'Reality'- Tonnage Totals in WWII [Archive]

Randomizer

09-13-08, 07:42 PM

Part of the problem is that SH3 counts warship tonnage the same as merchant tonnage which is entirely inaccurate in my opinion. Warships were typically measured in displacement tonnage of which there are a number of variables (Light, Full Load, Normal, Maximum and several others depending on the nation of registry) or deadweight tonnage, a measure of the actual weight of the ship but also generally including a number of variables.

A Gross Registered Ton (GRT) as it applied to merchant ships was actually a measure of interior volume of the potential revenue earning spaces within the hull and not a weight or displacement measurement at all.

Sometimes, other rules may be applied to tankers which are by definition, mostly empty space.

Combining displacement with GRT is comparing apples to hamburgers, a warship cannot have a gross registered tonnage since she has no potential revenue spaces and displacement is meaningless to a merchant since it would be mostly dependent on the weight of the cargo carried.

The USN lumped the two values together for scoring Pacific kills though, hence USS Archerfish tops the single patrol high-score list with her one kill, the aircraft carrier Shinano but comes in only 25th in total tonnage sunk. SH4 reflects this USN policy correctly.

As far as I can tell, the Germans counted warships seperately from merchants for credit and awards. It would have been nice if SH3 had done the same.

Sailor Steve

09-13-08, 08:27 PM

As far as I can tell, the Germans counted warships seperately from merchants for credit and awards. It would have been nice if SH3 had done the same.
I think you're right on that. PappyCain's link to the U-Boat Aces sight shows a total for Kretschmer, but U-Boat.Net shows separate totals:
http://uboat.net/men/kretschmer.htm

BasilY

09-13-08, 09:20 PM

The way I see it, there are a number of factors that make a player in SH3 more successful than a real uboat skipper;

Historical Hintsight:
- Experience accumulated from previous carreers. We don't forget what we learned after "death".
- We know when the Allies will have new weapon systems against us, (such as Hodgehog). We can ask fellow players as to how to be ready for it before they are deployed.
- The scripted actions of various operations and entrance to war are known to us.
- The weakness of most ships are known to us through trial and error in many carreers.

Ship Availability:
- Convoys are more frequent in SH3/GWX2.1, A convoy sail almost very day in SH3 (correct me if I am wrong) where as in the real war, they sailed less often. In SH3/GWX2.1 I will surely meet at least 1 convoy if I want to attack convoys.
- Ships are larger. way too many whale factory ships, and ore carriers roaming arround.
- No fellow uboats taking your kills.
- Single ships and convoys did not avoid an area of suspect/recent u-boat activity, as they historically do. (So players can stay in high traffic areas attacking passer-by)
- Way too many single ships, even late in the war in GWX2.1 in a number of coastal areas. (though the number of destroyer patrols increased as well)
- Too many Task forces parading along predictable routes in SH3 for the player's pleasure. (Hebrides for example)

AI Behavior:
- A convoy stayed on course, even after an attack or after all escorts are sunk
- DD dehaved the same, even if that very behavior (circle back) frequently lead to death.
- DDs did not co-operate well when more than 2 destroyers are attacking you.
- AI did not actively hunt a player down after near coast attacks with good coordination. (Hunter/killer task forces in SH3 aren't very effective)
- Let's face it, AI just aren't as good as humans when it comes to learning from mistakes and adjusting to changing situations.

Other Game Design factors:
- More time at sea:
a. In SH3 we spent fewer days in base between patrols.
b. In the real world, a successful captain, like Brandi and Luth, are promoted to land-based command/training positions.
c. Magic carpet allow player to spend all torps before turning for home. There is no risk of a hostile encounter when returning home without ammo.
- In SH3, a uboat can't be spotted from the air if we are at P-depth with parascope down. In the real world, a plane directly overhead can spot you just fine.
- Even allowing duds in the games, the torpedos are far more reliable than the historical truth early war. And we know from the start to use impact shots instead of magnatic shots.

Task Force

09-13-08, 09:29 PM

The way ive gotten my tonnage is through experience, and agressivness. I use every torpedo,shell,AA round on my boat before going in to base.;) The main reason Real skippers didnt have as much tunnahe as we do is because they can realy be killed, when we are killed, all that happens is a screen that gives are tonnage, and U boat distroyed.:yep:

Task Force

09-13-08, 10:56 PM

Jeezum at that scale of tonnage on 'one patrol' 100-200-300 tons what are folks racking up for the entire war? a million tons?

Im working on it and I am half way there(currently its 1940).:D Ive also never lost a crew member, and dont go on long patroals, just quick agressive patroals

Randomizer

09-13-08, 11:17 PM

I generally do snorkel patrols in 1944-45 (GWX-2.1) starting with a green randomized crew and a Type VIIC operating inshore off the British Isles as they did in the 11th Flotilla.

Returning to base at all is great. Returning with 10,000 tons is fantastic. Returning with 20,000 tons or more is... well I don't know what it would be like since have never managed to do it (so far).

If it was supposed to be easy, it wouldn't be any fun.

Sailor Steve

09-14-08, 12:11 AM

I think BasilY's summary is just about perfect. There are a number of reasons why is game will never reflect real life, and he hit them just about perfectly.

For myself I try to play like a real captain. Not using external views is a big part of it. The uncertainty of not knowing what's going on outside makes a huge difference. A realism mod like any of the big three supermods makes a difference as well. Any game is going to be easier than real life when you can just reload or start a new career. If 'Dead is Dead' isn't enough, try this to make you sweat: "Dead is dead, and if I die I don't touch the game for a year." And no, I don't do that, even though I haven't played in a couple of years anyway.

Lemme see if I get this right. When one gets killed they just keep on going? I was under the impression you started from 1939 again, with anew Kaleun and crew not pick up where you left off. (respawn)
It is possible to reload the same career, but that isn't 'Dead is Dead'. The game lets you start a new career at the beginning of each year up through 1943, and SH3 Commander lets you start a career at the beginning of any month of the war.

I run several careers concurrently, one from each flotilla. If one dies, or retires, I start a new career from that flotilla at the first of the next month. I'm cautious when I must be, aggressive when I think I can get away with it, and my tonnage totals seem to be in line with what you got from an average kaleun. I just keep pretending it's real and keep my crew's well being at the front of my mind.

nirwana

09-14-08, 02:36 AM

I blame it on sh3com which makes it possible to have a perfect specialized crew right from the beginning, the overpowered deckgun and the strange behavior of convoys to stick together after being stripped off escorts.

timmyab

09-14-08, 06:43 AM

BasilY's post lists most of the important reasons for unrealistic tonnages.AI incompetence is particularly to blame in this regard.It's like the difference between playing a fps single player and multiplayer.Different world.
I play with lots of house rules which makes a 50000 ton patrol something worth celebrating.I'm also more likely to get myself killed.

Sailor Steve

09-14-08, 12:19 PM

That is too bad allowing one jump into another boat mid career by entering a new name and play forward with the best crew, best technology, knowing the enemy before one executes rather than learn by trial or die by error. Kinda odd without a penalty huh?
I'm hoping you misundertand. By popular demand the last version of SH3 Commander did indeed allow a player to 'take over', continuing the same career with a new captain, and giving all the advantages you describe. That, however, is only one option. I ran multiple careers in AOD and SH1, and they didn't allow for that option. In SH3 when my career ends through either death, capture or retirement, my new career starts fresh. I have a new boat, a new captain and a new crew, and I never, ever 'buy' experienced crew. Commander does shake up the barrel a bit and give you some crew with background, skills and experience, which I love, but each new career is, for me, just that - new. It just happens to start the same month (or month after) the old one ended.

All those other options are only options. Nobody makes me play that way. And my patrol tonnages are usually somewhere in the middle of the historic ones, so I think I'm doing something right.

Sailor Steve

09-14-08, 01:50 PM

I'm pretty sure it was just the opposite - an elite service with no shortage of volunteers lining up for their chance at glory.

Steeltrap

09-14-08, 07:09 PM

Here's my take on this topic:

1. Realism. I play at something like 90%. That's everything 'real' EXCEPT I allow external view (not for tactical issues, more because it looks great and I like to 'see' how it looks 'out there'...I don't use event camera, however) and map updates.

As an aside, I allow map updates because I find the stadimeter and plotting tools to be inaccurate to a point of frustration. One of the greatest things any sim could do would be introduce a 'proper' tracking team so the skipper can just go 'bearing: mark!.....range: mark!' and have the result appear plotted automatically. That should also allow multiple plots at once. So I 'cheat' in this respect as it's the best way for my tastes to allow me the info a good skipper and fire control crew would have.

2. AI. Well commented upon already, you simply must play with GWX or NYGM to get a real appreciation of the dangers as the war progresses - especially with aircraft. They should be the single greatest threat out there, particularly as they represent a way to be killed without getting anywhere near a target. The stock game is totally inadequate there - I've seen people post patrols where they've killed 30-50 aircraft!!

3. Frequency of targets. Stock game is 'yippy-shoot' in this respect. The uber-mods change the campaign files to address this far better: I've often gone for quite a while (in bad weather particularly) without finding anything, even in 1940-41.

4. DECK GUN!! Want to change your patrol stats to be more realistic? ONLY allow yourself to use the deck gun on a target you have already torped. The deck gun is absurdly overpowered (I believe that it is still too powerful in GWX2.1, although much more reasonable than stock). Fact is an average sized merchant could take more than 50 rounds to sink it. I strongly suspect a lot of the more 'absurd' patrol totals feature a lot of kills with the deck gun alone.

5. Endurance. You can stay at sea for as long as it takes to find targets. That takes weather out of the equation, as you can simply ignore it for a week if that's what it takes.

I've found that using manual fire control and only using d/g to kill off cripples keeps patrol scores more reasonable, although still 'too high' against true history (for example, I've been averaging around 18-25k per patrol in 1940).

Cheers

GoldenRivet

09-14-08, 07:40 PM

lets examine some of the "100% Careers" and compare those to the real life patrols.

Take Otto Kretschmer as an example:

1. he completed 16 War patrols

2. he spent a total of 229 Days at sea (average of 14.3 days at sea per patrol.)

3. His total Tonnage was 256,684 GRT (according to SH3 commander)

Conclusion: During his 16 patrols, spanning 229 days at sea, Otto Kretschmer averaged 1,120 tons sent to the bottom per day he was at sea, OR approximately 16,042 tons per patrol.
-----------------------------------------

Compare that to My 1st 100% career with GWX 2.1...

My first 100% career was under a character by the name of "Jon Wintergarten"

1. He completed 11 war patrols (before SH3 commander reassigned him to training duties)

2. He spent a total of 167 days at sea (average of 16 days per patrol)

3. He sank a total Tonnage of 225,997 GRT

Conclusion: Jon Wintergarten (my fictional SH3 commander) endured 11 patrols during which he spent 167 days at sea. He averaged 1350 tons per day at sea. OR 20,545 tons per patrol.

------------------------------

FACTS:

Though the SH3 career was only slightly more successful per patrol, it fell short of Otto kretschmers totals. and probably would have matched his totals or even slightly exceeded them if 4 more patrols had been made.

Both the real life career and the SH3 career experienced patrols which produced little or no results.

Both careers spanned from 1939 to 1941 during the "happy times".

Both careers had almost the exact same number of days per patrol.

Both careers experienced a similar level of successes in the same time period, in the same theater, under the same or similar combat conditions, against the same enemy, against the same targets.

----------------------------------

Final Conclusion

personally, i am quite satisfied with the "similarity" between the two careers. and i feel like, hands down, SH3 modded with GWX2.1 is the most accurate means of simulating a U-Boat career without actually building a submarine and going to sea with malicious intent.

We will probably never be able to simulate a U-boat commander's experience to any degree of absolute realism with current technology any more so than has already been done by SH3/GWX2.1.

In order for any results of such an observation as i have just made, only players who play at 100% realsim (no external cam, no mods which make stronger weapons etc) and observe actual combat techniques employed by the U-boats can be included in the study.

Yes, SH3 makes it easier on us as "virtual commanders", this is unavoidable in any simulation. (as a comparison think of the number of times you crashed in a flight simulator and learned from the mistake you made... many pilots dont get that second chance to learn from a crash)

EDIT: one final thing that is being forgotten about is "time compression" we routinely play SH3 at 512 TC (some less others more). TC makes the game easier, and less demanding on the player.

I recall the frustration of my 1x patrol last month... there would be a day or two of NOTHING... simply no activity.

I would wager that if a person simulated a 1x career the tonnage results would be extraordinarily different from a player completing the same career under time compression.

furthermore... BdU within SH3 does not micromanage us as commanders as they did in real life. In SH3 - if you wish to go to your favorite hunting grounds you are free to do so... however in real life, U-boats were heavily monitored and controlled by BDU

GoldenRivet

09-14-08, 09:57 PM

In order for any results of such an observation as i have just made, only players who play at 100% realism (no external cam, no mods which make stronger weapons etc) and observe actual combat techniques employed by the U-boats can be included in the study.

Perhaps a sticky thread solely for 100% realism Kaleuns would be a good idea. Moderated by a seasoned player to keep it alive and well. Would draw like minded who earn tonnage the proper way. Talk apples and apples. Trade exploites on the same level.

S'
PC

you must admit the results of such a study would be interesting.

A hand full of commanders to play the following sections of the campaign @ 100% realism...
- September 1939 - May 1940
- May 1940 - May 1941
- May 1941 - May -1942
- May 1942 - May 1943
- May 1943 - May 1944
- May 1944 - May 1945

Each players results being compared to the real life results of a commander who had a caree for a similar time span.

I would be willing to bet that the tonnage results would be in fact quite similar to real life results

predavolk

09-14-08, 10:36 PM

Pappy, you can't bag 100K in a patrol? Switch to a IX. If you can't then, you stink at the game or you're playing with highly artificial constraints (e.g., hunting in unproductive areas). I've been at 100% my entire career.

And as usual, BasilY and I are in agreement (and yes Basily, I am closing in on your last career mark of 2,000,000+ tons!). Besides Basily's comments, I'll emphasize that:

1- Anti-sub command doesn't respond to your habitual presence in hot spots by rerouting traffic away from (merchants) and towards (antisub) you. That's huge. My scores in the Caribbean came in a pair of grids that should've, by result, been crawling with ASW ships and planes.

2- There is more merchant traffic in GWX than there was in real life.

3- We are MUCH better Kalheuns then average, or at least, much more effective. For the host of reasons BasilY described, added to our experience (although mine is ONE career, 4 months of playing, easy to get 100K+ patrols pre-1943), and our extremem artificial bravery and boom- piece of cake.

The game is easier than in real life. The game wouldn't be very fun if it was purely like real life, minus the death. Only a rare handful can afford to play without time compression for example. Personally, I'm happy to get a flavor for what some of the variables in the war were like, while enjoying the game at the same time.

BasilY

09-14-08, 11:55 PM

The game is easier than in real life. The game wouldn't be very fun if it was purely like real life, minus the death. Only a rare handful can afford to play without time compression for example. Personally, I'm happy to get a flavor for what some of the variables in the war were like, while enjoying the game at the same time.
Completely agree, we are just getting a taste of how it feels to be there. But we are NOT there and never will be.

For example, will any player in a 1939-40 patrol use magnatic pistol knowing that it is going to fail? I don't think any SH3 player will do that. Yet real uboat skippers, not knowing the depth of the problem of torpedoes, wasted many great opportunities because of it. (There is a great article on uboat.net about the many encounters where capital ships would have been sunk.) The benefit of hintsight in this case cannot be easily measured quantitatively.

Real life is filled with uncertainties from places you never expected; more so in wartime; A computer program can never deliver pure uncertainty.

Sailor Steve

09-15-08, 01:03 AM

@ Steeltrap: Good idea, and good execution. My only disagreement would be that your conclusion hinges on the comparison with the best of the best. If the game lets the average player be as good as Kretchmer then there is still something very wrong. At the toughest levels most of us shouldn't be able to get nearly that close. Unless you really would have been that good your conclusion is invalid; at least in my opinion.

For example, will any player in a 1939-40 patrol use magnatic pistol knowing that it is going to fail? I don't think any SH3 player will do that.
Every time, without fail. I too play for the experience, but to me the experience includes the failures and frustrations. When I first did my Patrol Reports thread three years ago I had my captain write about the frustration of failed patrols. I got some congratulations on realism in my patrols, but mostly I was flooded with messages from players telling me how to beat the escorts and where to bag the most tonnage.

Far from avoiding magnetics in the bad period, which I agree is what most do, there are a very small handful of us who are frustrated that the failure rate is way too low. Maybe a handful of one. I don't know.

Steeltrap

09-15-08, 01:36 AM

Steve, agree with what you've said about the 'best of the best'.

Funny thing is I thought I had concluded that an average of 18-25k, while modest in terms of what a lot of members claim, is "still 'too high' against true history".

That leaves me a little uncertain as to which conclusion I reached with which you disagree.

Always enjoy your posts, so looking for more info - not saying I disagree with you, more a case of not quite sure where you disagree with me!

Cheers

p.s. strikes me as ironic that we can be having this discussion while there is another thread about the quest for a 250,000t patrol.....:huh:

HunterICX

09-15-08, 05:26 AM

I think it also depends on the way you WANT to play it.

I return to base with torpedos and ammo, as I plan a route...I first head towards my assigned grid and then I plot a way back to base where I think I might encounter some ships but I do not go to spots like where I know juicy convoys will pass just to raise my score, because then it seems I'm playing a game and am aiming to beat some sort of record instead of enjoying this wonderfull Subsim.

I enjoy just hanging back with a book or chatting via Teamspeak, Jimbuna's Grammaphone Collection turned on sailing towards my grid and the game really starts when I spot a ship.

but in a convoy, no doubt I aim at the biggest floating ship I can spot:arrgh!:

HunterICX

BasilY

09-15-08, 10:07 AM

1- Anti-sub command doesn't respond to your habitual presence in hot spots by rerouting traffic away from (merchants) and towards (antisub) you. That's huge. My scores in the Caribbean came in a pair of grids that should've, by result, been crawling with ASW ships and planes.

As a programmer, this is one problem that actually isn't too hard to fix for SH3, (I don't know if it can be done through mods though). Immediately after a successful sinking, there is a high probability (allowing for a small percentage of the times when the victim ship fail radio in the attack for some reason) that a uboat warning area is declared for a certain period of time (maybe 2-3 days).

In this area,
- Air cover is increased, as long as within air coverage area (or Hunter/killer group range), and as long as weather permits.
- All single merchant and convoy outside the area will steer around it.
- All single merchant within the area will increase speed and start zigzag regardless of whether they have sighted uboat.
- All available ASW units (except the last 4 escorts for a convoy) within or near this area will coordinate in a grid search of the area. (The area will be divided in grids. Responsibility for each grid is assigned to each ASW unit; no duplicate efforts. they will patrol from the edge of the circle going inward.). More available units nearby, more thorough and fast the search.

A second attack within the area will trigger additional units assign to hunt the uboat.

2- There is more merchant traffic in GWX than there was in real life.

And with higher tonnage too, as well as showing up in very unlikely areas, like whale factory ships cruising in the middle of the Caribbean...

predavolk

09-15-08, 10:27 AM

Hmmm. And you made it starting from 1939, through to '40, '41, '42, '43, '44 and through '45 all the way to the end in consecutive patrols 'alive' as one Kaleun playing 'dead is dead' and scoring 100K patrols?' at 100% realisim all the way? Yep. I must stink. Ova and Out.

I never said 100K patrols throughout your career. But up until mid-42, when improved sonar comes online, yes, no problem. I don't play DID, but that's hardly an issue. Make sure the sea state is medium-high when attacking near escorts = near invulnerability in the early years so long as you've got deep water and some batteries. That lets you ravage convoys, almost at will.

But easier still, destroy single British merchants in 39-40, and then American in 41-42, and you don't even need to worry about escorts. It's honestly not very challenging. You can rack up a lot of deck gun kills, especially against unarmed merchants without air cover. Then the game switches to being ridiculously challenging vs. convoys (without homing torps), and single merchants are less frequent and MUCH better armed.

I have died 3 or 4 times in my current career. If I did it over again, I wouldn't die unless some freak incident happened AND I would have even better tonnage. The game on 100% realism isn't that hard unless you add extra limits (e.g., using magnetic torps, roming all over chasing contacts, mimicking Doenitz's orders to fight airplanes on the surface, etc.). So it's not a matter of difficulty settings, or unrealistic bragging, it's just a limitatio of trying to simulate a very complicated, and very numerous, set of variables.

Pappy, check out my 100K club thread. You'll get details of my hunts, and where you can go hunting to get your 100K even with most extra limits in place. You'll also see that the highest historical single patrol was 99K, by a WW1 sub ace who ended up with around a half-million tons to his credit!

Sailor Steve

09-15-08, 11:12 AM

GoldenRivet

09-15-08, 11:39 AM

@ steve: as i said earlier... the game does make it easier on us ;), there have been a number of 100% DiD careers in which i was blown out of the water... or i managed to survived but managed nowhere near the tonnage totals of some of the higher aces.

but one major thing we are all missing the boat on so to speak is the dynamic involvement of BDU.

the BDU we know tells us to patrol a grid for 24 hours, and thats about it.

the BDU we know also does not penalize us if we don't go where it tells us to go, nor does it expect us to report our position every 24 hours.

in short BDU micromanaged the U-boats in real life.

In SH3 on the other hand.... you have full autonomy to visit your favorite hunting grounds every time you leave the docks without giving any regard to what BDU ordered you to do.

this no doubt leads to higher than normal tonnage totals for players of all skill levels across the board

Sailor Steve

09-15-08, 11:45 AM

Excellent point, which is probably one of the reasons my scores are more historic than some others. I go to my assigned grid and stay there until fuel or ammunition dictate a return home. The only exceptions are if I shadow a ship and follow it out of the grid, if a convoy is reported in an adjoing grid and I go to investigate, or if a real historic message ordered the sub with my number to, say, "Patrol off Iceland" - then I go there as if the message were real, which ususally uses up my fuel and kills the patrol.

Silly me, I don't want to beat the game, I want to command a submarine.:sunny:

Darksun

09-15-08, 06:32 PM

Silly me, I don't want to beat the game, I want to command a submarine.:sunny:

Lots of games have rewards beyond just "beating" the game. You can just say you are working on all the "achievements" now.

Maybe we should make a list of them. :)

Complete a patrol on 100% realism
Complete a patrol in NYGM
Complete a patrol in GWX
Complete a patrol in the North Sea
Complete a partol in the North Atlantic
Site the Statue of Liberty in your periscope
Complete a career in any super mod.
100K patrol
250K patrol
Sink a carrier
Sink a battleship
Loose a submarine with all hands to Aircraft/DD/Hedgehogand so on down to

Play a DiD career and really stop when you die
Complete a career Sailor Steve style.
Play a "real time only" patrol.
Play an entire career in "Real Time"-D

Warner Von Shultz

09-15-08, 08:31 PM

I think the key to better more realistic patrols is to keep in mind that the real commanders had their safety foremost in their minds. The experience factor in SH3 of playing many careers could be identified in the "reality" of the game as having a captain that was a boy in WWI aboard a sub or in the navy in general (ok this is stretching it).

But I've stated before that if you try to think like you have only one life then you will be more cautious.

Hitman

09-16-08, 07:10 AM

the BDU we know tells us to patrol a grid for 24 hours, and thats about it.

the BDU we know also does not penalize us if we don't go where it tells us to go, nor does it expect us to report our position every 24 hours.

in short BDU micromanaged the U-boats in real life.

In SH3 on the other hand.... you have full autonomy to visit your favorite hunting grounds every time you leave the docks without giving any regard to what BDU ordered you to do.

this no doubt leads to higher than normal tonnage totals for players of all skill levels across the board

That's correct but ......

You must remember that historically BDU was not very patient, so when a U-Boat spent more than 48 hours in a grid with no contact, it was usually moved to another grid. Agressive and moving patrolling was employed (Which makes a huge contrast to O'Kane's declared preferred method of sitting dead in the water waiting when he hadn't anywhere specific to go :huh: ). Also, patrol lines where built with several U-Boats, in an effort to have at least one boat locate the convoys. In SH3 you can limitedly represent this via radio contacts around your U-Boat, as if you were in the centre of that patrol line, but when a contact appears, you have no way of shadowing it -as would have happened in real life- so you are not able to try to intercept if you are too far. In real life, a shadowing U-Boat would make many others converge precisely to the convoy and BDU would decide when the attack should start.

Anyway, besides the great points that have been already mentioned here, I would like to add:

-We do not always behave like BDU instructed, sometimes because we don't know what BDU really did. For example, during many months in 1943-1944 there were continuous changes about the tactics to cross the Bay of Biscay (Submerged by day, surfaced by day, radar detector on, radar detector off. etc.). And some of those instructions would lead you to a certain death in SH3 :hmm:

predavolk

09-16-08, 08:16 AM

Silly me, I don't want to beat the game, I want to command a submarine.:sunny:

Then I'd suggest you join the military. :p Honestly, this is a game. If you want to use it to try and simulate a naval career, OK. If you want to use it to try and recreate the career of a German Kahleun in WWII, fine. But realize the game only plays until 1943 or so that way. Then you're toast if you try to simulate reality.

In short, what I sense is the frustration or disrespect of those who are trying to replicate reality with those who play the game like it is a game. A quasi-realistic game, but a game nonetheless. Personally, I fall into the latter category, and think it's silly to disparage someone on either side. For example, I don't see ANYONE bragging about how real they keep it AND following Doenitz's strict orders that subs stay on the surface and fight it out with airplanes. Why? Because that's suicide in GWX (like it was in real life). I don't see anyone bragging about NOT purchasing a radar warning device to simulate how unreliable they were and how often they weren't use for the false fear that they gave out detectable emissions. Etc. Because a 75%+ chance of random death is no fun. And so instead, people play the game according to the rules they enjoy.

Ultimately, commanding a German sub wasn't very fun other than for the brief moments enjoyed by the skilled AND lucky. So playing the game realistically is bound to be boring, terrifying, frustrating, and ultimately, futile. If you enjoy spending your free time chasing that suite of emotions, then power to you. Personally I enjoy excitement, terror, challenge, and satisfaction. I get that playing GWX 100%, with some extra realism compromises (e.g., no reloading exterals in heavy seas), but not all (e.g., I visit my patrol grid for 24 hrs, then freely patrol the area around it).

So I'll just suggest that there are lots of different ways to play the game, and any use of the word "realistic" in conjunction with this game has to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt.

Kielhauler1961

09-16-08, 08:33 AM

In short, what I sense is the frustration or disrespect of those who are trying to replicate reality with those who play the game like it is a game. A quasi-realistic game, but a game nonetheless. Personally, I fall into the latter category, and think it's silly to disparage someone on either side. For example, I don't see ANYONE bragging about how real they keep it AND following Doenitz's strict orders that subs stay on the surface and fight it out with airplanes. Why? Because that's suicide in GWX (like it was in real life). I don't see anyone bragging about NOT purchasing a radar warning device to simulate how unreliable they were and how often they weren't use for the false fear that they gave out detectable emissions. Etc. Because a 75%+ chance of random death is no fun. And so instead, people play the game according to the rules they enjoy.

Ultimately, commanding a German sub wasn't very fun other than for the brief moments enjoyed by the skilled AND lucky. So playing the game realistically is bound to be boring, terrifying, frustrating, and ultimately, futile. If you enjoy spending your free time chasing that suite of emotions, then power to you. Personally I enjoy excitement, terror, challenge, and satisfaction. I get that playing GWX 100%, with some extra realism compromises (e.g., no reloading exterals in heavy seas), but not all (e.g., I visit my patrol grid for 24 hrs, then freely patrol the area around it).

So I'll just suggest that there are lots of different ways to play the game, and any use of the word "realistic" in conjunction with this game has to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt.

I agree with this statement 100%!:up: . It's a GAME and played for enjoyment, not misery (I get enough of that in real life). There is no such thing as 'realism' in a computer game played from your comfy armchair at home, with a drink to hand, when you can pause or save it anytime you wish. If you want 'realism', then the first time you get killed you should throw the disc in the trash and never play it again.

GoldenRivet

09-16-08, 11:31 AM

If you want 'realism', then the first time you get killed you should throw the disc in the trash and never play it again.

I have said that exact line once or twice before :lol:

of course the other side of the coin is... if you just want to play toy submarines and sink everything in the world go here http://www.ex-designz.net/gameroom/games/whensubmarineattack2.htm

the argument could go either way... but...

personally i dont think there is as much animosity between "realists" and "arcaders" as you would think here at subsim... the motto of the many here is "its your game, play it how you want." and i think for the most part people respect that.

most players are here because they enjoy SH3... and you see that comradery in a lot of posts.

this thread wasnt started to kick off any pissing matches between uber realists and point and shooters - it was started to discuss the opinions of players here whether or not realism setting has any signifigant bearing on the players ability to acquire historically accurate tonnage totals in SH3.

i think - obviously realism setting DOES affect the players ability to gain tonnage. I promise you i can whip out a career today which produces over a million tons if i turn my realism all the way down. would it be fun? to me... no... to someone else... maybe.

but thats not the point, the point of the thread is does a high realsim setting affect the player's ability to get historically accurate tonage.

with that said... lets try to stay on track and not venture down this old "us vs. them" road.

it only leads to hurt feelings, and closed threads and wasted time and breath.

Sailor Steve

09-16-08, 12:57 PM

Then I'd suggest you join the military. :p
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/Bbassturret.jpg

I didn't choose my screen name for fun.:sunny:

In short, what I sense is the frustration or disrespect of those who are trying to replicate reality with those who play the game like it is a game. A quasi-realistic game, but a game nonetheless. Personally, I fall into the latter category, and think it's silly to disparage someone on either side.
I think you're sensing something that's mostly not there. I tend to be short with people who brag about high tonnage scores while playing on an easier level, but I fully support and encourage everyone to play the way they want. As I've said many times before, I don't play at 100%, but I try, for my own pleasure, to recreate the feel of being there, including the frustration of dud torpedoes and everything else.

For example, I don't see ANYONE bragging about how real they keep it AND following Doenitz's strict orders that subs stay on the surface and fight it out with airplanes. Why? Because that's suicide in GWX (like it was in real life). I don't see anyone bragging about NOT purchasing a radar warning device to simulate how unreliable they were and how often they weren't use for the false fear that they gave out detectable emissions. Etc. Because a 75%+ chance of random death is no fun. And so instead, people play the game according to the rules they enjoy.
Maybe I don't brag about it, but I avoid most upgrades in the belief that they came sporadically. I espescially never use engine upgrades, as they have nothing to do with reality, and I applaud the GWX team for removing them entirely.

So I'll just suggest that there are lots of different ways to play the game, and any use of the word "realistic" in conjunction with this game has to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt.
Of course there are different ways. This just happens to be thread started by someone who wanted to discuss one particular way. Is that so bad?

"realistic"
"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

Sailor Steve

09-16-08, 01:04 PM

I agree with this statement 100%!:up: . It's a GAME and played for enjoyment, not misery (I get enough of that in real life). There is no such thing as 'realism' in a computer game played from your comfy armchair at home, with a drink to hand, when you can pause or save it anytime you wish. If you want 'realism', then the first time you get killed you should throw the disc in the trash and never play it again.
Actually, 'realism' is a term created by the art world to describe something that reflects reality in art, so the computer sim is actually more 'realistic' than reality. It doesn't mean the same thing as 'real', it just means it looks and feels real.

And nobody in this particular discussion is trying to force anyone else to play that way; we're just talking about making it reflect reality better in our own eyes.

Kielhauler1961

09-16-08, 01:59 PM

I have said that exact line once or twice before :lol:

I thought of that phrase independently of of anything I may have read here.:)

I have no wish, or desire, to go down the 'Them vs. Us' road, and certainly do not wish to cause unreasonable offence to anyone. Each to their own. I respect your opinions and value your help but discussion is discussion. It's only by exchanging contradictory views that we can all learn.

I play at 90% settings (80% when the Ubisoft screenshot competition is coming up), because I believe that manual targeting is a job for the exec. I used to use it but it holds no interest for me now. I'd rather concentrate on tactics and survival. I nearly always start in a type II in 1939 and build up crew experience as I go, trading up to a VII and then to a IX, bringing all the lads with me each time. The few skippers that have made it from 1939 to 1943/44 have had elite crews and I get very protective of them. The number of times I have returned to port with '0' tonnage is beyond counting. I don't play for the tonnage, I play for the immersion.

My typical 1939 - 1941 patrols net me 10-30k (half that or less in a type II). Once in about five patrols I come home with a lot less (nothing) or maybe a bit more if I was very lucky. I don't go hunting in known 'hot-spots' but use a random system of my own making to determine my patrol areas.

1942 I average 15-50k if using a IX off the US coast.

1943-45, I'm lucky to get back to port, never mind about the tonnage!

Sailor Steve

09-16-08, 02:06 PM

do not wish to cause unreasonable offence to anyone.
Well I'm unreasonably offended! In fact, I make it a point to be unreasonably offended every chance I get!

Sorry, it just seemed like the thing to say. We now return to our regularly-scheduled reasonable discussion.

[edit] Kielhauler, I still use the Weapons Officer for my information, the only problem being that he's perfect, and never makes a mistake. To counter this I simulate taking 'readings' putting up the periscope several times and taking the added risk that it will be spotted. I also never ask him to identify a ship until it is close enough to do it myself; then I don't feel so guilty about giving him the responsibility. I also had to wean myself from taking 'snap shots' at nearby escorts. That was a pet peeve in SH2/DC multiplayer: the u-boats were way too good at throwing out a shot at my destroyer as I passed by.

Do you do anything similar?

Hitman

09-16-08, 02:25 PM

In short, what I sense is the frustration or disrespect of those who are trying to replicate reality with those who play the game like it is a game.

Nah, everyone prefers his own way of playing and therefore has a hard time to understand why others love something else.

It's like the fellow with the red car arguing against the colour picked by the fellow with the black car, you know. Matter of personal taste. But in the price paid for the game the option to play it however your prefer is included :up:

Hitman

09-16-08, 02:28 PM

I didn't choose my screen name for fun.:sunny:

BTW Steve good that you post an enlarged image, was wondering what the hell was your new avatar about, in the avatar size it's nearly impossible to tell. Though I didn't want to "save as" and enlarge with a paint program to may be find a message like: "Another idiot who bited the lure ha ha ha " :lol:

Sailor Steve

09-16-08, 02:32 PM

"Another idiot who bited the lure ha ha ha " :lol:
Was it you that used to have a list of mods that included a "Cheat" mod, which actually led to a silly recording of people singing "You are an idiot?"

Or am I thinking of Drebbel?

Hitman

09-16-08, 02:41 PM

No that wasn't me! Despite being spaniard, I'm a serious person :stare:

No idea who it was :hmm:

Kielhauler1961

09-16-08, 03:36 PM

@ Sailor Steve,

I wish my weapons officer was perfect but it's not the case. He missed a plum shot on a Dido CL only few days ago, in 5m/s seas, steaming along in the middle of a convoy we had got inside of and it was totally unaware of our presence. Range was 1300m. Both torps missed ahead. Can't understand it.

I find that my 'auto' shooting is only reliable up to about 1000m, anything over that it becomes haphazard. That to me seems good enough. I play early-mid war only now (I like breathing fresh air now and again). So I get as close as possible and at 90 AoB if at all possible. That said, I had a pop at an unescorted Empire at 800m the other day and it took me SIX torps to put him down (2 duds, 1 miss and three bangs). The torpedo room crew weren't happy with amount of work they then had to do!

My crew are the reason I play the game. I still haven't got one through the entire war and that is my ultimate goal. I only use the external cam for screenies, not gameplay. I have every box checked except 'manual targeting' and 'map updates', the latter because otherwise I feel I'm the only boat fighting the war. The occasional ship or convoy report gives me hope that another boat is out there...

Kielhauler1961

09-16-08, 04:38 PM

I don't see any need to delete this thread, I think it's a healthy and valid discussion. There hasn't been any name-calling has there? (I didn't see it), just a frank exchange of opinions. Most threads have a tendency to wander 'off-topic' at times but the reasonable ones come back to the original point. It's just that the written word is far more likely to be mis-interpreted than the spoken word.

Sorry once again if I've been party to 'hijacking' the thread but two people can read the same words and come to totally different conclusions about what had originally been meant or inferred. It's all down to interpretation...and skills of expression.

I'll shut-up now.:)

GoldenRivet

09-16-08, 04:42 PM

I don't see any need to delete this thread, I think it's a healthy and valid discussion.

agreed... all is well here :up:

the basic principle is - play it how you want to play it.

but players must be aware... if you play at low difficulty settings and then boast about racking up a million tons in a single outing... expect someone out there to bash you in one way or another.

Platapus

09-16-08, 04:49 PM

I would also like to point out that 100% realism is not the same as what the real life Kaluens had to work with.

SH3 is a great game and a wonderful simulator but it is still a computer game.

GoldenRivet

09-16-08, 05:26 PM

realism might be the wrong application of the word.

as sailor Steve said earlier "realism" in this context does not mean "real" it means "to imitate reality"

IMHO... when it comes to video games and simulators "realism" and "difficulty" are two words which are one in the same.

when someone says he is using 100% realism... he in fact is referring to the games "difficulty setting" not in fact that he is "really there" :nope:

i think we should all agree on that.

realism setting = difficulty setting

by using 100% "realism" you are placing as many challenges to yourself as possible within SH3.

it does not mean you can towel salt water out of my beard.

i agree with you in the regard that it is just a simulator... but the fact of the matter remains.... if you want to ruffle the feathers of the "100%" club on subsim... just kick off a thread about single handedly sinking the entire British navy on your first patrol out of commander school with 25% difficulty.

You might as well go to the local elementary school and beat up a bunch of 2nd graders and then brag about it to your girlfriend. :rotfl:

BasilY

09-16-08, 06:47 PM

I guess now everybody agree that as a game SH3 can never deliver reality. As GoldenRivet said, in SH3, 100% realism = 100% difficulty, that's that.

That said, there is no harm in comparing and contrasting this game with what a real captain go through during the real thing. (which I think this thread sought to address) And hopefully improve the game and allow us to better appreciate what a real skipper in WWII went through.

Here are my 2 cents regarding the difference of the game and real life.

- Something that SH3 could improve upon.
a. Fewer task forces parading about along the same routes, by the same timetable.
b. More vigorous and coordinated response to uboat attacks in coastal waters.
c. the ability to "turn-off" single merchants and small convoys in areas and times where they weren't historically present. (anyone seen the Atlantic city express, the ceramic liner that goes out of NYC for a short trip to the Jersey shore?)
d. improve the capacity of hunter/killer groups.
e. improve harbor/coastal defense
f. Don't allow boats to be magically transfer to the mediteranean or Pacific. You must sail your boat there yourself.
g. A "varied" schedule, so historical events and technological advances don't happen exactly to the date.
h. replace the external camera with a photo Album with 5 pictures (different angles) per sinking avaible at the end of a patrol.

- Something the SH3 won't do as long as it want to stay a commercially viable product
- strict BdU order adherence
- enforced real time (x1)

- Inpossible to achieve in this game or any game
a. Actual Death
b. Uncertainty of risks.
c. exposure to all the elements.

Sailor Steve

09-16-08, 08:01 PM

Pappy, I don't get it. On the previous page you stated:
Did I start this? I was questioning the programming that allowed high tonnage and not someone's style of play.
Are you upset that BasilY just tried to suggest ways the programming could be more oriented toward that very thing? I'm confused. I wanted to add something to his list, but I don't want to upset you further either.

Steeltrap

09-16-08, 09:20 PM

(Pappy reaches for his .45 and places the barrel in his mouth..)

Unless you're playing SHIV, shouldn't that be a Luger?? Let's keep things as realistic as possible....

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

JHuschke

09-16-08, 10:11 PM

Do all that at 100% realism, try to get 50k in any sub besides VIIB or VIIC.

predavolk

09-18-08, 08:36 AM

Another VERY important "NERF" factor to the game:

Damage to your uboat is too minor and too easy to repair. I did some brief dogfighting with a corvette last mission, and I took a hit from what I presume was a hedgehog. It's my understanding that should have, at least, ruptured the pressure hull of my XXI making submersion very dicey. But it was all easily repaired, and voila, 100% efficiency.

Certainly, I've been hammered and damaged and survived (and died), so I'm not saying that the game is broken. But even at 100% realism (which is all I play), it seems that the damage to your ship is often not as severe as it seemed to be in real life.

onelifecrisis

09-18-08, 09:41 AM

I'd like to chip in on the semantics debate.

I can understand people objecting to the word "realistic" but I see nothing wrong with the use of the word "realism" when used to decribe what some of us aim for with mods and difficulty settings. Wiktionary reckons "realism" can be defined as "an artistic representation of reality" which, in this case, is a perfect description IMO. Another definition is "a concern for fact or reality" which works just as well.

Seaveins

09-18-08, 10:05 AM

I would like to add that the human element is under represented in our game. Managing and living with 50 people in a tube, even under perfect weather conditions, sounds like an extremely dynamic psychological experience. Clashing personalities abound at my workplace and we only number 40 on 4 acres for 9 hours a day. I can only imagine that real U-boat crew performance could vary enormously which would greatly influence a Kaleun's success. I look forward to the end of my RL work day when I can sit in solitude in front of my computer in a dark, cool basement, listening to sub sounds and my uber-competent crew call out "Yes Sir!" to my every command. That is not 100% realism in my opinion.

danoh

09-19-08, 09:19 PM

A lot of good points made in this thread and I hope it continues.

One I would add is, regardless of how random things are in a decent GWX patrol, they are much more reliable and linear than is the case in the real world. I've never had to return a sub to port because my engines were malfunctioning, for example. Damage to ships, while not always the same for every hit in the same spot, is much simplier than the complex results of a real hit.

Does the game model effects such as ships carrying timber being harder to sink?

Once concern I'm just starting to have is the length of my patrols. I'm currently in a type IXC. I left the milchcow on Feb. 19, 1943 and it is now April 10 as I cruise through the Yucatan Straight. I'm betting when I finally return to Bordeaux it will be early June. Isn't this an insanely long time to stay at sea since my limiting factor is fuel and torpedoes and not food?

Does anyone have recommendations about a historical house rule I might stick to as far as how long my provisions would be expected to last for a type VII and type IX?

Redwine

09-22-08, 07:42 AM

I am seeing 100 and 200 thousand tons posted in a single 'patrol' .. Many factors... automatic aiming, reload times, torpedo failures, ships too weak to have hollywood effects... no risk to die.... in real life those who want to survive the war must to have much more caution.

Sailor Steve

09-22-08, 01:23 PM

Once concern I'm just starting to have is the length of my patrols. I'm currently in a type IXC. I left the milchcow on Feb. 19, 1943 and it is now April 10 as I cruise through the Yucatan Straight. I'm betting when I finally return to Bordeaux it will be early June. Isn't this an insanely long time to stay at sea since my limiting factor is fuel and torpedoes and not food?

Does anyone have recommendations about a historical house rule I might stick to as far as how long my provisions would be expected to last for a type VII and type IX?
Sorry I didn't answer this earlier. There was a thread awhile ago that asked if a mod could be made that would have a 'food meter'. The final answer was that no u-boat reported having to return to port because of food; they always ran low on fuel or torpedoes first. I agree that four months is not something they could probably do, but then refueling and rearming at a supply ship or sub was usually just to guarantee a safe return home. The milk cows didn't carry enough torpedoes or fuel to completely resupply ten or twelve combat boats for unlimited patrols.