Jasonb885's new RND file; a big step forward for all SH3 [Archive]

Wulfmann

07-09-05, 10:11 AM

After resetting this I was able to open this new RND file for a good look. While no doubt everything is a work in progress and we all have our own interpretation of historic events I can safely say this is hands down the best work done to date on the RND.mis file. This should be the basis for future efforts and be considered the bench mark. RUB is way behind on the RND file with a simple single ship spawn and report reduction while this customizes things and better represents the convoys we all love to hunt down.
But, I also have a view different views on what was done.
This is not as much criticism but more suggestions to further a very good piece of work.
I would now rather advise on this and tweak J885s efforts than continue making my own. His work is too well done and the error free program he made to construct this is paramount to the success of a nearly 6 MB text file that one mistake can ruin (trust me, I know)

But;
If you are going to ask people to add to the roster why do so just to add a few merchant flags. Why not finish the job all at once with corrected warships.
Destroyers that were commissioned into the Dutch, Norwegian, Polish and Greek navies that were involved in historic events could just have easily been added here. The British transferred 2DDs ( B and E; What are included in the CClass in SH3), 2 Hunt II and 6 Flower class corvettes as well as commissioned directly 4 Hunt III to the Hellenic (Greek) navy to add to those warships that escaped the Nazi conquest of Hellas. They were heavily involved in escorting Med convoys as well as the invasions of Sicily and Italy and earned the respect and admiration of their allies.
Same for the Dutch destroyers (did you know some served in the Med not just the Atlantic) with 2 N-Class DDs (included under the JClass in SH3) commissioned directly into the Dutch Navy. One River class (we don’t actually have a real River in SH3) and one Flower were transferred to the Dutch boys.
Besides the later S-class DDs (not in SH3) Norway received 5 “Flush Deckers” from the US 1940-42, 2 Hunt III in 42, and a Hunt II in 44 and 6 flower class were in Norwegian service.
The Poles received a G-class (CClass in SH3) and an N and an M (Included in SH3 as Jclass) as well as 3 Hunt II (one was lost off Malta!!!)
By adding these DDs to the correct navies then placing them in the convoys they were likely to participate we add historic reality and we pay just a little tribute to those men that richly deserve it. The above ships fought with distinction and courage from all four nations. No destroyer could be called more heroic than the Greek Hunt III Adrias.
Remember, when a British general said to Churchill “Those Greeks fight like heroes” Churchill replied; “My good sir, Greeks don’t fight like heroes, heroes fight like Greeks”

Wulfmann :rock:

Observer

07-09-05, 10:19 AM

Because as you say, it's a work in progress, and the work to date has focused primarily on the merchant aspect. The rosters were filled out to get the right types of merchants into the convoys, and there's still quite a bit of work to be done with the merchants, especially on convoys were we lack information. (Med for example).

I'd be interested in any warship info you might have. It's an area I think we're weak at right now.

Wulfmann

07-09-05, 10:29 AM

I can send you the names of the ships and near dates as often these are simply listed as "1942". But, since SH3 uses the launch dates as enter service dates for all DDs being anywhere in the ball park will likely be closer than we presently have. To actually correct the dates (and we would still not be accurate only more so) would be monumetal and actually not change the play much. Even the things I suggested above it would be hard to know if the Adrias is on my tail as compared to anything else as I play 100%.
But, being anal on this is not a bad idea as it is part of the fun of tweaking.
It is no worse to be more accurate than not.
I would also like to see an occasional Revenge class as a 30% in a few late 40 early 41 convoys as they actaully were just as CLs were close escorts on troop and Arctic convoys.
The improved convoys is the right direction to a better game play and may be the single most important improvement to date
Wulfmann

CCIP

07-09-05, 10:45 AM

Hey, Jason is looking exactly for that kind of data! In fact one of the problems we've been having is that we don't have enough info on certain convoys. I'm sure he'd be more than happy to put the right escorts in the right convoys, given the right data. He's done it with the Canadians already...

Any light on this is definitely appreciated.

Wulfmann

07-09-05, 12:52 PM

Well I thought I had deleted the rosters but I found them all. The above mentioned ships already to drop in with correct names etc so adding them would be easy.
Basically we have generic convoys that represent the idea of convoys so we don't have to be exact as SH3 is certainly not.
From mid 1942 you could simply add Greek type 4 to convoys in the Med and it would be possible if not likely as they did so. I do not know about the other nations and Atlantic convoys but hopefully others will read this and offer info. Stuff like the blah blah DD from Norwy was in a convoy in a year etc.
PM an email add and I will send over the rosters for the 4 countries with all the right ships and names. It will save a lot of work and its already done.

You might also consider a stock RND.mis file. That is, one where you do not include these new warships or the additional merchants now required to use the new RND.
By dropping the classes you could still leave the fact a Norwegian merchant was in the convoy but for those that don't update a roster the KSS or KSQ would spawn while those that do could have the KLS.
Even a Med convoy that asked for Greek type 4 could spawn the incorrect stock Hunt I while other would get the II or II that updated their roster.
Many just won't want to do much modding and a simple version would improve their play as this is good enough that a wound down round file would be a big improvement by itself.
Just an opinion.
Wulfmann

jasonb885

07-09-05, 01:42 PM

...
You might also consider a stock RND.mis file. That is, one where you do not include these new warships or the additional merchants now required to use the new RND.
By dropping the classes you could still leave the fact a Norwegian merchant was in the convoy but for those that don't update a roster the KSS or KSQ would spawn while those that do could have the KLS.
...

That was one of my primary requirements, and why I have shied away from using Sergbuto's new transport and cargo ship. However, the new rosters are simply required for a reasonable representation of convoys. At some point a mod is so bland that it's a waste of time to create it or it's useless by limiting changes beyond a certain level.

I'd like to add recommends for Sergbuto's Hampton Class Light Cruiser and Observer's accurate tonnage SH3 Commander mod, but I won't attempt to integrate such things directly.

It's a shame there's no real dependency management system for installing SH3 additions coupled with a patch management system of sorts. Unfortunately the degree of complexity is likely too high for the majority of mods and modders.

Another important note is, ship entry dates can generally _only_ be earlier, not later. (Except for merchants where they'll likely to never be explicitly specified in the RND layer, although with merchant ships at anchor in the v1.4b patch, if any VVs are at anchor before 1944 they won't show up.) Some of the corrections that need be done result in ships entering the war later. That might crash the SCR layer in some instances which isn't acceptable, or at the very least have whole escort groups not appear.

I do not wish to provide a modified SCR layer because the Ops mod is already heavily modifying that for other purposes, making any kind of integration extremely difficult. It's not a road I wish to travel presently.

To echo others, the primary elements lacking presently are South Equatorial convoys and Mediteranean (hah, spelled it right without looking it up for the first time!) convoy information.

I am somewhat leery of including any BBs in North Atlantic fast convoys at 9 kts, because they're such obvious targets and it's extremely easy to score a kill on such things without doubling or trippling the escort protection. It's not possible to include the shadowing escort force that would surely protect the capital ship.

I would consider large warships in military convoys, but there's little information on those. I am considering using what the developers have for convoys such as AS and simply expanding upon it so it's larger, with perhaps some escort tweaks. (HG only has like 10 ships for example.)

zzsteven

07-09-05, 03:17 PM

Uhhhmmmm....... Mediterranean. :D

zz

Shadow9216

07-09-05, 04:31 PM

jasonb885

07-09-05, 05:02 PM

Uhhhmmmm....... Mediterranean. :D

zz

Really?

Konqueror didn't complain, so I assumed I had it correct for once.

Apparently not. Back to dictionary.com again. Some days you just get tired of proofing your work before posting...

:ping:

jasonb885

07-09-05, 05:05 PM

I've been tweaking Serg's Nationality mod by editing the DefSide.cfg file, creating new recognition manual covers for the new countries added, and creating roundels for some of the non-represented airforces. I think coupling that with Wulfmann's rosters of warships would really help give this a boost. Is there a way to incorporate the Nationality mod into your and Jason's mod? Or would it be better to add the corrected rosters into the updated nationality mod? Serg is working on more countries to add to that as we speak...

The only country generally missing from convoys at this point is Panama. No other countries participated in convoys to the extent that I can effectively represent them. Given each convoy definition is static for its run period in game and we're limited to some 30 - 45 ships for the game to be playable for most people it would provide difficult to add any other nations into convoys.

Shadow9216

07-09-05, 06:11 PM

I can't, and won't, presume to speak for Serg on this, as any cooperation between us is loose at best...having said that, I would envision the additional countries consisting of local traffic, coastal shipping and the like.

Historically, it was the sinking of a 2nd Mexican tanker which led to that country's declaration of war; Brazil declared war after several of its ships were torpedoed, and Argentina and Spain lodged vehement protests with Berlin when their neutrality was violated.

You are, as usual, 100% correct in your assessment of the convoys Jason, so I think I'll look at making local traffic in the specific areas. If Serg is working on this, perhaps I can assist him.

At any rate, the more (ships) the merrier?

Wulfmann

07-09-05, 07:40 PM

One of the things I did with my RND files (before I put your in)was reduce to nearly nothing the coastal traffic of fishing boats and the like.
Even if you incorporate the historic info I compiled for the roster update the user would have to have the roster or your RND could not be used. But, the way you have done that it must have your roster updates so that would be OK. I would only suggest adding the DDs to convoys in the RND and not doing a SCR update. I would suggest that using an SCR that corrects the Hunt class only be considered as that is a super easy fix. replacing the early ones at the beginning with another DD and simply backing up the others by one Type. That is remove the type I, then make the typeII, the type I, then make the type III the type II. They would be corrected and nothing else would be disturbed. The SCR actually calls for exact ships not just the class as the RND does, but you likely know that.
I have already redone the convoys in your RND to suit my take on history for my game.
Very little almost no single traffic.
Wulfmann

jasonb885

07-09-05, 09:33 PM

...I would suggest that using an SCR that corrects the Hunt class only be considered as that is a super easy fix. replacing the early ones at the beginning with another DD and simply backing up the others by one Type. That is remove the type I, then make the typeII, the type I, then make the type III the type II. They would be corrected and nothing else would be disturbed. The SCR actually calls for exact ships not just the class as the RND does, but you likely know that.
I have already redone the convoys in your RND to suit my take on history for my game.
Very little almost no single traffic.
Wulfmann

I don't understand why the Hunt Class is such a huge concern. I would wager you mention the discrepancy in almost every single post you make about the RND and SCR layers. It's that bothersome?

How much single ship traffic should there be in '39 and '40, based on your sources?

jasonb885

07-09-05, 09:36 PM

...
At any rate, the more (ships) the merrier?

Sure. Since I can process any RND layer, I'll merely need the updated SH3 v1.4b RND layer when it's complete and that can be used as a basis. However, I'd need all the new rosters for the new nations and all the related material and it would all need to be included in ImprovedConvoys to work.

Or whenever you have an updated RND layer I could merely process it and pass it back to you and who ever wants to release a RND mod with increased single ship nationalities could do so.

My primary focus is convoys, in any event. Convoys are what the game's about.

zzsteven

07-09-05, 11:37 PM

Really?

Konqueror didn't complain, so I assumed I had it correct for once.

Apparently not. Back to dictionary.com again. Some days you just get tired of proofing your work before posting...

Please, I wasn't proofreading your post. It caught my eye and then when you said in the parenthesis you finally got it right, I couldn't resist razzing for a minute. To be honest I had to check with Merriam-Webster. :D

Sorry if I offended you, I like to joke and tease sometimes.

zz

jasonb885

07-10-05, 12:08 AM

Wulfmann

07-10-05, 01:02 PM

Observer

07-10-05, 01:31 PM

I would think changing the roster dates for the Hunt class would not be that difficult and stays with the out of the box approach thus far. We've adjusted the entry dates for mechants, why not the Hunts?

Wulfmann

07-10-05, 01:55 PM

That is easy but not all that must be done.
The dates for the various classes must be edited for the RND file, which is also not hard.
But, the SCR names specific ships such as Hunt Type I #2.
It must be done correctly to not cause a problem and the first ships in the SCR are the type I Hunt class.
That means you must make sure if you replace that Hunt type I #2 with a V&W #3 that the same ship, V&W #3 is not in use on that time stretch in the SCR or it will CTD. Once the first group is exchanged, the other Hunts are simply backed up. A Hunt II can be changed to a Hunt I, a Hunt III can be changed to a Hunt II etc. All dates for the ships must be rechecked to be sure there are no overlaps for those patrols.
Wulfmann

jasonb885

07-10-05, 02:15 PM

While there are even worse problems with accurate ship info, most notably the River class which is not the River class at all but the A-D class that were modified to be convoy escorts, the Hunt do bother me more. The River actually come in when the converted A-D would so are just wrongly named ships that would be there.

I can't imagine why the River can't just be renamed the A-D then?

While all the DDs use the launch dates that are 3-8 months earlier than the ships should enter service, The Hunt classes, all of them, totally ignore historic reference and enter a year or more than they should even before some were laid down and way before launching.

So I noticed.

The first two Hunt class type I were launched on December 12, 1939 and entered service late spring of 1940. They were very unstable and had to be modified so it actually may have been much later than that.
SH3 has them enter in 1937.
You think that is OK?????

I think it's unfortunate. I don't think it's worth a freakout though.

Would a XXI entering at the end of 1941 be OK????? Same difference in time!!!

Not really. The player drives the sub, so having an uber-sub in 1941 would be silly. But having an extra destroyer available in a game where there are few warships models doesn't bother me. The alternative is to have even fewer escorts available for a longer period of time.

The SH3 Hunt type II enters in June of 1940 or about when the type I should start to come into SH3. The first type II to be launched was August 20, 1940 and did not enter service until the end of the year or about 1-1-1941.
All the type II in SH3 enter 6-40 where most actually entered in early 1942 or later.
The type III in SH3 enters in 6-41. The very first type III launched was July 23, 1941. Most were launched in 42 and they entered service from about 1-1-42 to mid 1943. So the type II is closer but still in use before one empty hull even touched the water.

I think I could recite this from memory now...

No disrespect intended but to feel the same SH3 tanker should have a different flag to better represent realistic convoy make up when the escort may not be in existence for years to come, correcting that seems even more necessary for realism. But, that is just my opinion.

None taken. I merely feel you're missing the forest for the trees here. But that's okay. Our goals are different. I am attempting to bring the greatest benefit to the largest number of players with the least amount of investment possible. I have succeeded.

Including historic nations in convoys, for example, is a rather simple exercise. Especially so in light of everyone and his dog having dibs on the SCR layer for the mod-of-the-week regarding ship traffic. It's too much hassle to kick out my own mod for the SCR with realistic entry dates for Hunt Class destroyers when it'll conflict with 5,000 people's different variant of some harbor traffic mod. It's just not worth my time either trying to organize everyone (if anyone cares) so our changes can be properly applied using a tool like `diff` so they're easy to manage or modding everyone's new SCR to include the correct changes myself. Thanks, but no.

While SH3 did this in similar ways to other ships like adding all the classes from K-Q to the Jclass and have them in service at the beginning when those were 2-3 years away, well, at least the class was there, not so with the Hunt.
My point was correcting the Hunt is not very hard to do while the other s would be complex to edit
I noticed you moved up the Black Swan class which was the only escort class they actually placed near correct entered service dates on in SH3.

It's extremely complicated. See above with regard to dozens of SCR implementations and people's deep burning need to use them which would immediately conflict with ImprovedConvoys, resulting in it likely getting the Recyle Bin. God forbid someone not have their harbor traffic.

Yes, I moved the Black Swan because it's listed as a sloop and sloops saw action early in the war as convoy escorts. The only one available is the Black Swan, even if it's not a sloop, so there it is. Oops.

If you'd like to provide some additional ship models, _that_ would be helpful and appreciated.

However, the Egret class of which the Black Swan derived, are so close to utilize them at the war's start in the Black Swan name is far more accurate than calling the various ships included in the JClass which are not at all close to the J.
To see a Black Swan type attacking you in Sept 1939 would be possible.
A Hunt class, totally impossible.
When we can, totally impossible should be corrected, IMO
Wulfmann

It's not as trivial as you believe. But feel free to _organize_ the modders and setup a repository where people can check in changes to a global SCR file using, say, Subversion, and still manage to keep stuff separated to the degree that people don't freak out when there's too much/too little/no harbor traffic to speak of or whatever.

It's not worth my time.

I'll modify the entry dates for the Hunt Class if you can give me a list of which RndGroup BRPatrols will be effected and that you don't care that they won't spawn anymore.

Otherwise, enough with the Hunter Class. Talk to someone in a SCR modification thread about it. I can't help you.

I apologize for the tone, but I haven't seen a post from you yet that isn't primarily about the Hunt Class destroyers having inaccurate entries dates in any thread that mentions the RND and SCR layers. Seriously, just fix it on your end and be happy.

joea

07-10-05, 04:22 PM

jasonb885

07-10-05, 04:39 PM

Why the offended tone Jason? :shifty: I happend to really enjoy what you've done with the convoys, if you don't like other player's wants for mods no need to insult them? Or am i missing something? What does a SCR file do?

I'm just stating the situation as I see it. If I were to modify the SCR layer (the scripted layer which is separate from the RND layer) so things like Hunt Class destroyers could have valid entry dates, of which isn't even on my list of things to do, well...

Here's the deal. The SCR layer is the basis for all the harbor traffic mods. People love their traffic mods. If I modify SH3's _default_ SCR layer and fix the Hunter Class entry dates, now people will be dumping that SCR layer in favorite of a harbor mod SCR layer or dumping ImprovedConvoys for harbor traffic.

So I either have to pick a 'side', and use someone's harbor mod as the basis for my SCR with fixed Hunter Classes, or use the stock game's SCR file.

No matter which way you play it, someone's going to be annoyed.

It's easier to just not bother.

If Wulfmann wants to release his fixed SCR with the corrections for the Hunter Class destroyers and other ships, then everyone can benefit and maybe someone maintaining a harbor mod will believe it fit for inclusion so an even greater number of people benefit.

But it's outside my domain. I don't want to have to 'pick sides' on harbor mods by including one or another with accurancy corrections for scripted patrols that include Hunter Class destroyers and others.

My goal is to solely modify the RND layer with the minimum amount of overlap with other projects as possible. Besides 20/20 the RND layer has gotten little attention from anyone else doing mods, so overlap doesn't appear like it will be an issue.

perdu

07-10-05, 04:59 PM

for the SCR layer, Rubini is working hard on it,
why don't see with him (when he will come back int 3-4 days ) for this hunter class fix????

Jace11

07-10-05, 06:05 PM

:-?

Is it still a work in progress? The med. convoys need doing still?

Are you going to give them same overhaul, formation spacing etc?

You could add a few greek escorts, raise convoy detection probilities (as air searchs from Sicily picked up many). I like the atlantic work. Still worried about large wide convoys and large spacing during course alterations. Does it cause problems with slow ships or have you tested it and found it to be fine?

e.g
HX41 in jasons layer has a max of 37 merchants and a mininum of 17.

Formation spacing is 900m between 9 columns. 8x900 = 7.2 km wide convoy formation. Distance from the centre is at the most 3.6km. Convoy speed is 9 knots.

Ill have to test, but if a course change of say 60 degrees when the player is attacking may cause one wing of the convoy to turn round and the other unable to speed up enough to get into the new station position.

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/7808/untitled11vb.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

Probably nothing to worry about though, if there is chaos in the formation, it may take only a short while to sort out, except tramps, which would trail convoy at 9 knots as that is thier maximum speed. I feel giving no leeway may cause people to sight "chaotic" convoys on patrols. Not a major worry I suppose, messed up convoys were historically common maybe?

There are couple of ways around this. I have increased tramps speed a little, and my RND does not have such large spacing or so many columns. But also not so many ships. Of course maybe it is not a big problem. You will have to see what people report back seeing. I think it may occur, but very rarely, as players encounter convoys mostly between waypoints and you haven't done much to convoy courses. I have a couple of other issues, but on the whole I think it is a valiant attempt to sort out many issues with the RND, just worried that while it all seems fine in the editor, there are certain practical limitations that may only become apparent in practise, i.e when the game is played.

As for mistakes, the editor seems to be fine for me. Never caused a crash for me.

Also from the books I have read, certain destroyer types were encountered more often in certain theatres. Bu changing all to generics, you have gained variety, but lost some historical accuracy. The devs seemed to get it mostly right in terms of type. J's and Tribals in the med and arctic, BSwans, corvettes, clemsons, VWs and A-Ds in atlantic.. Some crossover, but looking at service records of J and Tribals, they did some escorts but nearly exclusively to russia and med.

CCIP

07-10-05, 06:25 PM

Interesting find, Jace. I'll have to see if I can reproduce it - but I think I've seen something like that before.
The natural idea, and one which I've been pushing for in convoys all along, is increasing the ship speeds via their respective .sim files... failing that - shouldn't the tramps technically be able to do 11kt? (their .sim files say so - maybe it's the config speed of 9kt that's stopping them. In which case that's an even easier fix.)

I guess it also depends on how much effect this really has. If there's notable mess-ups, and half the convoy straggles permanently, then it's an issue. If it's just a bit disorganized while in your detection range - I don't suppose it's a major issue.

Shadow9216

07-10-05, 06:27 PM

But feel free to _organize_ the modders and setup a repository where people can check in changes to a global SCR file using, say, Subversion, and still manage to keep stuff separated to the degree that people don't freak out when there's too much/too little/no harbor traffic to speak of or whatever.

It occurs to me the elegant solution would be to find some way to offer an altered SCR, LND, RND file with the additions highlighted in some fashion...if a player wanted to add, say, the harbor traffic to the improved convoys, they could quickly scan the mod to determine what the changes are and where they come into play, and then cut and paste. I did this with World Mod 2.1 and 3.0 to get a blend, but it was very time consuming without a visual cue to go by. A color-coded section might be a nice workaround, affording the following:

1) Players could determine quickly the changes to a file
2) Greater flexibility in using mods is afforded, thus no one has to pick and choose
3) It would allow a fairly easy roll back in the event something isn't working
4) One could easily spot the types of issues you guys have been discussing with the DDs.

I like the harbor traffic, and have worked with Rubini on testing it. But I also like the Improved Convoys, and have put no small amount of time into researching and providing (hopefully) useful information on it. I'd prefer not to pick and choose, nor would I like to see either Jason or Rubini get discouraged and cease/desist efforts on our behalf.

The drawback I see (there may be others) is that this isn't something you can do with the mod enabler, and I've noticed some reluctance of people to use mods without that feature...this isn't major league coding, just minor cutting and pasting, but that may put some people off.

As I stated, my first edit was adding the harbor traffic from World Mod 3.0 to World Mod 2.1, as well as the raiders and some of the groups. It was a pain in the butt, but it worked and at the time I thought it well worth the effort. I don't mind some work on my end to create a great mod from all of your hard work. Seems only fair, IMO.

CCIP

07-10-05, 06:35 PM

Well, as I see the situation right now, since ImprovedConvoys is intended as part of the Operations mod - we'll have ourselves a new major modded set of LND, SCR and RND when Operations comes out. As far as options and selections - I think it will be easy to add/remove certain features from Operations, if people so desire, but as is the case with Jason's individual work here - I think that should be the concern of those who feel the campaign set to be 'deficient' enough to want to put in the effort for that sort of selection, rather than the concern of the Operations team themselves.

I don't think Jason or anyone else is discouraging those who want to be so detailed about the darn one-stackers that they're go in and mess with a good chunk of the campaign to get them right. But, in the same spirit that the Operations team doesn't feel that port traffic isn't worth the effort, if Jason doesn't think the one-stackers are worth the effort - perhaps it's best that someone else do something about them. Which we'd all most welcome, much as we would a realistic, un-abusable set of port traffic...

Jace11

07-10-05, 06:48 PM

Regarding Escorts and the Generic - more variety, less historical accuracy - issue...

One problem is the classes depicted in the game. The destroyers are either dedicated fleet types or highly modded ASW varients. The V&W is a mess. It starts off as a fleet class, only 2 racks and later gets a hedgehog but no K-Guns... Is it a WAIR, an LRE an SRE or what???

Historically incorrect, the V&Ws underwent conversions, I wish I could do what serg is doing to ship models as I would try and make an LRE version. Strip off the foreward funnel and add K-guns and land a turret or two.

Anyway, my point is that the most used escorts in atlantic convoys were those most suited to the task at the time. Old modded clemsons, corvettes and LRE's. The J's and Tribals were used elsewhere, where their limited ASW loadouts, AA loadouts, torpedos etc were more appropriate.

CCIP

07-10-05, 06:54 PM

Perhaps, assuming we can get Serg-level modding done here, we could simply separate the classes into two different entries and models for Fleet and ASW types?

Sounds like one of those things one wouldn't want to spend THAT much time one, but if all it takes is even changing the ASW loadouts, I'd be all for that...

jasonb885

07-10-05, 07:01 PM

...
I guess it also depends on how much effect this really has. If there's notable mess-ups, and half the convoy straggles permanently, then it's an issue. If it's just a bit disorganized while in your detection range - I don't suppose it's a major issue.

I had some new convoys running at 6 kts originally and found one all messed up and backwards in the middle of a huge storm. The tramps should've been able to keep up. But all the ships were a complete mess.

Jace11

07-10-05, 07:16 PM

When you come to fixing up the Gibraltar convoys etc, the 900m 9 columns may cause problems as the Gibraltar bay area where they spawn is not much over 7 km wide. Suggest you move some spawn points for these or dont apply the same formation settings.

jasonb885

07-10-05, 07:42 PM

jasonb885

07-10-05, 07:47 PM

Jace11

07-10-05, 07:49 PM

yup, I think you are ok on all other convoys, I don't see any other narrow "choke points" that may cause problems for wide formations, I may have missed something though.

Jace11

07-10-05, 07:57 PM

The most disturbing thing I have seen so far is 9kts HX convoys will slow 6kts after I hit a ship. I don't know if this normally happens or not. It's unlikely anything in the RND layer is responsible for this, although confirmation would be nice anyway. Is it happening to anyone else?

Did you damage the leader? That may have that effect. It's safe to say the convoy maintains formation on the leader. But what if the leader is sunk? The next ship in the list may become the leader. I am not sure, but if that happens it shouldn't cause a problem. However if the leader is damaged , slows and is not sunk, its position as leader may not be handed to the next ship. Just a theory.

Wulfmann

07-10-05, 07:58 PM

I will Hunt for a new topic on destroyer accuracy.

I had deleted that Hunt mod long ago Jason, so in doing, I agree it does not serve the greater good for a user mod but it should not hurt to keep it in the discussion regarding relevance to other similar inaccuracies that might be addressed.

In the end no matter what things are added that are corrected, by your or my opinion, the play must be competitive. That is, we don't have Wolf packs so our attacks can never be accurate. U-boats virtually never had lined up turkey shoots. If a convoy had no escorts it scattered and did not move at all like in SH3. By adding unhistorical trawlers with DCs to make up for that allows a variation for difficulty. It is not the best answer but being technically right with no escort when the merchants technically do not act right arrives at the incorrect scenario. Having a few more escorts on early convoys just restores some defensive capability missing by things beyond our control..

BTW, I found a bug in the Ureal RND file or the result of one or something it reacted too.
I started a new career in 1942, ran the first mission, which ran fine, I started the second mission and it CTD while loading. Replaced your stock RND with the RUB 20/20 and the mission loaded. That was May 1942.
Can someone else run a new career at 1942 and also a 43 and see what they get???? Any thoughts???? Don't have the Hunts mod so don't even think about that!!!!

Also I noticed your merchant ships are still referred to as US in the roster text files. It is not necessary to change the Norway version of US T3 Tanker to NO T3 Tanker? As it is now there will be duplicates of named tankers in the game which might (I actually do not know) cause a problem somewhere?????? Same for Netherlands; NE.

We will have to differ on the use of early DDs. By changing the called for to be any "4" and removing the Hunt dates to reality does not lesson the DDs at all. The CClass, V&W, JClass and Tribals will show and though the last two were not as likely in 1939 in NA convoys they at least actually existed, if that matters.

I asked Serg about renaming the River class and it does require a great deal of Hex editing to make the "real” A-D class. But, that would interfere with the present CClass and as you correctly assessed on the Hunt issue, create many SCR problems. In the end those A-d conversions are the River class just wrongly named as such. Changing that would be a much more complex fix than the Hunt class.

My actual suggestion to your mod was to add the ships for the four nations but never actually ask for them by name.
Having a Greek "4" would mean the Hunt I would show for anyone not adding the correct Hunt II and III. I do agree keeping it as simple as possible is the right way. I am not sure getting your shorts all in a knot is required when the Hunt fix is simple compared to others you are proposing or have done.
Wulfmann

jasonb885

07-10-05, 08:06 PM

jasonb885

07-10-05, 08:15 PM

...
In the end no matter what things are added that are corrected, by your or my opinion, the play must be competitive. That is, we don't have Wolf packs so our attacks can never be accurate. U-boats virtually never had lined up turkey shoots. If a convoy had no escorts it scattered and did not move at all like in SH3. By adding unhistorical trawlers with DCs to make up for that allows a variation for difficulty. It is not the best answer but being technically right with no escort when the merchants technically do not act right arrives at the incorrect scenario. Having a few more escorts on early convoys just restores some defensive capability missing by things beyond our control..

Correct. My goal is realism with play balance, or it's no fun at all.

BTW, I found a bug in the Ureal RND file or the result of one or something it reacted too.
I started a new career in 1942, ran the first mission, which ran fine, I started the second mission and it CTD while loading. Replaced your stock RND with the RUB 20/20 and the mission loaded. That was May 1942.
Can someone else run a new career at 1942 and also a 43 and see what they get???? Any thoughts???? Don't have the Hunts mod so don't even think about that!!!!

It's worth investigating. I haven't started a career out of 1941 yet.

Also I noticed your merchant ships are still referred to as US in the roster text files. It is not necessary to change the Norway version of US T3 Tanker to NO T3 Tanker? As it is now there will be duplicates of named tankers in the game which might (I actually do not know) cause a problem somewhere?????? Same for Netherlands; NE.

Correct. I copied them without much thought to the effects, but that should be easy to fix. Thanks.

...
My actual suggestion to your mod was to add the ships for the four nations but never actually ask for them by name.
Having a Greek "4" would mean the Hunt I would show for anyone not adding the correct Hunt II and III. I do agree keeping it as simple as possible is the right way. I am not sure getting your shorts all in a knot is required when the Hunt fix is simple compared to others you are proposing or have done.
Wulfmann

It's certainly possible to include a Greek escort or two, for example, in Med convoys. Based on the existing roster it would be one of the few escorts they're allowed to have in SH3. I haven't gotten around to doing Med convoys yet, since "Med convoy" is really a misnomer anyway. I notice the developers greatly reduced the frequency of Med 'convoys' I imagine because they were so irregular. Seems like the best possible fix under the circumstances for that reality.

In additional to the speed bug where 9 kts convoys slow down to 6 kts when hit, I am still performing general playtesting on Atlantic convoys for escorts and spawn probabilities. 85% chance to spawn SC seems to spawn a lot less often than my 90% chance to spawn HX in 1941. Very strange given the 5% difference.

My last three encountered with convoys have been turkey shoots. I am uncertain if it's worth modeling unescorted or weekly escorted convoys in the game if it's that easy to sink ships, although it's grossly unrealistic for convoys to be reasonably escorted before the beginning of 1941... Maybe all my escorts for weekly escorted convoys or when the spawn probability for most ships is less than 50% should be Veteran, even in early war, to compensate. Watching Flowers depth charge my position 2km away is only funny the first few times.

Observer

07-10-05, 09:51 PM

Observer

07-10-05, 09:58 PM

My last three encountered with convoys have been turkey shoots. I am uncertain if it's worth modeling unescorted or weekly escorted convoys in the game if it's that easy to sink ships, although it's grossly unrealistic for convoys to be reasonably escorted before the beginning of 1941... Maybe all my escorts for weekly escorted convoys or when the spawn probability for most ships is less than 50% should be Veteran, even in early war, to compensate. Watching Flowers depth charge my position 2km away is only funny the first few times.

I think increasing the escort AI one notch while keeping the number of escorts low should fix part of this issue, and keeping the convoys fast should eliminate much of the turkey shoot because you'll only get one chance. From what I've read though, submerging or going deep during the "Happy Times" was often enough to shake an escort, so I don't find it ridiculous for the escort to DC the wrong position early in the way.

jasonb885

07-10-05, 11:03 PM

But feel free to _organize_ the modders and setup a repository where people can check in changes to a global SCR file using, say, Subversion, and still manage to keep stuff separated to the degree that people don't freak out when there's too much/too little/no harbor traffic to speak of or whatever.

It occurs to me the elegant solution would be to find some way to offer an altered SCR, LND, RND file with the additions highlighted in some fashion...if a player wanted to add, say, the harbor traffic to the improved convoys, they could quickly scan the mod to determine what the changes are and where they come into play, and then cut and paste. I did this with World Mod 2.1 and 3.0 to get a blend, but it was very time consuming without a visual cue to go by. A color-coded section might be a nice workaround, affording the following:

Sadly that'd be insanely complicated to write and you'd need to train modders on packaging stuff properly for it, or packaging the stuff up yourself.

Creating some kind of package management system complete with dependencies and such is no small task. It takes good software and a rigid packaging policy to get it right.

1) Players could determine quickly the changes to a file
2) Greater flexibility in using mods is afforded, thus no one has to pick and choose
3) It would allow a fairly easy roll back in the event something isn't working
4) One could easily spot the types of issues you guys have been discussing with the DDs.

Possibly, but it would be quite complicated. The output would have to be quite human readable, and not the fun stuff that's actually in the raw Campaign_*.mis files presently.

...
The drawback I see (there may be others) is that this isn't something you can do with the mod enabler, and I've noticed some reluctance of people to use mods without that feature...this isn't major league coding, just minor cutting and pasting, but that may put some people off.

Indeed. One somewhat easy workaround is to have a different directory in the distribution for each flavor of the mod. Then you just copy that directory into your MODS/ directory and you're good to go.

jasonb885

07-10-05, 11:05 PM

The most disturbing thing I have seen so far is 9kts HX convoys will slow 6kts after I hit a ship. I don't know if this normally happens or not. It's unlikely anything in the RND layer is responsible for this, although confirmation would be nice anyway. Is it happening to anyone else?

I have not seen this behavior. Did you hit the commodore's ship perhaps?

Perhaps. It happened two or three different times on two different occasions of playing the game. It's most strange.

It doesn't happen to you when you hit 9 kts convoys? I play with the WO, but aim manually initially. Once my shots start passing the bow of the targets I get curious and check to find everyone moving at a slow 6 kts all of the sudden. Very odd.

Observer

07-10-05, 11:25 PM

The wide convoy kept me near the outside rows. I got a shot off on a tanker near the middle, but it was 1 or 2 back behind a light cruiser. I crippled two others (medium merchants) in a convoy and it kept steaming on. I use manual targeting so they might have slowed and I missed it, but they seemed to pass by too quickly for only 6kts. I only had a chance for one shot with all tubes before the range and geometry was bad (no chance to reload).

Wulfmann

07-11-05, 09:32 AM

I will paste and cut convoys in 1942 today and see if I can find which one might be causing it. I pasted them all in to the 20/20 RND and it still CTD so am reasonably sure it is in the convoys.

The first thing I do to any RND file is improve the crew rating of escorts. To suggest any Brit DD crew was poor is ignorant of the extensive training done by the RN prewar. But, they were lacking in ASW compared to fleet battle training. However, it is a matter of balancing the likelihood of them acting like buffoons that I seriously doubt they would have. There are no 0 or 1 escorts and very few 2 for mine
They would never be a 1, IMO. Making them have at least one 100% 3 is my minimum. The Trawlers with DCs have no sonar so at 3 are still not effective but must be carefully watched and are always near by.
I also remove all type 1 ships from 1939 as there were no Flower class ships in service but will add the Black Swan update as they can be Egret class and were busy in the escort service. This way no mod is needed to the roster and the Flower just is not there when it should not be.
In the end it is about improving this to be a challenge to attack convoys that get more difficult as the war progresses. I don't believe making turkey shoots is beneficial for being ready for real convoy defenses and I don’t personally want to skip that part to get to the real action either.
Wulfmann

jasonb885

07-11-05, 09:40 AM

...
The first thing I do to any RND file is improve the crew rating of escorts. To suggest any Brit DD crew was poor is ignorant of the extensive training done by the RN prewar. But, they were lacking in ASW compared to fleet battle training. However, it is a matter of balancing the likelihood of them acting like buffoons that I seriously doubt they would have. There are no 0 or 1 escorts and very few 2 for mine

Makes sense. I can't easily differientiate when I distribute crew efficiency points throughout the escorts. When I'm forced under I rarely have time to evaluate the flag on the ship.

...
I also remove all type 1 ships from 1939 as there were no Flower class ships in service but will add the Black Swan update as they can be Egret class and were busy in the escort service.

I wish I could do something about that, but I'd need to redefine convoy routes for each major ships introduction so it could be included when it became available for real, and not before. Sadly that's just way too much work.

I could remove any COs from 1939 convoys and replace them with FFs, though. That's not difficult because even with a random type there's only one kind of CO available the whole game. So just not using it and changing it to FF resolves the problem partially, except the Black Swan isn't really correct either.

dize

07-11-05, 01:39 PM

err where can i get this rnd file?

Oldgold

07-11-05, 02:10 PM

Sounds great! Ready to download.

http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/
Free Download Manager

jasonb885

07-11-05, 02:11 PM

err where can i get this rnd file?

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=39445

I'm looking for substantial playtesting reports.

Thanks.

dize

07-11-05, 03:01 PM

i are teh downloading and playing
where shall we post le reports here?

jasonb885

07-11-05, 03:42 PM

i are the downloading and playing
where shall we post le reports here?

Sure, this is a good place.

Feel free to report anything out of the ordinary or that might need attention.

For example, single ship spawn rates, convoy contact report rates, number of convoy ships and convoy escort number and difficulty or anything else you encounter.

:up:

Wulfmann

07-11-05, 09:44 PM

BTW, that was not a bug in your RND. That was a bug I put in one of the conversions and stuck it in the wrong folder. Your's does not CTD in 1942.
It was still a good search and it allowed me to fix the one I liked the best. That is one that has about twice the single ship traffic..
For yours I had one contact in 3 patrols, a little too sparse (1942)
In three patrols in my modded version of yours I have sunk 2 ships and have averaged about 3 reports per patrol but could not go after some (or chose not to).
Also, I found the DDs to easy in yours. I like to win but I like to barely win and feel lucky when I do.

For those downloading Jason'd fine work what would be helpful is to run some later patrols to make sure there is no bug. 1942-43 careers out of Bergen, the Med and Brest, or anything really but the more reporting the better it is for him to take this further. We all benifit from this work. His program to do this without errors is a big step forward.

Wulfmann

jasonb885

07-11-05, 10:15 PM

...I had one contact in 3 patrols, a little too sparse (1942)
In three patrols in my modded version of yours I have sunk 2 ships and have averaged about 3 reports per patrol but could not go after some (or chose not to).
Also, I found the DDs to easy in yours. I like to win but I like to barely win and feel lucky when I do.

Interesting. I guess the 0.8% traffic reduction is a bit much? I guess it still needs tuning. People using RuB seem to be mostly happy with it, though.

I've been looking at increasing the destroyer AI for each convoy to something more reasonable. I have only just begun that work tonight.

jasonb885

07-11-05, 10:20 PM

I went through the rosters and corrected the NO and NL classes to have the right country code in the roster instead of US.

When should the COs be available if not in 1939?

I'm updating convoys for 1943+ based on information provided by Observer.

Wulfmann

07-12-05, 10:33 AM

Netherland is NE

My limited info on the Flower class says they were launched in 1940-42. The first loss while on trials to a mine was in June 1940.
SH3 uses the launch dates to enter service for all DDs as most sources only give the launch date for DDs down.
Like the Fiji and Dido, they wanted one in the game at the start so made the lead ship available in September 1939. They did the same for the Flower class by making Arabis early. The first launch date appears as Periwinkle on Feb 24, 1940 with the next in April. While only one ship, in keeping with the launch equals in service method (except for the Hunt classes) in SH3, I would say March 1, 1940. Reality would be late summer for any numbers to be possible but reality can not be found on any other escort date so the Flower should have the same curve, IMO.
I do agree that moving up the Black Swan (as Egret) does not cause an SCR problem where the Hunt most certainly will. Making a conversion of the existing SCR file can be done a little later when all this has settled for the very few that might care.
Transfers to France and Norway began in 1941 with more in 42. In 42 a number were transferred to the USA and Greece got her Flowers in 1943, not 1940 as is in SH3
Wulfmann

jasonb885

07-12-05, 11:29 AM

Netherland is NE

ROFL.

It was late. I guess I really screwed that up.

Wait, NE is Niger using today's 2 character ISO codes:

http://www.theodora.com/country_digraphs.html

So it's NE in SH3 anyway?

My limited info on the Flower class says they were launched in 1940-42. The first loss while on trials to a mine was in June 1940.
SH3 uses the launch dates to enter service for all DDs as most sources only give the launch date for DDs down.
Like the Fiji and Dido, they wanted one in the game at the start so made the lead ship available in September 1939. They did the same for the Flower class by making Arabis early. The first launch date appears as Periwinkle on Feb 24, 1940 with the next in April. While only one ship, in keeping with the launch equals in service method (except for the Hunt classes) in SH3, I would say March 1, 1940. Reality would be late summer for any numbers to be possible but reality can not be found on any other escort date so the Flower should have the same curve, IMO.
I do agree that moving up the Black Swan (as Egret) does not cause an SCR problem where the Hunt most certainly will. Making a conversion of the existing SCR file can be done a little later when all this has settled for the very few that might care.
Transfers to France and Norway began in 1941 with more in 42. In 42 a number were transferred to the USA and Greece got her Flowers in 1943, not 1940 as is in SH3
Wulfmann

With Home Fleet destroyers so limited in '39 and '40 due to possible invasion, what would be the best class to use if not the COs that didn't exist yet?

I think I need to deploy them for '40 convoys, even if that's a bit too early, but I could try something else in '39. Ideally I'd be able to use really old DDs since they were often employed in convoy duties early in the war while modern destroyers awaited the invasion from Germany. But since I didn't include a feature to specify the exact warship class, you might end up with a Tribal or a J Class or something when that's not correct.

Anyway, what's the most appropriate old DD classes to use for '39 and '40 convoy escort? I could possibly add a feature to explicitly specify the ship class so early war can be more realistic.

Let me know.

Thanks.

Also, does having Netherland incorrectly listed as NL cause a crash?

Wulfmann

07-12-05, 04:19 PM

I don't know if the NL will cause a problem but because I just added your convoys to my RND, or at least parts of them, I can't take chances so redid those to be like the others.

Your C2 looks like this:

[UnitClass]
ClassName=KLS
UnitType=102
AppearanceDate=19380101
DisappearanceDate=19470101
DisplayName=NL C2 Cargo

[Unit 1]
Name=C2 Cargo
DOC=19380101
DOD=19470101

The stock Greek C2 (the only one that used no names in the rosters for C2 in stock SH3)

[UnitClass]
ClassName=KLS
UnitType=102
AppearanceDate=19380101
DisappearanceDate=19470101
DisplayName=GR C2 Cargo

[Unit 1]
Name=GR C2 Cargo
DOC=19380101
DOD=19470101

Notice it is GR C2 cargo and not just C2 cargo as in your; name=

Is this a problem? If it is done like the stock it is a better bet it is not, IMO!

For the early convoys I use one DD or one of your sloops and 2-3 trawlers. The sloops that would have been used, the older ones, are not modeled, over 25 of them, like the Grimsby and Shoreham classes. These were roughly half way between our trawler and the BlackSwan/Egret classes. The fact is, we can not do it quite right so I am going with mostly trawlers as the Flower is certainly wrong. Just compromise how it best suits you, no big deal.

I would suggest you do not use the Somer class and if you do give it a "1" crew rating. That was a top heavy ship which most ended up haveing 2 turrets and some TT removed to add stability. It would be a poor choice for the rough NA. I name US DDs to keep it from spawning. Since I use almost all 3-4 crew ratings for escorts this would be ineffective as it really was and so I give it a "1".

These and the Porters were to be flotilla leaders but with the treaty tonnage limits were very top heavy. When you see one in the peri it almost looks like a cruiser from a far.

Now lets see if I made a mistake in adding all those bits and pieces from you new unreal package.

Wulfmann

jasonb885

07-12-05, 04:29 PM

...

Notice it is GR C2 cargo and not just C2 cargo as in your; name=

Is this a problem? If it is done like the stock it is a better bet it is not, IMO!

That's worth correcting.

...
For the early convoys I use one DD or one of your sloops and 2-3 trawlers. The sloops that would have been used, the older ones, are not modeled, over 25 of them, like the Grimsby and Shoreham classes. These were roughly half way between our trawler and the BlackSwan/Egret classes. The fact is, we can not do it quite right so I am going with mostly trawlers as the Flower is certainly wrong. Just compromise how it best suits you, no big deal.

Are there any appropriate destroyers to use in 1939?

I can add functionality that allows me to explicitly specify the class of destroyer (or any escort) to use, but only if you have a specific list of classes that can reasonably be used.

...
I would suggest you do not use the Somer class and if you do give it a "1" crew rating. That was a top heavy ship which most ended up haveing 2 turrets and some TT removed to add stability. It would be a poor choice for the rough NA. I name US DDs to keep it from spawning. Since I use almost all 3-4 crew ratings for escorts this would be ineffective as it really was and so I give it a "1".

So no Somers, then. What would be okay to use? V&W maybe, what else?

Wulfmann

07-12-05, 05:14 PM

Sorry, I went to the other end of the war without being clear. I was talking about US DDs for later when you have the Fletcher or Clemsons. I agree with your suggestion most escorts were DEs by the US in the Atlantic.

Back to early war.

I would use the CClass and V&W in 39 but only one and only some times. I really think using the Black Swan in place of non modeled Sloops is what should be in half the convoys in place of a DD, at least I will do that. The trawlers alone are simply not enough of a deterant, IMO.
DDs were really not intended to escort convoys, they lacked range and were built to support the battle fleet. There engines used too much fuel, they were too much of a ship to be risked in the means of convoy escorting which made them more vunerable, IMO. They could do it just like using a Porsche as a family car can work but you get my point.
But, we are somewhat limited and some were used as convoy escorts but mostly the sloops and trawlers escorted the early convoys.
A couple guys were discussing building some models of later corvettes and I just stated I was hoping some one would do a Grimsby. But, she is not that good looking, LOL
By 1941 the DDs converted to be convoy escorts were in service. The A-D types that are modeled in SH3 as the River class. The River is a completely different ship than what is so called in this game but is also a later war ship so does not matter as we have the Hunt classes anyway that were a big escort ship for later.
Wulfmann

Wulfmann

07-12-05, 05:30 PM

I just added the 3 Egret class names to the Black Swan roster with 1938 dates so there can be 4 at any one time in the game. I can send that to you so it is the same.
Wulfmann

jasonb885

07-12-05, 05:53 PM

I just added the 3 Egret class names to the Black Swan roster with 1938 dates so there can be 4 at any one time in the game. I can send that to you so it is the same.
Wulfmann

Isn't that for the SCR layer?

Oh, I guess you mean so you don't have to make that change everytime you install a new build of ImprovedConvoys.

Makes sense.

You can just PM me with it or however you want to send it.

jasonb885

07-12-05, 05:56 PM

Sorry, I went to the other end of the war without being clear. I was talking about US DDs for later when you have the Fletcher or Clemsons. I agree with your suggestion most escorts were DEs by the US in the Atlantic.

Back to early war.

Ah, okay. I don't think it's worth the extra escort to add a Somers with a rating of Poor. I'd rather have another Veteran Flower or something, unless there should really be a Somers.

I would use the CClass and V&W in 39 but only one and only some times. I really think using the Black Swan in place of non modeled Sloops is what should be in half the convoys in place of a DD, at least I will do that. The trawlers alone are simply not enough of a deterant, IMO.

Right.

...
But, we are somewhat limited and some were used as convoy escorts but mostly the sloops and trawlers escorted the early convoys.
A couple guys were discussing building some models of later corvettes and I just stated I was hoping some one would do a Grimsby. But, she is not that good looking, LOL
By 1941 the DDs converted to be convoy escorts were in service. The A-D types that are modeled in SH3 as the River class. The River is a completely different ship than what is so called in this game but is also a later war ship so does not matter as we have the Hunt classes anyway that were a big escort ship for later.
Wulfmann

Are there any specific North Alantic popular escorts that should appear in 1941+? Were any DEs of particular popularity? Which DDs would appear?

Wulfmann

07-12-05, 10:07 PM

I noticed you also did the name change to the C3 for UK

[UnitClass]
ClassName=C3Cargo
UnitType=102
AppearanceDate=19390101
DisappearanceDate=19470101
DisplayName=BR C3 Cargo

[Unit 1]
Name=C3 Cargo
DOC=19400101
DOD=19470101

Better if it was ; Name=BR C3 Cargo

Any reason why it has a 19390101 appearance date
and then DOC=19400101 ????

Not sure I would have eliminated all the names as the SCR.mis file ask for exact ships. Not sure it ask for any Brit C3s but if it did this may cause a problem. Don't really know.

The Somers were USA so you would use a Fletcher or Clemson, I would suppose. More to let you know it was not a good choice in reality. Sometimes model makers just pick one they like and ignore the game's more pressing needs.

By 1941 we have the Hunt class which were good escorts as well as the Flowers and sloops. The Hunt were copied as US DEs but we did not make as good a ship. Funny considering the Hunt started out as questionable being top heavy and needing conversion before they could be used.

Note that the Flamingo in SH3 has a late 39 date. this is odd as the launch date was April 18 1939 so they went with a completed date for the sloop.
The Flamingo was given to Germany in 1959 and renamed Graf Spee!!!
Low have the mighty fallen!!!

I will stick with letting the game pick from the number 4 group so it is unpredictable. One might be able to judge a convoy by the lead escort and with random selection it varies things a bit more.
By 1941 a 4 could be a Hunt, V&W, C or J Class or Tribal and since I do 100% I don't get to see much more than the first escort meaning I will have little clue which convoy or how many escorts In 42 the Yanks will start to show adding many new possibilities.

Ojne more thing. The line drawings I have of Black Swan don't look like the model in SH3. It looks more like the Egret. Not sure if that just means the BS was modified later or they just used the wrong name on the ship like with the River class.
Wulfmann

jasonb885

07-13-05, 09:43 AM

I noticed you also did the name change to the C3 for UK

...
Better if it was ; Name=BR C3 Cargo

Any reason why it has a 19390101 appearance date
and then DOC=19400101 ????

Yeah, I didn't think the roster dates really mattered for anything, unless you're moving entries forward, which would hurt SCR. Moving them back didn't seem to be a problem. I can correct it, but I believe it's cosmetic.

...
I will stick with letting the game pick from the number 4 group so it is unpredictable. One might be able to judge a convoy by the lead escort and with random selection it varies things a bit more.
By 1941 a 4 could be a Hunt, V&W, C or J Class or Tribal and since I do 100% I don't get to see much more than the first escort meaning I will have little clue which convoy or how many escorts In 42 the Yanks will start to show adding many new possibilities.

Okay, then I'll probably not add the feature for selecting specific escort classes in addition to types. It's not worth the effort for a few '39 convoys to be more accurate.

Instead I can move on to KX/OG/HG and tuning the escort crew efficiency settings and contact reports.

Salvadoreno

07-13-05, 12:32 PM

i dont quite understand what this mod.. if it is a mod. really does? It just adds certain ships to countries that were neglecteD? Is that all? Or does it at more?

jasonb885

07-13-05, 12:53 PM

i dont quite understand what this mod.. if it is a mod. really does? It just adds certain ships to countries that were neglecteD? Is that all? Or does it at more?

Check the README in the other thread or my signature.

It explains the point in full detail.

Wulfmann

07-13-05, 12:54 PM

I noticed some of the tankers (NE and NO)use the US entry date and I believe you meant to have them earlier than Aug 1942????

Sanv.,
That is a small part of what Jason is doing but that part helps to add more various nationality ships to the enlarged convoys. He is trying to make the convoys larger and more realistic both in content and, as we keep hashing around, the best escorts to simulate the defense a U-boat might encounter.

It will change convoys attcking to a much higher and better level, IMO.

J, here is what I changed in the Black Swan class:

[UnitClass]
ClassName=FFBlackSwan
UnitType=2
AppearanceDate=19390101
DisappearanceDate=19460101
DisplayName=BR FF Black Swan

[Unit 1]
Name=HMS Flamingo
DOC=19390101
DOD=19460101

Then I added to the bottom:

[Unit 32]
Name=HMS Egret
DOC=19380816
DOD=19460101

[Unit 33]
Name=HMS Auckland
DOC=19380816
DOD=19460101

[Unit 34]
Name=HMS Pelican
DOC=19380816
DOD=19460101

These are not in the SCR at all so will not have any negative effective by adding them, only allow for 4 ships at the war's beginning.

Wulfmann

Salvadoreno

07-13-05, 01:18 PM

dize

07-13-05, 02:12 PM

k
i started a carrer and took a deep look iinto the layer via miss editor.

first of i think that the dynamc campaign system is very well done, and gives us endless possibilities. the stock layers, especialy the rnd layer, are rather simplistic imho. the period covered by every single merchant group is way too long, and almost all of the different versions are simple copy and paste jobs.

to my understanding single merchant traffic around the british isles died down to a near zero, somewhere around turn of the year 40/41. cept for straglers or very fast ships, who where better of alone. unescorted single merchant traffic continued to be rather heavy in more remote waters, like the carribean well into 43, and in the southern atlanic and the indian ocean, all the way to the end of the war.

this is neither reflected in the stock rnd layer, or in the 20/20 reduction mod, which simply reduces spawn probailties over the whle range.
the germans went to great length to reach out into these waters, but ingame going with the current layers, its simply of no use. encountering easy prey in 1942 in BE or CF is as likely as finding them in ET, GR or in EF.

over at the german ubi forums, someone posted links to a pdf from scans of the original KTB from u178. a very good read btw, which is now sadly offline :(. it gave a pretty good picture on how u178 and some other boats in the same area wrecked havoc in the south african waters in the end of 42.
also pretty inetersting is thisone: http://www.regiamarina.net/subs/submarines/davinci/davinci_us.htm
it illustrates pretty well how succesful the long ranging italian boat leonardo da vinci was, while striking the southern atlantic in two missions, in 42 and 43. sometimes scoring kills within a few days.

imho, your layer needs additional heavy tweaking in terms of lowering or even eliminating single merchant traffic around gb and in the north atlantic, early on, and keeping a good traffic in the remote waters.
for example check the carribean_xx002 lane. it makes its way across the atlantic starting from trinidad.

jasonb885

07-13-05, 02:23 PM

pampanito

07-13-05, 02:29 PM

If this patrol report can be of any interest...

Type VIIC, late November 41, assigned area DH. Mostly fair weather. On the outward bound route, two single C2s sighted with a three-hour difference, grid BE69 (well-known high-traffic point), both sunk by torpedo and gunfire. Then, three unsuccessful weeks patrolling all around DH, only enemy activity a faint submerged sonar contact, lost through gross incompetence on part of the U-boat commander. :nope:
On the homeward-bound route, a single C2 found and sunk by torpedo in BE93.
Results for a four-week patrol in a mostly aircraft-free area, late 1941: three ships of 15,480 grt sunk. For me, a most reasonable and realistic outcome. :up:

jasonb885

07-13-05, 02:30 PM

k
i started a carrer and took a deep look iinto the layer via miss editor.

first of i think that the dynamc campaign system is very well done, and gives us endless possibilities. the stock layers, especialy the rnd layer, are rather simplistic imho. the period covered by every single merchant group is way too long, and almost all of the different versions are simple copy and paste jobs.

I would imagine so. The developers used some magic meta editor that they have not released. I imagine they'll be using it on the expansion and SH4 as well, so I doubt I'll ever see it or get to use it.

...
imho, your layer needs additional heavy tweaking in terms of lowering or even eliminating single merchant traffic around gb and in the north atlantic, early on, and keeping a good traffic in the remote waters.
for example check the carribean_xx002 lane. it makes its way across the atlantic starting from trinidad.

Not especially a problem if someone wants to use the ME to tell me which routes, by Rnd Group Name, go where. It's clear from the name where a RndGroup will be, but not necessarily where it's going. I imagine the ones that mention coastal traffic in their name are staying costal.

I can control spawn probabilities down to the inidividual group name level. It's just too much hassle to specifically define the properties of each and every single group for single ship traffic.

You'd have to define 'gb' for me. Gibraltar? You'd have to define the 'remote waters' in terms of the RndGroup names used in the RND layer for me to tweak them specifically.

It's useful to note that while I mention 20/20 because it's familiar to people, that's not actually what I did. Perhaps I should call it Single Ship Reduction instead. I have custom traffic levels based entirely on the name of the RndGroup entry. I can be as specific as group by group, but I chose not to as there are over 1,500 of them.

If someone supplies reasonable values, I can plug them in.

jasonb885

07-13-05, 02:31 PM

If this patrol report can be of any interest...
...
Results for a four-week patrol in a mostly aircraft-free area, late 1941: three ships of 15,480 grt sunk. For me, a most reasonable and realistic outcome. :up:

What about my convoys?

;)

jasonb885

07-13-05, 02:32 PM

I noticed some of the tankers (NE and NO)use the US entry date and I believe you meant to have them earlier than Aug 1942????

Yeah, I just copied and pasted them from the U.S. originally. Since I don't mess with the SCR layer I didn't think the actual roster entries would matter, just the class entry date. I think I corrected the dates to 1939 or so for NL and NO.

...
These are not in the SCR at all so will not have any negative effective by adding them, only allow for 4 ships at the war's beginning.

Wulfmann

Okay.

pampanito

07-13-05, 03:08 PM

What about my convoys? ;)

Here we go. Two patrols ago, August 41' area BE. Heavy seas but no storm. Single C3 found and sunk in BE93. One week later, convoy on Southwards course reported, speed 6; attacked at BE56, two ships hit by torpedoes, but they don't sink! Forced deep by two aggressive Flower-class, long depth-charging but not very accurate. Periscope depth after two hours, no screws noise in hydrophone... Pleasantly surprised to find stopped C2 with stern low on the water, finished off with a torpedo.
Surfaced, was preparing for a long stern chase when... Another convoy reported in opposite NNE direction, grid BE61. Unfortunately I didn't record convoy speed, I think it was 9 knots. Made a text-book approach from port side, only to have my periscope detected by a Flower-class just seconds after firing torpedoes. Two solid hits sink a C2 but I'm still at 50 metres when the depth-charges explode destroying the gun-deck and causing other minor damage. Hunt by two escorts lasts well over an hour, when I surface with only two torpedoes left and without a deck gun I head for home.
Results for a three-week patrol in the most populated convoy area, 3 ships of 18,258 grt sunk and one close call.

And don't tell me it's unrealistic to find a lone C3 in North Atlantic in August 41... Some people seems to forget that one prime source for U-boat successes were convoy stragglers, which for all effects were single ships. You suffer a engine break-down, gradually fall astern of your convoy, or you miss a order for emergency turning... and unless you're a extremely valuable ship, you're on your own from that moment. And if there is a storm, you can bet that after reforming, one or two ships are unaccounted for and will trail the convoy for days and days. An even stranger kind of single ship was the 'romper', usually a non-British captain that when his convoy was under severe attack, and if the escort did not seem too competent, felt that his ship was fast enough to run for it and be more safe than amid the main herd. Sometimes this paid off, other times it resulted in a premature death.

I really like your convoys!

Wulfmann

07-13-05, 03:43 PM

Dize, you are leaving out the most important factor preventing the duplication you (and the rest of us) would need to facilitate total reality; Wolf packs

We do not have them and to structure everything to simulate the convoys as they were attacked by wolfpacks when we are all alone might make it more unreasonable than unreal action that is limited.
I do agree with your general approach. I have made my own RND file and use most of Jason's convoys in that. I have reduced the traffic around GB (That is the UK Jason) and have left it alone in the IO, SA and Car but reduced the sighting reports for those over what they were.
In 1941 I am getting 2-3 sighting reports out of France to Iceland and back but my my objective is to find convoys, which would be what BDU would really want, IMO. The game lacks range to go to the far reaches and that should be addressed but I do wonder if a simple increase in fuel that is unrealistic to simulate Milche Cows might do it. So for now I am a NA convoy hunter. Putting the escorts as all verteran or elite makes it all more challenging.
I sink an average of 1 ship not in a convoy per patrol and make 2 convoy attacks per patrol so my average is 4-5 ships 30-45K per patrol in 41.
In 42 the big change for me is less single traffic and the damn air patrols but those avoided I still get at least a good convoy attack and a single every other patrol. I averaged about 30K per until patrol number seven where I made the mistake of trying to find out what kind of plane was reported before making a dive. I will miss that boat and crew!!!
Wulfmann

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/Wulfmann/100-purdy-sunset.jpg

dize

07-13-05, 03:46 PM

Not especially a problem if someone wants to use the ME to tell me which routes, by Rnd Group Name, go where. It's clear from the name where a RndGroup will be, but not necessarily where it's going. I imagine the ones that mention coastal traffic in their name are staying costal.

I can control spawn probabilities down to the inidividual group name level. It's just too much hassle to specifically define the properties of each and every single group for single ship traffic.

You'd have to define 'gb' for me. Gibraltar? You'd have to define the 'remote waters' in terms of the RndGroup names used in the RND layer for me to tweak them specifically.

It's useful to note that while I mention 20/20 because it's familiar to people, that's not actually what I did. Perhaps I should call it Single Ship Reduction instead. I have custom traffic levels based entirely on the name of the RndGroup entry. I can be as specific as group by group, but I chose not to as there are over 1,500 of them.

If someone supplies reasonable values, I can plug them in.

sounds interesting. so you are using the group names for editing references? i see. i know that editing every single entry is a pain, and especialy since the miss editor dosnt highlight the whole route on the map when klicking on the group list. encountered only one convoy yet. a ugs heading for gibraltar, while i was on my way south. security was tight but the fletchers behaved a bit uneffective. additionaly i think there was not enough space btween the ships. i did a quad spread from 2700m, since i was located early on, but i score 3 hits on 3 different merchants. could a been luck who knows.

dize

07-13-05, 03:51 PM

And don't tell me it's unrealistic to find a lone C3 in North Atlantic in August 41... Some people seems to forget that one prime source for U-boat successes were convoy stragglers, which for all effects were single ships. You suffer a engine break-down, gradually fall astern of your convoy, or you miss a order for emergency turning... and unless you're a extremely valuable ship, you're on your own from that moment. And if there is a storm, you can bet that after reforming, one or two ships are unaccounted for and will trail the convoy for days and days. An even stranger kind of single ship was the 'romper', usually a non-British captain that when his convoy was under severe attack, and if the escort did not seem too competent, felt that his ship was fast enough to run for it and be more safe than amid the main herd. Sometimes this paid off, other times it resulted in a premature death.

I really like your convoys!

yep, i know what you mean. im visiting uboat.net regulary and im checking the daily happenings for the current dates everytime. its suprising to see how many ships, who where sunk out of a convoy, where stragglers, who lost formation due to many reasons. a straggler for convoys would be a great addition. maybe the exp pack....