Improved table of the U-Boot-Aces?

[Pittiplatsch]

Hi to the team of GWX,

I have an improvement suggestion:
http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/9787/gwxassehk5.jpg

Is there any chance that the player is not separated from the other Kaleuns?
Is it possible that the player appears in between the other Aces acording to his tonnage?
If I remember well in SH2 the player was among the others acording to his tonnage.

btw: to change the color of the tonnage-numbers would be also nice: yellow numbers on white paper is hard to read.

If I'm among the other Kaleuns then there is a bigger stimulation to jump higher in the ranking!

What do you think about this improvement suggestion?
Greetz

[JCWolf]

As for the color I can have a look on that since,
I'm changimg the screen you mention I can try changing the orange
pen writing!:yep:

[joegrundman]

I was also thinking about this. I know these scores are historical, but for a variety of reasons a competent player even on 100% realism and GWX will rapidly climb to the top of the table and sustain a tonnage of at least double or triple the next best on the list.

I was thinking that maybe the historical scores should be modified to represent a sort of target for a player kaleun. Like, for example, double, triple or even quadruple their tonnage scores to give you something to struggle for...

Whadayathaink?

[Morts]

I was also thinking about this. I know these scores are historical, but for a variety of reasons a competent player even on 100% realism and GWX will rapidly climb to the top of the table and sustain a tonnage of at least double or triple the next best on the list.

I was thinking that maybe the historical scores should be modified to represent a sort of target for a player kaleun. Like, for example, double, triple or even quadruple their tonnage scores to give you something to struggle for...

Whadayathaink?
id rather go with realism

[Kaleu. Jochen Mohr]

I was also thinking about this. I know these scores are historical, but for a variety of reasons a competent player even on 100% realism and GWX will rapidly climb to the top of the table and sustain a tonnage of at least double or triple the next best on the list.

I was thinking that maybe the historical scores should be modified to represent a sort of target for a player kaleun. Like, for example, double, triple or even quadruple their tonnage scores to give you something to struggle for...

Whadayathaink?

i second this :up:

[Woof1701]

Don't forget that i.e. Kretschmer sank more 270.000 tons in only 19 months. In addition the first 10 months of the war he was on patrol with a Typ IIB and only had the Typ VII for 8 months. In those 8 (!) months between April 1940 and March 1941 he made eight patrols and sank 244.658 tons before he was captured and spent the rest of the war in a POW camp.
Since he was the best it is the most extreme example. But most other successful commanders were out for 10 or less patrols before either being sunk, captured or transferred to an administrative post.
So I guess every player that survives the entire war and does 20, 30 or more patrols is entitled to have more tonnage than the best :)

[joegrundman]

Yes Woof1, somehow you make my point for me. Kretschmer was the very best, a submarine genius, and I am most certainly not. But I will routinely have got 244000 after just 4 patrols. This is not because I am better, it is because for a variety of reasons it is much easier to rack up big scores in the game than it was in real life.

By comparing your score with the ace's historical scores you are not comparing like with like.

So if you multiply the Ace's scores by, say, three, then you are in someway moderating their scores to be what an in-game ace would achieve.

Anyway, it's just an idea.

[Jimbuna]

I was also thinking about this. I know these scores are historical, but for a variety of reasons a competent player even on 100% realism and GWX will rapidly climb to the top of the table and sustain a tonnage of at least double or triple the next best on the list.

I was thinking that maybe the historical scores should be modified to represent a sort of target for a player kaleun. Like, for example, double, triple or even quadruple their tonnage scores to give you something to struggle for...

Whadayathaink?

Realism every time :arrgh!:

[Woof1701]

Yes Woof1, somehow you make my point for me. Kretschmer was the very best, a submarine genius, and I am most certainly not. But I will routinely have got 244000 after just 4 patrols. This is not because I am better, it is because for a variety of reasons it is much easier to rack up big scores in the game than it was in real life.

By comparing your score with the ace's historical scores you are not comparing like with like.

So if you multiply the Ace's scores by, say, three, then you are in someway moderating their scores to be what an in-game ace would achieve.

Anyway, it's just an idea.

Ok then you're a far better commander than me since I normally don't bring home patrols with 61.000 tons :) I guess there may still be too many large freighters around. Kretschmer's average freighter had 5800 tons. I normally try not sink anything smaller than 10.000 tons :)

[PeKe]

Well, Kretschmer was indeed a sucessfull commander, and who knows where he would have ended up, if he didnt meet with the dd-guys on that last patroll in march-41...?
Well, the answer is, that he would most likely have been transfer to BDU, OKM or become flottilencommander within a short time anyway. So, most likely, he would not sent all that much more ship do davy jones. :D

...but then, take a look at this guy:
Kptlt. Lothar von Arnauld de la Perière (http://www.uboat.net/wwi/men/index.html?officer=10) , the most sucessfull of them all...from good ol' wwI Something like 194 ships !?! More than 450 000 ton!
(Sourse www.uboat.net (http://www.uboat.net))

...and myself, I pass them both when playing, but with only 68 % realism, :oops: , what can I say....

[Hitman]

Don't forget that i.e. Kretschmer sank more 270.000 tons in only 19 months. In addition the first 10 months of the war he was on patrol with a Typ IIB and only had the Typ VII for 8 months. In those 8 (!) months between April 1940 and March 1941 he made eight patrols and sank 244.658 tons before he was captured and spent the rest of the war in a POW camp.
Since he was the best it is the most extreme example. But most other successful commanders were out for 10 or less patrols before either being sunk, captured or transferred to an administrative post.
So I guess every player that survives the entire war and does 20, 30 or more patrols is entitled to have more tonnage than the best :)


Very very well said :yep: A good point you have there :up:

Kretschmer was the very best, a submarine genius, and I am most certainly not.

Well Kretschmer was for sure good, however it is difficult to say if he was the best. After all, his sub was sunk by a 1941 DD (Same as Prien and Schepcke), not by a much improved-sensors-and-arms late war one, while f.e. Topp survived in 1943 :hmm: True Kretschmers sub was sunk while the IWO was in charge of it and Kretschmer sleeping, but anyway any comparsion can therefore only be speculation :doh: Nevertheless I confess he is still my preferred skipper :up: but I try to be fair in any case :yep:


it is because for a variety of reasons it is much easier to rack up big scores in the game than it was in real life.


He he....Oesten said the opposite when he was interviewed by the SH3 Dev Team after playing the game :lol: he found the game harder than real life. And he hadn't tried GWX :rotfl: