Quest for Realism

[Berinhardt]

I really appreciate the attention to detail and historical accuracy of SH4, but while researching some of the subs I was surprised to find how much different the actual mission results really are.

For example, on any one of the campaigns, I leave Pearl Harbor, refuel a bit at Midway and head into the Pacifc Theater - typically either for my patrol area or a known Japanese shipping lane. Sinking 8-10 ships in a few days/weeks before my fuel runs low or I run out of fish doesn't seem to be a problem.

However, when I look at historical mission records on http://fleetsubmarine.com such as the Threshers http://fleetsubmarine.com/ss-200.html or Tambors http://fleetsubmarine.com/ss-198.html I see 40-50 day missions with no kills. A great mission seems to be +50 days with 4 - 6 kills. This seems really odd to me, I expected it to be a bit higher. (Taking nothing away from the real crews and captains - they have all my respect)


So, what makes the game so different from the historical battle?

Is it:

Target density - does the game model or spawn +400-500% more shipping than the historical record?
Unrealistic sensors - Am I just detecting more ships visually and via sonar and radar than is realistic?
Unrealistic weapons - are the game torpedoes or ship damage modeling significantly different or just plain unrealistic. It doesn't seems so, especially after the 1.4 patch thickened the hulls on surface ships.
Other ???Is there a mod that remediates issues #1 (if it is the contributing factor)

Any thoughts?

[Schlippittz]

I'm certainly no expert, but it seems like weapon reliability might have played a huge part in that. I was just reading the patrol history of the USS Tuna the other day, and it seemed to be filled with reports of firing fish only to have them run too deep or fail to detonate. I know how frustrating duds are in a computer simulation, I can only imagine how angry these crews must have gotten after hours (and sometimes days) of trying to set up a shot, only to have your main offensive weapon repeatedly fail on you.

[Linavitch]

Is there a mod that remediates issues #1 (if it is the contributing factor)


Nail, On, The, Hit, Head.

Check the mods forum for more info on more realistic traffic spawning.

[Powerthighs]

Yes, its primarily that the target density in the stock game is way too high. Check out the Run Silent Run Deep mod (RSRD) stickied in the mods section of the forum.

A couple of other things: the deck gun is very overpowered in stock, and the torpedoes aren't nearly as unreliable than they were in the first half of the war. Various mods adjust this to various degrees. The actual torpedo failure rates were so high that you may not want to play at absolute realism; it might drive you crazy.

[Sailor Steve]

Yes and no. Subsims (and flight sims, for that matter) have always given the player a huge advantage in both encounter rate and difficulty.

1. Try the Run Silent, Run Deep campaign. Targets are reduced by a huge amount, and most players are in love with it.

2. Try Real Fleet Boat or Trigger Maru. Sensors in both are much more realistic, and you will find the going a little rougher.

3. Pretty unrealistic. Again, either of the two mods mentioned above will add greatly to your misery - many more torpedo failures, torpedoes running deep, the ocassional super destroyer who you will come to hate. Basically, you can experience all the frustration and boredom of the real thing.

4. Try manual targetting. There are mods which let you use an actual model of the whiz-wheels to figure out the attack solutions.

All-in-all SH4 (and SH3) are becoming more and more the sims they were meant to be. Of course people can still play them as "just a game" if they like it that way.

[Linavitch]

Of course people can still play them as "just a game" if they like it that way.

Surely you jest Sir?

[AVGWarhawk]

If you want a taste of how it was (given what the game can do) load up RFB or TM like Sailor Steve suggested. Then get RSRD for historical traffic. You will spend days without a sighting and you will have a bilge full of bad torpedoes. Normally I bag around 2-3 ships per patrol. A normal patrol for me lasts 30-45 days depending on how good the fishing is;)

[Puster Bill]

4. Try manual targetting. There are mods which let you use an actual model of the whiz-wheels to figure out the attack solutions.


If you are going to do that, might I suggest you actually make the wheels.

You can get the files at http://www.hnsa.org/doc/attackfinder/index.htm

Here is a mini-version I made of the Omnimeter side using cardstock and inkjet transparency:

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/5346/picture055fa7.jpg

As for some patrols going out and not getting anything, I'm about halfway through "Silent Victory" by Clay Blair, and it seems quite a number of captains were relieved in the first part of the war because they were too cautious and didn't take opportunities to attack, or they attacked using a sonar only approach which pretty much guarantees a miss, even with good torps.

[Torplexed]

For example, on any one of the campaigns, I leave Pearl Harbor, refuel a bit at Midway and head into the Pacifc Theater - typically either for my patrol area or a known Japanese shipping lane.

There's part of the problem too. With historical hindsight and a convoy route map you known where the shipping lanes are. It took months of the real war to suss that out. The straits between Luzon and Formosa should have struck all back at Pearl as an obvious bottleneck but according to Clair Blair in Silent Victory it often went unpatrolled. ;)

[Berinhardt]

Thank you all for the great responses!

I will load RSRD on my next campaign. I've only had SH4 for a few weeks now, and need a bit more time to work on manual targeting and get my "sea legs" ;-) I'm looking forward to the additional challenge!

[John Channing]

For example, on any one of the campaigns, I leave Pearl Harbor, refuel a bit at Midway and head into the Pacifc Theater - typically either for my patrol area or a known Japanese shipping lane.

There's part of the problem too. With historical hindsight and a convoy route map you known where the shipping lanes are. It took months of the real war to suss that out. The straits between Luzon and Formosa should have struck all back at Pearl as an obvious bottleneck but according to Clair Blair in Silent Victory it often went unpatrolled. ;)

Another reason is that the player is not bound by actual Pre-WW2 doctrine. The game as written sends you to where merchant traffic abounds (even with the mods) but in real life many many patrols were wasted chasing down men-of-war or patroling where the Brass thought warships were hiding.

It wasn't until later on in the war that the notion of a blockade of the home islands took hold and the idea of the submarine as a weapon against warships was discarded.

JCC

[DavyJonesFootlocker]

I concur using RSRDC greatly reduces the chances of running into the enemy. In fact I was lucky to get 2 ships during a 35-day patrol.

[Sailor Steve]

I concur using RSRDC greatly reduces the chances of running into the enemy. In fact I was lucky to get 2 ships during a 35-day patrol.
Be more aggressive.

[tomoose]

I spent three looooong patrols and apart from evading some enemy warships came up empty each time. I experienced the frustration similar to the real life skippers (which I'm sure is the intention of TM + RSRD). On the next patrol near the Sea of Ohkotsk I racked up a whopping 4 merchants and was extremely satisfied with that.

If you want more of a simulation then the mods as suggested above are highly recommended. If you want more of a game, less of a challenge then stay with stock 1.4.
:up:

[Powerthighs]

By the way, take some time with stock SH4 and get used to manual targeting before you apply the suggestions above. The higher traffic is a nice way to get the training you need to make the shots when it counts later.

[jdkbph]

There's another really interesting discussion here (or at least I find it so) that hasn't yet been touched upon, but is directly related to your question.

No fear.

We've been talking about this issue as it relates to "simulations" for years. It applies not only to sub sims, but to combat sims of any type, as well as wargaming in general.

The problem is that there is no penalty - other than the time it takes to reload a save - for being overly aggressive and making that last big mistake. Even the extreme approach of never reloading a save, but forcing yourself to start a new career if you "die", doesn't come close to approximating what it must feel like to put yourself, and perhaps the lives of others under your command, in harms way.

If it were for real, would you really press the attack to get that one last torpedo shot with those DDs bearing down on you? In the game, I'm sure most of us do it all the time... and get away with it 99% of the the time.

Which brings me to a second point. Foreknowledge... knowledge that you have, based on technical or historical information, that was not available to the people who were actually there. For instance, platform capabilities and limitations (eg, weapons and sensors), force dispositions, orders of battle, etc. There's also the matter of tactics, strategy, doctrine... knowing what works and what doesn't, knowing how the enemy will respond in a given situation (because of training, C3I issues, etc.).

Patterns (eg, Japanese actions and responses stemming from their overestimation of the influence of the US Isolationist movement prior to WWII) and truths (eg, the superiority of airpower vs capital ships) that are evident from a distance in time, may not have been evident at the time.

Hindsight presents a huge advantage to us, given that the people who were there as "the book" was being written - however prescient they may seem now - were just keeping their fingers crossed and acting with what they hoped were appropriate measures of caution, courage and audacity.

Then finally there's the experience you gain from playing the game. Understanding how those technical capabilities and other elements discussed above are quantified in the game and knowing how the AI will respond in a given situation, are advantages that, I think, requires no further explanation.

The only way I have found to overcome these limitations of gaming is to exercise self discipline... learn as much as you can (or need to) about the history and then mentally place yourself in the historical context and act accordingly.

Yes, it's entirely possible to do this... and, IMHO, if you get good at it, it adds a lot to the gaming experience. For me, it's a big part of the suspension of disbelief phenomenon.

JD

[AVGWarhawk]

By the way, take some time with stock SH4 and get used to manual targeting before you apply the suggestions above. The higher traffic is a nice way to get the training you need to make the shots when it counts later.

I agree here! After a while of this you will want a bit more of challenge in actually hunting the vessels getting a good feel for how it was in the PTO for the subs.

[capt_frank]

There's another really interesting discussion here (or at least I find it so) that hasn't yet been touched upon, but is directly related to your question.

No fear.

We've been talking about this issue as it relates to "simulations" for years. It applies not only to sub sims, but to combat sims of any type, as well as wargaming in general.

The problem is that there is no penalty - other than the time it takes to reload a save - for being overly aggressive and making that last big mistake. Even the extreme approach of never reloading a save, but forcing yourself to start a new career if you "die", doesn't come close to approximating what it must feel like to put yourself, and perhaps the lives of others under your command, in harms way.

If it were for real, would you really press the attack to get that one last torpedo shot with those DDs bearing down on you? In the game, I'm sure most of us do it all the time... and get away with it 99% of the the time.

Which brings me to a second point. Foreknowledge... knowledge that you have, based on technical or historical information, that was not available to the people who were actually there. For instance, platform capabilities and limitations (eg, weapons and sensors), force dispositions, orders of battle, etc. There's also the matter of tactics, strategy, doctrine... knowing what works and what doesn't, knowing how the enemy will respond in a given situation (because of training, C3I issues, etc.).

Patterns (eg, Japanese actions and responses stemming from their overestimation of the influence of the US Isolationist movement prior to WWII) and truths (eg, the superiority of airpower vs capital ships) that are evident from a distance in time, may not have been evident at the time.

Hindsight presents a huge advantage to us, given that the people who were there as "the book" was being written - however prescient they may seem now - were just keeping their fingers crossed and acting with what they hoped were appropriate measures of caution, courage and audacity.

Then finally there's the experience you gain from playing the game. Understanding how those technical capabilities and other elements discussed above are quantified in the game and knowing how the AI will respond in a given situation, are advantages that, I think, requires no further explanation.

The only way I have found to overcome these limitations of gaming is to exercise self discipline... learn as much as you can (or need to) about the history and then mentally place yourself in the historical context and act accordingly.

Yes, it's entirely possible to do this... and, IMHO, if you get good at it, it adds a lot to the gaming experience. For me, it's a big part of the suspension of disbelief phenomenon.

JD

Very well said :up:

[Berinhardt]

[quote=jdkbph]
The problem is that there is no penalty - other than the time it takes to reload a save - for being overly aggressive and making that last big mistake. If it were for real, would you really press the attack to get that one last torpedo shot with those DDs bearing down on you?
JD

Oh, I got that covered. Every time the DD's start dropping tin cans on me, I throw a few M-80's under my desk and knock over the fish tank.
:arrgh!:

[Powerthighs]

Implement a policy where when you die in the game, you have to smash your car with a baseball bat. That wlil reinstill consquences and provide an element of fear.

[-Pv-]

A lot of valid reasons here your encounter/kill density is not historical. Because the game is well constructed and has semi-random elements, not everyone's experiences are the same, even playing un-modded game. I've seen as many posts of people wandering around complaining they saw no targets as those who claim they saw too many.

Another thing going on is you have the benfit of history. You know where to search for the enemy and historically, they largely did not. They had to search for them, and then when found, resources had to be brought in slowly from great distances to find nothing.

Thirdly, it's a game. The prime entertainment of the game is to find targets in thousands of square miles with no satellite coverage and no GPS and actually sink something. Using the benfit of hitory, you can raise your contact stats way above historical. Those who play the game knowing almost nothing about WWII (which is about 99.% of our current generation) complain here bitterly about the lack of contacts until they start downloading and using historical maps. They also learn to use the map contacts as clues.

You can also massage your stats to historical by patrolling the Marshalls the entire war. That should do the trick.

-Pv-

[Berinhardt]

Another thing going on is you have the benfit of history. You know where to search for the enemy and historically, they largely did not. They had to search for them, and then when found, resources had to be brought in slowly from great distances to find nothing.
-Pv-

Well. that's an interesting point, I believe the early Naval doctrine (1942) was to use the subs as scouts, figuring out what the Japanese fleet were up to and sinking targets of oppourtunity. In very short order, it became clear what the Japanese objectives were (oil) and once they established bases in the south it isn't very difficult to figure out what the sea lanes are - they have to supply those bases, and you know where the ports are on both ends.


Thirdly, it's a game.
-Pv-

Yep, I get that. But it is also a historical sim, and I think many people expect a fairly realistic experience from a historical sim. I appreciate all the attention to detail the developers already put in the game. From a product marketing point, I understand why they would increase the ship density, but it would be nice if they had added a "realistic traffic density" option in the realism settings.


You can also massage your stats to historical by patrolling the Marshalls the entire war. That should do the trick.
-Pv-

I'll try that thanks!