Duds in GWX

[EM2(SS)]

Just started a new campaign. VII in St Nazaire 9/40. Gonna try selecting duds on for a total of 84% realism.

So my questions are does GWX model itself historically, in that eventually the bugs are worked out of torpedoes and they are more or less very reliable?

If that is the case what date is that?

And finally are magnetics less reliable than contact during the " dud " period?

Thanks in advance

[melnibonian]

I think the magnetic pistols had problems until the end of the campaign in Norway (mid 1940). Don't forget that you can still have dud effects with torpedoes bouncing off the curvy parts of the hull.

[Paajtor]

Yes, it can happen in heavy seas (target is moving up&down allot).

[Mooncatt]

yeah pain in the ass tbh. but thats what they had to put up with

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Just an FYI, torpedo reliability in SH3 appears to be hard-coded. This is an element we've been unable to influence.

Only torpedo ranges where necessary, vertical maneuverability, and damage output potential was changed. (the last being to balance weapons vs unit damage models)

Vertical maneuverability was only changed to increase the time it takes for a fired torpedo to reach the running depth set by the player. In stock SH3 the torps would achieve running depth nearly instantly. It appears this modification has no impact in-game. Basically we just changed the torpedo elevator control surface maximum travel from 15 degrees to 3 degrees.

[AVGWarhawk]

Don't forget the premature explosions as well. They are worse than the dudes. It kind of gives away your presence:nope:. Rough weather can give you the premature detonations. Kind of a two edge sword. You can get in very easy with the weather but all can be for not if the torp prematures on you:down:

[Brag]

I've had relatively few duds in both stock SHIII and GWX as long as I stick close to 90 degrees AOB. But duds are part of life. Rough seas cause problems and give advantages, again the vagaries of life. All in all, GWX gives satisfactory realism and uncertainty of the outcome of any action. :yep:

[AVGWarhawk]

I've had relatively few duds in both stock SHIII and GWX as long as I stick close to 90 degrees AOB. But duds are part of life. Rough seas cause problems and give advantages, again the vagaries of life. All in all, GWX gives satisfactory realism and uncertainty of the outcome of any action. :yep:

I agree!

[Mooncatt]

im playing stock atm and usually have at least one per patrol. Bernard keeps picking dodgy fish to load onto my boat:D

[EM2(SS)]

First off, thanks for all the replies.

quote:
AVGWarhawkDon't forget the premature explosions as well. They are worse than the dudes. It kind of gives away your presence:nope:. Rough weather can give you the premature detonations. Kind of a two edge sword. You can get in very easy with the weather but all can be for not if the torp prematures on you:down:
How true.

Last night got into a great convoy (9/40) somewhere north of AM53.

It had one Large Tanker, a few Medium Tankers and Small Tankers and a couple Pyro's, in addition to Small Merchants and such.

Weather was 15m winds, overcast, with medium fog.

Got within 540m of a Flower and not detected!!!!:rock: (Totally perpindicular to it)

Lined up 2 torps each on a Large Tanker and Pyro. Turned out due to duds, bad weather and my poor aim that I only sunk a Small Mercahant. I evaded on the surface to the rear of the convoy. Sunk a Lake ship that was a straggler but could not catch up to convoy due to weather (it was going at 10kts)

While not the big haul that i wanted , it was a blast. Playing GWX with high realism sure does make you proud even when its not a big score like the constant 100k ton patrols in vanilla SH3.

So once again thank you GWX team

[Zero Niner]

I think the magnetic pistols had problems until the end of the campaign in Norway (mid 1940). Don't forget that you can still have dud effects with torpedoes bouncing off the curvy parts of the hull. Heh, the first 2 torpedoes U-51 (first GWX patrol) fired in a salvo (at a Polish large merchant) were duds in this way.

[Freddie_123]

EM2(SS) = Nuke?

[mookiemookie]

I'm an impact pistol fan, and rarely will I use magnetics (I'd say about 80% of my shots are impact settings, set to about 2.5 - 3 meters depth, AOB between 70 and 110 degrees). Whenever I do use magnetics, I don't find I get so many duds as I do early detonations due to choppy seas and torpedos going under the ships due to the up and down motion of the waves.

Very very very rarely do I get a torpedo that just bounces off the hull. This leads me to believe that impact pistols are more reliable than magnetics.

[EM2(SS)]

Quote:

01-23-2007 04:48 PMFreddie_123

EM2(SS) = Nuke?


Yes I was, but have been out for 10 years. Hard to believe its been that long.:rock:

[Mooncatt]

i also agree that impact are better than magnetic and that also the magnetics did have a problem, they were dropped my aircraft but the exploded as soon as they hit the wate so they reverted back to impact.

[Gavilan]

Daft question then, but what was supposed to be the advantage of magnetic?

[melnibonian]

magnetic torpedoes were initially build for under keel shots. The magnetic field of the ship triggered the pistol and the torpedo exploded. The whole force of the explosion plus the force of the displaced water hit the keel of the ship and break it.

[Gavilan]

magnetic torpedoes were initially build for under keel shots. The magnetic field of the ship triggered the pistol and the torpedo exploded. The whole force of the explosion plus the force of the displaced water hit the keel of the ship and break it.

Ahh right, so ideally then I assume if I use magnetic pistols then I should set toredo depth lower so it goes under the ship? Is this right? If so what's the optimal depth setting for magnetics? Thanks.

[melnibonian]

Ahh right, so ideally then I assume if I use magnetic pistols then I should set toredo depth lower so it goes under the ship? Is this right? If so what's the optimal depth setting for magnetics? Thanks.
If you want to try under the keel shots try to set the depth 0.5-1m under the draft of the target. Be careful though as rough seas and bad weather can affect this. My suggestion would be to use this technique only in good weather and sea conditions.

[Gavilan]

Great, thanks for the advice. Will have to give this a go. I assume then that when magnetics are working as they should (and not being dud) they have more chance of sinking ships in one shot than impact torpedoes?

[melnibonian]

Great, thanks for the advice. Will have to give this a go. I assume then that when magnetics are working as they should (and not being dud) they have more chance of sinking ships in one shot than impact torpedoes?
It depends on the ship. Small ships (including DDs) do break in half and go down almost instantly. Larger ones like tankers, Battleships etc are more difficult to break. I usually try to use impact pistols and aim my shots to the ship's critical areas. You have more chances of success that way. In any case try and see for yourself which method is better for you

[Gavilan]

I will, thanks for your helpful advice on this melnibonian, it's most appreciated. :)

[melnibonian]

I will, thanks for your helpful advice on this melnibonian, it's most appreciated. :)
Any time mate:up: That's why we're here for;)

Good Luck and Good Shooting:D :up:

[Abd_von_Mumit]

Ahh right, so ideally then I assume if I use magnetic pistols then I should set toredo depth lower so it goes under the ship? Is this right? If so what's the optimal depth setting for magnetics? Thanks.
If you want to try under the keel shots try to set the depth 0.5-1m under the draft of the target. Be careful though as rough seas and bad weather can affect this. My suggestion would be to use this technique only in good weather and sea conditions.
Two more tips:
1. Read the manual, especially 'torpedo' section. :)
2. Magnetic pistol and underkeel shots are deadly effective against battleships, much more than impact pistols and 3 metres depth, because of their antitorpedo 'belt' that makes shallow torpedoes quite innefective.