long sinking times, I mean ships not sinking at all! If you look close enough with the external camera, you'll notice that there is a moment when the ship stops to take flooding and just stays at the surface, I once waited 2 days for a ship to sink, while she hung in the Water about 30 Degrees to starbord with 3/4 of the Deck in the Water....I once ended up having crippled 4 ships like this, no one sunk -> 0 renown.
No one would in reality consider this ship NOT destroyed! This simply cant be realistic.
So please, tweak this if you can, this is the urgent call for help of a guy who stayed awake longer then planned to sink that damn bucket!! (Cant save and load when a ship is damaged.....you all know why....)
GW 1.1 uses NYGM's damage model, GWX however uses a whole NEW damage model, re-written from scratch by Von ( damn fine job to ) sinkings are easier ( kind of ;))..but i'm not going to say too much as the beta testing phase is still on going.
Not sure if you are aware the best place to hit almost all warships is in their ammo magazines. Although I've also had some success with hitting light cruisers right between the funnels in their engine rooms.
Most Merchies usually go down with one to their fuel bunker.:arrgh!:
I usually use impact detonators set for between 3 and 7m depending on the targets.
Do these apply with the TGW mod?
Also, does TGW use the same, or similar, sinking rules that NYGM uses? I've done some reading and think I understand what's happening, if it's similar.
Maybe I'll just have to unlock the deck gun and see about putting a few rounds at the waterline. I wonder how many it will take in the same spot to make a new "flood zone"?
At least they don't seem to be radioing for help. Yet. Oh happy times, do not fail me...
They sure do! I usually get one or two eel sinkings by aiming for these with impact detonators set to run at between 3 and 7m dependning on the target.
occaisionally I use the deck gun on lone merchants that are just plain stubborn or those that I don't have the time to get a good shot off with the torps.
sergbuto
11-14-06, 06:45 AM
If you want realism you definitely want to use TWG or NYGM. The sinking times seem to be very realistic with both. If you just want ships to explode and sink within two minutes stick with the vanilla box-stock game, but don't try to fool yourself into thinking it's realistic..
He does not have to fool himself because the vanilla version of the damage model is indeed overall more realistic than "flooding" damage model of NYGM and current version of GW (at least in my opinion) because the stock version does not at least contain some very unrealistic things, such as useless working magnetic torpedo (keel damage zone was removed from merchants), no damage with the second torpedo hit to the same compartment, two torpedoes to kill a DD, shelling damage only below waterline, etc. There was some more but do not remember at the moment. And fast sinking times happened to be quite often in reality.
@ TarJak
This is exactly what I missed, an increased probability of blowing up ships when hitting in the right place. When not, they may sink through flooding or not, its fine for me. But I saved and loaded in front of the King George V a few times, aiming and shooting at different places (for experiment). I never managed to blow the magazine up, like on the first try with 4 torpedoes fired right INTO the magazine (and ordering flank speed to turn my boat into a ramrod afterwards, with no effect *lol*);)
About merchants: Tankers are modelled correctly I think, taking one hit and blowing up, or taking 2 or 3 if empty, because those things are about 10000 tons in displacement, this is OK.
What bugs me are the small/coastal merchants, like I said I everytime need 2 eels for them, no exception when I used that DM so far.
Trust me, GWX will deliver in this area too.
kylania
11-14-06, 09:31 AM
I sunk a Tribal Destroyer last nite with a single eel from 4000m as it was clipping by at 21kts. :)
DD's also work well, a single shot CAN finish them but doesn't have to.....and I love seeing them break apart :arrgh!:
melnibonian
11-14-06, 09:50 AM
Wait until GWX commes out and you will see how wonderful is to sink ships. The damage model is BRILLIANT.
On your problem though I would suggest to aim at critical areas of the ships, try to have an AOB of about 90deg and a small gyro angle. Have a look at this thread it is all you need http://www.communitymanuals.com/shiii/index.php?title=Ship_Weak_Spots
Since this seems to be the thread for the frustrated one, Iīd like to add my two cents: Needed 8 torps to sink a 4000tons merchant. MAYBE the merchant would have sunk after 5 or 6, but you donīt always have the time to wait 48 hours just to confirm the sinking. Absolutely unrealistic anyway, as such a medium sized merchant would be blown out of the water after one (or 2) hits in reality. As much as i like the idea of realistic sinking times in GW, Iīm convinced they overdo by far!
Another strange GW-incidence happened when I aft-torped a destroyer that was chasing me. I hit him in the bow (a lucky shot!), guess what happened? The destroyer slowed down and then was stopped (ENGINE FAILURE WHEN HIT IN THE BOW???) like a lame duck, waiting for me to finish her off. In real life, destroyers that were hit in the bow-area went down like a submarine, because of their high speed they sort of "swallowed" all the incoming water and usually sank within minutes!
Please donīt get me wrong here: I love and appreciate the moddersī work and donīt want to miss it, but there are some things that really need to be tweaked. Remember Erich Toppīs comment on SH? "In real life it was much easier to sink ships" :rotfl:
melnibonian
11-14-06, 10:05 AM
Please donīt get me wrong here: I love and appreciate the moddersī work and donīt want to miss it, but there are some things that really need to be tweaked. Remember Erich Toppīs comment on SH? "In real life it was much easier to sink ships" :rotfl:
I know what you mean. The damage model of GW is very good when it's working and really bad when things start going wrong (like the small merchants etc). In GWX though things seem to be MUCH better, so be patient and you will not be dissapointed:up:
The damage model in GWX is spot on, IMO.
Please donīt get me wrong here: I love and appreciate the moddersī work and donīt want to miss it, but there are some things that really need to be tweaked. Remember Erich Toppīs comment on SH? "In real life it was much easier to sink ships" :rotfl:
Well, probably this is the compensation for the stupid Escort's AI, which is Ubi's fault and not the Communitys.
I think in reality merchants have gone down easier, but surviving encounters with escorts was harder.
@ GW Dev Team
please don't release that Mod if its true what you say.....otherwise I can abort my studying ;-)
HunterICX
11-14-06, 11:28 AM
@MRV:
http://media.putfile.com/SH3-83
The reason to have stock SH3 Damage model for Subs and Battleships
(at the end you know what I talk about) Enjoy:rock:
Kpt. Lehmann
11-14-06, 11:38 AM
Please donīt get me wrong here: I love and appreciate the moddersī work and donīt want to miss it, but there are some things that really need to be tweaked. Remember Erich Toppīs comment on SH? "In real life it was much easier to sink ships" :rotfl:
Well, probably this is the compensation for the stupid Escort's AI, which is Ubi's fault and not the Communitys.
I think in reality merchants have gone down easier, but surviving encounters with escorts was harder.
@ GW Dev Team
please don't release that Mod if its true what you say.....otherwise I can abort my studying ;-)
The beta test reports are confirming our own tests and past statements more and more. In GWX we've fixed all that you are concerned about... and if I'm not mistaken... It was Jurgen Oesten who said that. LOL
Sailor Steve
11-14-06, 11:44 AM
Musashi withstood 19 torpedoes and seventeen bombs before finally going down http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-m/musashi.htm
Yamato took ten torpedoes and "several" bombs http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-xz/yamato-n.htm
The KGVs were hardly in that class, but eight torpedoes sounds about right for a modern battleship which did have dedicated anti-torpedo protection.
graybeard
11-14-06, 12:02 PM
I think you answered your own question. If the Destroyer was hit in the bow and water is rushing in, the bridge crew will order all engines stopped. That's pretty realistic to me. ;)
well, 8 torps for a 4000 tons merchant isnīt. Cheers, AS
Sailor Steve
11-14-06, 12:19 PM
I've never had a 4,000-ton merchant take 8 torpedoes. What are you talking about?
Cue-Ball909
11-14-06, 12:38 PM
He does not have to full himself because the vanilla version of the damage model is indeed overall more realistic than "flooding" damage model of NYGM and current version of GW (at least in my opinion)You've got to be kidding me. You think hit points are more realistic than flooding?
because the stock version does not at least contain some very unrealistic things, such as useless working magnetic torpedo (keel damage zone was removed from merchants), no damage with the second torpedo hit to the same compartment, two torpedoes to kill a DD, shelling damage only below waterline, etc. There was some more but do not remember at the moment.Instead the stock game has unrealistic things like sinking a ship with nothing but shelling the bow, ships having a random chance of blowing up no matter where you hit them, ships that sink in 2 minutes even when you only have a single hit on a huge cargo ship, etc. While neither damage model is perfect, I really can't understand how anyone can think that a hit point system and random explosions are MORE realistic than the sinking model used in GW/NYGM.
And fast sinking times happened to be quite often in reality.As they do in GW. Take a look at my post above. With the lone exception, all of the ships I mentioned sunk quickly with only one or two torpedoes. The stock game is far too easy in this regard. In reality many ships failed to sink even after several torpedo hits. Even relatively small merchant ships sometimes refused to sink after multiple hits. Until GWX comes along I think that TGW/NYGM is about as good as it can get.
Respenus
11-14-06, 12:43 PM
As any GWX Beta tester, I will say, WAIT!!! and be surprised. The first 30sec will make your jaw drop, after 10 min you'll be soaking wet and after a couple of hours, they'll have to surface the house to get rid of the flooding! :lol:
graybeard
11-14-06, 12:59 PM
Just one more point. I've been reading about torpedo hits from a number of posts. If you happen to have some time, I suggest you read military historian John Keegan on the Battle of Jutland. He takes the reader inside the warships and how shell and torpedo hits affected the battle on both sides. Damage control parties entering compartments where steam pipes were ripped open and the crew inside literally cooked. Machinery torn from mounts and crushing any person nearby. All of this even when the compartment itself did not take a direct hit. Any hit upon a ship is quite a violent affair.
By the way....this is a freaking cool sim. :|\\
sergbuto
11-14-06, 02:36 PM
You've got to be kidding me. You think hit points are more realistic than flooding?.
Sure, that is what I think. Many ships sank due to their construction decay and/or braking in halfs as a result of explosions and fire on board and the hit point system is a good way account for that.
Instead the stock game has unrealistic things like sinking a ship with nothing but shelling the bow,
That would account for starting fire on the ship leading to its ultimate sinking.
ships having a random chance of blowing up no matter where you hit them,
That would account for fuel explosion due starting fire on board.
ships that sink in 2 minutes even when you only have a single hit on a huge cargo ship, etc.
The idea of creation of magnetic torpedoes with their explosion under ship's keel was exactly for that purpose, i.e. to sink a huge vessel within minutes. Unfortunately, the NYGM damage model renders magnetic torpedoes useless in this respect.
While neither damage model is perfect, I really can't understand how anyone can think that a hit point system and random explosions are MORE realistic than the sinking model used in GW/NYGM.
The fact that you can't understand that does not necessarily mean that your opinion is the right one.
Even relatively small merchant ships sometimes refused to sink after multiple hits.
Someone described the case when the small merchant would not sink after five torpedo hits plus around 100 shells from the deck gun with the NYGM model. Surely, that never happened in RL.
Until GWX comes along I think that TGW/NYGM is about as good as it can get.
That is your opinion and you have the right for that. But do not infer that people with other opinion just fool themself into that opinion.
sergbuto
11-14-06, 03:22 PM
You know it sets me smiling every time when I think what reaction of the U-boat crew would be in reality after receiving an order from their commandor to shell only below the water line followed by reasoning that it would not do any harm to the target otherwise.
Wijbrandus
11-14-06, 04:22 PM
Well, I hit the waves again last night, this time with a better understanding of the NYGM model and a new perspective on the flooding concept.
I had a field day. :)
I utilized engine room targetted torps to disable large ships, so that they'd fall out of the convoy. Once or twice, I had C3 cargo ships totally detonate on impact. That was nice! After ducking and dodging them agitated escorts, I waited for sunrise to finish the job. A few hundred rounds of deck gunfire later, and I sent those cargo ships to the bottom.
I no longer see slow sinking time as a problem. Now it's an opportunity.
I was able to torpedo a ship, and all the escorts ran over to cover it. Then I was able to hit the front of the convoy, disabling another. Once again, the escorts ran to the front and started looking for me. Repeating this until I had more targets than torpedos left, I lurked about until the convoy moved on. A few of my disabled ships heeled over on their own, but the rest were easily finished off with a combination of torpedos and gunfire.
Magnetic torpedoes still do work. I was able to get a few to go off under the engine room, and even the big ships sank after just one shot. The biggest problem is the failure of magnetic pistols. I had three fail in a row, which was frustrating.
Sailor Steve
11-14-06, 05:25 PM
You know it sets me smiling every time when I think what reaction of the U-boat crew would be in reality after receiving an order from their commandor to shell only below the water line followed by reasoning that it would not do any harm to the target otherwise.
So you think hitting the ship in the bridge 20 times should make water flow in and sink it? Ships only sink from one cause-water coming in through a hole below the waterline. If that hole is caused by a warship's magazine exploding, or a fuel tank exploding, fine, but ships don't sink because they took a predetermined amount of damage to random areas; they sink from water coming in.
I agree that too many ships take too long to sink from torpedo hits. The only thing I really don't like about the hit point system is that once a ship's hit points are gone it explodes automatically. I would much rather it just sank quietly.
sergbuto
11-14-06, 05:38 PM
So you think hitting the ship in the bridge 20 times should make water flow in and sink it?
No, but it would set a fire which would lead to a hole. That's what the deck gun was primerily used for, not just for presicion shelling for making holes below the waterline with all the bumping on the slippery U-boat deck.
The only thing I really don't like about the hit point system is that once a ship's hit points are gone it explodes automatically. I would much rather it just sank quietly.
Agree with that. I would also prefer them model better fires on board.
Hartmann
11-14-06, 05:59 PM
USS Indianápolis (CA- 35 9,800 tons) takes two torpedoes launched by Commander Mochitsura Hashimoto, former commanding officer of the Japanese submarine I-58 , and sunk in only 15 minutes.:hmm:
sergbuto
11-15-06, 03:47 AM
The only thing I really don't like about the hit point system is that once a ship's hit points are gone it explodes automatically. I would much rather it just sank quietly.
Agree with that. I would also prefer them model better fires on board.
On second thought, every unstoppable fire of a car ends up with explosion of its gas tank. Therefore, there would likely be quite high probability for extensive fires on board of the ship to always end up with explosion of fuel. The older ships based on coal would definitely explode every time as soon as water would get to the boilers room.
Achtung Englander
11-15-06, 07:15 AM
In a way I stopped playing SH3 as I found the GW mod, although fantastic, made the sinking of destroyers near on impossible now. I think the damage model just made the ships too strong
I am waiting for GWX then will start again !!!
melnibonian
11-15-06, 07:29 AM
In a way I stopped playing SH3 as I found the GW mod, although fantastic, made the sinking of destroyers near on impossible now. I think the damage model just made the ships too strong
I am waiting for GWX then will start again !!!
Oh you're going to love GWX. Trust me I know what I'm talking about;)
The damage model is brilliant and all the ships are fantastic.
AVGWarhawk
11-15-06, 08:43 AM
In a way I stopped playing SH3 as I found the GW mod, although fantastic, made the sinking of destroyers near on impossible now. I think the damage model just made the ships too strong
I am waiting for GWX then will start again !!!
What is nice about the GW team is the fact that they listen to what we had issues about with the first GW installment. GWX is the refinement of TGW mod. The new version sould be dead on!!!!
Sailor Steve
11-15-06, 11:37 AM
USS Indianápolis (CA- 35 9,800 tons) takes two torpedoes launched by Commander Mochitsura Hashimoto, former commanding officer of the Japanese submarine I-58 , and sunk in only 15 minutes.:hmm:
Indianapolis was a rather small pre-war "heavy" cruiser, and had no anti-torpedo protection whatsoever; hence the quick sinking.
Steeltrap
11-15-06, 09:43 PM
USS Indianápolis (CA- 35 9,800 tons) takes two torpedoes launched by Commander Mochitsura Hashimoto, former commanding officer of the Japanese submarine I-58 , and sunk in only 15 minutes.:hmm:
Indianapolis was a rather small pre-war "heavy" cruiser, and had no anti-torpedo protection whatsoever; hence the quick sinking.
True, but she was a warship and thus had far better internal compartmentalisation than a merchant, and 9800t is still a decent size. Fact is many ships are taking too long to sink at present. It's also kind of annoying to blow the prop off a merchant and have it continue motoring along until flooding catches up with it.....
Subwolf
11-16-06, 12:15 AM
I don't like the GW sinking times, they are overkill in my opinion. Normally a ship less than 3000 tons will sink within a few minutes after just one torpedo impact...and not THREE :o
Achtung Englander
11-16-06, 05:46 AM
I don't like the GW sinking times, they are overkill in my opinion
or even under-kill ;)
Sailor Steve
11-16-06, 11:51 AM
Fact is many ships are taking too long to sink at present.
I agree, but I still prefer it to having every single ship explode as soon as it's hit, then sink in less than a minute. There were large numbers of ships that did take hours to sink, also many which never sank at all.
Of course it's impossible to have the oddballs: one Japanese ship had her back broken, but was still afloat and taken under tow. Several hours later the broken keel finally gave out and the stern sank. The bow was towed to an island and beached, and the forward cargo was transferred to another ship.
We had these same sort of arguments over the one-minute gun reload times with RUB. The fix is unsatisfactory, but I think it's far better than the stock version. Here's one way to tell; how many sinkings versus hits are we getting, on average? Most players list tonnage scores and kill numbers that real U-boat captains could only dream about.
I don't like the GW sinking times, they are overkill in my opinion. Normally a ship less than 3000 tons will sink within a few minutes after just one torpedo impact...and not THREE :o
Yesterday I had a fishing boat take about 60 rounds of 88mm Deck Gun before it went down.
hmmm.......normally you should think that boat would be ripped apart after max. 5 Hits.
Same applies to a torpedo-hit on a small merchant, it normally should blow their keels away and they should go down in few minutes. (Take a look at that WWI-Video postet in the SH3 Main Forum to know what I mean). C2 and above may sink slower and sometimes take hours before being below waterline.
GreyBeard
11-16-06, 01:26 PM
I don't like the GW sinking times, they are overkill in my opinion. Normally a ship less than 3000 tons will sink within a few minutes after just one torpedo impact...and not THREE :o
Yesterday I had a fishing boat take about 60 rounds of 88mm Deck Gun before it went down.
hmmm.......normally you should think that boat would be ripped apart after max. 5 Hits.
Same applies to a torpedo-hit on a small merchant, it normally should blow their keels away and they should go down in few minutes. (Take a look at that WWI-Video postet in the SH3 Main Forum to know what I mean). C2 and above may sink slower and sometimes take hours before being below waterline.
I took out a fishing boat with the flak gun on a Type IIA. Used over 800 rounds to do it though, the majority of it in the stern. Maybe I'm wrong, but that does not seem realistic to me. Last night I came across a small merchant. I had 2 torps left in my IID. I set both of them for 4m depth and put 1 in each side. Then I surfaced and put 1200 rounds from the flak in her, the majority of which I attempted to put in the hull at the water line. Not an easy task with the boat pitching and swells getting in the way. Once the flak gun was empty I stepped up the tc and circled her for over 24 hours, but she just bobbed about in the water like a cork. Two other merchants arrived on the scene during that time and when a destroyer appeared I finally gave up and returned to port.
VIICDriver
11-16-06, 11:29 PM
Using TGW I just put 5 torpedoes into a 2500 ton Coastal to sink it.
5!
1 dead center, stopped her, 1 in the bow, then 1 in the stern. Still just floating along....TCx32 for about half hour no change. Finally put 2 more into her center and she finally sank slowly.
That aint realistic. This was no C3 or battleship it was a 2500 ton ship.
Waiting on GWX to see if the damage model is more correct. Everything else about the mod is dead on.
Chuck
Steeltrap
11-17-06, 12:48 AM
I'd be interested to know if TGW and NYGM use the same damage model. Most of the complaints such as that given by VIICDriver seem to come from TGW. I use NYGM, and I've not had any experiences even close to that.
I also think Sailor Steve is correct in saying them number of catastrophic explosions are excessive in stock SHIII. Certainly major warships are far too easy to sink, and aircraft too easy to bring down.
Guess the issue is how to make it more realistic without ending up with stupid results at either end (i.e. for small ships or large warships).
BTW, please read carefully my initial paragraph. It is a request for information, not a suggestion that one mod is better than another. I have acknowledged that they appear to differ in some of the reports as to sinking behaviour, but that is merely as an explanation of the reason for which I have asked my opening question.
In other words, I don't want to get jumped on by people feeling they need to 'defend' either mod, nor is it a discussion of both mods - apart from the question as to how they treat sinking and people's different experiences with them.
I hope that's clear!
I've learn't to live with the GW sinking times by being more precise in aiming for weak points. This from what I've read in other threads about the subject was one of the aims of the damage model. The fact that the dev team have changed the model in GWX (again only what I've gleaned from comments in other threads), shows that they thought the damage model was not quite right.
Personally I think they were on the right track, but had made it over hard for some ships to sink. Like everyone else not on the Beta programme I'm waiting patiently to get hold of GWX to see what they've done to get a better balance.
AVGWarhawk
11-17-06, 09:16 AM
Last night I hit a convoy. It took 4 torpedos to sink one tanker and the other tanker went down in seconds after one hit. It is a give and take situation in my view. With exception of the small merchant all the other ships look realistic to me. I do believe the cannon should be stronger.:yep:
Sailor Steve
11-17-06, 11:30 AM
I'd be interested to know if TGW and NYGM use the same damage model. Most of the complaints such as that given by VIICDriver seem to come from TGW. I use NYGM, and I've not had any experiences even close to that.
GW uses the damage model created for the original NYGM. There was a lot of back-and-forth sharing at that time. NYGM 2 updated the damage model. I understand it's quite a bit more sophisticated, but I haven't gotten to play with it enough to make my own observations. GWX is supposed to be trying something completely different. We'll just have to wait and see.
Cerberus
11-17-06, 02:39 PM
I saw the title of this thread & thought..
"Splendid!
Someone has started a newspaper especially for the U Boat community."
Misleading I calls it.
dinadan122
11-18-06, 03:12 AM
im using nygm 2.2
1. sink times are good imo just have to target multiple compartments. ship where built to seal off damaged areas thus preventing a sinking so if you hit one area its not going to sink it , unless its a cargo hold (but it will take forever). while hitting 2 areas will devistate the ship and 2/5 times ill get a immediate sink credit (even thought the ship didnt sink yet).Btw in my experience which is limited hittinga cargo hold and the engine gets the job done.i have alot of pics of ships that just refused to sink and some i got credit for even thought they never did sink completly which imo is realistic since the crew would have abandoned ship.
2. magnetic detinatiors are defective , but i have found its mainly with the T2 and not the t1 early war , stick with late night attack with a t1 magnetic detonator or if you absolutly have to kill something dureing the day t2 set to impact (when i refer to setting i really just mean depth b/c the option to stich is not there for nygm 2.2) but only in good weather conditions. i do still like T2 in my stern tube (set to magnetic for destroyer kills)as it prevents destroyers from seeing the wake but you have to fire at close range 400-500 meters to make sure you dont get that failure which seems to happen at 800m or so in most cases. T1;s can be just as effective thought b/c their hella fast.:up: i have alot of picks of ship that just refused to sink and some that never did but i still got credit for it as it was a complete wreck (which imo is realistic as the crew would abandon ship).
sry its probably hard to read but im tired =p
my big complaint with NYGM is destroyers sighting me late night 6km away in a 15knot storm with heavy fog :o surfaced but still impossable to sight none the less idk maybe they have some uber wave penetrating radar and heat goggles.maybe im jsut used to vanilla too much
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.