GWX and "Small Freighter"

[Woof1701]

Hi GWX Dev Team,

The damage models of the ships have been a topic for discussion from the beginning of SH3. Especially the opinion that most merchant ships should sink with the first torpedo, since they are not built to withstand a torpedo attack or a mine, but in SH3 many larger merchants (T2, T3, C2, C3) most of the time needed two torpedoes to sink them.
You did some amazing work with the new damage models, and I like them a lot, but I'm really having a problem with the small freighter (derricks fore and aft, one central funnel, approx. 2000 tons). Maybe it's just coincidence, maybe I'm paranoid from being used to the unsinkable C2 freighter of vanilla SH3, but they really start to get on my nerves.

With the install of GWX I started a new career in Kiel in 1939 and have been taking out my trusty tiny Typ IIA for 6 patrols to the North Sea and each time encountered at least one of those little beasties flying the English flag. And each time I maneuvered my Typ II in a perfect 90° firing position, went close to 350-500 meters (most times below 400 meters) and fired a T1 torpedo right in the middle about 1 meter below the keel. Since I play without external and event cameras I couldn't exactly see whether it really exploded below the keel, but the fountain was right in the middle below the funnel. As it is, the little ship shouldn't stand a chance against a torpedo and break up or at least sink pretty quickly - no matter whether I hit it right below the keel or just deep below the waterline. No such luck. Each and every time the ship steamed on for about half a kilometer and then came to a stop taking on a slight list to the side it was hit from. The list however didn't increase but stayed about the same.

Twice I stayed with the ships for two days straight(just to make sure) but it wouldn't sink. So I had to put another torpedo into it to finish it off. Once I was jumped by some aircraft that luckily missed me and i got away unscathed. Next time I was lucky and ran across a large tanker (T3) with 10.000 tons and sank him with the first torpedo. Took about half an hour, but it sank. Same with a tug (? - in German it's Schlepper and also has about 1800 tons and thus is almost as big as a small freighter). One torpedo easily blasted it out of the water.

Please don't get me wrong. I know that the work you did was awfully time consuming and meticulous, but the new damage model of this small freighter is somewhat unsatisfactory (at least to me) so in case you got the time I'd be really glad if you found a way to look it over once more for your 31st January update.

Thanks a lot for all you did for SH3. GWX is really a blast.

Best regards
Andreas

[AG124]

Although I cannot answer your question (I am not an expert in damage zones) I should point out that you should be more specific in pointing out which Small Merchant you are talking about as there are two in GWX. One is the stock Small Merchant, and the other is the Belize freighter, which looks the same as a Coastal Merchant/Tramp Steamer but with only two cranes, a slightly different bridge, and a straighter bow. Your description could refer to either of these, as they both have two derricks fore and aft and have only one funnel (and are identical tonnages - about 2300 GRT).:huh:

[AVGWarhawk]

:up: Actually those little bugger tramp steamers just did not want to go down in GW1.1. They had some sort super structure like not other. Anyway, they do go down much easier in GWX. Can I make one suggestion? Instead of hitting the funnel area, aim you torpedo to hit just below the bow derrick. She likes to break in two if you hit this area with a torpedo. Infact I busted one up by shooting cannon shells at this area Give that a go. Anyway, the bigger game go down quite easily now. Bigger game means bigger tonnage and more renown. Take out that tramp with your cannon and save the torpedos for the big boys :up:

[AG124]

I both GW 1.1a and GWX, there was/is only one type of Tramp Steamer and that is the stock one (Coastal Merchant NKSQ). I have heard that were a lot more difficult to sink back then too.:doh: Right now though, I was just trying to figure out which Small Merchant Woof1701 was talking about - the stock NKSS or the Belize (NKBL).:hmm:

[VonHelsching]

Hi Andreas!

I'm the damage model guy of GWX. Will check the small merchants in the game to identify which one you ar referring to and will get back to you. :up:

In generel, Murphy's Law has great applications with a torpedo hit: :D

1) The randomised torpedo strength is always set at the lowest setting, while hitting the smallest ship
2) If the randomised torpedo strength is set at better than lowest setting, the torpedo hits on the wrong spot
3) If none of the above stand, then the ship never carries ammo, so it doesn't blow up
4) If all of the above stand, then the torpedo is a dud
5) If it is a dud, it is always the last torpedo you are carrying
6) Did I mention that while all of the above are happening, the weather does not permit you to use the DG?

Von

[Tikigod]

The second ship I killed on my first patrol in GWX was a small merchant. (the one with the two masts front and back with the cargo boxes exposed on the deck front and back) I hit it with one torpedo due to rough seas (since I couldn't use deck gun) I used impact detonator and hit it at a 90 degree angle around the engine area just below the waterline. I had to wait awhile for the ship to flood. But, it did eventually sink (overwhelmed by the rough seas). I'm not sure the damage it had would have caused it to sink in calm seas. The ship seemed kinda small to withstand such a large blast from a torpedo despite all the randomized properties you have listed. I think woof is trying to say even with all the randomization as long as you have a good detonatation it should rip apart such a small hull.

Also, I remember when SH3 first came out when ships would list during a sinking the cargo used to slide down the decks and fall into the ocean. You could also shoot and destroy alot of the deck cargo. Somewhere along the way either through an ubisoft patch or real uboat patch the boxes and cargo stayed fixed to the deck no matter what angle the ship lists at. Can this sliding of cargo in anyway be re-implemented? I really liked this effect and was disappointed when it was removed.

I know the GWX activated alot more deck/cargo destruction which makes deck gun attacks alot more interesting and thought maybe you would have come across the limits of the deck cargo sliding behavior.

[Corsair]

Hi Andreas!

I'm the damage model guy of GWX. Will check the small merchants in the game to identify which one you ar referring to and will get back to you. :up:

In generel, Murphy's Law has great applications with a torpedo hit: :D

1) The randomised torpedo strength is always set at the lowest setting, while hitting the smallest ship
2) If the randomised torpedo strength is set at better than lowest setting, the torpedo hits on the wrong spot
3) If none of the above stand, then the ship never carries ammo, so it doesn't blow up
4) If all of the above stand, then the torpedo is a dud
5) If it is a dud, it is always the last torpedo you are carrying
6) Did I mention that while all of the above are happening, the weather does not permit you to use the DG?

Von

So true... :rotfl::up:

[LeafsFan]

Hi Andreas!

I'm the damage model guy of GWX. Will check the small merchants in the game to identify which one you ar referring to and will get back to you. :up:

In generel, Murphy's Law has great applications with a torpedo hit: :D

1) The randomised torpedo strength is always set at the lowest setting, while hitting the smallest ship
2) If the randomised torpedo strength is set at better than lowest setting, the torpedo hits on the wrong spot
3) If none of the above stand, then the ship never carries ammo, so it doesn't blow up
4) If all of the above stand, then the torpedo is a dud
5) If it is a dud, it is always the last torpedo you are carrying
6) Did I mention that while all of the above are happening, the weather does not permit you to use the DG?

Von

Good Stuff!!

[Woof1701]

@AG124
I had this problem with both types of small merchants. The stock one, and the one with two derricks fore and aft. Yesterday I also came across a tramp steamer and put a torpedo right in the middle again. It steamed on happily as if nothing had happened, so I picked up speed, overtook it and dealt him a second torpedo. This time it slowed down to about 2 knots within the next few minutes. I again stayed with it for half a day and it didn't sink and continued on its course. Only after a DD was approaching and I got nervous an put a third torpedo into the aft section did it stop and immediately start to slip below the surface - aft section first.

@VonHelsching
Of course I'm aware of Murphy's Law in that respect :) However since torpedoes were designed to sink medium sized and even large vessels by exploding below the keel and so braking their backs - which most of the times is fatal to any ship - I think that something has to be done to make Murphy's law apply less often. So far I haven't managed to brake the back of a single ship with GWX. In my opinion even the lowest torpedo strength should be enough to sink any small ship while maybe only damaging medium or large merchants. In addition a high torpedo strenght should take out any medium sized ship and from time to time even a large ship. After all carrier HMS Ark Royal sank after about one day being hit by only one torpedo (was bad luck though, since the first torpedo killed the power plant needed to drive the pumps), HMS Courageous was hit by two torpedoes and sank within 15 minutes, USS Wasp was also killed by two (Japanese) torpedoes), HMS Eagle was hit by 4 torpedoes, former battleship USS Utah capzised in less then 10 minutes after being hit by only one Japanese areal torpedo in Pearl Harbor. Battleships Barham and Royal Oak more or less desintegrated after being hit by spreads of three and four torpedos. All of those ships had over 20.000 tons and were designed as warships with an armored hull whereas merchants were not armored. Large passenger liners Laconia (WWII) and Lusitania (WWI) were sunk by one, Athenia by two torpedoes.

Of course there are also stories like with the large tanker SS Ohio which was hit by an Italian torpedo, almost braking its back, and the being hit by bombs and even a Stuka falling onto the deck, and the ship still managed to get to Malta. However, it was more of a wonder and a good piece of luck, that the ship didn't break apart after the first torpedo hit.

To drive my point home: either the small ships are too strong, or the torpedoes too soft. I expect it is the first since I managed to sink an Italia-class BBs in a single mission with two torpedoes. I replayed the mission several times and also tried out the Barham mission and was also able to put this one down with two to three hits. I'm also aware what you were accomplishing by completely reworking the damage models. It makes sinkings much more varied and I'm really impressed by that, but using up two torpedoes for any small ship annoys me a little, since my Typ II only carries six of them ;)

@Tikigod
Thanks. I must have overlooked your post. But that's EXACTLY what I wanted to say :)

I wasn't aware of the sliding deck cargo, but if that really could be implemented again it would be a really cool addition and I'm all for it!!

[bigboywooly]

Eh so you use 2 torpedos
You will also get a lot more targets than they did in RL
Many uboats never saw the enemy let alone sunk one

Pretty sure they would have liked the chance to sink a ship
Even with 2 torpedos

Now if the damage models were done in such a way each ship sank with 1 fish then your patrol tonnage would be astronomical
Of course the amount of available targets could be reduced to RL terms to counter act that
But who would want to make 3 or 4 patrols without seeing a ship

But that would be historical

[Iron Budokan]

I agree, use 2 torps. The days of cracking even a small merchant in half with one torp while you're running GWX are over. Well, they're not over. You can still do it. But it happens less often or so I've found.

[Tikigod]

Well, compare today's IED terrorists use with the concept of a torpedo. Both are designed to kill their targets near or underneath the vehicle. Obviously not all IED's are the same but, the principle still applies for most planted devices against vehicles. If you are driving an Armored Tank vs a HMMWV/car/truck which do you think will survive an IED attack? Rarely do you see a HMMWV survive. Yes, murphey's law still applies: it may rain in the desert, the triggering device may not be wired correctly, the target may get a flat tire before it reaches the kill zone, the democrats may pull the HMMWV out of Iraq, or a kid might come by and run off with the device, but, besides all that.... given the event that a target vehicle like an HMMWV does come in contact with an IED....the IED will win against the HMMWV 95-100% of the time. Even with armor plating the vehicles can't be used afterwards. As one soldier put it, the armor upgrades instead of allowing the shrapnel pass through your body now gives it a chance to stick inside it. This pretty much tells you who the odds favor.

Torpedos were designed to attack large ships, not small merchants. In one documentry with u.s. subs they mentioned how the crews wouldn't bother wasting tax payers money with a single torpedo since they could easily be sunk with deck guns or raiding parties. In my case above the seas were rough and my only other option was the torpedo.

Its fine that all ship strikes are not the same. The more variety, the better. But, like an IED vs. HMMWV/Truck example. I seriously doubt any small ship could survive an actual detonation from one torpedo. I'd like to be proved otherwise with ww2 footage of a torpedo strike on a small vessel (not a dud but, actual triggered detonation) in which the vessel stays seaworthy and continues on its course.

[rascal101]

HI I read this thread with interest. In relation to Woof1701's original question I wonder if the problem is not with torpedo strength, or what merchant he's attacking but rather a glitch or gremlin in his system, let me explain.

I remember a problem I had when I had two different mods installed, the original Grey Wolves and the original NYGM. I thought both mods were great for different reasons and coulnt see why I couldnt have both mods installed at the same time.

This was fine except for one thing that I discovered over time. Whenever I hit small merchants I would I would get some dimented fire ball accompanied by a roaring sound, I think it was to simulate an oil fire, except it woudl throw my PC's frame rate right out if I looked directly at the fire.

Worse still, the little ship would sink to about level with the deck and just sit there. No matter what I did, more torps, deck gun whatever it woudl just sit there. This happened so many times I just stopped attacking small merchants, until I worked out it was a conflict caused by the two mods. I think there were other's in the forums who reported similar.

I removed one of the mods and the problem with indestructable small merchants was resolved. I wonder if Woof1701's problem is that he's got a conflict some where in one of his mods which is throwing something out

[Woof1701]

@Tikigod
Thanks again. Exactly my point, although the comparison maybe is a little extreme ;)

@bigboywooly

The problem with realism and historical accuracy is of course, that it's hard to achieve. Even though I understand you point I believe your reasoning in this case is flawed:

In the beginning of the war, most boats that went out actually DID encounter large amounts of ships and sank them and only returned home after they expended their ammo. How else do you explain the large tonnages some skippers accumulated in a very short time. Take Kretschmer for example. He started the war in a Typ II B and then got a Typ VII B (U-99). With this boat he sank 44 (of his total 46) ships in less than nine months between July 1940 and March 1941, totalling over 270.000 tons in only 8 patrols! When you split that up it's 5.75 ships per patrol with an average tonnage of about 33.750 tons per patrol and roughly 6000 tons per ship. Considering that at that time the uboat force still had problems with duds and deep running torpedoes I'd say that's a pretty good exploit. And he is no exception. Take apart some of those records below and you will find that some captains even had single patrols with 50000 and more tons! Statistically the Top 34 uboat captains had an average of 18604 tons per patrol. And that's more that I can say about me with vanilla SH3 at 94% realism. Most captains however, didn't live long enough to celebrate their successes.

Source: http://www.uboat.net/men/aces/top.htm

For later in the war I partially grant you that many uboats didn't get near a convoy at all within a patrol and didn't sink anything in weeks or even in a whole patrol. But also don't forget that some of those captains and crews were completely new to the job. Kids that had to succeed the masters who were either dead, ran a flotilla, or were POWs. Those boys often were still struggeling to run their boats properly and had no experience in ASW evasion. They learned all that from books and from teachers who hadn't experienced the newest technology of the Allies.

However - no matter if late in the war or early in the war - I believe we players go to far greater risks there, since we can simply save the game or start a new one. An option which didn't present itself to a real uboat crew. We can also fast-forward the time and don't have to deal with ugly things like sickness, malnutrition, low morale, terrible hygiene, boredom, horror, foul weather and fear of death!
We also KNOW history and when to expect which technology leap of the allies. Many crews were simply caught by surprise and never lived to tell the tale of radar, hedgehog and acoustic torpedoes. And most importantly: in SH3 there's no Bletchley Park cryptographers decyphering my radio messages and directing hunter-killer groups to my last known position as soon as I stake out a convoy. Since that's the way the Allies got to find and kill most uboats from mid 1943 onwards I consider that a significant advantage on our part.
BTW: For malfuntions and sabotage we now have SH3 Commander ;)

So I have no problem with being a little better that the best were in reality. After all we have it much easier than them, and playing a game - even a historically acurate one - should be fun as well, shouldn't it? Call me narrow-minded, but for me the fun's deminishing when I'm forced to put a spread of 2 to 3 torpedoes into a tiny little tramp steamer.

[Tikigod]

Here is interesting read:

http://uboat.net/allies/technical/torpedo_problems.htm

"The failure to note the defect earlier was due to the BO's reluctance to test the torpedoes in peacetime. Fish cost $10,000 a piece, and it was considered prodigious to expend them on target practice. In comparison, a similar German torpedo cost RM 25,000-but the Germans never shied away from such "peacetime expenditures."

So, maybe a German Uboat captain would waste two torpedoes on a small target. But, our point is that in the event that one did actually detonate the explosion of one torpedo would most likely destroy such a small craft. Most of the articles talk about Murphey's Law in the terms that the detonators never went off or the torpedo would get stuck in the mud. I've never read an article about the design of the torpedo having problems with the actual explosion once it went off.

[heartc]

Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV8MF-440xg

The warhead power in torpedoes hasn't changed much since WWII, something like 600lbs vs 650lbs, in case of MK14 and MK48 torpedo. Also, from most all information I've read, including from first hand accounts like Capt. Edward L. Beach, USN, one (detonating!) torpedo was usually enough to blow the target to hell. Neither Small Freighters, other Merchentman nor Destroyers were BB's like the Yamato. The Torpedo is a tool made specifically to destroy ships in a war. Freighters were not designed for war, and Destroyers were just tin cans. I don't know where the notion of "about 2 torpedoes seems right" comes from.

Oh and bigboywooly, the effect you describe is real. However, for numerous reasons including the ones given above by Woof1701, this is just a "fact of life" and true for all simulations. If we were to try and "nerf" simulated "careers" as per your approach, we could as well go ahead and shoot with rubber bullets in flightsims. Do we want to simulate an authentic "kill board" or a weapon system in a simulation? Anyone answering "both", is free to go and kill himself after being sunk in the sim. ;) Will make for more authentic tonnage counts, no doubt. ;)

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Well we'll take a look at it.

However, a reminder first:

In GW, Small Merchant = 6+ torpedoes to sink
(Just look at Stabiz "Merchant from Hell" video.)

In GWX, Small Merchant = 2 Torpedoes to sink (maybe)

From Kpt. Lehmann: Quit yer bitchin' and be more aggressive! :stare: ;)

[azn_132]

Well we'll take a look at it.

However, a reminder first:

In GW, Small Merchant = 6+ torpedoes to sink
(Just look at Stabiz "Merchant from Hell" video.)

In GWX, Small Merchant = 2 Torpedoes to sink (maybe)

From Kpt. Lehmann: Quit yer bitchin' and be more aggressive! :stare: ;)

I am aggressive why u think Im still alive in my boat? And the small merchant is not hard to kill.

[Tikigod]

I'm agressive too. Its the reason Im not letting the small merchants slip by. Nothing escapes me.

Here is a recent video of my last patrol and my encounters with small freighters. They are a piece of cake I tell you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NfCExE7lNQ

Watch from 3:30-5:00

[azn_132]

I'm agressive too. Its the reason Im not letting the small merchants slip by. Nothing escapes me.

Here is a recent video of my last patrol and my encounters with small freighters. They are a peice of cake I tell you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NfCExE7lNQ

Watch from 3:30-5:00

Nice find.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

I'm agressive too. Its the reason Im not letting the small merchants slip by. Nothing escapes me.

Here is a recent video of my last patrol and my encounters with small freighters. They are a piece of cake I tell you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NfCExE7lNQ

Watch from 3:30-5:00

Very cool. That is the most realistic looking SH3 patrol footage I think I've ever seen.:rotfl: :up:

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

Interesting that the first three small frieghters they sank were done with the deck gun in rough seas. :)

[Woof1701]

Interesting that the first three small frieghters they sank were done with the deck gun in rough seas. :)

My thought exactly. Seems like we have to do something about that as well (again) :rotfl:
No worry: I won't start that discussion again ;)


@heartc
Thanks. Especially for the video. Seeing that up close and in slomo really gives you an idea of the explosive power. Old WW2 foottage normally only shows the water spraying up.


@Tikigod
Impressive work there with the deck gun. It only took you two shots. How the hell are you doing it. :)


@Kpt. Lehmann
Ok. But you must agree that 6+ torpedoes is a wee bit excessive for almost any ship ever built. I doubt that even a modern Nimitz class Carrier could take 6 torps :) But I appreciate the fact that this has been greatly improved. I still see some room for enhancement though.

Thanks a lot for having a look at it. I really appreciate that, and that's all I wanted to ask you for!



BTW:
Just looked for the video. "The Merchant from Hell"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnDjElFbdlo
Have fun.

[Corsair]

My personal thoughts about small vessels of all kind :

If weather and ammo allows it, they go down with deck gun. If not, I don't think they are worth 2 torps as 2 torps can bring you much bigger boats.
If I let the little buggers go away and don't find bigger targets after, well, I had back luck... but this rarely happens.
Being aggressive is for me trying to sink largest possible tonnage with the ammo at hand, not shooting at anything that moves in any weather conditions. I have often left even big juicy targets get away if I felt the conditions would lead to several misses.

[Capt.Crackerjack]

The choice to attack any of the smaller vessels is obnoxious to me as it hardly seems fitting nor justified. I have personally instructed my watch crew that we are not on patrol to bully little boats as we risk revealing our general patrol location to the U-boat killer planes and ships. We also do not hunt capital ships since we are instead charged with choking Britain by destroying the merchants. We will be patient and we will be cautious, thus we shall succeed.

[Woof1701]

@Corsair.
That's an approach as well. In the beginning of the war in my tiny Typ II I didn't have the range to find the large ships and convoys and didn't have a deck gun either. With my "new" Typ VII that's different, so I guess I'll let go of the smaller ones more often too to save torpedoes for larger targets. After all it's kind of crappy to come home with three kills rating 2000 tons each. :)

Last time when I wasted my last five torpedoes on 2 small ships in a convoy off the English East Coast (there were no big ships in it), I grabbed the deck gun and sank two deep sea fishing trawlers and another little thing like that. If the lightship and the schooner hadn't been such a pretty sight, I'd have sunken them too. But my girl friend would never forgive me. She loves sailing boats :)

[Ducimus]

I dunno if anyones mentioned it yet, but ive found with tramp steamers and small merchants that if you aim the torpedo just under the forward mast, the front of the ship floods in fairly short order and drags the rest of the ship down with it. I've tried the same by shooting under the after mast, but didnt get as good results as shooting under the forward one. Im guessing theres a cargo hold zoned there with alot of boyancy.

[AVGWarhawk]

I dunno if anyones mentioned it yet, but ive found with tramp steamers and small merchants that if you aim the torpedo just under the forward mast, the front of the ship floods in fairly short order and drags the rest of the ship down with it. I've tried the same by shooting under the after mast, but didnt get as good results as shooting under the forward one. Im guessing theres a cargo hold zoned there with alot of boyancy.

I have seen the same. The little bugger seems to be nose heavy anyway. I had a few in a convoy, rough seas. All were ok with exception of this little streamer plowing the water and just seeming to be going down. At any rate, hit just below the forward mast and the nose will sometimes break off. I have seen a similar thread over at the SH3 forums as well.

BTW, 2 torpedoes sure beats the heck out of 6 and 90 cannon shells like 1.1a:doh:

[Woof1701]

Ok. So I'll try shooting them under the front mast then for the time being. :) Thanks

[Kpt. Lehmann]

The choice to attack any of the smaller vessels is obnoxious to me as it hardly seems fitting nor justified. I have personally instructed my watch crew that we are not on patrol to bully little boats as we risk revealing our general patrol location to the U-boat killer planes and ships. We also do not hunt capital ships since we are instead charged with choking Britain by destroying the merchants. We will be patient and we will be cautious, thus we shall succeed.

For service to the fatherland... I hereby award you the Deutch Cross in Gold!!!!

Thank you for not quibbling.:up: :up: :up: