What i HATE the most about SH3

[Nemo66]

Dear mates!

I don't mention the bugs because most of them are really well known and the worst of them have been fixed by now. Others occur only very seldomly and are no big problem to me. What i mention here are things that UBI just let out, forgot or oversaw; most of them with no way of fixing/modding it. All of them really deteriorate gameplay fun massively, and could have done a lot better with very little effort (thinking is not an effort in my oppinion).

What i hate the most is number 1:

1. No DC2 developed to play MP vs Destroyers.

Fighting against "real human flesh and blood DC captains" is the most fulfilling and satisfying subsimming experience imaginable. (see my special thread) COOP mode is bloody boring, especially as many gamers are arcade fans who instantly want to fire waves of torpedos into a wall of ships, without any need to slowly and patiently sneak into attack position and use tactical skills, which is the holy grail of submarine warfare to me)

2. AI units can't detect land.

AI DCs always run aground if land is in their direct way towards you. (This kills every effort to create missions close to land, like sneaky bay/harbour infiltrating missions or missions between little islands. This breaks up immersion massively because DC behaviour is so ridicolous (not even the most stupid of all captains would ever try to run right over an island to catch you)

2.b No mine-laying capability included

Especially at the beginning of the war this was done a lot and would make up very exciting and super sneaky missions.

3. The turning cycles of the submarines are a lot bigger than those of the destroyers.

In realitiy the sub's turning cycles were a lot smaller than those of the DCs. In other words, a german WW2 submarine, especially the type VII was a lot more handy to manoeuver above AND underwater than any allied forces surface warship. (except torpedo boats)
This completely inverts all submarine attack and defense tactics.

4. Damage model is by far not differenciated enough.

The damage is more or less superficial or you are already sinking, there's too few in between.This was done a lot finer in SH2. You really had to make preferences and to decide what to repair first to really save your boat. Also you had to repair normal malfunctions, occurring without enemy contact, like diesel problems after running flank speed for too long. In SH 3 you can run at flank speed your whole career and your diesels will be like new at the end of war.
On the other hand you get lots of damages by just peacefully lying at the seaground which is stupid and totally unrealistic. U-boats did that a lot in WW2.

5.Electric engines are not usable above water (while still being at the bridge)

This would add a lot of immersion, especially in sneaky harbour missions. It already was possible and fully functional in SH2 which drives me up the wall.

6.Underwater night attacks are way to easy.

In reality you barely could see your own bow through the periscope at night; that is (together with the allies only-on-asdic-relaying-tactics, because they imagined subs only underwater) why most submarine attacks were situated at night above water before RADAR widely was used. In SH3 there is no reason left why you should attack above water because you can see as good and clear through the periscope at night. This changes the history of U-Boat war in WW2 totally, and makes the game more arcade-style and kills historic realism, excitement and immersion.

7.Submarine's Radar station works only by crew.

You can man it yourself but you won't even detect the Yamato crossing and cutting off your bow. This is another immersion-killer too, because the submarine's sensors and your skills of detetcting the enemy before he detetcts you is 50% of the fun to me.

8.Sonar officer's reports are by far not differenciated enough.

In reality he was the most important man besides the captain when submerged, he should give you a lot more information about what's going on outside. For example he refers to any warship the same, but he definitely should be able to differenciate between an anrmed trawler and a battleship.

9. AI subs are no danger at all.

They don't fire torpedos (and i think they don't even use their guns) and always travel peacefully at the surface, even if you attack them. They don't fight back and don't try to escape or dive.

10. Torpedo boats fire only with AA guns

They can't even launch their name-giving main weapons, the torpedos. Snorrrrr....

11.You can't go to deep depths by alarm.

The boat will always try to reach 70 meters only. You have to manually command 210m passing 30-40m which slows down the diving. In SH2 you could go very fast to 210m by 3 times doing the "c" key, which is much more realistic and effective to me.

What annoys me the most is that some of the issues already were included and fully functional in SH2. I can't understand why a follow-up models things less good and differenciated than it's direct ancestor.
Also some things that are crucial to submarine/antisubmarine warfare like the turning circle issue or the fact that DCs try to run over land have been modelled ridicolously poor.

[THEBERBSTER]

Are you using GWX 3.0 with SH3 Commander?

If you are then I am surprised at some of the comments.

[Nemo66]

Nope, is use stock SH3 patch 1.4b now. I used to play GWX some time ago, but the long loading time made me crazy. Also a lot of the candy in GWX like the additional sounds i could not take anymore after a while. But i will play GWX again someday, and also all the other megamod stuff. But i never will play SHOnline :haha:
Read my other thread "What i LOVE about SH3" too to get the full picture of my thougts.

[CptGrayWolf]

Nope, is use stock SH3 patch 1.4b now. I used to play GWX some time ago, but the long loading time made me crazy. Also a lot of the candy in GWX like the additional sounds i could not take anymore after a while. But i will play GWX again someday, and also all the other megamod stuff. But i never will play SHOnline :haha:
Read my other thread "What i LOVE about SH3" too to get the full picture of my thougts.

Can't wait for the loading time!? What kind of submariner are you? :O:
Also if you don't like GWX sounds, you can simply replace it with the original folder. I think that goes with almost any changes you don't like. :up:

[Nemo66]

Sorry but i am a real PC fool and usually crash my game by trying to enhance it with mods.
Also i played a lot sub versus sub MP at UBI, and it was a lot easier to find gamers with stock1.4b than with GWX online at these times, not to mention that stock SH3 was a lot more reliable with my PC /internet configuration. My PC is not really new/fast and my internet connection isn't either. Additionally my thread is called " What i hate/love about SILENT HUNTER 3" and not "What i love/hate about Silent Hunter 3 with GWX or whatever other supermod"

But i promise i will play GWX and all the other supermods again someday...so - no worries mates :cool:

[Sailor Steve]

In realitiy the sub's turning cycles were a lot smaller than those of the DCs. In other words, a german WW2 submarine, especially the type VII was a lot more handy to manoeuver above AND underwater than any allied forces surface warship. (except torpedo boats)
This completely inverts all submarine attack and defense tactics.
Do you have any proof of this? One of the things I discovered while researching all manner of naval history is that the faster a ship travels, the tighter it turns. A submarine might turn tighter than a destroyer travelling the same speed, but a submarine travelling at 8 knots is not likely to outturn a much shorter corvette making 12 knots. I say "not likely" because I don't have any definitive evidence such as actual combat reports. Do you?

[Nemo66]

uff..Steve...proof? :hmmm: Nope, not at this very moment, Sir :oops:

I definitely remember that i read about this, especially about the handiness of the Type VII in comparison to the allied destroyers, in several german historical naval books. I can't tell you at the moment what books exactly because i have tons of submarine books and it was quite some time ago. Also i just moved into a smaller flat and all of my books are still stored in 20 big boxes i have no real access to at the moment. I promise i let you know when i have finished my moving and have easy access to the books again. But this will take some time. Maybe you can find out elsewhere in the meantime?

And what do you mean with "tighter"? Does this mean as smaller circle? (Sorry, i am german)
In my understanding the turning circle gets smaller/tighter when a ship goes slower, and the turning circle is a bigger/wider one when it goes faster, because of the centrifugal forces. This way it is modelled in SH3 too. But you can't really notice that fact in open seas because you have no relation points. If you try this in narrow waters (small bay f.e.) you will see what i mean instantly. This seems perfectly logical to me, the centrifugal forces push the ship outwards, out of the curve, so a faster ship creates more centrifugal forces and therefore will need more space to turn. Also a shorter ship should do a smaller turn with less need for space than a longer one. As the type VII subs were about two thirds the length of a Destroyer i think this is an argument, too.
Anyway, i read about it in different books by different authors, some of them Ex-Kriegsmarine Kaleuns so i think i can be pretty sure about it. But proof..? Sorry, not at this very moment, sir :salute:

P.S.: Maybe it's just a misunderstanding. I am talking about how narrow/small a turning circle can be. And i think you relate to the speed/time a ship could finish a full circle. Can this be the case? For example the Richthofens Fokker Triplane in WW1 was kind of slow, but very handy, that means it could do a more narrow turn/curve. Just like the sub. The DC must go a longer way to finsih its circle than the sub does. Just imagine two circles, one being signifantly smaller. After the first waterbomb attack, the Dc has to do a bigger/wider circle than the sub, no matter if he is faster. That's exactly what i am referring to.

[Sailor Steve]

uff..Steve...proof? :hmmm: Nope, not at this very moment, Sir :oops:

I definitely remember that i read about this, especially about the handiness of the Type VII in comparison to the allied destroyers, in several german historical naval books.
Fair enough. I was just curious to find out what others have said on the subject.

And what do you mean with "tighter"? Does this mean as smaller circle? (Sorry, i am german) Yes and no. The circle is tighter at slower speeds, but the ship travelling at a higher speed goes around the circle faster.

In my understanding the turning circle gets smaller/tighter when a ship goes slower, and the turning circle is a bigger/wider one when it goes faster, because of the centrifugal forces. This way it is modelled in SH3 too. But you can't really notice that fact in open seas because you have no relation points. Here is what they observed with HMS Dreadnought on her trials in October 1906. At 12 knots Dreadnought had a Tactical Diameter of 442 yards. At 20 knots her TD was a slightly wider 466 yards.

The problem is that at 12 knots it took her 50 seconds to turn the first 4 points (45 degrees) and 85 seconds to turn the first 8 points (90 degrees).
At 20 knots it only took 40 seconds to turn the first 4 points and 61 seconds to turn the first 8 points. This means that while the turning circle was wider at the higher speed the ship actually got turned around faster.

One of the things not mentioned in that account is that if Dreadnought turned her first 4 points in 40 seconds and her first 8 points in 61 seconds, that means that she turned her second 4 points (45 to 90 degrees) in only 21 seconds. Taken altogether this means that once she was fully into the circle that big fat battleship was turning 135 degrees every minute, which is much faster than any game (tabletop game anyway) gives her credit for. Of course she would also be slowing down dramatically at the same time, and would keep doing so until she reached a balance between acceleration and speed loss, which in this case seems to be that previously mentioned 12 knots.

If you try this in narrow waters (small bay f.e.) you will see what i mean instantly. This seems perfectly logical to me, the centrifugal forces push the ship outwards, out of the curve, so a faster ship creates more centrifugal forces and therefore will need more space to turn. That is true of cars and airplanes, and boats to some degree. Ships, however, have what is called a 'Displacement Hull', which means that while the ship will heel outward at higher speeds the actual hydrodynamic effect is to push the ship inward, not outward. Give the ship right rudder. The stern is pushed to the left. The water on the left side forces the bow to turn right. As the pressure on the left side (outside of the circle) builds up the bow is forced to turn tighter.

'Tactical Diameter' is the measure of the first 180 degrees the ship turns, after which it settles into the actual circle it will be travelling. Here are a couple of good charts explaining how it looks.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/TD_zpsq1r7bu4r.png (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/TD_zpsq1r7bu4r.png.html)

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/TD2_zpsbic9ww8k.png (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/TD2_zpsbic9ww8k.png.html)

It is also true that a ship travelling at a very slow speed (1 or 2 knots) is almost unmaneuverable. The bigger the ship the worse this becomes.

Also a shorter ship should do a smaller turn with less need for space than a longer one. As the type VII subs were about two thirds the length of a Destroyer i think this is an argument, too. That's true, if the ships are travelling the same speed. A submerged U-boat travelling at 2 knots will take a very long time to turn at all, and its circle will be quite wide. At 8 knots it will turn much faster and the circle will be tighter (smaller). The destroyer at 12 knots will certainly have a wider circle but it will turn that circle much more quickly.

This is probably part of the reason that smaller escorts like the corvettes were so effective. They were shorter than the U-boats and had smaller turning circles, but at 12 knots they could still turn tighter than the slower submarine.

Anyway, i read about it in different books by different authors, some of them Ex-Kriegsmarine Kaleuns so i think i can be pretty sure about it. But proof..? Sorry, not at this very moment, sir :salute: That's cool. I'm not demanding immediate proof. If you have the books then I'm sure it's there. :sunny:

P.S.: Maybe it's just a misunderstanding. I am talking about how narrow/small a turning circle can be. And i think you relate to the speed/time a ship could finish a full circle. Can this be the case? For example the Richthofens Fokker Triplane in WW1 was kind of slow, but very handy, that means it could do a more narrow turn/curve. Just like the sub. The DC must go a longer way to finsih its circle than the sub does. Just imagine two circles, one being signifantly smaller. After the first waterbomb attack, the Dc has to do a bigger/wider circle than the sub, no matter if he is faster. That's exactly what i am referring to. Yeah, I think you're right. In fact the airplane comparison is a good one. Pilots of planes like the Fokker D.VII and SE.5a had to learn new tactics to take advantage of their speed and had to learn not to dogfight with planes like the DR.I and Camel. The same was true for Allied pilots in the Pacific in WW2. The destroyer has to pull away from the U-boat and then turn back and try again. And again, this is why the corvette has the advantage.

Information above from The Battleship Dreadnought, by John Roberts, Conway Maritime Press, London, 1992

[Scout614]

This is a very enlightening conversation:arrgh!:

[sublynx]

What I hate the most about SH3 even modded as far as I can achieve is the near total lack of direction from BdU, and the very meager wolfpack action. I've been ordered shadowing a convoy maybe twice and have never seen or heard another U-boat attacking a convoy. A real U-boat might have had no sinkings but it would have been a part of a wolfpack group multiple times. H.sie's wolfpack addition and rudewarror's JFO mod are great advancements here but not enough.

[UKönig]

One of the complaints the war correspondent makes in Das Boot is that the U-boat has a terrible turning radius for several reasons. It's too long, too narrow, too slow, and its propellers are too close together, and the rudder surface area itself is too small.

too small a surface area on the rudder is what allowed the Titanic to graze the iceberg. That accident was caused when the watch officer reversed engines and *then* put the rudder hard over. The time took to reverse gear slowed the ship down and the too small rudder had less deflection effect to begin the turn in time. Ironically, the best maneuver in that regard would have been to speed up and then hard over. The way history records it is what you would do to ensure a collision. Of course, I can't really fault the guy for not wanting to smash their brand new flagship ocean liner head on into a mountain of ice...

Above all, speed is life. The faster you are going, the longer you will live. The best defense against an attack is: not be in range of it.

[CptGrayWolf]

Very interesting info guys! Learning alot here :know:
My weak contribution is that I know with aircraft there's a specific speed (different for each aircraft) for optimum maneuvering. I think it's called cornering speed (might be wrong). I'm guessing ships also have this 'sweet spot' speed for best performance.

What I hate the most about SH3 even modded as far as I can achieve is the near total lack of direction from BdU, and the very meager wolfpack action. I've been ordered shadowing a convoy maybe twice and have never seen or heard another U-boat attacking a convoy. A real U-boat might have had no sinkings but it would have been a part of a wolfpack group multiple times. H.sie's wolfpack addition and rudewarror's JFO mod are great advancements here but not enough.

That's where Aces Of The Deep really shines. Real dynamic communications with BdU and other boats.

[Sailor Steve]

I don't really "hate" anything in SH3. I do dislike several things, though, especially the 'crew management'. I'll give them some slack because this was the first sub sim to actually have a crew at all. They did fix that for SH4, but so far the best option for SH3 is to just turn the whole 'fatigue' thing off.

[THEBERBSTER]

SH3 with GWX 3.0

Antiquated map and size compared to SH4 and SH5 is my only gripe.

Just seems like a lot of wasted screen space.

Peter

[Obltn Strand]

Corrupt saves:hmph:

[Tupolev]

http://uboatarchive.net/Manual/Manual.htm

Check out page 17 & 18. The speeds for the given engine telegraph and RPMs are on page 14.

Unfortunately, the the to reciprocal heading data for submerged isn't available, but I think the rest kinda helps drawing a good mental picture of what a VIIC can do.

Turning a small circle doesn't mean much if it takes nearly 3 minutes to turn 180 degrees.

[Nemo66]

sorry i had to delete this reply because i uploaded it in the wrong thread..sorry

[Kendras]

Ironically, the best maneuver in that regard would have been to speed up and then hard over.

Wow. If the officer had done that, he would have been called a "hero" ! :yep:

[Von Due]

What I hate the most right now is the save game corruption bug that just hit my current career. If this extends to all my careers then to hell with this.

[Kendras]

What I hate the most about SH3 is that it is very far from a simulation ! :nope: A good SH game should be built by historians and engineers.

[Von Due]

What I hate the most about SH3 is that it is very far from a simulation ! :nope: A good SH game should be built by historians and engineers.

I agree that SH3 is a game with an identity crisis. It wants to be a simulation but gets so much of it factually wrong that it more than anything simulates a fantasy submarine in a fantasy war setting. It wants to be a point and shoot for the casual gamer and sales volumes but is too complex for the casual gamer to be interested.

Luckily the modders have done spectacularly in turning this game into something that could pass for a WW2 submarine sim. At least, it's the closest thing the gaming world has ever come a WW2 war in the Atlantic sim. Now we need a true sim. DCS quality *drool*. My amateur marketing analysis and sales analysis however tell me that game will never come to be.

[Sittingwolf]

Your all right gentlemen,

Thank goodness there's mods to play. Like good old NYGM.

How about it?

[Leoz]

Most of my beefs are minor.

Number 1: planesmen at their station while boat is on surface. Nope. No bench and crew position for helmsman. This is big because when you run with crew fatigue, your watches are all screwed up. Everyone on the crew is trained to do basic planesmen duties. So your lookouts, when the order is given to dive, become your planesmen.

Number 2: No chief petty officer quarters/Officer's quarters goofed up. Sounds small, but again if you are running with game fatigue, it is a big deal. And while doing that, might as well also run the position for cook and assistants as they do other things at battle-stations. If the cooks position is not occupied, you can assume crew fatigue would go toward the bad. Including damage of this station.

Number 3: starting a career in the stock game without proper ratings for the ALL Petty Officers (Bootsman) as a minimum. Just didn't happen as the crew, even if it had no combat experience, was trained to a reasonable level in the Baltic workups.

Number 4: fatigue. I think it is a great idea, but if you tired at your post after only an hour, your bootsman would have a very serious talk with you. Potential crewmembers were culled heavily. Those that didn't have what it takes didn't get on a boat, at lease the first few years.

Number 5: skills given to officers are goofy. All were trained to a reasonable level to be an officer on watch that could also organize diving, surfacing and running the boat while on watch. So as a minimum they would have a helm and watchman rating by default.

Number 6: the navigator was a senior enlisted guy. Not an officer and could also run the third watch.

Your officers that you had under your command were the first watch officer W01, second watch officer, WO2 and chief engineer LI. Sometimes you went to sea with an extra officer. For example, an LI that never was there at the boats launch and came out of LI school. So he had to learn the ropes.

Nitpick? Probably, but anyone designing a game would have picked this up.

[Rhodes]

For me, a few of what already was mentioned:

corrupted save files, unexpected CTD and the micro-manage crew+fadigue.
Also unable to save a game near a ship/convoy, since it leas to the corrupted save files and of course a few things that tends to be historical inaccurately, plus the how the game AI reacts, since even during the happy times is hard to get very near a convoy at night.
Of course it is also a game and old one, and limited by various factors.
At least, super-mods+ several mods manage to get the game more realistic.

[Von Due]

Also unable to save a game near a ship/convoy

^So much this. A royal pita for sure.

[fumo30]

Sometimes I get agitated when I quickly need "sonarshmuck's" bearing info and he replies "no sound contact" and just before he was tracking the nearby ship.
So I have to go to sonar station myself.
At these kinda situations I'm groping my Walther pistol.:Kaleun_Mad:

[BarracudaUAK]

For me, a few of what already was mentioned:
..........
Also unable to save a game near a ship/convoy, since it leas to the corrupted save files .....


I think that is a Windows issue. When I still had WinXP installed on my old computer, I occasionally would have save game issues when saving near a convoy/land...

But after WinXP cratered the partition, I decided to do what I had been wanting to do for years, and I installed Linux. Using a program called Wine, I can run SH3 and SH4 (and most of my other Windows games) in Linux, and with SH3 I can save ANYWHERE I WANT.

Underwater? Check.
Near Land? Check.
Close to ships? Check.
Save over old saves? Check.
While under attack by escorts? Check.
With nearby aircraft? Check.
With a torpedo in route to hit a ship? Check.

With all of the above? Check.

Most (all?) of the save game issues went away for me.
I've yet to have a game fail to load. Unless I use SH3 Commander, and I accidentally load an older game. Then it gives me grief. But only if SH3C is used before I start the game.

Personal complaint with SH3? I can't sit on the bottom.
I did it in Aces of the Deep. Attack a convoy, sink a ship, get hounded by the escorts...
"bottom the boat", and the Escort would "lose" me and run off to go catch up to the convoy.
Then I would surface and make an "end run" while reloading, and do it again.
I was a really massive pain in the caboose with a Type IIB.
I was even more so with a VII and a IX.
AND I usually did this in the "lethal" English Channel.
Now in SH3 I usually prefer deep water, for obvious reasons. (unless I decide to hunt the DDs....)


Barracuda

P.S. Sad part is, I remember reading this thread when it was "new", long before I joined subsim...

[RConch]

If you use GWX, use this.

Made for GWX 2-but works great for GWX 3.

I have used it for years.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=957

One complaint resolved I hope.:Kaleun_Cheers:

[BarracudaUAK]

Thanks for the link, but I was mostly referring to the destroyers losing contact when I "bottomed the boat".
I still took some damage if I was moving too fast, but, a small leak was preferable to a large breach by a depth charge. :D


Although in C:AOTD you always had a small leaks, which is why silent running was a bit harder at greater depths.
You could go so deep that the pumps couldn't keep up. If you sat on the bottom from too
long on silent running, the CE would use compressed air to blow the water out of the boat.

Which was an added "resource management"... 'on the bottom' so he (the DD) can't ping me.
'Silent running' and stopped so he can't hear me.
But slowly flooding so 'hurry up and go away!' so I can turn on the pumps... a few
minutes later he's gone "secure from silent running"... CE "Pumps can't keep up" or
"we are too deep for the pumps to work"... Great!
"Blow ballast!"... and we inch toward the surface, slowly, a meter every 4 seconds,
but we are rising... then "we are out of the mud", Ahead standard! Surface!....

Eventually you are up top, set course for the convoy, or home... and fix what you broke!

Barracuda

P.S. My current install of SH3, which I haven't played for several months (SH4 and Mass Effect 2, various half-life games, WORK :nope:) is GWX3.
Although I've done a few tweaks to it.:up:

[Convoi_PQ17]

Also a nice thread, Nemo. :Kaleun_Applaud:

[John Pancoast]

A lot of the problems listed by the op and others can easily be fixed via either SH3 Commander and/or simple editing of the relevant .cfg files.

At least one valid complaint, the helmsman still at their stations when on the surface (let alone their hands at the wrong controls) can be fixed with a mod. I don't remember where I got it but I can post it if needed.
It adds more food hanging, water drip, changed interior camera view, and the above helmsmen moving. It does not have all the options FlakMonkey's work does.