Stock Game.

[Admiral Halsey]

Well my computer decided to wipe all of my SH4 mods off its memory and I had to uninstall SH4 to play it as I was running a few mods when that happened. I decided to play some of the stock game to see if it was bad as everyone said it was and dear god it was.(Quick note. I did some research before I played the game and never actually played the stock game with the exception of the tutorials and one test campaign mission.) I don't even know where to start it was so bad. The thing that really got to me was the stock campaigns historical battles. I will admit that the RSRDC has spoiled me when it comes to historical accuracy of the naval battles in SH4 but surely UBI could have done better? I mean it seems like the quarter-assed them and didn't really care about them at all. Well I should end this rant as I still have a few days until I will have downloaded all the mods I had again and I need to start practicing my manual torpedo targeting for as soon as I get all the mods installed I will run my first manual TDC campaign.

[Bubblehead1980]

Well my computer decided to wipe all of my SH4 mods off its memory and I had to uninstall SH4 to play it as I was running a few mods when that happened. I decided to play some of the stock game to see if it was bad as everyone said it was and dear god it was.(Quick note. I did some research before I played the game and never actually played the stock game with the exception of the tutorials and one test campaign mission.) I don't even know where to start it was so bad. The thing that really got to me was the stock campaigns historical battles. I will admit that the RSRDC has spoiled me when it comes to historical accuracy of the naval battles in SH4 but surely UBI could have done better? I mean it seems like the quarter-assed them and didn't really care about them at all. Well I should end this rant as I still have a few days until I will have downloaded all the mods I had again and I need to start practicing my manual torpedo targeting for as soon as I get all the mods installed I will run my first manual TDC campaign.

Yep, one never really appreciates the excellent work the modders have put out until they spend some time playing stock, it's just horrible. I played stock a good 4 or 5 months until and have ran mods since, could never go back.

[TorpX]

I decided to play some of the stock game to see if it was bad as everyone said it was and dear god it was.
...
I don't even know where to start it was so bad.
Yes, the inescapable conclusion.

...surely UBI could have done better?

I have the same thought every time I think about the technical aspects of the game. :nope:

[Rockin Robbins]

My question is why do we have to judge the game from a historical perspective so far as enemy ship dispositions go? Why, when we go to investigate the Battle of Midway, for instance, does the exact reenactment of the conflict (within the limitations of the game to render it) become our yardstick for "I don't even know where to start it was so bad. The thing that really got to me was the stock campaigns historical battles."

Don't you realize that when you play like that you are so unrealistic that you have rendered Silent Hunter 4 something from Capcom Games? Not one submariner in the war left port looking for the Battle of the Coral Sea. The ones that did get deployed in fleet support, in 1944 during the Battle of the Philipines, accomplished next to nothing.

The reason for that is that they did not know what to expect, where. They didn't have an enemy timeline with course and position on their map so they could go intercept the troop landings on Guadalcanal. The fact is most of the time they had no idea what they would encounter in the patrol area assigned.

Why, THAT'S JUST LIKE THE STOCK GAME that you think stinks so bad! It stinks so bad because it doesn't allow you to cheat and take a God's eye view of the war. It stinks because you can't take a simulation and make it into Frogger.

Reality ain't predictable, any more than insanity is. By demanding rationality in a simulation we are demanding to play an arcade game. If we really want a simulator, it has to simulate the state of mind of the actual participants in WWII, not knowing.Not knowing where the enemy was

Not knowing whether they would encounter lone merchies or heavily escorted convoys
Not knowing where they were likely to encounter capital ships
Not knowing the length, tonnage, armament, height or cargo of targets
Not being able to identify the vast majority of targets encountered
Not knowing whether they would return or not

Simulation does not consist of an exact recreation of the war as it transpired. It simulates participating in the unknown. If it were to happen again with the same assets, entirely different battles would be fought. A different list of submarines would not return. A different list of targets would be sunk at different places.


Think about it! What you expect out of the game is the exact opposite of simulation. You seek an exact reproduction of a chaotic series of events. But when you do it is not chaotic any more. You've amputated the soul of the simulation.

[Webster]

I can understand the desire to take part in such battles but at the same time having this ability is a cheat

RR hit the nail on the head, if its accurate to history then you "can" cheat and most players will cheat to get a crack at this or that target so its not the realism but the cheat factor you are missing.

everyone has their own idea of what they want from the game so if UBI made the game the exact same way to your wishes, then there would still be 100,000 players out there saying its done all wrong and isn't the way "they" wanted it.

UBI kind of went "middle of the road" in following history but at the same time not exactly scripting history so there is always randomness and uncertainty in the game to give it a feeling of realism without being predictable.

I don't use RSRDC because it is a predictable cheat and if I know information then it I use it so I don't use the mod

the "unknown" is THE biggest thing I like about the game

[Bubblehead1980]

My question is why do we have to judge the game from a historical perspective so far as enemy ship dispositions go? Why, when we go to investigate the Battle of Midway, for instance, does the exact reenactment of the conflict (within the limitations of the game to render it) become our yardstick for "I don't even know where to start it was so bad. The thing that really got to me was the stock campaigns historical battles."

Don't you realize that when you play like that you are so unrealistic that you have rendered Silent Hunter 4 something from Capcom Games? Not one submariner in the war left port looking for the Battle of the Coral Sea. The ones that did get deployed in fleet support, in 1944 during the Battle of the Philipines, accomplished next to nothing.

The reason for that is that they did not know what to expect, where. They didn't have an enemy timeline with course and position on their map so they could go intercept the troop landings on Guadalcanal. The fact is most of the time they had no idea what they would encounter in the patrol area assigned.

Why, THAT'S JUST LIKE THE STOCK GAME that you think stinks so bad! It stinks so bad because it doesn't allow you to cheat and take a God's eye view of the war. It stinks because you can't take a simulation and make it into Frogger.

Reality ain't predictable, any more than insanity is. By demanding rationality in a simulation we are demanding to play an arcade game. If we really want a simulator, it has to simulate the state of mind of the actual participants in WWII, not knowing.Not knowing where the enemy was

Not knowing whether they would encounter lone merchies or heavily escorted convoys
Not knowing where they were likely to encounter capital ships
Not knowing the length, tonnage, armament, height or cargo of targets
Not being able to identify the vast majority of targets encountered
Not knowing whether they would return or not

Simulation does not consist of an exact recreation of the war as it transpired. It simulates participating in the unknown. If it were to happen again with the same assets, entirely different battles would be fought. A different list of submarines would not return. A different list of targets would be sunk at different places.


Think about it! What you expect out of the game is the exact opposite of simulation.

While you have a valid point, part of the fun of this sim is it is set in a time and place that still fascinates many all these years later. Part of the excitement and simulation of WW II in the Pacific is being able to witness(and if able and/or player chooses put themselves in the fray. Few weeks back I was running an S boat out of Brisbane in 42, I decided to patrol off Savo Island on night of August 8/9 and found myself in position to attack the Japanese force. I sent a contact report, then attacked, 3 torpedoes hit a heavy cruiser, this through the battle line in disarray , allowing Allied force to open fire first and have an advantage, the battle turned out much better than historically did for the Allied force, so in a sense I, the player, was able to change up history.Now, this would not be possible without RSRD because I recall stock had next to NOTHING in the Solomons, just left the whole important campaign out of the war.

The sim is also in a way, telling a story, one that does not get told often, the story of the silent service in WW II .yes some things change but major, important things like the battles, should be recreated historically accurate as possible and left up to the player to change history such as I did, if they choose or are able, in some cases they wont make a dent, as some subs found out.Not making things accurate along with the million other flaws of stock, made it more of an arcade game than a sim.To me, stock game had a lot of signs of laziness.I understand the schedules, budgets etc but they just overlooked so much with no excuse.Honestly, SH 4 is a pretty amazing sim now, 6 years since it's release? Without the great community of modders and supporters, it would have been dead long ago.

Subs had no impact at the Philippine Sea? Did I read that correctly? Surely you know they sunk two aircraft carriers...Taiho and Shokaku. Contact report from Harder off Tawi Tawi and the hell she was raising in days prior caused fleet to deploy early , convinced Tawi Tawi was surrounded by submarines, so goes the story.Seahorse sent a pretty important contact report as well.Subs made a big difference at Philippine Sea.

[Webster]

While you have a valid point, part of the fun of this sim is it is set in a time and place that still fascinates many all these years later.

I guess it all comes down to what you want out of the game, for some they want to join in on historical battles and be part of it all while others look for a sub sim to get the true feeling of what it was like to be in the war and life on a sub.

there are 100 different things the game is or isn't to the players and part of its success is that it is in that middle ground that does or can be modded to appeal to all.

[Bubblehead1980]

I guess it all comes down to what you want out of the game, for some they want to join in on historical battles and be part of it all while others look for a sub sim to get the true feeling of what it was like to be in the war and life on a sub.

there are 100 different things the game is or isn't to the players and part of its success is that it is in that middle ground that does or can be modded to appeal to all.


Well the battles are just one part of the sim.Mods like RSRD gives player a much better simulation to get the true feeling than stock. I mean no sub ever ran into the Yamato 50 times in a career like in stock lol. Stock had allied style convoys from day 1 and the AI was just idiotic.Then had allied style radar etc etc etc list goes on and so much traffic, it was just unreal, arcade like.I was shocked when I opened up stock campaign files and found most escorts with convoys were set to NOVICE, even in late war.Could not perform night surface attacks in realistic manner, i could prob take up several posts with stocks problems, but most of us know them.

I am thankful they made that crappy game so it could be modded and give us the excellent sim we have now.Just a shame UBI did not care enough to make SH 4 what it could have been.Perhaps one day a sub sim will revisit the PTO and it will be done properly.

[Webster]

Well the battles are just one part of the sim.Mods like RSRD gives player a much better simulation to get the true feeling than stock. I mean no sub ever ran into the Yamato 50 times in a career like in stock lol. Stock had allied style convoys from day 1 and the AI was just idiotic.Then had allied style radar etc etc etc list goes on and so much traffic, it was just unreal, arcade like.I was shocked when I opened up stock campaign files and found most escorts with convoys were set to NOVICE, even in late war.Could not perform night surface attacks in realistic manner, i could prob take up several posts with stocks problems, but most of us know them.

I am thankful they made that crappy game so it could be modded and give us the excellent sim we have now.Just a shame UBI did not care enough to make SH 4 what it could have been.Perhaps one day a sub sim will revisit the PTO and it will be done properly.


well yes stock leaves a whole lot to be desired and I don't think anyone can defend the stock game as being all that great, at best its just ok.

from UBI point of view they needed to make the game both easy to play to get the most people to buy it yet still be challenging to hard core simmers so its pretty obvious the flubbed both sides in that attempt.

im no code writer but if they could have had true difficulty settings so you can turn it from too easy "beginner" to holy crap "expert" settings then they would have pleased so many more people.

I think "simmers" would howl at any notion of difficulty settings as being too "arcade like" so its not an easy thing to do to create something that appeals to everyone

[Aktungbby]

Well my computer decided to wipe all of my SH4 mods off its memory and I had to uninstall SH4 to play it as I was running a few mods when that happened. I decided to play some of the stock game to see if it was bad as everyone said it was and dear god it was.(Quick note. I did some research before I played the game and never actually played the stock game with the exception of the tutorials and one test campaign mission.) I don't even know where to start it was so bad. The thing that really got to me was the stock campaigns historical battles. I will admit that the RSRDC has spoiled me when it comes to historical accuracy of the naval battles in SH4 but surely UBI could have done better? I mean it seems like the quarter-assed them and didn't really care about them at all. Well I should end this rant as I still have a few days until I will have downloaded all the mods I had again and I need to start practicing my manual torpedo targeting for as soon as I get all the mods installed I will run my first manual TDC campaign.
Had he lived to see it, Von Clauscewitz would have had one more rule to his opus 'On War' for subsimmers: Whenever possible, increase firepower(MODS) but never count on your computer(enemy) doing what your plan calls for it to do! (Yamamoto's mistake at Midway):shifty:

[Armistead]

My question is why do we have to judge the game from a historical perspective so far as enemy ship dispositions go? Why, when we go to investigate the Battle of Midway, for instance, does the exact reenactment of the conflict (within the limitations of the game to render it) become our yardstick for "I don't even know where to start it was so bad. The thing that really got to me was the stock campaigns historical battles."

Don't you realize that when you play like that you are so unrealistic that you have rendered Silent Hunter 4 something from Capcom Games? Not one submariner in the war left port looking for the Battle of the Coral Sea. The ones that did get deployed in fleet support, in 1944 during the Battle of the Philipines, accomplished next to nothing.

The reason for that is that they did not know what to expect, where. They didn't have an enemy timeline with course and position on their map so they could go intercept the troop landings on Guadalcanal. The fact is most of the time they had no idea what they would encounter in the patrol area assigned.

Why, THAT'S JUST LIKE THE STOCK GAME that you think stinks so bad! It stinks so bad because it doesn't allow you to cheat and take a God's eye view of the war. It stinks because you can't take a simulation and make it into Frogger.

Reality ain't predictable, any more than insanity is. By demanding rationality in a simulation we are demanding to play an arcade game. If we really want a simulator, it has to simulate the state of mind of the actual participants in WWII, not knowing.Not knowing where the enemy was

Not knowing whether they would encounter lone merchies or heavily escorted convoys
Not knowing where they were likely to encounter capital ships
Not knowing the length, tonnage, armament, height or cargo of targets
Not being able to identify the vast majority of targets encountered
Not knowing whether they would return or not

Simulation does not consist of an exact recreation of the war as it transpired. It simulates participating in the unknown. If it were to happen again with the same assets, entirely different battles would be fought. A different list of submarines would not return. A different list of targets would be sunk at different places.


Think about it! What you expect out of the game is the exact opposite of simulation. You seek an exact reproduction of a chaotic series of events. But when you do it is not chaotic any more. You've amputated the soul of the simulation.

The game isn't WW3, it's WW2, it's past, history. However, in a majority of battles we were able to predict where they would be, knew the shipping lanes, could read their code, etc.

Why I agree once yu learn RSRD ships are easy to find, but it takes a long time to learn it. I think many play to sink ships, not wander around looking. War is boring with moments of terror, that doesn't make good gaming.

Why I agree on many points, I would take RSRD over stock traffic any day.

[Admiral Halsey]

My question is why do we have to judge the game from a historical perspective so far as enemy ship dispositions go? Why, when we go to investigate the Battle of Midway, for instance, does the exact reenactment of the conflict (within the limitations of the game to render it) become our yardstick for "I don't even know where to start it was so bad. The thing that really got to me was the stock campaigns historical battles."

Don't you realize that when you play like that you are so unrealistic that you have rendered Silent Hunter 4 something from Capcom Games? Not one submariner in the war left port looking for the Battle of the Coral Sea. The ones that did get deployed in fleet support, in 1944 during the Battle of the Philipines, accomplished next to nothing.

The reason for that is that they did not know what to expect, where. They didn't have an enemy timeline with course and position on their map so they could go intercept the troop landings on Guadalcanal. The fact is most of the time they had no idea what they would encounter in the patrol area assigned.

Why, THAT'S JUST LIKE THE STOCK GAME that you think stinks so bad! It stinks so bad because it doesn't allow you to cheat and take a God's eye view of the war. It stinks because you can't take a simulation and make it into Frogger.

Reality ain't predictable, any more than insanity is. By demanding rationality in a simulation we are demanding to play an arcade game. If we really want a simulator, it has to simulate the state of mind of the actual participants in WWII, not knowing.Not knowing where the enemy was

Not knowing whether they would encounter lone merchies or heavily escorted convoys
Not knowing where they were likely to encounter capital ships
Not knowing the length, tonnage, armament, height or cargo of targets
Not being able to identify the vast majority of targets encountered
Not knowing whether they would return or not

Simulation does not consist of an exact recreation of the war as it transpired. It simulates participating in the unknown. If it were to happen again with the same assets, entirely different battles would be fought. A different list of submarines would not return. A different list of targets would be sunk at different places.


Think about it! What you expect out of the game is the exact opposite of simulation. You seek an exact reproduction of a chaotic series of events. But when you do it is not chaotic any more. You've amputated the soul of the simulation.

With the exception of Midway(In which I attacked Yamamoto's main body and not Nagumo's carriers.) and the first naval battle of Guadalcanal I don't even go after the TF's anymore. I just sit back and watch as the battles happen around me. That's why I like the historical accuracy. Not because I want to change history but because I want to experience it.

[Rockin Robbins]

That's legitimate but that doesn't make the stock game suck. What makes it suck is the illogical groupings of ships, the vanishing of ships in detection range in the middle of the ocean when they reach their last waypoint, etc.

I can see where it's kind of cool to load up RSRD and go watch the battle of the Coral Sea. Of course, how authentically it can be modeled is limited by what the game lets you do.

Personally I'd like to watch the Japanese carriers launch the attack on Pearl Harbor.

[Admiral Halsey]

Personally I'd like to watch the Japanese carriers launch the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Me to.(Hell I want to see the attack.)

[Bubblehead1980]

That's legitimate but that doesn't make the stock game suck. What makes it suck is the illogical groupings of ships, the vanishing of ships in detection range in the middle of the ocean when they reach their last waypoint, etc.

I can see where it's kind of cool to load up RSRD and go watch the battle of the Coral Sea. Of course, how authentically it can be modeled is limited by what the game lets you do.

Personally I'd like to watch the Japanese carriers launch the attack on Pearl Harbor.


I am working on Pearl Harbor attack, need to get permission to user the pre pearl harbor mod, insert the waves of planes attacking pearl.The issue is planes in RSRD are idiots and not nearly as deadly as should be, esp with torpedoes.

[Admiral Halsey]

I am working on Pearl Harbor attack, need to get permission to user the pre pearl harbor mod, insert the waves of planes attacking pearl.The issue is planes in RSRD are idiots and not nearly as deadly as should be, esp with torpedoes.

YES!!!!!! This will make for some great videos.

[TorpX]

I agree with RR and Webster. Using RSRDC to ambush TF's is a massive cheat, but many prefer to fight/witness battles, and that's how they like to use it. I don't really understand doing this. It seems that this kind of play would make more sense in a surface combat game.

I've never "peeked" inside RSRDC because I want to have the surprise factor in the game. If I get to the point I know the campaign too well, I'll probably try to change it to a random type.

It's too bad the game doesn't have a well-crafted random campaign. Based on what others have said, the stock campaign is too irrational to be usable; convoys spawning/despawning in illogical places, traffic volume too large, etc. For me, RSRDC makes more sense than a badly done stock campaign, eventhough I have little interest in chasing after enemy TF's.

there are 100 different things the game is or isn't to the players and part of its success is that it is in that middle ground that does or can be modded to appeal to all.

As Webster said, we can all have (within limits) what we want.

[Rockin Robbins]

I guess my point is that not having the battles correct doesn't "suck." Not one sailor in the war had the battles right. War is chaos and RSRD is order. Then it pretends to be "authentic." Well, it is nothing of the sort.

Now if you're playing the game to participate in a historical battle as kind of a mission exercise, then RSRD is appropriate. But you have to keep in mind the severe restrictions the game architecture puts on realistic encounters. You're going to see a charicature, a reenactment by the Keystone Cops. Nonetheless, it's a legitimate pursuit. Also keep in mind that since RSRD demands historical evidence for something to exist, the majority of things that existed are not in RSRD. That's why the open oceans in 1941 and 1942. Believe me, they weren't open. They were full of undocumented traffic. The premise of RSRD does not allow for the unknown.

If you're playing the game as a simulation, wanting to reproduce the actions and state of mind of the participants, then RSRD is the exact opposite of what you want. The stock TMO (at least from ver 1.9 anyway) was pretty darned good at unpredictable encounters with unpredictable strength adversaries. I really don't know about 2.5.

The cool thing is that we can have our cake and eat it too. Unfortunately RSRD was a monster that sucked all the oxygen out of the air, completely paralyzing any alternatives, much as GWX did for a long time in SH3. Because RSRD was so accepted, everyone with alternative ideas about reality (Ducimus especially) just shut up and quit working, so the random encounter aspect of the game is not as refined as it could be. But it does not "suck." That attitude is what caused the demise of realistic gameplay to begin with.

[Armistead]

I agree and disagree. I really don't care if traffic is random or generated. Sure, if you know RSRD you can sit and wait for it to come, if you use another mod, traffic may not come, so you go looking elsewhere. For most, the opposite effect happens, they can't find shipping with RSRD and prefer stock or TMO traffic, where they can usually find traffic due to high spawn rates.

RR, I don't see any traffic mod or not causing the chaos of war regarding your lone sub. Regardless if the battle is scripted or not, all that is created are the same ships. In reality, this is an arcade game, doesn't matter if the group is scripted or not, it will react the same regarding you.
The only thing random traffic does is the fact you may miss something.

I played RSRD for a year before I peeked into the traffic. Yep, I knew the battles, but you're not going to learn 1000 plus convoys. The majority of players don't ever figure RSRD out. If a mod sucks the life out of everything, that usually means the mod was a success. The problem with RSRD is based on how long you play it. I later found it boring to do the same crap over an over, so like many, I tweaked the hell out of it to my liking.

I think Duci had the better idea as far as gameplay, just didn't take it to the needed level, I'm sure due to the time it would take. I played it for awhile, I enjoyed the zig patterns, trying to figure a base course, higher speeds, being left out in left field numerous time. The biggest failure of RSRD is no zigging.

However, even being an old game, all the tools are there if someone wants to make a new campaign mod, not hard, but would take 100's of hours. I don't think anyone cares to spend the time needed on this old game.

[Bubblehead1980]

I agree and disagree. I really don't care if traffic is random or generated. Sure, if you know RSRD you can sit and wait for it to come, if you use another mod, traffic may not come, so you go looking elsewhere. For most, the opposite effect happens, they can't find shipping with RSRD and prefer stock or TMO traffic, where they can usually find traffic due to high spawn rates.

RR, I don't see any traffic mod or not causing the chaos of war regarding your lone sub. Regardless if the battle is scripted or not, all that is created are the same ships. In reality, this is an arcade game, doesn't matter if the group is scripted or not, it will react the same regarding you.
The only thing random traffic does is the fact you may miss something.

I played RSRD for a year before I peeked into the traffic. Yep, I knew the battles, but you're not going to learn 1000 plus convoys. The majority of players don't ever figure RSRD out. If a mod sucks the life out of everything, that usually means the mod was a success. The problem with RSRD is based on how long you play it. I later found it boring to do the same crap over an over, so like many, I tweaked the hell out of it to my liking.

I think Duci had the better idea as far as gameplay, just didn't take it to the needed level, I'm sure due to the time it would take. I played it for awhile, I enjoyed the zig patterns, trying to figure a base course, higher speeds, being left out in left field numerous time. The biggest failure of RSRD is no zigging.

However, even being an old game, all the tools are there if someone wants to make a new campaign mod, not hard, but would take 100's of hours. I don't think anyone cares to spend the time needed on this old game.

Arm basically said what I was going to reply with here.RSRD's major failure with convoys is they do not like, well not like TMO, that made TMO much more difficult.Never could find out what program Ducimus used to wright the traffic patterns for TMO, if I had it, I would prob go ahead and just do some convoys for my mod. Having historical convoy traffic is great and honestly who is going to learn 1000+ convoys? I did take issue of if a convoy wasnt on the books in the source used, it wasnt included.Some important convoys were left out such as Take Ichi and HI-81, I went back and added them.Take Ichi zigs as it did in real life, with the 13 escorts, zigs and 12 knots, it's a tough target(as it was for USS Jack) .

I think a major concern is we need more merchants, somehow more merchants for SH 4 got left behind.Shooting the same old ships can get old.

For me, RSRD is an essential part of this sim.Sure, few things I dont like and I've adjusted many of them but game seems to lack something when I dont use it.I think I would be happy with a mod that brought in the historical movements of the warships/TF in RSRD and mostly random convoys from TMO that zig, with a few key ones such as Take Ichi inserted to spawn once at proper time and place.

[Aktungbby]

[QUOTE=Bubblehead1980;2112614] .

Shooting the same old ships can get old.

True subsimmer wisdom! I like exciting new ships with more zig than zag!:arrgh!:

[Rockin Robbins]

I think I would be happy with a mod that brought in the historical movements of the warships/TF in RSRD and mostly random convoys from TMO that zig, with a few key ones such as Take Ichi inserted to spawn once at proper time and place.
Sounds like a great way to go. Wish I could do it but I just don't have the ability for that one.

[Webster]

I think I would be happy with a mod that brought in the historical movements of the warships/TF in RSRD and mostly random convoys from TMO that zig, with a few key ones such as Take Ichi inserted to spawn once at proper time and place.


try this (remember im not a campaign modder so im guessing here) the campaign files seam to be broken into convoy and task force sections so take the TMO convoy files and use them to replace the RSRDC convoys then you should have RSRDC task forces acting as they should and the convoys should act as they do in TMO.

one caution, if you move and copy over text files sometimes both files are merged together so it doesn't always replace the whole file and it may leave "remnants" of text behind so I always deleted or removed old files before moving the new files there just to be safe.

or maybe im wrong and you should add the RSRDC task forces files into TMO :hmmm: but its worth trying out

[Armistead]

try this (remember im not a campaign modder so im guessing here) the campaign files seam to be broken into convoy and task force sections so take the TMO convoy files and use them to replace the RSRDC convoys then you should have RSRDC task forces acting as they should and the convoys should act as they do in TMO.

one caution, if you move and copy over text files sometimes both files are merged together so it doesn't always replace the whole file and it may leave "remnants" of text behind so I always deleted or removed old files before moving the new files there just to be safe.

or maybe im wrong and you should add the RSRDC task forces files into TMO :hmmm: but its worth trying out

That works fine, did it long ago, simply replace several of the convoy files in RSRD with TMO's. TMO also has better subhunter files, so replace those as well. Then add your own mis files with your additions and you have a decent game of randomness and reality.

One thing that is fun, rework the subhunter files and keep a lot of groups patrolling the shipping lanes, TMO's are rather random. I highly increase contact ranges, so often when I attack a convoy, not only do I have to fight the groups escorts, a few hours later one of my elite subhunter groups will come join the search. One of my last attacks in Formosa was fun, I had two convoys on radar, attacked one. Wasn't long I had escorts from both groups searching, then comes one of my subhunter groups with two elite TypeC's. I had several planes hunting as well. I was kept down all day into the night.

[Bubblehead1980]

That works fine, did it long ago, simply replace several of the convoy files in RSRD with TMO's. TMO also has better subhunter files, so replace those as well. Then add your own mis files with your additions and you have a decent game of randomness and reality.

One thing that is fun, rework the subhunter files and keep a lot of groups patrolling the shipping lanes, TMO's are rather random. I highly increase contact ranges, so often when I attack a convoy, not only do I have to fight the groups escorts, a few hours later one of my elite subhunter groups will come join the search. One of my last attacks in Formosa was fun, I had two convoys on radar, attacked one. Wasn't long I had escorts from both groups searching, then comes one of my subhunter groups with two elite TypeC's. I had several planes hunting as well. I was kept down all day into the night.

how do you increase contact ranges?

[Rockin Robbins]

I like what I'm hearing!