TMO vs RFB

[IronPerch]

Hi, my first post... (hihihihi) ...fine.

First of all, a HUGE thanks for everyone who has spend their time by modding the SH4 and making it what it shoud be. With mods it's a great game that has made me to read historical books and loose my sleep... etc, you know what i mean.

Anyway i have been playing with the different kind of mods and thus i'm quite satisfied with the current setup (NSM+PE+EnvironmentalCombo+RFB+RSRD all v1.5), i have been wondering a few things:

1. What are the main differences between the supermods TMO+RFB if the user interface is not counted? I like the realism, manual charting etc. So which one is for me?

2. Is the NSM a part of RFB nowadays?

3. How "realistic" are the propeller sounds (sonar) on RFB? E.g. is it possible to estimate speed of the target by sonar?

4. I like the audiocandy, any recommendations for sound mod?

[Fish40]

Hi, and welcome!. I use RFB myself:yep:. Traditionaly, RFB has and still is the mod for the most realism. As far as NSM goes, I don't think a 1.5 version was ever developed yet, so if you're useing v1.5 of the game, there may be some problems with NSM.

As for sound, I believe that mixed in with the stock prop. sounds, is indeed recorded actual ship prop sounds. Don't know about accurately calculating speed from counting revs though. There are some sound mods available (use the search function on the forum), but to be honest with you the sounds that were done for RFB are all I need. Of corse that's just MO.

[Fincuan]

TMO wins by a fair margin:
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=TMO&word2=RFB

:lol:

[IronPerch]

Hi, and welcome!. I use RFB myself:yep:. Traditionaly, RFB has and still is the mod for the most realism. As far as NSM goes, I don't think a 1.5 version was ever developed yet, so if you're useing v1.5 of the game, there may be some problems with NSM.

I have been runnign NSM with RFB 1.5 without any problems so far and i remember reading that the NSM type of physics is going to be included in the next "release" of RFB?

[banjo]

The thing to do is play each for a while and decide which you want to stick with. Both are easily installed/uninstalled using JSGME. Both are excellent mods--one is not better than the other--they model certain things differently. RFB is considered to be more hardcore realistic and TMO is considered to be balanced more for realism vs gameplay. However, as each is updated it behooves one to try each update.

[DeepIron]

Hi, and welcome!. I use RFB myself:yep:. Traditionaly, RFB has and still is the mod for the most realism. As far as NSM goes, I don't think a 1.5 version was ever developed yet, so if you're useing v1.5 of the game, there may be some problems with NSM.
I have been runnign NSM with RFB 1.5 without any problems so far and i remember reading that the NSM type of physics is going to be included in the next "release" of RFB?Yep. Sinking physics is being completely reworked from scratch for the next evolution of RFB. There's a tremendous amount of work and testing going into this, (along with other aspects of RFB as well) so be prepared for some very realistic torpedo damage and sinkings! :up:

BTW, you can use NSM with RFB but it's not totally compatible, but no show stoppers either. Just be sure to load NSM *before* RFB...;)

[LukeFF]

3. How "realistic" are the propeller sounds (sonar) on RFB? E.g. is it possible to estimate speed of the target by sonar?

The sonar sounds you hear in RFB were taken from JP-1 sonar training records made during the war. JP-1 was the standard listening gear of American submarines for the better part of the war. However, since these are standard WAVE files, you really can't judge a target's speed by them, though you can get a general idea if the target is moving fast or slow.

[IronPerch]

3. How "realistic" are the propeller sounds (sonar) on RFB? E.g. is it possible to estimate speed of the target by sonar?

The sonar sounds you hear in RFB were taken from JP-1 sonar training records made during the war. JP-1 was the standard listening gear of American submarines for the better part of the war. However, since these are standard WAVE files, you really can't judge a target's speed by them, though you can get a general idea if the target is moving fast or slow.


ok, i was wondering does the game-engine alter the play speed of wave files in relation to targets speed :know:.

Can you tell me what are the numerical speed estimates for slow (= 6 knots?), moderate (= 9 knots?) and fast (> 9 knots?) speed reporst in RFB?

Yet another RFB issue... About the deck gun loading time. Was it really so slow in real life after the initial gun setup? According to my artillery experiences, when you are in firing positions the loading doesn't take so much time if you have ammo near by?

[LukeFF]

ok, i was wondering does the game-engine alter the play speed of wave files in relation to targets speed :know:.
Yes, it does.

Can you tell me what are the numerical speed estimates for slow (= 6 knots?), moderate (= 9 knots?) and fast (> 9 knots?) speed reporst in RFB?
They are the same as in stock. Wish I could tell you which file stores that information, but I can't recall at the moment.

Yet another RFB issue... About the deck gun loading time. Was it really so slow in real life after the initial gun setup? According to my artillery experiences, when you are in firing positons the loading doesn't take so mucht time if you have ammo near by?
The loading times are averages that factor in things the game doesn't simulate (roll and pitch of the boat, weather conditions, etc.). Basically, when left to the AI, the gun will fire as soon as a shell is loaded, without taking into account the elevation of the gun. An interrogation report of a German U-boat prisoner stated the max firing rate of the 105mm deck gun was 6 rounds per minute, in ideal conditions (i.e., very calm seas, well-rested crew, etc.). Three rounds per minute was more the norm.

Otherwise, I suggest you do a search of posts by Beery in this forum and in the SH3 mods forum. I'll just say here that this issue has been discussed quite a bit in the past. ;)

[IronPerch]

Ok, thanks guys and keep up the good work :up: .

[Rockin Robbins]

Actually it's pretty amazing. The guiding principles of RFB and TMO are completely opposed.

Trigger Maru Overhauled
TMO came from Ducimus' migration from SH3 and his observation that challenges were few in his new game. So, for his own use, he developed Trigger Maru to increase the difficulty of the game. He did NOT stick with objective reality when he did so. ASW capabilities of Japanese escorts were ratcheted up to frankly unrealistic levels. They can find you and depth charge you with deadly accuracy without pinging sometimes. They are VERY aggressive. If you run into an elite crew on a Japanese escort you are dead unless you kill him. For that reason, there is only one elite crew in Trigger Maru: Bungo Pete.

The nav map was nerfed to reflect more accurately the info that would really be developed by the plotting crew for the captain. Ship silhouettes are gone, replaced by a position dot, because the radar did not tell you what kind of ship you had detected. Friend/foe/neutral colors are gone for the same reasons. Boats no longer have velocity vector tails that tell you without any analysis on your part what their course is. And the "x" for the projected impact point in the attack screen is gone. Although done for the purpose of increasing difficulty, these changes had an effect that possibly wasn't intended. Running SH4 with map updates on is now more realistic than leaving map updates off, especially if your sub has radar.

And what the heck is realism anyway? Tater observed that in Trigger Maru, unrealistic enemy behavior results in extremely realistic player behavior. You are properly operating in fear for your life. Wow! How authentic! Therefore you do not take stupid chances. You cannot just duck below the thermal layer, put it on silent running and go eat lunch. You will be dead when you return. When being depth charged, you MUST evade. They will kill you. Be afraid. Very afraid. It's wonderful

RFB
Real Fleet Boat was originated from the standpoint of reading patrol reports and attempting to reproduce the results reflected therein with accuracy, who cares about gameplay glitter. After war statistics said that only one of 20 boats were sunk. Therefore depth charges were nerfed to the point that you had a 95% chance of living through your career. Enemy AI was left alone. Attack map and nav map were left alone. Based on cruise reports from WWII, the deck gun was altered so its firing rate reflected the rates from actual combat use, not a test stand on terra firma. People had lots of fun fighting over that one, especially land lubber artillery experts. Then the effectiveness of deck gun shells was nerfed. If cruise reports said it took 85 shells to sink a small freighter, that's what RFB takes. You'll spend the greater part of an hour to sink one and you'll be just waiting to be plastered by a plane all that time. Welcome to reality.

The last version of RFB I played was Beery's last one. I switched to TMO during the uncertainty time and after SH4 went to patch 1.4 and RFB was no longer compatible enough. So I can't comment on later versions. I do know that with Beery's version I never had to go deep. I could stay at periscope depth and watch myself being depth charged. If they hit me it wasn't fatal. I just charged through the screen into the merchies and wrecked havoc. It didn't matter if I were detected or not.

As soon as I saw a ship or detected it on radar, I just went to my nav map. If it was green it was friendly, red it was enemy. The silhouette told me the general ship type so I knew speed capability, whether it was merchant or warship. I could immediately plot the course from the velocity vector without any investigation on my own part.

I'll leave it there as RFB has a lot of changes under Swdw's leadership and I'm in no position to comment on them. Much may have changed. I'll have to let one of the RFB team describe their mod better.

My own progression
Although I agreed with Beery's addiction to reality and faithfulness to it, I came to the realization that the final result wasn't realistic. I was Rambo, invulnerable enough not to fear, with superhuman shooting ability because of my stock nav plot. I was ready to change to a Trigger Maru I was prepared to hate because of its lack of realism.

My first cruise was brutal. I had Superman in those escorts charging me through the fog without pinging me first and dropping deadly accurate depth charges. I hopped right into the TM forum and blasted Ducimus, who set me straight with the simple observation of "who said TM was realistic?" In otherwords "get with the program." He also pointed out that in my account of what I did I had written a textbook on proper evasion tactics. And I realized suddenly that I had learned more in one test mission from hell than all the previous months I had played Silent Hunter 4. Suddenly I was not frustrated that I hadn't sunk the merchies. I was overjoyed that I had survived. And the thought hit me: THAT is real realism.

In its later incarnations, TMO has become more and more a realism mod. Ducimus has been influenced by the evil RFB crew (helped them even) and incorporated many realistic details into TMO: evil enemy aircraft that can depth charge you at periscope depth (also part of RFB if I recall correctly). Properly nerfed deck gun so you realize why they no longer appear on any submarines. They were a lousy idea that never worked, unless you count foolishly courting death as a good idea.

I think in the end, these two mods, originated for very different goals have converged to the point that it would be difficult even to say which is more realistic than the other. About the only thing you might say now is that TMO is definitely more challenging. And what is YOUR definition of reality.

Is it reality of enemy behavior and reality of results? Then RFB is your mod.

Is is reality found in YOUR behavior and attitude? Is fear part of reality in war that you want to experience? Are you willing to have your career without the assurance that you will probably survive all the way to the end of the war? Look at TMO then.

Disclaimer
I'm not an RFB expert any more. I have simplified the changes that TMO has made in the game (and RFB too) to convey my own subjective impressions of both. I can be wrong sometimes, and this comparison is very subjective. Even if I'm right, you might come to a different observation that is equally right. Especially the RFB guys should come and present their case better than I can. If Ducimus were here he could do the same. I'm not the best to do this but I'm what you got.:rotfl:

[Mush Martin]

Ive played both but I by and large am and RFB player
both are excellent mods though.:up:&:up:

[IronPerch]

Thanks for the comments i was looking for Capt. Robins!

I have spend most of my game time also with the TMO and i installed it due to forum/web references it had. Anyway round week ago i somehow messed my mod setup and i decided to reinstall everything and this time with RFB just to give it a try. I tested it with the torpedo training mission and i was sunk by a aircraft during the first minutes... in a training mission! One should watch his periscope behaviour... Hopefully it wasn't a bug.

It seems that there has been progress since your RFB trials, because the map information you spoke about is gone and it's quite similar to TMO (black dot, no trails...) also the whole attack map is gone so you can't optimize or fine tune your firing solution with it. I also like the control buttons and functions (+ compass rose etc) and the idea that you have to be in certain place (e.g. conning tower) to activate certain features. Also moving the camera inside the ship works better than in TMO (?). It also seems to run with the NSM wihout problems and the early war torpedo behaviour modelling makes you plan your attacs more carefully.

About the realism, for me it also the "fear" aspect that gives me shivers and makes the game worth of playing. Anyway after installing RFB i have been depth charged only once (one has to sleep and work sometimes...) and i managed to escape quite easilly (but i hope that was because i was between two convoys (!) crossing each others lines and i dove under the one i didn't attact), so i can't tell much about the ai behaviour. Hopefully it is not what you told me.

So, RFB so far so good, but i miss TMO's loading screens...

... the sound mod i spoke earlier... i decided to build my own mix.

[tigone]

Rockin Robbins wrote:

> The guiding principles of RFB and TMO are completely opposed. . . .

Thanks for a really helpful discussion of the two mods. I'm new to SH4, and opted for TMO to start, but you've reinforced my sense that I really must try RFB at some point as well. After having started several careers in TMO -- with exactly one patrol completed -- I can say with little hesitation that playing TMO with a "dead is dead" rule is, well an uphill climb.

But the observation that unrealistic enemy behavior prompts highly realistic player behavior is a critical one. You also noted, "and what is YOUR definition of reality?" It may be worth sharing a short anecdote that, I think, illustrates the difference between accuracy and realsim very, very well.

Years ago, I read an interview with the guy who designed the sets for the film The Hunt for Red October. The Navy had given him and his team unprecedented access to a 688 boat to take photos, measurements, etc., except for a few, highly-classified pieces of equipment. But the set designer discovered that, apart from a few high-tech gizmos, the inside of a modern U.S. submarine doesn't look hugely different than a World War II model. So instead of recreating U.S.S. Dallas in exact detail as it actually is, he made a number of small changes to conform to peoples' expectations of what it's like. And in keeping with the good guys v. bad guys theme, he fitted the interior sets with soft, almost pastel lighting, and added lots of small, informal props and touches that added to the personal, almost familial feel of the boat on screen. He was less recreating the actual physical reality of the boat (accuracy) than using that as a basis to create something that would "feel right" to the viewer (realism). In the article he said something to the effect that, it doesn't matter onscreen if something, in fact, is accruate; if it doesn't meet the audiences' expectations at least to some degree, it's going to be perceived as inaccurate.

Similarly with the Red October sets -- no one had any idea what the inside of a Typhoon looked like, so the set designer very consciously and intentionally made it look like a submarine Death Star: all black and chrome, with harsh lighting and lots of red glowing bits. Even the Soviet uniforms are suggestive -- all formal uniforms with brass buttons and high collars, in contrast to the shirtsleeve khakis on Dallas. The contrast between the two boats is neither subtle nor accidental.

But back to gaming, because I think this same principle applies here as it does in movies. Accuracy is objective; either the height of this ship's mast in the game is correct or it's not. Realism, though -- the feel, the affective domain in which the game connects with the player -- is much more subjective, and arguably harder to attain. While both accuracy and realism are criticial in an historical game like SH4, the realism factor remains even when there's no real-life counterpart to measure accuracy by (think of almost any science fiction game title). It's good to see that mod designers for SH4 really seem to understand this, and understand that there's more than one approach to attaining both accuracy and realism.

[Mush Martin]

Thanks for the comments i was looking for Capt. Robins!

I have spend most of my game time also with the TMO and i installed it due to forum/web references it had. Anyway round week ago i somehow messed my mod setup and i decided to reinstall everything and this time with RFB just to give it a try. I tested it with the torpedo training mission and i was sunk by a aircraft during the first minutes... in a training mission! One should watch his periscope behaviour... Hopefully it wasn't a bug.

It seems that there has been progress since your RFB trials, because the map information you spoke about is gone and it's quite similar to TMO (black dot, no trails...) also the whole attack map is gone so you can't optimize or fine tune your firing solution with it. I also like the control buttons and functions (+ compass rose etc) and the idea that you have to be in certain place (e.g. conning tower) to activate certain features. Also moving the camera inside the ship works better than in TMO (?). It also seems to run with the NSM wihout problems and the early war torpedo behaviour modelling makes you plan your attacs more carefully.

About the realism, for me it also the "fear" aspect that gives me shivers and makes the game worth of playing. Anyway after installing RFB i have been depth charged only once (one has to sleep and work sometimes...) and i managed to escape quite easilly (but i hope that was because i was between two convoys (!) crossing each others lines and i dove under the one i didn't attact), so i can't tell much about the ai behaviour. Hopefully it is not what you told me.

So, RFB so far so good, but i miss TMO's loading screens...

... the sound mod i spoke earlier... i decided to build my own mix.


uhm I must be doing something wrong because my RFB still has an
attack map and I refine solutions with it constantly???????????

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e368/MartinPicfix/attackmap.jpg

[banjo]

Rockin'--great post man. I've been playing both mods off and on as they progress and didn't realize a lot of the points you made. I currently play TMO and was wondering why I still got depth charged yesterday in 1944 at 500' after an hour of doing the 'right things'. I got the Yamato (3 torps at 20', 25' and 20') but did not survive the depth charging. There were only 2 DD's but when my external view showed some depth charges exploding below me (!) I knew I was in trouble. After reading your post I have a better idea why.

[Sailor Steve]

And once again Rockin Robbins shows why he, despite his self-proclaimed 'lack of expertise', is the go-to guy when it comes to talking about mods and reality and submarine gaming in general. Even though I still can't play SH4 seriously, reading your treatise (and I can't call it anything less than that) I was put in mind of the exact same cycle with SH3, and everything you said is right on the mark for that sim as well.:rock:

But back to gaming, because I think this same principle applies here as it does in movies. Accuracy is objective; either the height of this ship's mast in the game is correct or it's not. Realism, though -- the feel, the affective domain in which the game connects with the player -- is much more subjective, and arguably harder to attain. While both accuracy and realism are criticial in an historical game like SH4, the realism factor remains even when there's no real-life counterpart to measure accuracy by (think of almost any science fiction game title). It's good to see that mod designers for SH4 really seem to understand this, and understand that there's more than one approach to attaining both accuracy and realism.
That description of Hunt For Red October is brilliant! But it's that last paragraph that struck me. My background over the decades has been in tabletop miniatures gaming, and one of the biggest arguments in game design has always been 'Realism versus Playability', which of course equates 'Realism' with 'Detail-oriented'. I came to a conclusion years ago that 'Realism' was a bad choice of words, and always substitute 'Feel' instead. I came to the same realization that you apparently have, and that RR wrote so well: that how real it is is nowhere near as important as how real it feels.

On the other hand I learned recently that 'Realism' is indeed the right word. During one of those debates in which someone was saying "It's not real! You can't die, so it can never be realistic!", it finally occurred to me to look the word up. It was coined less than two hundred years by the Art World to describe a particular kind of art - one that places emphasis on making the viewer feel as though he is part of the picture; really there. So we strive for realism, and pretend a lot, and argue about which mod is better, and complain when it's too 'realistic'.

[tigone]

Sailor Steve wrote:

> My background over the decades has been in tabletop miniatures gaming,
> and one of the biggest arguments in game design has always been 'Realism
> versus Playability', which of course equates 'Realism' with 'Detail-oriented'.

Yes, that's the easy equivalency. And like most easy equivalencies, it's wrong.

One can make a game (and I'm coming from a board wargaming background here) infinitely complicated, all for sake of supposed "realism," and end up getting it completely wrong. Complexity is not, in itself, an improvement in game design, and if it leads to confusion or fatigue in players, it's explicitly a bad thing, because it discourages gameplay and reduces whatever gain they might have attained by it.

I like small-scale, tactical games (especially naval subjects), and I enjoy the detail and understanding they convey. But at the same time, I cannot stand flipping back and forth between tables printed on (it seems) ever-decreasing font size on cardstock. The sheer friction of digging out the box, setting up the data sheets and ships' logs is off-putting, so Ironclads, Submarine, Close Action! and Royal Navy sit on the shelf, while the my study echoes with the sound of SH4's dive klaxon.

[tigone]

A follow-up:

I have finally also come to acknowledge -- after years of vociferous denial -- that my favorite part of any board wargame is reading the designer's notes and studying the mechanics of it, usually more than actually playing the game itself. I think I have more games that I haven't actually played, than those I have.

[Webster]

I have been runnign NSM with RFB 1.5 without any problems so far

last i heard about NSM was that it was strickly a 1.4 mod but when it was tried it did actually work for 1.5 but not for everyone so i think certain combinations of mods cause issues with this or that so if you notice something is not quite right try removing NSM to see if it might be dissagreeing with some of your mods.

i would imagine, and i hope that they put out a new revamped NSM made for 1.5 after they finish with the big mod

[Peto]

Good points being made in this thread. I Completely agree with the comments about Realism vs PLayability. Squad Leader was a great Avalon Hill board game but through it's evolution to Advanced Squad Leader, it lost much of it's luster by becoming so complex in its attempt to re-enact reality. It became a game of two guys arguing about a rule regarding 23.4a... The whole "feel" became lost in the details.

Another important aspect that is easy to lose is our gift of "Hind-Sight". As we sit in front of our computers, we know that 20% of US submariners that went on war patrols were lost. In a game that tends to equate more to, "I have an 80% chance of making it so I'll risk it". That's quite different than how the crew felt, I'm sure...

While I lean toward the goal of realism, the best we can hope to attain IMO, is a solid balance between realism and game. Making the equipment of the time as realistic as possible is quite a task--even finding reliable information for creating an historical mod can be daunting. I have great respect for the lengths the RFB Team goes to be able to make that a "reality" for SH4. Doing some testing for RFB has been very enjoyable--they're quite a Team--and I think that the next release of RFB will Rock!

Ducimus also deserves Kudos for TM. Much of his work has become the foundation for what other modders have accomplished. His openess about "how he did X" has helped anyone who mods or uses a mod. But I must also confess that the ferocity of his escorts make me wonder if he isn't just a little evil at heart :hmm:.

I'd like to do more modding myself but have learned that working on computers during the day + modding at night = Peto Burned Out and less effective at both. So I look to what others have done and are doing in the hope that the balance between "realism and game" equate to a product that suits my tastes. And I am Extremely Thankful for their efforts and Hard Work. And mainly--since I'm too lazy to create my perfect mod, I will never complain about what other modders have created for me to enjoy. Frankly--I don't have the right to do that.

Cheers!

Peto

[Rockin Robbins]

I'm new to SH4, and opted for TMO to start, but you've reinforced my sense that I really must try RFB at some point as well.

Whew! That's a relief. I was afraid I'd made RFB sound like a bad mod. It is not. In fact, I believe it is the future of the fleet boat side of SH4.

I've been attempting to talk both groups of modders into a modular type setup where you could, as an RFB player for instance, plug in the TMO enemy AI if your own personal death seemed appealing at the time. :damn:

I've ripped out the TM keyboard layout as a separate mod and made it avilable to RFB players and others who want its advantages, like one key access to the attack map. Since the two rivals work together on so much anyway (hate to spoil any assumptions of the "hated rivals") these things seem like natural things to do for me.

[tigone]

Rockin Robbins wrote:

> Whew! That's a relief. I was afraid I'd made RFB sound like a bad mod. It is not.

I didn't get that impression at all. It wouldn't be as successful as it is if it were.

[Rockin Robbins]

I have been runnign NSM with RFB 1.5 without any problems so far
last i heard about NSM was that it was strickly a 1.4 mod but when it was tried it did actually work for 1.5 but not for everyone so i think certain combinations of mods cause issues with this or that so if you notice something is not quite right try removing NSM to see if it might be dissagreeing with some of your mods.

i would imagine, and i hope that they put out a new revamped NSM made for 1.5 after they finish with the big mod
Well, that's the advantage of your small mod strategy. With a large mod, it's NEVER finished! You can say, "I want torpedoes to explode a little more powerfully," do it and be done. That's a big advantage.:up:

The problem with NSM is that each ship has its own characteristics in the mod. Since the publication of NSM, many new ship types have been introduced, none of which is covered by RFB or TMO. Then, the settings in NSM override some desirable characteristics of both mods, resulting in some pretty comical sinking behavior sometimes. Like you said, it's nothing deal-breaking. But it is enough that the RFB team is working on a replacement to be part of RFB and most probably released independently as well.

It is a monumental undertaking because each ship must be individually tuned in its own file within the mod. Each ship has to be tweaked, tested, tweaked.... repeat as necessary. Each test means restarting the game. So the cycle is more like tweak, restart, (Q@#$@#!$!!!), test, (@!#$$~!!!), tweak, restart, cuss some more, repeat until exhausted.

It will be worth the wait.

PS-- Man, Fay (the Joker) is really playing with my Internet tonight.

[swdw]

Sigh, RR really needs to try the latest versions of RFB.

Some of his thoughts on RFB are very out of date.

First, on the weak DC's in RFB. Depth charge adjustments were made in the newer RFB versions because they were too underpowered. This is something Beery wanted to do but hadn't got to. Tater's DC mod, which was also rolled into TMO with changes was the first step in this.

Next, the AI of the Japanese ASW has been adjusted. It is nothing like the AI he refers to from in the early versions of RFB, which were close to stock and needed a big rewrite. Peto's extended evasion mod was brought into RFB as the first step towards making this more realistic. That said, they are not as tough as TMO. However, don't expect a 75% (actual loss was 25% not 20%) survival rate unless you have a GOOD handle on evasion tactics. This survival rate that has been quoted includes the beginning of the war where the IJN set the DC's at 150 ft. Once the word got out, things changed. In 1943 the losses jumped dramatically and would have continued had it not been for the stranglehold on the raw materials and oil needed to continue asw measures at the same level.

On a side note- Remember the real survival number applies to boats skippered by officers with EXTENSIVE training in tactics before ever taking a command (the IJN setting the DC's improperly saved a LOT of american lives early in the war when training was poor).

Player losses should, and probably will be higher in RFB in the future until they understand tactics. This will be an ongoing process of hitting the right level.

RFB boats and deck crews are MUCH more vulnerable to surface fire than they used to be. Yet another change towards realism.

All in all, things have changed a LOT since the early version of RFB referred to by RR. So the best thing to do is follow the suggestion of others and try both TMO and RFB, then pick the one that suits YOU.

[AVGWarhawk]

As far as Peto's work on DD, you really never know what your gonna get. You might get a warship that turns tail and runs. Or, you might get the Grim Reaper at the helm so kiss you and your crew goodbye. I tested Peto's mod one time and came upon two subchasers escorting a troop transport. These two were The Brothers Grim. Within about 10 minutes I was done. Ash can down my conning tower hatch..... :oops: So, the 80% chance of 'I'm going to make it out of this' is GREATLY reduces with Peto's mod. The best part of it all like I said, you never know what you are going to get so it is up to you if you want to risk your crews necks.

[DrBeast]

The problem with NSM is that each ship has its own characteristics in the mod. Since the publication of NSM, many new ship types have been introduced, none of which is covered by RFB or TMO. Then, the settings in NSM override some desirable characteristics of both mods, resulting in some pretty comical sinking behavior sometimes. Like you said, it's nothing deal-breaking. But it is enough that the RFB team is working on a replacement to be part of RFB and most probably released independently as well.

It is a monumental undertaking because each ship must be individually tuned in its own file within the mod. Each ship has to be tweaked, tested, tweaked.... repeat as necessary. Each test means restarting the game. So the cycle is more like tweak, restart, (Q@#$@#!$!!!), test, (@!#$$~!!!), tweak, restart, cuss some more, repeat until exhausted.

It will be worth the wait.


Not to mention the various ship types introduced by mods such as RSRDC and/or OM. All in all, a royal headache!
With regards to the two mods, what it really boils down to is: it's a matter of personal preference. Try them both, keep the one you like and, if you're feeling adventurous enough, READ READ READ READ this forum to understand how things work and maybe do a mix and match? It's not really that hard, once you get the hang of it ;)

[Observer]

Just to add some additional info based on parts I've had direct involvement with...

The fleet boat damage model is totally different. Get hit by large caliber naval gunfire, you die. Quickly. Get hit by small caliber gunfire your crew dies. Quickly. Get hit by a close DC and you're going to have various different systems damaged. If you get damaged badly enough, you may even have to combat flooding. This in turn will make it very difficult to maintain depth. The days of "hull damage" when below crush depth are gone. Go below crush depth you die. Quickly. If you have a close aboard DC hit that ruptures the pressure hull (formerly the "bulkhead"), you die. Quickly.

Oh and gone are the days of badly damaged equipment still being 100% functional. As equipment receives damage the performance will degrade (for many systems), and if the equipment is damaged enough, it will stop working altogether. Repair times will take much longer than stock SH4, and only light to medium damage can be repaired. Most components when heavily damaged cannot be repaired until the player returns to port.

The players will have to adjust tactics and realize the submarine is not a Tiger Tank(TM) impervious to damage. You don't get in a gunfight with surface combatants or you will die. In fact, you don't really want to risk your boat to armed merchants without the proper tactics. The submarine has distinct strengths and weaknesses that have to be employed properly by the player in order to be most effective.

On the ship damage model, it's not quite as bad as RR would have you believe, but it is time consuming because every ship is unique and requires individual testing. The good news is that I have a good zone template and a good feel for what does and does not work. The other good news is that these ships seem to be a little easier to work with than their SH3 counterparts.

[Zero Niner]

Excellent post, RR. Your treatise should be cut and stickied for anyone to refer to, when they want to get a gist of what the 2 mods are all about.:up:

[Peto]

From my RFB testing perspective:


First, on the weak DC's in RFB. Depth charge adjustments were made in the newer RFB versions because they were too underpowered. This is something Beery wanted to do but hadn't got to. Tater's DC mod, which was also rolled into TMO with changes was the first step in this.


DC's are nasty if close. Don't get hit.

Next, the AI of the Japanese ASW has been adjusted. It is nothing like the AI he refers to from in the early versions of RFB, which were close to stock and needed a big rewrite. Peto's extended evasion mod was brought into RFB as the first step towards making this more realistic. That said, they are not as tough as TMO. However, don't expect a 75% (actual loss was 25% not 20%) survival rate unless you have a GOOD handle on evasion tactics. This survival rate that has been quoted includes the beginning of the war where the IJN set the DC's at 150 ft. Once the word got out, things changed. In 1943 the losses jumped dramatically and would have continued had it not been for the stranglehold on the raw materials and oil needed to continue asw measures at the same level.

On a side note- Remember the real survival number applies to boats skippered by officers with EXTENSIVE training in tactics before ever taking a command (the IJN setting the DC's improperly saved a LOT of american lives early in the war when training was poor).

Good point on the 25%--you are correct. And your historical points are spot on.

Evasion is much different than stock. One of the main things I learned in testing the sonar changes is patience. You can slink away for 10, 15 minutes thinking you've broken contact only to have them pick you up on active again. It gives me the "feeling" of being hunted rather than simply hounded. 2-3 hour evasions are not unusual. My 13 hour ordeal was the worst (most challenging) test case so far--and then I did manage to escape with about 1/4 of my battery left. Second worst was merely 7 hours. (these are exceptions to many tests though).

Player losses should, and probably will be higher in RFB in the future until they understand tactics. This will be an ongoing process of hitting the right level.

:up:

RFB boats and deck crews are MUCH more vulnerable to surface fire than they used to be. Yet another change towards realism.


Again--from a testing perspective: Yes. ALL incoming gunfire can and will hurt you badly. But I've found that I can still do night surface attacks in almost all conditions--IF I'm careful!!! Taking the time to set it up and timing the actual attack is key. And when I do get spotted, it's All Ahead Flank, Crash Dive and Zig-Zag hoping they don't land a killing round. I usually make it under ok so I can then enjoy a nice depth charging :shifty:.

[Peto]

Just to add some additional info based on parts I've had direct involvement with...

The fleet boat damage model is totally different. Get hit by large caliber naval gunfire, you die. Quickly. Get hit by small caliber gunfire your crew dies. Quickly. Get hit by a close DC and you're going to have various different systems damaged. If you get damaged badly enough, you may even have to combat flooding. This in turn will make it very difficult to maintain depth. The days of "hull damage" when below crush depth are gone. Go below crush depth you die. Quickly. If you have a close aboard DC hit that ruptures the pressure hull (formerly the "bulkhead"), you die. Quickly.

Oh and gone are the days of badly damaged equipment still being 100% functional. As equipment receives damage the performance will degrade (for many systems), and if the equipment is damaged enough, it will stop working altogether. Repair times will take much longer than stock SH4, and only light to medium damage can be repaired. Most components when heavily damaged cannot be repaired until the player returns to port.

The players will have to adjust tactics and realize the submarine is not a Tiger Tank(TM) impervious to damage. You don't get in a gunfight with surface combatants or you will die. In fact, you don't really want to risk your boat to armed merchants without the proper tactics. The submarine has distinct strengths and weaknesses that have to be employed properly by the player in order to be most effective.

On the ship damage model, it's not quite as bad as RR would have you believe, but it is time consuming because every ship is unique and requires individual testing. The good news is that I have a good zone template and a good feel for what does and does not work. The other good news is that these ships seem to be a little easier to work with than their SH3 counterparts.

From a testing perspective: I've been playing sub sims since Gato came out for the Commodore 64. IMO, Observer's sub damage model is the BEST I have EVER seen/experienced in a simulation. Period.

[Fearless]

From a testing perspective: I've been playing sub sims since Gato came out for the Commodore 64. IMO, Observer's sub damage model is the BEST I have EVER seen/experienced in a simulation. Period.

That's an affirmative in my books.

[banjo]

Within this thread there are several references to I can do this or that--if I do it right. Night surface attacks for example. It would be very helpful is these strategies could be spelled out somewhere. Perhaps a strategy sticky?

[Peto]

Within this thread there are several references to I can do this or that--if I do it right. Night surface attacks for example. It would be very helpful is these strategies could be spelled out somewhere. Perhaps a strategy sticky?

I could write something up for how I do Night Surface Attacks. But--until I do--How I Learned It ;):

1. Practice it on your own with a mission or career that you're willing to use just for testing. In other word, expect to get smoked by escorts (or merchants) a couple times while getting a feel for it.

2. Where are the escorts? If there are a couple working the flanks it's a sure bet they go off wandering for a while from time-to-time. When that flank gets left open, it's time to attack.

3. Keep your bow (or stern if lying in wait) pointed at them.

4. The closer you are, the slower you should go...

5. The worse the weather--the closer you can get.

6. I do this in RFB for best results.

7. It just takes practice to learn (see 1 :hmm: ).

Cheers!

Peto

[Orion2012]

Within this thread there are several references to I can do this or that--if I do it right. Night surface attacks for example. It would be very helpful is these strategies could be spelled out somewhere. Perhaps a strategy sticky?

I agree.

I feel as I have a basic understanding of a night attack (flood down, move slow, and best with no moon) but I'd like to hear what the more success skippers amoung us can do,

I recently made the switch from TMO to RFb mainly because it seems to be updated consistently, and truthfully found TMO far easier even with the crazy AI. My first 2 patrols in RFb have resulted n being hammered by an aircraft at PD and the second with an hour long DC evoidance drill until flooding finally took me below crush, made a valiant effort to blow tanks, but to no avail.

[AVGWarhawk]

Within this thread there are several references to I can do this or that--if I do it right. Night surface attacks for example. It would be very helpful is these strategies could be spelled out somewhere. Perhaps a strategy sticky?
I could write something up for how I do Night Surface Attacks. But--until I do--How I Learned It ;):

1. Practice it on your own with a mission or career that you're willing to use just for testing. In other word, expect to get smoked by escorts (or merchants) a couple times while getting a feel for it.

2. Where are the escorts? If there are a couple working the flanks it's a sure bet they go off wandering for a while from time-to-time. When that flank gets left open, it's time to attack.

3. Keep your bow (or stern if lying in wait) pointed at them.

4. The closer you are, the slower you should go...

5. The worse the weather--the closer you can get.

6. I do this in RFB for best results.

7. It just takes practice to learn (see 1 :hmm: ).

Cheers!

Peto
Go in decks awash....works great on surface attack. Speed of your boat seems to be the number one factor in getting caught with your pants down. So, go in low and slow. :up:

[Rockin Robbins]

If someone's going to sticky my post I need to spend some time with RFB and rewrite. Swdw, observer, Peto, AVG, half the RFB gang was in here and when they say things have changed since I was an RFB skipper you better believe it. Now I'll have to rotate my multiple installs around to update a second one to 1.5 and plug RFB/RSRD into it. Wish there was an easier way to do it. I keep a pristeen write protected copy of 1.4 and 1.5 for that purpose though.

It's amazing to me how much these two major mods have converged. I'm just licking my chops for New Real Deck Gun or an improved version to become part of RFB.

One thing is clear. There is no "vs." between TMO and RFB. They are different. They are not both able to be used at the same time. But far from fighting each other, they work WITH each other to make each the best it can be. They provide a great example of how modding should work at SUBSIM.

[swdw]

I keep a pristeen write protected copy of 1.4 and 1.5 for that purpose though.



Smart man :up:

[Rip]

If someone's going to sticky my post I need to spend some time with RFB and rewrite. Swdw, observer, Peto, AVG, half the RFB gang was in here and when they say things have changed since I was an RFB skipper you better believe it. Now I'll have to rotate my multiple installs around to update a second one to 1.5 and plug RFB/RSRD into it. Wish there was an easier way to do it. I keep a pristeen write protected copy of 1.4 and 1.5 for that purpose though.

It's amazing to me how much these two major mods have converged. I'm just licking my chops for New Real Deck Gun or an improved version to become part of RFB.

One thing is clear. There is no "vs." between TMO and RFB. They are different. They are not both able to be used at the same time. But far from fighting each other, they work WITH each other to make each the best it can be. They provide a great example of how modding should work at SUBSIM.

Couldn't agree more with that. I find myself going back and forth every few months. Someday maybe I'll get really froggy and try to carve my favorite pieces out of each.

I am so glad I don't need to feel as though I am slighting one when I play with the other for a while. As long as I never have to play without either!:yep:

[CRM114]

Minor derail for a question here:

I haven't tried RFB but I'm a few patrols into a career with TMO. If I want to try RFB, can I just unload TMO with JGSME and load RFB, then continue my career, or should I start a new one?

[Peto]

I've never tried to switch mid career... I think it might cause problems though considering differences in the boat and crew models. You would most likely be best off with a new career. Then you can also get the experience from beginning to the end (hopefully not a bitter end :hmm:).

Then there is the option of finishing your current career and starting a new one with RFB. That might be the best way to get a feel for the differences between TM and RFB.

Good Hunting!

Peto

[IronPerch]

uhm I must be doing something wrong because my RFB still has an
attack map and I refine solutions with it constantly???????????



hmm... looks different than mine. Which version you are using? I have 1.5 installation (U-boat add-on) and the followign mods:

NSM Classic
PE3.3 with Environmental 4.7 scene.dat -file.
RFB 1.51 (the latest available)
RSRD for RFB (+ patches)
BEST_OF_SH4_FX (my own sound collection)

When playing with the Vanilla SH4 and TMO i somehow felt that the attack map that updates realtime was kind of cheating (didn't use it at all).

I'm not currently able to post a screenshot, so if someone using the same RFB could do it for me?

[Brenjen]

uhm I must be doing something wrong because my RFB still has an
attack map and I refine solutions with it constantly???????????


hmm... looks different than mine. Which version you are using? I have 1.5 installation (U-boat add-on) and the followign mods:

NSM Classic
PE3.3 with Environmental 4.7 scene.dat -file.
RFB 1.51 (the latest available)
RSRD for RFB (+ patches)
BEST_OF_SH4_FX (my own sound collection)

When playing with the Vanilla SH4 and TMO i somehow felt that the attack map that updates realtime was kind of cheating (didn't use it at all).

I'm not currently able to post a screenshot, so if someone using the same RFB could do it for me?
Here ya' go:

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff111/Brenjen67/991971a0-1.jpg

[IronPerch]

One thing is clear. There is no "vs." between TMO and RFB. They are different. They are not both able to be used at the same time. But far from fighting each other, they work WITH each other to make each the best it can be. They provide a great example of how modding should work at SUBSIM.

You are absolutely right RR. English is not the language that i use in everyday life so after reading this topic it makes me think that a better title for the topic should have been "TMO or RFB". Anyway i noticed that this forum seems to work as every forum should work: you can get good and relevant answers to your questions. Also it seems to have a "submarine type of athmosphere" what comes to disagreements: they are smoothed over and after a while everybody get's a long... And like in the real sub's some of the "crew" is working their ass of in a engine room while others are at the deck suning oneselfs and wondering shoud there be seaguls this far from the land... at this time of year ;).

Anyway i started wondering that there should be somekind of "trailers" from the two supermods (and campaigns), especially when they have progressed this far? Maybe a (short)videoclip that introduces the main differences to vanilla SH4, improvements etc? I know you can read the detailed changes and the rest you are going to need from this forum, but It would be a great help for a sh4 noob's like me to get started and select the mod that suits me best..... So, with a typical deep voice in those movie trailers: "...Next summer...after hundreds of hours of hard work.... RFB is going to take you even deeper with the new mindblowing sinkin physics..." :o :-? :lol:

[IronPerch]

Thanks Brenjen! One little request, could you edit your post so it has a picture with the map tab active? Then one can see the missing attack map button and the rest of the changes?

[Brenjen]

Thanks Brenjen! One little request, could you edit your post so it has a picture with the map tab active? Then one can see the missing attack map button and the rest of the changes?
I'm not sure what you're asking for....are you asking for an additional picture of the navigation map to be inserted along with the attack map I have pictured so the two can be compared like this?

ATTACK MAP:

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff111/Brenjen67/5e6591d9-1.jpg

NAV MAP:

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff111/Brenjen67/32d75496-1.jpg

[[MIA]Prophet]

Hola fellow Captains. In response to the attack map updating targets, it will do so if your settings are not changed when you start a career. Thus, if you don't tweak with the settings prior to boarding your boat and engaging a mission, you'll have automatic updating targets.

Back to the main mission statement, TMO vs RFB. Though I've yet to play TMO, I've come to surmise that TMO has realism based off of it being just extremely difficult instead of accurate. While this may be true, I have one gripe with difficulty forcing players to act realistically. That being said, TMO fits other players just as well, while I am a RFB Captain.

My first experience with RFB could be summarized as frustrating. Not in that the game is broken, or there is a flaw with it. I was frustrated because during 3 patrols I saw action twice, and sank one boat, while injuring another severely, but with no confirmation on it's sinking. The reasoning was two fold.

The first was, my first contact was a convoy carrying troops, supplies, with a full compliment of destroyers and cruisers for protection. I was able to sneak in under the thermal layer, and spot a merchantman using my observation scope. After more manuevering at a soul crushingly slow pace, careful to avoid the patrolling destroyers, I was able to finally fire two torpedos with reasonable certainty that both would hit the target dead on. After firing my torpedos, I wasn't able to stick around, I was spotted immediately by a destroyer, which took a pot shot at me which luckily missed my near surfaced boat.

The first torpedo was registered as a dud, and the second caught the freighter in the port-side bow, causing a noticable list, but it still wasn't sinking to critical levels. Frustration was setting in, and I was forced below the thermal layer under extremely low power. The destroyers were randomly depth charging the area, unable to find my boat using active pinging, and any attempts I made to move back into an attacking position was immediately pinged, and forced me further away from the target.

It became increasingly clear that while killing my boat was a goal, their main modus operandi wasn't to kill me, but to drive me away from the convoy, making a second attack nigh impossible.

During the initial phases of submarine warfare in the pacific, the US Submarine force sank a total of 12 japanese ships, with the loss of 4 of their own, using 27 submarines. That's less than half of the entire fleet scoring 1 kill, and even then, most ended their patrols with none at all.

RFB seems to be my MOD of choice. I will continue to stick with it and I look forward to the dev team making their own NSM.

In short, choose the mod that works best for you. Some people are masochist when it comes to games, and like a game where the AI is superb and death lurks around the corner. Other, like myself, prefer the stamina draining borefest that comes with reality.

One other note, keep up the good work to both teams. This is what makes SH series the awesome series it is.

[Peto]

Nice post :up: .

Just wondering if you also use lurker's RSRD Campaign? His RFB version is an Excellent addition to RFB :yep:!

Cheers!

Peto

[[MIA]Prophet]

RSRDC is also one of my mods, but I have a fundamental problem with playing my game is that with all the addons, I've lost track of how to bring up my chronometer aside from firing a torpedo or compressing time.

Silly aint it?

[Peto]

Not silly! Been there and done that :lol:!!!

Try hitting the X key ;)!

[[MIA]Prophet]

"Skipper, you know banging your head off of the periscope pole causes transients the enemy can hear.."

Now I don't have to wrestle with my XO over his stop watch.

[IronPerch]

I'm not sure what you're asking for....are you asking for an additional picture of the navigation map to be inserted along with the attack map I have pictured so the two can be compared like this?


ooookey....:doh: The attack map has been there all the time... :huh: Haven't noticed it since it wasn't in original place and there was no shortcut key... Please step aside [MIA]Prophet, it's my turn to use the periscope pole :damn:

[Brenjen]

I'm not sure what you're asking for....are you asking for an additional picture of the navigation map to be inserted along with the attack map I have pictured so the two can be compared like this?

ooookey....:doh: The attack map has been there all the time... :huh: Haven't noticed it since it wasn't in original place and there was no shortcut key... Please step aside [MIA]Prophet, it's my turn to use the periscope pole :damn:

LOL...it happens. I have installed & uninstalled so many mods & switched back & forth from SH4 V1.4 to V1.5 recently that I can't learn how to manually target because each version has changes or bugs that affect some aspect of it. I'm going to have a hard time enjoying the "look & feel" of the game & balancing my abilities to learn with tutorials written about entirely different versions....so save me some space on that periscope pole. :doh:

[[MIA]Prophet]

I believe the now defining moment for both of the mods would be the addition of the "Bang head against periscope pole" button to relieve stress as the CO. I also think they should delegate more command to the XO.

[Rockin Robbins]

Suggestion noted and transmitted to RFB Team and TMO developer.:rotfl:

[thomas cook]

Actually it's pretty amazing. The guiding principles of RFB and TMO are completely opposed.

Trigger Maru Overhauled
TMO came from Ducimus' migration from SH3 and his observation that challenges were few in his new game. So, for his own use, he developed Trigger Maru to increase the difficulty of the game. He did NOT stick with objective reality when he did so. ASW capabilities of Japanese escorts were ratcheted up to frankly unrealistic levels. They can find you and depth charge you with deadly accuracy without pinging sometimes. They are VERY aggressive. If you run into an elite crew on a Japanese escort you are dead unless you kill him. For that reason, there is only one elite crew in Trigger Maru: Bungo Pete.

The nav map was nerfed to reflect more accurately the info that would really be developed by the plotting crew for the captain. Ship silhouettes are gone, replaced by a position dot, because the radar did not tell you what kind of ship you had detected. Friend/foe/neutral colors are gone for the same reasons. Boats no longer have velocity vector tails that tell you without any analysis on your part what their course is. And the "x" for the projected impact point in the attack screen is gone. Although done for the purpose of increasing difficulty, these changes had an effect that possibly wasn't intended. Running SH4 with map updates on is now more realistic than leaving map updates off, especially if your sub has radar.

And what the heck is realism anyway? Tater observed that in Trigger Maru, unrealistic enemy behavior results in extremely realistic player behavior. You are properly operating in fear for your life. Wow! How authentic! Therefore you do not take stupid chances. You cannot just duck below the thermal layer, put it on silent running and go eat lunch. You will be dead when you return. When being depth charged, you MUST evade. They will kill you. Be afraid. Very afraid. It's wonderful

RFB
Real Fleet Boat was originated from the standpoint of reading patrol reports and attempting to reproduce the results reflected therein with accuracy, who cares about gameplay glitter. After war statistics said that only one of 20 boats were sunk. Therefore depth charges were nerfed to the point that you had a 95% chance of living through your career. Enemy AI was left alone. Attack map and nav map were left alone. Based on cruise reports from WWII, the deck gun was altered so its firing rate reflected the rates from actual combat use, not a test stand on terra firma. People had lots of fun fighting over that one, especially land lubber artillery experts. Then the effectiveness of deck gun shells was nerfed. If cruise reports said it took 85 shells to sink a small freighter, that's what RFB takes. You'll spend the greater part of an hour to sink one and you'll be just waiting to be plastered by a plane all that time. Welcome to reality.

The last version of RFB I played was Beery's last one. I switched to TMO during the uncertainty time and after SH4 went to patch 1.4 and RFB was no longer compatible enough. So I can't comment on later versions. I do know that with Beery's version I never had to go deep. I could stay at periscope depth and watch myself being depth charged. If they hit me it wasn't fatal. I just charged through the screen into the merchies and wrecked havoc. It didn't matter if I were detected or not.

As soon as I saw a ship or detected it on radar, I just went to my nav map. If it was green it was friendly, red it was enemy. The silhouette told me the general ship type so I knew speed capability, whether it was merchant or warship. I could immediately plot the course from the velocity vector without any investigation on my own part.

I'll leave it there as RFB has a lot of changes under Swdw's leadership and I'm in no position to comment on them. Much may have changed. I'll have to let one of the RFB team describe their mod better.

My own progression
Although I agreed with Beery's addiction to reality and faithfulness to it, I came to the realization that the final result wasn't realistic. I was Rambo, invulnerable enough not to fear, with superhuman shooting ability because of my stock nav plot. I was ready to change to a Trigger Maru I was prepared to hate because of its lack of realism.

My first cruise was brutal. I had Superman in those escorts charging me through the fog without pinging me first and dropping deadly accurate depth charges. I hopped right into the TM forum and blasted Ducimus, who set me straight with the simple observation of "who said TM was realistic?" In otherwords "get with the program." He also pointed out that in my account of what I did I had written a textbook on proper evasion tactics. And I realized suddenly that I had learned more in one test mission from hell than all the previous months I had played Silent Hunter 4. Suddenly I was not frustrated that I hadn't sunk the merchies. I was overjoyed that I had survived. And the thought hit me: THAT is real realism.

In its later incarnations, TMO has become more and more a realism mod. Ducimus has been influenced by the evil RFB crew (helped them even) and incorporated many realistic details into TMO: evil enemy aircraft that can depth charge you at periscope depth (also part of RFB if I recall correctly). Properly nerfed deck gun so you realize why they no longer appear on any submarines. They were a lousy idea that never worked, unless you count foolishly courting death as a good idea.

I think in the end, these two mods, originated for very different goals have converged to the point that it would be difficult even to say which is more realistic than the other. About the only thing you might say now is that TMO is definitely more challenging. And what is YOUR definition of reality.

Is it reality of enemy behavior and reality of results? Then RFB is your mod.

Is is reality found in YOUR behavior and attitude? Is fear part of reality in war that you want to experience? Are you willing to have your career without the assurance that you will probably survive all the way to the end of the war? Look at TMO then.

Disclaimer
I'm not an RFB expert any more. I have simplified the changes that TMO has made in the game (and RFB too) to convey my own subjective impressions of both. I can be wrong sometimes, and this comparison is very subjective. Even if I'm right, you might come to a different observation that is equally right. Especially the RFB guys should come and present their case better than I can. If Ducimus were here he could do the same. I'm not the best to do this but I'm what you got.:rotfl:

Just simply, wow..
After shelfing sh4 for about 2 years, I started to wonder how tough it would be to actually incorporate mods. The game was basically not even playable out of the box and I was quite frustrated about it since I really fell in Love with Silent Hunter 4.
Mods were possible, even for a guy like me, who isn't that computer savvy. Furthermore, there's guys like Rockin Robbins who take the time to explain this stuff clearly. Silent Hunter 4 has leaped off the shelf and is very much alive.. I was originally motivated because I wanted to experience the Pacific campaign, but looking back now, it's the modding community that really got me back into sh4. Should mention that I also own sh3 and sh5, with sh5 logging most of my patrol time lately. Sh4 will now cut that in half though. Thanks for the informative and well written info Rockin Robbins. It's certainly helping :yeah: As well, thx to all the mod devs that have kept this genre alive. It's such an awesome sim. One that certainly does not receive the attention it deserves.
Happy Hunting all.

[AVGWarhawk]

I could not agree more Thomas Cook! :up: