destroyer depth charge #'s

[fgsr1969]

are destroyers limited historically to the number of depth charges they drop or not. and if so does anyone know the count of each class. playing 100% realism on trigger maru 1.6.5

[Torplexed]

Good question. I'd like the answer to that one too. :hmm: Probably depends on whether you're playing stock or mod.

[leovampire]

It set's better limit's to the number of depth charges the DD's and sub chasers have and the interval's between drop's.

here is the link.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=123307

[Peto]

I know in SH3 they were not historical. And I expect the same to be true for SH4. However--each Kgun or DC rack had a set number of charges assigned. When they were gone, the escort cold do little but loiter.

The way they drop charges in-game, I believe it would actually be bad if they were limited to historical counts. the reason I say this is because the computer doesn't keep count as well as a human did--taking into account factors of time-on-contact and how long it can pursue. I always try to keep in mind that (again) "historically" :shifty: escorts didn't dump them as fast as they do in the sim(s). A well executed dc attack might mean a escort taking up to an hour to set up for it's next run. While that might be interesting for some realism buffs (myself included) most paople would be frustrated and bored to tears by a realistic depth charge pursuit.

OK--so I ambled a bit :hmm:--considering early in the war, a standard dc loadout for a DD was about 36 dc's (correct me if I'm wrong please :up:) the "in-game" count is significantly higher.

Cheers!!!!

[Ducimus]

I honestly don't know how many DC's tin cans carry by default,but im pretty sure its way, and well beyond what was historically accurate. TM does not touch this. I left this alone for one reason, its my beleif that a destroyer should *ALWAYS* be capable of sinking you regardless if your submerged or surfaced.

In my mind, If he runs out of depth charges, he ceases to be a threat to be scared of, and becomes an annoyance. My main issue with using the historical amount stored in a DD, is that the AI will run out of DC's too fast, and make himself a non threat too quickly.

[captiandon]

Real Fleet boat has them set at the historical number. However Most DD's in my game waste half of them by dropping then slowing down enough that when one goes off it blows the rest off his fan tail. I have a screen shot of one doing just that.

[SteamWake]

Yes there is a finite limit as to how many cans a particular boat can carry.

That number is exactly "More than enough" :p

[Roger Dodger]

I honestly don't know how many DC's tin cans carry by default,but im pretty sure its way, and well beyond what was historically accurate. TM does not touch this. I left this alone for one reason, its my beleif that a destroyer should *ALWAYS* be capable of sinking you regardless if your submerged or surfaced.

In my mind, If he runs out of depth charges, he ceases to be a threat to be scared of, and becomes an annoyance. My main issue with using the historical amount stored in a DD, is that the AI will run out of DC's too fast, and make himself a non threat too quickly.

'Fraid I'll have to disagree with you on this one Ducimus. DDs, DEs, SubChasers and other ASW ships had definate limits on the number of DCs they could carry, and the number of passes they could make. Just as we are limited to 24 torpedoes (Gato + class), the Japs should be limited to their historic loadout too.

DCs should also be limited to their 'set' depth. The Japs were real good at setting their DCs shallow, and I really object to getting hit with a DC at 400' depth. I don't even think a DC could be set for that extreme depth. Their ASW techniques were'nt the best either as they would tend to drop their DCs where they thought the sub 'should' be if they didn't have a good contact.

However, if they had a good ping on you but were out of DCs, there's nothing in the book telling them they had to break contact. They could (and did) hang around and maintain contact until help arrived. The DD USS Buckley rammed and sank a U-Boat early in the war. I don't remember why the U-Boat was on the surface. The Japs have rammed me a couple of times, so they're still dangerous even when out of Depth Charges.

Refs: 'The Enemy Below' : U-Boat captain states how many DCs/passes that class of DD has according to his ID Book (SH4 game ID Book does not state armament)

'Silent Running' by James Calvert discusses Japanese ASW and habit of dropping their DCs where they thought the sub was, while he slunk away deep and silent.

'The Cain Mutiny' shows no room on the fantail for DCs on a MineSweeper amonst all the minesweeping gear. Were the Japs using MineSweepers as big SubChasers? I hate MineSweepers!

[Ducimus]

When modding something, I look at two things from a design standpoint.

1.) Historical accuracy
2.) Gameplay value, or how the item in question intergates intself into the game.

More often then not, a compromise between the two has to be reached. One can be "blinded" by what was historically accurate. This is always a point of contention with many people, and how far one compromises, is always a subject of debate.

An example is the AI. I have it set to be a bit harder then what it was historically. BUT, it does makes the player behave more realistically, when they otherwise did not. Unfortunatly DC's are intertwined with the AI, and a tin can without teeth, (IE, out of DC's), creates large gaping hole in paradigm of encouraging the player to behave more realisticaly.

That, and i honestly beleive, a tin can that is not a threat, is boring, and may as well be removed from play. I wouldn't be opposed to lowering the amount of DC's to their historical value if their "Rate of fire" could be lowered so the AI doesnt run out so fast.

[Peto]

Agreed. I would love to see a "prolonged attack" option where the escorts spread out and ran patterns to relocate a lost contact instead of dumping all their ordinance at the same spot I was 30 minutes ago. The issue is that this type of thing is hard-coded so not really accessible for modding. An instance of when the Arificial Intelligence isn't intelligent at all.

Not complaining. I still find the sim very satisfying. And most people would probably not enjoy evading escorts for 6 hours. Personally--that is one of my favorie aspects of the game--getting away.

[Roger Dodger]

By Ducimus: "That, and i honestly beleive, a tin can that is not a threat, is boring, and may as well be removed from play. I wouldn't be opposed to lowering the amount of DC's to their historical value if their "Rate of fire" could be lowered so the AI doesnt run out so fast."

A tin can is a threat as long as it maintains contact, whether charging in with DCs or just hanging around completly empty. I've been kept down long enough to give me serious concerns about the CO2 level. BTW, I was anything but bored. I found the experience quite exhausting. He wasn't dropping DCs, so I knew he was out, but I didn't find that a good enough excuse to pop to the surface and duke it out with my deck gun.

The AI seems to be set to drop 3 or 4 DCs when they have a good ping on me during a run, or just one at a time when they're 'just fishing'. Sometimes, he will go to silent running, all stop, and just sit and wait for me to make the wrong move.

Once, I had to resort to the German Kaptain's method: 'Turn the right way, and I'll give you a pretty present.' It worked, and good thing too - it was my last torpedo!

One thing I have learned: If you go to all stop/silent running even at 450', the Japs have an uncanny ability to locate you. Ya gotta keep moving (slow and quiet).

[rrmelend]

Personally I will have to go with Ducimus on this one. It would be cool to lower the # of DC’s the escorts have to the historical levels but only if you could slow down how often the drop them. For me it is boring having the destroyer up there following me for awhile without having a way to do anything to me. Unlike Rodger Dodger I’ve never been held under for a long amount of time, I think at most a couple hours. I also hate to waste torps on an escort, I’d much rather use them against the freighters and tankers I was sent out to get.

[SteamWake]

Agreed. I would love to see a "prolonged attack" option where the escorts spread out and ran patterns to relocate a lost contact instead of dumping all their ordinance at the same spot I was 30 minutes ago. .

Maybe Im imagining things but I see this quite often.

[fgsr1969]

a destroyer that has dropped all its dcs is still a threat as you still need to successfully evade him. why should one destroyer be able to crap on me for 4 hours call for reinforcements and then have 2 or 3 dds crappin on you with no limit to there dcs which has happened. these guys are excellent at detection and come damn close to pinpointing your depth no matter what it is. no matter how many course,depth and speed changes you make they will get you and if they are unlimited then whats the point might as well throw up the white flag as soon as the first one turns for your position. dont get me wrong i love the challenge but if im limited i think they should be to.

[Ducimus]

I think some folks are a little too scared of ashcan's ending their career game; and have become preoccupied with looking for a historical way to lessen that fear so they don't feel bad about nerfing the tin cans ability to blow their butts out of the water! :lol:

[Peto]

If the boat is a rockin'
Don't come a knockin'

I would rather run into escorted merchants than "loners". Surviving Depth Charges is the final test of subsim proficiency. And--in my own sick way--it's the part I look forward to more than huge tonnage.

:yep:

[Steeltrap]

10 or 10,000 wouldn't make a difference to me (were I still playing SHIV).

I've never suffered damage more extreme than to the deck/flak gun. I always played with TMaru, and I think the DDs in that were supposedly better than stock.

I just used the abilty to change depth silently like an express elevator to go from PD to below thermal layer. DD approaching at head of convoy? Drop below layer at 2-3kts and let them pass. Pop back to PD and murder convoy. Drop below to reload. Return to PD to shoot at convoy that has conveniently hung around to be targets...... *yawn*

That plus the already mentioned "blow our own stern off" DC method leaves the number of DCs an irrelevant factor for me.

[Peto]

Well--it isn't quite that easy anymore... ;)

I used to feel that way to and put SH4 aside for a couple months... Now they are good enough to be a challenge--not always--but I have to respect them.

I've been playing sub sims since C64 Gato. SH3 is still harder (late war) but these boys shouldn't be taken for granted anymore... Your tactic mentioned above used to work for me too. Boring. Do that now and chances are you'll be making the long dive.

[Ducimus]

That plus the already mentioned "blow our own stern off" DC method leaves the number of DCs an irrelevant factor for me.

Ill explain why that happends, because it illustrates just how much effect tweaking the DC's can have.

It starts with the AI. Stock AI, was/is relatively unresponsive. So the desire is to make detection a bit easier for them so they acutally do respond, and get more into the gameplay.

Accomplishing that, one has a problem - they become too good at their job. The reason is the depth charges become, seemingly pin point accurate. The reason for this is the depth charges themselves. Two settings in particular. The maximum radius of the explosion, inconjunction with the accuracy of the depth charge itself.

By default DC's have a maximum radius of 40 meters, and a accuracy of 5 meters. Meaning that whatever depth the AI sets the DC to explode, it will randomly explode plus or minus 5 meters of the intended depth.

So the first order of buisness is to reduce the max radius to a more manageble level. around 14-15 meters is usually what most modders use, or there abouts. However, the DC's themselves are still pretty accurate. So in order to make them less accurate, one must increase the accuracy stastic, thereby decreasing the overall accuracy of the depth charge itself. In Tmaru, ive been using a depth percision of 17 meters. Meaning, that if the destroyer sets the DC to explode at 120 meters (your depth in this example), the DC itself will explode randomly as shallow as 103 meters, or as deep as 137 meters. its enough to make you sweat, and he may get lucky and have it explode closer to its intended depth (120 meters in this example).

The problem, is the aforementioned blowing the stern off. If he sets the DC at 20 meters, it has a chance to explode 3 meters below the surface - and considering the DC has a max radius of 14 to 15 meters, KABOOM.


Now i could tigthen up the accuracy, the problem there being i make him too accurate again because i ramped up his detection abilities. While we want challenging AI, we don't want crazy good AI each and every time we encounter a warship.

I have thought of another way to remedy this. I could increase the sink rate of the DC. Meaning, it sinks to its intended depth slower. Assuming the player keeps moving around, this also would make him more innaccurate then stock. Doing this, i could, concieveably tighten up the depth accuracy so he no longer blows his stern off. However, again there is a by product with this appraoch. If the player goes deep, and keeps moving at a constant 2 kts, the DC's will, im willing to bet, consistantly, explode aft of the player. Go deep, keep moving at 2 kts (no need to turn or manuever), the AI will probably always miss. At that point you might as well kick up the TC and go afk. So either approach will have an unwanted side effect.

[jazman]

The game is a model of reality, and we can see it has its shortcomings. Looking at the narrow focus of "how many DCs does a can carry" would, if talking about realism, necessitate putting in the exact number they really did carry.

If you broaden your view to "what is a realistic interaction between escorts and subs", you might tweak the number (and characteristics) of DCs to yield a nicer broad realism, even though at the detail level realism you have played fast and loose.

When you have to do that, you know the model you're working with is incomplete / broken in these areas. Well, it happens that every model of reality is incomplete somehow. I can understand people wanting realism at every level--that's what I want. But we are stuck, mainly due to software development constraints. I think it comes down to preference deciding at what level you're willing to give up the pure realism.