Tmaru and the "Bathtub"

[Ducimus]

Thinking of putting it back, for two reasons:

1.) This post:
New conning towers are only assigned during a refit. How do you get a refit? You roll one from time to time when returning to base.

So even if you're past the date of the conning tower update, your boat needs to get a refit to receive it.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=594164&postcount=6

So accordingto Dan, its not broke. I did acutally see a refit ONCE, when the game first came out, lost the bathtub and wondered why.



2.) Tower design is historically correct.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0820801.jpg
Grayback (SS-208), port side view,Electric Boat Co., Groton, CT., 31 January 1941.

And if THIS picture doesnt prove it, nothing will:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0821238.jpg
Crew of the Gato (SS-212) posing for a shot in the Northern Pacific, circa 1942.

Personally, i'd like to put it back, but i'll go with the concensus on this one.

[tater]

Doesn't bother me, I don't fight airplanes.

Be nice if I could get the crew to use the guns on sampans and other small craft, though. Particularly if they fought back and it hurt the deck crew...

tater

[Fearless]

Doesn't bother me either. Was never a good shot anyway :lol:

[CaptainHaplo]

I have to vote no on this one. If they had made the patch fix the bathtub problem (the camera problem really) then I would say leave it historical. But - going back to the historical tower means that those who WANT to play using AA guns CAN'T - and haven't we all said that CHOICE balancing realism is what we desire?

Ducimus, if you go decide to go back to the old tower, then at least make it an OPTION instead of one way or the other. I don't fight planes myself, but I created a tower mod myself because people wanted the option of having a chance to use the AA gun.

Lets not also forget, you may one day be damaged heavily and stuck on the surface with planes incoming and an unusable AA gun..... Shouldn't YOU have the choice too?

[ReallyDedPoet]

Doesn't bother me, I don't fight airplanes.



This, at least I don't take em' on very much :o


RDP

[Col1409]

I'd have to say yes put it back on, particularly as I seem only to get this problem with twin machine guns not with the singles and I also just dive away when I get a aircraft contact. Mind you it would be nice for people to have the option whether they want it or not if at all possible.

[alunatic]

I say take it off, even though it is realistic with it on but I just get so sick of getting bombed and sunk by 2 Betty's because the stupid bathtub gets in the way.

[WilhelmSchulz.]

I voted yes because it is historcorly corect but I dont agrie with Dan's way of refits.

[NefariousKoel]

The problem with having a "chance" on returning to base could still mean you'll have a bathtub forever. :down:

I wouldn't mind seeing it very early in the war but I have doubts that they are removed when they should be.

[Fearless]

The problem with having a "chance" on returning to base could still mean you'll have a bathtub forever. :down:

I wouldn't mind seeing it very early in the war but I have doubts that they are removed when they should be.

Yes, that's what I did like in SH3, the option to change the sails when they came available.

[chopped50ford]

if its historically correct, sure.

Any picts of the "bathtub"?

[PepsiCan]

But only under the condition that the camera issue gets fixed with a patch. I don't see why it should be either historically accurate OR the ability to fire at all angles. I think it should be historically accurate AND the ability to fire at all angles.

p.s.: and why am I a medic now?

EDIT: Ah, I changed to something else...interesting!

[Archie]

hmmm, gameplay vs. historical realism .... I tend to agree with the naysayers on this one, option for no bathtub for me thanks!

[CaptainCox]

Voted for the Historically correct one. Down the road we could maybe do a tweak for the "position of that gun" to lift it a bit maybe to avoid the blocked view.

[FooFighters]

But only under the condition that the camera issue gets fixed with a patch. I don't see why it should be either historically accurate OR the ability to fire at all angles. I think it should be historically accurate AND the ability to fire at all angles.

p.s.: and why am I a medic now?

I 100% agree.. if the camera is fixed.
Keep it historic.

p.s. wait till you get " the one night in Bangkok avatar" :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Sailor Steve]

I don't care either, partly because I too don't fight planes, but also because even if I did, I'd let the gunners do the gunning.

[Ducimus]

if its historically correct, sure.

Any picts of the "bathtub"?

Someone didn't read the original post :roll:


I don't care either, partly because I too don't fight planes, but also because even if I did, I'd let the gunners do the gunning.

Thats my thoughts. Only reason i really use the AA gun is to shoot sanpans, which isnt very often :88)


The problem with having a "chance" on returning to base could still mean you'll have a bathtub forever. :down:

I wouldn't mind seeing it very early in the war but I have doubts that they are removed when they should be.

Well by that logic, we should equip all boats with the late war towers and paintjobs from dec41 onward.

----------

Just FYI, i found a pretty intresting link. I was always wondering if the default settings in paintjobs and towers were historically correct or not.

Now from all observations its a pretty safe assumption that the "latewar" tower was accompanied by the grey painjob. And the midwar tower and bathtub that preceeded it was a black paintjob.

THose paintjobs, ive found by looking in the UPC files, and then googleing it, are:

MS 9 = black
MS 32/9SS-B = that aquamarine/grey paint job.


Get a load of this site:
http://www.shipcamouflage.com/submarines.htm


Now all said, Who here knew that the option to put the bathtub back in Tmaru always existed in the Optional mods directory?! Does anyone acutally check there? Let alone read the readme files? I'll bet 10 to 1 that when i put bathtub removal there instead (IE just change the default installation), ill have people screaming at me about the bathtubs being back with absolutely no clue of what is in the support directory, nor the contents of the readme/faq.

[aanker]

I voted yes for historical accuracy. I have had 2 refits on my most recent boat (Gato class). However if they decide to do another there will be nothing remaining topside. Things are pretty bare right now... lol

[Warden]

I absolutely hate the bathtub, if the camera could be fixed so that it was actually possible to use the AA gun I wouldn't be saying this, but for the love of god don't saddle me with the bathtub of obscured vision again.

[CaptainHaplo]

Ducimus - as for the optional mods directory - I have to admit no I didnt know that you had the choice already IN TM - although I am using 1.3 I suspect its there and I missed it. So Guilty as Charged! Hey, I am one that thinks that if your happy enough to release it - its probably best that I try it out like you released it and then fiddle with it from there - and so far TM hasn't made me do much fiddling.

[Frederf]

My initial reactions to the bathtub issue are:

1. Confusion. What is a bathtub? Is it some kind of conning tower? What's wrong with it? Player preference, historical accuracy, bug in the game with it?

2. Adherance to History. If a Feb 1942 porpoise class boat had a bathtub then I want a bathtub dernit! If the AA gun couldn't fire a certain way in history I don't want to be able to fire it that way in the game neither.

3. Acceptance as a bug workaround. If the game's "bathtubs" are truely bugged and prevent normal gameplay then a workaround is unfortunately better than having a bug.

4. Tendency to let the crew do their job. If this "bug" or whatnot only prevents human AA gunners from firing a certain way then my personal preference is to let the AI crew do it; that way it preserves historical accuracy, keeps the kalun doing the kalun's job, avoids the bug.

[CaptainHaplo]

Frederf - the issue with the bathtub is that SH4 has a bug in it that makes the AA gun "inside" useless for the player to attempt to control. If you slew to shoot down an airplane, the camera places you outside the bathtub, meaning instead of seeing the sky and your target, your looking at rivetted metal. This makes USING the gun no longer feasible. Historically, the subs DID have the bathtub at the beginning of the war, but the gunner could historically use the bugger too. Due to the bug, a player cant. So the question is - playability. If we could be historical and use the bugger, there wouldnt be a question.

[Fearless]

Frederf - the issue with the bathtub is that SH4 has a bug in it that makes the AA gun "inside" useless for the player to attempt to control. If you slew to shoot down an airplane, the camera places you outside the bathtub, meaning instead of seeing the sky and your target, your looking at rivetted metal. This makes USING the gun no longer feasible. Historically, the subs DID have the bathtub at the beginning of the war, but the gunner could historically use the bugger too. Due to the bug, a player cant. So the question is - playability. If we could be historical and use the bugger, there wouldnt be a question.

I have to disagree that it is a bug. The 'bathtub' was never designed to have permanent mounted flak guns. It was designed for fairweather protections in mind. In later years, the design changed by creating platforms so that flak guns could be mounted. Hence in the bathtub design, portable machine guns were brought topside and mounted on various locations on the brim of the tower.

[Skyhawk]

Ducimus,

First, I will continue to use TM regardless of your decision as it will still be the best compilation mod in existence for SH4 IMHO. :up: For the record, I applaud your willingness to make compromises on realism for the sake of gameplay. It is a necessary evil sometimes, there is no doubt about it. That being said . . .

I voted yes for the sake of historical accuracy. I'll just let my gun specialists do the shooting, that's what they are getting paid for anyway. :yep:

Lastly, my sincere thanks for your part in helping make Silent Hunter IV what it is today with your efforts thus far. :rock:

Regards

[Rockin Robbins]

Ducimus:

The answer lies in your guiding philosophy: optimize Trigger Maru for gameplay excellence, not historical accuracy. From that philosophy, best exemplified in the unhistorical Japanese ASW AI (remember my first post complaining about it? Now it is my favorite part of TM!), your solution is apparent. The bathtub interferes with gameplay quality so it must be pruned. As you so testily testified, the option is in the optional files to restore the cursed thing if a player should be offended by a game that plays well.:doh:

You're bowing to pressure instead of letting your love for the game guide you. You no longer feel the force. Your enjoyment of the entire game is at risk. I issue this gentle suggestion:

Release the @#$@ thing, warts and all. Do not respond to criticism. Do not support the final product. GO PLAY!!! HAVE FUN!!!

Losing you as a modder is regretable. Losing you as a player and valued SUBSIM member is unacceptable. It isn't as if you did all that work for money. You deserve to enjoy the product of your labor. And that, sir, is an order. We thank you for your exemplary efforts. Dismissed!

[Ducimus]

First let me state that the bathtub removal still exists as an optional mod.

Having said that, my motivation which ive neglected to say, for putting it back in, is ironically gameplay reasons.. or rather, long term gameplay reasons.


In short, how exciting is it when you have nothing to look forward to, in terms of upgrading your sub? In short I want to see my boat change, and adapt, as the war progresses. When you come flying out of the gate with all the neat stuff, theres nothing to really look forward too.

[tater]

Regarding a-historical ASW for the IJN (a little OT, but wtf ;) ): I think that that historical results can come from odd places.

A game like SH4 has many limitations, and as such simulating a historical environment and achieving historical outcomes is difficult. That said, I think it can come from odd directions.

You can look at overall US sub losses, and what technical information we have about IJN ASW and come to the conclusion that skill and detection levels for IJN ASW assets must be set very low. The problem with this is that the player is NOT the typical ww2 sub skipper. In terms of aggressiveness, the most timid among us would probably rate among the most "aggressive" as labeled in patrol endorsements. Limitations in the game make certain behaviors safer than RL, and without any fear of death, thge outcomes are a-historical.

Upping the AI, even to the extent that it might be unrealistically good can actually result in more accurate gameplay in many ways, IMO. Once you learn the hard way a few times, you find yourself being more careful about set ups. As a result, you are more likely to miss opportunities, and more likely to act like a real skipper---concerned about his own life and the lives of his men.

Reading real patrol reports, you see that subs were frequently held down for long periods. With anything like stock AI, you needn't worry about that.

So for all the talk about TM being about gameplay VS historical accuracy, I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive, I think they interact in complex ways. To the extent that TM changes player behavior, it also makes the game more realistic. Many of the changes to make it more challenging also function to make it more realistic.

I'm certainly not in a position to say what flavor of SH4 is more historically accurate, but I will say it's a very complex issue, and a mod like TM can end up producing very realistic outcomes, even if it looks like it shouldn't concentrating on the parts. From my own perspective, I think that the stock traffic plays a huge role in a-historical outcomes, both from a tonnage sunk standpoint, and from an ASW capability standpoint.

tater

[Ducimus]

I think im gonna kick this thing out the door, as is, im sick of looking at it, and im starting to second guess myself.

edit:

I just wanted to say... RR is right, my Modfu has grown weak. I just wanted to say that, "Your Modfu is weak" . How easily i am amused, lol.

[Rockin Robbins]

Regarding a-historical ASW for the IJN (a little OT, but wtf ;) ): I think that that historical results can come from odd places....

Upping the AI, even to the extent that it might be unrealistically good can actually result in more accurate gameplay in many ways, IMO. Once you learn the hard way a few times, you find yourself being more careful about set ups. As a result, you are more likely to miss opportunities, and more likely to act like a real skipper---concerned about his own life and the lives of his men....

So for all the talk about TM being about gameplay VS historical accuracy, I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive, I think they interact in complex ways. To the extent that TM changes player behavior, it also makes the game more realistic. Many of the changes to make it more challenging also function to make it more realistic.

I'm certainly not in a position to say what flavor of SH4 is more historically accurate, but I will say it's a very complex issue, and a mod like TM can end up producing very realistic outcomes, even if it looks like it shouldn't concentrating on the parts.
Words that deserve attention and thought. Just as Beery used combat results, normal time needed to sink a ship, to determine his deck gun rate of fire, to the outrage of some, who said his ROF was clearly wrong, this is another instance of achieving realistic behavior by unrealistic motivation.

My first post to this thread after loading up TM after unloading RFB was outrage (OK, surprise and a request for a fix) that the destroyers were not behaving like nice Japanese destroyers behaved in real life. However reading all the posts about players whose standard operating procedure is surfacing and duking it out with destroyers with their deck gun reveals that "realistic" destroyer behavior was resulting in ludicrous player behavior.

However, I now believe the uber-destroyers are the finest aspect of TM. They have forced me to sharpen my tactics and think carefully about my plan of attack. I am acting more like a real sub skipper in the Pacific. I am enjoying the game much more because there is a real possibility of being killed, even if I am "safely" hanging out at 310 ft. I was killed there the day before yesterday and I believe I'm a pretty good defensive tactician. I know what I did wrong, lol:up:

I think if we think about tater's line of reasoning and compare outcomes rather than details of behavior we end up with a more meaningful simulation. And we have more fun too.

<Signature back from vacation sporting a nice tan>

[chopped50ford]

uh....what is a bathtub? Any PIctures???????!

[Ducimus]

uh....what is a bathtub? Any PIctures???????!

See original post.

edit:
Nevermind, Navsource wont even allow you to link to them apparently. Geez, hot linking pictures to display is one thing, but they wont even allow it in URL format.

[Fearless]

Perhaps this will help.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/tn/0821111.gif

and after conversion:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/tn/0821112.gif