GWX2.0 vs Realism

[ryanwigginton]

Just wanted to ask how much of the GWX2.0 mod is aimed at being true to life. I went on my first patrol not long ago and stumbled across a huge convoy with a single destroyer escort. The destroyer closed but I managed to pull off a lucky snap shot, sent him to the bottom and that left me free to cause havoc on the now unescorted convoy.

Reason I ask about what balance of realism/gameplay you tried to strike is I managed to sink four very large vessels with the deck gun alone and one actually broke in half. And, how real are the re-load times? I've read endless discussions on deck gun re-load times in the SH4 mods section. If I remember right, the Germans were more proficient with the deck gun and also their ammo was stored on deck by the gun which hurried things along. But on my first patrol with a green crew it seemed very quick, will it speed up with a better gun crew or will only the accuracy improve.

I know this all sounds like a dig but maybe GWX is 60% gameplay orientated and 40% realism in which case my points are all void anyway. If your goal was high realism though, after sinking so much tonnage with a deck gun, I'd have to be a little dubious.

Apart from that it's been a very polished experience. I put SH4 back on and without the amazing ROW mod SH3 GWX actually looks far better me, especially seeing as you can crank all the AA and texture filtering up without any slowdown. Once again (and thanks to your mod) this old gem is sucking hours out of my day. :yep:

[nik112]

YOU RE LUCKY
i have never found unescorted convoy or with a single dd as you describe even at gwx 1.03
cheers:rock::cool:

[Erich Topp]

managed to sink four very large vessels with the deck gun alone and one actually broke in half.

Yes, that's true, fellow kaleun. I also had such issues until I tweaked shells.zon. Unfortunately nobody can supply me with normal tweak-file for GWX2:shells.zon, and I am not very good in hex-editing and tweak-files writing. Tweak-file for stock works OK for 88mm HE and AP, but misses 105mm HE rounds for GWX. I am still trying to fix this.

PS: Once I split on two an Ore-Carrier from 1 lucky shot. That definately shouldn't be, but this happens often when you're using manual DG targeting. Better don't start this discussion actually, 'cause GWX Team do not like any criticism.

but maybe GWX is 60% gameplay orientated and 40% realism

No. GWX is realism-oriented mod. But "realism" in this case means "how GWX team understand things" not "as it were in real life". Modders from GWX team are very busy, so you better improve your installation on yourself. Anyway we both play it and enjoy it. Of course it will be better if something will be changed...

[Abd_von_Mumit]

Erich Topp - please stay on topic instead of sharing your opinions about other users. That's the rule of thumb on any Forums. :nope:

[ryanwigginton]

I spent a lot of time playing Real Fleet Boat for SH4 back when it was Beerys creation. He went to painstaking lengths to achieve historical accuracy and would defend his decisions with pages of facts and accounts. His deck gun felt very real. Any fighting on the surface was tense and it would encourage you to stay below the surface wherever possible. He came under a lot of critisism by people that wanting an easier/more playable experience but he never broke and I loved him for it. I always try and imagine loading the shells myself. Most takes on the deck gun seem to have it firing before you've even loaded the next round. There's certainly no aiming time accounted for.

[Nightshadow]

As far as I have read on different treads here, is that in the early war there was not so many escorts and their sonar/sensor is not realy up to the job....:arrgh!: I have met unescorted and with 1 escort convoys. But normal for me there is 3 escorts, and a sub that is:hmm: :down: never know what it do:o It have blasted my sub, kill my crew:damn: Or It have just sitting there doing nothing when I surface to reload my torps and use my deck/flak guns. One time I was inside the convoy it was "floating" over my deck:ping:

[Nightshadow]

I spent a lot of time playing Real Fleet Boat for SH4 back when it was Beerys creation. He went to painstaking lengths to achieve historical accuracy and would defend his decisions with pages of facts and accounts. His deck gun felt very real. Any fighting on the surface was tense and it would encourage you to stay below the surface wherever possible. He came under a lot of critisism by people that wanting an easier/more playable experience but he never broke and I loved him for it. I always try and imagine loading the shells myself. Most takes on the deck gun seem to have it firing before you've even loaded the next round. There's certainly no aiming time accounted for.

Just use Sh3commander then you can set the reload times:rock:

[Philipp_Thomsen]

lol...

you are NUTZ to try unleashing a discussion like this...

goodluck!

[Dowly]

lol...

you are NUTZ to try unleashing a discussion like this...

goodluck!

Nothing wrong in it if you do it in proper manner. :roll:

[GoldenRivet]

regarding convoys / escorts... most convoys were unescorted in the open atlantic during the early war. In the earlier parts of the war, it was not uncommon for wolfpacks and single subs to almost completely destroy nearly entire convoys. after 1940 you will find most convoys escorted by up to 6 - 8 destroyers of various types.

regarding the deck gun, i have seen video of german deck gun crews firing on merchants, they would generally make a hand full of rounds ready for firing and commence shelling... this yielded a new shell being fired every 4 seconds (according to my stopwatch). the video was in calm seas in perfect weather. i think 4 - 5 seconds is far for realistic game play.

regarding merchants and how easily sunk they are... most of your merchants during ww2 were built with 3 aspects in mind

1. has to be built in as short a time as possible
2. has to be cheaper than dirt
3. must be able to hold a great deal of cargo internally and on the top deck

that was really about all the school of thought that went into building merchants and as a result there were 3 disadvanteges

1. because of the short build times the ships were often shabby in their construction
2. because they had to be cheap... and i dont mean economical... i mean down right CHEAP they were often built of the lowest grade materials.
3. because of the great open cargo spaces, if you punched a hole in one of these ships they would flood fairly easily in any open compartments affected by the damage.

[Erich Topp]

We are all nutz after all - all this emotions are around a ...computer game.
A manner of my speak just correlated with a manner of speaking, which some Forum Stars have (I am a big fan of them. The one in smelly trainers I believe...). Everyone is equal to others in democracy, isn't he?

About merchants - yes, they should sunk. Not split (even without explosion if Enhanced Effects are turned off). This happens only when you use manual DG targeting - all you need is to find a weak spot and make a direct hit. Not so easy, but 105mm shell makes this often (too often - 3 hits for large cargo is too much. The smaller ship is - the opportunity to break it with shells growth. Sometimes from 1st shell). Not only me and ryanwigginton have this bug - I spoke on some russian forums, they have it too. Other, I guess, do not use manual DG targeting. We do not ask much - just tweak-file for 105mm in shells.zon. Reducing of damage radius helps much (at least, for 88mm).
Realism should be realistic.

PS: But not with 3/4 of tonnage per patrol done with DG.

[ryanwigginton]

i think 4 - 5 seconds is far for realistic game play.
It's funny that you say this and yet if you look at other heated threads on the topic we get snippets like these:

The formula here is very simple - 88 rounds in 54 minutes (a rate of fire of a round every 36.82 seconds - 6.82 seconds slower than RFB's ROF). Anything more we try to read into the numbers is pure speculation and open to wide interpretation that can lead to us arguing anything from 36 seconds per round all the way down to 20 rounds per minute. The only thing we can say for sure is that this boat fired with a ROF of 1 round every 36 seconds and (on average) did not fire slower than 36 seconds per round.

If a boat could fire faster, all my critics have to do is find the evidence. I've looked and I can't find any. If boats routinely fired faster than 2 rounds a minute in combat the evidence shouldn't be that hard to find. In my opinion evidence for fast reloads is hard to find because guns simply didn't reload that fast in combat conditions.

I've been asking people to prove me wrong for two years. Surely the critics don't want to spare my feelings that much.

Rather than criticize the evidence that points to slower reload times, why not find evidence for faster reload times? If it's so obvious that deck guns had a fast rate of fire in prolonged engagements (i.e. beyond the effect of the ready-use ammo), show us.
...and...

No evidence ever appeared that showed any submarine deck gun being fired at a rate faster than 22 seconds per round in actual combat conditions - that is the fastest reload rate anyone could produce (after the challenge was out there for at least 12 months) for any deck gun in actual combat. The only 'mounting' evidence consistently backed up the calculations I made for RFB, and much of the evidence showed very much slower reload rates (i.e. 50 seconds per round for U-boat deck guns). Any faster rate of fire is based on non-combat rates of fire that don't take into account conditions and facts that severely limited rate of fire during combat - you know, pesky stuff like the need to actually get ammunition to the gun in order to load and fire it, and the need to actually aim at a target while the firing boat and the target is moving.

The only thing I was 'stubborn' about when it came to RFB was that any part of the simulation had to be based on ACTUAL combat reports if such reports were available. In the case of gun reload rates those reports are available and not a single one shows a reload rate faster than 22 seconds per round. Anything faster is fantasy, and fantasy is not simulation.

This is the last time I will speak on this subject in this thread. I'm tired of defending a realistic rate of fire against those who insist on turning a simulation into a fantasy.
I realise these are arguements supporting American fleet boats however don1reed wrote ...

See:

"The Battle of the Atlantic" by Andrew Williams, p.74 excerpt from Otto Kretschmer U-99 log of 2 August 1940 06.24-06.30 (six minutes)
"Thirty shots at 2500m with gun, aiming at the ship [Alexia, steamer, 8016 tons] that is now sending radio signals requesting the presence of destroyers. Approximately 15-20 shots on target, most of which are into the waterline of the ship and her engine room..."

360 seconds / 30 rounds = 1 shot every 12 seconds.

I realize this is about Fleet boats, but, one would think gun crews of time period navies would be similar.
4-5 seconds is hard for me to stomach. Your version of realistic gameplay seems to be 3x that of real life. Not sure what footage you've been watching/timing but I'd like to see it... it would at least put my mind to rest on the issue. :-?

As for obliterating the best part of a convoy with your deck gun, I dug out this one...again from my SubSim hero... :yep:

Topp in U-552 fired 126 rounds at a 10,000ton freighter and claimed a sinking but the ship was not destroyed.

Vogel in U-588 hit a 4,800 ton tanker with 2 torps and then spent 4 hours firing 200 rounds into it before claiming it sinking in flames - this ship also survived.

Schacht in U-507 tried to sink a 6,800ton ship by gunfire after the crew had abandoned it but finally gave up and had to use a torpedo.

Wurdemann in U-506 used his gun on 7,000ton tanker and claimed it sunk in flames but the ship survived.

Rasch in U-106 hit a 5,000ton ship with 2 torps and then finished it off with his gun but it took 193 rounds.

Clearly these U-boat commanders also felt that a deck gun should be able to destroy a large ship, but they found out that they were wrong.
It's only my opinion (as people ALWAYS say! -who elses is it?), but I think GWXs gun is a little too potent... in ROF and destructive power and my only experience in GWX2.0 so far is with a rookie gun crew.

[HW3]

If you do not like the rate of fire of the deck gun, use SH3 Commander to change it to your liking.:yep:

[ryanwigginton]

If you do not like the rate of fire of the deck gun, use SH3 Commander to change it to your liking.:yep:

You're right of course... I should stop stirring up a storm and just change it myself. Cheers.

[GoldenRivet]

it really makes no difference to me how you edit your files... honestly, it seemed you were going for historical accuracy and were not sure how effective, accurate and quick to reload your deck gun should be... here is some interesting data that might help you out. :D

we can learn a lot about the traverse time and the reload time by referencing archival footage, and available technical data.

for example

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vQ8uWHo4uw

in parts of this footage, at least 2 - 3 shots can be heard firing within a 10 second span where the footage does not cut away to other action.

keep in mind that the 8.8 cm deck gun is not to be confused with the land based 88 anti tank gun... the 88 anti tank gun's reload times are a none issue and are often invalidly compared to the naval gun..

also... from Uboat.net the difinitive source of historically accurate information concerning the u-boat war...

"[the deck gun] required a line of men (3 on the deck) to transport the ammunition from the main locker below the control room to the gun. The used rounds were taken back into the boat. The U-boats had a small water-proof ammunition locker for the gun on the deck in order to be able to start firing almost immediately when the order was given....The type VII U-boats had the 8,8cm gun. This weapon is not to be confused with the famous German Army 8,8 anti-tank / anti-aircraft gun which was probably the best weapon of the war, they did not even use the same ammunition. The 8,8cm gun fired a 12-14 kilogram round (9kg warhead), on board were usually 250 rounds...."

so we can see that the dev team have done well at simulating the number of shells aboard the boat... 250 as well as the number of men required to operate it.

from uboataces.com, another highly respected source of historically accurate information:

"Three men operated the deck gun – gunner, layer and loader, usually under the supervision of the second watch officer. A chain of men were required to bring the ammunition from below the control room floor, then up the conning tower and onto the upper deck. A small watertight locker placed near the gun held a few more rounds ready for use, providing an advantage during the first few vital seconds of engagement. The rate of fire with a good crew was 15 to 18 rounds per minute."

60 seconds divided by 15 shots = 4 seconds to reload
60 seconds divided by 18 shots = 3.3 seconds to reload with an experienced crew

by my research... anyone wanting to play with any accurate degree of realism should adjust their deck gun reload times to some value between 3 and 5 seconds with 6 being the absolute max.

Beery is talking about the 4" deck gun used on U.S. Boats if im reading your quotes correctly.

the 4" and 5" naval guns were not as efficiently operated on a sub as the Kriegsmarine deck gun was... research i have found indicates that the worst rate of fire for the kriegsmarine deck gun was still about 5 rounds per minute better than the best rate of fire of the U.S. Navy sub deck gun. therefore his argument is partly correct... the SH4 deck gun should only be capable of about 10 rounds per minute at best.

of course in the end... none of us will ever be u-boat or gato class commanders...

so, based on my on research of U-boats... i think 4 or 5 seconds is fair for game play in calm seas with a veteran crew.

despite the evidence beery offers, despite the evidence i offer, and despite all the videos and books and magazines and pamphlets, leaflets, carvings on rocks, word of mouth and scuttlebutt to offer either argument credibility.... one thing will never change "East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet" and by that i mean for one person to change another person's opinion is next to impossible.

SH3 commander is a great tool... if you think yoru reload times should be 6 seconds or 6 minutes you have the capability to make it as you desire and nobody here at subsim will really care either way.

[Jimbuna]

lol...

you are NUTZ to try unleashing a discussion like this...

goodluck!

Nothing wrong in it if you do it in proper manner. :roll:

Precisely...............................common courtesy, tolerance and respect is all that is expected of us all http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/pirate.gif

Enjoy the game http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

[SilverGhost]

Not so easy, but 105mm shell makes this often (too often - 3 hits for large cargo is too much.




If I'm reading your comments correctly...are you saying the 105 DG doesn't have enough power? If you're not aware of it, the DG's used on subs were NOT the same as the land-based artillery units. Same bore size...but not the high velocities. The dreaded 88 used in tanks and as flak guns on land were a different animal, same goes for the 105.

[ryanwigginton]

one thing will never change "East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet" and by that i mean for one person to change another person's opinion is next to impossible.

Very true... :yep:

The youtube clip isn't continuous footage though. There's not even two shots there with the camera rolling all the way through the re-load process. Just clips of the gun actually firing and clips of impacts.

Also, I believe an experienced crew could fire 15 to 18 rounds a minute but I've not seen an example of this speed documented in a combat situation. An account of an historical encounter would seal the deal though.

I've just installed SH3 Commander. Excellent tool. I've currently got my minimum reload time set at 12 seconds. I'm happy with this.

[Dowly]

What I always though funny regarding Beery's posts about the reloading times is that he only talks about how many rounds can be fired in a period of time. I find it hard to get what that has to do with reload times. I can reload my slingshot in 1.5 seconds but can hold my fire for 2 hours. Would that make my reload time 2 hours and 1.5 seconds? :hmm:

[SilverGhost]

I can reload my slingshot in 1.5 seconds but can hold my fire for 2 hours. Would that make my reload time 2 hours and 1.5 seconds? :hmm:


I can't hold my fire for two hours...if there's a round in the chamber something NEEDS TO BE SHOT. Dammit, Jim, I'm a gunner - not a doctor! :o

[Kpt. Lehmann]

I'm getting very tired of these 'debates.':shifty:

In short... of course GWX is aimed at 'realism'... but often the code limits what we can do... or it decides some things for us regardless of our wishes... and some elements/risks present in real life cannot be fully modelled in SH3 by anyone. (Including the devs with source-code.) This is also true of all simulators.

There are very good reasons for each 'issue' discussed above. (DG ROF, player manning the DG as opposed to crew, retention of critical hit zones, number of escorts based on date, merchant armament or lack therof based on date etc etc etc...)

Additionally, it is unreasonable for users to expect us to customize their installation to their tastes or beliefs. If we made a habit of doing that... it would swiftly get out of control and we'd spend all our time doing nothing but that.

In the end some matters simply boil down to players CHOOSING to play any given element in a realistic way.

Technically, one could go so far as to say that living through the destruction of your sub every time is 'unrealistic.' Real commanders died or were captured... and rendered incapable of retaining the resultant increased survivability. Players have the luxury of learning from mistakes and carrying that knowledge to the next career.

Early war is easier. Try the same things in late-war... and surface encounters will do a much better job of eating your lunch.;)

[Klaus_Doldinger]

Real commanders died or were captured... and rendered incapable of retaining the resultant increased survivability. Players have the luxury of learning from mistakes and carrying that knowledge to the next career.

Early war is easier. Try the same things in late-war... and surface encounters will do a much better job of eating your lunch.;)

True.

That´s why I like more to have a decent live and play most careers in 1939-1942. Even 1941 gives you some hard times... not to say 1942.

In my last mission in march 1941 I was unable to approach several convoys in the Rockall Banks. Due to fine weather? Early radars? both? In fact I only got a shower of depth charges and my submarine badly damaged. Lucky to survive.

[Kpt, Otto]

EDITED

In short... of course GWX is aimed at 'realism'... but often the code limits what we can do... or it decides some things for us regardless of our wishes... and some elements/risks present in real life cannot be fully modelled in SH3 by anyone. (Including the devs with source-code.) This is also true of all simulators.

EDITED

In the end some matters simply boil down to players CHOOSING to play any given element in a realistic way.

EDITED

Early war is easier. Try the same things in late-war... and surface encounters will do a much better job of eating your lunch.;)

I totally agree, some elements come down to imagination and how you choose to play the game. There will never be a perfect sim for everyone. GWX and other mods such as NGYM are an extraordinary achievement making this game the best subsim so far ever produced and that given the fact the teams involved have only partial access to the workings of the game.

However these posts are often interesting because it helps in some cases to push things forward still further. Many a breakthrough has been made in the past from such a discussion.

But imagination in my opinion will always need to be an intrinsic part of any subsim/game experiance.


Good hunting fellow kaleuns. :up:

[Erich Topp]

In the end some matters simply boil down to players CHOOSING to play any given element in a realistic way.

If it's easy to make thing, satisfactory for all of us, why not?. Why damage radius of the shell is so high in GWX? I am not a big master, but I think that's 'cause of eye-candy "hollywood damage effects on ships (from zones.cfg)" with flying debris after hit.
They fly 'cause damage radius of the shell is high. And that's why keel is breaking. If you reduce radius to normal value (stock one, for example, or even better a little lower, 'cause damage zones are different in GWX) all "sudden one-shot splits" disappear.
I always said - do not fix something, if it's not broken. DG in original game seemed OK, maybe a little overpowered, but I had very rare ship-splits by shells in stock, at least, I can't remember one.
That's the matter when eye-candy eats realism. Just this...nothing personal.

If I'm reading your comments correctly...are you saying the 105 DG doesn't have enough power? If you're not aware of it, the DG's used on subs were NOT the same as the land-based artillery units. Same bore size...but not the high velocities. The dreaded 88 used in tanks and as flak guns on land were a different animal, same goes for the 105.

No, friend. DG has too much power. It now can split a ship apart from few hits. If player drives it manually to aim "weak spots". This can be easily removed by MiniTweaker - you need to tweak down damage radius of each shell.