View Full Version : v1.3 Patch And Japanese ASW
cdrsubron7
07-15-07, 11:05 PM
Just wondering what you guys think of the Japanese ASW with the 1.3 patch installed? I've made 2 patrols sofar since the patch came out and I've been unable to get closer than 3400 yds when trying to approach a convoy at periscope depth with my sub at battlestaions and rigged for silent running and speed set at one knot. As soon as I here the pinging the merchants start zigging making it impossible to get a shot at them from 3000 yds. The one time I did manage to get my torpedos fired and then headed deep the Japanese DDs spread me all over the bottom of the Pacific within about five minutes.
cdrsubron7 :down:
maybe you are doing it the wrong way ...
i usually get in front of the convoy and turn my tail or nose to them ( smalest reflection possible )
Japanese ASW is completely lacks historical accuracy.
Wait until beery finishes the updated version of RFB.
FAdmiral
07-15-07, 11:31 PM
I tried the 1.3 just today with a test mission of mine. As I approached
within 6000, 2 DDs started straight for me. I dove to 300, went silent at
1/3 and zig-zaged my way towards the 3 targets. The DDs went by me and
started search patterns. I waited till I was fairly close to target 3, a battleship.
I came up to PD and give a look. It was doing the zig-zag dance but I closed with 900 and fired 4 fish. All hit and the BB went down fast. Within 2 min, 5 DDs
were all converging on me fast. I did my 300 thing again and headed for a
seaplane carrier. The DDs were good at blasting gaping holes in the sea but
none hit home. I managed to elude them and came up to PD for a shot at
the SC. Sent 2 fish her way at 750 but 1 was all that was needed. I went
deep again and hid under the lifeboats but since 1.3, they are not safe now.
The DDs came right into the middle of them and dropped DCs. All drops were
too shallow so I came out OK. Looks like a different ballgame with 1.3 guys....
JIM
Toning the AI down too much would be a mistake, IMO. Remember that the stock campaign has 2 options, really good, and really crappy, yet there are actually 5 skill levels, even if the game rarely uses any but 1 and 3. On top of that, convoys are grossly overescorted.
If you read an overview book like Silent Victory it's pretty apparent that boats that made atatcks were usually attacked by escorts if there were any escorts with the target. The attacks were usually not fatal.
It's not that the IJN escorts had poor capability, it's that as a % of ships at sea, they have very few escorts, and poor doctrine for deploying them.
As an example, if you have 10 DDs that are every bit as capable as the best US escorts, you could use them very effectively to escort 1 or 2 convoys if your doctrine was to convoy ships. If your doctrine ws to take the 10 DDs, and give 1 to each of 10 ports, then have the DDs patrol zones alone, the effectiveness might be near zero. Same ships, all highly capable, utterly different outcomes. The japanese use was more like the 2d example.
tater
cdrsubron7
07-16-07, 12:14 AM
Toning the AI down too much would be a mistake, IMO. Remember that the stock campaign has 2 options, really good, and really crappy, yet there are actually 5 skill levels, even if the game rarely uses any but 1 and 3. On top of that, convoys are grossly overescorted.
If you read an overview book like Silent Victory it's pretty apparent that boats that made atatcks were usually attacked by escorts if there were any escorts with the target. The attacks were usually not fatal.
It's not that the IJN escorts had poor capability, it's that as a % of ships at sea, they have very few escorts, and poor doctrine for deploying them.
As an example, if you have 10 DDs that are every bit as capable as the best US escorts, you could use them very effectively to escort 1 or 2 convoys if your doctrine was to convoy ships. If your doctrine ws to take the 10 DDs, and give 1 to each of 10 ports, then have the DDs patrol zones alone, the effectiveness might be near zero. Same ships, all highly capable, utterly different outcomes. The japanese use was more like the 2d example.
tater
I'm not really looking for a way to tone down the enemy AI, just trying to get some ideas so I can sucessfully attack a convoy without being detected beyond 3000 yds. At 3000 yds with the enemy knowing you're around somewhere its hard to hit anything.
cdrsubron7 :doh:
I was replying to BH mostly, shoulda been more clear.
Part of the problem is that there are so many convoys, and they all have 4 fleet DDs escorting them. That would be a heavy escort for a military convoy from Truk to Rabaul. For shipping at large... lol. No.
The first step to a little more realism is to have fewer escorts, and less capable types (subchaser and minelayer).
tater
Suicide Charlie
07-16-07, 01:13 AM
Hmmm... I just got the game so I haven't been able to get enough time in the Command Room for me to really evaluate the AI's ASW effectiveness.
I was able to pentetrate a convoy somewhat easily earlier. There were three Akizuka destroyers. The closest two were on me pretty quickly, but seeing as I at 7knts and not running silent (and in TC so I don't have too much info on their initial detection and early closure) so I expected to be detected. I dove to about 130ft, dodged a few terribly emplyed Depth Charge runs and continued on past them. They continued to run search and attack patterns on an old position for pretty much the rest of my attack. Even after lighting up three merchants and sending them down they were just starting to turn back to investigate the trouble.
Palidian
07-16-07, 02:37 AM
Tater is correct, start counting the convoys and then the DDs there using as escorts, and then what they had in real life.... Sigh.... However I do not as of yet feel that there capability is unreasonable, I was able to get in on an invasion task force, 4 CAs 8 troop transports, 8 DDs or so. I got inside sank two CAs, and a transport, when I could not shake the DDs without running deep and silent, reloaded and did an end run and got in a second time. The key for me is to get in front go in between the escorts go beneath the thermal layer run silent, and wait for the sound contact to pass over head, then go to periscope depth. Remember they cannot hear you when you are behind them. In 1.3 they will spot and shoot at your periscope mind it, pop it up for short intervals.
How things should be, not sure if there in the game. If there using passive sonar then it dose not matter how you are facing, if there using active, then you want a small silhouette, IE point at them or away from them. The faster they are going the harder it is for them to hear you, and noise of other ships will interfere, if you are in between two ships, the noise they are making will block them from hearing you. The faster your are moving the larger the rooster tail your periscope makes.
Lagger123987
07-16-07, 03:04 AM
The AI improved a lot, Can't pass dem or evade them.:shifty:
switch.dota
07-16-07, 03:35 AM
I just wiped out two troop transports (18kton + 9kton) that were escordted by 4 DDs. Granted I had the DDs on me for half of forever and then some but managed to get away.
As a general rule, I approach the convoy from about 10km, ~30AoB, running on a perpendicular course. This allows me to get into a firing position at a little over 1500m for most convoys. I typically adjust speed so as to get into position just as the lead DD passes by.
If I have time to gather enough data (rough seas at night with jsut enough light for ID) then I can target as many as 5 ships and light them up at approx the same time. Problem is I have to pray for one shot kills.
Hartmann
07-16-07, 03:32 PM
I think that the new ia is very correct and the mechannt behaviour very accurate.
the problem was before, too easy and arcade.
i always compare sh4 with sh1, and in sh1 not was too easy, i was sunk several times. now both games are very similar
Japanese ASW is completely lacks historical accuracy.
Wait until beery finishes the updated version of RFB.
Read Tater's answer, we don't want arcade easy.
Zero Niner
07-16-07, 07:44 PM
As an example, if you have 10 DDs that are every bit as capable as the best US escorts, you could use them very effectively to escort 1 or 2 convoys if your doctrine was to convoy ships. If your doctrine ws to take the 10 DDs, and give 1 to each of 10 ports, then have the DDs patrol zones alone, the effectiveness might be near zero. Same ships, all highly capable, utterly different outcomes. The japanese use was more like the 2d example.
That's also my understanding of the Japanese doctrine on ASW and convoy escort. IIRC, convoy escort was regarded as something demeaning. Hence the IJN did not assign their capable skippers, nor the resources, into ASW and convoy duties.
I wonder if SH4 simulates this? :hmm:
Even after the war started, it wasn't until late 1943-early 1944 that a effort was made to increase the amount of resources devoted to ASW. By that time, it was a matter of too little, too late. No ahead-firing weapons equivalent to the Hedgehog or Squid were developed, although an ASW projectile for many naval guns and a simple mortar for merchant ships were introduced late in the war.
Japanese attacks were usually broken off too soon and the DC settings were too shallow.
source:http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMJAP_ASW.htm
Joea, SH4 is suppose to be a simulation. They do make mods that make the ijn preform beyond historical reality and provide an excellent challenge(triggermaru)
Yes, BH, those statements quoted are true. Regardless, they DID prosecute attacks, read the reports from our subs.
There is a difference between strategic doctrine regarding ASW and defense of the sea lanes, and particular tactical engagements between ASW assets and submarines.
The resources devoted to ASW (mentioned in the quote) are not just technical inovation (which was certainly lacking), or training, but simply SHIPS. Escorts, the notion of actually putting merchants together and escorting them. The Fleet DDs that are always with merchant in game were simply not tasked in large numbers except on the front, and even then, not in the numbers seen in the stock game.
It's the NUMBERS of escorts that are the biggest issue in stock SH4, NOT the quality, IMO. The sheer numbers of escorts---and the type, fleet DDs---in the stock game show the largest historical inaccuracy wrt ASW.
The specifics of how the warships prosecute attacks is honestly pretty minor. We have 5 skill levels to play with, in addition to various sensor settings. There is a setting to adjust their loiter time or something similar. Rl IJN DDs were excellently crewed. They were very capable platforms, but had specific issues (DC depth setting is a prime example). I think DC depth can be set, but I think it is global, not by date...
It needs some playtesting, but there are a few things needed to make the IJN ASW capability accurate.
1. A totally new campaign. The stock campaign has absurdly high resources given by the Combined Fleet to ASW outside of naval escort. Meaning that warships would get escorts, invasion forces, and direct military shipping, in particular the % of the merchant marine commandeered by the IJN shipping supplies to front line naval bases. Regular merchant traffic should be pretty much SOL until 1943, and then only barely escorted by stock SH4 standards. Convoys that do get escorted need smaller escorts. Maybe the odd fleet DD as leader, but subchasers and minesweepers (or armed trawlers) as the more typical units (late in the war Kaiboukans or Matsu DEs which we lack). Simle test is to add up TFs and convoys weighted by the tiem interval between spawns and % chance, and see how many DDs are expected (average). Look at the "subhunter" groups, too. They amount shouldn't exceed the actual number of DDs in the IJN, ideally it should be less by some margin. Other escorts then take up the slack, or indeed form the bulk of such forces.
2. Within the new campaign, the skill levels get tweaked. With the 1.3 AI capability, AI can probably default to the middle setting (in stock it's either novice or veteran with rather a lot of "elite" in TFs). In stock SH4 "novice" AI is useless, you can surface near them and they ignore you. This can go a long way to mitigating the AI to the extent it is ahistorically capable in SH4 1.3. I'm not sure it is, however, my deaths seem to be mistakes on my part, not super capability on theirs.
3. DC mods. DCs are way too powerful. DCs with more realistic power will make even depth accurate attacks (assuming modding the shallow early war DCs is not possible) far less effective than stock.
4. The last step would be tweaks to the sensors, etc., though those will feed back with the AI settings.
tater
tator-
Im not disputing the fact that IJN escorts and DD counter attacked. More often then not they did.
I agree with you totally that the DC damage effect needs work.
However you should note that sometime the IJN sent 4 actively pinging escorts to guard a single ship.
The U.S. submarine tactic was to dive deep and run silent, this was almost always enough because early on 1941-1943 the IJN sound equipment was such that once they lost you, they lost you.
If you look at all the U.S. submarine losses, the majority if them came from mid 1943 to the end of the war. Some of this might have had something to do with the press leak regarding submarine capabilty and from captured allied sound equipment that the japanese were able to copy.
Its not clear if it was the ungraded sound equipment that caused submarine losses or the overall changing of the merchant shipping routes ( coastal shallow water) which there was little escape once caught.
tater- Is there another supermod in the works to address these issues?
True. There are a few campaign mods in the works. Hopefully a couple or 3 will combine since it's a lot of work.
I have a start at one right now. I am altering the stock layers. Large changes in ship content, and most units will be found zig-zagging. I use multiple routes, I even have some TFs or convoys put in to a place like truk, spend a few days, then leave for another port.
The 3-4 escorts for a single ship thing is possible, and I do it. In the random layers you can make say 4xMutsuki DD as escorts for some merchants. 1 merchant occurs 100% of the time, another 15%, 3 different other ships at 5%. I might set the DDs to 20%. Maybe a subchaser or minesweeper (I have the 2 types changed to be "corvettes" so they both will act like escorts) at 10%. When that group generates, you get 1 merchant, but you might get no other ships, or you might get 4xDD and no other ships, or you might get 1 DD, 1 minesweeper, 3 merchants.
So it's possible to get highly variable convoys. I also add some combatant ships to convoys that go to palau, truck, kwajalein, etc. A small chance for a minelayer, or CVS, CL, or possibly a plane ferry (Akitsu Maru).
You are right about the losses in 1943, for all the reasons you mention. There were also simply more patrols, and possibly a higher % of "aggressive" patrols. The patrol areas were better picked for making attacks, and possibly more counter attacks happened as a result.
I'm also looking for an idea set of mods to AI capability. I want to have them spo and attack frequently, but succeed only rarely. Easier said than done :D
tater
Steeltrap
07-17-07, 09:06 AM
I think the biggest issue being faced is that SH 4 has been developed from what was a flawed platform, SH 3.
Consider the following:
1. USA subs COULD NOT use their periscopes for considerable periods of time, especially night where there was not strong moonlight. This also lead to blindness in the morning twilight. The result? Subs either attacked in DAYLIGHT submerged or NIGHT surfaced. Now, who has managed a surface attack in SH4, and when? If you're like me, the answer is "never"! Why? Because the problem existed in SH3....I remember reading a lot about what was required to make it possible to overcome the majority of problems. So, no surface attacks.
2. Many escorts were not part of the IJN, technically. Also, those IJN units assigned were used in sectors, as has been mentioned. This meant wildly different experiences in terms of escorts numbers and capabilities.
3. Spotting periscopes has become absurd. It doesn't seem to matter what the sea state.....even MERCHANTS spot it. The allies didn't develop ship-based radar reliably detecting periscopes until early 1944, I think.....or at least that was when it was widely deployed. The IJN didn't HAVE radar on the majority of its destroyers, PERIOD! As for escorts? Forget it! Read Clear the Bridge - many of Tang's attacks were on the surface, and we're talking through 1944!
4. The behaviour of AI is still retarded. Witness the example from Switch posted earlier. My experience so far tends to be....
- detect convoy WITH SONAR while moving at 12kts (ridiculous in itself).
- approach to visual.
- dive to pd immediately.
- approach at silent speed.
- take shots.
- dive below layer.
- creep off at 2-3kts.
- watch DDs mill around dropping charges while trying not to collide.....often this leads to them blowing their own DC racks off their sterns sue to self-imposed damage from dropping while moving at 2-5kts (so far I've counted 3 DDs actually destroying themselves through this method).
- come back to PD to shoot at remainder of convoy that has obligingly hung around instead of maintaining convoy speed with some escorts.
Rinse and repeat for next contact......
Most of these problems (if not all) existed in SH3 (such as uber escorts or complete idiots, nuclear DCs etc.....). So, they exist in SH4. We would all have been better served had they written a NEW SIM, not tried to squeeze a Pacific sim from a faulty base. Sure, the graphics are nice, for the most part (although the subs seemed to move far more realistically in SH3 - the SH4 subs seem to move like lifeless bricks). The crew management is a vast improvement over SH3 stock. But, after that, what? SD radar, for example....it was NEVER anything OTHER than a-scope....it gave RANGE but not bearing. How hard should that have been to do????
I have yet to take any damage of note from escorts at all. I've been hit by fire from MERCHANTS at 2500yds, and that did more damage than I've ever suffered from escorts.
This sim is simply junk when you consider what was done by the modders with SH3....I find it a complete yawn, what challenges there are seem to be completely unrealistic, and the challenges that SHOULD be there aren't. It's all arse-about-face, as we say around here.....
Sorry - couldn't help myself!
Periscopes getting spoted happened, but in the game if the AI can see a scope, they can see your sub. A simple change might be to increase the effect of night on mitigating the visual detection. Strikes me that in a slightly choppy sea, you should have the ability to get pretty close on the surface at night, in a dead calm, less likely.
The other issue seems to be that there is no accounting for the different sized crews of the merchants. Smaller crew means fewer lookouts. Ideally, we'd have 2 visual sensors, one for warships, and a less capable version (representing poor training, and fewer eyeballs) for merchants.
cpt_idaho
07-17-07, 09:42 AM
Tater - how advanced are you in preparing your mod?
It seems very promising...
version 0.71, lol.
It's really in testing since I keep learnign how to make it work by breaking things, lol.
For 1941/1942 it's quite fun right now, however. I need to update it since I blew up 1943 by adding Beery's better start dates (I edited something and made a typo, my problem, not his). Fixed it though.
tater
1. Now, who has managed a surface attack in SH4, and when? If you're like me, the answer is "never"! Why? Because the problem existed in SH3....I remember reading a lot about what was required to make it possible to overcome the majority of problems. So, no surface attacks.
3. Spotting periscopes has become absurd. It doesn't seem to matter what the sea state.....even MERCHANTS spot it. The allies didn't develop ship-based radar reliably detecting periscopes until early 1944, I think.....or at least that was when it was widely deployed. The IJN didn't HAVE radar on the majority of its destroyers, PERIOD! As for escorts? Forget it! Read Clear the Bridge - many of Tang's attacks were on the surface, and we're talking through 1944!
4. The behaviour of AI is still retarded. I have yet to take any damage of note from escorts at all. I've been hit by fire from MERCHANTS at 2500yds, and that did more damage than I've ever suffered from escorts.
5. Sorry - couldn't help myself!
Well--beings I'm fairly new here--I'll tread gently. But I can't resist a couple comments ;) .
Answering #1: I frequently make surface attacks both in SH3 & 4. Patience is the key, picking your moment. I agree that it seems too easy to be picked up in bad weather though. I think the biggest problem is that computers don't simulate human error or laziness well. O'Kane in the Tang ran in on the surface between 2 escorts with no more than 800 yards disatnce from each. Chalk that one up to sleepy lookouts. Lookouts in computer programs don't sleep and it actually is hard to program that "extra layer" of code withou screwing the pooch (or frame-rate) in the process. Again though--surface attacks are doable. Flood Down!!!
3. I seldom have my scope spotted in any condition. But I don't put it up for more than about 6 seconds during my close in approach. Identify from long range what I plan to shoot. Creep in at 2 or 3 knots and take another look when the escort is well past. Confirm where I am, finish the approach and raise scope only when time to shoot.
4. With the 1.3 patch the AI has improved a great deal. It sometimes makes me think of AOD where an escort would lay back and wait for me come up (I've had this happen with 1.3). But I agree in general. I've been sunk by escorts once because of shallow water. Once I can get deep they never seem to be able to hang on to me. I'd like to try it without the layer (which wasn't always available) just to see what difference it would make.
5. Sorry! I couldn't help myself either. No offense intended! :up:
Peto
NefariousKoel
07-17-07, 12:23 PM
It seems the AI's visual spotting ability has been beefed up a little too much in 1.3. I've been on the surface and got spotted before my crew or myself could actually see the enemy. wtf?
The sonar seems to be blah but that's easily modded.
OK--I need to add a note that when I get into 44 it seems like all the Japanese DD's have radar. I haven't checked into the equipment files--haven't done any modding for a while. But--if they all do and it's that good....well....that'll be something I will mod. Japanese radar was not good and most of the operators were poor as the position was considered 3rd rate at best. Cooks were considered more honorable than radar techs.
So--I may have spoken a little too soon about night surface attacks in regards to 1.3 patch. I have done it in 42 and 43 but not 44. I'll be watching this and maybe eating some tasty humble pie for my earlier post :oops: .
Cheers!
Peto
Suicide Charlie
07-17-07, 01:28 PM
Steeltrap is pretty on point with the behaviour of escorts. Granted, I'm only playing in 1941-early 1942 so far, but I've made approaches on two different task forces. The destroyers picked me up pretty easily. Both cases I was able to slip past them. The second time I lost my approach because I just couldn't make the head way on a task force moving at least 9-11 knts and I'm not in a position to fall back and box intercept.
It seems that destroyers can easily initially pick you up and close. Once they get there they have a lot of trouble figuring out where you are. I've even run higher than your standard 1-3knt. I think once I didn't even rig for silent running for a duration. I don't know how well they're working together either. It may seem that one or two is listening while another pings are makes a depth charge run, but they get tangled up and cause traffic jams with each other pretty often. I've had two on up to five destroyers get in each other's way. Or they do this weird thing where they cut their engines and just sit (they'll keep throwing their engines in reverse and the forward) behind you and not do anything. Sometimes they'll stay, other times they'll seem to stay 500 yrds off of you. I've seen them do this many times, often with they're bow to me.
I definitely see what Tater's getting at as far as fleet destroyer dispersal, concentration, and assignment. They're EVERYWHERE and in huge numbers! One of the task forces I encountered was a carrier force containing two Shokaku's, one Taiyo escort carrier, two Chitose Seaplane Tenders, Maya and Takao heavy cruisers, Kuma light cruiser, 2-3 tankers, and a destroyer screen at least eight-ten deep. Now considering the assembled power and importance of that fleet I wasn't too bothered by the large destroyer escort. The second one was much smaller and was mostly an older "traditional" style task force. Made up of two Kongos, a Mogami, a Kuma, a Haruna Maru. But, the destroyer screen was just as big if not bigger than the carrier fleet.
That second instance I had four destroyers on me because once I figured that there was no way I was going to be able to disengage and move to intercept the fleet again I saved and tried an experitment. I surfaced and engaged a lone destroyer with my deck gun. He had a lot of trouble even splashing my decks. I took out his bow turret (Shiratsuyu class) and then dove. That brougt back three more destroyers with a forth joining them sometime later. They milled about looking for me, made a couple of DC runs, got tangled, then finally dispersed. The damaged destroyer stuck around, waited til the other DD's were out of visual range (this is at night don't remember there beign a moon), and surfaced and engaged again. It only managed to hit me once with minor damage. I sunk it with short barrage. It did however cause two destroyers to fall back on me pretty quickly.
This may be a little controversial, but I think they have been NERFED in 1.3 and I'm a little disappointed...
They have increased the sensitivity of visual sensors but we did that ourselves in 1.2 mods. They appear to be more inept at detecting submerged targets even when I give them better modifiers in the sim.cfg etc.
We were promised improved reactions when a convoy is attacked if you are still undetected...
I say its worse.. I played missions I made in 1.2 using 1.3 and several times I've been able to torpedo an entire convoy without the DD's even looking for me!!!!
Also, the merchants can spot my scope and open fire on it, but the DD's in the escort ring just stay where they are and don't plough through the convoy to drop DC's on me like they did ruthlessly in 1.2.
Also, they seem to have changed the aiming routine..
In 1.2 a DD would line up on where he thought you were hiding and make a high speed run with maximum DC's dropped.
Now it seems they approach very slowly, drop one or two and then they lose contact quickly (even the veterens).
Also, I liked the way in 1.2 where they would pound an area where they thought you were even if you were way off, in 1.3 they seem to be reluctant to waste DC's.
Anyway, I know people think they are harder now, but I think they are easier..
While the devs have spotted the AI Visual sensitivty setting that I pointed out in the mod forum, they seem to have broken a few routines elsewhere... I shouldn't be able to go around a convoy at peri-depth at full speed torpedoing all the merchants, which are shooting at my scope, while the escorts sit around the edge doing nothing.....
Back to 1.2 for me... also I prefer the old radar + mods, animated periscopes, battery mods etc etc etc.
The only thing I don't have in 1.2 is a perfect SD radar, and the survivor animation fix.
One more thing I noticed..
On one occasion the DD's saw me at long range and charged, so I dived and moved away, past them and into the convoy, where my scope was spotted breifly, the DDs came towards me, but didn't close, then they turned around to where they had originally seen me and started a new search pattern - even though they had received a new updated location of my sub, they went to the previous position....
BAD... did not like that at all...
Funny, I've had a few DDs go where I just was, group up, and DC the heck out of the water. Course I then torpedoed a merchant that I closed on.
Ducimus
07-17-07, 08:37 PM
Jace has me thinking. I was going to respond to this thread earlier, because my thoughts on the new AI... well..
meh.
I haven't been able to play much but ive noticed they're aim seems to be way off, and their entirely too easy to break contact from. They get active sonar contact, but its usuually very breif.
This is an interesting thread... I know you guys don't know me but I've been reading your posts for a long time and have a LOT of respect for what you say.
Anyway--I've never had trouble getting away from escorts and was hoping 1.3 would challenge me more. So far it has. The escorts DO react to my attacks and start searches where I likely fired from, more often than not, driving me down to evade (albeit, too late ;) ). The merchants are definitely scrambling more although I actually wish they'd go out on tangents and evade my "known" position even more. None-the-less, they no longer sit dead in the water like they used to which is a vast improvement to me.
I just finished a career mission (Feb 44) where I got into 2 different convoys. Both had 4 escorts. Both attacks were in flat seas--the 1st at night and the 2nd at 10AM. I got into 800 yards of the convoy in the 1st approach and popped 3 ships. The lead escort peeled back but didn't find me. The flank came up and took a different search area--he went right over me and never found me (I was 300' SR). 2nd attack I didn't get in--my fault as I approached too close and the lead DD picked me up on sound. As he was less than a 1000 yards away I have no problem with that. I got deep, evaded the 1st pattern, went silent and fed my cat. I'm used to not having to pay attention once I get under a layer. Suddenly--I hear pinging and race back to my action station. A 2nd DD had picked me up. Anyway--2 more patterns and I crept out with little effort. But that's about as tough a time I've had with escorts unless I've allowed myself to get caught shallow--so it is a slight improvement for me.
As far as Escort deployment in the campaign: Well, I wish they'd have done 1 or 2 less DD classes and added the Etorofu and Kaikoban Escorts. The Japanese made plenty of the plucky little ships and they did the bulk of escort duties later on (especially through 44/45). And some of them were Very Tough--Good Hunters. Without those classes (and the scarcity of SC's) I don't mind seeing the DD's. better than no escorts as I like a challenge.
All-in-all: (This is probably better asked in the mod forum but you guys probably know) is there a way to weaken or get rid of the layer? I'm a masochist and really enjoy a good depth charging and I just can't seem to find my cup of pain. SH3 late war gave me fits trying to get away. Some of the Japanese escort commanders were just as tenacious and dedicated--they just lacked the technology the Allies had in ASW capabilities. But they'd still find and hold down subs for hours, and in too many cases, they'd get one. Where are these guys in the sim? I sure haven't met one.
I have renewed hope with some 1.3 improvements I'm seeing (not sure what's going on with your scenarios Jace but it isn't my experience anymore with 1.3).
Looking forward to see what some campaign/sensor mods will do with the game now...
Cheers!
Peto
Using Battle Stations apparently increases your detection if the escorts are very close.
"...is there a way to weaken or get rid of the layer? I'm a masochist.."
Well you could just stay above the layer. Have fun.
"...then they turned around to where they had originally seen me and started a new search pattern - even though they had received a new updated location of my sub, they went to the previous position..."
Maybe you only guessed that they spotted your scope. A sudden increase of speed in your direction is not a reliable indicator. Escorts may do this for other reasons.
"... Anyway, I know people think they are harder now, but I think they are easier..."
Keep playing. You'll eventually get the escorts from hell who drop endless DC and won't give up for anything pinging you from three directions every time you take a breath.
-Pv-
Peto, you can try my campaign mod, but it only goes to early 1943 (after which it is stock, plus zig-zags, but I'm working on it).
I dump many escorts and replace them with SCs and MSs both set to be "corvettes" so the MS will escort. In many ways they are tougher than the DDs since even if you want to torpedo them they are so shallow, lol.
My actual play observations are almost all in my mod, so I might have different expectations. My convoys are almost always zig-zagging (not constant helming, a turn off base every 15-120 minutes depending on the group with some speed and ZZ changes on different legs to mix it up). My Tfs are ZZing AND they are never below 15 knots, with 17 probably being average. I have some legs with 20+ knot dashes.
As a result, even if I make it through, I frequently don't get a second attack. If they hold me down for even an hour I have no hope to end around on a TF.
tater
As for the layer, it is not hard to mod, it's set as a pretty "hard" layer by default (ducimus posted about it in another thread---I need to quote it in a sticky so I can always find it, lol). Anyway, the hydrophones and sonars can be tweaked, I honestly think a lot of the reaction has much to do with how and if they have contact.
tater
Thanks Tater! Your Campaign mod sounds infuriating enough to be just what I'm looking for :rotfl: . I was planning on doing something along those lines but I just haven't had (or made) the time to do it.
I'll look for it and if I can't find it I'll PM you.
Thanks Again!
Peto
Steeltrap
07-17-07, 10:07 PM
Peto, welcome aboard!
Delighted to read your comments....I encourage discussion, so if someone has a different opinion or experiences to quote, I'm very happy to hear them! To me, that's the whole point in coming here. :up:
I think another issue is to do with the depth-changing behaviour of subs. I made a post about this some time ago. Point is that your ability to change depth is, largely, unaffected by your speed. That is plain wrong, as subs relied heavily on their forward motion to change depth. Sure, they could also change depth using pumping/blowing/flooding, but silent changes were not done like this.
I wonder how this went 'wrong', as SH3 had, as I recall, a far more accurate portrayal of depth keeping abilities (especially with the so called "humming bird" mod that made maintaining depth without some headway impossible....just as it should be). Much of depth changing is a straight function of dive angle and forward motion. Speed up and/or increase your angle and you dive more quickly. Silent running should nerf your main pumps as they are noisy, so you rely on forward motion. Watch your sub in external view, however, and you'll notice a few things....
* your pitch virtually doesn't change.
* your depth changes through the sub moving up and down without any regard to your speed.
* your planes move but have largely no effect on pitch - watch yourself dive without your stern remaining close to the surface. One thing about a 'steep' dive was that it was, after a point, counter-productive as it kept the stern clos to the surface for longer.
It's almost as though it's been programmed to look a certain way as you dive initially, but then bears little resemblence to reality thereafter.
This is a factor in the behaviour of escorts as it gives you a real advantage. Escort approaching? No problem - dive deep without having to increase your speed and, hence, sound radiation. Being able to pop up and down at will without any requirement to speed up or use compressed air (and I've yet to see my sub use any as far as I can tell) gives us tactical possibilities that simply didn't exist without trading off stealth. We get to keep both - rapid depth changes and keeping silent. Makes the escorts' jobs that much tougher.
There are many cases of skippers remarking on how long it took to reach the surface after going deep quickly - as much as 30 minutes from 300 feet. If we were forced to decide when to go deep and how quickly, knowing that this would mean "no more attacking for 15 minutes or so" it would force us to remain in potentially more dangerous positions, with the increased risks that entails.
Sigh....it's just more evidence of what, to me, remains entrenched as the fundamental flaws in the sim. Maybe the developers had plans to address all these things - if they did their research as thoroughly as has been asserted then it's hard to believe they weren't aware of these issues - making the way the sim shipped all the more a crime against us and them by the marketers etc....
Forget lawyers....when the revolution starts, I want marketers to be the first "up against the wall"!!
Cheers
Peto, welcome aboard!
Forget lawyers....when the revolution starts, I want marketers to be the first "up against the wall"!!
Cheers
:rotfl: . I'd like to join your firing squad! :rotfl: .
As far as the rest of your post, I completely agree. Once committed to going deep, it was no easy thing coming back up without noise and compressed air. To do it with escorts in the area....well....no one who wanted to live did it unless the circumstances were dire. The realism side of me refuses to come back up until I'm sure I've cleared the area of danger. I've read accounts of boats that did that kind of thing but as I recall--many of them are still on patrol now. Most submariners look on skippers who did that kind of stuff as "Nuts". I guess that's why the story of Mush Morton going into Wewak gets retold all the time--because he was crazy. It's the crazy ones who get remembered the best.
Thank You for your welcome!
Cheers!
Peto
cdrsubron7
07-17-07, 11:42 PM
I've been reading this thread I started with keen interest as I am having a heck of a time with these destroyers in the 1.3 patch. I made contact with a large convoy earlier tonight. I made a quick end round and got ahead of the convoy and then submerged. went to battlestations, rigged for silent running, and speed set at 1 knot (also went to 200 ft). My bow was pointed directly at the oncoming convoy to offer as little as small an area for detection to the oncoming convoy. Using the external camera I watched the destroyer which was out front of the convoy. This destroyer (Mutsuki class) when I first saw it was on the port side of the convoy traveling at twelve knots on the same course as the convoy. A few minutes later the destroyer turned to starboard cutting across in front of the convoy and as it cut across in front of the convoy I saw it slow done for a few hundred yds and then speed up again. The destroyer did this twice before reaching the starboard side of the convoy and turning back to run on the same course as the convoy again. The destroyer then turned to port and started cutting across in front of the convoy again. When it got halfway across it must have detected me, because I hear the destroyer start pinging and lights started flashing on the bridge warning the other ships.
At this point I went to flank speed and turned hard to port to avoid the destroyer coming at me and the depth charges he dropped. I came up to periscope depth with the door on the forward tubes open and ready to shoot. Fired three torpedoes each at two merchants and then pulled the plug and headed for 400 ft. I could hear the destroyers pinging in the distance like they had lost me for the moment and when I started to head to my plan escape route all of a sudden the sub is spinning out of control, I'm getting damage reports from all over the sub and I'm sunk.
I don't know what I'm doing wrong but I feel like a complete noob again. Its no fun playing this game if you get sunk every time you attack a convoy.
What am I doing wrong guys ???????
cdrsubron7 :lost:
Well--probably nothing wrong but I'm not willing to join your crew just yet ;) .
From what you said I think you might be trying to come in from DIRECTLY AHEAD of the convoy. The closest I want to come to that setup is to do a head on approach on a flank merchant of a wide convoy (say 6 columns wide). Even then I worry. A lot. Try approaching more from the quarter--that is come in from the side of the convoy more than from in front. I tend to worry more about the flanking escorts than the leader because of the way I come in. And sometimes I get lucky and the closest flanker is out a few thousand yards looking at kelp :rock: . That opens up the whole flank for me to pick on and gives me time to set up my shot.
The downside of this type of approach is it's easy to misjudge ranges and it can leave you out in left field. You have to try to time it so you come in kind of behind and to the side of the leading escort--but far enough ahead of the flanker so you can turn down the columns of merchants. It's a method that has served me well since Aces of the Deep.
If you'd like me to try to clarify my points, ask away. I'll try to help you the best I can.
Hang in there! These sims take Practice with a Capital P!!!! But the pay-off is that smug look when you finally go to bed LOL.
Cheers!
Peto
One more thing--Use sound. As few periscope observations as possible. And then try it with external view disabled ;) .
Suicide Charlie
07-18-07, 01:15 AM
approaching more from the quarter
ahead of the flanker so you can turn down the columns of merchants. It's a method that has served me well since Aces of the Deep.
This is a tactic that I've been trying to replicate and I've failed thus far. My problem is positioning myself in order to do that. I'm pretty sure I'm too close in when I'm still surfaced and moving to try to place myself in a good intercept postion.
Say you've been given a task force report and it's positioned say to the WNW-W of you and heading S. It's close enough that it should be possible to intercept (Say using a S-class boat. We'll go with a slow example for an extreme.). What are you're steps to move to an intercept position on those fast moving ships when they're about on the same latitude?
I think my problem is if I'm able to run a box pattern to intercept I venture too close and they spot me waaaay off.
Ok, maybe I'll give 1.3 another chance. I have been heavily modding the sim.cfg, but it should have made them better not worse..
It gets worse when you make a setup and they zig away ;)
Course just as often I've had a decent long range quartering setup and they zag down my throat.
Actually, that's something I need to nail down with my current improved campaign before I redo the entire war and make a definitive one. I need a sense of how the AI is dealing with the course changes in zig zags. I might have to make them a-historically low angle, or longer time frame if they can't cope well. So far I have them far enough apart I don't see them happen that often (which was a choice due to those very concerns).
tater
approaching more from the quarter
ahead of the flanker so you can turn down the columns of merchants. It's a method that has served me well since Aces of the Deep.
Say you've been given a task force report and it's positioned say to the WNW-W of you and heading S. It's close enough that it should be possible to intercept (Say using a S-class boat. We'll go with a slow example for an extreme.). What are you're steps to move to an intercept position on those fast moving ships when they're about on the same latitude?
If I have a speed advantage I run parrallel to their course until they're well behind me (about 135 or 225 relative). Then I come about 30 degrees right or left so I'm working in ahead of them. Just keep nudging your course to put you ahead but out of visual range. Needless to say, if I have radar this approach is greatly simplified!
I typically try to dive ahead of the formation but then instead of heading straight for them, I angle off to one side by a few degrees so I'll be positioned off one flank of the convoy/task force. The when they get close, I turn back in for my approach.
If I only have a 1-2 knot speed advantage it's very difficult to do.
As for you checking 1.3 out some more Jace: I'm glad in a selfish way! You do some great work with you mods and I'd hate for them not to be compatible with 1.3. Just want you to know that you're appreciated by all members of my crew :yep: .
And Tater: DL'd your Campaign mod and am checking it out. I'll let you know my thoughts after I've had some time with it. So far--it looks Great!!!! Thank You!
Cheers!
Peto
Ducimus
07-18-07, 04:55 PM
Ok, maybe I'll give 1.3 another chance. I have been heavily modding the sim.cfg, but it should have made them better not worse..
Don't forget the ai_sensor.dat. By default all JP active sonar (excepting Q sonar equivlant) has a very shallow max elevation. 100 on all. What this means, is its incredibly easy to get under the beam, and due to the projection of the beam, it wont be at its deepest point until its at its maximum range. Which kind of sucks because when the escort is looking for you, you won't be in that deepest portion of the beam most of the time, you'll be under it. This is why they can get a ping from a ways off, but once they get closer, the pinging stops.
Increase the max elevation by a large amount, and you'll get more pinging, but i beleive the problem then becomes making the AI escapable.
cdrsubron7
07-18-07, 11:02 PM
Peto, thanks for your help and suggestions. The point of the matter is that I have tried many different angles of approach and depths ranging from PD down to 200 ft without ever having exposed the periscope. This last time I know it was the destroyer out in front who detected me. The other couple of times I came in from the points and am not sure whether one of the flanking DD picked me up or the DD out in front. I've played SH1 for the last ten years as a member of the PTC and have played SH2 and SH3 so I really don't consider myself a novice when it comes to playing SHIV. But since I've tried playing SHIV with the 1.3 I'm really feeling out of my depth. I tried every approach I can think of and I still get detected, it's getting really fustrating. :dead:
cdrsubron7 ;)
Considering your experience with subsims, I can definitely understand your frustration. Now that I've been playing 1.3 for quite a few hours, I tend to agree that they've beefed up the detection ranges.
Hang in there! I'm sure more mods are on the way! I'll be looking at tuning down the Japanese Incredi-vision myself and trying to turn up their active sonar some to add challenge when they do find me.
Cheers!
Peto
FAdmiral
07-18-07, 11:59 PM
400 feet ?? That would be crush depth for all US subs except for the latest
and most recent ones. Most of the subs I have used in 42 & 43 are marked
more shollow than that....
JIM
The mark on the depth gauge is the test depth. They could all go substantially deeper than their test depths.
I think the AI capability can be tweaked, just needs some time.
tater
Peto, thanks for your help and suggestions. The point of the matter is that I have tried many different angles of approach and depths ranging from PD down to 200 ft without ever having exposed the periscope. This last time I know it was the destroyer out in front who detected me. The other couple of times I came in from the points and am not sure whether one of the flanking DD picked me up or the DD out in front. I've played SH1 for the last ten years as a member of the PTC and have played SH2 and SH3 so I really don't consider myself a novice when it comes to playing SHIV. But since I've tried playing SHIV with the 1.3 I'm really feeling out of my depth. I tried every approach I can think of and I still get detected, it's getting really fustrating. :dead:
cdrsubron7 ;)
If I remember correctly, you can tweak the detection effectiveness in the sim.cfg (in data/cfg). I too found the detection ranges etc. unrealistically high in 1.3, so I re-installed, copied the sim.cfg from the 1.0 and used it as reference with 1.3. Eventually I've been able to configure the game to be just perfect for me.
Miika
Yep. A few gato classes went down to 500 feet during the war. The Puffer stayed down that deep for about 27 hours in one of the worst prolonged DC attacks suffered by US boats. The attacking escort was a subchaser!
The Tang (Balao) went to 700 feet--depth gauge didn't go that high so they read the outside water pressure and did the math to figure out how deep they were.
Of course--in the game we tend to be a tad more limited... Wish a Test depth plus a random % could be worked out so you never knew how deep you could safely go.
Cheers!
Peto
Suicide Charlie
07-19-07, 01:33 AM
Peto, thanks for your help and suggestions. The point of the matter is that I have tried many different angles of approach and depths ranging from PD down to 200 ft without ever having exposed the periscope. This last time I know it was the destroyer out in front who detected me. The other couple of times I came in from the points and am not sure whether one of the flanking DD picked me up or the DD out in front. I've played SH1 for the last ten years as a member of the PTC and have played SH2 and SH3 so I really don't consider myself a novice when it comes to playing SHIV. But since I've tried playing SHIV with the 1.3 I'm really feeling out of my depth. I tried every approach I can think of and I still get detected, it's getting really fustrating. :dead:
This is my exact same problem. I've been playing SHIII for quite a while, but I cannot seem to figure out the detection ranges for SHIV for the life of me.
Although, I did manage to intercept an heavily escorted/mixed convoy last night. Ran a bow pattern (run parallel then angle in once oyu've pulled out in front) intercept at dusk and waited till low light to move in. I penetrated the lead and flank DD's somewhat easily, although they did get close to me with a DC run. Damaged my forward dive plane transmission and rudder transmission. Not enough to really effect me or to have me consider coming off silent running to repair.
I scattered the convoy and sent an Agano Light Cruiser to the bottom. I'm currently shadowing right off the port side of another Agano while the DD escorts move around looking for me. Planning how to move into a firing position on one of the two remaining Agano's or a merchant.
It seems that if you're able to put yourself in a favorable position early on (out in front anywhere from 40 to 320 AOB or so) the early detection doesn't seem to matter. Once the DD's close slipping past them isn't too hard or an ordeal.
Don't forget the ai_sensor.dat. By default all JP active sonar (excepting Q sonar equivlant) has a very shallow max elevation. 100 on all. What this means, is its incredibly easy to get under the beam, and due to the projection of the beam, it wont be at its deepest point until its at its maximum range. Which kind of sucks because when the escort is looking for you, you won't be in that deepest portion of the beam most of the time, you'll be under it. This is why they can get a ping from a ways off, but once they get closer, the pinging stops.
Not sure what 100 max elevation means, or if you were objecting to it or not (and JP was passive, right?). Basically I don't understand modders' talk. But the idea that the ping beam passes over the top of the deep-submerged sub as the escort gets close is RL, I think. Don't eliminate it!
It's the angle at which it loses detection. There will always be a way to go around it, but it might be ahistorically shallow is all.
GerritJ9
07-25-07, 07:15 AM
On Feb. 12th 1942 Vice-Admiral Helfrich, C-in-C of the Royal Netherlands navy in the NEI, sent a telegram to Vice-Admiral Furstner, Chief of the Netherlands Naval Staff in London detailing some of the Dutch experiences with IJN A/S warfare:
"According to intelligence supplied by K.XV it appeared during action off Sarawak that Japanese "Amagiri" class destroyers are equipped with sound receivers and not with periphones (?) or Asdic. To track submarines several destroyers searched the area at 12 knots, stopped similtaneously, listened and then proceeded. Destroyers passing directly over the submarine on several occasions showed that they did hear something but the absence of depth charges indicated that they did not know exactly where the submarine was. Later on five depth charges were dropped at random. According to information supplied by K.XVIII the Japanese probably use sound locators and echo receivers whereby use is made of small echo-bombs which are heard as hammer blows on the pressure hull. According to received intelligence Japanese submarines are equipped with Asdic with a constant frequency of 17.5 kilocycles. Scale goes to 6000 metres though usable up to 3000 to 4000 metres. Furthermore they are equipped with an acoustic device with which only direction is determined and with which warships can be detected at 20000 metres, merchant ships at 10000 metres. These latter distances are uncertain."
Although the RNethN had lost four submarines in December 1941, only one, O.20, can be attributed to Japanese destroyers. O.16 and K.XVII had both been lost to a Japanese minefield, laid off Poelau Tioman before the outbreak of hostilities (though this was not known at the time) and K.XVI had been torpedoed by the submarine I 166. Furthermore, O.20 may well have survived had her skipper not ordered "Abandon ship" but submerged.
FAdmiral
07-25-07, 03:10 PM
Ok, with the 1.3 patch and no mods affecting the DD sensors,
here is what I have observed so far: (calm seas)
1. Running at PD, scope down, any speed, I get detected 100% of the time.
2. Running deeper, above thermal, any speed, detected about 75% of the time.
3. Running below thermal, silent routine, detected 0% of the time.
So my advice is this, if a DD is coming near you, go silent under thermal and
only come up to PD when ready to shoot. Keep scope up ONLY when shooting.
Use external view to watch the action....
JIM
PS. If "Bungo Pete" is after you, forget the above, bend over & (well, you know)
Ducimus
07-25-07, 06:35 PM
PS. If "Bungo Pete" is after you, forget the above, bend over & (well, you know)
BUahahhahah, you realize i am a proud "father" where BP is concerned?
FAdmiral
07-25-07, 10:47 PM
YES, we know!! What we don't know is when did you change your name from
Frankinstein to Ducimus??
JIM
TRIM YOUR BOAT DOWN....
it works... I can get with torp range of merchants on dark nights and hit them and sink them before they even spot me...
Even during daylight conditions I can close much closer to enemy units if I reduce my silhouette. Why bowl in on the surface at top speed full of air.. no wonder people are getting spotted easily..
Keep low, slow and quiet...
Also, the flooded trim tanks mean you can't move as fast but if you are spotted you can dive away real quick..
Jace, what you're saying is running at surface, decks awash?
Yup, try 8 meters on the dial (if using metric) or the equivelent in feet.
It definatley reduces their visual range.. it does help, but I just got spotted in one of my test missions, range was 2800m..
1.3 sets the minimum surface area (in sim.cfg) much less than mine, so it my be less effective. Plus DD's have radars that can pick up anything bigger than a door at long range, so it wont work against them, however an unescorted tanker or merchent would be a good target to experiment on, and the quicker crash dive (literally a few seconds..) is a bonus..
Ducimus
07-26-07, 07:17 PM
Jace, what you're saying is running at surface, decks awash?
Hmmm. i dont remember if i put that in or not. Never thought about doing that because i tend to use radar depth, but still, decks aways means diesal power, not electric.
Fearless
07-26-07, 08:11 PM
Actually, it would be great to have a command setting to place you at 'decks awash' stage. The other one would be a "Rigged for Dive" command. From what I've read so far was that Fleet type subs were at rigged for dive stage as soon as they departed so that minimal effort to submerge the sub was required.
Not sure I am a big fan of 1.3. The Merchies seem to be uncanny in the ability to target me with there guns (Me at tnight DIW and waiting for them to draw near. Also the airpatrols are ridiculous (central pacific being attacked by a single engine A/C no Carrier or TF near. Weird. US Tactics developed where surfcae approach racing in and getting torps off at 2 - 3 k or closer then evading (on the surface and then repositioning to attack again after reloading. Now I spend more time at PD bow on waiting to have the target come run me over to shoot. Yet the DD's are seem to detect me more frequently while escorting merchants - as I have been able to successfully approach and sink carriers and one cruiser twice now and live to tell about it. I also had a single torp kill on a CA - weird she blew like a chinese fire works factory fire.
theluckyone17
07-26-07, 11:09 PM
Oh, I have to agree... the ASW is getting kinda tiring, with 1.3 installed, and TM1. Not boring, but tiring.
I was patrolling Sagami Bay, just outside Tokyo Bay. With the deep water, and early '42 convoys leaving Tokyo according to the SH4 map, I figured it'd be worth a try. I'd spend most nights on the surface, and most days under water at about 100 feet. If I picked up an warships, I went to 250 feet, 1 knot or less, and silent running.
This pair of warships (destroyer and a subchaser, I believe) passed me twice. On their third time around, I was unlucky enough to pass right underneath them. The destroyer never heard me... but the trailing subchaser did. Instantly, the active sonar started up, and it was a lost fight from there.
I'd twist and turn, trying to keep the pinging warship off my beam. Raising my speed helped get my bow around, but the other warship must've been listening off to the side, since I never managed to lose them. Just going deep (300'), with silent running, and less than a knot speed, failed to help. They continued to ping, and continued to drop depth charges. I'd continue to twist, alternate depth (250' to 300'), and finally just staying slow & quiet (again, 1 knot or less).
Only one near miss actually damaged me... enough to take out both 'scopes, deck & AA gun. Needless to say, the patrol was over at that point, and the warships continued making runs at me, regardless of anything I tried.
Wife finally came in, requesting a tuck-in, and I said the heck with it... quit the patrol without saving, posted this, and went to bed.:damn:
Excalibur Bane
07-27-07, 12:42 AM
I noticed they said in the patch notes, that gunners get better if they continue firing at the same target (Not the exact quote but you get the idea) which is odd, because I've experienced almost exactly the opposite. I often surface at night to engage lone or pair merchants that are unescorted. I ran into a pair of tankers, both with fore and aft gun mountings and both of them raining shells on me and they hit me twice in about 10 mins of continous exchanges (I don't man the deckgun myself). On top of that, the merchants guns do little to no damage at all. Neither of the two shells that hit, left a mark on the hull or produced any damage. Not even a "We're under attack, sir!" per usual. Though I've noticed they will now train the AA guns on you when you get in range, I don't remember them doing that in 1.2
I sat and watched the gunners with the binoculars and they either shot about 200 feet in front of their own ship or fired at a 70 degree angle in the air. That's some pretty weird gunning for a merchant ship, they can't be THAT bad.:-?
...but still, decks aways means diesal power, not electric.
Not sure if I agree regarding decks awash, at a certain point depending on the sea state you're risking water down the main induction, and that's a good time to switch to battery. Also I don't know about the diesel exhausts, with decks awash they might be underwater, I imagine there could be backpressure problems?
Ducimus
07-27-07, 10:18 AM
...but still, decks aways means diesal power, not electric.
Not sure if I agree regarding decks awash, at a certain point depending on the sea state you're risking water down the main induction, and that's a good time to switch to battery. Also I don't know about the diesel exhausts, with decks awash they might be underwater, I imagine there could be backpressure problems?
IN real life, unfortunatly not all things mechanical are modeled in a computer game. *shrug* maybe ill leave it alone, i think radar depth is enough honestly.
Okay, I take back what I said about decks awash. I was reading a chapter in Galantin's "Take Her Deep!" last night where he mentions that, in a gale, they shut the main induction to keep the water out but could still run the diesels at slow speed with the draw of air through the bridge hatch.
John Channing
07-31-07, 03:27 PM
Oh, I have to agree... the ASW is getting kinda tiring, with 1.3 installed, and TM1. Not boring, but tiring.
I was patrolling Sagami Bay, just outside Tokyo Bay. With the deep water, and early '42 convoys leaving Tokyo according to the SH4 map, I figured it'd be worth a try. I'd spend most nights on the surface, and most days under water at about 100 feet. If I picked up an warships, I went to 250 feet, 1 knot or less, and silent running.
This pair of warships (destroyer and a subchaser, I believe) passed me twice. On their third time around, I was unlucky enough to pass right underneath them. The destroyer never heard me... but the trailing subchaser did. Instantly, the active sonar started up, and it was a lost fight from there.
I'd twist and turn, trying to keep the pinging warship off my beam. Raising my speed helped get my bow around, but the other warship must've been listening off to the side, since I never managed to lose them. Just going deep (300'), with silent running, and less than a knot speed, failed to help. They continued to ping, and continued to drop depth charges. I'd continue to twist, alternate depth (250' to 300'), and finally just staying slow & quiet (again, 1 knot or less).
Only one near miss actually damaged me... enough to take out both 'scopes, deck & AA gun. Needless to say, the patrol was over at that point, and the warships continued making runs at me, regardless of anything I tried.
Wife finally came in, requesting a tuck-in, and I said the heck with it... quit the patrol without saving, posted this, and went to bed.:damn:
Interestingly your descrition sounds a lot like the last hours of the USS Wahoo as described by the Japanese reports and some IJN photos that have been located.
JCC
Capt. Shark Bait
07-31-07, 07:57 PM
i don't think it needs to be changed. i spent almost 2hrs submerged and stationary at 330ft while a DD and a d@mm tincan subchaser dropped and fired depth charges all around, above and below me. before i ordered all stop i was at 250ft, well below the layer, and both seemed quite able to find me despite running silent at 1-3kts:damn: :rock:
Ducimus
07-31-07, 08:40 PM
I just thought id mention the obvious that thermal layer implmentation in SH4 is not a magical boundry from which no sonar may pass. It is merely a reduction in signal strength, nothing more. Even when below a layer, there is still more variables at play which help the AI detect you.
Think of thermal layers in Sh4 as a pair of earmuffs or earplugs. Even while wearing them, you can still hear people talk. You may not make out every word, but you can usually understand whats being said none the less.
orangenee
07-31-07, 09:44 PM
I have to say since 1.3 I'm getting a lot more DDs coming after me on their own well away from any convoys, I even had a Gunboat come after me as well before, this is in '41!! So they appear to be really switched on now!!
"...Not sure if I agree regarding decks awash, at a certain point depending on the sea state you're risking water down the main induction, and that's a good time to switch to battery. Also I don't know about the diesel exhausts, with decks awash they might be underwater, I imagine there could be backpressure problems?..."
None of that induction worry modeled in the game. Use it to advantage. Set 25 ft exactly with both the text and voice announce the same and the result will be 22ft at the keel with relative calm water occasionally washing over the main deck. The diesles will stay engaged. If the weather gets rough enough to wash over the bridge, the engines will switch automatically to battery and back again. The advantages to using the awash profile while trying to maximize surface stealth is notable if you can afford the additional drag and lowered range and speed while using it. Even the deck and AA gun remain manable if the weather isn't too rough. This general behavior has not really changed from SH3.
There is NO profile (speed, depth, thermal, Silent Running) you can use in the game (and never has been) that puts the sub in Romulan Stealth mode which makes you totally invisible to everyone all the time. If there was, everyone would use the secret formulae and never get attacked and never get sunk. The game is coded in such a way as there are very few totally riskless activities. There's random luck and doom factors. It's war. We lost a lot of subs even though we had the best equipped and best trained men in the world near the end of the war.
-Pv-
NefariousKoel
07-31-07, 11:44 PM
I'm OK with the sonar searches. Still a bit put off by the superhuman DD visual spotting. I'm changing the Visual values back to where they were on 1.2.:)
Frederf
08-01-07, 02:34 AM
Does anyone else get suddenly spotted by escorting DDs when at 0 knots, silent running if the DD gets close enough? I've been suddenly detected by DDs when they pass over me even though I'm reletively deep 100' 170' or 300'. Below the layer is much less likely though. They shouldn't have had a clue that I was there and suddenly they think "Hmmm, time to try a few practice pings, oh look what I found!"
Doesn't seem right to me.
nomdeplume
08-01-07, 05:32 AM
Does anyone else get suddenly spotted by escorting DDs when at 0 knots, silent running if the DD gets close enough?
Even when stopped, your boat makes some noise. Even at silent running with the crew away from battlestations you make some noise. But I do agree they seem a bit supernatural sometimes.
Can any of the modders work out how detectable you are when deep, stationary, and at silent running, assuming they're not actively looking for you? Do escorts engage active sonar as part of normal escorting?
Ducimus
08-01-07, 11:22 AM
If you are in the DD's active sonar cone for 5 seconds are more, and presenting him anything other then your bow or stern, he will start pinging you.
Nightmare
08-01-07, 11:33 AM
I'm OK with the sonar searches. Still a bit put off by the superhuman DD visual spotting. I'm changing the Visual values back to where they were on 1.2.:)That's probably my #1 axe to grind with 1.3. Since I play "Dead is Dead" I've lost my two furthest along careers this week. Last night my first career I started in 1.1 with USS Wahoo 1942 went to Davy Jones Locker. First time playing it too with 1.3.
Started with getting a report about a convoy so I set course to intercept well ahead of the convoy. As the convoy came within radar range I dove and started my approach to my firing point. At this point the weather was pretty bad and the sun was going down.
My first observation with the scope was a water lapping quick look to see what I had as targets. Total exposure of the scope: 3 seconds. The column of the convoy closest to me was the only ones within range visually (no escorts visible either), so I kept my approach going. Waited about 5 minutes to take my second observation. Again, I didn’t raise the scope to full height, kept it as low to the water as I could and still see. The convoy had scattered and I’ve got 3 DDs coming right for me.
They pounded the hell out of me. They even picked me up on silent running at a dead stop down at 350 feet (below the thermal). I changed depth, course, and speed to no avail. By their third pass I knew I was a goner from the damage, and the following run they finished me off.
Now I don’t mind a challenge but to have a scope spotted at that range kind of range in foul weather is crazy. Nor do I think the laser guided depth charges are very realistic. Even in “Clear the Bridge” by Richard O’Kane he even stated that under ideal circumstances, it was difficult to spot a raised periscope unless it was right on top of you.
Maybe I'm doing something wrong, however I never had this sort of problem is SH3 were the AI should be difficult with their radar and superb ASW. I don't expect the Pacific to be a walk in the park either, but it's gone from one extreme to the other. I don't even see how night surface attacks are possible now.
Edited for grammar
There was a time when it looked like the japanese air search radar was detecting ships like the pre-1.3 SD did for our subs.
We know the SD was fixed, but was the jap radar?
Might be interesting to make a mission where nightmare's example happens every time in stock 1.3, then play it with a mod that removes the type13 radar (I think that's what it is) from the same ship.
If the scope is still spotted, it's the visual AI, if it isn't, it's a radar problem.
Frederf
08-01-07, 04:47 PM
If you are in the DD's active sonar cone for 5 seconds are more, and presenting him anything other then your bow or stern, he will start pinging you.
That seems wrong to me. Active sonar only works when you actively ping. I could paint my sub bright pink but until they make their first ping they shouldn't know where I am. And they shouldn't ping until they where know where I am.
Is it really possible to hear a submarine as quiet as a doormouse at 350' while thundering overhead at 9 kts?
What the AI does, and RL are 2 separate things.
The AI doesn't detect you, then ping, your computer starts the AI pinging when you are within certain parameters, and the AI detects you, or it doesn't. In RL, many IJN escorts actualy drove around pinging most of the time, but the code is having them only bother when you are inside certain parameters I guess. It's kinda like spotting in TC. Imagine a TC mode where it would drop you out of TC when an enemy was just outside visual range, but the watch never spots them. You go to 1:1, then you have to look around and spot them yourself. I imagine the AI pinging parameters are kind of like that. Maybe I'm wrong.
As for the escort speed vs their hydrophone, yeah, I'm certainly curious about that myself.
Bono_LV
08-02-07, 02:14 AM
Is there any mod, that changes this nightmare?
Frederf
08-02-07, 02:53 AM
What the AI does, and RL are 2 separate things.
The AI doesn't detect you, then ping, your computer starts the AI pinging when you are within certain parameters, and the AI detects you, or it doesn't. In RL, many IJN escorts actualy drove around pinging most of the time, but the code is having them only bother when you are inside certain parameters I guess. It's kinda like spotting in TC. Imagine a TC mode where it would drop you out of TC when an enemy was just outside visual range, but the watch never spots them. You go to 1:1, then you have to look around and spot them yourself. I imagine the AI pinging parameters are kind of like that. Maybe I'm wrong.
As for the escort speed vs their hydrophone, yeah, I'm certainly curious about that myself.
It is always a pleasure reading your posts tater. I'm aware that many IJN escorts pinged just for the sake of pinging but it doesn't seem fair to have "silent pinging" that is only heard once they get a whiff of you and you can't use it to track them down, etc. Also I doubt that the game devs would model the IJN pinging away randomly but only let you hear once they are close. The devs do screwy things but not that screwy.
Honestly if someone were to come and slap me upside the back of the head with a sentence like "Even at dead quiet a submarine's hydrophone signature achieves a minimum that can be detected under the best of conditions" then I would reluctantly conceed that concept as probable.
NefariousKoel
08-02-07, 01:55 PM
I'm OK with the sonar searches. Still a bit put off by the superhuman DD visual spotting. I'm changing the Visual values back to where they were on 1.2.:)That's probably my #1 axe to grind with 1.3. Since I play "Dead is Dead" I've lost my two furthest along careers this week.
Yep, my first career mission was to photograph port assets with the stock Visual settings.
A DD came charging out of the fog at me while I was surfaced. He had spotted me before my crew .. and most notably I could even see them through the binos or TBT. WTF? That's gettin' adjusted.:hmm:
No, I agree, it'd be great to have a waypoint toggle that would force escorts to bang away starting at that waypoint, ending at the next. RL subs homed on it, lol, it didn;t work for them the way they expected, LOL.
tater
spork542
08-02-07, 02:47 PM
Is it possible to speed up to Flank when the escort's right on top of you, change course and depth, and escape?
Frederf
08-02-07, 03:28 PM
Is it possible to speed up to Flank when the escort's right on top of you, change course and depth, and escape?
With one DD this is theoretically possible. When the DD is right over you he cannot use his active sonar as it doesn't aim that far down and his hydrophones have a very limited range when moving fast (plus the rear blind spot).
So if you're lucky and have good timing you might displace a good distance when between when the DD loses active sonar contact and make into his blind spot to get away (he'll be spinning like a top so you won't be in his blind spot for long).
He might find you again but then again he might not. You want to use flank sparingly because he's either deaf to it or you're just shouting your lat/long to him.
I've been experimenting with a DC mod. When finished, it will change, well, all the DC armed ship eqp files, and a few of their dats as well, possibly.
SH4 has 1 DC. It is roughly an IJN Type 2 (1943+) 162kg 3m/s fall speed DC. The Y and K guns fire it as well.
The IJN used the Type 95 early (100kg, and a 1.9m/s sink rate) on, and 3 warheads existed for the type 2, 105, 110, and 162kg. I think the warhead differences between 100-110kg are trivial, so we don't need each type.
One big way to mitigate IJN ASW capability given SH4 limitations is as follows. Note that max depth is not a parameter we can mess with, sadly (so no 60m cutoff for early IJN DCs):
One, the SH4 ships have GROSSLY too many DCs loaded. Akizuki carries 240 DCs in SH4, in RL she carried 72. Shiratsuyu has 80 in SH4, in RL she carried 16. The list goes on and on. The solution? Add a bunch of new DC racks with different ammo stocks, and drop the stock Rack, Y and K gun ammo stores to realistic numbers. The only downside is that I'll have to build new eqps for each escort. No biggie.
Two, the DC explosion radius needs to drop to realistic values from the insane stock value of 40m. Redwine's mod does, as does TM and RFB. A few of the new DC racks should drop type 95 DCs with smaller warheads---smaller destructive power as well as smaller radius than even the reduced radius stock weapons.
So far, in my experiments, it is much easier to evade 36 DCs dropped by a good escort with TM sensors enabled than 80 to 240 ;) Combined with smaller explosions and radii, you get hammered, then they run out. With an ~8-10m radius, they really need to shack your boat to hurt it. Right now I'm trying to tweak a few things like the depth precision so the escorts don't blow themselves up. Sadly, the detonation depth parameter doesn't work (it's overwritten by other AI things). If it worked as stated, I could make early IJN DCs blow up between 30 and 60m, then later 30 and 90m.
I think that DC "improvements" (meaning reduced effectiveness) go a long way to fixing IJN ASW to make it more realistic. It's a great fix because you still need to evade and fight the boat because if they DO hit, it's usually pretty ugly fast.
The only real issue left, IMO, is tweaking the AI visual to permit well executed night attacks without making them too easy.
tater
Steeltrap
10-01-07, 07:50 AM
Tater, perhaps you could ask how NYGM addressed the visual spotting aspect. I've found it to be very good with allowing surface attacks. I generally have no trouble attacking on the surface at night, especially if the weather is poor.
My complaint about "decks awash" etc is that it might work, but it's completely unrealistic. ALL the most effective subs learned that surface was the way to go. Furthermore, the limitations of USA periscopes meant there were times when it was impossible to do a submerged attack.
To me it's all just a case of the sensors etc not being fixed prior to release, just as was the case with SHIII. Simple testing by anyone with a reasonable level of knowledge of USA WWII sub performance and tactics would show the many realism problems. Small wonder we find them very quickly.
Annoying. I'm very interested to see what 1.4 produces. Until then I'm sticking to SHIII as, modded, it is a far more realistic simulation on all the points that matter to me.
I think the idea was to make multiple versions of sensors (visual).
I have a mod right now where I made a new AI_Visual sensor. So I have one set to "merchant" ability, and a warship variety that is what the current AI sensors are like. You could even make a variety of military visual capability. Large warship vs small (more eyes vs fewer eyes on watch). In testing, I got fairly close.
tater
Lowering the exposure when near enemy by lowering the boat to near surface level was a common real life tactic and not at all "unrealistic." The crew of course had to be very careful not to swamp the boat and the tactic was not used in heavy weather.
I expect the additional DD ammo load and leathiality radius was on purpose and not an oversight. Because of the limited skill of AI, they have to be given certain advantages to make it a challenging risk to the human player who can outsmart any AI while walking the dog, drinking beer, eating spaghetti and the computer monitor scrambled into a jizsaw puzzle.
Also remember the thermal layer isn't an on-off switch for detection like it was in SHIII. It's a reduced sensor capability. If you are making enough noise, you can still be heard even at 1 knot. Your crew and machinery also make noise. Your engines and props only increase that level of noise. In patch 1.3, placing your crew in Battle Stations or Damage Control increases your noise level. There is no Romulan cloaking device in SHIV where you are guarenteed to be invisible all the time. Against multiple DDs with high level of skill and given a reason to know where to look for you, it takes more than a few tricks in the bag to survive.
-Pv-
First of all, thanks to all of you for your insight on the IJN DD escort response in SHIV. For a while I have been wondering if I was THAT GOOD, or if the DD's were THAT BAD.
Seems as if the DD's are THAT BAD.
They seem to be simple to evade, esp if you go deep, wait for them to stir things up with a few depth charges, put the rudder hard over, and make like a tree and LEAVE, while the DD's continue depth charging the place where you were.
I have also been puzzled as to why a destroyer would stop dead in the water. I had one do that following my attack on his convoy. After diving and evading at 300' and running silent, I came up to PD to see what was happening, and there he was, just sitting still and quiet, 400" away. I supposed he was listening for me, and I was suprised he didnt hear me! I gave him two fish from my stern tubes as a reward for his efforts!
Oh yeah, he heard that!
Just before he rolled over and sank, that is!:D
Is there any way to make the DD's just a bit smarter? They do seem painfully inept!
Thanks!
Welcome to Subsim T&L5, hehe well you can be sure if someone improves the IJN AI others will complain they're uber. Very hard to find a balance. :know: I do think you should give the Trigger Maru mod a try, it does up the DD AI somewhat.
Steeltrap
10-08-07, 09:58 AM
PV, my point was that it may be an option, but it sould not be a requirement for avoiding detection. I've read Wahoo and Clear the Bridge, both by Dick O'Kane, and on no occasion does he mention ever doing this. Indeed, he does mention many times starting the turbos upon surfacing to get the boat to a proper surface trim, which is entirely the opposite of the 'decks awash' tactic.
I think this is a case of justifying a tactic due to its sometimes being used. When arguably the greatest USA sub skipper of WWII (O'Kane) never mentions it, yet we need to do it, there's a problem with the sim. As it stands, I've never made a successful surface attack, irrespective of the weather/moon factors. That's just wrong!!!
Not intended to flame, btw! I accept your point it could and was done - mine is that it seems you can't attack on the surface without doing it.
Here's an expereince I had with the escorts using the TM 1.6.2 mod
Tried one of the single missions, Battle of Palawan Passage. Figured the base course, found the layer, gave them the bow and sat at rigged for silent running. Destroyers passed over me pinging, but didn't see me.
Listened on the sonar til I could tell the escorts were well past me and the main part of the task force was getting closer and popped up for a quick look. Dropped to 90ft and left the scope up, listened on sonar and counted time. Popped up again and BINGO, right in the last 1/3 of the dang fleet. Hit one battleship and slowed her to a crawl. Sank one cruser and badly damaged the other. The BB and cruiser were listing badly. headed for the layer and skeedaddled off at a 90 degree angle to the base course. Secured battlestations and sat for a couple of hours game time. Popped up for a look and no escorts.
Chased the convoys base course until I saw smoke on the horizon. Gave the smoke a wide berth, ran ahead, came around and sat on the course again making quick checks. Saw them coming after a while. 3 escorts were patrolling behind the crippled ships. Poked my way in between the big ships. Put one fish into the cruiser and she rolled over almost immediately. Put 3 more into the BB and got as close to her as possible. Destroyers came charging right past me doing short range pings.
As soon as I got the "she's going down" report, I went for the layer again and snuck off. Pictures to be posted shortly in another thread. Will come back and add the link (trying to decide between the ROW thread or the action report)
Here's the pics
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=663994&postcount=790
Man were the escorts peeved. Watched them on the external camera buzzing around like angry hornets dropping DC's randomly and pinging away. Problem for them though- I was somewhere else.
I think this shows that the layers have varying degrees of effectiveness, as they should. It depends on several variables including temperature difference. Had another encounter where they would pick me up and then lose my through the layer. Like ducking in and out of clouds to shake a bogie on your tail. Finally got away.
Zero Niner
10-09-07, 10:39 PM
That's a good read, swdw! :up:
Would you mind sharing what mods you're using, if any? Thanks.
I'm gettign a mod ready for testing on the DC side of things. The AI visual mod will follow later:)
tater
BTW, good points, PV. The issue becomes that nagging "supermod" issue.
For the stock game, I find the AI pretty horrible. They need DCs killing my boat from 20m instead of 6-8m. OTOH, with TM, the setting of max radius 14.5 is a very good balance. It's lower in RFB.
From my reading, I'd prefer play where there are a lot of DCs dropped, but few hit.
As for the total numbers carried, that's a tough call. Needs to be tested based upon the effectiveness of the attacks given the AI settings.
I might need to up my DC damages someplace above TM, but below stock...
tater
GerritJ9
10-10-07, 04:44 PM
T&L5.... see my post earlier in this topic about IJN A/S behaviour early in the Pacific War as witnessed first-hand by RNethN subs. The IJN destroyers DID stop dead in the water to listen for subs, so if you encounter such behaviour in SH4, it is only mimicing RL IJN destroyer behaviour.
That's a good read, swdw! :up:
Would you mind sharing what mods you're using, if any? Thanks.
Sure
TM 1.6.2 at the time
NSM 3.3
ROW - all files
What are people's feelings on DC effectiveness?
This really requires playing with externals on ans watching the DCs going off to really know how close they are.
I've found that they can go off surprisingly close and while they do a LOT of damage, I cannot remember more than a couple mission kills of my sub with a single DC (and I've been trying to be sunk by DCs rather a lot lately). No outright sinkings, just things like the dreaded killed engines that I know will never repair, sometimes a 100% destroyed system that'd make me want to RTB.
Odd since the USN seemed to think that a DC inside 20ft (300lb charge) was a sure kill.
tater
What are people's feelings on DC effectiveness?
Odd since the USN seemed to think that a DC inside 20ft (300lb charge) was a sure kill.
tater
Tater, testing in 1940 showed a 300lb depth charge was not that effective. Prior to that I think their thoughts were exactly what you said.
from http://www.submarine-history.com/NOVAthree.htm
by Cpt Brayton Harris USN (ret)
1940
U. S. Navy ran depth-charge tests against an operational submarine (for most of the test, moored underwater without crew). They found that 300 pounds of TNT was not very
effective; the explosive charge was doubled to 600 pounds.
(later dropped to 400, when they added a lead weight for faster sinking)
I think it also depends on the location of the explosion. It's easier to buckle the hull because of the local stress when an ash can goes off close to center line and lower than the hull. I do know location is part of it, but how much, I'm not sure.
For example, some (not all, just a portion) of a depth charge exploding on line with the conning tower and 40 ft away will have some of the energy absorbed by the roll of the boat. That pesky mass, inertia, force, area thing. :-?
One under the hull pushes against the entire weight of the boat which causes more stress on the hull. (roling the boat is easier than pushing the boat up.) If negatively bouyant, it makes matters even worse
Have no idea how SH4 handles it, but if it doesn'ttake into account placement then an average value to make up for that would have to be found. Egad, would require even more testing. :doh:
Also, does SH4 take this into account and if not, is there anyway to duplicate this by having a pre mid 1943 crew and post mid 1943 crew that uses the DC's differently?
In 1943 Representative Andrew May revealed in an interview with the media that Japanese antisubmarine forces were not setting their depth charges deep enough, and casualties increased afterward.
(RADM Julian T. Burke, Jr)
Those of you who've read the WWII sub accounts more recently than me, probably know the depth better. Seems to me it was 150-200 ft.
Also, considereing the japanese record prior to 1943, it should be easier than people would think to survive a depth charge attack until late 1943.
You and the other "old salts" here probably have this link already Tater, but for those who haven't read this, here's a link on the IJN ASW effectiveness and depth charge types.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMJAP_ASW.htm
That navweaps data is the basis of the mod I just did. The AI doesn't seem to handle DCs right in terms of depth, that's why I was interested in overriding the AI and forcing DCs to go off between 30 and 60m. My idea was det depth at 45m, with a 15m error. AI overrides it though.
As for damage, I guess it depends. I just tested a DC that does 1000 damage with a min radius of 5.5, and a max of 16m. A detonation maybe 1m from the side of the forward hull didn't sink the boat. For reference, the stock SH4 DC does a max of 230 damage points. This was 4 times the force.
I want to find out how big a boom you need for a 100% kill at some very short range detonation, then use that as a base to adjust. Using the stock sh4 DC as a base doesn't work.
tater
That navweaps data is the basis of the mod I just did. The AI doesn't seem to handle DCs right in terms of depth, that's why I was interested in overriding the AI and forcing DCs to go off between 30 and 60m. My idea was det depth at 45m, with a 15m error. AI overrides it though.
As for damage, I guess it depends. I just tested a DC that does 1000 damage with a min radius of 5.5, and a max of 16m. A detonation maybe 1m from the side of the forward hull didn't sink the boat. For reference, the stock SH4 DC does a max of 230 damage points. This was 4 times the force.
I want to find out how big a boom you need for a 100% kill at some very short range detonation, then use that as a base to adjust. Using the stock sh4 DC as a base doesn't work.
tater
Good grief, no wonder you're having to struggle so much with this. :o
Since you are the DC guru, is it possible to have a damage table for the DC that varies with depth?
Also, is there a possibility that the game engine diminishes the effect when inside the min radius, thus hosing your tests? (just throwing random thoughts out- probably not much use)
My understanding, from previous discussions about sub damage, is that the min radius is the point at which 100% damage is applied, and to hitpoints as well. The damage value drops between 100% and 0 from min rand to max range.
Perhaps inside that radius ONLY hitpoints are damaged, in which case you'd want the min dropped very small, and the damage values upped a lot.
I'm not a guru, I'm just beating my head against a wall. The SH3 guys likely already totally understand this, lol.
Depth is not an issue. Sadly, the DC files allow you to set the DC detonation depth. So combined with the precision, I could make them all blow between 30 and 60m, then later between 30 and 90m, then far deeper with the later war type 2. But the AI overrides the det depth setting.
tater
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.