Large Tankers carrying CORK?! 10 torps and no sinking

[Faamecanic]

I put 6 torps in a Large modern tanker. All 6 torps were set to a depth of 15 ft (under her keel) and exploded magnetically. She was listing hard to port and her decks coverd with water...and she kept steaming. Huge hole just forward of her funnels.

So I sped ahead of the convoy and put 4 MORE in her (this time set to 10 ft so they would impact explode) about 2 hrs later from starboard side (it was a mission now to sink this tanker). Now she sat so low in the water you could BARELY see the tops of her anchors along the bow of her ship, and her deck was under 4 ft of water.....

The large tanker steamed merrily on to deliver her cargo... Bugged? anyone else have this happen with a tanker?

[moosenoodles]

Faamecanic...

Nothing to do with ur post, but was wondering.. I see you use Dominator 2gb ram the same as what i do, ur cpu is 6700 mine is 6600 but may I ask.. What dramm mhz does it read in your bios and in relation to what cpu speed u have set.. ?

Ratios etc 1:1 or by speed 4:5 etc ?

cheers,,

Prob better if you reply to me in a PM I guess..

Moose..

[Grothesj2]

Never had it happen to me but if a tanker just carrying water as balast I imagine they could be the devil to sink. But, maybe is a bug too. Hard to say.

[Redwine]

It may be normal... some tankers stay floating lot of time burning after being imapcted. Petrol is like a cork, it has lot of flotability, water is heaviest than the petrol.

[Weigh-Man]

It may be normal... some tankers stay floating lot of time burning after being imapcted. Petrol is like a cork, it has lot of flotability, water is heaviest than the petrol.

I thought petrol was flammable, surely a torpedo hit would ignite it.

I had the same problem the other day 12 torpedos, 2 from the rear (that stopped the tanker), 5 from port, 5 from starboard, tried magnetic under the keel, direct impact, even then it took 2 hours to sinkl:damn:

[Duli]

Maybe it had Yamato`s hull? :D

[LZ_Baker]

I've been in simular situations too. The damage model seems a bit iffy at times. I put 4 torpedoes into a large composite, equal spread right down the length of her and she kept steaming at 10 knots, not even a list. I shoot another one, messed up the spread, so the 2 fish only bearly clipped her bow and down she went like a rock. Another ship, small composite I think, I put 2 fish in her aft end, blowing up the ridder and the screws (neither visible in camera mode) but she still did 10 knots and was zig zagging away!

[tater]

And 2 hits seems to be all that is needed to sink Hiryu every time. <shrug>

[Faamecanic]

Faamecanic...

Nothing to do with ur post, but was wondering.. I see you use Dominator 2gb ram the same as what i do, ur cpu is 6700 mine is 6600 but may I ask.. What dramm mhz does it read in your bios and in relation to what cpu speed u have set.. ?

Ratios etc 1:1 or by speed 4:5 etc ?

cheers,,

Prob better if you reply to me in a PM I guess..

Moose..

I have mine set to AUTO (looks like default 800mhz ). All my latencies are also on Auto. I normally tweak and OC my stuff, but for the first time in 10 yrs, I bought this system vs. building it. And OC'ing will invalidate my warranty... hence all the Auto settings.

[Shadow9216]

I posted in the mods forum as well, either the torpedo model is too weak or the zones on the merchies are too strong...something's out of order anyway. I hammered a large convoy in a heavy sea, put 6 of 9 ships out of action but they refused to sink- other people report ships sinking during storms without player interference...so if they can founder in a heavy sea, you'd think adding a large hole would speed them along :doh:

[Quillan]

I had a similar issue last night on my first patrol of the career. The first enemy ship I encountered (medium old split freighter) went down with a single Mk 14. The second one, a medium old composite freighter, I hit with 2 torpedoes, both in the stern. It slowed down but kept going. I paced it for about 2 hours game time and it didn't sink, so I put a third torpedo amidships (all of these were on the port side). After the third torpedo it came to a stop, so I submerged and waiting for 9 more hours. It still didn't go down. At that point I hit it with a fourth torpedo and it went down. I was wondering if this was due to "realistic ship sinking times" or something wierd with the damage model.

[mookiemookie]

Just tried again, this time first mission, put 10 torps in a medium old freighter and it will not sink, tried the deck gun no help.

Be sure you are using a legal version of the game, and don't use a NoCD crack; otherwise the copy protection handicaps the weapons.

Yep.

[jesterofsanity]

I had the same situation yesterday during a convoy attack on my way to my patrol area. I started in the perfect firing position (45^ off the front ships' bow) and fired a full spread of six fish from my front tubes, getting five hits on three ships, sinking one. From there I worked my way around the convoy, sinking ships, until I slid into place by a Large Tanker--sweet, I thought, massive tonnage.

No dice. I expended the rest of my front torps (roughly ten I think) on that one freakin tanker. I got so frustrated at the way it was still moving forward (3-5kts) with its bow so deep in the water I could see the screws turning astern! that I dove under and went after it with all my aft tubes.

Two of them missed but the two that hit failed to bring it down. The two that missed still scored hits on two seperate ships, somehow setting the deck on fire, punching gaping holes in their hulls, and pushing the bow underwater, but I was down to only four fish in my after reserve. Since the escorts (3 DDs) were still engaged in a circlejerk near the front of the convoy and I was at the rear, I was frustrated enough to decide on hit-and-run with the deck gun... surface, shoot some AP at the waterline, HE on the deck, then crash dive and pop a decoy on the way down.

Well basically what happened is that I expended half of my deck gun ammo on three obviously crippled ships, none of them sank, and my little stunts attracted the DDs (finally) who flooded the aft three compartments while I was at 60m.:damn:

[Platapus]

This was from another thread on this forum

Tough tankers are the norm, I am afraid in real life.

Torpedoes sink cargo ships because the cargo ship's holds are normally filled with air/cargo which is lighter than the water the ship displaces and the torpedo lets in water which is the same weight as the surrounding water. Glub glub.

A tanker is not a ship filled with air, but a ship designed to float while full of liquid.

Unless the torpedo can make the specific liquid go boom, all you are doing is exchanging one liquid for another. Oil is lighter than water but not by much. To sink a tanker you have to break the ship's back or make it capsize. Tankers are also capable of moving liquid from one compartment to another. I don't know if this is modeled in the game or not, but in real life punching a hole in a tanker will be more harmful to the environment than the tanker itself.

Tankers filled with av gas are easy to sink not because of the torpedo but because of the resulting fire/explosion breaking the ship. A tanker filled with heavy oil won't burn nor explode (or will be much harder to get a good fire going.)

A Tanker traveling in ballast (no or little liquid filling the compartments) may be very very hard to sink.

Under keel shots and or shots in the engine compartments are my guess at where to hit tankers. But punching holes in the liquid storage compartments may not be all the troubling to the tanker itself.

I hope this helped

[Holland]

Sneaky Japanese, loading liquid cork into tankers has gotten me in trouble on many an occasion!

[Redwine]

It may be normal... some tankers stay floating lot of time burning after being imapcted. Petrol is like a cork, it has lot of flotability, water is heaviest than the petrol.
I thought petrol was flammable, surely a torpedo hit would ignite it.

I had the same problem the other day 12 torpedos, 2 from the rear (that stopped the tanker), 5 from port, 5 from starboard, tried magnetic under the keel, direct impact, even then it took 2 hours to sinkl:damn:
Yes i know, 10 torps are too much... but consider the following.

In the mod done by Teddy (NYGM Damage) for SH3, he incorporate a slow way to sink.

May be the developers incorporate some thing similar here.

What it means... ? May be yo hit two torps to one big ship, it will take a day to sink... by flooding, but if you want an inmediate kill you must to reach its kill Hit Points, then you may need too many torps.

If you wait it will sink... that was the way followed by that mod, sink by flooding, not instant kill.

May be...pnly may be, the team follow this way almost with some ships class.

Plus if they increase the flotability due to the peroleum flotability, may be the cause of the hard prtroleum carriers...

Any way, remeber in real life, petroleum is lighter than water, it give flotability, and in real kills, some petrolcarriers still floating in flames by many hour even days.

Just a commnet, may be useful... :up:


Sneaky Japanese, loading liquid cork into tankers has gotten me in trouble on many an occasion!


Yes ... ! :up: Petroleum is "liquid cork" !!!

[Onkel Neal]

Were any of the ships you are having to use too many tops on the Kinposan Maru, Modern Split Superstructure Freighter? Or just tankers? Which tankers, if you know? Can you rcreate the mission?

thanks
Neal

[Harry Buttle]

Those of you who think modern WW2 tankers would just blow up and sink instantly should read up on the SS Ohio in operation pedestal (Malta Convoy).

An epic story.

[Faamecanic]

Were any of the ships you are having to use too many tops on the Kinposan Maru, Modern Split Superstructure Freighter? Or just tankers? Which tankers, if you know? Can you rcreate the mission?

thanks
Neal

My tanker was a Nippon Maru.

I understand it woould take more than 2 or 3 torps.... but 10 :o All Keel shots spread from fore to aft...... there shouldnt have been any keel left with than many torps in her.

[Redwine]

Were any of the ships you are having to use too many tops on the Kinposan Maru, Modern Split Superstructure Freighter? Or just tankers? Which tankers, if you know? Can you rcreate the mission?

thanks
Neal
My tanker was a Nippon Maru.

I understand it woould take more than 2 or 3 torps.... but 10 :o
Agree 10 is too much.

All Keel shots spread from fore to aft...... there shouldnt have been any keel left with than many torps in her.
Well ... i am thinking about it... may be, only may be, the keel has many hit points, so you must not to impact a a tanker in the keel.

If you make holes under the keel, and the ships is a petrol tank, the water never goes inside the ship... so in real life, it may be not a good way to sink a tanker.

May be the team attempt to model it, oversizing the keel hit points.

I cant believe the team modelled this !!! :huh: :88)

Sadly Teddy is nor around here, he can explain how zones works, but if i am not remember bad, keel has separated hit points. :roll:

Please, try with low depth torps .... and check if you have same behaviour... :up:

[-Pv-]

Even some WWII tankers had double hulls. Based on SH3, tankers are among the hardest to kill. Magentic exploders under the keel do a better job than impact set shallow. I never use the default depth setting for the torps.
-Pv-

[Tetsuo Shima]

I put 6 torps in a Large modern tanker. All 6 torps were set to a depth of 15 ft (under her keel) and exploded magnetically. She was listing hard to port and her decks coverd with water...and she kept steaming. Huge hole just forward of her funnels.

I had this same problem yesterday. I was doing the fleet attack training mission, moved within 1000yrds of a Large Modern Tanker and put three torps into the port-side, near the bow. All three exploded, 15ft of depth contact influence and all evenly spaced in the front-left quarter of the tanker. There was a gaping hole in the hull, two fires were raging and she was listing very badly to port with the waterline above the lip of the deck so I left her to sink and went to find another target. After submerging and surfacing on the other side of the convoy, I was thinking 'Hang on a minute, I never got the 'target destroyed' signal, so I took a quick peek with the 'scope and there she was - the deck tilting at least 30 degrees to port, the bow sunk so deep that it was covered with water.
Like yourself, I made it a mission to sink the damn thing, so i submerged back under and resurfaced all set up for an aft-shot. Fired a torpedo directly at her (thinking 'ok, shes floating. But theres no way she can be steaming') ... but she was sailing at about 3 knots and the torpedo went aft :( Fired my second aft torpedo, which impacted in the front-left quarter again - and she was STILL steaming! After that I got fed up and quit :(

Dead annoying, I've sunk tankers before with one torp if you put it directly below the funnel - BOOM! and she slides in backwards with the bow floating above the water. I think the general consensus is - aim for the rear half of the tankers, because bow shots really aren't very effective.

[JFL1]

These encounters with @unsinkable ships@ happened to me a couple of times but, last night, I tried to see if it was some kind of a "realism feature" or else...

So, I engage, at night, off the coast of Honshu, one large tanker and a medium merchant. I sink the second one with two torps dead center. I hit the tanker with two torps also, she starts to list, slows down and bursts into flame, but still sails strong.

Smelling another one of these "unsinkables", I decide on making my experiment. I hit her with two additional torps (and the gaping holes showing tells me that they did damage)... More flames (it's like Dante's inferno on the bridge but I can still see people walking nonchalently) but still sailing at 5 knots...

Hit with another two. Big booms. No effect apart from a slow down to 2 knots.

I stick with the tanker for three full days (Time Compression @ 128 max.), only going surface at night to avoid the planes during daylight.

After three days, I decide on throwing five more torps in the tanker. All hit and the ship stops... but does not sink. I go surface and empty my deckgun ammos on her, to no avail. I wait another full week game time. Nothing.

So, since last evening, I am now convinced some ships are indeed unsinkable. I'll wait for a patch. I have no difficulty in believing that, in real life, some ships took some time to sink. However, I very much doubt that the devs went as far as to model this possibility. Seems to me that it looks more like a problem than a touch of realism...

But, hey, I could be wrong...

[Ping Jockey]

Had the same thing happen to me. I hit one 8 times and it was still doing 14 knots. I was out of torps at that point.

[Galanti]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that over 128X TC, some calculations are cancelled, perhaps the sinking of ships is one of them.

These days after the mental exertion of calculation manual TDC, if I have just hit a ship with a couple of fish and there's no threat, I'll go outside (in RL) and enjoy a smoke for ten minutes, then return to see if the listing has started, rather than speed up the time ingame.

[perisher]

Those of you who think modern WW2 tankers would just blow up and sink instantly should read up on the SS Ohio in operation pedestal (Malta Convoy).

An epic story.

Tankers can go sky high with one hit, but they can also die hard like the Ohio. She took hits from torpedoes and bombs, as well as a JU 87 crashing into her deck, but she made port.

[ElAurens]

I posted on this same issue as well.

7 torps in a large modern tanker. Decks awash, still making speed and maneuvers with it's convoy.

:down:

[Nightmare]

This weekend I put 3 fish into a Large Modern Tanker set to contact/influence between 10 and 15 feet on it's starboard side and it didn't even slow it down. Pumped 3 more into it (same side) and it slowed from 12 knots to 4 while taking on a starboard list. Now I had all 4 destroyers attention from the convoy so I went deep and hit the gas to evade. Got far enough ahead to where I could make a stern shot on the same side as before, so I slowed and came up to periscope depth when the destroyers were far enough away. Raised the scope, setup the solution, and put 4 more into it. This only slowed it down to about 2 knots with a large enough list to put the starboard railings and deck in the water.

All tubes fired and hit yet failed to put this guy on the bottom. Went deep again to evade and reload. The escorts kept me busy so I was on silent running most of the time (no reload). About an hour later 2 of the destroyers broke off to rejoin the convoy. Sound indicated one of the remaining ones was well to the north while the other one was south west of my position. I came up to take a look to see my “victim” was now making 10 knots and putting a lot of distance between us. :damn:

I had had it at this point. I had no tubes reloaded, a ship I put every torpedo I had loaded into it and was getting away from me, and I had some distance from the remaing escorts. I did what any frustrated/foolish skipper could do; I surface and ran at flank speed with the deck gun blazing. My gun crew scored 8 hits in 12 shots, which finally sunk the tanker all the while I was under fire from the 2 escorts (didn’t hit me). Made them real mad because I took a mother of all depth chargings after I pulled the plug.

10 torpedoes plus a handful of rounds from the deck gun is a bit excessive to me. Of all the historic accounts I’ve read I can’t think of one where it took more than 4 torpedoes to sink tanker/merchant traffic.

[RickC Sniper]

I've had such bad luck with those large modern tankers I quit shooting at them. Several of them have taken 8 or more torp hits and steamed along keeping up with their convoys. I've shadowed them for days afterwards to hit them again with reloaded tubes but dang, they just refuse to sink sometimes.

[SteamWake]

Yuh some tankers can be tough.

Ive actually had better luck sinking them with guns than torps.

[Redwine]

10 torpedoes plus a handful of rounds from the deck gun is a bit excessive to me. Of all the historic accounts I’ve read I can’t think of one where it took more than 4 torpedoes to sink tanker/merchant traffic.
Hi... Nightmare

Together with Pcelt we are developing a series of tweaks.

The problem of "unsinkable" ships was solved and works fine almost into our installation.

It is not a released mod yet... but have name in case it works fine, and is good to share it.

It is called ...."Die Slowly Mod"

Work is in progress, we consider the ships damage model is fine now, we are working on sub now. It is a "nightmare" .

There are many Stages....

Stage 4 :

Basically the manin changes are :
All flooding times for ships and subs increased.
Torpedo power-up. To make the big merchants and tankers more easy.
Big battleshps, battleships, and Heavy Cruisers more strong, to not make them so easy due to the torpedoes power-up. Yamato is not too weak now do not save torpedoes with it now.
Many sub tweaks. Increased hitpoints, 1/3 and ahead slow adjusted to silent running and max range speed, snorkel depth changed to works as radar depth with CCIP and Ducimus keyboard.
Sub files includes inceased battery life and crush depths. At our pleasure, not realted with the yet released mods but so similar, info may be from same fonts.
Depth charges reduced in lethal radius.
Zones tweaked, with changes on ships, subs and planes. With some effects added, not sure if all them works.

Many optional adds, wich you decide if use or not, but related with survival probability. (radar fix, visibility fix and more)




Stage 5 :

Same as Stage 4, but ships flooding times increased, wich cause many strange ways to sink.




Stage 6 :

Same as Stage 5, but we start here to make the sub more strong with the objective to diminuish the "domino" damage effect.
Depth charges same as before but with reduced power.



You can download any of the 3 version to test, all 3 will solve the non sinkable big cargo and tankers.

Two torps are enough now for large merchant and the problematic OLNippon=Large Modern Tanker....

Download any of the 3 versions from here : (remeber it is a non finished job and need to much more test, specially with UPC sub files...but works fine with ships)

Do Not forget to back-up all your original files

http://hosted.filefront.com/Redwine/

[TripleDaddy]

The Tanker That Would Not Die:

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g225/kdull/Brian/ScreenShot001.jpg
6 torps and still making 7 knots...

This is the reason I use 2x torpedo mod.

[Redwine]

The Tanker That Would Not Die:

6 torps and still making 7 knots...

This is the reason I use 2x torpedo mod.
Yes... the torps was the first we tweaked... but then, the Battleships, the Yamato, the Heavy Cruiser become too weak and easy to sink... we increased their resistence.

Now the Nippon Large Modern Tanker, takes only two "most common" torpedoes only, MK 14 or 23 power equivalent.

[CaptainHaplo]

One reason tankers are so hard to sink is an error in the zones file. An area hit with ammo does damage x4 = so you quad your damage when you hit an ammo zone. The problem - when they wrote the zone file - they listed fuel as damage x 0.5 = meaning any hit on a fuel bunker (or fuel TANK) only does 1/2 damage! This is why a tanker that should take 4 or 5 torps is taking 8-10 or more! Same with shell damage. :damn:

The options are to correct the error (setting it to damage x1.5 or 2.5?) or to mod the torpedos. In all honesty - the torps are a bit weak regardless - but the zones fix would also resolve the decreased shell damage.

Either way - hope this helps explain a bit of why you see what you see.

Good hunting!
Captain Haplo

[Redwine]

One reason tankers are so hard to sink is an error in the zones file. An area hit with ammo does damage x4 = so you quad your damage when you hit an ammo zone. The problem - when they wrote the zone file - they listed fuel as damage x 0.5 = meaning any hit on a fuel bunker (or fuel TANK) only does 1/2 damage! This is why a tanker that should take 4 or 5 torps is taking 8-10 or more! Same with shell damage. :damn:

The options are to correct the error (setting it to damage x1.5 or 2.5?) or to mod the torpedos. In all honesty - the torps are a bit weak regardless - but the zones fix would also resolve the decreased shell damage.

Either way - hope this helps explain a bit of why you see what you see.

Good hunting!
Captain Haplo

Sorry Captain... i cant found that setting.

Are you talking about Multiplier factor... ?

I dont remember bad it affects the critical probability... do you say it multiplies the power of the weapon hiting the compartement ?

[CaptainHaplo]

Redwine,

;************************************************* ******
[Global Params]
CargoExplosionRange=25.0; The range of cargo explosion
AmmoExplosion=#Splinter_explosion
AmmoForceMultiplyer=4.0; The explosion of location filled with this cargo type is multiplied by this factor
FuelExplosion=#oil_explosion
FuelForceMultiplyer=0.5; The explosion of location filled with this cargo type is multiplied by this factor
Penetration Threshold=0.2
Armor Level Factor=4
;************************************************* ******

Thats the original text of the zones.cfg under data - at the very end of the file. Note this is a force multiplier - which cuts the damage in half - blast it! Cant be right. I can understand where fuel would have less force than ammo - but not cutting the force in half compared to pure AIR! This is why tankers are so hard to kill!

Change fuelforcemultipyer to 1.5 or 2.5 (2.5 seems more realistic personally) - and you start getting 2 - 3 torp kills. 1.5 makes it 3-4, on occasion 5.

For fun - or for testing - set the ammo force multiplier higher (say 12) - and then edit the zone cargo to be ammo on any (or all) ships. One torp blows anything to the moon! Even a couple of shells do the job. Watch the fireworks! I admit - it was a fun test for me to run!

Hope this helps. Good Hunting!
Captain Haplo

[Fearless]

However though it's only the fumes from the oil that ignites when a flash from a torpedo impact reaches it. Most cases it doesn't depending upon how full the oil tanks are. So it is quite possible for the tanker to only sink after a prolonged time.

[zylark]

I've found tankers to be one of the more "ignitable" targets, and do not require many fishes. However, I wonder if the game simulates full/empty tankers. A tanker carrying highly flammable oil should be a bit more vulnerable to a HE torpedo impact than an empty one that basically just carries air (after hose-down of the tanks to get rid of highly volatile fumes).

[TripleDaddy]

Does fire actually do damage or is it an indication of damage? I had an old tanker aflame from stem to stern for about 5 hours after four torps and it just sat there and burned.

[joea]

Does fire actually do damage or is it an indication of damage? I had an old tanker aflame from stem to stern for about 5 hours after four torps and it just sat there and burned.

4 torps seems excessive, on the other hand it was not unknown for ships to burn for hours before sinking...or not even sinking.

[Redwine]

Redwine,

;************************************************* ******
[Global Params]
CargoExplosionRange=25.0; The range of cargo explosion
AmmoExplosion=#Splinter_explosion
AmmoForceMultiplyer=4.0; The explosion of location filled with this cargo type is multiplied by this factor
FuelExplosion=#oil_explosion
FuelForceMultiplyer=0.5; The explosion of location filled with this cargo type is multiplied by this factor
Penetration Threshold=0.2
Armor Level Factor=4
;************************************************* ******

Hope this helps. Good Hunting!
Captain Haplo
I see now, i readed those lines, but how they talk about explosion, i was thinking the FuelForceMultiplyer=0.5 was refering to the effect, in example, slinter explosion 20, 30 , 40...

Then there is two way to solve the unsinkable tankers, this and the torpedo power up we followed.

Any way we tested the problematic Nippon oiler Large Modern tanker into a mission filled with freight, not ammo or fuel.

The matter is, there are some big cargo ships with the same problem.... this way can solve the tankes, but not the cargo ships.

Any way a combination of both parameters may be so good.

A very interesting parameter is the CargoExplosionRange=25.0, we can rise it up to 400, so if an ammo explosion happens, your sub will take damage if you are so near... :p

Many thanks for the info.... :up:


However though it's only the fumes from the oil that ignites when a flash from a torpedo impact reaches it. Most cases it doesn't depending upon how full the oil tanks are. So it is quite possible for the tanker to only sink after a prolonged time.
Interesting comment, may be Cap Haplo can calrify with your test...

It is refering to the ship fuel ? or to the cargo fuel ? :hmm:

To hit the ship fuel has a low probability, but hit cargo fuel in a tanker is a high probability.

I've found tankers to be one of the more "ignitable" targets, and do not require many fishes.
Small and medium tankers are not the problem, the problem are the big tankers as Nipon oiler Large Modern tanker and Large cargo ships.

However, I wonder if the game simulates full/empty tankers. A tanker carrying highly flammable oil should be a bit more vulnerable to a HE torpedo impact than an empty one that basically just carries air (after hose-down of the tanks to get rid of highly volatile fumes).
Into the mission editor, you have many choices in the cargo load up for the cargo ships and tankers.

Freight, Fuel and ammo.

Our test with the Nipon oiler large modern tanker was with it filled with freight to discard any ammo or fuel explosion power add.

Sure if you fill it with ammo or oil, it was modellated, in example by the line posted by Capt Haplo.... :up:


Does fire actually do damage or is it an indication of damage? I had an old tanker aflame from stem to stern for about 5 hours after four torps and it just sat there and burned.
Sadly not, fire do not increase damage.... it is a legacy from SH III.
Ship can stay days in flames and nothing happens.


Does fire actually do damage or is it an indication of damage? I had an old tanker aflame from stem to stern for about 5 hours after four torps and it just sat there and burned.
4 torps seems excessive, on the other hand it was not unknown for ships to burn for hours before sinking...or not even sinking.
Agree, 4 torps may be too much, even when thr fuel floating as a cork, the oilers was old design, its hull was very thinny, a big hole makes the oil goes out...
In real life they are very hard to sink, many stay hour and days in flames.
But i think so we need a balance between game play and reality here.

With the mod above, the large tankers and cargo ships sinks with max two torps.

If any body want to test... Stage 4, Stage 5, or Stage 6....



Download the "Die Slowly" mod here :

http://hosted.filefront.com/Redwine



Download the Big Ships (freight cargo filled) Test Mission here :

http://hosted.filefront.com/Redwine/1947775



Please, dont let to add any discover about this issue and comment. :up::up::up:

[CaptainHaplo]

Well - to clarify - any of the zones in the zones.cfg file can be filled with "cargo". Cargo is fuel, ammo - or none. None is air - or general freight - neither of which are going to have any "set" effect on an explosion. Fuel - as written - dampens the explosion - when it should increase its intensity. Ammo - obviously increases the damage.

Since each zone can have its own cargo - the game doesnt differentiate between a "Ship fuel" in a fuel bunker or tank - or a storage tank. It simply sees a "zone" with "cargo".

What may be needed is to see if we can create a "cargo" type that lets us tweak how the large freighters work as well. I dont see anything that looks hard coded - if I get time this weekend I may play with it. If that doesnt work, we may need to just adjust the cargo in a couple of zones on the large freighters to get the same effect.

This is looking more like a mod thread - maybe it needs to be moved? Either way - at least now we see WHY. Once thats known - changing it usually isnt too hard - unless its hard coded!

Either way - Good Hunting!
Captain Haplo

[Redwine]

Well... AmmoForceMultiplyer= and FuelForceMultiplyer= works fine....

I set now both to =1, to not make the ships to easy to sink.

:up::up::up:

[CaptainHaplo]

with fuel set to 1 instead of .5 - are you seeing any improvement in taking out a large nippon? Can you give us some feedback on what your seeing? I set fuel to 1.5 and I am seeing them go down with 4-5 which is a fair "historical average".

Good Hunting!
Captain Haplo

[Redwine]

with fuel set to 1 instead of .5 - are you seeing any improvement in taking out a large nippon?
Sincerelly Captan Haplo... we (Pcelt and me) have not more any problems killing the Nipon Oiler NOL Large Modern Tanker.

2 torps when it is filled with freight, and 1 or 2, when it is filled with ammo or fuel.
Of course it depend on wich kind of torp you use, i am talking about mk 14 and 23 282kg explosives.

If you use MK 10 or 18, you will need more torps, and if you use MK 16 you will need less.

If you want to change it, only need to increase hitpoints into ship ,zon file, we are using stock... HP.



Can you give us some feedback on what your seeing? I set fuel to 1.5 and I am seeing them go down with 4-5 which is a fair "historical average".

Good Hunting!
Captain Haplo
I think so we are using diferent files, if i set 1.5 i need less torps.

We reach to a very interesting gameplay settings.

Large ships are not more invincible, battleship are not more weak.
Many extrange ways to sink, and beautiful FX effects.

Plus we tweaked the sub.

The "domino effect" is more controlable now.

With our settings, after take some hard damage, you was (in most of the cases) able to dive to peri depth with no problems, if you are near to a enemy DD.

Plus, you can perform (in most cases) a crash dive if you are near to an enemy plane.

To stop the crash dive is reccomended, but if you cant, in the most cases you can reach the 40m and survive.

In most of the situatiuon i tested, the domino effect happens under 50m.

Of course if you take lot of severe damage, you still not safe even at peridepth.

Not a solution, domino effect remains unpredictable, but is the only we have, almost yet.

The better way is to remember the "indamage depth", and never overpass it any more in the remain time of the mission, in example, if you was able to surviva severe damage at 40m, and repair it, controls the flood.

Never, ever more, overpass this depth... at wich you was taked damage and survive.

If you want to check the last verison of the tweaks Pcelt and me tested...



Download "Die Slowly Mod Stage 7" from here....

http://hosted.filefront.com/Redwine



Not so good, not so perfect, not a great job, but improves the gameplay fixing or making more soft some problems into the game...

Good if you feedback some comment.... :up:

:up::up::up:

[Chock]

Just been reading up on this a little to see how likely it is that a cargo would actually contribute to the ship's demise, and where petrol is concerned, unless it gets a mix of air and gas in the right proportions, it is actually fairly hard to ignite, and since the explosion happens underwater for torpedo hits, that seems to explain a fair bit.

Incidentally some years ago, this factor was the catalyst for an attempt to make AVGAS less flammable in an accident, by causing it to gel upon receipt of a shock to prevent it from 'misting' and reaching an explosive fuel/air mix during the impact of an aeroplane crash.

Back in world war two however, there are numerous instances of tankers resolutely refusing to explode despite containing what would seem to be very flammable cargoes, the most famous instance being the tanker San Demetrio (built 1938, i.e. modern by WW2 standards), which was attacked by the German warship Admiral Scheer while crossing the Atlantic in 1940.

Despite being hit repeatedly by the 11 inch guns of the Scheer, set ablaze, and abandoned by her crew, the blazing tanker was re-boarded two days later, when part of the crew who had not been rescued decided that the risk involved was better than chancing things in their lifeboat. They put out the fires, repaired the steering gear and eventually got the damaged tanker under weigh to Ireland and then on to the Clyde. Upon arrival, it was found that she had only lost 200 tons of her 12,000 ton cargo of aviation fuel. The crew who re-boarded her were actually awarded salvage rights to her and received quite a large monetary reward for their efforts.

The event is dramatised in the 1943 British flag-waver movie 'San Demetrio, London', which coincidentally was screened on TV in the UK the other day. It is also the basis for the 1959 children's adventure novel 'The Lame Duck', by Richard Armstrong. And, it provided the inspiration for an incident in the movie 'Das Boot', where a tanker that refuses to sink is finished off by the sub many hours after their initial attack, only to reveal that the crew are still aboard.

Unfortunately for its crew, the repaired San Demetrio was eventually sunk by a torpedo from U-404 in 1942, so the resilience of tankers against torpedoes doesn't always hold true it seems.

Other cargoes noted for making a ship difficult to sink, include wool and cotton. Historically, ships carrying these cargoes would be placed on the outside edges of convoys if practicable, to further screen more vulnerable ships. And this was often possible, since their cargoes, while large in volume, were generally lighter, making the ships carrying such goods better able to manouever on the outside edges of a convoy, where they would often have to speed up to maintain position in a zig-zag.
It's also one of the reasons why ships likely to be carrying that sort of thing were generally better armed than a lot of other merchants.

Whether any of the historical disposition and make-up of convoys is modeled in SH3 or SH4 to any degree of real accuracy, is debatable however, and the Japanese certainly lagged behind their European and American counterparts when it came to experience with convoy operations, the UK having already perfected much of it during WW1.

[ccruner13]

just to throw this out there....there was a salvage of pearl harbor thing on the history channel just now and one torpedo went under the hull of a boat sitting next to some other battleship or something and when the torpedo detonated against the bb the blast crinkeled the hull of the next door ship and it rolled over and sunk. so the 7 torpedos i shot into the large old split freighter seem excessive considering it still hasnt sunk

[nattydread]

I put 5 fish into a huge ocean liner. 3 starboard 2 port running at 15-20ft. Thge 5th had her on fire but she kept steaming at the same speed. My last two torps pre-detonated even though atleast one was set for contact fuses...go figure.

I aborted the attack to keep from going into shallow water and a minefield. The end-around at mid-day right off the coast would have been a bit iffy too!

Either way 12 torps used up with no kill (2-3 sure misses, the other pre-dets I think...I dont have the camera enabled).

[Galanti]

I put 5 fish into a huge ocean liner. 3 starboard 2 port running at 15-20ft. Thge 5th had her on fire but she kept steaming at the same speed. My last two torps pre-detonated even though atleast one was set for contact fuses...go figure.

I aborted the attack to keep from going into shallow water and a minefield. The end-around at mid-day right off the coast would have been a bit iffy too!

Either way 12 torps used up with no kill (2-3 sure misses, the other pre-dets I think...I dont have the camera enabled).

As someone (Beery or Ducimus?) pointed out elsewhere, duds are modelled somewhat squirrelly in this game. I've noticed myself I only get the 'torpedo was a dud message' when I'm below periscope depth and my hydrophones are working. Also, graphically, duds often use the same sound and graphics as real hits.

Data in the torpedoes_sim file seems to suggest that some particular types of duds are triggered 1.5m from the target, which would logically look to the skipper as a solid hit. It's possible that this is leading many people to believe that many marus are soaking up far more hits than is possible.

I'm not saying the damage model is perfect by any means. I hear players boasting of sinking Yamato with 4 torps, or CAs and CVs with single hits, which would really stick in my craw in career mode.

Edit: I found Beery's post. it's a ways down, so here's his observation:


One thing to be aware of is that the game models some duds in a rather weird way: some torpedoes will impact a ship and they'll appear to explode, but they have no effect on the enemy ship at all. You can only see the non-effect of these torpedoes if you have the full 3D damage graphics checked in the graphics options - they leave no hole in the ship's hull.

Because of the above many players are complaining of torpedoes that explode but do no damage. I think these were intended to be 'contact duds' but the devs forgot to remove the explosion graphics and the sound.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=113031&page=4

[Redwine]

As someone (Beery or Ducimus?) pointed out elsewhere, duds are modelled somewhat squirrelly in this game. I've noticed myself I only get the 'torpedo was a dud message' when I'm below periscope depth and my hydrophones are working. Also, graphically, duds often use the same sound and graphics as real hits.

Data in the torpedoes_sim file seems to suggest that some particular types of duds are triggered 1.5m from the target, which would logically look to the skipper as a solid hit. It's possible that this is leading many people to believe that many marus are soaking up far more hits than is possible.

I'm not saying the damage model is perfect by any means. I hear players boasting of sinking Yamato with 4 torps, or CAs and CVs with single hits, which would really stick in my craw in career mode.

Edit: I found Beery's post. it's a ways down, so here's his observation:


One thing to be aware of is that the game models some duds in a rather weird way: some torpedoes will impact a ship and they'll appear to explode, but they have no effect on the enemy ship at all. You can only see the non-effect of these torpedoes if you have the full 3D damage graphics checked in the graphics options - they leave no hole in the ship's hull.

Because of the above many players are complaining of torpedoes that explode but do no damage. I think these were intended to be 'contact duds' but the devs forgot to remove the explosion graphics and the sound.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=113031&page=4

Your comment is very apreciated and useful...

It is very important to have your comments present.

If not remember bad, into .sim as you wrote, thee are parameter to induce pistols and gyro fails.

Torpedoes has max and min random power and damage radius.

It is posible then, you can have a min power with min radius explosion, plus if the torp is magnetic, it detonates at some range of the ship hull, stock is 2m, if not remember bad...

In example, you can have a magnetic pistol detonating at 2m of the hull, and a random explosion with minimun radius of 3m, and min power...

This can be the explanation fro the "No visible damage" of some explosions.

Plus some torps detonates far from the target...

It is souposed, if you "uncheck" the Dud torpedoes options, this mut not happen, but if not remember dad, i have this behaviour evven with "no dud torpedoes" into game options.

:up::up::up:

With the settings above, we are having an very interesting behaviour... not intended as a grat mod, but the behaviour is so interesting to not share with other simmers.

[UnSalted]

A while back I worked on designing new manufacturing processes for car airbag accelerants (accelerant is politespeak for HE) and go to learn about concussive (sympathetic) explosions versus spark induced fires/explosions. From that, I figured after trying to sink some tankers that whoever designed the game must have put HE shells in the deck guns for good reason since HE's start fires which provide the necessary ignition for any fuel they carry. I've sunk 4 or 5 since then by putting two torps into the beasties and surfacing for 10-15 good 4.5" shots into the deck area. Seems that once they start burning they go down after a fairly short wait.

I'll know more after I sink a few dozen more hopefully.

[Redwine]

A while back I worked on designing new manufacturing processes for car airbag accelerants (accelerant is politespeak for HE) and go to learn about concussive (sympathetic) explosions versus spark induced fires/explosions. From that, I figured after trying to sink some tankers that whoever designed the game must have put HE shells in the deck guns for good reason since HE's start fires which provide the necessary ignition for any fuel they carry. I've sunk 4 or 5 since then by putting two torps into the beasties and surfacing for 10-15 good 4.5" shots into the deck area. Seems that once they start burning they go down after a fairly short wait.

I'll know more after I sink a few dozen more hopefully.
You are right, not sure if game works as in real life.

For my experience into SH III, the AP and HE shells are the same with diferent power and radius only.

I note into SH IV, the graphic damage showed size is concordant with the radius you adjusted into the file.

I reduced in the mod the torpedo radius to have smaller holes.

But i am not sure, if it is only a graphic effect, or if have any influence on the flooding values.

I had not time to take hands on the shells yet, but suposing the radius as influence on the flooding, i think so... just an idea... the best way may be...

AP (Armor Piercing Shells) :
big radius, small hitpoints, to cause flooding with not too much damage.

HE (High Explosive Shells) :
a] small radius, big hitpoints, to cause more damage with not too much flooding
B] big radius, big hitpoints, to cause more damage and good floding.

Just an idea...

[zylark]

I did a patrol yesterday, and did indeed have the unfortune to hit upon one of the nearly indestructible large tankers. If memory serves me right, I first put two fish into its port side. Started a small fire at the front 1/3, and a whiff of flame at the rear. All well and good I thought. Next target, can deal with this one later.

As I came back, one torp after the other did nothing. Port and Starboard, through the entire length of the hull. I think I at least spent 8 torps that actually hit and detonated on the thing (one dud and one premature, so total would be 10). I finally sank it though. The two last fishes did seem to have an impact so to speak. Well, the last at least. Great ball o'fire.

What I noticed though was that none of them made an actual hole on the side of the tanker. Strange. Could there be something really wrong with the Large tanker damage model?

Later on the same patrol, I located a Task force of Battleships (and surrounding cruisers, DDs, support ships). Took out one such Battleship with my entire front tubes in a salvo (well, you know, not salvo as such, but rapid sequence). With a resulting 5 holes on the side. Capsized and sunk.

When did they start building tankers stronger than battleships?

[RickC Sniper]

Are you guys sure that the "No visible damage" of some torpedo hits isn't just a random thing?

I have the graphics turned on all the way, and after testing with "no dud torpedoes" some of the hits produce visible damage but some do not.

[Redwine]

Are you guys sure that the "No visible damage" of some torpedo hits isn't just a random thing?

I have the graphics turned on all the way, and after testing with "no dud torpedoes" some of the hits produce visible damage but some do not.

Same here... may be the torps need to cross a boundary damage value to trigger the graphic... :hmm:.

[zylark]

Oh, not all impacts will result in a visible hole. Not what I was implying at all. But of 8 hits on a large tanker, I had no visible holes, none. And of 6 hits on a battleship, I got 5 visible holes. (all hits were keel depth/2) So if there is some correlation between damage sustained by an impact (thickness of hull, angle of hit, size of warhead, what have you) and whether or not a hole appears, then that would imply that Large tankers hull is made from extra superduper-strength titanium/composite alloy.

[ccruner13]

when i was assualting a tanker in harbor most of my torps left no visible damage but one made the 'normal' hole however many feet across it is and then one made a really small hole only a handful of feet across. it barely looked like a hole at all... that was the first time id seen anything besides no hole or normal hole and havent since. ive also hit the front of a bb or something so close to the end that it blew the whole front off below the deck so it looked like some toothy beast.

[Redwine]

Some ships seems to be more strong in campaiugn than in a test mission. :hmm:

In example...
You make a test mission, and put a set of ships, same ships, with all the load-up choices of the mission editor.

You adjust hitpoints, torpedo power...bla...bla..bla...

All works fine...

Then you runs a campaing mission, jus a new campaign, not an old campaign, not a saved mission...

When you found this ship... those loaded with fuel, or ammo, have the same behaviour in campaign than into the test mission.

But there are another ships, with no fuel or ammo as load, i know it due to they have not the FX effects for fuel or ammo destroy....

These ships has not the same behaviour than in a test mission, i souposed they was filled-up with freight, as the optioninto the mission editor....

But they had not the same behaviour... they seems to need much more torps than a ship filled with freight into the mission editor...

May be posible they are "empty" ?

May be posible the campaign has more or diferent load up options than a test mission ?

Why this diferent behaviour into those ships, with no ammo, and no fuel as load ?

Those are the strong ships, those seems to be the hard to sink ships.

:hmm::hmm::hmm:

[nattydread]

A while back I worked on designing new manufacturing processes for car airbag accelerants (accelerant is politespeak for HE) and go to learn about concussive (sympathetic) explosions versus spark induced fires/explosions. From that, I figured after trying to sink some tankers that whoever designed the game must have put HE shells in the deck guns for good reason since HE's start fires which provide the necessary ignition for any fuel they carry. I've sunk 4 or 5 since then by putting two torps into the beasties and surfacing for 10-15 good 4.5" shots into the deck area. Seems that once they start burning they go down after a fairly short wait.

I'll know more after I sink a few dozen more hopefully.
You are right, not sure if game works as in real life.

For my experience into SH III, the AP and HE shells are the same with diferent power and radius only.

I note into SH IV, the graphic damage showed size is concordant with the radius you adjusted into the file.

I reduced in the mod the torpedo radius to have smaller holes.

But i am not sure, if it is only a graphic effect, or if have any influence on the flooding values.

I had not time to take hands on the shells yet, but suposing the radius as influence on the flooding, i think so... just an idea... the best way may be...

AP (Armor Piercing Shells) :
big radius, small hitpoints, to cause flooding with not too much damage.

HE (High Explosive Shells) :
a] small radius, big hitpoints, to cause more damage with not too much flooding
B] big radius, big hitpoints, to cause more damage and good floding.

Just an idea...

The big question is weither or not AP has any delayed explosive charge in it. But generally AP leaves small holes...it pierces. it only applies is damage to the areas it hits and that area is small. It does however allow it to cause damage to internals, but once again only for those things it hits as it travels through.

HE on the other hand will leaves big holes with lots of damage, but it will be localized only on the hull and a limited interior area near the impact.

Now if the target is armored, the AP does the same thing but with less penetration inside the target, so less internal travel to hit things. HE on an armored target basically does nothing. It just explodes and barely does anything to the target but scorch it.

Imagine a soda can as a merchant. Shot the soda can with a .22...thats AP, place a small fire cracker on the side of the can...thats HE.

Imagine a thin piece of sheet metal. Shoot it with a .22..thats small caliber AP(sub deck gun, DD guns, etc)..it may or may not penetrate, shot it with a .45...thats bigger AP(crusier or BB class guns). Place a small firecracker next to that sheetmetal...thats HE. It will scorch the sheetmetal, if its big enough it may crack the sheetmetal, but in general it doesnt dramtaically impact anything on the other side, it doesnt drasically decrease the structural integerity of the sheetmetal...it wont weaken the ship.

AP stabs, HE blows up. AP expends most of its energy just trying to get through and leaving a small hole roughly the size of the round. HE unleashes its energy in all directions leaving a hole on the hull much significantly bigger than the round.

[Redwine]

Many thanks for explanation. :up:

Sadly... i think so, AP and HE diference is not modellated in the game, they are basically the same shell where you can adjust diferent parameters, damage radius, hitpoints power, speed.

We can play adjusting difrent effects on both, in example a very small radius but high power in AP, and high power but big radius on HE.

:up::up::up:

[nattydread]

I put 5 fish into a huge ocean liner. 3 starboard 2 port running at 15-20ft. Thge 5th had her on fire but she kept steaming at the same speed. My last two torps pre-detonated even though atleast one was set for contact fuses...go figure.

I aborted the attack to keep from going into shallow water and a minefield. The end-around at mid-day right off the coast would have been a bit iffy too!

Either way 12 torps used up with no kill (2-3 sure misses, the other pre-dets I think...I dont have the camera enabled).

As someone (Beery or Ducimus?) pointed out elsewhere, duds are modelled somewhat squirrelly in this game. I've noticed myself I only get the 'torpedo was a dud message' when I'm below periscope depth and my hydrophones are working. Also, graphically, duds often use the same sound and graphics as real hits.

Data in the torpedoes_sim file seems to suggest that some particular types of duds are triggered 1.5m from the target, which would logically look to the skipper as a solid hit. It's possible that this is leading many people to believe that many marus are soaking up far more hits than is possible.

I'm not saying the damage model is perfect by any means. I hear players boasting of sinking Yamato with 4 torps, or CAs and CVs with single hits, which would really stick in my craw in career mode.

Edit: I found Beery's post. it's a ways down, so here's his observation:


One thing to be aware of is that the game models some duds in a rather weird way: some torpedoes will impact a ship and they'll appear to explode, but they have no effect on the enemy ship at all. You can only see the non-effect of these torpedoes if you have the full 3D damage graphics checked in the graphics options - they leave no hole in the ship's hull.

Because of the above many players are complaining of torpedoes that explode but do no damage. I think these were intended to be 'contact duds' but the devs forgot to remove the explosion graphics and the sound.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=113031&page=4



You know that coul dbe whats happening, not to mention I dont always get a chance to see the impacts, I go off what my sonar guys tells me...hanging around for the fireworks can get you killed.

Ive notice the sonar guys doesnt say torpedo impact unless it actually hits, pre-detonations do not deliver a response. So I know for sure I had 5 hits, maybe 6...but its possible several of them where those mis-leading dud/low yield explosions. Man I hope somebody fixes that...Im beginnig to become more and more disenchanted by so many of the missing details. I was really hoping teh Devs would nail this release. It sucks to know your doing it right, but not having the tools available or the proper detail available to get results.

[Redwine]

If you use Dud unchecked, the remaining posibility is a fail of contact by bad angle, or range.

The torps do not explodes, and fall to the bottom of the sea, where they explode, you can hear the explosion noise.

Happen to me many times. :hmm:

[Bilge_Rat]

just a thought, but could the reason why some hits result in visible damage and some do not, be due to the fact that in some cases the damage graphic exists and in some cases it does'nt? It might be worth checking out.

I have noticed other areas were animations are missing, for example, when you look at your sonarman calling out bearings, certain figures will look at you and say the bearing, others will remain hunched over their instruments and you just hear the voice.

[Bando]

I had this happen to me. Was slamming my last three torps into a tanker, she listed and stopped, half her decks awash, but no sinker. I saved the game for a drastic measure, i rammed the ****head. Well..... it's no hard guess, I went down permanently, tanker still afloat. So i reload from where i saved, guess what, she sank right in front of my eyes. Go figure

[Egan]

Lol, Us Hardkor Realizm Nazis should have pointed out by now that Clay Blair does actually discuss this exact issue (the tanker thing,) in 'Silent Victory':

"This presented Christie with a problem. As Dan Dapsit and Dave Whelchel (among others) had found, tankers (like armoured plated battle ships and carriers) were difficult to sink. They were well compartmented, able to close of areas hit by torpedoes and (if empty) flood compensating compartments to keep from capsizing. Some well built tankers could absorb 5, 6, 7 or even 10 direct torpedo hits without sinking."

He then goes on to talk about the small size of the warheads being a contributing factor also which I think is a good point. I think even in the game your chances of sinking any ship with a single torpedo is pretty slim unless you snapped it under the keel with a magnetic warhead.

I think the tankers could probably do with being tweaked a little bit but not by much. Personally I think the most it has taken me to sink a tanker is 4 or so.

I also wonder if people are looking at visual damage and thinking it to be a reliable indicator. I've always suspected it is nothing more than eye candy myself. If the holes on the outside of my Gato are anything to go by I should have been destroyed pretty much outright. In real life subs that got damage like that didn't tend to make it out

[Calbeck]

"This tanker can't sink!"

"She is made of iron, sir. I assure you she can."

I don't care what she's carrying or how she's designed. The "unsinkable" Titanic went down because of a relatively tiny scratch that just happened to cross through five compartments. Ships don't float because they're full of air; they float because they displace water. That's why they refer to ship tonnage as "displacement".

Now, a tanker might have a lot of displacement going for it, and require a lot of holes blown in it, but remember the original post: that sucker was UNDERWATER. It's not "displacing" anything at that point; it's a submarine with a smokestack for a snorkel.

[UnSalted]

I posted earlier on this thread and danged if I didn't run into a weird chain of events for illustrating the puzzlement.

I was heading to a new patrol area when I checked out a small convoy blip. Looked it over and there was a mouthwatering sight...two Large Modern Tankers in line with a medium freighter tagging along. Worked it out for a nice ~90 degree shot from 700 yards and started firing, the first 4 torps all set at 15 depth, influence exploders, high speed with a lead of 5 for the 7 knots they were making.

The first two go straight into the middle of the lead tanker and the second one keeps right on straight ahead....first time I've seen one fail to make a turn. Anyway I wait and hit the second tanker with identical shots and it blew up immediately. I mean the water barely finished falling whenthe Enemy Destroyed notation came up. I figured I'd chase down the freighter after I finsihed off the first tanker so I went looking and found him steaming along at 4 knots but listing like crazy.

I couldn't finish him with guns because the sea was too rough so I waited for an hour and followed hoping to save torps. Didn't happen after 2 hours so I finally put another torp into him from astern. It slowed him down to 1 knot. That was three so I figured the fire on his deck would spread and he'd go down. I kept figuring the same way after four more torps, 2 into each side from 90 degrees to his keel in his middle until he finally wen down.

Same basic hits on the same basic ships with completely different results. So after a few beers and a great deal of thought, I've decided that the programmers sell torps based on commission and HAD to make sure they kept their sales climbing.

[ccruner13]

not a tanker but still blows your mind

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o49/borschwanger/SH4Img2-5-2007_22.jpg

[Redwine]

I posted earlier on this thread and danged if I didn't run into a weird chain of events for illustrating the puzzlement.

I was heading to a new patrol area when I checked out a small convoy blip. Looked it over and there was a mouthwatering sight...two Large Modern Tankers in line with a medium freighter tagging along. Worked it out for a nice ~90 degree shot from 700 yards and started firing, the first 4 torps all set at 15 depth, influence exploders, high speed with a lead of 5 for the 7 knots they were making.

The first two go straight into the middle of the lead tanker and the second one keeps right on straight ahead....first time I've seen one fail to make a turn. Anyway I wait and hit the second tanker with identical shots and it blew up immediately. I mean the water barely finished falling whenthe Enemy Destroyed notation came up. I figured I'd chase down the freighter after I finsihed off the first tanker so I went looking and found him steaming along at 4 knots but listing like crazy.

I couldn't finish him with guns because the sea was too rough so I waited for an hour and followed hoping to save torps. Didn't happen after 2 hours so I finally put another torp into him from astern. It slowed him down to 1 knot. That was three so I figured the fire on his deck would spread and he'd go down. I kept figuring the same way after four more torps, 2 into each side from 90 degrees to his keel in his middle until he finally wen down.

Same basic hits on the same basic ships with completely different results. So after a few beers and a great deal of thought, I've decided that the programmers sell torps based on commission and HAD to make sure they kept their sales climbing.
As i wrote above, i note the same, those ships loaded with fuel or ammo are not the problem, they can be destroyed with no problems.

The problem are another ships filled or leaded-up with i do not know what...

The remaining option is freight, but in a test mission, a big cargo or tanker as no problem to be destroyed when filled with freight.

They seems to be empty, they are not filled with ammo or fuel, i know that for the FX effects.

Plus in some missions, not often, i seen a strange behaviour, some cargo and tankers overfilled, with too much cargo, because they sails with the waterlina at the deck level.
They sails in similar condition as the screen sho above.

:hmm::hmm::hmm:

Look these screen shots.... they have no damage of any kind, it is their normal sail condition, this happened into SH III too if not remember bad.

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/5337/sh4img452007151059703rz3.th.jpg (http://img524.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sh4img452007151059703rz3.jpg)

http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/2018/sh4img452007151120125lt0.th.jpg (http://img157.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sh4img452007151120125lt0.jpg)

[ccruner13]

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o49/borschwanger/SH4Img2-5-2007_16-1.jpg

and check out that small split out in front....its rocking back and forth like that but the seas are calm and it wasnt hit by anything. there two others doing that in the convoy too...their props were not fully in the water even they were so high out

[Redwine]

and check out that small split out in front....its rocking back and forth like that but the seas are calm and it wasnt hit by anything. there two others doing that in the convoy too...their props were not fully in the water even they were so high out

May be empty ships ? :hmm: :hmm:

[jhelix70]

not a tanker but still blows your mind

I agree. I think in SH3, once a ships deck was "awash" the ship would go down eventually. I liked this feature because it let me know if I needed to expend another torp or not.

Ships don't float because they're full of air; they float because they displace water. That's why they refer to ship tonnage as "displacement".

Right, and the weight of the water displaced equals the weight of the ship. Of course, the air inside a ship helps, because to float the ship's total density has to be less than that of water.

[Beery]

I put 6 torps in a Large modern tanker. All 6 torps were set to a depth of 15 ft (under her keel) and exploded magnetically. She was listing hard to port and her decks coverd with water...and she kept steaming. Huge hole just forward of her funnels.

So I sped ahead of the convoy and put 4 MORE in her (this time set to 10 ft so they would impact explode) about 2 hrs later from starboard side (it was a mission now to sink this tanker). Now she sat so low in the water you could BARELY see the tops of her anchors along the bow of her ship, and her deck was under 4 ft of water.....

The large tanker steamed merrily on to deliver her cargo... Bugged? anyone else have this happen with a tanker?

If you don't get a 90 degree impact the torpedo may do much less damage or none at all. Also, if you have realistic torpedos turned on some torpedos seem to impact but they're actually detonating early and they do no damage.

[Faamecanic]

I put 6 torps in a Large modern tanker. All 6 torps were set to a depth of 15 ft (under her keel) and exploded magnetically. She was listing hard to port and her decks coverd with water...and she kept steaming. Huge hole just forward of her funnels.

So I sped ahead of the convoy and put 4 MORE in her (this time set to 10 ft so they would impact explode) about 2 hrs later from starboard side (it was a mission now to sink this tanker). Now she sat so low in the water you could BARELY see the tops of her anchors along the bow of her ship, and her deck was under 4 ft of water.....

The large tanker steamed merrily on to deliver her cargo... Bugged? anyone else have this happen with a tanker?

If you don't get a 90 degree impact the torpedo may do much less damage or none at all. Also, if you have realistic torpedos turned on some torpedos seem to impact but they're actually detonating early and they do no damage.

I had duds turned off. And I would say at least 5 of the 10 torps hit near a 90 deg angle. I think its just an error with the Large Modern tankers damage zone variables. There are far to many people with the same problem.

[Beery]

I had duds turned off. And I would say at least 5 of the 10 torps hit near a 90 deg angle. I think its just an error with the Large Modern tankers damage zone variables. There are far to many people with the same problem.

I've seen a lot of complaints saying that 5 torpedoes to sink a large tanker is ridiculous but in reality 5 torps is what should be expected for such a large target. I can cite a couple of examples from the war where medium and large freighters got hit by 5 torpedoes and sailed on regardless. I think the problem is that many players think that a torpedo should be some kind of wonder weapon, but it's not. It's no use just hitting the target anywhere and demanding results - you have to hit the target at the right angle and in the right spot. Ten hits to the bow wouldn't even slow down most ships. Plus your magnetic torps might well have done no damage - the distance from the hull affects the effectiveness greatly. You had only five torpedoes with certain hits and you actually decreased your chances of sinking her by purposefully counterflooding her (helping her crew to do their job). If anything your four hits on the starboard side probably increased her chances of survival.

Anyway, I must say it seems a bit ironic to be complaining about the unrealism of tankers requiring ten torpedoes when you're playing the game with duds turned off. I mean do you want realism or not? :lol:

Look, if you want realism, play realistically then you can complain about features being unrealistic. But if you want it to be merely a game, play it as such and be happy that it's challenging.

As for me, I'm a realism junkie and I've seen nothing in the game that suggests that either torpedo effectiveness is too low or that ship damage models are unrealistically tough. If anything these things are some of the best modelled features in the game - if they weren't I'd be modding them right now.

[mookiemookie]

You had only five torpedoes with certain hits and you actually decreased your chances of sinking her by purposefully counterflooding her (helping her crew to do their job). If anything your four hits on the starboard side probably increased her chances of survival.
"'Of course we had a lot of ships in here that had been torpedoed,' said (Galveston shipyard worker H.A. Suhler). 'We had one that was hit by three Japanese torpedoes: two on one side, then another on the other side, that straightened the ship back up. We put it in working shape again.'" - pg. 80 of Torpedoes in the Gulf - Galveston and the U-boats, 1942-1943 by Melanie Wiggins

:know::up:

[AhhhFresh]

I saw people mentioning that torps can be duds while still looking like a good hit and I just wanted to say that that is actually "realistic". Mark 14's had a problem with their magnetic triggers where they would often explode as soon as the entered the target's magnetic field... a few meters before the hull... leading to only scratches. The Tunny and Scamp at the very least reported what appeared to be solid hits where the ship motored on undamaged.

Here is a relevant paragraph from an article about the Mark 14 difficulties (http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/1998/4/1998_4_56.shtml):
Part of the problem was the secret Mark 6 magnetic exploder, which detonated the warhead when it entered the magnetic field of a ship’s hull. In theory a Mark 14 torpedo with a Mark 6 exploder would detonate anywhere between the water line of a ship and 10 or 15 feet below the keel, allowing for a large margin of error and increasing the odds of a hit. But the magnetic field generated by a metallic hull varies with the latitude. Close to the equator the field spreads out, which is why torpedoes would often detonate 50 feet from a ship.
Obviously 50 feet is further out than we see, but try doing full damage modeling and compare Mark 10's to Mark 14's and it's a pretty stark difference. While small, Mark 10's always leave at least a little hole in the target... where a very large percentage of the time you get nothing with a Mark 14.

When Mark 14's do contact correctly, they do great, sink a large freighter right down with one good hit under the stacks... but personally, I just go with the Mark 10's.

[Redwine]

I saw people mentioning that torps can be duds while still looking like a good hit and I just wanted to say that that is actually "realistic". Mark 14's had a problem with their magnetic triggers where they would often explode as soon as the entered the target's magnetic field... a few meters before the hull... leading to only scratches. The Tunny and Scamp at the very least reported what appeared to be solid hits where the ship motored on undamaged.

The torpedo damage has random power and radius in the files. You can have a low power and low radius as random explosion, plus the magnetic range by stock is 2m, it may be the cause of low damage, but, if torpedo is adjusted to contact, then the magnetic range must be not a factor.

In the files, the torps has failure chnaces according impact angles, are 3 diferent settings.

Using the external camera to watch each hit, i was able to see, when the torp fails by bad angle, it do not explode, and falls to the sea bottom. If you are in shallow waters, you can hear some extrange explosion, after some time, i assume it is the torp hitting the sea bottom.

But... if i adjust NON DUD torpedoes option, i think... not sure, this failure by bad angle must to be ridoff, not sure, may be non dud setting, not switch off these bad angle failure probabilities. :hmm::hmm:

[jhelix70]

I've definitely had torps explode prematurely just before reaching the target, so this form of malfunction is modelled. Viewed from the periscope they look like hits, but they aren't doing any damage.

Ten hits to the bow wouldn't even slow down most ships.
Well, actually they would slow them down, because of the excess drag caused by a mangled bow. But I assume you are speaking figuratively. A properly compartmentalized ship wouldn't sink from it. If the Titanic had rammed the iceberg head-on she probably wouldn't have sunk.

[AhhhFresh]

I saw people mentioning that torps can be duds while still looking like a good hit and I just wanted to say that that is actually "realistic". Mark 14's had a problem with their magnetic triggers where they would often explode as soon as the entered the target's magnetic field... a few meters before the hull... leading to only scratches. The Tunny and Scamp at the very least reported what appeared to be solid hits where the ship motored on undamaged.
The torpedo damage has random power and radius in the files. You can have a low power and low radius as random explosion, plus the magnetic range by stock is 2m, it may be the cause of low damage, but, if torpedo is adjusted to contact, then the magnetic range must be not a factor.
Yeah, I've had no improved luck with switching the detonators to contact with the Mark 14... I still get detonations with little to no damage. I currently suspect that it doesn't affect that type of dud, which doesn't seem right.

All I know is that when I use Mark 10's I sink just as many ships, if not more, and I don't have to deal with the frustration of a bad run where 4 out of 6 torpedoes do nothing but set some rigging on fire.

[Beery]

Ten hits to the bow wouldn't even slow down most ships.
Well, actually they would slow them down, because of the excess drag caused by a mangled bow. But I assume you are speaking figuratively.

Yeah. I should have said that ten hits to the bow wouldn't have caused the ship much problems. You could probably tear the bow off without the ship sinking. I've seen websites showing parts of ships in WW2 being towed back to port because they were fully afloat after being cut in two.

[Godalmighty83]

i have this all the time a great many ships have happily sailed away from me despite throwing everything aside from tactical nukes at them.

freighters crossing enitre oceans despite having no props and rows of ruddy great holes on there sides.

[Beery]

i have this all the time a great many ships have happily sailed away from me despite throwing everything aside from tactical nukes at them.

freighters crossing enitre oceans despite having no props and rows of ruddy great holes on there sides.

Yeah, I concede that if the props come off the ships should at least stop, and if the rudder comes off they should at least not be able to manoeuvre.

Which reminds me - it would be nice if SH4 had propellers that rotated the right way.

[ulyanov]

If you don't get a 90 degree impact the torpedo may do much less damage or none at all. Also, if you have realistic torpedos turned on some torpedos seem to impact but they're actually detonating early and they do no damage.

That might explain why I put 6 or so torps into a Small Passenger Carrier that was docked on the north side of Japan. All torps came in from the port rear quarter at 45 degrees, impacting from under the cabin back to the props. The stern was fully under water, but it didin't sink. I came in close, and a gunner on the fore deck pinged me with his AA, so I scarpered as I was out of torps and main gun.

There was no visible damage at all, but the stern sank...

[CaptainHaplo]

What is being seen is a function of how the torps are programmed. When they are hitting the theoretical arc of the magnetic field - they go boom. Since every torp has a damage radius that is variable - what is often seen is the following pattern:

#1 Torp detects magnetic field - causing explosion. Leading to...
#2 Explosion damage radius determined and applied. If radius is on the lower end....
#3 Hull of target vessel may be outside of (or barely inside of) damage radius

Result - minimal or no damage to the target ship - although the torp did not "malfunction" - its damage radius was insufficient to cause noticable damage to the target.

The theory on the mark 6 was that it would detect and monitor the magnetic field - when it began to weaken, this was a sign the torp had passed under the target and was starting to head away - and detonate. Close enough to be considered an under the keel shot. The problem was the sensativity of the Mark 6 - it was hypersensative - a extremely minor, random fluctuation on the way to the target could trigger the warhead - resulting in the large number of "prematures" seen in the war.

As for the game - your seeing that magnetic field detection coming into play - it detects and BOOM - instead of modelling a growth and then reduction of the mag field.

[marky]

hmmmmmm


only in the Silent Hunter series can u expect to hear complaints about ships that look liek swiss cheeese but dont oblige ya by goin to Davy Jones locker

SH2
SH3

and now SH4

arent game makers learning anything?:o:doh::rotfl:

[Redwine]

What is being seen is a function of how the torps are programmed. When they are hitting the theoretical arc of the magnetic field - they go boom. Since every torp has a damage radius that is variable - what is often seen is the following pattern:

#1 Torp detects magnetic field - causing explosion. Leading to...
#2 Explosion damage radius determined and applied. If radius is on the lower end....
#3 Hull of target vessel may be outside of (or barely inside of) damage radius

Result - minimal or no damage to the target ship - although the torp did not "malfunction" - its damage radius was insufficient to cause noticable damage to the target.
Correct...but seems to not be the responsible. :up:

because, the problem is still present even if you swith all shoots at contact, eliminating the magnetic range for detonation.

Another problem is, the size of the damage hole, seems to be in concordance with the torpedo damage radius, if you increase the radius too much, amazing holes appears.... and ships still sailing.

I tweaked the files to kill large ships filled with ammo and fuel, with a single torp, or ocasionally two, filled with freight i can kill them with 2, ocasionally 3 torps, and those problematic "empty" ships causing this topic, with 3 torps, ocasionally 4.

Yamato needs 6 or more, small battleships about 4, and havy cruisers almost 2, instead of 1

Thats is good for me... to spend 10 torps on a cargo ship was too much. :up:

[CaptainHaplo]

My initial explanation was for magnetics only. We are seeing some damage weirdness for contact exploders as well, but it looks like what was described above - impact angle has alot to do with damage being applied. A 90 degree hit will do more than a glancing blow - as well as have a different chance of exploding if duds are turned on. Even with duds off, the angle does have an impact on the damage - and I am beginning to thing that the game measures "angle" based on AOB. If so - this would explain why some down the throat shots that explode on contact still do little or no damage.

I agree - increasing the damage radius does wonders - not only on the visual - but I have found its effective as well. The key is that you have to also increase the damage as well - because the game models decreasing damage as the "explosion" expands - so while you may have damage 10 meters out - its only a fraction of the damage inflicted at the impact point.

If you increase only the radius - you end up with graphical damage that is visual only, instead of actually being "true" damage.

In this case - anything that works is fine - its all about making the game more "realisitic" only in so much as it increases each players fun or immersion level.

After all - thats why the "nuclear torpedo" mod is still out there and being enjoyed.

[Beery]

hmmmmmm


only in the Silent Hunter series can u expect to hear complaints about ships that look liek swiss cheeese but dont oblige ya by goin to Davy Jones locker

SH2
SH3

and now SH4

arent game makers learning anything?:o:doh::rotfl:

Apparently they've already learned a lot - apparently some players have a lot to learn. Check this out:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/USS_Frank_E._Evans_%28DD-754%29_post_collision.jpg

Ships can take an awful lot of damage - this is the aft half of a destroyer that was cut in two by an aircraft carrier during the Vietnam war. There were similar examples during WWII. Players shouldn't assume that a hole (or even many holes) are guaranteed to sink a ship. You have to hit the ship in the right place.

[swash]

The most I've spent on a tanker was 6 torps. Got me PO'd, so I surfaced astern of it and took it out with the deck gun.

What has worked lately for me has been 2 torps to slow them and deck gun shells to hole them. Puts them down nicely:arrgh!:

Uh, these have been tankers that weren't in a escorted convoy though.

Just scope them out, literally, and make sure they don't have guns aft. The ones I've seen so far only have a bow mounted gun, so I surface and attack from their stern.

[vindex]

When you read the annals of actual WWII subs, they are full of engagements in which the target was damaged but did not sink. Frustrating? Yep. Welcome to the real world, and to reasonable tonnage tallies.

Personally, I think warships in SH4 sink a bit too easily (although I did love that moment when a Kongo battleship anchored off Kobe keeled over with its propellers in the air).

I do think that there should be a big difference between hitting a loaded tanker vs. and unloaded one. There was in SH3, as I recall. If you hit a tanker heading to England, it usually blew sky high; hit one heading to America and it barely did anything. The same should be the case here with tankers heading to Japan vs. leaving Japan. The tankers I have met have unfortunately been empties, and I've learned not to even try to sink them. So I dunno if hitting a loaded one will make any difference in SH4 or not.

[joea]

hmmmmmm


only in the Silent Hunter series can u expect to hear complaints about ships that look liek swiss cheeese but dont oblige ya by goin to Davy Jones locker

SH2
SH3

and now SH4

arent game makers learning anything?:o:doh::rotfl:

Yet another gamer who fails in history. How old are you dude? :know:

[Redwine]

Even with duds off, the angle does have an impact on the damage - and I am beginning to thing that the game measures "angle" based on AOB. If so - this would explain why some down the throat shots that explode on contact still do little or no damage.
Hi Captain !

Into the files the angles is referint to "chances" from 1 to 100, i assume it is the chance to explode, not sure if it is a power reduction.... :hmm:



I agree - increasing the damage radius does wonders - not only on the visual - but I have found its effective as well. The key is that you have to also increase the damage as well - because the game models decreasing damage as the "explosion" expands - so while you may have damage 10 meters out - its only a fraction of the damage inflicted at the impact point.
Dsicussed many times on SH III, i was thinking like you the max and min raduis are corresponding to min and max explosion power, but other mods think diferent, there is another affirmation, from other modders wich say the explosion as an unique raius and an unique power with is random between max an d min values...

Not sure, but testing depth charges using external camera, depth charge exploding a little far produce a samller damge.

Then it is posible a degradation of explosion power between min and max radius.


If you increase only the radius - you end up with graphical damage that is visual only, instead of actually being "true" damage.
If the degradation of explosion power between min and max radius is true, i think so it is, then it is true too.

Any way, to enlarge radius has another problem or benefit... you reach more neightboard compartements, and this make the ships sink more easy.

I follow a diferent way... with the objective to not make the ships to sink too easy...

I increased the torpedo power... so well, but... i reduce the radius.

This make samller holes, more realistics, and do not spread the damage to vecinity compartements, but i make some of them critical.... engines rooms with boilers, and fuel stores.... plus cargo if it is ammo or fuel.

If you hit there, the explosion of the compartement spread the damage to adyacent compartements, not the torp.

If you hit a non critical compartement... ship do not explodes, start to flood, and you nedd to flood more compartements for the flood sinks the ship.

Or simply apply more torps to reach the ship max hitpoints.

Initially they become a littile bit hard to sink, ut balancing a little bit each setting, topedo power, radius, floodint times, ships hitpoints... i finally arrive to a poit where, for my taste i am satisfied,

Shps as many strange ways to sinks, some ones are so easy to sink with spectacular FX effects, another are hard to sinks and no FX effects, some remain floating for hours, some sinks more quickly..

Cargo ships in average are more easy to sink, and battleships and heavy cruiser even DDs, are a lot more hard to sink.

I still tweaking but like my settings now...

If you want to try... here you have, i will apreciate comments.

Download "Die Slowly Stage 11"

In this version, all conflictive large cargo ships was reduced to half hitpoints, and all conflictive medium cargo ships was reduced to 66% of original hitpoints.

Theoretically, it must make they be able to sink with a single torp, but the empty ships, wich appears often demand 4, and cargo demand 2, and fuel or ammo 1 or even in rare cases 2.

Yamato needs almost 6, and smaller battleships as Kongo needs 4, and heavy cruisers needs 2, and Dds needs 1 or 2.

Always talking about standardr MK 14, if you use weak MK 10 or 18, you need more torps.

Tiday i will test increasing conflictive ships hitpoints.... form 50% large 66% medium to 75% large and 100% medium.

I will prepare Stage 12 for tonight with choices :
No change in conflictive ships hitpoints
75% 100%
50% 66%



Download "Die Slowly Stage 11" from here.....

http://hosted.filefront.com/Redwine



.

[PopManiac]

I do not argue that realism is quaintessential in a simulator, nor do I argue that SH4 is trying to make a decent effort, nor that ships are in reality far sturdier than Hollywood or 'shoot-em-up' simulation mockups make them seem.

However, if the purpose of any game is to model a situation as close to reality as possible, then SH4 scores extremely low - at least for now.

Example:

Last night I was playing and tried to kill two ships:

One Huge European Liner, I was lined up with it coming at an AOB of 90 degs at 600 yds (as close to a dream shot in my book as ever) hit him with two torps on the bow, starts a small fire, quickly spreads out back, literally sunk in two minutes real time! Let's say that the ship was fully loaded with troops and ammo on the decks and hence the fire that spread in two minutes, but sink totally in 2 minutes? I am a little doubtful as to how.

One Large Old Composite Freighter in a convoy, coming at an AOB app.45% at about 700 yds. This one was hit with 4 torps admittedly at stern (miscalculated speed) and very close to propellers. Ship on minimal fire, moving at 2-3 kts (:doh:), now no matter how sturdy he is, or how 'far' my explosions were, 4 torps on propellers should have definitely left him dead in the water. Anyway, I do a 180 deg turn and fire off the remaining 4 aft torps on him, hit him from bow to stern. The damage model is identical, ship still moves (and leaves) at 2-3 kts, and I turn away and head for home in disgust...

Now, if you can convince me that this is realistic then I'll believe anything including that there were WMD in Iraq :p

[Beery]

One Huge European Liner, I was lined up with it coming at an AOB of 90 degs at 600 yds (as close to a dream shot in my book as ever) hit him with two torps on the bow, starts a small fire, quickly spreads out back, literally sunk in two minutes real time! Let's say that the ship was fully loaded with troops and ammo on the decks and hence the fire that spread in two minutes, but sink totally in 2 minutes? I am a little doubtful as to how.

I used to believe that long sinking times should be the norm - until I did some research. Most ships in real life were sunk in less than ten minutes after the final torpedo hit. Two minutes for a liner might be a bit extreme but the game is actually not too far off in general terms.

On the other issue I agree fully. I wish we could adjust these things because the devs probably will not (they didn't in SH3).

[Galanti]

I used to believe that long sinking times should be the norm - until I did some research. Most ships in real life were sunk in less than ten minutes after the final torpedo hit. Two minutes for a liner might be a bit extreme but the game is actually not too far off in general terms.

On the other issue I agree fully. I wish we could adjust these things because the devs probably will not (they didn't in SH3).

Beery, do you have any links to your research? Sounds interesting to me, sometimes I get obessed by the most arcane stuff when I'm wrapped up in a sim. Average sinking times and torps needed to sink targets seem to appeal to me at the moment.

I think it's a question of preconceptions, that I should really balance against real world facts. For example, Kongo only took two fish to go under, but if that was to happen in the game I'd probably quit in disgust!

[AhhhFresh]

Well, I know from reading Clear the Bridge! and Thunder Below! that ship sinkings were indeed quite fast... if they weren't down in a couple of minutes they weren't going down, and the sub would only claim "damaged" or go back
in for a coup de grace.

[Sailor Steve]

Four specific instances I remember from reading the Japanese Merchant Shipping documents:

1) Merchant requires three separate attacks and six torpedoes over an eight hour period to put it down. Actually 10 torpedoes were needed, but four were misses. This attack was also documented in United States Submarine Operations Of World War Two.

2) Merchant carrying steel is torpedoed and sinks in less than one minute.

3) Merchant is hit by torpedo in the engine room. Taken under tow, they are almost to a friendly port several hours later when it suddenly breaks in half. The stern sinks, the forward half is towed to shallow water where it is grounded and the surviving cargo is offloaded to other ships.

4) Merchant is hit in the bow by a dud torpedo. Hull plates are ruptured, damage control is awful, ship fills up with water and sinks.

You never know what you're going to get. Still, I agree, ten seems like a lot, even for a tanker.

[Redwine]

Four specific instances I remember from reading the Japanese Merchant Shipping documents:

1) Merchant requires three separate attacks and six torpedoes over an eight hour period to put it down. Actually 10 torpedoes were needed, but four were misses. This attack was also documented in United States Submarine Operations Of World War Two.

2) Merchant carrying steel is torpedoed and sinks in less than one minute.
If i not remember bad, this is commented by Terence Robertson when wrote memories of Cap Otto Krestchmer... captain tells some ships go down in few seconds, half minute, others has no same bahaviour, and demand more torps to sink.

I think so the game do not modellates all the real life posibilities, then we must to arrive to a point where we feel satisfied, may be a "blend" between reality and gameplay. :up:

[Steel_Tomb]

If a ship is carrying something as heavy as steel I would expect it to go under pretty quickly. Sinking times for the heavy cruiser in the training mission is a bit off though. I put two fish in her and its sunk in about 30 seconds if that, totally unrealistic. If you think about the Hood that sunk in about 3 minutes with its entire magazine gone up in smoke...so 30 seconds for a cruiser is waayyyy off. I would like to see sinking times extended to what they are in GWX personally but thats not going to happen for the time being.

Bit OT I know, but are there any known plans for a supermod for SHIV?

[Redwine]

If a ship is carrying something as heavy as steel I would expect it to go under pretty quickly. Sinking times for the heavy cruiser in the training mission is a bit off though. I put two fish in her and its sunk in about 30 seconds if that, totally unrealistic. If you think about the Hood that sunk in about 3 minutes with its entire magazine gone up in smoke...so 30 seconds for a cruiser is waayyyy off. I would like to see sinking times extended to what they are in GWX personally but thats not going to happen for the time being.

Bit OT I know, but are there any known plans for a supermod for SHIV?
Sadly, i think, we have not how to adjust difrent sinking times for diferent ships cargos, we can adjust the same flooding time for all same group of cargo ships disregardig what are they carring as load up.

The diferences will be in damaged cause, queantity of compartements damged, and damage added by the cargo explosion, then we will have diferent sinking times but sadly we cant adjust in example, oil, flooding time #1, steell floding time #2...

That is what we have...

In my last test, i am launching torps with low angle and from the bow... to test fail in detonation, a torp explodes, and any kind of damaged was showed, but, the ship start to flood, and its bow down, his speed become slow hour by hour, i follow it al evening, all night and all morning... finally after near one day later, the ships stops completelly to speed zero.

I finish it with 10 rounds of my deck gun.

About megamod... i dont know, but i dont like them too much, they touch too much things, and not all changes are of my pleasure, i preffer a pack of small mods.

:up::up:

[Beery]

Beery, do you have any links to your research? Sounds interesting to me, sometimes I get obessed by the most arcane stuff when I'm wrapped up in a sim. Average sinking times and torps needed to sink targets seem to appeal to me at the moment.

I wish I'd kept it. But I did it back in 2005. Basically I just did a search online for something like "ship sink hours torpedo", "ship sink days torpedo" and "ship sink minutes torpedo" and collated all the info. I think I also went through the U-boat info at Uboat.com and in my patrol data for U-boats that I have here at home. It turned out that smaller cargo ships would often sink in under two minutes while larger cargo vessels usually took ten minutes. I was shocked because I would never have thought a larger ship could sink that fast. A few ships took longer - some took days, but most of the data fell in the half-hour or less timescale, and most of those were ten minutes or less.

[Beery]

Bit OT I know, but are there any known plans for a supermod for SHIV?

The Real Fleet Boat supermod (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=111770) has been around since March.

[joea]

Beery, do you have any links to your research? Sounds interesting to me, sometimes I get obessed by the most arcane stuff when I'm wrapped up in a sim. Average sinking times and torps needed to sink targets seem to appeal to me at the moment.
I wish I'd kept it. But I did it back in 2005. Basically I just did a search online for something like "ship sink hours torpedo", "ship sink days torpedo" and "ship sink minutes torpedo" and collated all the info. It turned out that smaller ships would often sink in under two minutes while larger vessels usually took ten minutes. I was shocked because I would never have thought a larger ship could sink that fast. A few ships took longer - some took days, but most of the data fell in the half-hour or less timescale, and most of those were ten minutes or less.

:o Wow, yea I recall something like that...didn't give much time for folks to escape. Mind this was battle damage, a lot fo folks might have got impressions from ships sinking from Hollywood, thinking of Titanic here.

[PopManiac]

Four specific instances I remember from reading the Japanese Merchant Shipping documents:

1) Merchant requires three separate attacks and six torpedoes over an eight hour period to put it down. Actually 10 torpedoes were needed, but four were misses. This attack was also documented in United States Submarine Operations Of World War Two.

2) Merchant carrying steel is torpedoed and sinks in less than one minute.

3) Merchant is hit by torpedo in the engine room. Taken under tow, they are almost to a friendly port several hours later when it suddenly breaks in half. The stern sinks, the forward half is towed to shallow water where it is grounded and the surviving cargo is offloaded to other ships.

4) Merchant is hit in the bow by a dud torpedo. Hull plates are ruptured, damage control is awful, ship fills up with water and sinks.

You never know what you're going to get. Still, I agree, ten seems like a lot, even for a tanker.
Very interesting information submitted by all in this thread (perhaps somehow rename it to describe more accurately the interesting discussion?:hmm:)...

However, I would like to get back to my original question re the modelling of torpedo damage in SH4.

War is indeed the definition of unpredictability when staff plans, weapon specs and tests sometimes go literally out the window.

Exceptions to rules abound (I remind everyone how a German anti-air gun became the deadliest anti-tank weapon ;)) and I am sure that this applies even more to undersea warfare with so many X-factors defining the environment.

However, I believe that when attempting to model such an environment though in a simulation game, it ought to be more 'biased' towards the side of the original weapon specs rather than the unpredictability of wartime.

Otherwise, given the computing and programming restraints in the year 2007, any game sim risks becoming the butt end of forum jokes and bitter messages by creating considerably absurd situations.

Although, in fairness, I am sure that this torpedo unpredictability should probably be attributed not to the programmers' goals but rather to sloppy beta testing and rushing the game to retail stores, counting perhaps on the fact that the online community will finish what the dev team at Ubi started ;).

[Redwine]

If somebody want to try... here my pack of tweaked files, has many diferent choices and options... i am satisfied with the default tweaks, but is a matter of personal taste.

If some body want to try...

http://files.filefront.com/Die_Slowly_Stage_12zip/;7469065;/fileinfo.html

Any comment is welcome...