View Full Version : Is RUb 'combat fatigue' system realistic?
In RUB you don't regain energy in quarters. You just don't lose any there. In all other compartments (more in the most stressful like torpedo rooms) you get more and more fatigued the longer you are at sea. Wow! Who would have thought?
But with experience your crew can function even when fatigued.
I don't mean to sound like a know-it-all but by God, this reflects real life. I've been working on the road for almost 20 years, testing power plant emissions. These jobs come up with almost no warning. The phone will ring and we will have to drive or fly somewhere the next day for what we are told will be a few days, or a few weeks. The actual duration often exceeds the estimates by a factor of 5 or more. In 2000 I went to Sumatra for a two week job and was there for six months. We usually work 12-18 hours a day, seven days a week until the project is complete.
The kids can't handle this kind of life. Maybe one out of 20 new hires actually survive long enough to learn to be useful. You would be suprised though by how many 50 year old guys can work 14 hours, go to a bar and drink for 6 hours, sleep for three hours and come back and do it again. Day after day. Experience counts.
End of lecture. I like the RUB fatigue model.
JBC
Hi!
One good lecture deserves another. ;)
I would like to differentiate between "fatigue" (as in tired - the stock SH3 fatigue model and what you seem to be describing in your post) and "combat stress" (known in WWII as "battle fatigue" and what is purportedly modeled in RUb). As the first citation below states,
Feeling stress in a war zone is, as one Navy psychiatrist said, "a normal reaction by a normal person to an abnormal, horrific situation." The stress you feel helps you brace for danger. But you can sometimes witness an event so severe or experience a threat so prolonged that your body may continue to maintain that state of high alert long afterwards, when your body and mind need to rest.
Historically and IRL, sleep is one of the methods that real military organizations use (and have used since WWI) to reduce and eliminate combat stress reaction. Not including sleep and other kinds of "downtime" as a means to relieve combat stress reaction (as is done in RUb) is completely at odds with reality. See the following sources (URLs provided where available):
1. USAF Office of Special Investigations, “Combat Stress,” http://public.afosi.amc.af.mil/deployment_stress/CombatStress.html
2. Technical Guide 240, “Combat Stress Behaviors,” U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/deployment/tg240.pdf
3. Technical Guide 242, “Battle Fatigue/Combat Stress Reaction Prevention: Leader Actions,” U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/deployment/tg242.pdf
4. Field Manual 22-51, “Leader’s Manual for Combat Stress Control,” Headquarters Department of the Army, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/22-51/
5. “Combat Stress Reactions: normal responses to abnormal conditions,” U.S. Navy Personnel Development Command, http://www.lifelines.navy.mil/dav/lsnmedia/LSN/CombatStress/
6. Psychological and Psychosocial Consequences of Combat and Deployment with Special Emphasis on the Gulf War, David H. Marlowe, MR-1018/11-OSD, 2000 RAND, http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/library/randrep/marlowe_paper/
7. Berg, Jennifer S., Grieger, Thomas A., and Spira, James L. “Psychiatric Symptoms and Cognitive Appraisal following the Near Sinking of a Research Submarine,” Military Medicine, Winter 2005. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3912/is_200501/ai_n9478288
8. Harris, Wayne C., Hancock, P.A., and Harris, Scot C. “Information Processing Changes Following Extended Stress,” Military Psychology, Vol. XVII, No. 2, pp. 115-128. 2005.
9. Textbook of Military Medicine: War Psychiatry, BGEN Russ Zajtchuk, MC, US Army, and COL Ronald F. Bellamy, MC, U.S. Army, eds. Office of the Surgeon General. 1995. See especially Chapter 9, “U.S. Naval Combat Psychiatry,” by CAPT John Mateczun, M.D., U.S. Navy. http://www.vnh.org/WarPsychiatry/Ch9.pdf
RUb's fatigue model is certainly convenient, but realistic...the evidence indicates that it is not.
Pablo
One good lecture deserves another. ;)
I would like to differentiate between "fatigue" (as in tired - the stock SH3 fatigue model and what you seem to be describing in your post) and "combat stress" (known in WWII as "battle fatigue" and what is purportedly modeled in RUb). As the first citation below states...
Oh Lord! It's all happening again. What is this, the 20th time?
One good lecture deserves another. ;)
I would like to differentiate between "fatigue" (as in tired - the stock SH3 fatigue model and what you seem to be describing in your post) and "combat stress" (known in WWII as "battle fatigue" and what is purportedly modeled in RUb). As the first citation below states...
Oh Lord! It's all happening again. What is this, the 20th time?
Hi!
Actually, this is the first time a lot of these references have been pointed out in this forum. New facts should always be welcomed, even if they're not always convenient, comfortable, or in conformance with currently held views or fatigue mods.
1. USAF Office of Special Investigations, “Combat Stress,” http://public.afosi.amc.af.mil/deployment_stress/CombatStress.html
2. Technical Guide 240, “Combat Stress Behaviors,” U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/deployment/tg240.pdf
3. Technical Guide 242, “Battle Fatigue/Combat Stress Reaction Prevention: Leader Actions,” U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/deployment/tg242.pdf
4. Field Manual 22-51, “Leader’s Manual for Combat Stress Control,” Headquarters Department of the Army, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/22-51/
5. “Combat Stress Reactions: normal responses to abnormal conditions,” U.S. Navy Personnel Development Command, http://www.lifelines.navy.mil/dav/lsnmedia/LSN/CombatStress/
6. Psychological and Psychosocial Consequences of Combat and Deployment with Special Emphasis on the Gulf War, David H. Marlowe, MR-1018/11-OSD, 2000 RAND, http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/library/randrep/marlowe_paper/
7. Berg, Jennifer S., Grieger, Thomas A., and Spira, James L. “Psychiatric Symptoms and Cognitive Appraisal following the Near Sinking of a Research Submarine,” Military Medicine, Winter 2005. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3912/is_200501/ai_n9478288
8. Harris, Wayne C., Hancock, P.A., and Harris, Scot C. “Information Processing Changes Following Extended Stress,” Military Psychology, Vol. XVII, No. 2, pp. 115-128. 2005.
9. Textbook of Military Medicine: War Psychiatry, BGEN Russ Zajtchuk, MC, US Army, and COL Ronald F. Bellamy, MC, U.S. Army, eds. Office of the Surgeon General. 1995. See especially Chapter 9, “U.S. Naval Combat Psychiatry,” by CAPT John Mateczun, M.D., U.S. Navy. http://www.vnh.org/WarPsychiatry/Ch9.pdf
Pablo
One good lecture deserves another. ;)
I would like to differentiate between "fatigue" (as in tired - the stock SH3 fatigue model and what you seem to be describing in your post) and "combat stress" (known in WWII as "battle fatigue" and what is purportedly modeled in RUb). As the first citation below states...
Oh Lord! It's all happening again. What is this, the 20th time?
Hi!
Actually, this is the first time a lot of these references have been pointed out in this forum. New facts should always be welcomed, even if they're not always convenient, comfortable, or in conformance with currently held views or fatigue mods.
Oh dear. My point was that this stuff is really irrelevant to what the fatigue system does. We've had this discussion before (a couple of times, and the links you've provided HAVE been discussed before on the official SH3 forums), and there have been arguments made showing that the RUb combat fatigue system does a lot of the stuff that the US Army and the USAF says that combat fatigue does. Anyway, while a truly realistic combat fatigue model would be great, IT CAN'T BE DONE. It doesn't matter what's realistic in terms of combat fatigue, becuase it is only possible for the game to give a small feeling of combat fatigue. However, the fatigue system in use by the game works far better as a combat fatigue simulation than as a daily fatigue system.
The simple fact is that daily fatigue (as modelled in the standard game) breaks the entire qualifications system. This is a gameplay issue as well as a realism issue, and the only way to have the gameplay work properly is to disable fatigue recovery. When you disable fatigue recovery it can no longer be described as a straight fatigue system. The only system that comes close to what RUb's fatigue system does is combat fatigue. I'm sorry that the game's combat fatigue system doesn't precisely match what the USAF and the US Army say regarding combat fatigue, but I'm not going to worry at all about any of that, because this is just as much a matter of fixing a broken feature in the game as it is about realism.
As soon as someone either fixes the bug that disables the qualifications system, I'll be glad to go back to a straight fatigue system. Alternatively, as soon as someone builds a mod that precisely models combat fatigue, I'll go with that. In any case, I won't be holding my breath. I very much doubt that either solution can be implemented.
What would be much more interesting would be if a systematic psychological approach was taken to managing your crew rather than all these little bars that just affect 'efficency'.
But that doesn't appeal to the current game-dev mentality, which is generally still stuck in 1995.
i haven't tried the RUB fatigue system for no reason other than i like to kinda make me own as it were..but the real pain with the stock fatigue set up is the relationship it has with time excelleration...you can travel for days at time excell with minimal hit of the crews fatigue ..spend 30 seconds at times 32 on the crew management screen and blam they're all knackered..just does yur head in..!! (and makes no sense at all)- only thing i could think of that would make the stock set up hang together would be for fatigue to only occur in real time (and this doesn't seem to be possible)--having it happen at times 32 is like juggling wet soap- utterly impossible..and just doesn't hangto gether in gameplay terms -- i tried variuos things -adding more rest compartments -disabling fatigue for the officers but in the end the stats wouldn't co-operate...the difference between good experienced fresh crew and dead tired bad crew isn't profound enough to be worth the effort..all that happens is the work theyre doing stops.."not enough crew" and so on..so i went with the nil fatigue concept in the end..
as i say not tried the RUB and no opion am i stating about it neither !! just thinking out loud..and agree-ing that the stock sytem sounds great but just doesn't "play" right///
me i would have prefered a complete shift system happenning semi automatically with two complete shifts of crew members swopping at set times of day --leaving you free to concentrate on enhancing the stats of the crew without having to worry about juggling them about like wet soap..
the officers i'm guesing would be exempt from the shift system and this is where you would concentrate your attention regarding the fatigue---something perhaps they could have elaborated on...
but as for the stock it's the bizaare time excelleration effects that make it un workable..at times 1024 your crew will last for days even weeks..at times 32 they'll last for minutes...go figure? :damn: it makes a nonsense out of the thing
...and there have been arguments made showing that the RUb combat fatigue system does a lot of the stuff that the US Army and the USAF says that combat fatigue does.
Arguments that were quickly and decisively refuted when quotes were taken in their entirety, but folks can read all those sources to see for themselves. That's why the source links are there.
The simple fact is that daily fatigue (as modelled in the standard game) breaks the entire qualifications system.
Hmm.... In the game, promoting and awarding crewmen medals and qualifications seem to reduce the extent to which fatigue can affect their performance. That seems to work as designed, so perhaps you could more clearly explain why "daily fatigue...breaks the entire qualification system."
This is a gameplay issue as well as a realism issue, and the only way to have the gameplay work properly is to disable fatigue recovery.
Hmm... A lot of folks seem to be doing quite well with gameplay without disabling fatigue recovery; instead, they do things like reduce the rate at which fatigue is accumulated so they change the watch every 8 hours (or 24 hours or whatever) rather once very game hour or so, and have the crew recover while they're not on watch (for an example, see Church SUBSIM's settings here (http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=30783&start=73)); crewmen with promotions and medals don't require relief as often. That seems to have been the developers' intent, though I suspect allowing the player to identify a port/starboard watch and then have the game cycle between the two would have been appreciated by many, including CB.. and me.
When you disable fatigue recovery it can no longer be described as a straight fatigue system. The only system that comes close to what RUb's fatigue system does is combat fatigue. I'm sorry that the game's combat fatigue system doesn't precisely match what the USAF and the US Army say regarding combat fatigue, but I'm not going to worry at all about any of that, because this is just as much a matter of fixing a broken feature in the game as it is about realism.
Actually, the authoritative sources cited state quite clearly that:
1. combat stress accumulates during combat or other situations where life is in immediate peril, not over the course of a multi-week cruise
2. combat stress recovery does in fact occur over a period of several days.The issue isn't that RUb's fatigue system "doesn't precisely match" as it was in real life; it's that RUb takes an approach that is exactly opposite of reality and then claims to be realistic. Convenient, sure. Realistic - no way.
As soon as someone either fixes the bug that disables the qualifications system, I'll be glad to go back to a straight fatigue system.
You keep mentioning that the qualifications system is broken, has a broken feature, or a bug. I haven't found any mention of a specific bug report or failure regarding crew qualifications, and it seems to be working OK for most folks - perhaps you could explain more fully?
Pablo
well here's a thought --
if we can increase the number of crew to a realistic level for the boats via these entrys etc
[COMPARTMENT]
NumberOfCrew0=15
Interval1_0=7.1
Interval2_0=9.6
Interval3_0=19.7
NumberOfCrew1=6
Interval1_1=3.0
Interval2_1=4.1
Interval3_1=8.5
NumberOfCrew2=9
Interval1_2=4.6
Interval2_2=6
Interval3_2=12.1
NumberOfCrew3=12
Interval1_3=6.1
Interval2_3=7.8
Interval3_3=16
NumberOfCrew4=8
Interval1_4=4.1
Interval2_4=5.3
Interval3_4=11
NumberOfCrew5=10
Interval1_5=5.1
Interval2_5=6.5
Interval3_5=13.7
NumberOfCrew6=7
Interval1_6=3.7
Interval2_6=4.7
Interval3_6=9.7
NumberOfCrew7=5
Interval1_7=2.7
Interval2_7=3.5
Interval3_7=7.3
NumberOfCrew8=3
Interval1_8=1.6
Interval2_8=2.3
Interval3_8=4.65
NumberOfCrew9=4
Interval1_9=2.2
Interval2_9=2.9
Interval3_9=6.1
NumberOfCrew10=14
Interval1_10=6.5
Interval2_10=8.2
Interval3_10=14.3
NumberOfCrew11=2
Interval1_11=1.1
Interval2_11=1.7
Interval3_11=4.1
NumberOfCrew12=1
Interval1_12=0.5
Interval2_12=0.7
Interval3_12=1.1
[SUBMARINE0]
NrMinOff=2
NrMaxOff=4
NrMinPO=5
NrMaxPO=9
NrMinSeamen=10
NrMaxSeamen=14
NbVersion=2
Version0=0 ; IIA
Name0=IIA
Month0=7
Year0=1939
Version1=1 ; IID
Name1=IID
Month1=10
Year1=1939
DaysSpentInBase=28
in the basic.cfg
ie here
NrMinOff=2
NrMaxOff=4
NrMinPO=5
NrMaxPO=9
NrMinSeamen=10
NrMaxSeamen=14
and in the compartment section above allso
AND given that gaddows observation is correct here
http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=42540
then you could set max 3d time excelleration to times 1 so all time excell work has to be done via the map,screen (which isnt impossible or even particulary inconvient for hard core dudes such us lol)
then you can stop the illogical and un usable rate of fatigue that ocurs at small time excell (times 32 and under) and operate a realistic crew shift system with a realistic number of crew
wether it's combat fatigue or the stock fatigue it seems to me that both would benifit from a full (and realistic-) crew compliment and the limiting of 3d time excell to times 1
this prevents the factous excellerated fatigue at low time excell (which even RUB advises against using) as im assuming the fatigue rate with 3d time excell reduced to real time will work at the normalised high time excell rate eeven at times 32 and below..the only draw back is the limitation of conducting all time excell work on the map screen.. :ping: :up:
as long as gaddow has it right..
edit--
have to admit after having checked the crew number seems to be more or less correct for the subs in SH3 so with that in mind the other alternative would be to reduce the number of crew required to operate each major station such as torp rooms engine repair etc...would be adjusting the stats etc...am i wrong about the shift sytem tho?
didnt the normal crew share bunks ? while one crew member worked the other slept? thats a shift sytem by any ones measurement surely...so does that mean with a crew of 48 on say a type VIIB only around twenty ordinary crew men were on duty at a time...?
even so things are still a little out of whack for the crew maagement...some adjustment of numbers wouldn't be amiss me-thinks?
didnt the normal crew share bunks ? while one crew member worked the other slept? thats a shift sytem by any ones measurement surely...so does that mean with a crew of 48 on say a type VIIB only around twenty ordinary crew men were on duty at a time...?
Hi!
You are correct - half the officers and crew are actually on watch; the other half of your highly motivated and qualified crewmen are doing anything they can so as not to be bored out of their skulls. I guess when it comes down to it, your contribution as U-boat Kaleun is to find ships to sink so your crew won't be bored....;)
In the meantime, I'm waiting to hear a more detailed description of the problem Beery is seeing with the qualifications system. Your ideas may prove useful once we understand the problem.
Pablo
There already is an alternative cfg file for those using RuB's fatigue model and like to do a lot of their patrol at 1x and other low TC. Haven't tried this file myself. Got little time-need TC. :oops:
There already is an alternative cfg file for those using RuB's fatigue model and like to do a lot of their patrol at 1x and other low TC. Haven't tried this file myself. Got little time-need TC. :oops:
there's the rub (if yull excuse the pun!) using gaddow's idea of only limiting the 3d time excelleration you can solve the major issue with the crew fatigue without losing the ability to have full time excelleration available...with the limitation that you can only use time excell when on the map screen... no where else...
no sane person living in the real world could play the game without time excell ---a month to reach your patrol zone..in real time ??/--hilarious.. :rotfl: a little hard to swallow don't you think..
Twelvefield
09-04-05, 04:48 AM
no sane person living in the real world could play the game without time excell ---a month to reach your patrol zone..in real time ??/--hilarious.. :rotfl: a little hard to swallow don't you think..
Please to read from this permanent thread:
http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=32647
It's Wratt's log of his non-TC campaign -- living proof that no matter how hard you try to make the rest of the world play by your rules, there's always somebody pushing at the boundaries of your reality box.
as the guy says a six day patrol took him 8 days..
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.